AID farming systems research and extension cooperative agreement

Material Information

AID farming systems research and extension cooperative agreement
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida


Subjects / Keywords:
Farming ( LCSH )
Agriculture ( LCSH )
Farm life ( LCSH )


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:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.

Full Text

Farming Systems Support Project

International Programs
Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611

Office of Agriculture and
Office of Multisectoral Development
Bureau for Science and Technology
Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C. 20523


I _-

!L i





I. Project Recommendations and Summary.............................. 1

A. Recommendations............................................. 1

B. Summary Description of Project............................... 1

II. Project Background, Summary, and
Relationship to Other Projects........................... 2

A. Project Background and Rationale.................................. 2

B. Project Goal and Purpose................................... 5

C. Project Outputs....................................... .... 5

D. Project Inputs................................................ 6

E Relationship-to Other Projects............................. 7

III. Project Activities.................... .......................

A. Technical Assistance........................... .. .. 10

Field Guidelines from Comparative Evaluations................ 12

B. Training .................................................... 13

C. Networking...'.......................... ................. 16

Regional Workshops.................................. 16

Newsletter............................................. 17

Documentation Center and Annotated Bibliography......... 18

VI. Implementation Plans.............................................. 19

A. AID Project Management.................. .................... 19

B. Project Instrument: Cooperative Agreement................ 20

C. Project Staff................................................ 21

Project Leader.......................................... 21

Coordinator for Technical Assistance .................... 23

FSR/E Practitioner-Scientists..................... 23

Support Staff..................................... 23

Coordinator for Training and Networking................. 23

Training Consultants.............................. 24

Support Staff.................... .............. 24

Networking Consultants............................ 25

D. Documentation Center and Annotated Bibliography............. 25

E. Phasing of Activities..................... .......... 25

Technical Assistance......................... ........... 29

Training.............................................. 30

Regional Workshops...................................... 31

Newsletter........................ ......... 32

Documentation Center and Annotated Bibliography......... 32

Project Evaluation Plan......................................... 33

Financial Plans: Detailed Budgets....................". ......... 35

Technical Analyses.............................................. 45

A. Administrative Analysis..................................... 45

B. Economic Analysis.......................................................... 46

C. Social Analysis............................................. 48

The Role of Women in Development....................... 48

D. Environmental Impact Statement............................... 49


A. Summary of Mission Requests for Project
Assistance in Response to Informational Cable....................

B. Memorandum of Understanding of Collaboration
in the Design and Implementation of Joint Projects................

C. Memorandum on Relationship of S&T and AFR (CI1MMYT)
Farming Systems Projects.........................................

D. Project Design Summary: Logical Framework.......................




* 'I


A. Recommendations

Authorization of a grant in the amount of $7,887,600.00 over a five year
period is recommended. This represents an obligation of $2,392,000 in FY
82, a second obligation of $400,000 in FY 83, a third obligation of
$1,500,000 in FY 84, a fourth obligation of $1,700,000 in FY 85, and a
final obligation of $1,896,000 in FY 86.

B. Summary Description of the Project

This project is designed to assist the collaborative efforts of USAID mis-
sions and LDCs at building effective and viable research-and-extension pro-
grams for limited resource farmers. More specifically, the project fosters
and helps coordinate the many "farming systems research and extension"
(FSR/E) programs that have been instituted in the last decade. This is the
first half of a planned ten-year effort.

FSR/E has evolved as a response to common problems in the development of
small-farm agriculture. Because the approach has been developed in many
distinct institutional contexts, there are today diverse views on its
nature and scope. But there is also widespread agreement on its opera-
tional characteristics. FSR/E encourages research on farmers' fields and
with farmers' participation, encompassing not only biological responses
within the farm field but also interactions within the production system
of the farm family. FSR/E also requires stronger two-way linkages between
researchers, extension agents, and farmers than is the case in most LDC
agricultural development systems. These two operational characteristics--
wider farm-level scope and closer interagency coordination--it is believed,
make FSR/E a more effective means for defining and developing technology
that is immediately useful by small farmers.

To foster and coordinate FSR/E efforts involves both technical assistance
and institution strengthening. Technical assistance provides immediate
help in resolving specific problems in farm production, as well as program
management. Institution building--short-term applied training and communi-
cations or networking (workshops, newsletters, bibliographies, and a docu-
mentation center)--helps create within participating countries the profes-
sional expertise and commitment necessary for self-sustaining, coordinated
national programs. These are, therefore, complementary activities in an
integral endeavor.

Technical assistance under this project will provide collaborating USAID
missions and LDCs those skills required at any stage in the project cycle:
pre-project assessment, PID and PP design, implementation assistance, and
evaluation for mid-term redesign, as well as for end-of-project follow-on.
Importantly, technical assistance to missions on specific matters of im-
mediate concern in the development of agricultural production technologies
will also yield information on relevant topics that can be synthesized
into recommendations useful for all missions and LDCs.

Short training courses in the fundamentals of FSR/E will strengthen the
capacity of host-country nationals both to perform this work and to insti-
tutionalize these methodologies. There will be two types of courses, one
on specific methodologies for field practitioners and a shorter one on
management concerns for policy makers, administrators, and educators.
These courses, which given only upon mission request, will be
tailored to national or regional needs and will be revised periodically in
order to incorporate new insights and methods. Importantly, since these
training activities are designed to assist LDC efforts in building FSR/E
systems, the agencies requesting training assistance will be expected to
pay most trainee costs.

This project also facilitates communication among FSR/E practitioners by
organizing several informational activities, specifically, a newsletter,
workshops, and an annotated bibliography, as well as a documentation cen-
ter. These activities make more possible the sharing of individual
experiences in the development and institutiohalization of national FSR/E

The immediate beneficiaries of this project are FSR/E the
developing countries who learn the methods and approaches of farming-
systems research and extension. The ultimate beneficiaries of this FSR/E
project are the limited-resource farmers who receive technological recom-
mendations that build upon existing production and enterprise systems.
Providing immediate technical assistance while building national institu-
tional capabilities in FSR/E helps ensure lasting benefits for these

The project will be let competitively as a cooperative agreement. The
recipient, as the cooperator is technically termed, will provide a project
leader responsible to the AID project officer for all project activities.
Under the project leader, two coordinators, one for technical assistance
and one for training and networking, will implement those activities, with
the necessary professional and support staff. The documentation and bib-
liographic services, however, will be provided directly by the Office of
Development Information and Utilization of the Bureau for Science and
Technology (S&T/DIU) in order to ensure the availability of the materials
after, as well as during, this project.


A. 'Project Background and Rationale

All countries have as a primary goal the provision of adequate food sup-
plies to their citizens. This goal usually implies improved agricultural
production and productivity, within the context of greater employment and
more equitable distribution. Unhappily, achieving these goals seems daily
more elusive. Projections of current trends in population growth, resource
use, and environmental change depict a bleak situation for many countries
by the turn of this century. As population doubles, while the arable land
base remains essentially static, environmental degradation will become more

0' i'

severe, diets more inadequate, and food shortages more common. Though
these projections may prove inaccurate, they do underscore the current gap
between government aspirations for agriculture and its present performance.

In the last development decade, increasing attention has been paid to the
role of small producers in the process of national development. The
rationale for this orientation is clear: small producers will not decline
in number in the foreseeable future, they control a sizable proportion of
each nation's arable land, and they produce a large proportion of each
nation's foodstuffs. As a group, these farmers have the potential to
increase national food supplies significantly. That they have not done so
in many cases is due as much to the orientation of national research and
extension agencies toward monocrop agriculture as to operational difficul-
ties of serving numerous, scattered small farmers. Thus, to increase agri-
cultural production while maintaining rural employment requires programs
adapted to small-farm production. Moreover, providing more appropriate
technologies to small farmers promises great returns in increased food
production, more efficient labor utilization, and higher rural incomes, as
well as improved soil conservation and environmental protection--all of
which are necessary if the LDCs are to increase food supplies for their
growing populations while stimulating private sector growth.

In order to assist small farmers more effectively, agricultural researchers
must take careful account of these farmers' production and enterprise sys-
tems. Small farmers are as economically responsive as larger or better
endowed farmers. Yet their production systems are qualitatively different
in that their agriculture tends to be both more polycultural and inter-
twined with livestock and forestry. They are often dependent on income
from off-farm enterprises. They operate under seasonal labor surpluses
and shortages, and most have inadequate access to essential support ser-
vices. Therefore, tested technologies which may appear scale neutral are
not in fact. Improved technologies must be adapted not only to the agro-
ecological environments of these farmers but also to their particular
socio-economic circumstances.

Farming systems research and extension has evolved in many countries and
in many institutions in response to these concerns. Operationally, FSR/E
involves an approach to agricultural research and technology generation
that encourages research on farmers' fields and with farmers' participa-
tion. FSR/E thus takes into account more factors than those limited to
the field: it examines responses within the production system of the farm
family;- rather than just biological responses within the farm field. At
the same time, the consideration of resource-use alternatives from the per-
spective of the whole-farm operation entails many more concerns than those
of agronomy. It is these aspects that make FSR/E more effective than tra-
ditional agricultural research in small-farm development programs.

FSR/E thus represents an adjustment in, or reorientation of, prior efforts
at agricultural research and extension by complementing and enhancing the
efficiency of on-station work in two major ways. First, FSR/E involves

analysis of the whole-farm system and the complex series of agronomic,
economic, and social elements and interactions of which it is composed.
Such information has proved valuable in the determination of station-based
priorities and in the orientation of on-station work. Second, once seem-
ingly appropriate technologies have been developed, FSR/E'provides a means
to implTment adaptive research on farmers' fields with farmer involvement.
In other words, the objectives of FSR/E are the same as those of tradi-
tional agricultural research: improved technology. By focusing on farmer
needs FSR/E provides a complementary and effective means for defining and
developing technology that is more immediately useful by small farmers.
In other words, FSR/E builds collaboratively upon basic discipline re-
search. The two approaches are, and will remain, complementary and neces-
sary endeavors.

In a development perspective, farm-centered research may also imply some
reorganization of national agricultural research and extension agencies.
In implementing an FSR/E program, extension agents assume some of the func-
tions of researchers and FSR/E researchers can at times act as extension
agents, as, for example, in their field trials. This melding of research
and extension roles requires a wide scope of action for the field person-
nel, most particularly in setting research agenda that accord with local
needs. Yet the agricultural establishment in many LDCs today is divided
into-separate agencies for research, extension, livestock, water manage-
ment, marketing, and on. Even where the proliferation of separate sections
or agencies has been contained, highly centralized bureaucracies find it
difficult to manage an essentially decentralized program, such as FSR/E.
Though these issues of organizational management are not directly related
to the farm-level concerns of FSR/E, these matters are crucial to the
development of viable, national FSR/E programs.

The widespread recognition of an immediate need for whole-farm analysis in
the context of many different national arrangements has given rise to a
diversity of views about FSR/E, not only in this country, but also in LDCs
and in the international agricultural research centers. These distinct
interpretations about the specific structure and operation--"the model"--
of FSR/E relate to different mandates, funding levels, staffing character-
istics, and the like. There is no one model, nor should one be expected.
There is, however, a single aim: more effective generation of technology
for small farm operations which will stimulate higher private sector
performance and increase aggregate food supplies for the benefit of all
citizens in each country.

The urgent need for small-farm agricultural development underlies the
recent and rapid expansion in the number of FSR/E programs worldwide. In
turn, the increase in FSR/E programs has brought with it a number of
problems that require remedial action if the effort is to achieve its
aims. Experienced FSR/E practitioners are relatively few. Many now work
in national programs or are based at international centers. In this
country, FSR/E expertise is scattered thinly among many universities.
Consequently, many new FSR/E projects are being implemented without the
assistance of experienced personnel who could readily resolve problems.

