<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Preface
 Introduction
 Administrative support and delivery...
 Programming for training, technical...
 Training
 Technical assistance
 Networking
 State-of-the-art synthesis/res...
 Summary
 FSSP organization, advisory and...
 Advisory council
 Technical committee
 Appointees
 Tasks and task groups


UFSPEC PETE FLAG IFAS PALMM



Annual workplan
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055456/00003
 Material Information
Title: Annual workplan
Physical Description: v. : ; 29 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Farming Systems Support Project
United States -- Agency for International Development
Publisher: University of Florida.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Creation Date: 1984
Frequency: annual
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural extension work -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Issuing Body: Submitted to U.S. Agency for International Development.
General Note: Description based on: 1984; title from cover.
General Note: Latest issue consulted: 1986.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 70876997
lccn - 2006229270
System ID: UF00055456:00003

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Preface
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Introduction
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Administrative support and delivery structure
        Page 9
        USAID mission relations
            Page 9
        Support entities
            Page 10
        Other cooperators
            Page 11
            Page 12
    Programming for training, technical assistance, networking and state-of-the-art research
        Page 13
        Clientele for FSSP
            Page 14
        Needs assessment
            Page 15
        Support/response framework
            Page 15
        A training mandate
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
    Training
        Page 19
        Strategy
            Page 20
        Materials and course development
            Page 21
        Orientation courses/workshops
            Page 21
        Domestic orientation course/workshop
            Page 22
        Overseas orientation course/workshop
            Page 22
        Practitioner course
            Page 23
        Manager/administrator course
            Page 24
        Course on surveys
            Page 24
        Course in on-farm trial design and data analysis
            Page 25
        Course on economic analysis
            Page 25
        Course on FSR/E data processing and database management
            Page 26
    Technical assistance
        Page 27
        Regional applications
            Page 27
        Information management
            Page 28
        Team organization and management
            Page 28
        1984 action plan for technical assistance
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
    Networking
        Page 33
        FRS inventory
            Page 33
        Strengthing network contacts
            Page 34
        West Africa networkshop
            Page 34
        FSR/E network committees
            Page 35
        West Africa farming system symposium
            Page 35
        Meetings, workshops, and symposia
            Page 36
        Documentation and publication
            Page 37
            Page 38
    State-of-the-art synthesis/research
        Page 39
        Synthesis strategy for 1984
            Page 40
        First priority concerns
            Page 40
        Second priority concerns
            Page 41
            Page 42
        Third priority concern
            Page 43
            Page 44
    Summary
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    FSSP organization, advisory and support structures
        Page A 1
    Advisory council
        Page A 2
    Technical committee
        Page A 3
    Appointees
        Page A 4
        Page A 5
    Tasks and task groups
        Page A 6
        Page A 7
Full Text





I


Farming Systems Support Project


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


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


1
I













1984


ANNUAL WORKPLAN

FARMING SYSTEMS SUPPORT PROJECT


Cooperative Agreement No.:
Project No.:


Dan-4099-A-oo-2083-00
936-4099


Submitted to

The United States

Agency for International Development




Prepared by









University of Florida
in cooperation with FSSP
Support Entities


January 1, 1984












Contents


I. Preface......................... ................ .......... 5

II. Introduction........................ ............. ........ .7

III. Administrative Support and Delivery Structure.............9
USAID Mission Relations ............................... 9
Support Entities .......................... ...... .... 10
Other Cooperators ................ .. ......... ..... 11

IV. Programming for Training, Technical Assistance,
Networking and State-of-the-Art Research...............13
Clientele for FSSP.............. ................ .......14
Needs Assessment............................... ....... .15
Support/Response Framework............................ 15
A Training Mandate........... ...... ....... .. ...... .. .. 16

V. Training ................ ...... .... .. .. .. ... ... ....19
Strategy ... ..... ........ ..... .... ........... .... 20
Materials and Course Development.......................21
Orientation Courses/Workshops.........................21
Domestic Orientation Course/Workshop.....................22
Overseas Orientation Course/Workshop....................22
Practitioner Course .... ....... ...... ...... ............ 23
Manager/Administrator Course.......................... 24
Course on Surveys ................ ..... ............ ..... 24
Course in On-Farm Trial Design and Data Analysis.......25
Course on Economic Analysis............................ 25
Course on FSR/E Data Processing and
Data-base Management................ ..... .......** ** ....26

VI. Technical Assistance...................................... 27
Regional Applications......... ......... .... ......... ...27
Information Management................... .............. 28
Team Organization and Management........................28
Action Plan for Technical Assistance...................29

