• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Foreword
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Management effectiveness
 Development importance
 Collaboration and linkages
 Cost effectiveness
 The planning process
 Peer review
 Budget constraints
 Summary of conclusions
 Senior agriculture advisor...
 Science advisor report
 Scope of work






Title: Collaborative research support program review study
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055446/00001
 Material Information
Title: Collaborative research support program review study
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Hogan, Edward B
Rachie, Kenneth O.
Robins, John S.
Publisher: University of Florida
 Subjects
Subject: Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
University of Florida.   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055446
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    Foreword
        Page i
    Executive summary
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Management effectiveness
        Page 1
        Management structure
            Page 2
        AID management role
            Page 2
        Management operations
            Page 3
        Project development relevance
            Page 4
        Managment complexity and costs
            Page 5
            Page 6
    Development importance
        Page 7
        Resource priorities
            Page 7
        Relationship to IARC research
            Page 8
        Related issues
            Page 8
            Limitations on research alternatives
                Page 9
            Research results
                Page 10
        Research effectiveness
            Page 11
    Collaboration and linkages
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        University linkages
            Page 12
        Host country linkages
            Page 12
        CRSP/IARC linkages
            Page 15
            Page 16
        Linkages among CRSP
            Page 17
        CRSP/USAID linkages
            Page 17
            Territorial issues
                Page 18
            CDSS and CRSP research
                Page 18
            Extension
                Page 19
            Logistic support
                Page 19
        Distribution of research findings
            Page 20
    Cost effectiveness
        Page 21
        Overhead
            Page 21
        Subgrant overhead
            Page 21
        Cost sharing
            Page 22
        Education costs
            Page 22
            Page 23
    The planning process
        Page 24
    Peer review
        Page 25
    Budget constraints
        Page 26
    Summary of conclusions
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Senior agriculture advisor report
        A 1
        A 2
        A 3
        A 4
        A 5
        A 6
        A 7
        A 8
        A 9
        A 10
        A 11
        A 12
        A 13
        A 14
        A 15
        A 16
        A 17
        A 18
        A 19
        A 20
        A 21
        A 22
        A 23
        A 24
        A 25
        A 26
    Science advisor report
        B-a
        B-b
        B 1
        B 2
        B 3
        B 4
        B 5
        B 6
        B 7
        B 8
        B 9
        B 10
        B 11
        B 12
        B 13
        B 14
        B 15
        B 16
        B 17
        B 18
        B 19
        B 20
        B 21
        B 22
        B 23
        B 24
        B 25
        B 26
        B 27
        B 28
        B 29
        B 30
    Scope of work
        C 1
        C 2
        C 3
Full Text












COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT

PROGRAM REVIEW STUDY


TEAM MEMBERS:
Dr. Edward B. Hogan, Team Leader

Dr. Kenneth 0. Rachie, Research Aduisor

Dr. John S. Robins, Senior Agriculture Advisor






* s


TABLE OF CONTENTS




Forward i

Executive Summary ii

I. Introduction 1

II. Management Effectiveness 1
A. Management Structure 2
B. AID Management Role 2
C. Management Operations 3
D. Project Development Relevance 4
E. Management Complexity and Costs 5

III. Development Importance 7
A.Resource Priorities 7
B. Relationship to IARC Research 8
C. Related Issues 8
1. Limitations on Research Alternatives 9
2. Research Results 10
D. Research Effectiveness 11

IV. Collaboration and Linkages 12
A. University Linkages 12
B. Host Country Linkages 12
C. CRSP/IARC Linkages 15
D. Linkages Among CRSP 17
E. CRSP/USAID Linkages 17
1. Territorial Issues 18
2. CDSS and CRSP Research 18
3. Extension 19
4. Logistic Support 19
F. Distribution of Research Findings 20

U. Cost Effectiveness 21
A. Overhead 21
B. Subgrant Overhead 21
C. Cost Sharing 22






D. Education Costs

UI. The Planning Process

VII. Peer Review

UIII. Budget Constraints

IX. Summary of Conclusions

Senior Agriculture Advisor Report

Science Advisor Report

Scope of Work


22

24

25

26

27

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C









Forward


This study consists of three major sections plus an
executive summary and a scope of work. The three major
sections are: 1) Senior Agriculture Advisor's Report on the
CRSP Assessment by Dr. John S. Robins; 2) Research Advisor's
Report For the CRSP Management Review by Dr. Kenneth O. Rachie;
and 3) the Collaborative Research Support Program Review paper
by Dr. Edward B. Hogan. The paper by Hogan draws substantially
on the contents of the papers by Robins and Rachie and contains
the major findings of the study.









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.



1. Research Direction and Accomplishment
The research undertaken by the four CRSP reviewed
appears to be effectively addressing important research
problems in less developed countries. Participation in the
CRSP has also expanded the research horizons for U.S.
researchers, some of whom had been rather insular in their
outlook. This has provided the basis for increasing the
technological options available to U.S. agriculture. It is
interesting to not that one U.S. growers association has
proposed providing funding for a CRSP research activity.
The CRSP are consistent with AID food and agriculture
policies and strategies. They are focused on areas which have
generally received less than adequate attention, for the most
part, by less developed country national research organizations
and are only partially addressed by International Agriculture
Research Centers. The research addresses commodity and soil
problems which are largely associated with farming by small
operators in the semi-arid and humid tropics. As the CRSP must
undertake research which is potentially beneficial to both less
developed country and American agriculture, there are some
important constraint areas in tropical agriculture needing
research which the CRSP cannot address. Because of the
collaborative requirements of the CRSP it is sometimes
difficult for them to locate field research activities where
research needs are great. This has been true with respect to
Africa south of the Sahara but the CRSP are using various
methods of coping with this situation.
The quality of the research undertaken has been judged
by the Research Advisor to "with few exceptions, appear to be
of excellent quality and quantity." Other members of the
review team concur in this assessment as do the International
Agriculture Research Center scientists and administrators
interviewed. The research advisor's report attached contains a
listing of some of the considerable accomplishments of the CRSP
to date. The CRSP research programs appear to be of high
priority in terms of importance to the development of








agriculture in less developed countries. Some improvement in
the process for assuring the development priority of individual
projects needs to be undertaken as addressed in the body of
this paper.
The intensive review process carried out by BIFAD and
AID was effective in identifying priorities, research
capability of U.S. universities in priority areas and in
developing operationally effective plans. The review mechanism
established by each CRSP appears to be operating effectively.
Responsibility for reviews varies widely among the CRSP
management units and often differs from that envisioned in the
Guidelines for the Collaborative Research Program.
2. Linkages.
The process of establishing effective linkages with
International Agriculture Research Centers and host country
institutions has been evolving in a positive manner since
establishment of the CRSP. Under pressure of getting CRSP
activities started, the collaboration with host country
scientific organizations and individuals in the planning and
early implementation of programs appears to have been less than
desirable. This was less true where the U.S. institution had a
history of working in the country where research was sited than
was true where new ground was being broken. Over time,
collaboration among host countries and U.S. universities has
substantially improved and appears to be quite satisfactory.
Formal agreements between host countries and U. S.
universities exist in all instances and substantive working
relations are being appropriately developed.
Collaboration with International Agriculture Research
Centers has developed to the point where participating
institutions agree that CRSP and Center research is mutually
supportive. There are memoranda of understanding between CRSP
and a number of appropriate Centers. At the scientist level
there is effective exchange of information and materials.
Workshops have been useful in enhancing collaboration and in
disseminating scientific information though some improvement in
the latter function would be desirable.
CRSP collaborative linkages with field Missions has been
uneven. Continuing efforts by both parties are needed for each
can be of considerable value to the other's program. Both AID
and CRSP Management Entities need to devote additional effort
to USAID/CRSP linkages.
Collaboration among universities within a CRSP has been
excellent but there needs to be developed an effective system
for establishing collaborative linkages among the CRSP.
Several suggestions for improving CRSP collaboration with host
countries, field Missions and the International Agriculture


iii








Research Centers are included in the body of this paper and
attached papers. However, each of these has a monetary cost
and it is doubtful they can be achieved in a period of budget
reduction. Most important of these are the establishment of
networks for the dissemination of information, increased
communications between field Missions and CRSP and better
collaboration among CRSP.
While the CRSP are not intended to be institution
building programs, they have made a substantial contribution to
increasing research capability in less developed countries. A
major contribution to this has been the graduate research
program which has provided graduate education for some 525 less
developed country students. Another major contribution has
been through the collaborative research undertaken by U.S. and
host country scientists.
3. Management Effectiveness
The four CRSP examined have developed management systems
which have demonstrated that they can take the decisions
necessary to maintain research standards and to make program
changes required by budget reductions according to agreed upon
criteria. While all four CRSP have quite similar management
structures, they operate differently in achieving objectives.
The management systems do operate effectively in maintaining
collaboration among the universities.
CRSP costs appear to compare favorably with other
international research institutions such as the International
Agricultural Research Centers. Overhead costs appear to be
somewhat less for the CRSP and capital costs have been
substantially less than for the Centers. Overhead costs of the
CRSP are established in accordance with U.S. government
standards and average a bit more than 20 percent of the AID
grant. The subgrant system used by the CRSP does not cause a
pyramiding of overhead costs.
The CRSP do an effective job in reviewing the scientific
merit of proposed and ongoing research projects. This review
is done by the Technical Committee and/or the External
Evaluation Panel, often with assistance from the Management
Entity. There does not appear to be a formal peer review
system for reviewing research but the absence of such a formal
system does not appear to have had a negative impact on
scientific quality.
The body of this paper,(p.5), provides suggestions on
ways in which External Evaluation Panel evaluations could be
broadened for each CRSP so that the External Evaluation Panel
could make a more substantial contribution to the usefulness of
CRSP activities. The recommendation emphasizes the equal
importance of scientific quality, operational effectiveness and








development relevance in evaluations by the External Evaluation
Panel.
4. Program and Budget Issues
Finally, a word of caution. The CRSP cannot be all
things to all people. Yet, it appears that there is a
continuing tendency to expect the CRSP to broaden their
activities to include such things as extension and institution
building. Clearly, in a period of declining budgets, and
probably without declining budgets, attempting to expand the
scope of CRSP activities beyond collaborative research and the
dissemination of research results to less developed countries
and other interested parties can only lead to a diminution in
the quality of CRSP research.
As AID budgetary resources have declined so have
budgetary allocations to the CRSP. Reductions in budgets and
uncertainty with respect to future budget allocations have or
soon will reach the point where the CRSP can no longer operate
effectively. Within the near future AID and the CRSP
universities will need to come to grips with this situation.








COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM REVIEW


I. Introduction

This review of the Collaborative Research Support
Program, (CRSP) will examine the operations and effectiveness
of the CRSP focusing on the four oldest ones; Small Ruminants,
(SR), Sorghum Millet, (INTSORMIL), Bean Cowpea, (BC), and Soil
Management, (TROPSOILS). This review is not intended to
evaluate the quality of CRSP science. However, in examining an
agricultural research program, the science cannot be ignored.
This was recognized by AID when a science advisor was made a
part of the review team. It is the judgment of the science
advisor, which is concurred in by the two other members of the
review team, that the science in the four CRSP reviewed is
generally of excellent quality, (see Science Advisor report
attached). In those instances where the research by a
university and its collaborators on individual projects has
been judged to be less than acceptable, CRSP management has
both terminated projects and eliminated universities from the
program.
Similarly, the team has found, as will be illustrated
below, that the CRSP have been operated at reasonable levels of
effectiveness. Not surprisingly there were start-up problems
and operations have at times encountered difficulties.
However, as operational difficulties have occurred, they were
identified and rectified within a reasonable time frame.
Performance among and within CRSP has been neither perfect nor
uniform. But, it is the team's conclusion, at least with
respect to the four CRSP examined, that overall performance has
been quite satisfactory and that the CRSP merit continuing
programmatic and financial support from the Agency for
International Development, (AID).

II. Management Effectiveness

The first issue addressed is whether the management
system operates in a manner which provides reasonable assurance
that the science being undertaken is qualitatively satisfactory
and is concerned with important development problems. AID in
collaboration with the Board for International Food and
Agriculture Development, (BIFAD), and the CRSP universities has
approved the establishment of a fairly complex management
system to address these and other issues. The system draws on








COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM REVIEW


I. Introduction

This review of the Collaborative Research Support
Program, (CRSP) will examine the operations and effectiveness
of the CRSP focusing on the four oldest ones; Small Ruminants,
(SR), Sorghum Millet, (INTSORMIL), Bean Cowpea, (BC), and Soil
Management, (TROPSOILS). This review is not intended to
evaluate the quality of CRSP science. However, in examining an
agricultural research program, the science cannot be ignored.
This was recognized by AID when a science advisor was made a
part of the review team. It is the judgment of the science
advisor, which is concurred in by the two other members of the
review team, that the science in the four CRSP reviewed is
generally of excellent quality, (see Science Advisor report
attached). In those instances where the research by a
university and its collaborators on individual projects has
been judged to be less than acceptable, CRSP management has
both terminated projects and eliminated universities from the
program.
Similarly, the team has found, as will be illustrated
below, that the CRSP have been operated at reasonable levels of
effectiveness. Not surprisingly there were start-up problems
and operations have at times encountered difficulties.
However, as operational difficulties have occurred, they were
identified and rectified within a reasonable time frame.
Performance among and within CRSP has been neither perfect nor
uniform. But, it is the team's conclusion, at least with
respect to the four CRSP examined, that overall performance has
been quite satisfactory and that the CRSP merit continuing
programmatic and financial support from the Agency for
International Development, (AID).

II. Management Effectiveness

The first issue addressed is whether the management
system operates in a manner which provides reasonable assurance
that the science being undertaken is qualitatively satisfactory
and is concerned with important development problems. AID in
collaboration with the Board for International Food and
Agriculture Development, (BIFAD), and the CRSP universities has
approved the establishment of a fairly complex management
system to address these and other issues. The system draws on








resources which are both internal and external to the CRSP.
A. Management Structure
Within the CRSP structure there are four management
units which are responsible for administering the AID grant,
developing and carrying out CRSP policies, programs and
projects and evaluating the quality and usefulness of the
program. The components of this management system are the
Management Entity, (ME), which is responsible for AID grant
funds, for making sub-grants and for implementing the CRSP; a
Board of Directors. (Board), which is concerned with policies,
plans, budgets and progres's~'A Technical Committee, (TC), which
deals with scientific and programmatic issues; and an External
Evaluation Panel, (EEP), charged with evaluating status,
funding, progress, plans and prospects of research activities.
In addition a CRSP may decide to establish an Administrative
Council to deal with major policy issues affecting
participating universities or other organizations. Individual
CRSP have, in some instances, established other units to deal
with particular issues. An example is the Ecogeographic Zone
Council established by INTSORMIL.
External to the CRSP are AID and BIFAD/JCARD.* AID's
program and budget reviews and evaluation procedures provide
oversight and guidance to each grantee both at headquarters and
in the field. BIFAD/JCARD assist and advise AID and the
various CRSP on program policies and operations.
B. AID Management Role
AID maintains continuing relations with and oversight of
the CRSP through the Science and Technology Bureau's, (S&T),
program managers. They maintain a continuing liaison with the
ME and participate with ex officio status in Board and TC
meetings. The EEP consults with the program manager to assure
AID concerns are addressed during the course of external
evaluations. Members of the EEP are approved by AID. AID does
not get involved at the operational level except for activities
which require AID approval such as international travel and
commodity procurement.
The major AID involvement in approving CRSP activities
occurs at three stages: planning, budget allocation and the
triennial review. AID plays a leading role in all stages of
the planning process. This includes such activities as
deciding to fund a planning activity, selecting the planning
organization, preparation of a scope of work, convening
meetings and approval of the CRSP plan, the ME and the budget
proposal. During the annual AID budget allocation process the


* Joint Committee on Agricultural Research and Development








resources which are both internal and external to the CRSP.
A. Management Structure
Within the CRSP structure there are four management
units which are responsible for administering the AID grant,
developing and carrying out CRSP policies, programs and
projects and evaluating the quality and usefulness of the
program. The components of this management system are the
Management Entity, (ME), which is responsible for AID grant
funds, for making sub-grants and for implementing the CRSP; a
Board of Directors. (Board), which is concerned with policies,
plans, budgets and progres's~'A Technical Committee, (TC), which
deals with scientific and programmatic issues; and an External
Evaluation Panel, (EEP), charged with evaluating status,
funding, progress, plans and prospects of research activities.
In addition a CRSP may decide to establish an Administrative
Council to deal with major policy issues affecting
participating universities or other organizations. Individual
CRSP have, in some instances, established other units to deal
with particular issues. An example is the Ecogeographic Zone
Council established by INTSORMIL.
External to the CRSP are AID and BIFAD/JCARD.* AID's
program and budget reviews and evaluation procedures provide
oversight and guidance to each grantee both at headquarters and
in the field. BIFAD/JCARD assist and advise AID and the
various CRSP on program policies and operations.
B. AID Management Role
AID maintains continuing relations with and oversight of
the CRSP through the Science and Technology Bureau's, (S&T),
program managers. They maintain a continuing liaison with the
ME and participate with ex officio status in Board and TC
meetings. The EEP consults with the program manager to assure
AID concerns are addressed during the course of external
evaluations. Members of the EEP are approved by AID. AID does
not get involved at the operational level except for activities
which require AID approval such as international travel and
commodity procurement.
The major AID involvement in approving CRSP activities
occurs at three stages: planning, budget allocation and the
triennial review. AID plays a leading role in all stages of
the planning process. This includes such activities as
deciding to fund a planning activity, selecting the planning
organization, preparation of a scope of work, convening
meetings and approval of the CRSP plan, the ME and the budget
proposal. During the annual AID budget allocation process the


* Joint Committee on Agricultural Research and Development








activities of the CRSP are reviewed using annual reports,
evaluations and other documentation. The proposed program for
the budget year is also reviewed. Based on this assessment
AID, in consultation with BIFAD, approves the program and
budget, adjusting both as necessary.
Each CRSP is also subjected to a triennial review by
AID. The review consists of a technical evaluation and an
administrative/management review. In preparing the scope of
work for the triennial review S&T consults with the regional
bureaus, overseas Missions, host governments through the
Missions, members of the Agriculture Sector Council and BIFAD.
The purpose of the triennial review is to determine at the end
of the third year of a five year CRSP if it should be extended
for an additional three years and to approve forward funding
planning amounts.
In addition to the reviews and external evaluations, the
CRSP are subject to two other external examinations. When AID
considers it desirable, it can undertake an administrative
review of a CRSP. This is generally done when a CRSP appears
to be encountering operational problems. Two such reviews have
been undertaken. The CRSP as a whole or individual CRSP are
also subject to AID audits including those of the Inspector
General.
It appears that the system currently being employed by
AID in providing oversight and guidance to the CRSP is working
reasonably well. There seems to be no need to increase AID/W
direct involvement in the management of CRSP operations but
more periodic oversight, particularly given budget realities by
S&T personnel should be provided.
C. Management Operations
While the elements of the administration/management
system operate under a common set of guidelines developed by
the JCARD, recommended by BIFAD and approved by AID, in
practice there is a great deal of variability in the roles
carried out by the various elements of the system. Different
management units play a major role in determining the policies,
direction, composition and practices of each CRSP. The
attached reports of the Senior Agriculture Advisor and the
Research Advisor provide details about the differing ways in
which components of the management system function. The
essential point is that, by-and-large, the issues identified in
the Guidelines for the Collaborative Research Support Program,
(Guidelines), do get addressed within the management system in
a generally satisfactory manner. Operationally the management
structure functions reasonably well, though not always "by the
book". Scientific merit does get addressed and decisions about
program and budget allocations are affected by the appraisals
of scientific merit. In one CRSP it may be the EEP and in
another the TC which addresses scientific issues but it does