Second, with or without external help, FSR/E practitioners in the LDCs
would benefit greatly from the opportunity to share their experiences in
workshops and through periodic publications. Finally, there is a need to
assist in the training of LDC nationals in the principles and methods of
FSR/E, for ultimately it is these professionals who are charged with the
responsibility of fostering agricultural growth in their countries. In
short, the rapid expansion in FSR/E programs has created a need for immedi-
ate technical assistance, for short-term applied FSR/E training, and for
improved information dissemination. This project is designed to meet
these needs, by providing technical assistance while methodically building
national capacity and regional networks.

B. Project Goal and Purpose

The goal of this FSR/E project is to strengthen LDC agricultural research
and extension programs in order to increase the productivity, income, and
quality of life among small farmers in the lesser-developed countries. The
purpose of this project is to provide technical assistance to missions and
LDC agricultural research and extension programs for the design, implemen-
tation, and evaluation of projects intended for the small or limited-
resource farmer, while at the same time building institutional capacity
within those countries through training and networking.

C. Project Outputs

In the first five years, it can reasonably be expected that this project
will accomplish eight major activities. These are:

1. At mission request and with mission collaboration, provision of
technical assistance for project design and evaluation, as well as for the
resolution of specific problems during implementation of FSR/E projects.
Also, the recipient will develop a roster of FSR/E practitioners in this
country and abroad as a natural corollary of this work.

2. Publication of field recommendations based on syntheses of ex-
periences gained through technical assistance in specific problem areas
and through limited applied research, and the distribution of these recom-
mendations to missions, LDC agencies, and practitioners.

3. Conduct 12 courses for LDC field practitioners and a like
number of courses for policy makers, administrators, and educators in the
principles and methods of farming systems research and extension work.

4. Establishment of seven regional (subcontinental) networks of
FSR/E practitioners.

5. Sponsor annually in each region a workshop whose theme and
location will be determined by FSR/E practitioners in that area.

6. Publication of a quarterly newsletter that reports the insights
gained during technical assistance, the evaluations performed under this
project, and the results of the regional workshops.

7. Publication and distribution of an annual annotated bibliography
(five over the life of this project).

8. Establish, within S&T/DIU, a documentation center for FSR/E lit-
erature that will, upon individual request, provide copies of uncopywritten
works not only during the life of the project but, no less importantly,
afterwards also.

D. Project Inputs

Each activity requires a different level of effort and resources. Overall,
technical assistance accounts for 40 percent of the total budget, training
for 29 percent, and networking for 27 percent. In terms of personnel, once
the project is fully operational (PY 4), technical assistance will require
92 months of professional, staff, and consultant time each year, as well as
funds for travel and per diem, and a small amount for publication and dis-
tribution of guidelines. By contrast, institution-building activities
(training and networking) will then require 66 person-monthr of effort per
year, in addition to travel, per diem, and some operating expenses.

Technical assistance for consulting with missions if design,-implementa-
tion, and evaluation is scheduled to begin in PY 1 with 30 person-months
of field effort, to increase to 45 person-months in PY 2, and to reach 60
person-months in PY 3, which level of effort will be maintained in PYs 4
and 5. This stepped increase in the level of effort is based on experience
in providing technical assistance under cooperative agreements: more and
_ more missionstake advantage of this assistance over time, so that the
level of effort must increase if the project is to continue assisting ear-
lier programs while initiating assistance for new programs. Nonetheless,
the recipient is expected to make available from the outset the full range
of professional expertise in FSR/E, e.g., areal diagnostics, agronomic
experimentation, agriculture-and-livestock production systems.

The training and networking activities abroad are programmed to begin
slowly and to expand because of the inherently greater initial difficulty
of these activities. Thus, staff and operating expenses are provided for
one training course in PY 1, two in PY 2, and three in PYs 3, 4, and 5.
(Most participant costs will be covered by their agencies.) The regional
network and workshop activities are similarly phased in order to focus
efforts on initial, organizational problems and to be able to build on
experience. Funds are provided to initiate one network committee and
workshop in PY 1, with two additional committees and workshops being estab-
lished in each of PYs 2, 3, and 4. Thus, over the life of the project,
the number of regional workshops will increase from one in PY 1, to three
in PY 2, to five in PY 3, to seven in PYs 4 and 5. By contrast, funding
for information-dissemination activities based in this country--the

newsletter, documentation center, and annotated bibliography--are provided
at the same relative level throughout the life of the project.

In addition to funds for projects services, there are allocations for proj-
ect management and for external evaluations. The recipient will hire a
project leader, one-half time, who will oversee the implementation and
coordination of project activities. Also, evaluations are scheduled for
PYs 2, 4, and 5 in order to assess project accomplishments and disappoint-
ments in a fashion timely enough to incorporate the lessons into the pro-
gram development.

In summary, the level of inputs is scheduled to increase in the first three
years, with the project reaching full operational capacity only in PY 4.
This evolution is consistent with Agency experience with similar projects.
It also accords with the assumptions that though the need for technical
assistance is immediate and continuing, increasing emphasis must be put on
building national institutional capabilities in small-farm agricultural re-
search and development, if the present effort is to take root and grow.
Thus, technical assistance accounts for more of the budget allocation in
PY 1 (44%) than in PY 5 (37%), but the amount of technical assistance pro-
vided will double in that time, from 30 person-months in PY 1 to 60 person-
months in PY 5. By contrast, the level of project staff support for insti-
tution building activities remains constant over the life of the project,
but the amount of operational funds for training and networking increases,
as more national programs take advantage of this project's services.

E. Relationship to Other Projects

A great deal of attention and support have been devoted to agricultural
development in general and to farming systems research and extension in
particular. This FSR/E project complements and supports such efforts by
closely coordinating with USAID missions, which are most knowledgeable
about their country programs, other donor activities, and host-country
interests. Moreover, it avoids duplication and increases the likelihood
for success by extending model programs that have been implemented in one
or another region to other areas.

Farming systems research and extension evolved in the last decade with the
support of several international foundations and international agricultural
research centers. Most notable among the foundations, Rockefeller sup-
ported the Plan Puebla in Mexico, which with significant modifications be-
came the model for national programs in Guatemala and Honduras, also funded
in part by the foundation. Among the international agricultural research
centers, the International Rice Research Institute established a cropping-
systems network (in part with Rockefeller funding) and a cropping systems
training program. Meanwhile, the Centro Internacional para el Mejoramiento
de Maize y Trigo (CIMMYT) developed an agricultural research and training
program which emphasized agro-economic analyses, farmer-field trials, and
farmer participation, as did also The Centro Agronomico Tropical de Inves-
tigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE). In fact, all of the international research


centers have now shown interest in this approach. For example, the Inter-
national Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and
the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) have active
programs. And, the basic thrust of the recently organized International
Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) is clearly farming-
systems research.

The multilateral and bilateral donors, often in collaboration with the
international agricultural centers, support such work today. The World
Bank, for example, has greatly increased its funding for agricultural re-
search and extension from $103 million in four countries over the fifteen
years, 1960-1976, to $455 million in ten countries in 1978 alone. The
specific activities funded by the Bank vary from country to country, so
that the coordination between their project and this one can only be estab-
lished in the instance. To take but one relevant example, the Bank is
implementing its "training and visitation" (T&V) system of agricultural ex-
tension in the Punjab region of Pakistan. USAID/Pakistan, meanwhile, will
support an FSR/E program, in collaboration with this central project. An
informal survey of Pakistani field personnel in research, extension, and
education that was conducted jointly by S&T/RAD and S&T/AGR established
the usefulness of a national workshop that would bring these professionals
together in orde: to establish the agenda for the farming systems program
in that country. Clearly, inviting Pakistani extension personnel working
in the Bank's T&V program to participate in the national FSR/E workshop
will go far in enhancing coordination among donors and, more importantly,
in further strengthening the development of Pakistani agricultural

USAID already funds numerous projects that involve FSR/E in part or in
-their entirety. Several projects, such as the USAID/Honduras "Agricultural
-Research- ro.ject.iare_ to_Aecounted_.mongothepioneering__efforts in estab-
lishing national FSR/E programs. Today, these efforts have proliferated
in all regions, so that, for example, Africa bureau alone now counts some
26 projects that involve FSR/E. (Every attempt to ennumerate the number
of country programs that include FSR/E activities soon encounters difficul-
ties: some projects that bear the title "farming systems research and
extension" are essentially on-station, commodity-research projects; other
projects that do not carry that title nonetheless incorporate on-farm
testing with farmer participation.) The level of Agency support is obvi-
ously substantial and growing.

This central project is designed with enough flexibility to assist indi-
vidual missions in their efforts. Technical assistance, for example, will
be provided at any stage in the project cycle. Missions that are now con-
templating the initiation of FSR/E activities can call upon the project
team for pre-project assessment. Those that have already completed this
phase may require design assistance in the development of their PIDs and
PPs. Those that have projects underway may ask for technical assistance
with specific implementation problems. And all missions may find advantage

in combining project staff with other experts for mid-term and final evalu-
ations. Importantly, such flexibility is not limited to the technical
assistance component. The training and networking activities can also be
combined in ways that meet the particular needs of individual missions.
Thus, missions in countries where there is little understanding of FSR/E
principles and methods might wish to organize a training course for admin-
istrators, to be followed by a regional workshop to foment further inter-
est, before requesting a training course for practitioners or managers. By
contrast, missions in countries that already profess strong interest and
support for FSR/E, might wish to initiate workshops and training courses
almost immediately. Such flexibility is a natural and necessary element
in any central project that assists mission activities; it also minimizes
duplication and maximizes appropriateness of project activities.

Coordination with mission activities is an essential and inherent aspect
of this central project. The particular arrangements will of course differ
in each case, but they must be specified. USAID/Tanzania, for example, is
currently designing an FSR/E project to be implemented in cooperation with
the Tanzania Agricultural Research Organization (TARO). USAID/T has pro-
posed that this central project provide technical assistance to TARO in
management and planning activities, assist with some management-level
training in FSR/E, and participate in project evaluations. It is precisely
this type of coordinated assistance that will prove beneficial to all con-
cerned--S&T, the missions, and the LDCs.

The geographic bureaus of the Agency also fund regional activities with
which this central project will coordinate. For example, Africa bureau is
now planning to fund a proposal from CIMMYT that covers many of the same this project--technical assistance, training, networking,
and limited documentation. The CIMMYT activities will be funded for two
years. During this time, the two projects will coordinate for mutual
advantage, but because most needs in east and southern Africa will be met
by CIMMYT, this project can focus on other areas. Thereafter, if demand
exists, the central project can extend to those regions.

A similar situation obtains in Asia with respect to the network committee
for farming systems research and extension. In this region, IRRI has
successfully evolved a cropping-systems network that incorporates many
national FSR/E concerns. There is, therefore, no need to duplicate the
effort. But there is good reason to take the IRRI model and extend it,
with appropriate modifications, to other regions. (This matter is dis-
cussed 'in detail in the section on "Regional Networks and Workshops.")

In summary, the activities of this project complement and further those of
other donor agencies, USAID missions, and LDCs. The project, which is
described in detail below, builds upon prior experience in that it will
extend programs successful in one region to other areas. At the same time
the project builds in a deliberate flexibility, in recognition of the
different needs of different countries at different times. Flexibility,
however, does not mean lack of focus. From a central perspective, similar

problems will arise in different contexts, thus focusing attention on real
problems of widespread importance.


This project provides various services to missions and LDCs. Some services
--the newsletter, annotated bibliography, and documentation center--will be
immediately useful to all. The need for other services--technical assis-
tance, training, and workshops--will depend upon the success and orienta-
tion of particular mission programs. For this reason, the project is de-
signed in such a way that individual missions can call upon different
combinations of services, which will give each mission a continuity in out-
side efforts. Continuity is also important to this project, for it creates
the opportunity to understand particular programs in wider perspective and
over time: fulfilling diverse needs in FSR/E programs creates in this
project a unique opportunity to synthesize experiences and solutions in
different LDCs into general guidelines that can, by being brief and apt,
help all missions and LDCs in their planning and programming processes.
Thus, the activities in this project are designed to provide direct ser-
vices to missions supporting FSR/E activities and,,at the same time, to
synthesize and disseminate lessons learned in diverse settings to the wider
audience of development practitioners.