VII. Networking ................... .. ......................... 33
FRS Inventory... ............. ......... ............ ... 33
Strengthening Network Contacts........................ 34
West Africa Networkshops....... ......... ........ ...... 34
FSR/E Network Committees..................... ........ 35
West Africa Farming System Symposium.................. 35
Meetings, Workshops, Symposia ......................... 36
Documentation and Publication....... ....... ............ 37

VIII. State-of-the-Art Synthesis/Research.................... 39
Synthesis Strategy for 1984 ............. ..............40
First Priority Concerns ... ........ ......... .......40
Second Priority Concerns .............................. 41
Third Priority Concerns..................................43
(continued)









IX. Summary........ ..... ......... ......... .*** .......... 45

Appendix:
FSSP Organization, Advisory and Support Structures.......1-1
Advisory Council......... ........... ....... ..... ... 1-2
Technical Committee ....... .................. .... ... 1-3
Appointees...... ... .... ....... ......... .. ..**** .. ..1-4
Tasks and Task Groups..................................1-6









I. Preface


The Farming Systems Support Project 1984 Work Plan and the
1983 Annual Report are companion documents that illustrate the
flow of FSSP program activity. The Work Plan is a general guide
to the Project's technical assistance and training support to
USAID Missions and national Farming Systems Research and
Extension projects for the coming year. FSSP responses to a
variety of farming systems needs are anticipated in this
document.

The Work Plan serves as a guide in an evolving program, and
represents an instrument for cooperation and communication. It
is presented around the major tasks of networking, training,
technical assistance and state-of-the-arts. The tasks are highly
complementary and interrelated, addressing a common need to
develop, adopt and place technology in an information system
easily accessed by all potential users.

Inputs to the 1984 FSSP work plan are from various sources
illustrated by the following process:

1.-- Demand assessment with USAID Missions in 1983 including
cables, workshops, mission visits and project design
Activities.
2. Review of Support Entity documentation in the signed
(MOA) Memorandum of Agreement.
3. Discussions from the FSSP Annual Meeting involving
Support Entity input.
4. Draft by the FSSP Core staff for review by the Advisory
Council.
5. Redraft by the FSSP Core for review by the Technical
Committee, Advisory Council, AID/S&T Agriculture and
Rural Development, and the Africa, Near East, Asia and
Latin American Bureaus.
6. Final draft by the FSSP Core.

Primary emphasis of the Work Plan is to delineate FSSP's
continued support of the farming systems approach to research and
extension. As general consensus and consistency is emerging
relative to this approach, FSSP emphasis is on a strategy for
implementation. This does not preclude creative thought and
state-of-the-art work by institutions participating in Farming
Systems programs. Continuous state-of-the-art discussion and
careful.documentation of on-going experiences are essential to
healthy growth of technical assistance and training programs for
agricultural research and extension work. FSSP emphasis,
however, must be'given to addressing day-to-day FSR/E problems in
the implementation of technical assistance programs with USAID
Missions and national institutions.












II. Introduction


While the FSSP primarily addresses short-term technical
assistance and training needs, a longer term program perspective
is necessary for effective implementation. The FSSP is dedicated
to: 1) strengthening the farming systems approach to agricultural
research and extension, 2) coordinating program development for
research and extension, 3) providing a basis for improved
adaptive research, and 4) improved adoption and use of FSR/E
technology and methods. Long range emphasis is necessary so that
FS programs emerge.

The long-term (five to ten years for this project)
perspective includes the geographical focus expressed in the 1983
Work Plan. A pro-active approach to support Africa is
emphasized. A reactive mode for Latin America and Asia will be
continued. Information and experience from these regions provide
essential assistance in thought and practice for programs in
Africa. Each region, country and project requires different
levels of assistance. These needs can generally be categorized
or associated with three stages of implementation. The stages
refer specifically to demand for various modes of support, and,
when combined, should be viewed as an iterative process, both for
countries and specific projects. Thus the following stages,
while neither all inclusive nor necessarily sequential, suggest a
flow of support.

Stage 1. Needs assessment, evaluation and design;
Stage 2. Training (workshops, short courses,
in-servicetraining, etc.) and general technical assistance; and
Stage 3. Monitoring, backstopping, targeted technical
assistance and evaluation.

Much of Africa requires program support in stages one and two,
while farming systems activity in Latin America and Asia are
generally into stage two, with long-term linkages needed to
assist with stage three.