' "*








get done. Often it is a collaborative undertaking in which a
Board or a TC may raise questions about scientific merit which
are referred to the EEP for examination and guidance on future
actions.
That the management system does work and can make the
difficult decisions is illustrated by the ways in which the
CRSP have made program and project adjustments as budgets have
been reduced. With an initial cut of less than 10 percent the
four CRSP applied it equally among recipients o project
funds. However, when subsequent AID budget constraints
resulted in a reduction in the budget of each CRSP in an amount
of almost 20 percent, the CRSP took a quite different
approach. Reductions were made in accordance with judgments
about relative merit and priority. They were not easy decisions
to reach or to carry out but they were made and, importantly,
they were accepted by the participating organizations.
The management units which took the difficult decisions
varied widely among the CRSP. In one instance the ME, in
consultation Oith other management bodies made decisions on
where and what reductions were to be made. In other instances
it was the Board or the TC which took the lead in addressing
the budget crisis, sometimes relying on the EEP for advice and
guidance. In no instance did the CRSP management structure
take the easy way out by simply reducing all elements of the
program without regard to merit. The CRSP did use a variety of
ways to reduce costs to meet budget requirements. These
included elimination of programs or projects, reducing the
number of participating universities, changing methods of
operations, etc. It has been and is a difficult situation for
CRSP participants to cope with but, to date, they have been
willing to do what has been necessary in order to continue the
programs. It does need to be recognized that budget discipline
can be an effective tool for achieving greater program
effectiveness; but it is also true that excessive cuts can
destroy a program's usefulness.
The decisions that have been made to terminate
activities for unacceptable performance are another
illustration of the effectiveness of management operations.
For example, two BC projects, one in East Africa and one in
Latin America were terminated on recommendations of the EEP.
INTSORMIL dropped two universities from the program because of
poor performance. In some instances problems might have been.
avoided if decisions had been reached more expeditiously but
the decisions were made and unproductive activities were
eliminated from programs.
D. Project Development Relevance
One issue which needs continuing attention from the CRSP





. I 1


management structure is the matter of development relevance at
the individual research project level. As will be demonstrated
below the team does not have serious questions about the
development relevance of the four CRSP examined. Rather, such
concern as exists is related to individual research activities
within a CRSP. Within any research area there are hundreds if
not thousands of re.searchable topics, a very large number of
which will be of intellectual interest to scientist However,
only a much smaller number will have significant development
relevance. Given shortages of financial resources and a
limited number of scientists available to research development
constraints, establishing priorities in terms of development
relevance is essential.
Some lack of attention to this issue is probably
attributable, at least in part, to the Guidelines not directly
addressing this issue in citing the responsibilities of the
various management units. However, this issue has not been
ignored by the CRSP. It is to some degree addressed by the
various Global Plans which are approved both by BIFAD and AID.
More importantly, during the review process, the critical
nature of development relevance was strongly emphasized to the
team by two EEP chairmen. Further, the development of
ecogeographical zone concepts by three of the CRSP has included
consideration of development priorities. Additionally, all
research activities reviewed by the team were considered to be
developmentally relevant.
The team believes that after some initial problems the
CRSP management system has adequately addressed the development
relevance question in the four CRSP reviewed. However, the
team also believes that this this issue is so important for
research financed by AID that continuing attention is
essential. It should be one of the criteria used by the EEP
in addressing performance of a CRSP. That is, the EEP should
consider development relevance of individual research projects
to be as important as operational effectiveness and scientific
quality.
Greater emphasis on the importance of and responsibility
for establishing development priorities should be included in
the Guidelines and it should be a major element in the Global
Plan. This would largely be a matter of incorporating in the
guidelines systems for all CRSP to follow that are now part of
the practices of some CRSP. AID should take the lead in
getting guidance on development relevance of projects
incorporated in the Guidelines.
E. Management Complexity and Costs
The complexity of the management structure has raised
questions about possible conflicts and/or overlapping of








responsibility among the management units. It also raises
questions about management costs, particularly in relation to
other international research activities.
First, it appears highly likely that the complex CRSP
management structure has been of critical importance in
fostering necessary cooperation and coordination among CRSP
universities. It is a system which makes it possible for
scientists and administrators to participate satisfactorily in
the planning and decision making process. This collective
participation in management has provided an environment within
which universities not only accept but actively support the
concept of a university Management Entity which is first among
equals and legally responsible for managing the program and
accounting for all funds.
Second, there does not appear to be any unnecessary
duplication of functions among the various management units.
As indicated above a division of labor among the various
management units has emerged over time which is not necessarily
consistent with the allocation of functions as set forth in the
Guidelines. It is also true that some management units are
relatively passive. This is certainly true of at least one
Board and one T C. However, in both instances other management
units have taken up the slack so that operational effectiveness
has not been adversely affected.
Third, although the evidence that has been developed is
less complete than that which would be required for an audit,
the management costs for the CRSP do not appear to be
excessive. An earlier study by Fred 1. Mann in 1982 concluded
that total administrative/management costs for three CRSP
ranged between 17.6 and 24.5 percent of total AID program costs
for the CRSP. On the average, about 21.5 percent of AID funds
were utilized for administrative costs but this was only about
12 percent of total costs taking into consideration financial
contributions from other sources. CRSP administration
/management costs were a smaller percentage of total costs than
was the case for the International Agriculture Research
Centers, (IARC), where administration/management costs were
nearly 30 percent of total costs. It is also true that capital
costs for the CRSP were a much smaller percent of total costs
than was true for the IARC, 8.4 percent compared to 28.1
percent. An examination of data through part of fiscal year
1986 shows that CRSP expenditures on administration/management
vary from 19 to 23 percent and average about 21 percent for the
three CRSP examined earlier. Thus administrative/management
costs appear to continue at a reasonable level and to compare
favorably with those of the IARC. It should be noted, however,
that reductions in CRSP budgets because of budget stringencies









increase the share of administration/management costs in CRSP
budgets, at least in the short run. Administration/management
costs tend to be more lumpy than operating costs and it may be
more difficult to make incremental adjustments at the margin
for these costs.

III. Developmental Importance

A major issue which must be of concern to AID is whether
the CRSP are undertaking research in subject matter areas which
are really critical to the development process within the food
an agriculture sector and if the CRSP are effective means for
undertaking the research. The discussion here is focused on
the four CRSP examined during the review but, hopefully, this
will make it possible to make some useful generalizations about
CRSP and the CRSP concept.
A. Research Priorities
It is the review team's judgment that the four CRSP
examined do address critical areas of agricultural development
and food production in the tropics and that they are research
topics which most professionals engaged in agricultural
development would agree are high priority. Further, we believe
that the CRSP activities are complementary with and
supplementary to research being undertaken by the IARC. Three
major crops--wheat, rice and maize--have been excluded from the
CRSP because of the work being done on these crops by the IARC
and national research programs.
Beans, cowpeas, sorghum and millet are among the
principal annual crops produced in the sub-humid and semi-arid
tropics by small holders. Small ruminants, essentially sheep
and goats are, along with chickens, the most common livestock
owned by the small holder. They are also the most common store
of value for this farmer, at least in non-paddy rice growing
areas. From the nutritional standpoint sorghum and millet
provide the basic diet for the small holder and other rural
poor throughout much of the semi-arid developing world. For
this same group of people legumes and small ruminants, again
along with poultry, supply by far the major share of the daily
consumption of protein.
These, then, are indeed agricultural products critical
to food needs in the developing world. They are also products
which appear to be under researched. National research
activities in the developing world are largely focused on the
major grains--wheat, rice and maize--and those tropical crops
which are major items in international trade--coffee, sugar,
tea, rubber, etc. An exception would be Indian research on
millet, and to a lesser extent, sorghum.









increase the share of administration/management costs in CRSP
budgets, at least in the short run. Administration/management
costs tend to be more lumpy than operating costs and it may be
more difficult to make incremental adjustments at the margin
for these costs.

III. Developmental Importance

A major issue which must be of concern to AID is whether
the CRSP are undertaking research in subject matter areas which
are really critical to the development process within the food
an agriculture sector and if the CRSP are effective means for
undertaking the research. The discussion here is focused on
the four CRSP examined during the review but, hopefully, this
will make it possible to make some useful generalizations about
CRSP and the CRSP concept.
A. Research Priorities
It is the review team's judgment that the four CRSP
examined do address critical areas of agricultural development
and food production in the tropics and that they are research
topics which most professionals engaged in agricultural
development would agree are high priority. Further, we believe
that the CRSP activities are complementary with and
supplementary to research being undertaken by the IARC. Three
major crops--wheat, rice and maize--have been excluded from the
CRSP because of the work being done on these crops by the IARC
and national research programs.
Beans, cowpeas, sorghum and millet are among the
principal annual crops produced in the sub-humid and semi-arid
tropics by small holders. Small ruminants, essentially sheep
and goats are, along with chickens, the most common livestock
owned by the small holder. They are also the most common store
of value for this farmer, at least in non-paddy rice growing
areas. From the nutritional standpoint sorghum and millet
provide the basic diet for the small holder and other rural
poor throughout much of the semi-arid developing world. For
this same group of people legumes and small ruminants, again
along with poultry, supply by far the major share of the daily
consumption of protein.
These, then, are indeed agricultural products critical
to food needs in the developing world. They are also products
which appear to be under researched. National research
activities in the developing world are largely focused on the
major grains--wheat, rice and maize--and those tropical crops
which are major items in international trade--coffee, sugar,
tea, rubber, etc. An exception would be Indian research on
millet, and to a lesser extent, sorghum.









B. Relationship To IARC Research
Among the IARC, ICRISAT, CIAT, and IITA have as part of
their mandates work on sorghum, millet, beans and cowpeas.
Their resources--financial and scientific--are, however,
inadequate in terms of research needs. They are simply unable
to address the plethora of production constraints or the many
agroecological areas in the less developed world where these
crops are produced due either to financial or mandate
constraints. For example ICRISAT is no able to devote core
resources to research in Latin America or to devote adequate
attention to that scourge of millet, sorghum and cowpeas,
striga. IITA's work is largely in the humid and sub-humid
tropics, mainly in Africa.
ILRAD and ILCA have limited mandates and simply cannot
cover needed research on sheep and goats. ILRAD focuses mainly
on two serious animal diseases. ILCA works only on African
livestock problems with by far the largest share of its work on
cattle. National research programs in livestock, such as they
are, also are strongly biased towards cattle. Finally, the
IARC simply do not have the resources or the mandate to
undertake the basic research needed to form the underpinning
for needed technological advances. For this they must rely in
large measure on the national research programs in the
developed world, including the U.S. agriculture research
community.
The situation with respect to TROPSOILS is somewhat
different. It is not a commodity specific research activity
but, rather, one that is concerned with the management of a
basic production input, the soil and its constituent parts. To
our knowledge, it is one of only a very few international
research activities which have as their major objective solving
soil management problems in the tropics. IITA has done some
quite useful work on humid tropical soils but the resources
available for this work are not large since IITA's research
focus is mostly crop oriented. Similarly, most national
agriculture research in the less developed countries is
directed towards specific crops rather than to soil
management. The TROPSOILS CRSP thus supplements and has the
potential to enhance research on annual and perennial crops and
forages being undertaken by national research organizations,
IARC and crop and livestock CRSP.
C. Related Issues
It appears reasonable to conclude that the CRSP are
directed towards important agricultural production
constraints. There are, however, related issues which merit
consideration.









B. Relationship To IARC Research
Among the IARC, ICRISAT, CIAT, and IITA have as part of
their mandates work on sorghum, millet, beans and cowpeas.
Their resources--financial and scientific--are, however,
inadequate in terms of research needs. They are simply unable
to address the plethora of production constraints or the many
agroecological areas in the less developed world where these
crops are produced due either to financial or mandate
constraints. For example ICRISAT is no able to devote core
resources to research in Latin America or to devote adequate
attention to that scourge of millet, sorghum and cowpeas,
striga. IITA's work is largely in the humid and sub-humid
tropics, mainly in Africa.
ILRAD and ILCA have limited mandates and simply cannot
cover needed research on sheep and goats. ILRAD focuses mainly
on two serious animal diseases. ILCA works only on African
livestock problems with by far the largest share of its work on
cattle. National research programs in livestock, such as they
are, also are strongly biased towards cattle. Finally, the
IARC simply do not have the resources or the mandate to
undertake the basic research needed to form the underpinning
for needed technological advances. For this they must rely in
large measure on the national research programs in the
developed world, including the U.S. agriculture research
community.
The situation with respect to TROPSOILS is somewhat
different. It is not a commodity specific research activity
but, rather, one that is concerned with the management of a
basic production input, the soil and its constituent parts. To
our knowledge, it is one of only a very few international
research activities which have as their major objective solving
soil management problems in the tropics. IITA has done some
quite useful work on humid tropical soils but the resources
available for this work are not large since IITA's research
focus is mostly crop oriented. Similarly, most national
agriculture research in the less developed countries is
directed towards specific crops rather than to soil
management. The TROPSOILS CRSP thus supplements and has the
potential to enhance research on annual and perennial crops and
forages being undertaken by national research organizations,
IARC and crop and livestock CRSP.
C. Related Issues
It appears reasonable to conclude that the CRSP are
directed towards important agricultural production
constraints. There are, however, related issues which merit
consideration.









1. Limitations on Research Alternatives
The CRSP are intended not only to assist developing
country agriculture but to undertake programs that "take into
consideration the value to United States agriculture of such
programs,...so as to maximize the contribution to development
of agriculture in the United States and in developing
nations". This provision does limit the number of alternate
research activities that fall within the scope of the CRSP.
Thus, although plantains are an important crop for small
holders and others in the tropics, their limited importance in
American agriculture and agricultural research would make it
highly unlikely that plantains would be considered for
inclusion as a suitable subject for the CRSP. It must also be
observed that to some degree millet, goats and hair sheep are
near marginal cases, without in any way depreciating the small
but high quality research conducted at certain U.S.
agricultural universities.
The emphasis in CRSP crop research on annual row crops
and on products such as sheep, fish, bean and sorghum rather
than on subject matter areas such as soil, water, diseases,
insects, etc. is probably also due in large part to the
necessity to address research to areas which are beneficial to
the U.S. as well as less developed country agriculture. If one
looks analytically at tropical humid and semi-arid agriculture
a case can be made for the importance of focusing much research
on subject matter areas and on crops other than annual row
crops. For example, it appears likely that developing high
yielding varieties of sorghum, millet or cowpeas for the
semi-arid tropics will, for a variety of reasons, be
accomplished only over a very long period of time. The reasons
include such things as the very small research base that exists
for these commodities, the difficulty of dealing with problems
such as drought resistance and the complexities of soil
management. Rather, increases in usable yield over the near to
medium term are likely for the most part to be more dependent
on improved soil and water management practices and
significantly reduced losses due to disease, insects, weeds,
birds and other predators. This does not mean that breeding
will not play a role but that it will be directed to a variety
of objectives rather than just yield. This should not be taken
to imply that the CRSP ignore these problems. They do not.
For example, the concern of INTSORMIL and ICRISAT with striqa
is intense and does affect the allocation of resources. But it
is different to research which is focused on striga, per se,
and brings together a critical mass of scientists from a
variety of disciplines to undertake research on this particular
pest problem.









Similarly, given the nature of soil and water
constraints to annual crop production in the tropics, cropping
of perennial tree and bush crops and roots and tubers may prove
to be the preferred cropping patterns under many conditions.
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that while the CRSP are
focused on agricultural research topics critical to
agricultural development in the tropics, there are other areas
in which more research needs to be undertaken, at least some of
which falls outside the limits of the CRSP mandate.
2. Research Results
Another important aspect which needs to be considered in
looking at CRSP research activities is the time factor. It is
not likely, despite good results produced by some CRSP, that
all projects will achieve objectives in the near to medium
term. Rather it can be expected that at least 10 to 20 years
will be necessary to achieve some significant results. This
was the time span required to achieve breakthroughs on rice and
wheat. Further, there was a major scientific base available on
which to build for developing improved varieties of these
crops. There will be exceptions, of course. The development
of a vaccine for contagious caprine plueropneumonia, (CCPP), by
the SR CRSP is a case in point. Such breakthroughs generally
produce substantial benefits. Based on evidence developed in
Kenya on prevalence and mortality rates of CCPP, it is possible
to estimate the magnitude of potential benefits from a
breakthrough of this kind. Confining the analysis to Africa
south of the Sahara and considering only losses from mortality,
the benefit cost ratio from investment in the Kenya health
sub-project of the SR CRSP is 16.7 discounting obligations
through FY 1987 and anticipated benefits over a 30 year period
at a discount rate of 12 percent. Manufacturing and
distribution costs are, of course, excluded from the benefit
cost calculation. Looked at from another perspective, the
gross value of the returns to goat farmers in Africa south of
the Sahara over a 30 year period from initiation of the SR CRSP
would be equal to about $48.6 million compared to $28.4 million
obligated for the SR CRSP through FY 1987. Thus, gross returns
to African goat farmers south of the Sahara will over a thirty
year period substantially exceed SR CRSP obligations to date.
The attached report by the Science Advisor provides a
review of progress and accomplishments to date by CRSP
research. The accomplishments include a high input system
which makes possible continuous cultivation in the humid
tropics, a low input system which increases the production
potential of small, poor farms in the humid and sub-humid
tropics, identification of potential vaccine for goat caseous
lymphadenitis, germ plasm collections of beans and cowpeas in










Botswana and Malawi, development of heat tolerant cowpea lines,
development of a new sorghum in Sudan which increases yields by
150 percent and the identification of striga resistant
varieties of sorghum. The CRSP have achieved successes but it
can be expected that most benefits from CRSP research will
accrue beyond 1990. Historical evidence, as shown in numerous
studies, indicates that it is highly likely that the returns on
the total investment in CRSP research will be high. Of course,
this does not mean that.all research will produce significant
breakthroughs but that enough is likely to be achieved to
produce substantial returns on the investment.
D. Research Effectiveness
An appraisal of the CRSP as an effective mechanism for
addressing critical less developed country agricultural
research needs is, of necessity, a subjective undertaking. As
discussed above, the CRSP is not an appropriate instrument for
addressing all research needs. However, within those research
areas that fall within the programmatic scope of the CRSP, some
judgments can be made.
The two attached reports conclude without qualification
that the CRSP has been successful in providing a method for
bringing much of the best institutional and individual
scientific talent of the land grant universities and other
research organizations to bear on selected research problems.
It should be remembered that where institutions or individuals
have been unable to meet CRSP research standards they have been
eliminated from the program by their peers. That the CRSP have
been effective both in the selection of researchable topics and
in the quality of researchers working on these problems has
been affirmed by IARC and host country researchers and by most
USAID personnel interviewed. This does not imply that this
level of effectiveness has existed for each and every CRSP
activity There have been mistakes and considerable growing
pains. Initially planning was based on full involvement of the
land grant university community with many universities
addressing the full range of subject matter at numerous
locations in the U.S. and abroad supported by virtually
unlimited funding. Over time this concept has been modified
toward working on selected problems with simplified
institutional involvement. It is also a fair conclusion that
collaboration with host country scientists and institutions in
the selection of research topics was less than desirable or
appropriate during the initial stages of program development
and implementation. Again, however, that problem appears to
have been largely left behind.
The strength of the CRSP in undertaking research on
identified problems has been in the collaborative mode









established as basic operating procedure. Within the
university community it has been possible to identify research
activities, to establish priorities and to agree on the
allocation of tasks and resources to meet commonly agreed upon
objectives. Individual and institutional researchers have
developed collaborative relations with international and
country research individuals and institutions in a manner which
has increased the effectiveness of the research of each
participant. It appears reasonable to conclude that the
CRSP reviewed address important development problems and
supplement and complement IARC research. However, some
research topics important to agricultural development in the
tropics fall outside the CRSP mandate and will need to be
addressed though other activities.
The results of CRSP research to date indicate that
investments will produce substantial benefit cost ratios.
Finally, the management mechanisms of the CRSP have operated in
a manner which has made it possible for the CRSP to attract
very good scientists who are producing high quality results.