All project activities are premised on mission collaboration and assis-
tance. Thus, in operation, a mission must request assistance under this
project and specify the time, duration, and level of effort that best fit
into its program before arrangements may be made final. Further, the users
of some services--be they missions, LDCs, or practitioners--will be ex-
pected to support the activity in part. Missions will contribute about
one-third of consultant travel and per diem costs incurred for technical
assistance. Missions and LDC agencies will cover-most or all of partici-
pant costs for the training courses and workshops after the initial one.
And, users will subscribe to the newsletter and in some cases pay duplica-
tion and handling fees for the documentation service. Together, participa-
tion in the planning of project activities and cost sharing will better
ensure that all activities are relevant to field needs.

A. Technical Assistance

Technical assistance will be provided at mission request to resolve prob-
lems that arise at any stage of the project cycle in farming-systems pro-
grams.'-In terms of the project cycle, technical assistance will be pro-
vided for pre-project assessment, PID and PP design, problem identification
during implementation, and evaluation for mid-term redesign and end-of-
project follow-on. Technical assistance team may include production scien-
tists (e.g., agronomy, animal science, pisciculture, forestry), economic
and behavioral scientists, and organizational or administrative scientists.
A wide range of services is encompassed within the scope of FSR/E work.
They include:


Pre-project Assessment: Survey of the adequacy of agricultural
training, research, and extension to serve small farmers;
nationwide assessment of current approaches to agricultural
research and extension and of interest in FSR/E by region and

PID and PP Design: Design of FSR/E programs within the context
of existing national institutions, and conduct of required
administrative, technical, economic, social, and environmental

Implementation Assistance: Design of survey instruments, de-
limitation of target groups of farmers, conduct of rapid field
assessments, and timely analysis of information; design of
agronomic experiments with farmer participation; identification
and resolution of subsequent production and post-production
difficulties (e.g., agronomic, pest control, livestock, post-
harvest losses) within context of local farming systems. (Once
this project is underway, assistance may be provided as a
complement to training activities [below]).

Evaluation: Assessment of extent and timeliness of administra-
tive support, clarity of problem definition, caliber of experi-
mental work, relevance of training program, nationalization of
FSR/E program, and of adoption rates by farmers; identification
of critical areas requiring further effort if bottlenecks are
to be broken.

To judge from mission responses to the informational cable about the FSR/E
PID, the demand for technical assistance requires at this time equal effort
in design, implementation, and evaluation. Of the 20 countries in Asia,
Africa, and Latin America that specified likely needs, seven requested de-
sign services, seven requested implementation assistance, and twelve re-
quested evaluation assistance (Appendix A). However, the types of techni-
cal assistance rendered to missions will naturally change over the life of
this project, as-more missions develop FSR/E projects. As a consequence,
technical assistance for operational problems during implementation and
for evaluation may represent 80 percent of the overall endeavor in the
second half of this project.

Technical assistance in implementation and evaluation requires flexibility
in order to meet the needs of different missions, as well as the varying
needs of a particular mission over time. As a general rule, the identifi-
cation of technical problems (though not their resolution) and PID design
require less time than other activities. Even so, the duration of techni-
cal assistance can only be determined in the instance with the mission.
This project therefore budgets for both one- and three-month consultancies.

The size and composition of each team also depends upon the nature of the
activity. Pre-project assessment, for example, typically requires a larger
and more diverse team than some types of implementation assistance. To


assess the possibilities for an FSR/E program in Pakistan required the col-
laboration of four persons, a plant breeder, an agronomist, an economist,
and an anthropologist. By contrast, specific technical problems during
implementation--assessment of the adequacy of on-farm experimental alterna-
tives, the design of an in-depth diagnostic survey--may require fewer
specialists. Thus, missions will specify in their requests the number and
type of experts required; the recipient will then locate qualified, avail-
able persons to undertake the assistance.

Importantly, repeat visits are possible either to follow up on an original
problem or to tackle a new one. For the missions, these repeat visits pro-
vide a useful continuity in outside effort. For the Agency and the recip-
ient, they provide the opportunity to monitor the consequences of specific
actions. Technical assistance under this project, however, is not in-
tended, and will not be used, for continuous long-term research.

In order also to meet the diverse substantive needs of missions, the tech-
nical assistance budget allows for 20 months of consultant time in PY 1, 33
months in PY 2, and 44 months thereafter. The technical assistance coordi-
nator will be responsible for locating the best qualified and most appro-
priate consultants available in terms of the specific request from the mis-
sion. This means that individuals with experience in FSR/E programs will
be drawn from agricultural institutions not only in this country but also
abroad, whether in national programs or at international agricultural re-
-search centers. It also means that the project FSR/E training consultants-
should participate on teams composed at mission request for assistance
-with national training programs. Finally, because this project aims to
-build national institutional capacity, the coordinator will allot to the
LDC national practitioners, administrators, and educators who successfully
complete the training courses (below) about 10 percent of the consultant
time in PY 2 and about 20 percent thereafter.

Field Guidelines from ComDarative Evaluations

Technical assistance that directly serves missions will provide a clear
indication of which concerns are frequent and which are rare. Those con-
cerns that arise with any frequency deserve comparative evaluation in order
to elucidate the causes, probable solutions, and possible consequences.
Indeed, the synthesis of diverse experiences into field recommendations to
assist all missions is an important rationale for central backstopping. In
their responses to the informational cable, the missions have already iden-
tified'-a number of areas of current concern, including methodological is-
sues, benefit-cost analyses, organizational and management concerns, and
extension problems. A central project that permits timely consideration
of these issues can be of great assistance to missions.

The analysis of these problems can for the most part be dealt with within
the framework of technical assistance. Pre-project assessment and evalu-
ation, in particular, require consideration of a wide range of matters and
their interconnections. It is usual during these activities to collect


information on costs and benefits, methodological procedures, and organi-
zational structures in order to assess fairly the achievements of a parti-
cular project. When collected systematically for a number of national
programs, this information will provide the basis for needed comparative
evaluations. Consequently, a small portion of the technical assistance
funds--no more than 20 percent--will be used to collect comparative infor-
mation. (It should perhaps be pointed out that this sum will be necessary
in order to include, for example, successful programs that have not taken
advantage of this project. No work, however, will be undertaken without
approval, assistance, and collaboration from both the mission and the

As many as five practical field guidelines may be prepared over the life of
this project. The first guideline must consider alternative methodologies,
explaining the reasons for differences in approach and operation of on-
going national programs. Subsequent guidelines--on cost-benefit analyses,
organizational concerns, extension problems, and, perhaps, training courses
--can then be developed on the basis of project experience within the con-
text of the methodological analysis. These guidelines will be distributed
to missions directly and to interested practitioners through the S&T/DIU
documentation center.

The synthesis of diverse experience presumes a continuity in personnel.
For this reason, the budget for technical assistance provides for a full-
time Coordinator and two full-time technical specialists (one a production
scientist and one a behavioral scientist). At least one member of this
staff will participate in all major technical assistance activities, so
that the technical assistance staff has full knowledge of each and all of
its. endeavors. This requirement will both raise the level of technical
assistance provided to missions and better ensure the completeness of the
field recommendations.

In summary, technical assistance under this project is designed to provide
specific and general services. Because technical assistance here is
"demand-driven"--that is, technical assistance will be provided at mission
request and in response to specific problems--it is important to build in
flexibility through the use of a wide range of consultants with prior FSR/E
experience. It is equally important to maintain continuity with a core
staff so that field recommendations can be synthesized through informed,
comparative evaluations of project experiences. The mix of core staff and
consultants called for in the technical assistance component of this proj-
ect should provide both the flexibility and the continuity necessary for
the development of informative field guidelines that arise out of the
specific technical assistance activities provided individual missions.

B. Training

The rapid expansion of FSR/E programs has created a shortage of experienced
practitioners. 'The need for trained personnel is particularly great among
the field staff in national programs, those who carry out the day-to-day


operations. However, the effort to build strong national research and ex-
tension programs for small-farm agriculture will fail unless policy makers,
administrators, and educators are also informed about the nature and the
methods of this new approach. Policy makers and administrators can provide
the informed support within their agencies that is necessary for field
practitioners in the conduct of their work, thus fostering the program in
the short run and beyond. Educators in agricultural colleges can incorpo-
rate the FSR/E program into their curricula, thus sustaining the formation
of knowledgeable practitioners in the future. To succeed, the training
program must reach all these audiences.

The project will develop two training courses, one for agricultural re-
search and extension personnel and one for policy makers, administrators,
and educators. Both courses will cover the same topics, but with differ-
ent emphases and different purposes. Generally, the topics include the
concept of FSR/E, the socio-economic and agronomic methodologies of FSR/E
work, technological diffusion, and such organizational issues as the cen-
tralized management of a decentralized program and the relationship between
research and extension.

The practitioner course for field personnel is intended to be a detailed
refresher course in specific methodologies. A training module will be
developed for the methodologies used at each stage of the FSR/E cycle.
These include:

areal diagnostics of whole-farm systems, identification of
remedial problems, and experimental design;

"* initiation of on-farm experiments with farmer participation,
monitoring of field experiments, and collection of yield data;

analysis of agronomic and economic data (including partial
budgeting analysis) and design of a new cycle of
experimentation; and,

extension services.

Thus, if a national program encounters difficulties during some phase of
the FSR/E cycle, the program officials can request, through the mission in
that country, a-training course in those specific methodologies. The FSR/E
trainer-consultants would then adapt the relevant training modules into a
course appropriate to the level and needs of the prospective trainees. The
course may last for as much as six weeks, and it may be held in one or two
sessions, depending upon the nature of the difficulties and the level of
the practitioners. Also, the training course will involve actual field
work, so that the practitioner-trainees can learn from experience. By de-
signing training modules that can be combined and adapted into a practical
course of variable length and structure, the training activity under this
project builds in the flexibility necessary to meet diverse field needs.


The administrator course, by contrast, will introduce FSR/E concepts and
operations, but will focus more on policy and managerial concerns. It can,
therefore, be run more as a seminar than a training course. It would in-
troduce the concept of FSR/E and lay out its potential and limits for agri-
cultural development. While the participants might, for example, analyze
whole-farm production and enterprise systems in order to determine and de-
sign agronomic experiments, most of the course would be devoted to organi-
zational and managerial issues, e.g., how to institute FSR/E programs given
the existing institutional organization of their countries and how to
manage and support a decentralized FSR/E program from a centralized agency.
In other words, this course should be designed to deal with the conceptual
and the operational implications of FSR/E in such a way that the partici-
pants leave with a profound understanding of the importance and difficulty
of implementing FSR/E programs in their own situations.

Both the practitioner and the administrator courses will be given in the
prevalent professional language and at an appropriate location in each
country. In most instances, the courses will be held at an international
agricultural research center,-a national agricultural research station, or
an agricultural college. The selection of a particular institution will
depend first upon the proximity of target-group farmers. Further, where
there exists a national FSR/E program, a national agricultural institution
would be the preferred site.

-For pedagogical reasons, the courses should be limited to 30 persons per
session. Further, to minimize the recurrent cost problem, participants
for the practitioner course must be employees of the national agricultural
research or extension service and hold FSR/E responsibilities. Partici-
pants for the administrator course must come from decision-makers concerned
with the agricultural sector. This may include personnel from agriculture,
livestock, water management, extension, among others, or from universities
or agricultural colleges. In all cases, individuals will be selected by
the mission and host country with a view toward existing bilateral proj-
ects. By selecting several such individuals from each institution, the
training courses will help create a critical mass of practitioners and
administrators who can work within their institutions and coordinate with
FSR/E proponents in other institutions.