Role and Philosophy of the FSSP in 1984

Refinements in emphasis of the FSSP for 1984 relate to the
support concept. The FSSP will provide communication linkages
among ongoing programs, and training and technical assistance in
areas related to adaptive research and extension, to complement,
but not substitute for, present assistance. The FSSP will serve
as a networking mechanism to bring a program focus to bear on
national research and extension institutions. As a backstop
project for USAID development assistance the FSSP, provides
support to USAID Missions through effective support of FSR/E
activities.







Efficient program delivery by the FSSP in 1984 demands
careful planning and consideration by all Support Entities (SEs)
and USAID Missions. A plan is emerging for coordinated
management and administration of supply and demand, which
delineates capabilities among SEs and prior planning by USAID
Missions for assistance. Planning USAID projects early in their
development (prior to USAID Project Identification Papers and
Project Papers) will facilitate delivery of comprehensive and
qualitative support efforts.


External Evaluation

An external evaluation panel will be formed in 1984 for
annual FSSP evaluations, to be initiated following the second
full year of operations. Success of FSR/E and the FSSP will
ultimately be evaluated by their impact on agricultural
technology generation and use among small farmers.

The cumulative efforts of FSR/E projects and FSSP activities
will grow significantly over time. It is expected that evalua-
tions of FS projects and activities will contribute to their
strength and direction in the formulation of project plans and to
the bank of FS knowledge generally.









III. Administrative Support and Delivery Structure


The FSSP is administered and managed by a core team at the
University of Florida consisting of: Project Director, Technical
Assistance'Demand Coordinator, Technical Assistance Supply
Coordinator, Training Coordinator, Networking Coordinator,
Editorial and Communication Assistant and support personnel for
visitor, secretarial and fiscal matters. Organization of the SE
structure appears as an appendix of this Work Plan. It includes
an organogram and provides a general overview of the roles and
responsibilities of the Advisory Council, Technical Committee,
Task Force and Support Entities.


USAID Mission Relations

Strategies are necessary for anticipating and addressing
USAID Mission needs for program planning at the Mission level and
for coordinating those needs with the FSSP support base.. High
quality support efforts will be achieved with adequate time for
planning and preparation. Administratively this activity must be
successful to achieve effective coordination of supply and demand
for technical assistance and training.


Project Funding. The funding of longer-term support efforts
should be built into bilateral contracts and other USAID Mission
mechanisms so that needs for FSSP support can be anticipated and
programatically serviced. This will provide a basis for
developing procedures for matching USAID Mission demand to
S&T/FSSP support capabilities for specific program activities.
Procedures for the funding match (FSSP and USAID Mission sources)
will be further developed in 1984. Concise guidelines will be
given to USAID Missions for the match, to reduce both management
time in USAID (for necessary fund transfers), and amendments to
the Cooperative Agreement.

Cost sharing arrangements between USAID Missions and the
FSSP, through the Bureaus and S&T in Washington, will be more
tightly specified. The purpose of the FSSP is not to relieve
USAID Missions of their normal financial responsibilities but to
complement program development activities and to build these
efforts directly into major funding instruments of USAID Missions
so that solid, short-term support can continue to evolve from the
FSSP on a timely and effective basis.


Title XII and the FSSP. The FSSP is compatible with Title
XII and activity guided by Title XII philosophy; it is also a
complement to the BIFAD program. The FSSP is a support mechanism
for technical assistance to USAID Missions, much of which is
implemented by Title XII institutions. Support to bilateral
modes of technical assistance is a goal of the FSSP. FSSP can









III. Administrative Support and Delivery Structure


The FSSP is administered and managed by a core team at the
University of Florida consisting of: Project Director, Technical
Assistance'Demand Coordinator, Technical Assistance Supply
Coordinator, Training Coordinator, Networking Coordinator,
Editorial and Communication Assistant and support personnel for
visitor, secretarial and fiscal matters. Organization of the SE
structure appears as an appendix of this Work Plan. It includes
an organogram and provides a general overview of the roles and
responsibilities of the Advisory Council, Technical Committee,
Task Force and Support Entities.


USAID Mission Relations

Strategies are necessary for anticipating and addressing
USAID Mission needs for program planning at the Mission level and
for coordinating those needs with the FSSP support base.. High
quality support efforts will be achieved with adequate time for
planning and preparation. Administratively this activity must be
successful to achieve effective coordination of supply and demand
for technical assistance and training.