IV. Collaboration and Linkages

The CRSP have as a central premise that U.S. and less
developed countries will benefit from collaboration on
agriculture research by U.S., international and less developed
country research organizations. Such collaboration would also
result in research that would complement and support IARC
research. Making collaboration work requires establishing
effective linkages among institutions and individuals.
A. University Linkages
The linkages among the universities and other U.S.
research organizations involved in carrying out CRSP activities
appear to be excellent. The structure of CRSP management
assures that each university and its administrative and
scientific staff are involved in cooperatively planning and
carrying out research. This results in both a disciplinary and
an interdisciplinary collaboration directed towards solving
mutually agreed upon research problems.
B. Host Country Linkages
The situation with respect to collaboration between U.S.
and host country institutions and scientists is less uniform.
Linkages have been established in all instances where research
is being undertaken. The kinds of problems encountered in
establishing these linkages on a firm basis are discussed in
the paper by the Senior Agriculture Advisor, attached.
The establishment of collaborative linkages among U.S.









institutions and scientists and host country institutions and
scientists must necessarily be based on assumptions of some
degree of institutional and individual scientific and
administrative equivalency among the participating parties.
Objectively the necessary degree of equivalence was absent in
some cases; in others it is a fair conclusion that there was a
greater degree of equivalency than the CRSP universities
recognized. All of this was complicated by uncertainty on the
par of the U.S. universities with respect to which research
organization in the country had the necessary administrative
and scientific competence and the responsibility for
undertaking research. Thus, in the initial stages of the four
CRSP reviewed it was generally, though not always, thought
necessary to have some permanent representatives) of the U.S.
university on site in the host country to assure that the
scientific and administrative activities were carried out at
acceptable levels of competence. The situation has gradually
changed over time. Currently one CRSP, as a matter of policy,
does not have institutional representatives permanently posted
overseas. The other three CRSP reviewed have substantially
reduced the number of scientists/administrators assigned to
host country locations on a long term basis. This trend
reflects the increased confidence of U.S. institutions in
collaboration with host country institutions and scientists as
the relationship among the participating parties has matured.
It also reflects the increasing level of competence of host
country institutions and individuals, partially due to CRSP
utilization of host country graduate students in their research
activities. Collaboration in problem identification, planning
and implementation is growing and can be expected to continue
to increase as CRSP activities continue. It should be noted
that where universities still have institutional
representatives overseas it is often for purposes of
administrative and financial accounting requirements of the AID
grant. Similarly it should be recognized that budget
reductions have provided an incentive to universities to
minimize institutional faculty and staff abroad for long term
assignments.
U.S. CRSP institutions have used a variety of different
ways to maintain research and administrative competence in host
country research activities as long term institutional
representatives have been withdrawn. The examples noted here
are drawn from Africa where financial, scientific and
institutional resources are scarcer than in Latin America or
Asia. In Kenya the six person SR CRSP staff of scientists is
composed of five East Africans and one American local hire.
The site coordinator is an official of the Livestock Ministry.


tl '









Kenya Livestock Ministry scientists are assigned to the SR CRSP
and work collaboratively with the CRSP scientists at the
livestock stations which have been provided by the Ministry to
the CRSP. Scientists from U.S. institutions participate
through short term site visits, visits of field personnel to
U.S. institutions and the conduct of experimental work at
locations in the U.S. The CRSP is completely integrated into
the Ministry research program. It is difficult to conceive how
either the collaboration or the quality and relevance of
research could be improved upon.
In Niger INTSORMIL carries out an effective research
program without posting permanent staff in country. Scientific
resources are thin in Niger and an active graduate research
program is used to supplement local research capabilities.
U.S. and African graduate students undertake research in Niger
during the cropping season under the direction of U.S. and host
country scientists. The CRSP also works collaboratively with
an USAID financed team providing assistance to research in
Niger and with the regional ICRISAT field station located in
Niamey. U.S. scientists participate through site visits and by
undertaking experimental work in the U.S. to supplement field
work in Niger.
In Botswana where local scientists were not available to
undertake needed field work, the BC CRSP initiated work in the
field with a scientist from the U.S. institution assisted by
graduate students. At the same time scientific work in the
U.S. went forward with the participation of two Botswana
graduate students. With the departure in the summer of 1986 of
the U.S. institutional representative in accordance with BC
CRSP policy, work was continued pending return of the graduate
students with the assistance of a Peace Corps volunteer. The
graduate students will return to Botswana prior to January,
1987. They will continue field work under the guidance of the
U.S. scientist who will make periodic visits to Botswana. What
started as an almost purely U.S. effort is evolving into a
collaborative scientific undertaking.
The above should not be taken to imply that real
collaborative linkages are not established when scientists from
U.S. institutions are located at field sites, This is
partially dependent on the quality and operating effectiveness
of host country scientists and institutions. For example, in
Indonesia two CRSP were reviewed--SR and TROPSOILS-- both of
which have scientists from U.S. universities in Indonesia on
long term postings. In both cases the degree of scientific
collaboration among U.S. and Indonesian scientists and
institutions is excellent. CRSP activities are fully
integrated into the Indonesian research organizations and









established as basic operating procedure. Within the
university community it has been possible to identify research
activities, to establish priorities and to agree on the
allocation of tasks and resources to meet commonly agreed upon
objectives. Individual and institutional researchers have
developed collaborative relations with international and
country research individuals and institutions in a manner which
has increased the effectiveness of the research of each
participant. It appears reasonable to conclude that the
CRSP reviewed address important development problems and
supplement and complement IARC research. However, some
research topics important to agricultural development in the
tropics fall outside the CRSP mandate and will need to be
addressed though other activities.
The results of CRSP research to date indicate that
investments will produce substantial benefit cost ratios.
Finally, the management mechanisms of the CRSP have operated in
a manner which has made it possible for the CRSP to attract
very good scientists who are producing high quality results.

IV. Collaboration and Linkages

The CRSP have as a central premise that U.S. and less
developed countries will benefit from collaboration on
agriculture research by U.S., international and less developed
country research organizations. Such collaboration would also
result in research that would complement and support IARC
research. Making collaboration work requires establishing
effective linkages among institutions and individuals.
A. University Linkages
The linkages among the universities and other U.S.
research organizations involved in carrying out CRSP activities
appear to be excellent. The structure of CRSP management
assures that each university and its administrative and
scientific staff are involved in cooperatively planning and
carrying out research. This results in both a disciplinary and
an interdisciplinary collaboration directed towards solving
mutually agreed upon research problems.
B. Host Country Linkages
The situation with respect to collaboration between U.S.
and host country institutions and scientists is less uniform.
Linkages have been established in all instances where research
is being undertaken. The kinds of problems encountered in
establishing these linkages on a firm basis are discussed in
the paper by the Senior Agriculture Advisor, attached.
The establishment of collaborative linkages among U.S.









established as basic operating procedure. Within the
university community it has been possible to identify research
activities, to establish priorities and to agree on the
allocation of tasks and resources to meet commonly agreed upon
objectives. Individual and institutional researchers have
developed collaborative relations with international and
country research individuals and institutions in a manner which
has increased the effectiveness of the research of each
participant. It appears reasonable to conclude that the
CRSP reviewed address important development problems and
supplement and complement IARC research. However, some
research topics important to agricultural development in the
tropics fall outside the CRSP mandate and will need to be
addressed though other activities.
The results of CRSP research to date indicate that
investments will produce substantial benefit cost ratios.
Finally, the management mechanisms of the CRSP have operated in
a manner which has made it possible for the CRSP to attract
very good scientists who are producing high quality results.

IV. Collaboration and Linkages

The CRSP have as a central premise that U.S. and less
developed countries will benefit from collaboration on
agriculture research by U.S., international and less developed
country research organizations. Such collaboration would also
result in research that would complement and support IARC
research. Making collaboration work requires establishing
effective linkages among institutions and individuals.
A. University Linkages
The linkages among the universities and other U.S.
research organizations involved in carrying out CRSP activities
appear to be excellent. The structure of CRSP management
assures that each university and its administrative and
scientific staff are involved in cooperatively planning and
carrying out research. This results in both a disciplinary and
an interdisciplinary collaboration directed towards solving
mutually agreed upon research problems.
B. Host Country Linkages
The situation with respect to collaboration between U.S.
and host country institutions and scientists is less uniform.
Linkages have been established in all instances where research
is being undertaken. The kinds of problems encountered in
establishing these linkages on a firm basis are discussed in
the paper by the Senior Agriculture Advisor, attached.
The establishment of collaborative linkages among U.S.








scientific work is planned and carried out jointly by
Indonesian and U.S. scientists. The high level of
collaborative linkages is in large measure possible because of
the existence of highly capable Indonesian scientists and an
effective Indonesian research organization.
C. CRSP/IARC Linkages
The CRSP guidelines call for collaboration of the CRSP
with the IARC. The CRSP have established collaborative
linkages with the IARC which are mutually beneficial to the
research of both. There do exist written agreements between
CRSP and IARC which spell out the areas of cooperation. In
addition to CRSP and IARC scientists exchanging information
other collaborative initiatives have been undertaken. CRSP and
IARC undertake joint workshops and participate in each others
workshops. One interesting aspect of collaboration is with
respect to research on sorghum in Latin America. Because
ICRISAT is unable to include research on sorghum in Latin
America in its program, the INTSORMIL CRSP is, in agreement
with ICRISAT, filling this gap. ICRISAT scientists consult
with INTSORMIL scientists working in Latin America and provide
backstopping materials and information as necessary.
Furthermore, CIAT, in Columbia, is providing facilities to
INTSORMIL for scientific work on sorghum in Latin America.
Thus two IARC and one CRSP have joined together to make
possible needed research in Latin America on a crop important
to poor and disadvantaged farmers in the drier parts of that
area.
Bean and cowpea germ plasm collections by the BC CRSP in
Southern Africa have led to the establishment of large
collections which substantially increase available genetic
diversity. These collections are being made available to IARC
scientists for use by them in their breeding work. These same
collections will also be used in breeding programs in the U.S.
to benefit American farm production of these two commodities.
As the Senior Agriculture Advisor has pointed out in his
paper, attached, the degree of collaboration with IARC varies
among the CRSP. While written collaborative agreements exist,
it appears to be a fair conclusion that much of the
collaborative linkages depend significantly on personal and
scientific relationships among scientists of the respective
organizations. In some cases these relationships between
scientists existed prior to the formation of the CRSP. These
kinds of professional relationships are necessary if
institutional collaborative linkages are to be fully
successful. However, they do not substitute for the formal
institutional relationships which are essential if each
organization is going to be able to allocate resources for









collaborative research on commonly agreed upon priorities.
As noted above this kind of institutional collaboration has
been achieved through jointly sponsored workshops. This,
however, does not appear to have been extended in any
significant degree to agreements to undertake joint research.
In some instances this may be because a scientific basis does
not appear to have been developed which would make this kind of
collaboration useful. A more important constraint may be CRSP
funding constraints which limit ability to enter into the long
term commitments necessary for such joint research activities.
For example, one CRSP and one IARC met in 1986 to discuss
future collaborative linkages. During the meeting possibilities
for joint research activities were discussed. However, the
CRSP was unable to make commitments because of uncertainties
with respect to future funding availabilities.
It may well be that current budgetary constraints will
limit institutional linkages to shorter term activities. This
does not, however, detract from the importance of the scientist
to scientist linkages which do exist. Without exception,
discussions with CRSP and IARC administrators and scientists
elicited strong support for existing collaborative undertakings
and for strengthening them in the future. While in a few
instances collaboration among CRSP and IARC has had some rough
spots, these appear to have been worked out satisfactorily. It
is clear that CRSP and IARC scientists do believe that
continuing research by both is critical to achieving needed
scientific progress. Both CRSP and IARC scientists were highly
complimentary about the scientific work being undertaken by the
other. All agreed that collaboration was essential and that it
should continue. What is needed is development of a modus
operandi which will foster increased collaboration.
One initiative that AID might want to consider as a
means for strengthening CRSP/IARC collaboration is the
inclusion of an IARC representative on one or more of the CRSP
management units. Some CRSP follow this practice now. IARC
memberships on the Board, TC and/or EEP are all possible.
Inclusion of an IARC representative on one or more of these
units would provide an excellent means for continuing review of
the degree of complimentary of IARC and CRSP activities. It
would also be a means of identifying potential areas of
cooperation and support. Additionally, it would appear useful
to include representatives from less developed countries on one
or more of the CRSP management units as a standard practice.
The major limiting factor is likely to be the additional costs
that would be associated with using IARC or host country
representation on various management units.








D. Linkages Among CRSP
One area in which there appears to be substantial
opportunity to increase collaborative linkages is among CRSP.
Within each CRSP appropriate mechanisms exist to assure
collaborative linkages among programs and projects. These
mechanisms do produce satisfactory collaboration of scientific
work within individual CRSP. However, there does not appear to
be adequate attention to or systematic mechanisms for
developing and maintaining collaborative linkages among CRSP.
An organization of CRSP leadership has recently been
established but collaborative linkages do not appear,~as yet,
to be part of its responsibility.
It appears to the reviewers that establishment of
linkages among the CRSP has the potential for making a
significant contribution to scientific achievements. Some
limited collaboration among CRSP does exist. There are
cooperative undertakings by INTSORMIL and TROPSILS on Latin
America acid and aluminum soil problems. However, it is
difficult to find other evidence of this kind of
collaboration. Clearly the work on acid soils being undertaken
in the humid and semi-arid tropics by TROPSOILS is of concern
to INTSORMIL work in Africa and SR research on forages in the
Asian and African humid tropics. Yet there is little evidence
even of exchange of information among the CRSP on such critical
problems. The establishment of effective linkages among the
CRSP would appear to be an issue that should be receiving
attention from CRSP leadership and AID. AID should take the
lead in working with CRSP ME to establish an effective system
for the exchange of information among CRSP.
E. CRSP/USAID Linkages
The collaborative linkages between the CRSP and USAID
Missions appear to be somewhat less than desirable. Despite
the considerable attention given to CRSP/USAID collaborative
linkages in the Guidelines, these linkages vary widely among
CRSP and Missions and over time within the same units. They
range from negative through neutral or nonexistent to highly
positive. For example, in one country the agriculture officer
expended a great deal of effort to attract two CRSP to work in
his host country in order to augment scarce USAID resources
available for agriculture research assistance. At a later date
a subsequent agriculture officer has taken a negative stance
towards CRSP participation in the host country. In another
country one CRSP works very closely with the host country
Mission and has its program fully integrated with the USAID
program while another CRSP appears to make a practice of
ignoring the USAID.
The Senior Agriculture Advisor devoted a considerable


I A








D. Linkages Among CRSP
One area in which there appears to be substantial
opportunity to increase collaborative linkages is among CRSP.
Within each CRSP appropriate mechanisms exist to assure
collaborative linkages among programs and projects. These
mechanisms do produce satisfactory collaboration of scientific
work within individual CRSP. However, there does not appear to
be adequate attention to or systematic mechanisms for
developing and maintaining collaborative linkages among CRSP.
An organization of CRSP leadership has recently been
established but collaborative linkages do not appear,~as yet,
to be part of its responsibility.
It appears to the reviewers that establishment of
linkages among the CRSP has the potential for making a
significant contribution to scientific achievements. Some
limited collaboration among CRSP does exist. There are
cooperative undertakings by INTSORMIL and TROPSILS on Latin
America acid and aluminum soil problems. However, it is
difficult to find other evidence of this kind of
collaboration. Clearly the work on acid soils being undertaken
in the humid and semi-arid tropics by TROPSOILS is of concern
to INTSORMIL work in Africa and SR research on forages in the
Asian and African humid tropics. Yet there is little evidence
even of exchange of information among the CRSP on such critical
problems. The establishment of effective linkages among the
CRSP would appear to be an issue that should be receiving
attention from CRSP leadership and AID. AID should take the
lead in working with CRSP ME to establish an effective system
for the exchange of information among CRSP.
E. CRSP/USAID Linkages
The collaborative linkages between the CRSP and USAID
Missions appear to be somewhat less than desirable. Despite
the considerable attention given to CRSP/USAID collaborative
linkages in the Guidelines, these linkages vary widely among
CRSP and Missions and over time within the same units. They
range from negative through neutral or nonexistent to highly
positive. For example, in one country the agriculture officer
expended a great deal of effort to attract two CRSP to work in
his host country in order to augment scarce USAID resources
available for agriculture research assistance. At a later date
a subsequent agriculture officer has taken a negative stance
towards CRSP participation in the host country. In another
country one CRSP works very closely with the host country
Mission and has its program fully integrated with the USAID
program while another CRSP appears to make a practice of
ignoring the USAID.
The Senior Agriculture Advisor devoted a considerable


I A








portion of his time to this issue and concluded "that the fault
is many sided and that there is enough to go around". The
problem in CRSP USAID collaboration appears, in large part, to
be related to the existence or absence of communication between
CRSP administrators and scientists and AID managers and staff.
This is not a situation in which finger pointing or assessing
blame is called for. What is required is a cooperative effort
by the ME and the AID program managers to assure that the
spirit of the guidelines is followed by all parties. An
initial step in this direction would be agreement that all
travel approval requests would include a paragraph asking the
USAID to set appointment times for entrance and exit meetings
between CRSP travelers and appropriate USAID staff.
1. Territorial Issues
There are other elements which merit some discussion.
Historically, locating centrally funded AID activities
physically in countries where there are USAID programs and
Missions has raised problems of territoriality and ownership.
In most instances it can be expected that the USAID will want
the CRSP activity to be carried out in accordance with Mission
ground rules and that the USAID will want to make programmatic
decisions about centrally.funded activities. The CRSP
institutions which are operating under a grant from a central
AID bureau located and managed in Washington D.C. are often
confused by this attitude. There does not appear to be any
simple way of eliminating this problem as long as AID continues
to locate centrally funded research activities in AID countries
and AID maintains its current and historical governance
structure. However, open, frank and continuing communications
among the three parties--USAID, AID/W and CRSP--can and have
made a high degree of collaboration between the USAID and the
CRSP possible and fruitful.
2. CDSS and CRSP Research
Another issue, related to the discussion above, is
consistency of the CRSP with the Mission Country Development
Strategy Statement, (CDSS). The Guidelines suggest that the
CRSP should be consistent with the CDSS and a review of
documents and discussions with USAID officers indicates that
most Missions believe such consistency is important. However,
this raises a difficult problem. CRSP are by definition long
term research activities requiring continuing experimentation
and analysis on well defined agriculture constraints. On the
other hand, it is not likely that USAID strategies will remain
constant over long periods of time. Changes in AID
administrations every four to eight years and more frequent
turnovers in senior Mission management mitigate against
maintaining an assistance strategy for extended periods of








portion of his time to this issue and concluded "that the fault
is many sided and that there is enough to go around". The
problem in CRSP USAID collaboration appears, in large part, to
be related to the existence or absence of communication between
CRSP administrators and scientists and AID managers and staff.
This is not a situation in which finger pointing or assessing
blame is called for. What is required is a cooperative effort
by the ME and the AID program managers to assure that the
spirit of the guidelines is followed by all parties. An
initial step in this direction would be agreement that all
travel approval requests would include a paragraph asking the
USAID to set appointment times for entrance and exit meetings
between CRSP travelers and appropriate USAID staff.
1. Territorial Issues
There are other elements which merit some discussion.
Historically, locating centrally funded AID activities
physically in countries where there are USAID programs and
Missions has raised problems of territoriality and ownership.
In most instances it can be expected that the USAID will want
the CRSP activity to be carried out in accordance with Mission
ground rules and that the USAID will want to make programmatic
decisions about centrally.funded activities. The CRSP
institutions which are operating under a grant from a central
AID bureau located and managed in Washington D.C. are often
confused by this attitude. There does not appear to be any
simple way of eliminating this problem as long as AID continues
to locate centrally funded research activities in AID countries
and AID maintains its current and historical governance
structure. However, open, frank and continuing communications
among the three parties--USAID, AID/W and CRSP--can and have
made a high degree of collaboration between the USAID and the
CRSP possible and fruitful.
2. CDSS and CRSP Research
Another issue, related to the discussion above, is
consistency of the CRSP with the Mission Country Development
Strategy Statement, (CDSS). The Guidelines suggest that the
CRSP should be consistent with the CDSS and a review of
documents and discussions with USAID officers indicates that
most Missions believe such consistency is important. However,
this raises a difficult problem. CRSP are by definition long
term research activities requiring continuing experimentation
and analysis on well defined agriculture constraints. On the
other hand, it is not likely that USAID strategies will remain
constant over long periods of time. Changes in AID
administrations every four to eight years and more frequent
turnovers in senior Mission management mitigate against
maintaining an assistance strategy for extended periods of








time. Thus, it may not be realistic to expect that CRSP and
CDSS will remain consistent with each other over time.
3. Extension
Another area of potential conflict between the CRSP and
the USAID which surfaced during interviews by the review team
concerns the matter of extension. A comment often heard from
USAID personnel was that the CRSP was deficient because it did
not get down to the farm level. The research was all right but
the CRSP did not follow through and get the information to the
farmer. It appears that this reflects a misunderstanding of
the CRSP function as well as an admirable concern that farmers
benefit from AID financed activities. The CRSP are, by the
language incorporated in the Title XII amendment to the Foreign
Assistance Act, authorized to undertake "long-term
collaborative university research". Extension activities are
not included as part of their responsibility. This does not
mean that getting research results to farmers in usable form is
not important; it does mean the CRSP are not the appropriate
instruments for this important task. This is an issue that
needs to be put to rest in the interest of increasing USAID
CRSP collaborative linkages. It is an area in which CRSP USAID
collaboration could be highly beneficial. Missions can both
assist the CRSP in establishing relations with organizations
which provide information to farmers and in keeping appropriate
host country agriculturalists informed of CRSP activities.
The CRSP, however, should recognize that it is important
that research results do get put into a system which will
deliver them to farmers. Thus, in establishing collaborative
working relations with host country research organizations an
important consideration should be the linkages that the host
country organization has to the agriculture information systems
within the country. The kinds of organizations that have these
linkages will vary among countries. In some countries the
research units of Agriculture or Livestock Ministries may be
the appropriate organizations. In other countries Universities
or other agriculture organizations may have the best linkages
to farm information distribution systems. It would appear
useful to include guidance on this matter in the Guidelines.
4. Logistic Support
One other matter that is apt to cause USAID concern is
the provision of logistic support to CRSP personnel. In
periods of budgetary constraints and staff shortages, providing
logistic support for CRSP personnel assigned as resident
scientists or administrators in host countries and eligible for
the usual perquisites due AID financed personnel can be a
burden on USAID management It is generally a much less
difficult problem when U.S. university scientists or