Participants in the practitioner and the administrator courses who demon-
strate superior ability and dedication will be asked to participate as
integral members of the short-term technical assistance teams. This oppor-
tunity is highly desirable from a programmatic point of view because it
would provide those individuals a practical, applied experience in an on-
going FSR/E program other than the one they work in. The other selection
criteria, specifically, substantive qualifications that meet the require-
ments of the mission making the request for assistance, of course remain

The S&T training budget allows for 24 person-months of staff time per year
(the training coordinator and a full-time secretary), 12 months of consul-
tant time for trainers in PY 1 and 6 months per year thereafter, travel


and per diem for the training staff, operating expenses (including subcon-
tract costs for the training sites), and per diem for participants in the
administrator course. It is expected that missions, LDC agencies, or both
will pay the travel and per diem costs of practitioners after PY 1 and the
travel costs of administrators. Moreover, the host countries will be ex-
pected to continue paying their participants' salaries during the training
course. (Former trainees who are invited to join short-term technical
assistance teams will be paid as consultants according to the standardized
schedule of fees used by the recipient.) This cost-sharing should help
ensure that the training courses meet the needs and aims of the

C. Networking

The marked increase of FSR/E activities around the world makes communica-
tion among practitioners a paramount and timely concern. Practitioners
and administrators in many programs now face many of the same problems.
Their solutions to these problems and their adaptions of FSR/E methods for
specific needs and circumstances can readily prove useful to colleagues in
-other national programs. Yet few channels now exist to support this
exchange of ideas. This project will therefore promote the flow of infor-
mation among those involved in FSR/E by sponsoring regional workshops, pub-
lishing a newsletter and annotated bibliography, and establishing a docu-
mentation center with open access. Together, these activities will help
LDC personnel institute and develop their FSR/E programs.

Networking is best organized on a regional basis. One possible classifica-
tion of countries into regions follows conventional zonation into agro-
ecological zones in order to coordinate better with on-going efforts at
fostering improved agricultural research and extension. Thus, Asia, which
already has a cropping systems network, is considered a single region;
Africa, whose re-search and extension organizations are only now evolving,
is divided into five regions (Sahel and Sudan, West African coast, Congo
basin, southern African plateau, and the east African highlands); and,
Latin America is divided into three regions (Central America, the Carib-
bean, and South America). Near East, which is generally considered a
single region, can participate in one of the African regions, either East
Africa or the Sahel. The final delineation of regions and priorities for
establishment of regional networks will be established in PY 1.


This project will support regional workshops for FSR/E practitioners. The
common focus of these workshops will be farming systems research and exten-
sion methods. Informal contact will deal with a wide range of issues, but
each workshop will be organized around particular issues in FSR/E work,
e.g., methodologies, technologies, organizational concerns. Each workshop
will be held at an agricultural institution involved in the host country's
FSR/E program, so that a monitoring tour for workshop participants can fol-
low the workshop. These monitoring tours provide an excellent opportunity


for learning about another country's FSR/E endeavors and, no less impor-
tantly, give collegial recognition to the host country's professionals.
Monitoring tours thus complement and extend the lessons of the workshop.

Both the theme and the site of each regional workshop will be determined
by the FSR/E network committee to be established in each region. This com-
mittee will comprise one FSR/E practitioner-leader from each participating
country, one representative from the project core staff (the coordinator
for training and networking or his nominee), and one representative from
AID (the project officer or his nominee). This committee will meet annu-
ally, after each workshop, to determine the topic and site of the next
workshop. The only stipulation is that the location of the workshop rotate
among the member nations.

With the advice of the project committee, the coordinator for training and
networking will contract with an institution within the region to act as
the base of committee operations. This institution, which may well be an
international agricultural research center in the region, can perform much
of the organizational work necessary for the conduct of any workshop as a
part of its existing program. In this way, the regional FSR/E committee
has a natural base of operations that not only complements current efforts
but also helps ensure the evolution of FSR/E efforts within the region
during this project and afterwards.

-This project design gives national FSR/E leaders a decisive voice in deter-
:mining the nature of the workshops. If two or more network committees deem
it advantageous to hold a joint meeting at an institution in one of their
regions, the coordinator for training and networking will assist those com-
i ittees in arranging all the organizational matters involved in putting
together such a conference. In this way, regional groups will have the
opportunity not only to work on problems common to a group of neighboring
countries but also to discuss these and other matters with colleagues in
other regions and indeed on other continents.


The project will publish a quarterly newsletter beginning in the second
half of PY I. The importance of the newsletter far exceeds the level of
resources necessary to support it. This project will generate much useful
information through its technical assistance, training, and workshop acti-
vities. This information can be quickly provided to FSR/E practitioners
throughout the world through a quarterly publication.

The content of the newsletter will vary from issue to issue, but all arti-
cles will focus on aspects of farming systems research and extension pro-
grams. In the first year of publication, the newsletter will mostly report
the results of technical assistance provided different missions. Other
matters can be included as the other project activities get underway.
Thus, in the second year of publication, the newsletter will publish syn-
opses of the guidelines developed through technical assistance, report
results from the regional workshops, and review national programs inspected


during the workshops. The newsletter may also solicit, edit, and publish
contributions from FSR/E practitioners on issues of timely importance.

The recipients of the newsletter will comprise all consultants identified
by the technical assistance coordinator, all participants in the training
sessions, and all other individuals and institutions who request the pub-
lication. In order to accommodate readers whose professional language is
not English, the newsletter will be published in French and Spanish also.
Recipients may therefore request one copy of the newsletter in their lan-
guage of preference.

The first three issues of the newsletter will be made available free of
charge. Thereafter, a moderate subscription fee will be instituted for all
but LDC practitioners residing abroad. Only if this additional source is
insufficient will a subscription fee for LDC practitioners be established,
and then only for the cost of mailing. Requests for additional copies of
the newsletter will cost all individuals and institutions an amount equal
to the cost of printing, handling, and mailing.

Documentation Center and Annotated Bibliography

The expansion of FSR/E programs has greatly increased the number of arti-
cles, reports, and monographs dealing with particular aspects of such pro-
grams. This literature is unavailable to many FSR/E practitioners, who by
the nature of their work are stationed in relatively isolated areas. The
unavailability of these materials can only slow progress in establishing
and developing national FSR/E programs. Thus, this project will establish
-a centralized documentation center with open access and will publish
annually an annotated bibliography on the subject.

The FSR/E documentation center will be established within S&T/DIU, which
offers several advantages over other arrangements. First, S&T/DIU already
has a catalogue system and facilities for storing documents. Second, S&T/
DIU can provide copies of all uncopywritten works and, with permission
from the publisher, of copywritten articles. This service is provided to
all individuals at nominal cost. Third, unlike most contractors, S&T/DIU
can continue the documentation center and duplicating service after the
life of this project, thus ensuring that publications remain available.

In operation, S&T/DIU will receive documents for the FSR/E collection. The
project staff will make the selections of relevant materials for S&T/DIU
during -the course of their usual work. The coordinator will acquire and
provide S&T/DIT two copies of each work. S&T/DIU will then catalogue and
store the materials. Upon receipt of a request, S&T/DIU will duplicate the
document and send it to the requester. At the outset of this project, the
service will be provided free of charge to LDC practitioners abroad, while
all others will be charged a fee equal to the cost of duplication (now 13
cents a page) and mailing. Only if no other alternative exists will a
user fee be instituted for LDC practitioners.


The publication and distribution of an annual, annotated bibliography will
inform LDC practitioners and others of the materials available in the docu-
mentation center. The annotated bibliography will be more useful to users
if it is selective. Therefore, the project staff will each year select up
to 100 titles in the S&T/DIU collection, and S&T/DIU will subcontract for
the work of abstracting each article and book in the same language as the
original work. Importantly, the use of S&T/DIU subcontractors in this work
ensures high quality, informative abstracts. S&T/DIU will then subcontract
the printing and undertake the distribution of the bibliography to the re-
cipients of the newsletter. (The bibliography will run about 20 pages,
with four or five abstracts per page. Copywritten works that cannot be
provided through the documentation center will be so noted, along with the
pertinent information of where to obtain the work, such as the publisher.)


A. AID Project Management

Although major responsibility for funding the Farming Systems Research and
Extension project lies with S&T/AGR, implementation of the project activi-
ties will be managed collaboratively between S&T/AGR and S&T/RAD. A frame-
work for joint project programming has already been established by the
Directors of the two offices (Appendix B). In this case, S&T/AGR will
assign a Project Officer to perform the prescribed project management func-
-tions. Official project files and action authority (inquiries, cables)
will rest with S&T/AGR. The S&T/AGR project officer will maintain close
liaison with the assigned S&T/RAD deputy project officer, who will be as-
signed half-time to this project. The S&T/AGR and S&T/RAD Office Directors
will be called- pon to resolve any conflicts or disputes.

Regional bureau participation will be maintained by the creation of a proj-
ect committee. Representation will include one member from each of the
geographic bureaus, PPC and the S&T/DIU representative responsible for the
documentation center and bibliography. The project committee will meet at
least once every three months, or more often as required, to review project
implementation and provide general guidance. At the third quarterly com-
mittee meeting each year, the committee will review the monitoring evalua-
tions of each project activity and the annual work plan proposed by the
recipient. When appropriate, representatives from other bureaus, especi-
ally the Bureau for Private Enterprise (PRE) and the Bureau for Food for
Peace and Voluntary Assistance (FVA), will be called upon to participate
in the project committee meetings.

(Since the Farming Systems Research and Extension project is a joint acti-
vity of S&T/AGR and S&T/RAD, PID approval was obtained separately from
both the Technical Program Committee on Agriculture (TPCA) and the Rural
Development Steering Committee (RDSC), the respective guiding bodies for.
the two offices. Creation of the S&T Sector Councils should facilitate
the creation of a joint sub-council (or sub-committee) which will act as
the project committee, described above. Further, as experience is gained
in the formulation of farming systems research and extension programs, the


sub-council can become an advisory forum to the Sector Council for policy

Regional committee members will act as the primary bureau contact for proj-
ect activities in their respective region so that activities will be better
coordinated with expressed mission needs. During the early stages of
implementation at least, this function will fall most heavily on AFR/DR/
ARD because Africa Bureau will be the major recipient of support services
provided by this project (Appendix C). Nonetheless, all project committee
members are expected to make substantive contributions to the annual work-
plan, to coordinate project activities in their region, and to clear on
any project implementation activities in their region.

B. Project Instrument: Cooperative Agreement

This project will be let competitively as a cooperative agreement, which
instrument combines features both of a grant and of a contract. Grants may
be used to develop the capacity, integrity, and quality of eligible insti-
tutions in the performance of functions relevant to the economic or social
betterment of underdeveloped countries. But the Agency relinquishes much
managerial control. By contrast, contracts are used to provide for the
performance of projects over which AID plans to exercise a substantial de-
gree-of operational control. In essence, the Agency contracts for work it
specifically wants done. Cooperative agreements represent a middle ground.
They permit the development of capacity in eligible institutions and the
performance of specified activities, both with a high level of Agency par-
ticipation. These are precisely the specifications of the present project.

Technical assistance, training, and networking would complement and
strengthen the small-farm programs that have been established at various
institutions. At the same time, the newsletter and regional workshops
represent activities specifically desired by the Agency. Moreover, a high
level of Agency participation is necessary because of the flexibility of
central projects. For all of these reasons, a cooperative agreement is
the most appropriate instrument for this project.