Project Funding. The funding of longer-term support efforts
should be built into bilateral contracts and other USAID Mission
mechanisms so that needs for FSSP support can be anticipated and
programatically serviced. This will provide a basis for
developing procedures for matching USAID Mission demand to
S&T/FSSP support capabilities for specific program activities.
Procedures for the funding match (FSSP and USAID Mission sources)
will be further developed in 1984. Concise guidelines will be
given to USAID Missions for the match, to reduce both management
time in USAID (for necessary fund transfers), and amendments to
the Cooperative Agreement.

Cost sharing arrangements between USAID Missions and the
FSSP, through the Bureaus and S&T in Washington, will be more
tightly specified. The purpose of the FSSP is not to relieve
USAID Missions of their normal financial responsibilities but to
complement program development activities and to build these
efforts directly into major funding instruments of USAID Missions
so that solid, short-term support can continue to evolve from the
FSSP on a timely and effective basis.


Title XII and the FSSP. The FSSP is compatible with Title
XII and activity guided by Title XII philosophy; it is also a
complement to the BIFAD program. The FSSP is a support mechanism
for technical assistance to USAID Missions, much of which is
implemented by Title XII institutions. Support to bilateral
modes of technical assistance is a goal of the FSSP. FSSP can








,provide training materials, professional expertise, and general
knowledge to strengthen bilateral technical assistance efforts.


SE and USAID Interface. The SE and USAID interface is
managed by the FSSP Core staff at University of Florida with its
coordinators for the four functional project areas. Division of
labor within the Core staff further coordinates delivery, as the
Core draws from the SE structure. Technical assistance
organization involves one Core individual working most directly
with USAID Missions and Bureaus to structure demand, while
another works with SEs in identifying institutional capabilities
and implementation teams. Development of training and support
materials for'teams is accomplished by assimilating experience
and information including the Core staff, Technical Committee and
task forces.


Support Entities


Procedural 'Guidelines. The SE structure is in place as
anticipated in the 1983 Work Plan. The Technical Committee and
Advisory Council have been formed and now provide administrative
and program counsel to the FSSP Core. To further define their
role and that of the SE structure will require additional
guidelines. A procedural manual will be developed in 1984 to
specify institutional linkages and implementation procedures.
The manual will include guidelines for financial arrangements,
personnel administration and mobilization, and for Advisory
Council, Technical Committee and Task Force activities.These
guidelines, will be flexible, to meet specific needs.

Building Capability. A moratorium will be placed on signing
new MOAs as of July 1, 1984; only after careful deliberation will
any new MOAs be considered after October 1, 1984. This policy
will help the FSSP to become a known quantity for management
purposes as well as for use by USAID. It is essential that
strengthening of SE capability continue for FS work. To this
end, the Memoranda of Agreement signed by SEs call for continued
strengthening of FSR/E capability. Title XII Strengthening Grant
and Support Grant funds will be devoted to this task. As
appropriate, FSSP workshops will further strengthen SE and USAID
Mission capability in FSR/E.

Institutional Arrangments. FSSP program delivery
responsibilities, where possible, will be delegated to SEs. The
FSSP Core will give general leadership to coordination and
project allocation. SEs will assume responsibility for specific
assignments to underscore continuity extending beyond initial
programs.

Tot this end the bilateral contractural modes of Title XII
through BIFAD will be adhered to as fully as possible. The.FSSP









desires: 1) To enter the process of project identification and
planning as early as possible, 2) To support the contractor
selection process and not to substitute for arrangements that
would otherwise be handled through bilateral contracts unless it
is essential, and 3) to provide support to implementing entities
through training, communication, evaluation and experience.

Professional Involvement. SE institutional/professional
involvement will emphasize strengthening institutional ties to
AID and professional capabilities for assignments with the FSSP
and in bilateral contracts. Emphasis is with SE's. Direct
professional involvement that is not through SE's will be limited
because the goal for long-term continuity is best served through
an institutional structure.

SE Linkages. Coordination of FSSP response capability is
through four Core coordinators working with the Program Leaders
of the respective SEs. Linkages, as appropriate, will be made to
USAID Missions so that direct SE technical assistance and
training services can evolve under the general coordination of
the FSSP. Continued emphasis will be on the Program Associate
and Program Leader structure of the SEs to achieve effective
long-term backstop capability for USAID Missions.