time. Thus, it may not be realistic to expect that CRSP and
CDSS will remain consistent with each other over time.
3. Extension
Another area of potential conflict between the CRSP and
the USAID which surfaced during interviews by the review team
concerns the matter of extension. A comment often heard from
USAID personnel was that the CRSP was deficient because it did
not get down to the farm level. The research was all right but
the CRSP did not follow through and get the information to the
farmer. It appears that this reflects a misunderstanding of
the CRSP function as well as an admirable concern that farmers
benefit from AID financed activities. The CRSP are, by the
language incorporated in the Title XII amendment to the Foreign
Assistance Act, authorized to undertake "long-term
collaborative university research". Extension activities are
not included as part of their responsibility. This does not
mean that getting research results to farmers in usable form is
not important; it does mean the CRSP are not the appropriate
instruments for this important task. This is an issue that
needs to be put to rest in the interest of increasing USAID
CRSP collaborative linkages. It is an area in which CRSP USAID
collaboration could be highly beneficial. Missions can both
assist the CRSP in establishing relations with organizations
which provide information to farmers and in keeping appropriate
host country agriculturalists informed of CRSP activities.
The CRSP, however, should recognize that it is important
that research results do get put into a system which will
deliver them to farmers. Thus, in establishing collaborative
working relations with host country research organizations an
important consideration should be the linkages that the host
country organization has to the agriculture information systems
within the country. The kinds of organizations that have these
linkages will vary among countries. In some countries the
research units of Agriculture or Livestock Ministries may be
the appropriate organizations. In other countries Universities
or other agriculture organizations may have the best linkages
to farm information distribution systems. It would appear
useful to include guidance on this matter in the Guidelines.
4. Logistic Support
One other matter that is apt to cause USAID concern is
the provision of logistic support to CRSP personnel. In
periods of budgetary constraints and staff shortages, providing
logistic support for CRSP personnel assigned as resident
scientists or administrators in host countries and eligible for
the usual perquisites due AID financed personnel can be a
burden on USAID management It is generally a much less
difficult problem when U.S. university scientists or









administrators are only periodic visitors to the host country.
Use of local personnel or graduate students usually
substantially reduces the burden on the USAID. It ought to be
incumbent on the CRSP ME to seek to minimize claims on the
USAID for logistic support.
While the issues discussed above do impinge on
collaboration between Missions and CRSP, they do not, in most
instances, prevent the development of useful collaborative
relationships between the CRSP and the Mission. S me conflicts
and disagreements have surfaced and some continue to exist.
By-and-large Mission personnel interviewed were supportive of
CRSP activities. And, in some instances, an USAID has provided
financial or in kind support to the CRSP and encouraged
collaboration between the CRSP and components of the USAID
program.
F. Distribution of Research Findings
Related to the collaborative linkages issue is the
matter of establishing systems to disseminate research results
beyond the host country on a regional or worldwide basis.
During the early years of the CRSP this was not an important
issue. But, as the CRSP mature and usable research results are
generated it becomes an item of concern. Most efforts to
spread research findings to date have been through scientific
journals, special CRSP publications and workshops. The number
of scientific publications that have resulted from CRSP
activities is impressive. Yet there is some question about
this as an effective means of transmitting information to the
less developed world, although,'of course, they are quite
useful to the U. S. research community. Many scientists and
scientific organizations in less developed countries are unable
to obtain scientific journals and similar publications because
of budgetary or language constraints. Workshops appear to be
an effective means of transmitting research results to a broad
segment of the scientific community in the underdeveloped
world. An excellent example is the recent soils workshop in
Peru at which the initial steps were taken to establish five
permanent subject matter groups involving scientists from
eleven countries to pool their scientific efforts and exchange
information on research results. Clearly more efforts of this
kind are required; but workshops are expensive and adequate
financial resources are needed.
The publication and distribution of workshop papers and
discussions can be an effective means of providing information
to less developed countries. Performance in this area by the
CRSP has been uneven. The proceedings of some workshops have
been published and distributed as a product of the workshop.
In other instances, publication has been limited to mimeographs








of individual papers with limited distribution. The
publication and distribution of a comprehensive volume of
workshop proceedings should be an end product of each
workshop. Unfortunately, the major limiting factor has been
financial resources and these do not appear likely to increase
given current AID budget constraints .
Exchange of information with IARC is also helpful in
disseminating information to less developed countries as the
the information can be provided though he IARC networks with
less developed countries. Continuing efforts will be required
to develop CRSP networks with a broad spectrum of developing
countries, often in collaboration with IARC. To do this will
not only require imaginative approaches by AID and the CRSP but
also the provision of adequate financial resources for this
purpose.
U. Cost Effectiveness
The cost effectiveness of CRSP activities is a matter of
concern to AID. This issue becomes even more important as
budgetary resources for development assistance decline. One
concern centers around overhead costs and whether or not
passing funds through the ME to other universities means that
overhead costs are pyramided one on another.
A. Overhead
Overhead rates for the CRSP are standard rates
established for federally sponsored research performed by
universities as determined by a cognizant federal agency,
usually the Department of Health and Human Services. While
rates vary somewhat among universities, they average a bit over
40 percent for on-campus research and 20 to 22 percent for off
campus research on specified expenditure categories. The
specified allowable expenditures subject to overhead include
salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials, supplies and
services, travel and the first $25,000 of all subgrants and
subcontracts. Ineligible items are purchases and improvements
to land, sites or buildings, scholarships, fellowships,
equipment and amounts exceeding $25,000 on each subgrant and
subcontract. For the four CRSP examined, overhead costs
averaged 20.2 percent of the AID grant, ranging from 18.2
percent to 22 percent.
B. Subgrant Overhead
As noted above the overhead accruing to the ME
university for funds subgranted or subcontracted is strictly
limited. It is limited to the first 25,000 dollars per
subgrant or subcontract in accordance with standard policies of
the federal government. The overhead cost on a subgrant of
150,000 dollars made using the approved rates for on campus
overhead at Michigan State University, the BC ME, would be


f ,








of individual papers with limited distribution. The
publication and distribution of a comprehensive volume of
workshop proceedings should be an end product of each
workshop. Unfortunately, the major limiting factor has been
financial resources and these do not appear likely to increase
given current AID budget constraints .
Exchange of information with IARC is also helpful in
disseminating information to less developed countries as the
the information can be provided though he IARC networks with
less developed countries. Continuing efforts will be required
to develop CRSP networks with a broad spectrum of developing
countries, often in collaboration with IARC. To do this will
not only require imaginative approaches by AID and the CRSP but
also the provision of adequate financial resources for this
purpose.
U. Cost Effectiveness
The cost effectiveness of CRSP activities is a matter of
concern to AID. This issue becomes even more important as
budgetary resources for development assistance decline. One
concern centers around overhead costs and whether or not
passing funds through the ME to other universities means that
overhead costs are pyramided one on another.
A. Overhead
Overhead rates for the CRSP are standard rates
established for federally sponsored research performed by
universities as determined by a cognizant federal agency,
usually the Department of Health and Human Services. While
rates vary somewhat among universities, they average a bit over
40 percent for on-campus research and 20 to 22 percent for off
campus research on specified expenditure categories. The
specified allowable expenditures subject to overhead include
salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials, supplies and
services, travel and the first $25,000 of all subgrants and
subcontracts. Ineligible items are purchases and improvements
to land, sites or buildings, scholarships, fellowships,
equipment and amounts exceeding $25,000 on each subgrant and
subcontract. For the four CRSP examined, overhead costs
averaged 20.2 percent of the AID grant, ranging from 18.2
percent to 22 percent.
B. Subgrant Overhead
As noted above the overhead accruing to the ME
university for funds subgranted or subcontracted is strictly
limited. It is limited to the first 25,000 dollars per
subgrant or subcontract in accordance with standard policies of
the federal government. The overhead cost on a subgrant of
150,000 dollars made using the approved rates for on campus
overhead at Michigan State University, the BC ME, would be


f ,








of individual papers with limited distribution. The
publication and distribution of a comprehensive volume of
workshop proceedings should be an end product of each
workshop. Unfortunately, the major limiting factor has been
financial resources and these do not appear likely to increase
given current AID budget constraints .
Exchange of information with IARC is also helpful in
disseminating information to less developed countries as the
the information can be provided though he IARC networks with
less developed countries. Continuing efforts will be required
to develop CRSP networks with a broad spectrum of developing
countries, often in collaboration with IARC. To do this will
not only require imaginative approaches by AID and the CRSP but
also the provision of adequate financial resources for this
purpose.
U. Cost Effectiveness
The cost effectiveness of CRSP activities is a matter of
concern to AID. This issue becomes even more important as
budgetary resources for development assistance decline. One
concern centers around overhead costs and whether or not
passing funds through the ME to other universities means that
overhead costs are pyramided one on another.
A. Overhead
Overhead rates for the CRSP are standard rates
established for federally sponsored research performed by
universities as determined by a cognizant federal agency,
usually the Department of Health and Human Services. While
rates vary somewhat among universities, they average a bit over
40 percent for on-campus research and 20 to 22 percent for off
campus research on specified expenditure categories. The
specified allowable expenditures subject to overhead include
salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials, supplies and
services, travel and the first $25,000 of all subgrants and
subcontracts. Ineligible items are purchases and improvements
to land, sites or buildings, scholarships, fellowships,
equipment and amounts exceeding $25,000 on each subgrant and
subcontract. For the four CRSP examined, overhead costs
averaged 20.2 percent of the AID grant, ranging from 18.2
percent to 22 percent.
B. Subgrant Overhead
As noted above the overhead accruing to the ME
university for funds subgranted or subcontracted is strictly
limited. It is limited to the first 25,000 dollars per
subgrant or subcontract in accordance with standard policies of
the federal government. The overhead cost on a subgrant of
150,000 dollars made using the approved rates for on campus
overhead at Michigan State University, the BC ME, would be


f ,








10,500 dollars or seven percent of the value of the subgrant.
For a smaller grant of, say. 50,000 dollars the overhead
allocated to the ME university would be 21 percent. Overhead
is calculated to reimburse the ME university for the management
functions performed in making the grant and in no instance do
overhead costs pyramid one on another.
C. Cost Sharing
Matching funds provided by universities are about 30
percent of the AID grant for the four CRSP reviewed, ranging
from 24 to 37 percent. These amounts exceed the requirement of
the grant agreements which is 25 percent of direct costs '
excluding ME costs, funds committed under a formal CRSP host
country agreement to procure goods and services and training
costs. For example, the 24 percent of total match provided by
one CRSP is 27 percent of the funds for which matching is
required. In all instances examined matching funds exceed
overhead costs.
In addition to university or other domestic
organizations matching funds, host countries also make a
contribution in cash or in kind to the CRSP. Because most host
country contributions are usually in kind, as is common with
AID bilateral projects, it is often necessary to estimate the
value of the contribution. This means that the data for host
country contributions are apt to be less precise than is true
for AID or university grant or matching amounts.
Available data indicate that for the four CRSP reviewed
host country contributions ranged from about 18 percent to over
21 percent and averaged about 20 percent of the AID grant.
Assuming a subproject with an annual cost of 200,000 dollars
this would mean, on the average, an AID grant amount of 133,000
dollars, a university matching amount of 40,000 dollars and a
host country contribution equal to 27,000 dollars, (probably
mostly is kind). Thus the AID grant would fund about
two-thirds of subproject costs, the university about one-fifth
and the host country a little over one-eighth.
D. Education Costs
One operational area of the CRSP appears to be carried
out at costs to AID which are significantly less than would be
the case if normal AID practices and procedures were utilized.
A large amount of graduate education is carried out under CRSP
auspices. For the most part this graduate work can be
considered a by-product of CRSP research. Graduate students
are used by CRSP scientists to carry out, under competent
supervision, much of the research in accordance with the normal
procedure at U.S. universities. These graduate students--host
country, other LDC, U.S. and other developed country--are
partially employed, usually half time, by the university as








10,500 dollars or seven percent of the value of the subgrant.
For a smaller grant of, say. 50,000 dollars the overhead
allocated to the ME university would be 21 percent. Overhead
is calculated to reimburse the ME university for the management
functions performed in making the grant and in no instance do
overhead costs pyramid one on another.
C. Cost Sharing
Matching funds provided by universities are about 30
percent of the AID grant for the four CRSP reviewed, ranging
from 24 to 37 percent. These amounts exceed the requirement of
the grant agreements which is 25 percent of direct costs '
excluding ME costs, funds committed under a formal CRSP host
country agreement to procure goods and services and training
costs. For example, the 24 percent of total match provided by
one CRSP is 27 percent of the funds for which matching is
required. In all instances examined matching funds exceed
overhead costs.
In addition to university or other domestic
organizations matching funds, host countries also make a
contribution in cash or in kind to the CRSP. Because most host
country contributions are usually in kind, as is common with
AID bilateral projects, it is often necessary to estimate the
value of the contribution. This means that the data for host
country contributions are apt to be less precise than is true
for AID or university grant or matching amounts.
Available data indicate that for the four CRSP reviewed
host country contributions ranged from about 18 percent to over
21 percent and averaged about 20 percent of the AID grant.
Assuming a subproject with an annual cost of 200,000 dollars
this would mean, on the average, an AID grant amount of 133,000
dollars, a university matching amount of 40,000 dollars and a
host country contribution equal to 27,000 dollars, (probably
mostly is kind). Thus the AID grant would fund about
two-thirds of subproject costs, the university about one-fifth
and the host country a little over one-eighth.
D. Education Costs
One operational area of the CRSP appears to be carried
out at costs to AID which are significantly less than would be
the case if normal AID practices and procedures were utilized.
A large amount of graduate education is carried out under CRSP
auspices. For the most part this graduate work can be
considered a by-product of CRSP research. Graduate students
are used by CRSP scientists to carry out, under competent
supervision, much of the research in accordance with the normal
procedure at U.S. universities. These graduate students--host
country, other LDC, U.S. and other developed country--are
partially employed, usually half time, by the university as








graduate research assistants. About three-quarters, roughly
525 individuals, of the graduate students employed part time
under the four CRSP have been or are from less developed
countries. Again, in accordance with normal university
practice these graduate research assistants attend classes and
attain either a Ph.D. or M.S. degree.
Of the 525 graduate students who have received degrees
or are still working for them about one half were Ph.D. and one
half were M S degree candidates. Conservatively assuming two
years for a M S and three years for a Ph.D. candidate, this
means that LDC students have been or are being financed for
1,312 years of graduate education while they are doing CRSP
research. The average cost of this graduate education to AID
is about 10 to 11,000 dollars per annum. However, in the few
instances where universities operate on a full cost budget
system, annual costs to AID may run substantially higher than
the average. The total cost for the 1,312 years of graduate
education to the AID grant is about 13 3/4 million dollars.
Under AID participant training procedures the cost of this same
amount of graduate training to AID, calculated at a cost of
20,000 dollars per annum, would be almost 26 1/4 million
dollars. Thus, the cost of providing education for the 525 LDC
graduate students under the CRSP would cost AID about 52
percent as much as it would cost AID using standard participant
training procedures. The difference in cost is largely due to
the waiver of out-of-state tuition and fees. CRSP also
students tend to receive fewer perquisites than is true for AID
participants. Waiver of tuition and fees by universities is a
cost to the universities and a contribution to the CRSP.
It should be noted that it does not follow that AID
participant training costs in general could be substantially
reduced by adopting the CRSP system. The total cost of CRSP
graduate education is roughly comparable to AID participant
training costs. The difference is that under the CRSP a part
of that cost is absorbed by the university because of the
status of CRSP graduate students as graduate assistants. The
difference is, for the most part, not in the cost of the
education but in how payment of the costs is distributed.
One other aspect of graduate student involvement in CRSP
research deserves a brief mention. CRSP scientists utilize
graduate students funded from other sources to undertake CRSP
research. For example, some 307 graduate students--250 LDC, 95
U.S. and 12 other developed country-- have undertaken INTSORMIL
research but were funded from sources other than INTSORMIL.
There have also been some 52 graduate students doing research
for the SR CRSP who were either wholly or partially supported
by funds from other sources. The utilization of graduate








students funded wholly or partially from other sources
indicates the extent to which CRSP research is integrated into
the regular activities of the university. It also represents
another informal university contribution to the CRSP.

UI. The Planning Process

The process for selecting research topics for the CRSP
was long and involved. Principal actors were AID and BIFAD.
The Joint Research Committee was the operational unit for
BIFAD. The selection of a priority listing of research
programs spanned two years, 1977/78. Very early in the process
AID and BIFAD selected four programs as top priority--sorghum
millet, small ruminants, nutrition and aquaculture. Work was
initiated early on to develop these programs by identifying
research constraints and designing research on an
interdisciplinary basis.
At the same time the JRC initiated work to identify and
list in priority order additional areas for research. A list
of ten topics was originally planned but this was later
increased to 20. The initial general criteria used were
relevance of research to less developed countries and the U.
S., competence of U.S. universities in the research area and
the need to be complementary and supplementary to the work of
the IARC. This last criterion resulted in the early
elimination of wheat, rice and maize from consideration as
possible research topics.
The JRC formed two work groups for the purpose of
developing a prioritized listing of additional research topics;
one to develop a broad list of topics from which a prioritized
list could be selected and one to develop criteria for
selecting research topics.
In developing a list of potential areas of research the
first group relied on consulting with AID agriculturists and
the results of several recent studies. Major reliance was
placed on the NAS-NRC World Food and Nutrition Study of 1977.
Three other studies were also used; the National Science
Foundation, Cornell study, Increased Production from Animal
Agriculture, the NAS-NRC BARR Report on Enhancement of Food
Production for the United States and the USDA Kansas Center
Conference's Condensation to Ten Priority Areas. This led to
the development.of five research categories containing
thirty-five possible research programs. Meanwhile the second'
group had established four criteria for ranking proposed
research activities--social demand, technical feasibility,
economic justification and institutional preparedness. The JRC
through a process of successive appraisals reduced the list of








35 to 20 candidates. The JRC then used three additional
criteria--time for payoff, benefit to the poor majority and
potential for university support--to prioritize the list of
20. This list was then submitted to the AID regional bureaus
for review. Based on this review, programs were selected for
planning or exploratory studies and a list was approved by the
BIFAD in April, 1978. This list has served as the basis for
selecting CRSP financed by AID grants.