Cooperative agreements may be let with any institution. It is, however,
unlikely that any single institution could fulfill all the project activi-
ties for the simple reason that FSR/E expertise in this country is widely
scattered among many institutions. Some set of institutions will almost
surely have to join together and designate a lead institution in order to
undertake this project. The arrangements between the institutions must be
left to the institutions themselves, but the arrangements must be speci-
fied. Thus the cooperative agreement will be let competitively in order
to ensure selection of the recipient that can best access FSR/E expertise
for the project and that has made optimal institutional arrangements.

Proposals will be evaluated on several grounds. First, the proposals must
specify the relationship agreed upon by the lead institution and all other
institutions in the group. Second, the proposals must detail the range and
depth of personnel at those institutions who are experienced in FSR/E work,


the experience and work of those individuals for the institutions, and the
future availability and accessibility of those individuals during this
project. Third, the proposals must demonstrate a commitment to develop a
strong FSR/E program in at least the lead institution. Such a commitment
minimally entails a detailed plan for interdepartmental cooperation.
Fourth, the proposals must discuss means for accessing skilled personnel
from outside the recipient institutions, naming individuals who have pro-
vided letters of collaboration. Ideally, some of these professionals
should be brought together at one of the recipient institutions. Proposals
that envision such staff development will receive especial consideration.

C. Project Staff

The core staff for this project comprises five professionals and four sup-
port staff, beside consultants. The professional staff includes one half-
time project leader, one coordinator for technical assistance to oversee
and participate in that activity, one production scientist and one be-
havioral scientist for technical assistance, one coordinator for training
and networking. The support staff include three secretaries, one for
technical assistance and two for institution-building (one for training
and one for networking), and an editorial assistant for the newsletter.
Thus, overall, six person-months per year are devoted to project manage-
ment, 48 person-months of staff time are dedicated to technical assistance,
and another 48 person-months of staff time to training and networking. In
addition, each project activity involves consultant specialists--up to 44
person-months in PY 3 and thereafter for technical assistance, 6 person-
-months per year after PY 1 for training, and 12 person-months per year for

Project Leader

The project leader is responsible to the S&T/AGR/EPP project officer for
overall management of the project by the recipient institution. This
responsibility includes coordination of activities between the lead and
the collaborating institutions in the recipient group, supervision of the
technical assistance and of the training and networking coordinators, in
collaboration with the AID project officer. The project leader will be
responsible for preparing the annual monitoring evaluations and work plans
in sufficient time for the third quarterly meeting of the project committee
each year, and he will discuss the evaluation and work plan reports with
the committee members and at that committee meeting.

The project leader will be a senior professional familiar with FSR/E endea-
vors in production and experienced in project management. For such an
individual, the responsibilities of this project should require no more
than one-half of his or her time. Even so, the individual should not have
major responsibility for any other project as part of his other duties.
The individual may be based at his home institution. (For ease of exposi-
tion, the lines of authority between project staff and with AID personnel
are depicted in Diagram 1.)


Diagram 1 : Organization of Personnel

Center and

[i Assistance


Production Behavioral
Scientist Scientist


(44 mos.)

(6 mos.)

(12 mos.)

Coordinator for Technical Assistance

A coordinator for technical assistance will manage this activity under
the guidance of the project leader. The coordinator will have major re-
sponsibility for developing a roster of consultants (with bio-data), iden-
tifying and handling mission requests and, composing technical assistance
teams in response to those requests. He will also be responsible for pro-
ducing the reports that synthesize the results of the technical assistance
provided to different missions and LDCs on particular topics. In all of
these activities, the coordinator for technical assistance will cooperate
closely with the coordinator for training and networking.

The coordinator for technical assistance will be a middle-level profes-
sional who has worked in FSR/E programs and who has management experience.
The responsibilities of the technical assistance coordinator make this a
full-time position. The individual will need to spend considerable time
in D.C., at least at the outset.

FSR/E Practitioner Scientists

Two FSR/E practitioners, one a production scientist and one a behavioral
scientist, will assist the coordinator on a full-time basis. These indi-
viduals are charged with the actual provision of technical assistance to
missions, and, to the extent possible, at least one of the two will be on
each technical assistance team. These scientist-practitioners will work
with the coordinator to write brief presentations of results for publica-
tion in the newsletter and-to prepare the field guidelines based on techni-
cal assistance experiences. In the course of their work, they will also
identify pertinent titles in the FSR/E literature for inclusion in the
.document center and in the annual bibliography. When absent, the coordina-
tor will, with the approval of the project leader, name one of these indi-
vidmuals as acting coordinator, in charge of handling mission requests.

These practitioner-scientists will be middle-level professionals with ex-
perience in national or international farming systems programs. Ideally,
this means at least two years of farming-systems work in LDCs apiece. Each
should have some experience in the development field, either in project de-
sign and evaluation or in field implementation. And, each should speak
either French or Spanish at a level equivalent to the FSI 3.

Support Staff

One full-time secretary will assist the core staff for technical assis-
tance. The secretary will type reports, handle daily office affairs, and
perform those management tasks that the coordinator deems appropriate.

Coordinator for Training and Networking

One coordinator for training and networking will manage those project ac-
tivities that deal most directly with institution-building. The major


responsibility of this individual is to promote informal FSR/E networks in
each region, to initiate the regional workshops with the advice and consent
of the regional committee, and to organize the logistics of the training
sessions, the timely publication of the newsletter and annotated biblio-
graphy, the provision of duplicate copies of all pertinent FSR/E documents
to the S&T/DIU center, and the provision of the list of bibliography
titles for annotation to S&T/DIU.

The position of coordinator for training and networking requires not only
managerial skills and familiarity with the percepts of FSR/E but also
extensive experience abroad in facilitating the development of regional
networks. This individual should have had prior experience at working
with and through host country governments in order to organize a working
body. It is extremely desirable that this experience have been gained in
Africa, given the relatively greater need for networking on that continent.
For this same reason, the coordinator should speak French at the level of
an FSI 3, preferably at the level of an FSI 4. Disciplinary specializa-
tion, however, is not decisive. The individual might be a production
scientist, such as an agronomist or livestock specialist; he might be a
political scientist; or, for another example, he might be a communications
specialist with experience in agricultural production. The pertinent
qualifications in this case are first-hand experience at institution-
building, and FSR/E training and managerial skills, and language ability.

Training Consultants

The coordinator for training and networking will contract as consultants
individuals who have experience in the various FSR/E methodologies. These
individuals will develop the training modules in PY 1, and one or two of
-themvwill pilot test the practitioner course by the end of that year. To
assist the training consultants develop the modules, the coordinator may
also contract LDC practitioner-trainers of FSR/E (see Implementation, pp.
30-31). He may also contract with a generalist trainer to help establish
the format for interactive learning in adult courses.

Ideally, the individuals who develop the training modules in PY 1 should
be the same people who are contracted to conduct the training courses in
later years. Hiring, as consultants, methodological specialists experi-
enced in FSR/E to train practitioners and others is preferable to hiring
full-time generalist trainers, for specialists have extensive knowledge of
the minute details that can derail the best of programs. Moreover, the
flexibility of consultant arrangements means that each course can be
tailored better to the needs of the trainees. This is especially important
for the practitioner course, which is designed to eliminate methodological
difficulties encountered by field personnel in the actual conduct of their

Support Staff

Under the direction of the coordinator for training and networking, an
editorial assistant will prepare all copy for the newsletter--results of


technical assistance, design of the training sessions, reports of the
regional workshops, notifications of recent and important works in the
FSR/E field, as well as unsolicited materials. Though this individual
should have an interest in the development of small-farm agriculture, the
primary skills are editorial, expository skills. Though budgeted as a
single position, the duties of editorial assistance may, at the discretion
of the recipient, be discharged by more than one individual.

One secretary will assist the coordinator for training and networking in
the discharge of his duties. This secretary also will type reports,
handle daily office affairs, and perform those management tasks that the
coordinator deems appropriate. A second secretary will work with the
editorial assistant on the newsletter. This secretary will assist the
coordinator's secretary at the direction of the coordinator.

Networking Consultants

To assist the coordinator in the establishment of regional networks and to
act as resource persons for the regional workshops, the coordinator will
contract as consultants individuals who have important knowledge and con-
tacts in each region. These individuals will provide up to 12 person-
months of time each year. During this time, the consultants will act as
field representatives for the coordinator in the establishment of networks
and as resource persons for the regional workshops.

-D. Documentation Center and Annotated Bibliography

The documentation center and annotated bibliography are most easily handled.
under this project as a separate activity by S&T/DIU, under the supervision
.of-the S&T/AGR/EPP project officer. S&T/DIU will assign responsibility for
these activities to an individual in its office. The project leader is
responsible for seeing that the coordinator for training and networking
provides this S&T/DIU officer with duplicate copies of all pertinent works
on FSR/E and that the coordinator and his staff provide S&T/DIU a list of
up to 100 works for annotation by the beginning of the third quarter of
each year, so that S&T/DIU can complete its subcontract operations and
distribute the bibliography by the end of each project year.

E. Phasing of Activities

This project is designed to provide technical assistance while building
viable-national research and extension systems through assistance with
training and communications to missions, LDCs and FSR/E practitioners.
Though all project activities commence at the same time, some activities
require more preparation or "spade work" than others, so that the first
outputs of some activities are delivered later than others. (An illustra-
tive timeline for project activities is provided in Diagram 2.)


Diagram 2; Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities

11. l.1111A.., ,.;I:.l::..: Thirty p)!son-nol n o lOf al inc Iiltl b, -I "t .1Ionl roltty-five preon-l onthp of qlelitaine will be provided to
.It r|htr r.qu.t. Cn 1.iltLnt -o1t.r wfll *r h It .l H littndol oitcul (11e4 ttcoonndtlona miLston. t thLr request. Con.ilt.lnt rote.r will hb. *epnd.d.
rill bt pr.l'rn"t l*,d ditihrtl ord.

"rfla.ll t r-TI thlrl. lv. U IP.;.1F IIt.glluJ~ 0 .oodt ltp tw a.f-week prlettiolner cofrsae ani twI Io e week alminleltrt ', r

V. ., ,,A

.......lAI. tA 0 .t .. ,

-,* II ... .

Y 3 f a A,

wInItii~fir il I.. I ..
0 '"4" t"ttfLt; ff

0 tf 0ff .f tf f fefi *i !
ft... 4 f ft-

ti H *I.Cfl l i n, I o, Pt t n jA D t, J *r l
0 o 0H MI

0.* .0 I0-

611111 Il huln 14

ftflt.I IfliAIll ftf f~ 09. t



52 -;

??3=3es ;*353i=a

?::jtSC Cea: re:v -
i< r: '-evl ?atio

3 a?|: "tnga

?:;:acc Coelstf:
..eac'.n eva.l .:ia:r
su-,r*s and rann.
t'or. ?lan -rsnacted
a=d -r.aavd

Pr|jes C: ast:a

... 2. .a3..


.::'.i. =ec

==,4aces .

730 3


:-lola. L



VoL. 3. .a. &

a1-. 4. O.

r~OO __________________ _____

I*~l. rl:cr4Cio44 (3)

i..041 43O4O 1

~-s:~ a4514

Z.g--=n. *4oraap (1)

Re.ic:al workshopss (4)

Re.oVal arshcps (2)
:a=Ct AMr.C

?:ac::!;,.r 4-4-



?=ac, l4=.r 1 a

Practitioner and

P-Cm-Ita1 an





,i I





ToL. 3. so

V o. 3. Sa. 3

?|Zraject ;C:::_t

Va7. No. N1

- eco : C = :

5litr.vs ad 4nl ;
7ork Paun prsancmd4
a9d rviwed


gi ro~e~ src-. 0"

a~t o..r~. .err ?1..a 7o1. 3

: !o. A
iH ri-T. ; i;i;--: ?-.* i s -

Tol. 3. 'Ja. |
distn.Su;* I

Vol. 3. o. 2

Tol.. .am.3

ag;31181 ..orsibo;s (.)

lagiLnal *orksihap (:)
Lat Ameriea



i "


1 .- -

7 ma.r'tg: .;Cx ?LIE-

I i


017rojec. Cot:-*4
'7 TiCSC;=1:

I1 .