Other Cooperators

Emphasis will continue in strengthening ties with the IARCs.
Specifically, the FSSP will provide support to complement center
research in farming systems through national and farm-level
linkages. One goal is to support the activities of CIMMYT in
East Africa. Since CIMMYT is on the FS cutting edge, CIMMYT -
FSSP collaboration can be expected to result in significant
state-of-the-art advances. Similiarly, in Africa support will be
provided as appropriate to ILCA, ICRISAT, IITA, and WARDA. The
principle is to improve communication and linkages, thereby
strengthening through FSR, the agricultural research and
development structure.

This philosophy extends to working through and with regional
entities, as appropriate, in support of USAID Mission programs.
The linkage of the IARCs to regional entities, and finally to
national entities, rests on an adaptive research/extension effort
that can be strengthened by the FSSP.

Further,the FSSP will link with the Collaborative Research
Support Projects (CRSPs) and other USAID support projects,
formalizing agreements as appropriate. Again, the philosophy of
the FSSP is to be a support entity and not to become a primary
actor in and of itself.

.The agricultural research and development process spans
technology generation and use, from more basic and
station-oriented research, to adaptive research programs that








must link with extension and farmers. The FS approach neither
substitutes for research and extension structures nor replaces
the necessary functions of each. The approach can help integrate
the overall activity so that meaningful and cohesive results
occur with and for farmers.


USAID/Washington Relations

Every effort will be made by the FSSP in 1984 to strengthen
Sties with the regional bureaus and BIFAD. S&T has identified
counterpart/sub-project leaders to work directly with Core staff
of the FSSP which will further augment SE and USAID ties. A
USAID Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from each
of the bureaus and from BIFAD to interact with the FSSP Advisory
Council and Director is recommended by the FSSP to strengthen the
FS program in USAID. In summary, the full intent of a
cooperative-agreement will be pursued by the FSSP in the context
Oo of USAID and BIFAD goals, policies and programs.









IV. Programming for Training, Technical Assistance,
Networking and State-of-the-Art Research



The goal of FSSP is to synthesize and package the state-of
-the-art in methodologies and management of technology innovation
in agriculture and to develop the human resource in the
utilization of that state of the art.FSSP will engage in many
activities, but all will be oriented to the above goal. By terms
of its Cooperative Agreement, FSSP will work in the areas of
technical assistance, training, and networking, including
publication of a newsletter, and state-of-the-art
synthesis/research. By certain criteria these project activities
can be distinguished, but by other criteria they cannot.

FSSP recognizes the close interrelations between training,
technical assistance networking, and state-of-the-art
synthesis/research. A regional training workshop, for example,
is also a networking activity since researchers from different
countries gather to exchange experience and ideas; and perhaps
some of the training content is provided by recent
state-of-the-art research. A training course, in some
situations, will be a highly effective medium of technical
assistance. In like manner, technical assistance teams are given
orientation briefings before their departure and are involved in
counterpart exchanges, both being forms of training. Teams are
then debriefed upon their return, a way to collect information
for state-of-the-art synthesis/research. The newsletter, also,
is one medium for packaging the state-of-the-art and represents a
form of training. Networking is another form of training. In
these and similar ways the four functional areas of the FSSP
grade imperceptibly one into another. Still, we do categorize
activities in this Work Plan by the criteria of image, i.e., what
it most appears to be.

A simple matrix may be helpful in explaining the business of
FSSP. The cells in this matrix can be filled in a variety of
ways by activities, substantive categories, actors, even by
audiences, and perhaps by other information.


The FSSP-Technology Innovation Matrix

Areas of Activities
Activities TI Methodology TI Management
Synthesis and Package
State-of-the-Art
Develop Human Resource
in use of State-of-
the-Art









The Clientele for FSSP


One year's experience in the FSSP has led to a change in how
FSSP audiences are viewed. FSSP's ultimate clients are the
national research .and extension institutions. Being a support
project, FSSP does not have easy and continuous access to its
ultimate client. There is an array of entities between FSSP and
the ultimate client. These can be thought of as intermediate
clients, and they vary widely in their characteristics. Yet, it
is with these variable itermediate clients that FSSP must deal.
At least four categories of intermediate clients can be
identified, and none of them are homogenous.

1. One category is the USAID Mission which supports projects
with the ultimate client. Missions vary considerably in their
degree of involvement in such projects.

2. Another category is other support activities, such as the
CIMMYT/FSR project in East Africa, the two REDSOs, technical
support to Mission projects and others.

3. A third category consists of international centers,
regional centers, and other autonomous entities dealing in FSR,
each by its own criteria and in its own interest.

4. Finally, there is the expatriate technical assistance
team, which is involved in almost all AID-financed FSR projects.
This predominantly, but not entirely, consists of other
universities.