II. Peer Review

T ere has been some concern about the effectiveness of
peer review of CRSP research activities. The roles and
responsibilities for a peer review process for ongoing CRSP are
unclear. The Guidelines mention peer review only in connection
with planning where the words "peer process", "peer group",
"peer panel" and "peer advisory group" are included. In these
instances a peer process is to be used in selecting candidates
for the ME, a peer group to visit, perhaps, potential sites and
discuss potential programs, a peer panel to participate in
confirming interests, resources and scientific functions, peer
panel members to assist and advise the ME, etc. All of these
functions appear to be the responsibility of the peer group or
panel during the selection and planning processes. No
continuing peer review function following the planning process
is indicated in the Guidelines nor is there any clear
indication in the Guidelines that the scientific merits of
proposed research activities should be submitted for a formal
peer review. The guidelines do not assign peer review
functions to the Board, the ME, the TC or the EEP. Neither are
there references to a peer review process for ongoing CRSP
programs in sections of the Guidelines concerned with review
and evaluation.
Never-the-less, in practice, it appears that peer review
functions are carried out in the four CRSP reviewed. The
management units carrying out peer review functions vary among
CRSP. In all instances the units doing the peer review is the
TC and/or the EEP, often with the assistance of the ME.
Generally, the TC provides the technical direction for research
activities, establishing project objectives in relation to
overall program goals. The EEP reviews the research activities
in progress and provides advice and guidance on how research
should be modified, if necessary, to accomplish goals. Such
review usually takes place in conjunction with appraisal of the
contribution of institutions or individual projects to a CRSP
program, the decision making process on budget allocations or
in the conduct of external evaluations. It seems that these










reviews do focus on the issue of scientific quality and that
decisions affecting CRSP activities are in part based on these
reviews. AID does not participate in the review process except
as program managers do through attendance at TC meetings.
In addition to reviews of scientific merit by CRSP
management units there are within the university community some
peer reviews made of CRSP science. Articles submitted for
publication are subject to the normal peer review process and C
SP research activities are subject to departmental review for
merit as are other research projects within the university.
Additionally, the CRSP format does foster interdepartmental
reviews of research merit. Thus, while the peer reviews that
are undertaken do have an effect on the CRSP program and
contribute substantially to the maintenance of quality, there
is not a formal structure or system for appraising scientific
merit in accordance with an established formal peer review
system. This does not imply that the scientific quality of
CRSP is in some way less than it might be. It is not.
Available evidence, including the appraisal in the report by
the Science Advisor, indicates it is, for the most part, of
high quality. Never-the-less, AID might want to consider if it
would be advisable for CRSP to establish a system that assures
formal peer reviews will be undertaken on a regular and
systematic basis with responsibility assigned to a management
unit. It would appear reasonable for the ME to be charged with
responsibility for seeing that peer reviews are carried out.
However, it should be noted that this would increase CRSP costs
and initiation of such a system would require elimination of
some other CRSP activities unless budgets could be increased.
As the absence of a formal peer review system has apparently
not adversely affected CRSP scientific merit, there would need
to be other overriding considerations in order to justify the
diversion of scarce resources to this purpose..
UIII. Budget Constraints
One issue not included in the scope of work for this
study but which was raised again and again during the course of
the study was the matter of financial resources for CRSP
activities. This study contains a number of suggestions for
increasing the effectiveness of the CRSP. Nearly all of them
have a financial cost and, given current and proposed CRSP
budgets, they could be carried out only by eliminating some
other CRSP activity. Even without attempting to finance
possible improvements in operations the current level of
funding is forcing CRSP to consider eliminating programs and
projects. The level of proposed funding for one CRSP has
forced it to undertake an assessment to determine which one of
four major programs should be eliminated.









Budget allocations for the four CRSP reviewed have
reached the point where further reductions are likely to
destroy much of the CRSP effectiveness. At current budget
levels, funds would not be available to carry out changes
recommended irn this study. Decreases in funding would
necessitate elimination of projects, changes in program
structure, or an across the board reduction in all program
activities. Any or all of these would, in the team's judgement
impact negatively on potential program benefits. Additionally,
uncertainty about future funding availabilities is limiting the
ability of the CRSP to do essential medium term, let alone long
term, planning of research activities and resource
allocations. The budgetary issue is one with which AID will
need to come to grips with in the very near future. The issue
is whether or not AID believes the work of the CRSP is of
sufficient priority for AID to make a commitment which assures
forward funding of CRSP at levels which permit them to maintain
long term research programs and projects.

XI. Summary of Conclusions

A. Research Direction and Accomplishment
1. The performance of the four CRSP reviewed has been
satisfactory. Under the CRSP concept the land grant
universities and associated organizations have provided much of
the best individual and institutional scientific talent
available in the U.S. to work on the selected research topics.
Progress to date, as illustrated in the Science Advisor's
report and the main body of this study, clearly indicates that
the CRSP are and will continue to produce useful research
results. It appears that returns to investment in the CRSP will
be satisfactory.
2. There is no doubt that the subject matter areas
being researched under the four CRSP examined are high priority
tropical agriculture research subject matter areas. While
projects examined during the study were considered by the team
to be developmentally relevant, the team believes that the
importance of development relevance needs to be explicitly
recognized in the CRSP Guidelines.
AID should take the lead in assuring that the Guidelines
contain guidance on the inclusion of development relevance as a
major part of each Global Plan. The Guidelines should also
specify that EEP evaluations should include consideration of
the development relevance of research activities.
3. The CRSP are limited to undertaking research that
will contribute to agriculture development in the United States
and in the developing countries. Because of this, there are
some research areas important to tropical agriculture that
cannot be undertaken by the CRSP. If AID wishes to fund
research in these areas this will need to be done outside the
CRSP framework.









4. The CRSP have done an excellent job in publishing
research results in scientific journals. However, this is not
an effective way of getting research results disseminated in
less developed countries. More effort is required to develop
methods of assuring that CRSP results are effectively
disseminated throughout the less developed world. AID, BIFAD
and the CRSP should collaborate in developing effective means
for disseminating research results.
5. It is the judgment of t e review team, based on
performance to date, that the CRSP merit continuing
programmatic and financial support from AID.
B. Linkages
There are five areas in which the establishment of
effective collaborative linkages are important to CRSP success.
1. Collaboration within a CRSP among participating
universities is very good.
2. There were some deficiencies in collaboration
between CRSP U.S. universities and host country entities
particularly during the period when CRSP projects were being
established. Most of these problems have been overcome and
continued improvement of linkages between U. S. and host
country entities appears likely.
3. The CRSP have established effective linkages with
the IARC and collaboration appears to be good. If the CRSP
were able to enter into longer term agreements on joint
research activities this would improve the effectiveness of
collaboration. The inclusion Of IARC representatives in CRSP
management units such as EEP, Boards or TC would be a positive
contribution to improving CRSP-IARC linkages. This practice is
now followed by some CRSP. However, it would appear useful to
provide guidance on this matter in the Guidelines.
4. Few linkages have been established among the CRSP.
Increased collaboration among CRSP should lead to an
improvement in the effectiveness of CRSP research. AID program
managers and CRSP ME should take the lead in establishing means
for continuing collaboration among CRSP.
5. In general, collaborative linkages between CRSP and
field MIssions have been less than desirable. In some
instances collaboration has been quite good, but, in others, it
has, not. There have been strong disagreements between USAID
and CRSP on such issues as consistency with CDSS, involvement
of CRSP in extension and requirements for logistic support. In
many instances communications between a USAID and CRSP
representatives has been much less than is desirable.
AID program managers and the CRSP ME should give
continuing attention to improving USAID-CRSP communications. A
start on this would be to require that all cables to a USAID









requesting approval of travel include a request for the USAID
to set times for entrance and exit meetings between CRSP and
USAID representatives
The Science and Technology Bureau should clarify for
Missions the role of the CRSP and the nature of CRSP
responsibilities. This should include the responsibility of
the CRSP for collaborating with the USAID in assuring that
research results are made available to host country research
and extension organizations. The reasons why CRSP activities
do not include extension should also be explained to USAID
officials. It would be helpful if guidance on CRSP-USAID
responsibilities for assuring that research results are
provided to organizations performing research and extension
functions were included in the Guidelines. Another area that
needs clarification is the relationship between CRSP and the
CDSS including the reasons why they are apt to diverge over
time. Finally, the ME should seek to minimize CRSP claims on
Missions for logistic support.
C. Management Effectiveness
1. The CRSP management systems examined operate at
reasonable levels of effectiveness. There is considerable
difference among the CRSP in how functions are performed but
the systems of each CRSP operate in a manner which assures
important issues are effectively addressed. There is no reason
to believe that increased AID involvement in program oversight
would contribute to more effective management. It is possible
that increased AID participation in day to day operations would
have a negative effect.
2. Administration-management costs for each program
average about 12 percent of total program costs. On the
average, about 21 percent of AID grant funds are expended for
administration-management costs. In view of current budgetary
constraints, it might be useful for AID and BIFAD to seek to
determine if it would be possible to reduce these costs. In so
doing, very careful attention would need to be given to
potential negative effects on a system which is currently
operating at very acceptable levels of effectiveness.
3. Overhead costs compare favorable with other research
activities. Overhead rates are standard government rates and
the CRSP management system does not result in a pyramiding of
overhead costs. University matching funds consistently exceed
the minimum required in the Guidelines and overhead costs.
4. The CRSP do not have a formal system of peer review
established as a part of the management system. Peer reviews
do occur as a part of university department reviews of proposed
research, EEP evaluations, T C operations and the publications
process. This system appears to have assured that the CRSP
research is of high quality. However, AID may, for other







reasons with to examine whether or not a formal peer review
process would be desirable and cost effective.
5. The current tight budget situation has the potential
for adversely affecting CRSP effectiveness. Virtually all of
the recommendations made in this report would, if carried out,
place additional demands on CRSP financial resources.
Continuing budget reductions would adversely impact on CRSP
effectiveness. Unless cuts can be made in program
administation-management costs that do not decrease operational
and scientific effectiveness, and this appears unlikely,
continuing reduction in CRSP financial resources will require
the elimination of program components, reduction of research
activities across the board or changes in program structure
that may well unfortunately reduce the quality of CRSP science
and scientists. This would, of course, diminish potential
benefits.





Appendix A


SEZNIO ASRICLSES' AD=ISO.S- EPOErT'C T3S -CSP-A~SSESSMEMT
J. S. RCBIS






In response to a request-by the-vAgency for International.Development
(AID), Winrock International contracted two advisors to assist a review team
leader and the joint PPC/S&T Steering Comnittee in making an assessment of
the CSP's. The assessment is in response to a request by the administrator
during the 1985 review of the Science and Technology Bureau Annual Budget
Sumittal. This report is respectfully submitted by the Senior Agriculture
Advisor and will provide observations and conclusions relating to research
direction and acc=nlishments and to linkages developed within the CRSP
programs. Cbservations and conclusions are based on an historic involvement
with Title X~ programs including CRSP's since 1975 and on recent travels
and discussions as described in the appended report. The report will
attrpt to deal with the- several questions posed in the scope of work
provided, but it will not systeatically and categrically respond on a
question by question basis.


BAm..auus


The' Collaborative Research Support ?Prog (ESP) concept evolved -un
activities and discussions leading to the passage of the Title XII Amerxent
to the Foreign Assistance Act and was closely described in that document.
It was conceived that the U.S. agricultural university ccnamity did indeed
have a contribution to make to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Program through a
collaborative involvemnt in agricultural researh- with developing county
scientists and institutions.


It was further envisioned that the design and the develepcment of this
program should be a joint enterprise of the U.S. university c=amnity,
developing country resear--h interests and the Agency for International
Development This U.S. university/AID collaboration in evolution of the
pr-gram was imlemented through a Joint Research Cmnittee (JIC) closed of








representatives of U.S. universities, AID and certain other organizations.
The engagement of developing country interests- came at a somewhat later
stage in the process.

The JC was organized under auspices of the Board for International Food
and Agricultural Development. It proceeded over a substantial period of time
to identify research areas that might be amenable to this approach, to
develop guidelines for the organization and development of such programs and
in decision-making on how to plan and implement such programs. Areas
selected for such work had to meet certain qualitative standards with respect
to subject matter, level of U.S. university competence and prospects for
impact both in developing countries and in the United States from research
that might be implemented. Included in the criteria were the potential con-
tribution of research to the food supply and to nutrition of poor people in
developing countries.

The guidelines also suggested that the research should be additive and
campleentary to research conducted under mandates of International
Agricultural Research Centers (IARC's) and other on-going research activ-
ities. As a result, rice, wheat, and maize were excluded since there were
heavy investments and "global coverage" by on-going international center
work in these com!odities. It is interesting to note that research on
mandate ccmodities of several other international centers was apparently
considered to be either inadequate or not sufficiently global in scope.


The planning process called for contracting with a -Planning Entity (PE)
to develop a "global" plan. It was originally believed that there would be
a conflict of interest if a PE were to later be a participant in the
program. This was later relaxed to permit participation of the PE in the
planned research, a move that made good sense in terms of a technical base
for planning. In fact, in all CRSPs planned after the first two (small
ruminants and sorghum/millet) the planning entity has had a major role in
implementation, often becoming the Management Entity (ME).


In the first CRSPs (small ruminants, beans and cowpeas, and sorghum/
millet) a concept of "full involvement" of the U.S. university ccnmunity








prevailed. Thus the early CRSPs engaged a large number of U.S. universi-
ties, and visualized working in several host institutions and engaging the
full range of subject matter that would contribute to alleviation of
constraints in the subject matter area under consideration. Thus, the early
CRSPs were quite complex in terms of institutional and disciplinary involve-
ment in contrast to those developed later. The concept also (probably not
be coincidence) visualized an open-ended budget.


Conceptually, the planning process was to have first identified in a
global context the constraints within the subject matter areas and to engage
a wide array of both developed and developing country experts in the plan-
ning process. It turned out, of course, that the identification of work
sites (i.e., collaborating institutions and scientists) had to await the
identification of constraints and prospective research. This made it appea
that the programs were designed in a vacuum in the United States and then,
at a later time, taken to potential host institutions without their engage-
ment in the basic decision making process. My observations suggest that
there was mare than a grain of truth to that contention. That circumstance,
though in the main unavoidable has been a continuing problem in terms of
perceptions of the CFSP model.


The second stage- in the planning process was dealt with after selection
of a YAnag~mnt Entity (ME) that would have responsibility for overall
management and coordination of the CRSP. The ME was to design and implement
a process for identifying and engaging host institutions and scientists in
developing countries to collaborate in particular lines of work. At least
theoretically, this would engage AID field missions, international centers
and other on-going project leadership in those selection processes. The
extent to which those processes went forward in a thorough and harmonious
set of interactions varied fro one CRSP to another. In scne cases it was
done quite effectively. In others important linkage points were missed.
Where those points of contact were missed in the initial detailed planning
and negotiation, .there were often serious follow-on problems, sane persist-
ing to the present time. I would hasten to add that, in most instances, in
our observation, these early problems appeared to be largely history. It is








important, however, to remember these problems as guidance for the future.
If there is one most important necessity in design and implementation of
such programs, its surely full and continuing counications.

RESEARCH DIE=CTICN AND ACCOMPLISEMENT


Response to AID Policies, Strategies and. Priorities


It seems quite clear that the CSP's respond in a very positive way to
AID's food and agricultural development policies and strategies, to its
strategic plan and to general agency priorities. As indicated earlier, the
program likewise resporns to the Title XII legislation relating to relation-
ships with U.S. universities and the use of U.S. universities in a strategic
way to achieve AID goals and objectives. Clearly agriculture is a center-
piece .in AID' s develop ent assistance, and research to remove constraints to
agricultural production, food utilization and nutrition is clearly important
in achieving agency goals.


Target Audiences and Clientele


The CSP activities undertaken target on poor people in developing
countries through improvement in food supplies and/or economies in the
acquisition of food and in improved nutrition. They also target on U.S.
agriculture as it might benefit froa such global research. In my obser-
vation, most of the research being undertaken is likely to produce results
relevant, to those target populations and thus I conclude that the research
in generally on target.


Another set of clients that needs to be recognized is the scientific
person power in both the developing countries and in the U.S. universities.
It is quite evident from a review of the training activities of the on-going
CRSPs that one of the large contributions they will make is in adding to the
scientific manpower pool in the developing world a pool that will have a
: .. b .. better chance of resolving developing countries' agricultural problems in
-.the future. At the same time, the involvement of U.S. scientists in








globally conceived, and -implemented- research clearly broadens their horizons
and makes for stronger ccmeteence in dealing with their several functions
within the university cmrunity classroom and graduate teaching and
outreach activities as well as research.


Features and Their Purposes


Selection of the title of this program was deliberate- and well con--
ceived. The programs are to be collaborative which means that there will be
active participation by both U.S. and developing country scientists and
collaboration with other elements of the international research system. The
program will be reseazjh, which means that they will not be technical
assistance or outreach programs nor will they have as a central focus, the
building of institutions. The programs will be sugcort-d from multiple
sources including AID, the U.S. university and the host institution, the
letters support being either in funds or in. kind. In general, the host
institutions have provided work space, land and counterpart personnel and in
some cases local currency resources to support the programs. Finally the
CRSP was to be a program in effect encompassing several disciplines
coming to bear on constraints within the general matter area. Each of these
elements was deliberately'conceived in the program and each has a purpose
flowing frmo the specific words in the title.


In my observation, the features described and their purposes have in
large measure been met, although in sane cases more clearly than others. It
is also quite clear that as professionals are trained in the programs and
return to their hcme institutions to continue the CRSP research, those pur-
poses will be more fully met and the features more clearly documentable.


Scope and Imortance of the Research


In my observation, the four C3SPs reviewed are indeed concentrating on
important and needed research that is likely to contribute to improved food
crop and. livestock production. They. fill many niches not otherwise covered
by IMAC' s or national research programs. Thus they generally caplement and

.4,..








supplement rather than duplicate on-going research of IAC's or national
programs. Even where there might appear at the surface to be duplication,
when one gets underneath that apparent duplication one finds generally that
the research is in fact additive and not duplicative. For example, in
Honduras there is a continuing interaction and exchange of materials and
information between the CRSP scientist in Honduras and the bean breeders at
CIAT. Similarly, the sorghum and millet work in Latin America is clearly
supplementary and additive to the work of ICISAT and engages in a collab-
orative way the research in developing countries within the region.


On the other hand, I would not want to judge how much bean breeding or
sorghum/millet breeding and site-specific testing is enough, i.e. when there
might be redundancy. That I must leave to those better able to judge. But
I do challenge the contention by sane that breeding work on any comodity
currently within the mandate of an international center should be out-of-
bounds for CSPs. I believe that to be a gross oversim.lication. The goal
should be one of canplementing each others activities because there cer-
tainly is plenty of work to go around. Energies should be expended on
development of collaboration to take advantage of ceplementarities rather
than in contesting who should be in the drivers seat. At the same time, I
think there would be advaiztages to the CMSPs in strengthened relationships
with the international centers in collaborating with developing country
national programs. International centers have a history and a continuity in
working with developing country institutions. CRSPs could well piggyback on
that capability whenever possible.


In terms of the CRSP's current or potential future contributions to
increased food. production and consumption, there is, of course, variance as
one goes from one CSSP to another and from one location to another in a
Given CMS. In the relatively limited opportunity for specific observations
on that score, I was deeply impressed with the apparent relevance of most of
the work. Real constraints had been identified and the individual
scientists were hard at work, attempting to devise avenues around those
constraints. This ranged f-ror work on. the highly aluminum saturated soils
in Peru .to the semi-arid, water-limiting environment in Botswana. A most









striking.example was observed in western Kenya, where the small ruminant
CMSP had identified a major problem in the densely populated but more pro-
ductive environment there. Household.intake of animal protein was found to
be between 80 and' 90 percent derived froa milk. The problem was that the
traditional source of milk the large ruminant was highly inefficient
in milk production. The cattle consumed an inordinate amount of the output
(forage) from the very small farms on which people were confined with mini-
mal output of milk. An obvious potential answer would be the milk goat
provided that one could devise systems that would produce excess milk for
local consumption.

I
A well conceived and designed program is underway. It has already
demonstrated that subst-ntial increases (at least a doubling and perhaps as
much as 6 or 8 fold) beyoL-. that from large ruminants is possible using
improved goats and feeding systems. In six to eight years (1992-94) the
hypothesis will have been fully tested. If proven, the findings will have a
major impact on the quality of life in many areas where goat production is
practiced. The impact will extend far beyond western Kenya. There is no
question but that the same principles can be applied anywhere. Thus the
impact front that small investment has truly far-reaching implications across
the developing world.


As to the value placed on CRSP research by host countries and USAID
missions, again one finds a great deal of variation. In general the host
countries are quite highly enthused and the response of missions varies from
very strong support to at best indifference.


Peer Group Impact


Although a principle assignment of the research advisor, I would just
comment briefly on the effectiveness of CSP reviews through the established
technical peer group operations. I believe, as a general rule, the external
evaluation panels have been a useful devise, bringing objective and effec-
. tive guidance 't the CRSPs. Frao what L have read, seen and heard, they









clearly are not bashful about insisting on high standards, on relevance to
development and on the need for better collaboration and multi- and inter-
disciplinary efforts. The CBSPs have captured sace very superior outside
talent to serve on panels. Those "volunteers" have devoted a very large
amount of time and effort on behalf of the programs. It would be hoped that
such input would, continue to be utilized and recognized. The rest of the
management machinery has sometimes been a bit slow to take cognizance of
those admonitions but I believe there, is improvement in intra-CSP cabuni-
cation as time goes on.









institutions with which the CPSPs have been able to work. But it appears
that in most instances, these early difficulties have been overcome and the
CRSPs from the U.S. side have developed a much more comfortable and effec-
tive working relationship with host institutions and scientists. Part of
this is due to the involvement of host country personnel in the on-going
research activities particularly where people trained in the CPSPs have
returned to take up CRSP research in their hone. institution.