?s2c:.isn0 anad

?:ac-L:cor and
A- =a:;-





?rlc~' c'

Technical Assistance

Technical assistance begins at the outset of this project, at least by the
second month of PY 1. This scheduling reflects both the immediate and con-
tinuing estimated need for technical assistance and the experience the
Agency and recipient institutions already have in this type of activity.
Even so, technical assistance is scheduled to increase from 30 to 60
person-months in the first three years of this project. This phased in-
crease acknowledges Agency experience with mission demand for technical
assistance from central projects: typically, more missions make greater
use of central assistance projects over time. Thus, more requests for
assistance are expected once the project is underway than at the outset.

The lower level of technical assistance effort in the first two years of
this project will free more time for the project staff to organize the com-
parative evaluations (Table 1). It is especially important that the staff
develop a guideline on alternative methodologies as soon as possible, for
an understanding of why different techniques have evolved in distinct set-
tings underlies all attempts to prescribe and implement remedial actions.
Moreover, the other general issues (e.g., benefit-cost analyses, managerial
concerns) can be explicated in practical terms only once differences in
methodologies have been sorted out. Thus, a methodological guideline will
be prepared and distributed during PY 1. The technical assistance core
staff will be then responsible for completing at least one additional
guideline-each subsequent year.

Table 1: Allocation of Staff Time for Technical Assistance,
PYs 1-5 (in person-months)

Technical Assistance
Project Field Reports and Technical Assistance Field Services
Year Services Guidelines
Staff Short-term Medium-Term Subtotal
Consultants Consultants

1 30 26 10 8 12 30
2 45 24 12 21 12 45
3 60 20 16 32 12 60
4 60 20 16 32 12 60
5 60 20 16 32 12 60

Totals 255 110 70 125 60 255


The use of consultants for technical assistance presumes that the coordina-
tor and his staff will build a roster of FSR/E experts that includes not
only the staffs of the recipient institution but outside consultants (U.S.
and LDC) as well. To facilitate this activity, the coordinator should
develop criteria for the selection of FSR/E consultants during the first
months of PY 1. Thereupon, the coordinator can expand the roster, which is
naturally a continuous, if sporadic, process. The coordinator will provide
the S&T project officer with the resumes of all individuals on this roster,
so that the project officer and deputy project officer will be better able
to evaluate for approval the composition of all technical assistance teams.


To initiate the training program requires development of training modules
for both the practitioner and the administrator courses. The training
modules will be developed during PY 1 by experienced FSR/E trainers on the
basis of available materials* and with the assistance of LDC and interna-
tional agricultural research center personnel experienced in FSR/E pro-
grams. In the first six months of PY 1, the FSR/E trainer-consultants will
review the FSR/E literature and organize the training modules. In the
development of these materials, the FRS/E trainers will have for one month
the counsel of six FSR/E practitioners who work in LDC programs and who
have themselves developed courses in this subject. These design consul-
tants will be selected to provide a range of geographic experience and
...... programmatic knowledge. Ideally, two individuals will be contracted from
each of the three major geographic regions, namely, Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. Further, at least one but preferably both of the individuals from
each region will have worked in a national FSR/E program. If only one con-
sultant has experience in a national FSR/E program, the other should have

There already exists extensive literature on actual FSR/E programs that
can serve as a basis for the training courses. The Agency, for example,
has funded several overviews of FSR/E programs, including the three-volume
"Farming Systems Development" by Colorado State University and,"Farming
Systems Research: A Critical Appraisal" by Gilbert, Norman and Winch,
which is published in the Michigan State University Rural Development
series, funded by the S&T/RAD Alternative Rural Development Strategies con-
tract. The Agency has also funded reviews of national FSR/E programs,
including "Central America: Small-Farmer Cropping Systems" in the PPC/E/S
Impact Evaluation series, and "Farming Systems Research (FSR) in Honduras,
1977-91: A Case Study" by Gait, Diaz, and Contreras, also in the Michigan
State Rural Development series. At the same time, FSR/E specialists at the
international agricultural research centers have produced a number of -not-
able works, including Michael Collinson's "Planning Technologies Appropri-
ate to Farmers; Concepts and Procedures" (CIMMYT) and Zandstra, Price,
Litsinger, and Morris' "A Methodology for On-Farm Cropping Systems
Research" (IRRI).


worked in the FSR/E program of an international agricultural research cen-
ter in that region. This mix of professionals will ensure the widest
possible range of pertinent experiences for developing and refining the
practitioner and administrator courses.

Once developed, the courses will be pilot tested during the last quarter of
PY 1. Ideally, the initial course for the practitioners and the one for
administrators and educators will each take place at a location that will
permit the enrollment as course participants of LDC persons with FSR/E ex-
perience. The enrollment in the first course of some participants with
such experience will strengthen early feedback to trainers. This first
evaluation of course content, its perceived practical value, and the train-
ing team's performance by participants with some FSR/E experience will help
better "fine tune" the program than would be the case if only participants
without FSR/E experience were selected for the initial courses.

While the FSR/E trainer-consultants are developing their courses during the
first half of PY 1, the coordinator for training and networking will iden-
tify a training program, arrange financial and logistic details, and select
the participants for the pilot course, in consultation with appropriate
persons in the regional bureaus, interested mission, and LDC. This organi-
zational work is a continuing responsibility of the coordinator. In recog-
.nition of the greater difficulty often encountered at the beginning of any
tnew endeavor, the training courses will begin with one cycle in PY 1,
increasing to two cycles in-PY 2; and then to three cycles in each of the
subsequent years.

While the coordinator has responsibility for organizational issues and the
trainers have responsibility for substantive matters, it is important that
the training consultants all work together in revising the training courses
and disseminating relevant experiences. Consequently, in theory and in
practice, these positions are collegial.

Regional Workshops

Like training, the regional workshops activity of this project must begin
slowly and expand over time. Thus, the number of workshops to be held
increases each year, from one in PY 1, to three in PY 2, to five in PY 3,
to seven in PYs 4 and 5. The workshops will be initiated in those areas
in greatest need of support. For this reason, the workshop in PY 1 may be
held in Africa, with one African and one Latin American region added in PY
2. The regional workshops to be initiated in PY 3 will be determined by
the project manager and the recipient during the second year of this

To initiate workshops in PY 1, the coordinator for training and networking
would, for example, consult with the Africa Bureau in order to identify
priority regions, and with the Bureau and its missions in order to identify
those countries in each priority region with a strong FSR/E program. This


stipulation is necessary because the FSR/E network and the workshops must
have leadership from people working in national FSR/E programs. These
people should also be from the region. Once the priority regions are iden-
tified, the coordinator will consult with the missions, ministries, and
agricultural research centers in these regions in order to help organize
the first workshops. The regional network committee will assume much of
this responsibility during the course of the first workshop, so that the
coordinator will be freer to focus on initiating new networks and workshop
activities in other regions. In other words, the coordinator will help
establish the FSR/E network committee and will act as its administrator
only as long as necessary and in most cases no longer than six months
after the first regional workshop.

Each network will require a center of operations. This center must be
based at an institution within the region that has or is developing an
FSR/E program. This stipulation helps ensure that the networking and
workshop activities planned under this project become part of an on-going
effort in the region without further proliferation of new regional hier-
archies. The coordinator for training and networking will be responsible
for locating the operations of the regional networks in existing institu-
tions as part of his work in initiating those networks.


During the first six months of PY 1, the editorial-assistant and his coor-
dinator will determine the format of the newsletter, arrange for transla-
tion, publication, and distribution, and compile the initial mailing list,
which will include LDC practitioners and administrators as well as U.S.
FSR/E specialists. The compilation of the mailing list will be done in
collaboration with the coordinator for technical assistance, who will at
that time be putting together the roster of FSR/E practitioner-consultants.

Once this organizational work is completed, the newsletter will be pub-
lished quarterly, beginning with month 6 of PY 1. As has already been dis-
cussed, the newsletter will serve mostly as an outlet for information gen-
erated by the project--brief reports of technical assistance activities,
comparative assessments of different aspects of FSR/E programs, reports
from the regional workshops.

Documentation Center and Annotated Bibliography

The -ore project staff will identify pertinent titles in the FSR/E litera-
ture and provide duplicate copies of these documents to S&T/DIU for the
documentation center. By the end of the third quarter of each project
year, the staff will provide S&T/DIU a list of titles for the annotated
bibliography. These two activities can be performed by the staff as a
natural part of their other responsibilities.


S&T/DIU has functioning documentation and annotation systems. These sys-
tems work well, according to AID mission personnel who have used them.
There are, therefore, no further implementation problems anticipated, once
the recipients provide duplicate copies of all relevant works to the
S&T/DIU center.


A project that is designed to assist and foster diverse national efforts
must be constantly monitored to ensure that its focus remains on the prac-
titioners and their needs in serving their clients, the small farmers.
Although only the project core staff can perform such continuous monitor-
ing, even the most dedicated and knowledgeable staff can benefit from
periodic, external reviews. Therefore, this evaluation plan combines con-
tinuous internal monitoring with independent external evaluations at
critical points in the course of the project.

This FSR/E project provides services to several types of users--missions
and LDC governments, trainees,.workshop participants, newsletter readers.
Each of these users will be requested to assess the usefulness of the ser-
vice to them. Missions that request technical assistance will be asked to
rate the actual composition of the team in teems of its original require-
ments, the pertinence of the teams' recommendations for the solution of
the specific problem, and the helpfulness of the team members on other
matters of mission interest. Trainees will be asked to-complete a form---...-
that inquires into the perceived usefulness of the course--the topics
treated and not treated, the relevance or irrelevance of the training
-materials, particularly strong, weak, or even missing topics--and the
effectiveness of the trainers. Workshop participants will be asked to
-rate the usefulness of the working sessions and monitoring tours and to
suggest topics for further working sessions. And, newsletter readers will
be asked for their preference in types of articles. These user evalua-
tions will be compiled quarterly under the direction of the appropriate

The project leader will provide these quarterly reports to the project
officers in sufficient time for distribution to the project committee
members before their quarterly meetings. In addition, the project leader
will provide the AID project officers a brief but complete accounting of
activities undertaken in the previous quarter and of those contemplated
for the coming quarter, including, in both cases, the extent and nature of
mission add-ons. The project committee will consider these reports, in
relation to the user evaluations, in its recommendations for project

For the third-quarter review each year, the project leader will provide
detailed annual summaries of work undertaken, of user evaluations, and of
time commitments of all project staff, as well as a work plan for the
up-coming project year. This work plan will be reviewed by the project
committee, which has the authority to accept or reject the plan. This
third-quarter meeting thus provides an important opportunity to review


** 1

progress in the project and to suggest greater or lesser emphasis or
redirection in project activities.

Internal monitoring through user ratings must be complemented with perio-
dic, external evaluations. Three such evaluations are scheduled during
the course of this project. The first evaluation will take place at the
end of the second year, when initial efforts may be reviewed and still be
strengthened. A second, mid-term evaluation is scheduled for the beginning
of the fourth year, when all project activities will have been underway
for at least a year. This evaluation will constitute the basis for a
recommendation to continue or discontinue the project for a second five-
year period. Finally, the end- of-project evaluation in the last quarter
of the fifth year will review and assess the accomplishments and disap-
pointments of the project. If the evaluation in PY 4 recommends continuing.
the project, this end-of-project evaluation will be used to help set the
agenda for the second phase.