Some of these are more important to FSSP than others. They
are in positions critical to FSSP activities. Others could
facilitate FSSP work but are not critical to FSSP.

The strategy for 1984 attempts to accommodate this array of
intermediate clients. Several devices are important. One is to
keep a clear picture in mind of what is the business of FSSP, and
attempt to form a picture of the end of a project situation. The
second is to develop a range of materials and programs oriented
to the business of FSSP. A third is to be opportunistic and even
imaginative in the manner in which FSSP involves itself in
support of FSR/E activities.

The first activity of support, with a USAID Mission as a
client, is through needs assessment, followed by an FSSP
support/response strategy. Preparation for these activities is
similar for the four FSSP functional areas of training, technical
assistance, networking and state-of-the-art research. The goal
is to help facilitate the development of programs designed to
resolve farm-level problems by assisting a national research and
extension structure to incorporate an FSR/E approach. The
success of the FSR/E approach depends heavily on accurate
understanding of needs and effective program implementation.








Needs Assessment

In the context of agricultural project programming at the
country level, FSSP functional areas are mutually dependent. For
this reason FSSP will assist USAID Missions and national
governments in determining farming systems support needs at the
country level. This assessment will determine what activities
are called for and establish a time frame for their
implementation. It will provide FSSP with sufficient advance time
to prepare for those activities adapting its response to the
particular settings. The assessment will help in the
coordination of activities within a country or project so that FS
training and technical assistance are mutually reinforcing, or so
that one does not take place when needs call for the other. A
prior training workshop dealing with diagnostic surveys, for
example, might eliminate the need for technical assistance in
conducting such a survey.

As part of an initial needs assessment for a country, FSSP
may submit a questionnaire as appropriate to USAID Missions. A
fuller team assessment will be subsequently conducted once FSSP
has a Mission request to provide FSR/E support. In some cases
the Mission request may be sufficiently specified to begin an
initial response through technical assistance or training.
Current indications suggest a greater urgency for delineating
needs in Africa than in Asia or Latin America. In Africa,
agricultural problems are especially pressing. and trained
personnel are few.

The general approach to FSSP implementation recognizes that
considerable mobilization of human resources is necessary in the
four functional areas in order to meet the USAID demand for
services. In compliance with project mandates, this mobilization
will continue to take several forms.


Support/Response Framework

While implementation of FSSP rests with coordination by the
Director and Core staff, the capacity of the support/response
framework is incumbent upon the support entities. In addition to
field implementation tasks, such as project design and the
delivery of training courses, support entities, or individuals
from them, will be charged with state-of-the-art
synthesis/research and the development of courses and training
materials described on the following pages. Assignment of these
tasks has early priority since several important FSSP activities
depend on their completion.

Domestic workshops are conducted to promote a working
consensus among those individuals who will be implementing FSR/E
projects. There is a need to continue workshops of this kind
during 1984 to provide an opportunity for SE and USAID personnel
to improve their understanding of the Farming Systems approach








Needs Assessment

In the context of agricultural project programming at the
country level, FSSP functional areas are mutually dependent. For
this reason FSSP will assist USAID Missions and national
governments in determining farming systems support needs at the
country level. This assessment will determine what activities
are called for and establish a time frame for their
implementation. It will provide FSSP with sufficient advance time
to prepare for those activities adapting its response to the
particular settings. The assessment will help in the
coordination of activities within a country or project so that FS
training and technical assistance are mutually reinforcing, or so
that one does not take place when needs call for the other. A
prior training workshop dealing with diagnostic surveys, for
example, might eliminate the need for technical assistance in
conducting such a survey.

As part of an initial needs assessment for a country, FSSP
may submit a questionnaire as appropriate to USAID Missions. A
fuller team assessment will be subsequently conducted once FSSP
has a Mission request to provide FSR/E support. In some cases
the Mission request may be sufficiently specified to begin an
initial response through technical assistance or training.
Current indications suggest a greater urgency for delineating
needs in Africa than in Asia or Latin America. In Africa,
agricultural problems are especially pressing. and trained
personnel are few.

The general approach to FSSP implementation recognizes that
considerable mobilization of human resources is necessary in the
four functional areas in order to meet the USAID demand for
services. In compliance with project mandates, this mobilization
will continue to take several forms.


Support/Response Framework

While implementation of FSSP rests with coordination by the
Director and Core staff, the capacity of the support/response
framework is incumbent upon the support entities. In addition to
field implementation tasks, such as project design and the
delivery of training courses, support entities, or individuals
from them, will be charged with state-of-the-art
synthesis/research and the development of courses and training
materials described on the following pages. Assignment of these
tasks has early priority since several important FSSP activities
depend on their completion.