One difficulty has emerged in terms of which institutions in host coun-
tries have been engaged. In sane cases, the collaborating institution is a
university which often has no direct working relationship and in fact scre-
times a competitive relationship with the research agency in the national
government. Since CPSPs are research programs and not technical assistance
or outreach programs, the utility of their output is dependent upon having
soae kind of a pipeline fran the research activity to the farmer. This
relationship is most often effected from the national research organization
to the extension system. Thus when a university is involved, this linkage
is more difficult than when the host institution is the national research
system. It is my observation that the CRSPs have generally moved in the
direction of closer working relations with national research systems and
somewhat away frca the universities. Important to this working relationship
is the infusion of research results and new science into the international
research system. Thus the working relationships with the international
agricultural research centers and institutes becomes increasingly critical.


Finally, the CRSPs are just now beginning to worry about extension of
their findings across developing country lines. The sorghum/millet CMSP has
dealt with this matter through a prime site/secondary site approach to its
research in the several ecosystems under study. The Tropsoils CYSP has
begun to concern itself with networking'within the environments within which
they work. A recent intensive workshop was held in Peru bringing together
30 soil scientists from 11 Latin American countries to review in depth and
plan evaluative activities through a networking model. With a modest amount
of assistance, both financial and technical, this mode praises to bridge
the gap quite effectively. If this form of networking can be pru cted and
supported in a continuing program, then it is quite clear that the linkages








being developed and extended will endure. Should support not be continued,
then there is serious question'as to whether the linkages can be institu-
tionalized. And it is quite clear that leadership frcm national scientists
must emerge if such networking is to last.


In my observation, an important spinoff from the CRSPs has been in
strengthening national research capacity. This has been done by the direct
collaborative working relationship in the planning and conduct of research
and through training of national scientists, both degree and nondegree.
There is no question but what the M.S. and Ph.D. scientists who are
returning to host institutions will have a major and lasting impact on the
effectiveness of those institutions. Beyond that the linkage between-those
scientists and the U.S. universities will persist through the professional
relationships that develop during training and in the planning, conduct and
reporting of research results.


3. LINKAGES WI~T I~NrNATA~L AGRICITURAL RESEARCH CENTERS AND INSTIToES


As in the case of the national research systems, the CS Ps have dealt
with this subject in different ways with varying results. In the case of
sorghum and millet, there had been a standing working relationship among
certain of the participants prior to development of the CRSP. These rela-
tionships carried forward into the. CSP as the programs were developed.
Although communications were not always what they might have been, there has
been forged a good working relationship within the sorghum/millet program.


Likewise with the soils CSP, there was a professional relationship
between certain of the participants and two of the international centers
with which that CRSP is engaged. Thus, it was fairly straightforward to
move with good linkages and collaboration in certain of the'Tropsoils work.
Further, there exists sone networking activities fra other programs such as
the Benchmark Soils Network, the International Board for Soil Research and
* Management, etc., in which the key actors frm U.S. universities, inter-
.national centers and national pr-orams found- a camzonality of interest.
Thus, in general the working relationships in Tropsoils are fairly extensive
and, although informal, are functioning quite. well. Resources are indeed
being shared.










In the case of beans and cowpeas, there was not a legacy of such collab-
oration between U.S. universities and the two international centers involved
with these commodities. Those linkages by and large had to be forged in the
implementation process. Thus there were scme difficulties in sorting out
and agreeing on roles. Same of that difficulty continues although both
sides have worked diligently to avoid conflict. There is a free flow of
information and materials as appropriate to the objectives of individual
programs. The relationship has been helped by the presence of leadership in
bean research at CIAT and cowpea research at IIA serving as continuing
members of the technical committee of the bean cowpea CRSP. This has
greatly facilitated keeping the communication channels open which was-
extremely important to development of these working relationships.


In the case of the saUll ruminants CRSP, we found quite a different
situation. There is clearly a scientist tie between the veterinarians
working in the small ruminants CRSPs and the animal health program at ILRAD.
There is somewhat less of a professional tie between either the animal or
the forage scientists in the CBSPs and those at ILCA. We found the inter-
action there to be quite casual, in part because there has not yet emerged a
base of science in either the international center or the CRSP where there
is csmonality of. interest and thus utility in substantial sharing of
resources. I would expect that to begin to emerge over the next three to
five years as related technologies emerge from the two programs. Since I;CA
is confined in its research to the African continent, and more specifically
to sub-Saharan Africa, the Kenya C5SP -site is the only one where there is a
felt need for collaboration although. the Morocco site should also be of
interest and concern. to ILC as. that work relates to the semi-arid and arid
environments where sheep and goats are important in sub-Sahara Africa.


4. LINKAGES WIT= AID MISSINEM AND. COUNTRY PROGRAMS


These linkages are by all odds the most variable both among CSsPs and
Among AID missions and personnel. They vary from- non-existent to negative
- to neutral to very positive.. Not surprisingly, personalities sometimes get
involved as does. the- philosophy of AID leadership. Andr the relationship








varies over time depending on individual circumstances. A program may be
well received at one point in time and the linkage then dissolves at
another. And interestingly, the converse can also occur..

A major problem in the agency's dealing with CRSPs is that mission
programs by and large are technical assistance and institutional development
whereas the CRSPs are research and do not have those functions as a particu-
lar thrust. Thus there is an inherent arena for conflict in attempting to
fit a CRSP into a USAID strategy. There clearly are exceptions where CRSPs
have been embraced fully by AID missions in a collaborative relationship
with the host country research establishment. But there are, unfortunately,
other instances in which the relationship is casual at best. It is my con-
sidered judgement that the fault is many sided and that there is enough to
go around. I think it incumbent on both those engaged in the CaPs and on
missions to work at better communications and see if they can't get on the
same tea. The communications problem varies considerably among the CBSPs
and USAID. Where there has not been free and regular flow of information,
the programs have suffered. I believe on the CSSP side that they must do a
better job of keeping missions informed, providing them copies of reports
and in general work at keeping missions abreast of developments. Where that
has been done, the relationships generally are good.










Date: 31 October 1986


Report of Observations on Visits to Managerent Entity Universities and Field
Sites of Tropsoils, Bean/Cowpea, Intsormil and Small- Ruinants C-SPs.


J. S. Robins



Washington, D.C.: 27-29 August 1986
After entry meetings of the team with Winrock International Staff, met
with:
o BIFAD staff
o PPC/S&T steering committee
o S&T/FA staff
a Regional Bureau Agriculture Officers
o Don Plucknett, CIALR staff
o S&T/Agriculture staff (Project managers)


or-th Carolina State University: 2-4 September 1986
Detailed discussions with:
o Charles McCants, ME/O Director
o Lawrence Apple, Director of International Programs and Studies
o- Ed Oyer, Chnn., Board of Directors, Tropsoilsr Member, Board of
Directors, Bean/Cowpea CRSP.
a Bob Miller, Chon. of Soils Dept., NCSU rep. to Board of Directors
o Pedro Sanchez, NCSU Program Coordinator for Tropsoils CRSP.
o Charles Lassiter, NCSU representative to Small Ruminant CRSP, Board
of Directors
a -Several.staff and graduate students.


Washington, D.C.: 5 September 1986
Lengthy visits with:
o.John Coulter, Chan., Tropsoils EP







o Clarence Gray, Chmn., Bean/Cowpea E?
Vice-Chair, Sorghum/MilletEEP
o PPC/S&T Steering Cmmittee
o S&T/Agr. staff (project managers)


Michigan State University: 8-10 September 1986.
Met with wide array of people:
o Don Isleib, Director International Agriculture Programs
o Kim Wilscn, Deputy Director International Agriculture Program
o Ralph Smuachler, Dean for International Programs & Studies
o Pat Barnes-McConnell, Director MO/ME
o Russ Freed, Deputy Director MO/ME
o Ann Ferguson, WIDr, M3!/V
o Jim Anderson, Dean of Agriculture
o Eldor Paul, Chair-Crops and Soils Dept.
o George Hosfield, Crops and Soils Dept.
o Mark Uebersax, Food Scientist
o Wayne Adams, Crops and Soils Dept.
o Jerry Jacobs. Contract & Grant Admin.
o Sue Bengry, Sect. M/ME
a Carolyn Snow, Acct. M/0E
o George Arinn Rescrce Devel. Dept.
o Robert Gast Expt. Sta. Director
a Paul Magee Chair Microbiologist


University of Nebraska 10-12 September 1986
Met with;
o Glenn Volma--, Dir., MO/ME International
o John Yohe, Rep. Dir. tV/ME
o D. Woods Thoas,- Chmn., Board of Directors
a Bill Miller, Agricultural Econanist Department Head
o Darrell Anderson, Agronony Head
o Roy Arnold, V. Chancellor for Agriculture
o Several scientists and graduate students
o Roger Uhlinger, Head of Horticulture Dept. and Chmn. Bean/Cwpea CRSP
Board of Directors.








University of California, Davis: 15-16 September 1986


o David Robertshawr Director, .M/ME Small Ruminants CRSP
o Bill Weir, Dep. Dir., M!ME
o A. G. Marr, Dean of Graduate Divisions, Member Board of Directors,
Small. Ruminants CRSP
o Eric Bradford, Animal Sciences, TC representative-
o Harvey Olander, Veterinary Sciences, former TC representative-
o D. Osburn, Veterinary Science


Lima, Peru: 17-20 September 1986
Met briefly with AID staff:
o David Flood, Deputy ADO
o Tim Miller, Project Officer, Tropsoils
o Adolfo Jurado, Project Officer, Small Ruminants
With Small Ruminants collaborators:
o Enrique Nolte, Site Coordinator
o Chela Prado, Admin. Asst.
o Ben Onijandria, INIPA counterpart and former Director of INIPA
o Several cooperators frao IVI and fran universities (UNA, ktE~A)
whose names were not provided.
and with:
o Dale Bandy, NCSU Country Program Office Director
o Hugo Villachica, Co-Leader of the Selva program, INIPA


Visited field work of Tropsoils at Yurimaguas: 18-19 September 1986
NCSU personnel:
o Pedro Sanchez, Program Coordinator, NSCU, Raleigh
a Jose Benites, Team leader
a Julio Allegro Crop Mgmnt. Specialist
o Miguel Ayarza Grad. Student (Pastures)
a Cheryl Palm Grad. Student (Agroforestry)
c Cesar Tepe Grad. Student (Rice)
S o Bob Scholes Grad. Student (Rooting characteristics)
o Mary Scholes Grad Student (N. Cycle)








IIA, Ibadan, Nigeria:. 20-22.October 1986
Had discussions with:
o Larry Stiefel Director General, IITA
o John Pendleton Director of Research, IITA
o Tony Juo Soil Scientist, FS Program
o Eugene Terry Director of Training
.-. o S R. Singh Leader of Cowpea program, ITA.
o Len Reynolds ILCA Program leader
o 3. T. Kang Alley Cropping specialist, I=K
o Paul Lippold USAID representative at IITA


Washington, D.C.: 23-31 October 1986
Report writing and follow-up meetings in AID


GENERAL OBSERVATIS


I. The distinguishing characteristics of the four CBSPs that we reviewed
are:
A. How very different they are in organization and management, and
3. Sow similar they are in concept, i.e. "collaborative", "research",
"support*, "programs".
Although each "follows" the guidelines, i.e. operates through a Management
Office (MO) at a University that acts as Management Entity (ME), has a Board
of Directors (BD), a Technical Committee (TC), and an External Evaluation
Panel (EP), the similarity pretty much ends there. The roles performed by
the several elements vary a great deal. And in same cases, different actors
in a given CRSP even perceive that given roles are performed by different
elements of the structure. In one case, the MO plays a strong role in
decision making whereas in another the role is quits passive. One TC is
very influential in. decisions about programs and budgets while another
carefully avoids substance in their interactions. Similar differences in
behavior and in influence exist among the EEPs. Intsormil has invented a
fifth entity -.a council of "Ecological Zone Coordinators" which appears to
have some significant clout.







The organization of the research likewise varies. Bean/Cowpeas deals with
many small, highly targeted projects. whereas the other three deal more
programatically with selected environments. Tropsoils operations in a
given environment are largely done by one participating. U.S. university with
sane collaborating host country institution whereas Small Ruminants and
Intsozmil engage researchers from several U.S. and often several host
institutions in a given environment. Intsormil engages several countries in
a given eco-geographic region but Tropsoils and Small Ruminants confine
operations to a single country. Sane collaborate intimately with
International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) by posting scientist at
Centers while others maintain a more "arms length" relationship.


But with all those differences, the similarities show through. There is
substantial collaboration between U.S. and Developing Country scientists.
Generally the collaboration extends to institutions, i.e. U.S. university
(ies) and host country research organizations and/or universities. Often
there is collaboration among U.S. institutions or scientists. Generally,
but not always, AID Missions are parties to the collaboration through
partication in funding and interaction in planning and evaluation.

There is "support" fram a variety of sources and in a variety of forms.
Sometimes it is money, but often it is "things"or people many times it is
technical or moral.

Each of the 4 CRSPs is (or perhaps was) a well-rounded program engaging the
several relevant disciplines in a global context. I say, "perhaps was",
because with recent funding reductions, what may prove to be key elements of
programs, notably in the social sciences, have been terminated.

Finally, each of the 4 prog-a is engaged is substantive and, by all
appearances, quality research. And as scientists trained in the CRSPs
return to their home countries, the quality and quantity of research and
collaboration goes up significantly.







1. Each of the 4 CRSPs has done remarkably well in attracting quality
scientists frm the- U.S. side. And the participants from the U.S. side. have
pretty much "stuck with it". There has been less stability on the host
country side where frequent personnel changes and ups and downs in support
have occurred in several cases.


III. Though perhaps not visualized at the outset, graduate degree training
has became a major feature of the 4 CRSPs examined. Through June 1986, 430
host nation students had conleted MS or PhD degrees with CRSP support, and
a large number of students funded frcm other sources have done their thesis
research in the CRSP's. There is little doubt that this feature may be the
most important and enduring output of the CRSPs. The impact of these
professionals in government, in universities and in business and industry in
developing countries will surely be large and positive.


IV. A parallel contribution in which trained personnel play an important
part is in the development and maturation of institutions in the host
nation. The presence of the U.S. institution generally, but not always
imaacts the hosting institution in a positive way. And the impact is.
accelerated as trained professionals return -to the host nation institutions.
The developing "alumni associations" of the CPSP's will have a continuing
positive influence on U.SI/host natiorr'relations in addition to the impact
on the institutions in which the alumni work.








SPECIFIC OBSERVATICNS


I. TMPSOILS TEE TOPICAL SOILS P


Tropsoils engages four strong OS university soil science groups working
in four developing countries. In only one case does more than one univer-
sity work in a given country. This is in contrast to the small ruminants
and sorghuwmmillet CRSPs where several universities may engage in a partic-
ular host country site. Although this model greatly simplifies management,
it appears to lessen inter-institutional collaboration.

The greatest attribute of this CRSP is that it has brought to bear a
critical mass of resources on sae of the developing worlds most serious
problems. A CRSP didn't have to exist to do that, of course, but it is
indeed fortunate that Tropsoils does exist. Only in a very few cases out-
side the CRSP is the tropical soils problem being engaged in a significant
way. There is a great deal of excellent and much needed work underway. It
will have a large impact in the long run, provided mechanisms can be found
to network the research in environments similar to those in which the CSSP
is engaged.


The management office in this particular CPSP plays a very significant
role in decision-making. The technical committee plays a lesser role than
in the other three programs visited and the Board of Directors appears to
lean on the management office to take the lead in both:proposing program
changes and in their implementation. I was impressed with the stature and
impact of the external evaluation panel. It is a small one but nonetheless
exercises substantial influence.. In recent times it has extended its tech-
nical cpetence by bringing on board for particular reviews, short-term
consultants who advise on particular activities.

Concern with how to outreach the technical findings of the CRSP has been
." addressed, particularly by the North Carolina State University researchers








working inrPeru. A three-week long- workshop was recently held bringing
together about 30 soil scientists from 10 or 11 Latin American countries.
The work in Peru was thoroughly reviewed and ways in which .findings .could be
tested, evaluated and refined in other countries in Central and South
America was discussed. It seems likely that there will be four or five mini
networks emerge fran that workshop. With a modest amount of assistance,
particularly with respect to support of the mini network coordinator and in
payment of travel costs across the region, there would seem to be good pros-
pects for development of strong linkages among participating countries in
evaluating and refining technologies.


Tropsoils feels under sane pressure to engage itself on the African
continent in the humid/subhumid tropics. Sane have gone so far as to sug-
gest that the Peru and Brazil locations be abandoned in favor of a move to
one or more sites in Africa. I believe this to be a dangerous suggestion
and one which would involve a very large opportunity cost. First, the work
would be much more expensive in Africa. Second, the abandonment of the Peru
and Brazil sites would incur a five- to ten-year haitas in program develop-
ment and a c=mensrrate loss of impetus in the programs. This is not to say
that the CBSP should ignore humid. and subhumid tropical soils problems in
Africa. But it seems to me that the way to do that is to link with ITA in
developing and backstopping networking activities in countries such as
Zaire, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, etc. A good linkage already
exists, although an informal one, with researchers at IITA. Those linkages
need to be continued and strengthened and, perhaps at sane point, a bit more
forality developed and implemented in the cooperative relationship.

In sumary,. I was very pleased with what I saw in Peru and what I heard
about the work in Brazil and Indonesia. Findings from that work are already
having. impact. The activities in Indonesia and in. Niger are somewhat less
mature than the work in Pe. and Brazil so it will require a bit more time-
before much information for networking becomes available.









II. IMNiSMIL.- THE SORa DM/OMILLEr CSSP


In contrast to the site specific, programmatic involvement of single
institutions in the tropical soils CRSP, the sorghum/millet CRSP employs a
multi-institutional prime site/secondary programnatic site approach. Prime
and secondary site selection is based on agro-ecologies and at present five
zones are under study. The approach does promote inter-institutional col-
laboration where there is in fact more than one university engaged and it
promotes and facilitates collaboration among researchers in more than one
country within an ecological zone. The matter of how to. retrench in
declining budget situations such as presently faced presents a problem in
this approach in contrast to the tropical soils activities where an indi-
vidual institution makes the primary decisions on what to discontinue when
there is a funding shortfall. I wonder whether prospective resources can
support the range of subject matter currently being pursued in this CPSP.. I
suspect that sane hard decisions will need to be made as to where to place
continuing emphasis.


I noted good cooperation between Intsormil and Tropsoils in Latin
America where Tropsoils is evaluating acid and aluminum tolerant sorghum
lines identified by Intsormil at CIAT headquarters. Sane very interesting
and promising materials have been identified. Z saw no evidence of collab-
oration with ICRISAT in the Latin America work except as ICRISAT germolasm
is used in the programs. Given the potential and interest in sorghum and
millet in Central and South America, ICRISA should perhaps rethink its
involvement in that region.


Coming now to southern Africa, the program is really quite different
frm those in Central and.Soutth America. The emphasis is clearly on a rele-
vant set of problems, namely the soil and water conservation problems in the
semi-arid/arid environ=nts of southern Africa but with only casual consid-
eration of the carn. cities dealt with in this CRSP. One wonders whether
this work. is best done within a commodity CS or whether other mechanisms
Smight be more effective. For example, one could visualize an expansion of
Tropsoils to take on. these kinds of problems or perhaps even the development


" 0








of a new CRSP dealing with the relationship between soils. and climate. and
the management and conservation of water. I await observations on the
Tropsoils work in Niger which may shed a different light on the range of
considerations dealt with by Tropsoils. Finally in the Botswana case, we
found little indication of prime site/secondary site collaboration or coop-
eration. The scientist was cognizant of work being done at Bulowayo,
Zimbabwe but was only very marginally involved-with scene collaborative work
between a Botswana Agricultural Research Service scientist and the scien-
tists at Bulowayo.


In summary, I found the sorghum. millet research to be moving along
rather well even though as indicated above, having sane question about the
breadth of subject matter encmpassed. It may behoove the management
elements of this CRSP to do a bit of rethinking and perhaps identify two or
three major constraints on which to concentrate efforts.

III. THM BEA/COWMPEA C3SP


S visited bean work at the Zamorano School in Honduras and cowpea work
in Botswana. I also had opportunity to visit with the bean researchers at
C=I and the cowoea researchers at IITA. We also talked to the previous
principal investigator in the Kenya program which is now terminated. I also
talked with a CAT staff member posted in Ecuador about that terminated
project.