These external evaluations will assess the effectiveness of the technical
assistance and the success of institution-building efforts. When neces-
sary, they will suggest changes in orientation or emphasis for the consid-
eration of the project committee. Because it is particularly important
that the evaluation teams ascertain users' opinions about the impact of the
central FSR/E program--personal interviews at a later date can gather both
more detailed information and important retrospective opinions--all inde-
pendent evaluators will make field visits to selected nations that partici-
pate in the program. The project officers are responsible for composing
these teams, on the basis of FSR/E experience, disciplinary range, and
language ability, among other considerations. Moreover, the AID project
officers, in collaboration with the project committee and evaluators, will
select the country programs to be examined.

This combination of internal monitoring with periodic reporting to the
Agency and independent evaluations at strategic points in the development
of the project is intended, and should be used, to help in the planning
and, if necessary, reprogramming of future activities.













Mission Contribution

ST Contribution

Recipient 35% overhead
on ST Contribution

1,002.9 1,222.3 1,611.1 1,946.6 2,104.8











PY 2










PY 3









PY 4










PY 5





















36 -44


A. Administrative Analysis

Expertise in farming systems research is widely dispersed among many insti-
tutions; no one university or other organization has predominant capability
in this area. The problem is how to most effectively utilize this exper-
tise. It is impractical to directly employ all or even most of the best
experts under a single contract or cooperative agreement. The other ex-
treme, direct AID contracting with individuals, would be unwieldy. Thus,
we have chosen an intermediate option, a small core staff of experts with
funds and authority to contract for the services of other experts as appro-
priate. This is judged to be the best option and may be the only feasible
one given the severe limitations on AID direct hire technical staff.

Both S&T/AGR and S&T/RAD have managed several cooperative agreements. Al-
though this instrument is relatively new to the Agency, financial and tech-
nical reporting and decision-making procedures have been refined to the
point where no special problems are anticipated. S&T/RAD, for example,
has pioneered the use of an interbureau project committee with the autho-
rity to review and approval, or reprogram, activities through an annual
review in its decentralization project with the University of California
At Berkeley.

Management of the project thus involves the active participation of two S&T
directorates, as well as the regional bureaus. The involvement of these
-various entities is necessary to ensure that project outputs will be rele-
vant to the needs of the missions and that the services rendered are high
quality. At the same time, it is imperative that one individual, in this
*case the S&T/AGR project manager, be responsible for successful execution
of project management tasks. The centering of responsibility is entirely
consistent with the usual mode of AID project management. The active
involvement of other offices and bureaus also is not new and will be
facilitated by the formal establishment of a project committee and the
inter-bureau working relationships established by the sector councils.

Similarly, from the recipient's point of view, though this project requires
a great deal of flexibility and coordination, the lines of authority
between project staff are clear. Each professional and support staff
person is formally responsible to only one of two coordinators, both of
whom are responsible to the project leader, who reports to the ST project
officer; Informally, it is important that all staff work collaboratively
for the success of the endeavor. Thus, it is the responsibility of the
appropriate superior officer, either the coordinators or the project
leader, to resolve any tensions or difficulties that may arise during the
implementation of this project.

Finally, the procedure for selecting the recipient, competitive bidding, is
the option preferred by federal procurement regulations. Furthermore, com-
petition, in this case, is expected to yield the best possible proposal..


**' ^

B. Economic Analysis

FSR/E programs promise great economic returns from relatively small invest-
ments. Indeed, this is their very raison d'etre. The returns from biolog-
ical research can be high: it is not uncommon to double usual yields. But
the cost of this research is high. And, more importantly, these experimen-
tal increases are seldom attained in everyday farming for a vast number of
particular reasons. By involving farmers early on in the process of gener-
ating and adapting agricultural technology, FSR/E not only discovers basic,
widespread production problems amenable to station research, it also
develops techniques that better accord with farmer conditions, thereby
increasing the likelihood of adoption. In other words, FSR/E is a means to
make the theoretical returns real.

FSR/E can also improve the returns on the sunk costs of station research.
Review after review has lamented the misdirection of much LDC research,
e.g., elaborate trials to determine the effects of different levels of
trace elements on particular crops that are rendered useless because they
are conducted on overfertilized station plots. FSR/E can reduce such waste
of resources and skilled personnel by introducing researchers to, and
interesting them in, the actual problems of the majority of farmers. In
such a case, the returns to station research would not only increase but
also be available to a broader segment of the farmer population.

The overall costs of FSR/E programs are relatively small. Most countries
already have research and extension systems, whatever their effectiveness.
The problem, therefore, is not to hire new personnel, but to use the exist-
ing staffs, to move some of the researchers off of the station and to in-
,volve some of the extension agents, so that they may both contribute to re-
search directions and have technology to diffuse. The solution requires
short-term training and logistical support, minor costs compared to those
of building a research station and equipping laboratories.

Although the returns from FSR/E can be great, the cost-effectiveness of
particular FSR/E methodologies has yet to be examined. There has, for
example, been a continuing debate in the last few years over the utility
(or futility) of systematic vs. informal surveys for areal diagnostics.
It is precisely to clarify and help resolve such issues that this project
will develop field recommendations on methodologies and benefit-cost
analyses, among other matters. These guidelines should help all practi-
tioners decide which alternatives promise the greatest return given a
particular country setting.

Field recommendations are but one example of the coordination that a
central project can provide all missions. The Agency has a large number
of FSR/E projects in its portfolio--over ten projects are underway in
Asia, a like number are being supported in Latin America, and nearly three
times-that number exist or are planned in Africa. In all, there are some
50 individual mission endeavors. Some of these projects will succeed, but
others will equally surely stumble or fail. A central project would be
necessary if only to help ensure success in all these efforts. But the


role of a central project is greater, for by assisting one mission this
project can help missions in all regions by sharing the lessons learned in
each experience. As noted earlier, comparative evaluation is a fundamental
and important rationale for all central projects.

Each activity in this project has been deemed necessary and useful by vari-
ous missions and their regional bureaus. Moreover, each activity has been
designed for flexibility and continuity in order to eliminate duplication
and to extend resources. Should users nonetheless fault a particular ser-
vice, the annual review system permits a redirection or elimination of
that activity. This system is the only way to ensure the usefulness of
activities whose benefits cannot be easily monetized.

Finally, this project could be implemented under either a cooperative
agreement (rather than a contract; see section IV-B) or through the "new
mode" of in-house management. On balance, a cooperative agreement is pref-
erable. Only the recently authorized "Small Farmer Marketing Access" proj-
ect (936-1192) employs the new mode, which though theoretically feasible
has yet to be proven operationally and economically. Even if this experi-
mental approach to project implementation succeeds, it is not clear that
the approach could be extended to many projects, for in-house implementa-
tion requires a significantly larger staff than project management. In the
present case, eight persons in addition to the project officers would be
required. Such a sizable increase in AID project staff could only be
achieved through the use of RSSA and IPA arrangements, which because they
are-temporary appointments, would break the continuity deemed essential to
the success of this project. At the same time, the real cost, including
*overhead, of that staff is similar under either arrangement.

Two other considerations also favor a cooperative agreement. First, poten-
tial recipients already have experience and capabilities that would have
to be- created within AID. Many institutions have considerable experience
in technical assistance, FSR/E training, networking, workshops, and news-
letters, so that the combination of several institutions into a recipient
group would create a strong base at the outset of the project. Second,
USAID can experience unfortunate delays in contracting short-term consul-
tants that do not afflict most recipients, who could therefore provide
assistance on a more timely basis. These advantages are strong arguments
for a cooperative agreement over the new mode of in-house implementation.

The documentation center and annotated bibliography, however, are better
performed by USAID/S&T/DIU than by a recipient. Either could serve as a
repository for all documents. But only S&T/DIU now has a working system
for worldwide distribution and can ensure the availability of those
materials after the life of this project. S&T/DIU also has a subcontract-
ing system for abstracting and publishing. It would be less costly to use
the existing S&T/DIU systems for these activities than to develop these
capabilities- through a recipient. And, the quality of the abstracts would
be uniformly high, something that has proven not to be the case when recip-
ients do not maintain these capabilities.


* ** >

In summary, FSR/E promises proportionally large returns from more appropri-
ate research and improved technological adaptation, even while the advan-
tages of particular methodologies are still debated. Indeed, the promise
is so great that many LDCs and missions are already implementing such proj-
ects. In this situation, a central project can, by assisting individual
mission efforts, comparatively evaluate program experiences in order to
develop recommendations that will be useful to missions in all regions.
Finally, due to the experience and capabilities of potential recipients,
as well as to staffing patterns within USAID, this project is best imple-
mented through a cooperative agreement, with the exception of the documen-
tation center and annotated bibliography, which can be managed better by

C. Social Analysis

Farming systems projects accord fully with Section 103A (Agricultural Re-
search) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1975. The
Act expresses the very aims of the FSR/E approach: to develop or adapt
agricultural interventions for small farmers, given the panopoly of fac-
tors that impinge on their operations. Further, FSR/E expressly designs
interventions that fit existing production systems and that disrupt exist-
ing patterns as little as possible in the short run. Insofar as FSR/E has
evolved primarily to serve limited resource farmers better, application of
the approach will probably lessen inequality.

The primary beneficiaries of this project are the FSR/E practitioners them-
selves, for the true benefit of this project lies in the establishment and
strengthening of FSR/E programs in developing countries. However, it is
neither possible nor intended to assist all agricultural practitioners in
any country. This project aims to establish and support in as many coun-
tries as possible a cadre of working professionals who can then further the
evolution of a national farming systems program. Thus, in time, those
interested colleagues who were not a part of this project can benefit

The ultimate beneficiaries of this project are the small or limited re-
source farmers to whom farming systems research and extension programs are
directed. Once established, an FSR/E program will help to orient research
priorities toward the concerns and needs of the small farmer. It will
thereby develop technologies that will improve small-farm production and
raise-.he standard of living of small farmers. Though these benefits are
indirect, they are, in the final analysis, the reason for fanning systems
research and extension programs.

The Role of Women in Development

Women work on and manage small farms in most developing countries. In
some, women perform most of the basic agricultural activities. Nonethe-
less, most traditional research and extension work has overlooked the sig-
nificant role of women in agricultural and livestock production. FFR/E
should help rectify this situation. Inasmuch as FSR/E begins and e: is



with assessments of local agronomic and socio-economic conditions, includ-
ing the division of labor, analyses of the entire production-and-enterprise
system should improve understanding of the role of women in rural produc-
tion and thus of how best to assist them. Further, participation of the
farmers is essential in conducting the field trials. It is assumed that
researchers will conduct these trials with whoever, male or female, per-
forms the farm work. At the extension stage, women must be involved at
least to the extent that they perform the farm labor. FSR/E programs are
likely to increase the sensitivity of researchers and extension agents to
these situations.

This project will directly support these aims in several ways. The anno-
tated bibliography will include recent work focused on women farmers and
herders. The newsletter will periodically devote a section to specific
successes (or failures) of FSR/E work with women. And, in the training ef-
forts, candidates will be selected so that women agricultural agents parti-
cipate at least in proportion to their numbers.

D. Environmental Impact Statement

The activities proposed for this project fall into the area described in
environmental procedure regulations, Para. 216.2(c) "Analysis, Studies,
Academic or Investigative Research. Workshops and Meetings." These
classes-of activities will not normally require the filing of an Environ-
mental Impact Statement or the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment.
It is possible that an output of this project will be a set of procedures,
guidelines or analytical results which would lead to activities requiring
such assessment. However, the project itself only proposes analyses and
directly supportive activities. Under these guidelines, the project
clearly qualifies for a negative threshold decision.