Domestic workshops are conducted to promote a working
consensus among those individuals who will be implementing FSR/E
projects. There is a need to continue workshops of this kind
during 1984 to provide an opportunity for SE and USAID personnel
to improve their understanding of the Farming Systems approach








and concepts.


The FSSP support entity structure, formalized through
Memoranda of Agreement, is the basis for FSR/E program
development at the participating entities. The FSSP encourages
the strengthening of SE programs to broaden the domestic
expertise base for FSR/E activity conducted by FSSP and in
bilateral contracts. The development of these support entity
programs and their associated personnel is an important
investment in the future.

A Training Mandate

.In the area of training, FSSP will synthesize the state of
the art and package it in publications, articles, working papers,
slide/tape modules, videos, and other forms. Once captured in
these media the state-of-the-art can, with relative ease, be fed
into all other activities. Until reduced to a teachable form and
placed in context with other pieces, knowledge or experience can
hardly be considered to be a part of the state of the art.

Thus, the training mandate of the FSSP is a formidable one.
Training requires not only competence in FSR/E, but some special
communication skills as well. The need to identify and develop
cadres for training, especially in West Africa, is urgent, a task
in which FSSP is currently engaged. A domestic workshop to
prepare trainers for West Africa is planned for June 1984.

The technical assistance component of FSSP is coordinating
information and personnel data handling, which will serve both
training and technical assistance staffing efforts. A biodata
file has been established, which includes SE program associates
and others with an expressed interest and capability in FSR/E
training and technical assistance. The FSSP biodata file will be
computerized, and, as project activities expand into 1984, data
handling and information processing will continue to grow in
importance for Project needs.

In addition to strengthening the FSSP human resource base,
the major effort will be developing a comprehensive stock of
training materials printed, visual, and audio that cover
methodologies and management (including institution building and
linkages) of FSR/E and eventually the total technology innovation
process. This stock will be organized by modules. It will be
slanted or adapted to LDC low-resource situations.

The blue print for this stock will be drawn from the best
analysis FSSP can make of needs on the one hand and information
availability on the other. Given expected changes in the state
of the art and knowledge of the real world, training materials
will be revised periodically and systematically.

Courses will be tailored by selecting various components from
FSSP materials and by developing materials from local and other









sources.


Human Resource development related to training will take at
least two forms or a combination of them. One will be in taking
a course. The other will be in preparing modules, either
original.modules, or adaptations of modules for specific
situations.












V. Training


Introduction

The experiences of 1983 have been instructive about training
in FSR/E and have been incorporated in this Work Plan. FSSP
activities to date have been confined almost entirely to Latin
America and West and Central Africa; there has been virtually no
activity in Asia. While planning in 1984 for involvement by FSSP
in Asia in 1985 is an important priority, Latin America and
Africa are regions to recieve most direct training emphasis in
1984.

Africa and Latin America differ importantly along cultural,
historical, and agro-ecological lines. Institutions tend to be
better developed in Latin America than in the emergent African
states. There is also a larger reservoir of trained personnel,
better communication infrastructure, and less socio-cultural
heterogeneity in Latin America than in Africa. Such differences
bear significantly on training in the two regions. In Latin
America, the FSSP will continue to operate with a native cadre of
trainers having substantial experience in both FS and training. A
priority in the plan of work for 1984 is to identify such a cadre
for training in West and Central Africa.

A goal of the FSSP over time is to assist with the
institutionalization of training to strengthen adaptive research
and extension programs. Groundwork will be laid in 1984 with
research, extension and educational entities so that the FSR/E
training process can become an additive component. The
institutionalization of FSR/E training is thought to be the
singlemost important step toward ultimately achieving the
multiplier effects necessary to establish a critical mass of
applied agricultural technicians in a given country.

The overall training approach of FSSP in 1984 and beyond can
be articulated by several stages and activities. The following
outlines the FSSP training program:

A. Orientation to FSR/E
B. General FSR/E Courses tailored to
1. Field practitioners
2. Administrators/managers
C. General Methodology oriented FSR/E Courses
1. Use of surveys
2. On-Farm trial design and data analysis
3. Economic analysis
4. Data processing and data base.management
D. Topical FSR/E Workshops (such as)
1. Institutionalization of the FSR/E approach
2. Animal traction
3. Small farm mechanization








4. Storage and preservation systems
5. Family/farm management
E. In-service FSR/E training

The process of moving from A to E suggests increasing
regional, national and local focus with tailoring possible to
meet more specific needs. Items A-C represent planned activity
for 1984. Topical workshops, particularly in West Africa, will
be held in 1984 but specific topics have not been identified.