The bean/cowpea work is structured somewhat differently than any of the
other CRSPs that we reviewed. It uses a small project approach rather than
a programatic one. This appears to stretch the capacity of its management
and the comnnications capability of the participants.


This CSP seems to have more troubled projects that the others we
visited although it may have been coincidence that the locations we visited
happened to have the troubled projects. My impression is that commnica-
Stions were- not always what they might have been, which perhaps should be no
Surprise in an activity as ccplex. as this CRSP. And hopefully most of the








trouble is now history. In the- early going there were similar difficulties
with both snail rumlinants and Intsornil but those seem to have been dealt
with.


Interesting views were expressed by the leadership of the bean and
cowpea research at the two collaborating international centers. Both felt
that the engagement of U.S. universities in bean and cowpea work might be
more effective if more emphasis were directed to "upstream" rather than
"downstream" problems. They also expressed a view that the IARC's could be
"exploited" in fostering working -relationships with developing country
scientists. This raises the larger question of how one structures a CRSP
that engages research areas that are within the mandates of international
centers. Is there a way to structure a more mutually supportive rela-
tionship? Perhaps those involved with the CRSP's and IA1C's should do sane
brainstorming on this question. A case in point exists presently as the
networking approach in Africa is fleshed out and the roles of IARC's and
CBSP's in that networking worked out.


As to working relationships within the management structure of this
CRSP, the rotation of membership on both the Board of Directors and the
Technical Committee has. perhaps left a vacuum at times, but I feel that
problem is pretty Well resolved at this point. Working relations now seem
to be much better than at -ertain times in the past. A trust relationship
has developed between principal investigators working in the program and the
several management elements. As these relationships mature, the past prob-
lems are not likely to recur.


In smmlary, I would observe that this CSTP, due to its ccnplexity and to
lack.of international experience among U.S. bean and cowpea researchers had
considerable start-up problems. I think. most of these have been dealt with.
A very great deal of excellent and useful research has been and is being
done.. ven at locations that have been or are being closed or redirected,
sar- of the research has been productive and useful results obtained. Still
I would observe that the program has not yet. coalesced into a fully collab-
S orative- program althoughh a great deal of progress along that line has been
^nda.oe




r ,


On the -cther side of the- coin, there have been negative linkages
generated where lack of communication and misunderstandings have resulted in
some serious conflicts in inter-institutional or inter-scientists relation-
ships. In general the CRSPs need to take cognizance of and deal on a timely
basis with the interpersonal and inter-institutional conflicts as changes in
the CSPs are negotiated and implemented.


C. CRSP/AID Linkages and Relationships


As in the case of other linkages and working relationships, the CRSP/AID
relationships vary markedly. In same cases, missions have been highly
supportive and have taken in the CBSP as a long-term component of their
development programs. In oth.r cases there have been serious conflicts and
disagreements with respect to t-. CRSP presence and activities in the
country.

These differences in relationships generate front several" underlying
causes. Not the least of these is personality conflicts between one or more
of the actors involved with the relationship. Secondly, the AID propensity
to redesign rather than to implement programs sometimes has been a factor.
Thirdly, on occasion there has been a negative bias toward research.
Fourthly, there has been a competition for control of resources. And
finally, and most importantly, has been the differences in level and effec-
tiveness of c=mounicaticns between CRSP managers and scientists and AID
Washington and Mission staff.


Same of these problems are more amenable to solution than others. It is
difficult to overcome biases but less. difficult to improve communications.
But above all, it is incumbent upon both AID and the CRSP management to
recognize two important facts: 1) research' is a long-term enterprise that
is highly supportive of the developmental process.. Maintaining. continuity
of programs is extremely important. 2) CRSP leadership must recognize the
importance of involving missions in these programs. Maintaining ccrmunica-
:* t.. tions and interactions that can lead to mission "ownership" of programs is
S critical.









Further to the- question of CSP/AID relationships, is in the area of
.continuity and .assurance of funding.. In particular is the need to have
assured funding for much longer time horizons than currently is the case.
For example, the small ruminants CSP is extended currently to the end of
fiscal 1987 without even tentative assurance of continuation. Beyond that
the level of funding- for. the last year of the project is in some uncer-
tainty. ITn the soils and. certain other CMSPs there is an apparent problem
in terms of pipeline requi:rrents. AID clearly needs to recognize that
funding assurances must be extended and adequate funds made available for
CRSPs to meet nor-al coamitments to faculty, students and host governments
if CRSPs are to remain 'a viable on-going enterprise.


Beyond the need for assured and stable longer-tarm funding, it would
appear that the CSPs have been subjected to repeated reviews and critiques.
This has contributed to a feeling of insecurity which has been and continues
to be- a penalty to the effectiveness of the program. They simply should not
be subjected to the kind of uncertainties- that go alorg with such frequent
and pervasive reviews. Am should have faith in the management processes
that were jointly evolved and be prepared to let them work.
























.-.;i, o_








Arnendix B


RESEARCH ADVISOR'S REPORT FOR THE CRSP MANAGEMENT REVIEW


by
K. 0. Rachie


August 27-September 26, 1986








RESEARCH ADVISOR'S REPORT FOR THE CRSP MANAGEMENT REVIEW
August 27-September 26, 1986



Page
BACKGROUND .................................................. 1
Review Activities ......................................... 1
Consultations.................................. ........... 2
Graduate Students................... ....................... 3

RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH ................................ 4
The Four CRSP Programs................................... 5
Trop-soils......... .......... ................ ......... 5
Small ruminants..................................... 6
Beans/copeas........................................... 7
Intsormil....... .. .... .. .. .......... ........... 8
Potential Impact........................................ 9
Participant Benefits ..e................................... 9

CRSP MANAGEMENT ................................................ 11
Contrasting Management Styles............................. 12
Trop-soils ... ...... .................................... 12
Small ruminants ................................... 12
Beans/covpeas.................................. .... .. 13
Intsormil ................................ ............. 13
Overall Management Effectiveness........................... 14
Improving Management................ ..... ......... .. 15
Budgeting process.................h...... ............. 15
Top-Heavy management.............. .................... 15
Setting priorities................................... 15
Regional focus...................................... 16
Flexibility......... ..... o ............. ............ 16
The peer review process ................................ 16

CONCLUSIONS.................................................... 17

ANNEX 1 ........................ ..... ......................... 20
Some Initial Accomplishments of CRSP Research.............. 21
Tropical Soils CRSP ................................... 21
Small Ruminants CRSP ............... ................... 24
Beans/Covpeas CRSP ..........o.......................... 26
Intsormil CRSP........................................ 28








BACKGROUND


Following the 1985 review of the USAID Division S&T-ABS the Adminis-
trator requested that S&T and PPC undertake a review of the CRSP Program
and determine its effectiveness as a long-term investment. The purpose
of this review was not to evaluate the technical quality of the research
effort nor to second guess their technical judgements. Rather it was
intended to assess the effectiveness of the peer group process and to
assure that the peer groups are independent, composed of proven talent
in appropriate areas, and asking the right questions. By this means it
should be possible for AID to effectively measure technical progress and
determine from a technical standpoint whether the CRSPs are on target
and whether their research is conducted according to internationally
accepted standards.


Review Activities


The review itself was conducted during the period August 27 through
December 31, 1986 of which the research advisor participated in domestic
travel to Washington, D.C., four participating lead universities and
Vinrock International Headquarters in Arkansas during the period
August 27 through September 26, 1986.


The review panel, comprised of three members, assembled in Washington on
August 27 and began a round of.consultations and discussions with USAID
personnel, resources people in the World Bank and other Washington agen-
cies; and then commenced a series of visits to the four lead universi-
ties of the following CRSPs:


Tropical Soils NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina
Small Ruminants UCD, Davis, California
Beans and Cowpeas MSU, East Lansing, Michigan
Intsormil UN, Lincoln, Nebraska


From Davis the research advisor proceeded on to Winrock International
Headquarters at Morrilton, Arkansas for further study, review of field








notes, -and writing up of his report. His assignment was terminated on
September 27, 1986.


Consultations


The review team met with a large number of resource persons on the
several aspects of program management, planning, operations, evalu-
ations, and organizational matters. While all consultations are judged
to be very useful to the team's overall assignment, those meetings
considered most relevant to the research aspects of the four CRSP pro-
grams included sessions vith the following:


1. J. Malcolm and T. S. Gill AID/V on the Trop-Soils CRSP
2. H. Bortick AID/V on the Bean, Covpea, Intsormil, and Small
Ruminants
3. D. Plunkett The World Bank, Washington on all CRSP programs
4. J. Coulter -- The World Bank, Washington on the Trop-Soils CRSP
5. C. G. Gray -- Member EEP for Beans, Cowpeas, and Intsormil.
6. C. B. McCants Program Director for Trop-Soils at NCSU,
Raleigh, NC
7. R. Miller Head of the Soils Department at NCSU, Raleigh, NC
8. P. A. Sanchez PI for the Trop-Soils CRSP in Peru
9. E. Oyer Chmn. Trop-Soils Board and Member-Bean/Covpea Board
10. C. A. Lassiter PI for Small Ruminants Nutrition at NCSU,
Raleigh, NC
11. P. Barnes McConnell Program Director for Bean/Cowpeas -
MSU, East Lansing, Michigan
12. R. Freed Associate Program Director, Bean/Covpea CRSP, MSU,
East Lansing, Michigan
13. M. W. Adams PI for bean breeding, MSU, East Lansing,
Michigan
14. M. A. Uebersax PI for bean quality studies, MSU, East
Lansing, Michigan
15. A. Ferguson PI for social science investigator, Bean/Covpea
CRSP, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan
16. G. Vollmar Program Director, Intsormil, UN, Lincoln,
Nebraska









17. J. Yohe Assistant Program Director, Intsormil, UN, Lincoln,
Nebraska
18. R. Uhelinger Chairman of the Bean/Covpea CRSP Board
19. M. Clegg PI for sorghum agronomy, UN, Lincoln, Nebraska
20. J. Haranville PI for mineral nutrition of sorghum and
millet, UN, Lincoln, Nebraska
21. J. Eastin PI for sorghum millet physiology, UN, Lincoln,
Nebraska
22. V. Nelson PI for Intsormil economics, UN, Lincoln, Nebraska
23. D. Nelson Head of Agronomy and Soils, UN, Lincoln, Nebraska
24. V. Veir Former Program Director for Small Ruminants, UCD,
Davis, California
25. E. Bradford PI for animal genetics-Small Ruminants, UCD,
Davis, California
26. D. Osborne and H. Olander -- PIs for Small Ruminant health,
UCD, Davis, California
27. B. Vebster PI for Bean/Covpea CRSP, investigations in Kenya
-- UCD, Davis, California
28. I. Buddenhagen Coordinator for Food Legume Investigations,
UCD, Davis, California
29. C. Qualset Director of the Genetic Resources Conservation
Program, UCD, Davis, California
30. S. R. Temple -- Former Bean Breeder at CIAT; nov Extensionist,
UCD, Davis, California
31. B. Svanson PI for bean quality investigations at VSU,
Pullman, VA


Graduate Students


Graduate students have a particularly important role in the trop-soils
program both at their home university and in host countries. At present
the NCSU program has 18 graduate students, nine of whom are supported by
the Trop-Soils CRSP.- Not only do these graduate students contribute to
the research program, they also serve as representatives of the Trop-
Soils CRSP abroad. In such assignments, carefully-selected, mature, and
internationally-oriented graduate students serve as junior* scientists
and key elements of the Trop-Soils CRSP in the host country. In some









cases, the student may be the only expatriate representative of this
CRSP at some locations in target countries (Peru, Brazil, Niger,
Indonesia).


At MSU we met with ten graduate students representing a very vide range
of agro-ecological zones from Iraq to East Africa, Vest Africa, and
Mexico. They are completing their Master's and Ph.D. degrees in such
highly relevant topics as bean quality especially cooking time and
starch characteristics; epidemiology studies of bean bruchids; genetic
diversity including electrophoretic patterns of isozymes in beans from
Malawi; the occurrence and nature of anti-nutritional elements in
cowpeas; combining drought resistance and nitrogen fixation in beans;
and intercropping studies of beans with maize and other associations.


The graduate students working on sorghum and millet at Lincoln were
likewise very interesting, representing host countries like India, the
Philippines, and Colombia. Their projects include investigations on
phosphorus uptake efficiency utilizing the vesicular-arbuscular
mychorriza and the effect of aluminum on P uptake in sorghum. Other
students were studying nitrogen metabolism in sorghum, the physiology of
drought resistance in sorghum, and development of an effective screening
technique for evaluating drought tolerance. All of these students indi-
cated plans to return to their home country on completing their degrees.


Although time was too short to meet with students of the Small Ruminants
CRSP, that program has been particularly productive in training 77 M.S.
and 48 Ph.D. students in the U.S.; and 56 M.S. and 5 Ph.D. students in
their home country. In addition, a large number of students and young
researchers have received various kinds of technical training under the
auspices of these CRSP programs. The quantity and quality of graduate
and technical training resulting from CRSP program activities are judged
to be excellent and will undoubtedly represent the most significant and
enduring contributions of this and the other CRSP programs.


RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH


The technical programs of the four CRSPs reviewed, with few exceptions,
appear to be of excellent quality and quantity. In general, the
4









research appears to be highly relevant in addressing the major-
constraints to increased production and utilization of the target
commodities and to improved management of some tropical soils. However,
it is not entirely clear how priorities are established nor whether the
current mechanism for allocation of resources is appropriate to the
magnitude of need as viewed by the potential users and consumers of the
respective commodities in targeted regions abroad. Undoubtedly, the PIs
of domestic institutions in the U.S. exert a strong influence on both
the disciplinary and problem focus of the programs underway. While it
may be assumed that most of the directions and resource allocations are
efficiently used by the different programs, it does not necessarily hold
that these are always appropriate to the situation and need.


The Four CRSP Programs


The four CRSPs have developed programs that are clearly beneficial to
both domestic and host country goals and activities. There may be
instances where investigators tend to compromise development priorities
somewhat in favor of their own interests. However, the different mana-
gerial strata have attempted to rectify such aberrations and it appears
they have been largely successful in this function (when given enough
time).


There is a limit to how much supporting research can be carried out in
domestic institutions. For example, most U.S. institutions are located
in temperate or sub-temperate climates where only one field crop a year
can be grown under long-day lengths. This limits the possibilities for
field research on crops like covpeas, pearl millet, and other associated
tropical plant species.


Trop-Soils. The CRSP program appears to have the highest immediate
relevance and impact on tropical agriculture development Trop-Soils.
This CRSP has built on a long history of activity, mainly in the low
humid tropics of Latin America, and has a cadre of highly qualified
professionals involved in the program. Most of their PIs, especially at
NCSU, have extensive field experience and have produced a large body of
knowledge and expertise in soil research in the low humid tropics.









However, their expertise in the semi-arid tropics is more recent and
less extensive.


The Trop-Soils CRSP is distinct from the other three CRSPs in that it is
focused on the management of a basic resource rather than a commodity.
For this reason, the application of tropical soils technology must be
linked with a commodity plants or animals to be useful to the
primary client. Since much of the applied knowledge about soils of the
humid tropics is already reasonably well understood, it may be desirable
to include other basic resource studies (e.g. rainfall, temperatures,
humidities, and wind) and native or otherwise useful plants -- both
domestic and wild.


Small Ruminants. The Small Ruminants program was found to be both
highly relevant and to have potential for making a significant impact on
some of the World's 700 million sheep, goats, and camelids. This pro-
gram is the oldest of all CRSPs, being established in 1978, has had
exceptionally good leadership from the outset, has mobilized outstanding
talent in both domestic and host country scientific communities, and has
made excellent progress in understanding animal responses to a wide
range of ecological and management conditions across the three conti-
nents (Peru, Brazil, Morocco, Kenya, and Indonesia). Much information
on socioeconomic factors and interactions has been collected, analyzed,
and used in planning research activities and strategies. Rapid strides
have been made on understanding the nutritional aspects of animal
production involving a range of forage, browse, and crop residues.


Small ruminants are an integral and ubiquitous enterprise among small
farmers of the developing world. The SR-CRSP has in the past eight
years assembled an impressive body of knowledge regarding the production
of small ruminants in their target regions. Moreover, animal technology
is more universally applicable across environment and management systems
than it is for plants and crops. This means that good technology and
management practices are widely applicable; but it may also imply that
future breakthroughs in research findings are likely to be more incre-
mental than the major breakthroughs achieved in the past. Essentially









then, current and future needs will increasingly become problems of
adapting and extending the knowledge already available.


Two areas are exceptions to this thesis. The fundamental problem of
small ruminant production in LDCs centers on animal nutrition. This
involves increasing the total availability of balanced feedstuffs and
providing for seasonal fluctuations in both quality and quantity of
forage in sub-humid to semi-arid regions. Unfortunately, the supply of
animal feedstuffs is another dimension requiring the attention of a
separate CRSP comprised mainly of range and forage specialists.


The second aspect of animal production where further investigations of
both a substantial and fundamental nature are required is that of animal
health. It will be essential to continue the development of practical
control measures for the major endemic diseases and parasites of animals
in small farming systems.


Beans/Covpeas. This program focuses on two important yet largely
neglected crops that contribute widely to the quality of human nutrition
and life in the developing tropics. In comparison with other subsis-
tence crops like maize, wheat, and rice, the number of bean and cowpea
researchers and production specialists is very small both relatively and
absolutely. In fact, most of these scientists and specialists, at least
in Latin America and Africa, are associated with CIAT (beans), IITA
(covpeas), and the Bean/Covpea CRSP. Although the two IARCs have made
considerable progress on improving these two crops, the level of work
underway is not commensurate with worldwide needs. Since constraints in
the technical domains relating to the production of these crops are very
great and complex, they will require the application of sustained
efforts by the world's most knowledgeable scientists over many years to
come.


The Bean/Cowpea CRSP has not yet had a measurable impact on the produc-
tion of beans or cowpeas, but it has produced valuable, useful additions
to knowledge and production technology. In certain areas of bean and
cowpea research -- biological nitrogen fixation; breeding for resistance
to drought and soil stresses; socioeconomic studies and gender issues;









processing procedures to improve nutritional and taste qualities; and
certain aspects of crop evolution, biological control of insects,
epidemiological studies and seriological diagnostic screening -- the
CRSP is the most significant and sometimes the only contributor. This
program appears determined to integrate its efforts with that of the
earlier established IARCs and to carry out the project both in regions
and disciplines complimentary to that of the two IARCs.


The short-term impact of the Bean/Covpea CRSP is not yet significant due
to the shortness of time it has been operating. However, the long-term
impact of this program given vise and effective management is likely to
be very great since the need and the demand for these two commodities in
terms of upgrading human diet and quality of life is practically
unlimited. Therefore, this program should rapidly increase in effec-
tiveness over the next three to five years.


Intsormil. The Intsormil program is very similar to that of the
Bean/Covpea CRSP in relevance and impact. However, Intsormil does build
on a somewhat larger base of knowledge and pool of scientists particu-
larly in the case of sorghum which has been worked on more extensively
than beans or covpeas, both in the United States and abroad. The oppo-
site is true for pearl millet, which might be compared with covpeas in
respect of the base of knowledge and prior work done on this crop.
Nevertheless, some profound and revolutionary developments have occurred
in both these crops as a consequence of sustained efforts by a small
cadre of highly competent and dedicated scientists both in the U.S. and
abroad, particularly in India. A fundamental constraint to the produc-
tion of both sorghum and millet (as well as cowpeas) is that they are
almost universally rainfed commodities and subject to other soil
stresses, especially pH extremes, depleted soil fertility, and poor
physical characteristics; and are susceptible to a host of insect and
disease pests throughout the major growing regions.


In addition to applied biological advances, considerable progress has
been made on socioeconomic studies, institution building, strengthening
CRSP relationships with country missions and national programs,
effecting interdisciplinary collaboration, and training young scientists









from host countries. In general, the relevance of the Intsormil is
likewise rated very highly as it seeks to address those constraints not
covered well by ICRISAT. Therefore, the future for this CRSP appears
very promising.


Further details on CRSP research accomplishments are included in Annex 1
of this report.


Potenital Impact


The CRSP programs have attracted some of the best scientific talent
available in the U.S. and, often, in the world; but some programs are
likely to have more immediate impact on tropical agriculture than the
others. For example, the Trop-Soils CRSP will probably have the
greatest short-term impact on targeted area LDCs. The Small Ruminant
CRSP is likewise expected to make some early contributions in regions
where sheep and goats are important. On the other hand, the
Beans/Cowpeas and Intsormil programs have not yet had time to make any
meaningful contributions on a sustained basis. However, their potential
for longer-term impact could be greater than that of the other two
CRSPs.