* ,



Training Only
Country Person-Months No. of Participants Anticipated Services






Not estimated
Not estimated



Not estimated

Not estimated

Not estimated

-Tanzania 10+

Zimbabwe Not estimated

TA (evaluation), Training
TA (operational problems)
Information, TA (monitoring
TA (design), research
Training, TA (evaluation)
Training, information, TA
(operational problems)
Information, TA (implemen-
tation, evaluation)

Information, TA (design and
TA (design, implementation;
evaluation), training,
All four components



Not estimated

Bangladesh Not estimated

Indonesia Not




Not estimated

Not estimated

Not estimated

TA (implementation)

TA evaluation) & design),
TA (evaluation), training,
TA (implementation),
training, research
TA (evaluation), training





TA (design), information

Training, TA (evaluation,
TA (evaluation),
TA (design)




Procedures for ST/AGR and ST/RAD
Collaboration in the Design and Implementation
of Joint Projects

It has become increasingly obvious over time that our two.offices have
many common developmental objectives, common responsibilities, and common
program interests. It is also clear that the appropriate mix of profes-
sional talents needed to address adequately those shared concerns is avail-
able in-house if and only if there is inter-office collaboration.

The sponsorship of collaboration in the design and implementation of com-
plementary agricultural and rural development programs gained sharper focus
in the FY 82 planning cycle. Joint project committees were formed and a
joint funding mechanism was established for two major project efforts:

1. Farming Systems for Small Farmers (936-4099), and

2. Small Farmer Marketing Access (936-5315).

The PID for the Small Farmer Marketing Access has been approved by techni-
cal committees for both offices and by both the RDSC and the TPCA. A draft
PID for the Farming Systems for Small Farmers project has been circulated
-to the technical committee members for comment.

Given the encouraging results of collaboration thus far and a positive
staff attitude to continue such efforts, we have decided to establish the
following procedures concerning inter-office project collaboration. If
these two projects prove to be successful, additional opportunities for
joint activities will be explored.

1. For purposes of clarity in programming of collaborative projects,
we have agreed that one office will assume full funding responsi-
bility. Consequently, each collaboratively developed and jointly
approved Project Paper will identify the unique funding office.

2. Whereas collaborative projects will be design and implemented
jointly by ST/AGR and ST/RAD staff, one office will assume the
mandate for project management accountability (official project
file maintenance, cable traffic action, etc.).

3. In order to maintain as close collaboration as possible, we will
have bi-monthly meetings of relevant staff to review progress and
resolve implementation problems. To the extent possible these



inter-office meetings will be chaired alternately by the two
Office Directors.

4. In light of the above, we have decided that ST/RAD will assume
funding and management accountability for Small Farmer Marketing
Access and ST/AGR will assume funding and management accounta-
bility for Farming Systems for Small Farmers.

Since the two Offices have separate project approval committees (the TPCA
and RDSC) and procedures, a unified system of PID and PP approval for joint
projects must be created. We will propose to the TPCA and RDSC that a sin-
gle joint committee of either TPCA/RDSC members or appointed representa-
tives to a sub-committee be delegated responsibility for such approval.

/s/ D.R.F.
Donald R. Fiester
Office of Agriculture


/s/ J.F.
Jerome French
Office of Rural Development and
Development Administration




February 4, 1982


TO: DAA/AFR, Mr. W. Haven North

FROM: S&T/FA, J. S. Robins /s/ JSR
S&T/HR, Ruth Zagorin /s/ RZ

SUBJECT: Relationship of S&T and AFR (CIMMYT) Farming Systems Research

S&T/AGR and S&T/RAD are developing an FSR project (936-4099) with a project
committee drawn from all Bureaus. The Africa Bureau will be the major re-
cipient of support services provided by this project, at least in its early
implementation. Thus, AFR/DR/ARD has been and will continue to be the most
heavily involved of any of the Regional Bureau offices in defining and
guiding the PP to completion and implementation. We are grateful for their
support and special assistance in helping us move forward.

We have also reviewed the AFR (CIMMYT) FSR unsolicited proposal for support
of AID FSR projects and national institutions in Eastern and Southern
Africa. We met with the proposed project leader Michael Collinson in Janu-
ary- when he was in transit from consultation in CIMMYT/Mexico to his post
in Nairobi. We do not find any conflict in the proposals. The CIMMYT
-project will increase technical assistance, regional networks for training
and workshops, and provide some documentation of FSR experiences and metho-
dology-in Eastern and Southern Africa. The FSR Project Advisory Committee
will also oversee the CLMMYT activity in order to assure complementarity
and coordination of the activities under both projects. The S&T/FSR proj-
ect will coordinate support for all African missions in (a) technical
assistance, (b) networking and training, (c) workshops, and (d) research on
FSR methodology.

We would hope that some arrangement may develop near the end of the AFR
(CIMMYT) FSR project wherein that activity would be completely integrated
with the S&T/FSR project. Until then, we will all be giving special atten-
tion to the complementarity of the two efforts.

cc: AFR/DR, John Koehring
AFR/DR, Lawrence Heilman
AFR/DR, Lane Holdcroft
SAA/S&T, Nyle Brady
S&T/AGR, Donald Fiester
S&T/RAD, Jerome French
S&T/AGR, Richard Suttor



Prolac Tili & Number: FARMIUG SYSTDIS RESIEA~tII AND EX.ENSiON (9-16-41d99)
P ct Titr Num or

Lils of rofec: 86
From FY 2 to FY
Total U.S. Funding J7.? &!L,
Oat Prepared: H.rch 15. 182

Piogram or Sector Goal: The broader ohjective to
which this project conltibutes:

To strengthen tlhe capabilitiea in small.
farm development of IJIC agricultural
research and extension InstLitLuions.

Project Purpose:

To support tile Improved design,
Implementation, and evaluation of
farnln g-systemss-resesarchl-and extension
(FSR/E) activities.

1. Appropriate, cost-effective miethlo l-
ogles for executing FS approaches to
research, training, and extension.
2. Personnel trained in FSR/E appro1clhiw
and perspectives.
3. Organizational structures and
coordination mechanisms developed
for different circ instances,
including linkages ulthlln and bet-
ween research, tramnllng and exteln-
slon units anil farmers.
4. Budgetary, logistical, staffing,
and sltpervlsory work-plannlnag and
control mechian l sm are developed
for varying country sitllations for
the support of FSI/E: approaches.
5. Iecordlin of lessons of above
expert ence.
6. DI)ssemliiaLlon of lessons learned.

1 Teichntcal aissLtanice for conanlllt nlll I
design, inpllement.t lton, anid leva lu:t oni
of FSI/El approaclies.
2.Tiraiinig of participants.
3.Operating funds for dociumenlatlloln,
workshops, and conferences.
4.Project management.
5.Project evaluation.

SOitC IIVLY VEtIItiAflit It!ti1Alr'f S
f.ctasris of oal Achilnvr.nIeIUt:
i, lntprnov'( ,onimlnuiitlica t inis and

1ri1: tril nir1 l fti itut loins
within eal l t count ry an among

2. 1:;Itelii.ce of mintilit sclplinarn
1 i;n; I I';ei ld In mil al-fartoi
pirodllct loln a.lll il terpr Ie
I'.v l l pl .
'I. Improv.dI res.atrrh capability
:;I;i I I-I'itrn prl'uIn:t ion.

Coltiiia.s Ih't w' I itl it.atle i poe has isen
rhlehiv.l: tInd i ip rEcjct statlls.
1. :i;tabl i'ilutiltit' ir tiablie F!;lt/
pijorl'ani lWthin erxistitg I.D)C
lust ilillt Inns.
2. Humlnrr of niltt il (tc: Ipinary
research teams composed of field
plrsilonnrlll from research and
:IlI etnslona es.
3. E liet .-iiinliiat lin antill conduct of on-
l-I ri ara l.i
4 lihprovtdiI logistical rsuiport for
IfS/F I arms.
I5. leImroved work acliedutlng for
I:lt/E l l ,ams.
i. ':; n Ih ll I ral irall Izat lonal manage-
ii'nt ol F'.i/E teams.


- .. ---- ---------. ________ rlale- -

1. Annual reports of I.DC agricultural
Irst llit tons.
2. iiiarterly and annutnl reports to
project officer.
3. liser evalllatloiis of project servlcce
4. Periodic external evaluations of
proulect activities.

1. Annual reports of 1.1K agricultural
I nIt itution.
2. lQuarterly and annual reports to
project officer.
3. liser evaluations of project services
4. Periodic external evaluations of
project activities.


Mgnhllitlli ol Oultpu i:
1. 211 IJM)( atr It I tlIrra Institu tiona s re-'olved FSR/E technical
ai!;;istnillr at mission request.
2. 1;i pract It loner courses and 12
:ialiiiH lst rator :courses, tailored
toi part Icipants' needs.
'I. I've aill:flytic iapers'r with recom-
Iu sI1lia )l ion for field programs.
4. Ilt newi';letters, qpiarterly after
lltllll I ) If I Y I, wtll I a d strllm-
I ion ol 11000 'oplecq In Elig llI ,
~llll alhd Spanllll h.
i. 'iivln Informal ro. glonali
i..lnoml I I 'i.s
I. 'I r ):iii .ll wt orlkslops.
7. I'ive a siiiltnatril hlhi lograpililcs,
ilrlio with up lo 101) pert lent
ili If; In .1ih Fi;R/t. I Iterature.
II. Oi'ni(plt 'e collect lon of pert n-
nil It';l/ miattl rlaln, ulth ioen
:lrl';s t di; ring l si, ;l after this'

liititi' a'i>,i ,in lair -it (Tyvpi l nI Os antly) ((I(o )
1. r, nhli .ll A:; ll ;i iriist: $ 1,'(t67.1
2. App itl rHi sh 621).2
1I. T'i lni i 99/4.2
4. 'Lurkilsk Unitklhopsiti 1,472.2
'i. th.iu l Ier 259.0
6. I11il llori.rally 202.5
7. lirn]ject miianageiinrilit 18/4./4
1. :val iual ti on 4 3'1.1
Siubtl.ll.a $ 5.842.7
V'iZ Ovirlihad 2,044.9
ST TriTA. $ 7,8/ .6

1. li'l rterly and annual reports to
project officer.
2. Miller evaluations of project services.
3. Periodic external evaluatlods of
project activities.

I. ItQairtrerly andl antnlal reports to
IISAIU project oifilcor.
2. I ler evaluitlionlllH ain financial info-
i nfona t lonl.
3. Pertiode external evaluations of
prollect activities.
4. Audits of project records and

I _-0

Assumption for achlievig t al ltarall:
1. liTe physical resources In lhe
rural areas have poten.ltlat for
for development.
2. Small farmers uant to tllprove
their prnldect Ion and llvllpi
conduit lons.
3. Government policies endorse anld
support small-farm programs.
4. LDC Inslltillt lot i l narr; anl'ry liit
permit internlaenry cootiilnalt on.

Assumptions for achieving purpose:
1. National FSR/E programs receive
necessary coatlnt l ous tlll ..nlit.
2. Local farmling systems are insiler-
stood before developing or
adapting teicltologles.
3. FSRI/ practit loners teal: nw or
adapted teclihnlloRles wllh
farmers on farmers' fields.
4. Extension service participates
In on-faris experimental Ion.

Assmnptlom for achieving outputs:
I. Commitment on a:lrt of nal lonal
policy makers, admilnistirators,
and practitioners to support
FSR/E approach.
2. Basic agricultural research
capability already in place.
3. Exist ing outre.lch programs
working succeuafil.lly wlth
target popullt Ions.
4. tMisiots tndc 1i host colitri e
demonst rat e carnl l i mest Lit
tralnhln acrtlI'ltlR by frindina
participant costs.
5. Hislson and lost conitrles
demonstrate cosunlittmentl to net-
working lIy fulndhig half of work-
shop participant travel costs.
6. Present S'I'/I)IU mandate relmaIns
unchanged at lenJ t Itlrouglh life
of project.

Auumptiont for providJng Inputl:
1. LDU agencies meel budgetary corumit-
ments to support FSR/I programs.
2. FSR/l cal be cuHt effective.
3. Qualified FSR/E experts are
recruited for TA and tralinfil.a
4. At least five, and preferably tell.
years are allowed to develop tile


---------- -------------------t I




smrungarre n e