In order to continue its present high standard of productivity, the
Trop-Soils CRSP may need to expand its scope to include the acid
savannas and steepland; and(or) broaden its studies of the resource base
- e.g. climate, water, and adapted plants (as well as soils). In any
event, Trop-Soils can only measure its contributions through commodities
produced -- e.g. plants and animals. Therefore, this CRSP needs
particularly close linkages with the commodity programs.


Participant Benefits


The CRSP appears to be the best ever multi-lateral research program
aimed at applied problems in LDC smallholder systems. It is highly
potent in bringing to bear some of the best domestic scientific exper-
tise on major production constraints on a partnership basis with host-
country scientists. From AID's perspective it buys three dollar's worth









of program for each two invested. The operative word for the CRSP con-
cept is "collaboration", implying not only international partnership,
but also close cooperation with researchers in partner institutions, and
even within the same university -- an approach frequently neglected in
modern, sophisticated institutions.


The CRSP program has become very popular with participating institutions
-- at least in the USA. Vithout exception all respondents were highly
enthused about the way these programs are structured and operated.
Investigators welcome the opportunities created and are greatly inspired
by their participation in solving important problems in LDCs. It is
obvious they have been broadened by the experience; begun to appreciate
different approaches to their domestic programs; gained access to a much
broader range of germplasm; and discovered the several benefits from a
team effort on difficult biological problems. In addition, they realize
some additional research support and have greater opportunities for
travel, which contribute directly or indirectly to their domestic
responsibilities.


The CRSPs have some obvious advantages for collaborating host countries.
Perhaps for the first time they become full-fledged partners in a global
mission of critical importance to the poorest segment of their popu-
lations. Moreover, they receive significant operational support that
supplements national budgets that are all too frequently inadequate or
delayed.


Perhaps the biggest attraction to BC collaborators is the unique oppor-
tunity of working closely with eminent international scientists --
professionals who can contribute directly to their national programs and
to their international status as productive researchers.


The CRSPs have also become prime sources of training in target regions -
- 558 Masters and Doctorates and 1,255 technically-trained students were
completed by 1986. This does not include the benefits derived by some
550 LDC scientists in their CRSP associations with U.S.campus-based
scientists. Over the long term, this training will have the greatest
impact on national development.









CRSP MANAGEMENT


The role of management in CRSP programs vill be subject to more exten-
sive scrutiny by other review team members. However, the ways in which
the CRSP are managed do have an immediate and direct impact on research
planning and execution. Therefore, it is appropriate to include some
observations and impressions on the management process in this section.
A study of only four CRSPs revealed that despite a set of common guide-
lines, the management process was astonishingly different between CRSPs.


All respondents to our queries about the value and efficiency of CRSPs
in furthering improvement work on major food commodities and on Trop-
Soils were uniformly highly favorable at least amongst the univer-
sities involved. The concept is brilliant in terms of getting diverse
institutions to work closely together. It has tapped a fantastic
resource base involving a true partnership in which AID contributes 67
percent of the resources, and the participant universities, together
with their host countries, invest the remaining third in cash or in
kind. The projects underway involve the leading researchers in their
field, both in this country and abroad. However, according to several
respondents, the real genius of the CRSP concept is collaboration. This
collaboration brings both university and their host country participants
together with IARCs and other scientists on a truly partnership basis.
Engineering this combined effort on investigating a common set of prob-
lems is necessarily complex, requiring a high degree of tact and
diplomacy as well as hard work. It involves a multi-layered management
structure that includes the services of a full-time director and
associate director for the execution of programs, and a stratification
of boards and committees to carry out the necessary joint planning,
provide institutional approval and commitment, and render impartial
oversight on the program. In fact, one CRSP, Intsormil, added an
additional committee called the Eco-geographic Zone Consul (EZC),
comprised of six members with special knowledge and familiarity of the
six major regions where that CRSP operates.


* l









Contrasting Management Styles


Management roles differ markedly amongst the four CRSP programs despite
a common set of guidelines prepared for Collaborative Research Support
Programs under Title XII by USAID (June 21, 1985). Host interesting
were the differences between the different CRSP programs and the func-
tions of their Boards of Directors (BD), External Evaluation Panels
(EEP), and Technical Committees (TC). The guidelines state that the
Board operates under a defined charter to deal with policy issues, to
review and pass on plans and proposed budgets, to assess progress, and
to advise the Management Entity (ME) on these and other matters. The
EEP's responsibility is to evaluate the status, funding, progress,
plans, and prospects of the program and to make recommendations thereon.
The TC is established with membership drawn primarily from the principal
scientists to develop work plans and budgets, review the technical
progress of the total research program or components thereof, propose
modifications in the technical approach, and make recommendations on
allocation of funds. These recommendations are reported to the ME and
shared with the BD. However, the real functions of the three management
activities vary from program to program as summarized below:


Trop-Soils. In the case of Trop-Soils the Board is considered as
advisory to the management entity and may be overruled if the ME does
not agree with the Board's recommendations. The EEP is also advisory to
the ME and appears important in assessing balance and relevance particu-
larly on the international side. However, the TC is very weak, has
little influence or impact, and in fact, hardly ever meets. Therefore,
the Program Director (PD) and ME are exceptionally powerful, but have
established a reputation for being highly efficient and impartial.


Small Ruminants. This was the first CRSP to be established. By all
accounts the first Program Director, D. Robinson, who developed and
guided the program from the beginning, did a superb job. Unfortunately,
his untimely demise in 1985 necessitated the appointment of interim
directors, the most recent of whom has served less than a month. How-
ever, the present acting director will continue this position if
conditions are favorable. Be appears to have excellent qualifications
for this important responsibility.








The SR Board includes nine members, five of whom are from host coun-
tries, and it meets once a year; but the Executive Committee (Excom),
comprised of five members including one HC representative, meets more
frequently as necessary. Although the Board and its Excom are
considered to have functioned effectively and as intended, they were
unable to allocate the recent budget cuts on a rational basis. Instead,
the Board decided to reduce all projects on an equivalent basis.


The EEP is held to be very important in reshaping programs, especially
in relation to development and outreach. The TC also carries much
weight in the small ruminant program. In terms of planning, recom-
mending of budgets, and making other policy decisions it is concluded
that the SR-CRSP has been highly effective in developing its programs,
in establishing linkages with host countries, and in promoting intra-
institutional projects. This is attributed mainly to the effectiveness
and excellent direction of the former program director. However,
prospects are good for this CRSP to continue its high standard of
operation if the current director designee assumes this position on a
continuing basis.


Beans/Covpeas. This CRSP is characterized by a much less influential
Program Director, possibly because the director is a social scientist
managing a high proportion (about 90 percent) of biological research
programs. Moreover, the TC plays a critical role in assessing the
rationality of the program, reviewing projects for technical quality and
recommending resource allocation. Here the Board is the prime decision
maker on matters of policy and budget. The EEP is considered to have
performed its functions very well, but is somewhat overweighted on
administration. However, there is a move to shift the EEP's emphasis to
the technical side and international development. Thus, the Bean/Cowpea
CRSP is characterized by a strong TC and Board.


Intsormil. This program developed rapidly under the first PD who exer-
cised a high level of direction and control on the evolving program.
However, this initial advantage was offset by serious management
deficiencies later on and it became necessary to change the Director in
1984. Intsormil board is considered to have functioned very well, to


X









have acted decisively and impartially in changing directors, modifying
programs, and phasing out less productive activities. The TC has also
been very effective in carrying out its functions and responsibilities,
the most important of which include developing plans and strategies for
the program. However, the functions of the TC have been modified with
the establishment of the Eco-geographical Zone Committee (EZC) with
which it interacts and consults on the problems and needs of the
different regions in which Intsormil operates.


The EEP, on the other hand, appears to be much less effective than is
the case with Trop-Soils and Bean/Cowpea CRSPs. In fact, one respondent
suggested that Intsormil EEP could be phased out without any diminution
of program functioning and effectiveness. Moreover, the chairman of the
Intsormil Board felt the EEP had not been effectively used, but it was
essential to the program in terms of legitimizing the program with AID
and other external participants. However, the present program director-
ship is rated very highly by the Board, the TC, the EEP, and other
participating researchers. In fact, most of the early criticisms and
recommendations made in previous reviews have been systematically
addressed by new management. Therefore, Intsormil is considered to be
one of the most effectively managed programs among the four CRSPs.


Overall Management Effectiveness


The four CRSPs studied, though ostensibly based on the same management
formula, have evolved quite differently in the way each of them func-
tions. Although the boards function similarly, the contrast between the
EEPs and TCs are much greater across the programs. In particular, the
TC is most variable -- in the case of Trop-Soils it has little function
or purpose as currently structured. In other programs with more
compliant management (e.g. Small Ruminants and Bean/Cowpea) the TC
wields much more influence and power in the planning and execution of
their work programs. It is also apparent that the EEP is utilized at
different levels of effectiveness amongst the four CRSPs. This may
reflect conditions of early program development, attitudes of the ME and
MO, and the personalities of the panel members themselves. The
Bean/Covpea and Trop-Soils EEPs appear to have been more effective and









influential than those respective panels in Intsormil and Small Rumi-
nants. Perhaps new management in the latter two programs will attempt
to make better use of their EEPs in future.


Despite differences and contrasts in management, all four CRSPs appear
to function very well in terms of program execution -- at least in the
context of the domestic institution. However, this observation does not
consider the efficiency of budgetary allocation and resource use which
would be analyzed in another section of this report.


Improving Management


The several obvious benefits of the CRSP program should not imply that
further improvement is unnecessary. In fact, there are some aspects
which may merit further attention:


Budgeting process. In general, the Board of Directors, comprised mainly
of administrators from participating institutions (largely controlled by
the recipient university Excom) cut the budget pie. This arrangement is
simply too cozy and prone to distortion in various ways. Perhaps the
budgeting exercise should be carried out with more balance by including
at least one or two strong HC representatives and(or) other external,
impartial (nonrecipient) members in the process.


Top-heavy management. The stratification of management at three or four
levels besides two full-time professional directors appears somewhat
excessive. Intsormil has even added an "Eco-geographical Zone Council"
(EZC). On the other hand, the EEP may not be used very effectively by
some CRSPs. Perhaps the EEP could become more effective by reducing the
standing committee to two or three members and co-opting external
experts for special reviews of program activities at less frequent
intervals (when notable progress or lack thereof is apparent). In the
case of Intsormil, an effective EEP might even partially fulfill the
role of the EZC.


Setting priorities. It appears that participating domestic institutions
play a dominant role in setting program priorities with obvious impli-
cations for cutting the budget pie. Moreover, there seems to be









relatively little input from the ultimate users and consumers of the
proposed technologies. To some extent, the socioeconomists should
assume a protagonist role for LDC interests; but active participation
by HC members of the Board and other management committees should be
both encouraged and ensured. Some CRSPs have only nominal HC member-
ship, and Boards often bypass their voices through Excoms or other
devices.


Regional focus. There is a general consensus that tropical humid and
semi-arid Africa is in greatest need and is also a major producer of
covpeas, millet, sorghum, and small ruminants. Yet, there appears to be
some reluctance among the CRSPs to develop projects on that continent.
This is understandable, given the difficulties of travel and posting
staff there, lack of even minimal facilities, and dearth of trained
researchers to collaborate with. Yet, there are many important ecologi-
cal producing zones where meaningful research is virtually impossible.


Perhaps one longer term solution would be to encourage an organization
like the CGIAR or the World Bank to establish some low-profile, regional
centers based on eco-geographical definitions and needs (similar to the
ICRISAT centers at Niamey and Bulawayo). These could provide modest
facilities to a wide range of interested institutions from the U.S.,
other, developed countries working on a range of related agricultural
problems, LDC researchers, and IARC scientists.


Flexibility. Present management lacks flexibility to make needed
changes, particularly with regard to key personnel, phasing out of less
productive or relevant projects, and diverting resources to more
profitable activities. Although changes are made, they are often too
late to avoid undesirable consequences or allow a graceful changing of
directions. Since priorities change as advance and development
programs, some mechanism must be found to ensure management moves more
expeditiously, particularly in making hard decisions. There may be two
keys to this problem -- ensure that the EEP is used effectively, and
include strong HC participation in the decision-making process.


The peer review process. The peer review process works well in the CRSP
context when applied to identifying major constraints, planning a course
16








of action, critiquing proposals, and evaluating the quality of research
done. However, it does not work so well in making hard, major decisions
(such as key personnel changes or phasing out less productive projects
and activities). Moreover, it is unrealistic to expect the TC or Board
to make important decisions affecting one of their own members. There-
fore, other means are needed to trigger major changes and actions (see
No. "flexibility" above).


CONCLUSIONS


The CRSP concept is a magnificent idea whose time has come. The first
five to eight years have been largely exploratory, but this initial
period is also marked by some solid accomplishments both in terms of
research progress and institution building. USAID will reap much credit
in the future for the many promising developments underway. The domes-
tic institutions (US) are highly enthused by this new program, but some
further fine-tuning of management may be beneficial. However, the
greatest danger at this stage would be to impose any further cutbacks in
budget. This will inevitable result in loss of interest and the compro-
mising of several important program goals. This program is necessarily
a long-term endeavor and cannot tolerate threats of declining resources
- especially when imposed abruptly. If further cuts are necessary,
then entire programs should probably go first. Another solution might
be to seek outside sources of funding (e.g. from industry, international
bodies, philanthropic institutions, other). This would allow continuing
the present high-priority projects and even expanding into some
urgently-needed new areas and activities.


The CRSP programs have great potential to contribute to food production
and agricultural development in the poorest-of-the-poor LDCs. Although
they represent a step in the right direction, their collective efforts
do not begin to address the total problem. For example, it is highly
doubtful whether the major constraints, like animal breeding, plant
improvement, integrated pest control, and crop/animal management can
really succeed without long-term (10 to 20 years) commitment by hgihly
qualified and dedicated researchers adequately supported and working in
target eco-geographic .regions. .Up to the present. neither CRSP or


1









national programs (in most LDCs) have yet demonstrated the commitment
and staying power necessary to address these longer term issues.


There is general agreement on the need for better cooperation and
collaboration between institutions working on the same commodity. In
some cases a start has been made to do this but in other instances only
lip service has been paid to this concept. The most obvious linkup is
between the CRSPs and the IARCs which have sometimes viewed each other
with suspicion and distrust. However, this less than ideal situation
may be a symptom of early program development when both institutions are
trying to establish and defend their own "turf." Hopefully, closer
collaboration between the two parties will grow as they become more
familiar with each other's goals and capabilities and begin to discover
the mutual advantages of working together. Certainly, there is more
than enough work and challenges for all parties concerned for the next
several decades.


There are other participants involved in different aspects of CRSP
commodity improvement. These include several international agencies
like IDRC, EEC, ODM, GTZ, Vorld Bank, IADB, IFAD, PVO's, and others.
Moreover, there are scores of smaller donors often "standing in line" to
support worthy causes in some of the neediest countries, particularly in
Africa. The problem is there are all too few LDC national institutions,
researchers, and programs that are able to utilize effectively the
resources that might be made available.


One solution to.improving the efficiency of international research and
mobilizing needed support for these neglected commodities would be to
create impartial, apolitical global networks to serve as a protagonist
for each commodity. These might consist of small boards or standing
committees of two to four widely respected, senior researchers or
development specialists with many years of experience abroad. It should
be their responsibility to serve as "honest brokers" for commodity
needs, determine global priorities, solicit support for national,
regional, and international activities, and actively encourage cooper-
ation between the several different agencies participating in the common


., I





1 I *


improvement effort. Above all, the commodity network must represent the
real needs of both the users and consumers of the commodity.


To be effective, the network must not represent a single donor or
political agency (such as USAID), but would be best constituted by an
international agency like the CGIAR or the World Bank. It should also
be empowered to co-opt scientists or development experts on the "cutting
edge" of technology generation and diffusion to advise on specific areas
and determining priorities.


A second problem is the urgent need for eco-geographical zone centers in
regions and countries where facilities and national program do not exist
or cannot function on a sustained basis (especially in Africa). One
solution referred to previously would be the establishment of stra-
tegically-located, low-profile regional centers (e.g. similar to the
ICRISAT centers at Niamey and Bulavayo) that would provide basic facili-
ties for several international agencies and institutions working on a
range of commodities and problem areas. These regional centers should
be closely linked to the global commodity network boards and encourage
long-term projects meeting established criteria for targeted commodities
and problem areas.







ANNEX 1


SOME INITIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF CRSP RESEARCH


Some observations and impressions on the research programs underway in
each of the four CRSPs reviewed will be briefly summarized in the
sections to follow.


TROPICAL SOILS CRSP


Four domestic universities participate in this program: Cornell, North
Carolina State, Texas A&M, and Hawaii. The lead institution is North
Carolina State University and projects are carried out in Brazil,
Indonesia, Mali, Niger, and Peru. Thirty-one U.S. and 21 host country
scientists participate in these studies.


The Trop-Soils program is off to a running start having the advantage of
building on previous soils work (also supported by USAID), especially in
Peru, Brazil, and elsewhere. Consequently, the Trop-Soils program is
both more mature and advanced, .and enjoys the participation of
professionals with long experience in the field. Initially the program
focused on four ecological zones including:


The humid tropics where the dry season is not more than 3 months and
where soil acidity and infertility are common constraints to
production.
- The semiarid tropics where a dry season of 6 to 9 months, wind and
water erosion, desertification and nutrient deficiencies are serious
constraints.
- The acid savannahs, characterized by a dry season of 4 to 6 months,
savannah vegetation, and soils that are commonly acid and low in
nutrients, but physically favorable to cultivation.
- The steep lands, where the terrain makes erosion a serious environ-
mental and agronomic concern.


Two domestic institutions have field operations in the humid tropics --
North Carolina State and the University of Hawaii -- on a primary site








at Manaus, Brazil. The University of Hawaii (with NCSU collaboration)
has a primary research site in the humid tropics of Vest Sumatra,
Indonesia. The lead institution for semiarid tropics is Texas A&M Uni-
versity with a primary site at Niamey, Niger and a secondary site in
Mali. The Niger site is closely linked to the ICRISAT center recently
established in Niamey.


Some work is carried out in the acid savannahs by Cornell University
with support provided by NCSU. The primary research site is located
near Brazilia, Brazil. However, the acid savannahs and steep lands
ecologies are accorded second priority and those projects may even be
postponed during the current budgetary crunch.


Research activities of the Trop-Soils program focuses on the primary
soil constraints to crop production in the different agroecological
zones where they work. Many of the results have been found consistent
from site to site even across continents and ecological conditions. The
major constraints in tropical soils have been clearly identified and are
described below.


Acidity


Soil acidity and closely related aluminum toxicity occurs in many areas
of the humid tropics from the humid tropics from the Amazon basin to
central Africa and southeastern Asia. The main strategies adopted
include applications of lime and testing of aluminum-tolerant crop
varieties. The aim is to develop a system based on growing lime-
requiring crops with moderate levels of the mineral.


Soil Fertility


Research continues on possibilities of sustaining production through
correcting fertility limitations. New studies focus on the rates and
times of fertilizer applications, sources of fertilizers, the role of
micronutrients, and cycling of major elements, particularly phosphorus
and potassium.


I I








Nitrogen


Nitrogen is often the first limiting major nutrient in the humid
tropics. Current and future study will focus on greater use of
biologically-fixed nitrogen obtainable from green manures and crop
residues.


Water


Water is often deficient at certain periods, even in the humid tropics,
but there are possibilities for retaining rain water by improving the
physical condition of the soil surface through tillage, plant cover, and
catchments. Moreover, timely applications of lime and other major
nutrients can increase the efficiency of water use. Allied studies are
carried out to develop predictive models to aid in planning the cropping
system and use of inputs.


Low Input System


Most small subsistence farmers in the lowland tropics cannot afford the
investment nor risks inherent in use of inputs such as intensive use of
fertilizers, lime, or mechanization. Therefore, a range of low input
options is being examined including the use of moderate levels of ferti-
lizers and herbicides in a range of tropical farming systems.


Land Clearing


The object of these studies are to develop a strategy for land clearing
research and a network of land clearing projects to provide important
new information on this critical aspect of tropical farming.


Land Reclamation


These projects will focus on reclaiming barren, eroded, or otherwise
degraded land through the use of plant residues, cropping systems, and
tillage.




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

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