Strategy

FSSP recognizes the importance of training several audiences,
each with its particular needs. Training must consider the
functional occupations of relatively homogeneous audience groups.
It must regionalize activities and materials to reflect
distinctive cultural, institutional, and agroecologicial
characteristics.

It follows that meaningful training must be based on a prior
evaluation of the needs of a country. This needs assessment must
be broad in scope to include training, technical assistance, and
networking since these activities are highly complementary. Out
of such an assessment would emerge a country plan, with training
an integral part. In this way not only will training be more
relevant as part of a broader plan, but the FSSP can better
schedule and prepare in advance for training and other
activities.

An FSSP team, in collaboration with USAID Mission officials
and nationals, can conduct country level needs assessments. The
priority is for specifying needs in West and Central Africa
during 1984 for countries requesting support. In Latin America
and the Caribbean, where the FSSP has engaged in several
activities and has a better appreciation of needs, there is less
urgency, though some assessing is desirable there to more
effectively coordinate activities. A general training assessment
is needed for Asia and will be accomplished in cooperation with
the Asia Bureau.

Workshops and short courses will be conducted by experienced
training teams composed of persons who know the particular
training settings and can therefore adapt presentations and
materials to them. There is, however, a need to locate
appropriate people and formalize the teams, an FSSP undertaking
that has high priority in 1984. Again, this task will be more
difficult for Africa than for Latin America, where the FSSP is
already operating with such teams. In that regard, the FSSP is
planning a mid-year workshop for FSR/E trainers who will operate
in West and Central Africa.









Materials and Course Development


With due regard for regional diversity and the need to adapt
instruction to the milieu, the FSSP will proceed with the further
development of a series of basic courses that experience suggests
are widely needed for overseas delivery, especially for Africa.
From this stock of courses, trainers can then draw, modifying and
adapting as they see fit.

The training program will overlap closely with publication
and networking. To the extent possible, national workshops will
be employed, not only as delivery mechanisms for training, but
also as a means for developing training materials and
publications. National participants can help synthesize results
of FSR/E work and adapt materials to a local training need while
individually gaining insights about the state-of-the-art in
Farming Systems.

Two courses, a one-month general FSR/E course for field
practitioners and a one-week course for managers and
administrators, will be ready for overseas delivery in French
before the end of the year. While both courses are currently
part of the academic curricula of some FSSP support entities,
considerable work remains to be done to adjust them to the
shorter time frames and to adapt them to the instructional
settings, especially in Africa.

FSSP will also have ready in 1984 a one-week orientation
course/workshop for host-country nationals in Africa. This
course will have as its aim the sensitization of participants to
the FSR/E approach.

By the end of 1984, a rapid-survey simulation exercise,
described in the following section, will be ready for Africa.
This simulated diagnostic survey exercise can be used in several
of the projected courses and will be an important contribution to
the training effort since such surveys orient FSR/E efforts.

Work will be initiated or continued in 1984 on four other
courses dealing respectively with diagnostic surveys, economic
analysis, on-farm trial design and agronomic data analysis, and
micro computer analysis of on-farm and on-station trials. These
courses will be ready for delivery in 1985. A detailed
description of all courses now follows.


Orientation Courses/Workshops

These courses, of one-week duration, are designed to orient
participants to the philosophy and methods of the FSR/E approach
to agricultural research and extension. They seek to sensitize
rather than to train, for this brief instruction is not adequate
for implementation of the approach. The audience for them is









Materials and Course Development


With due regard for regional diversity and the need to adapt
instruction to the milieu, the FSSP will proceed with the further
development of a series of basic courses that experience suggests
are widely needed for overseas delivery, especially for Africa.
From this stock of courses, trainers can then draw, modifying and
adapting as they see fit.

The training program will overlap closely with publication
and networking. To the extent possible, national workshops will
be employed, not only as delivery mechanisms for training, but
also as a means for developing training materials and
publications. National participants can help synthesize results
of FSR/E work and adapt materials to a local training need while
individually gaining insights about the state-of-the-art in
Farming Systems.

Two courses, a one-month general FSR/E course for field
practitioners and a one-week course for managers and
administrators, will be ready for overseas delivery in French
before the end of the year. While both courses are currently
part of the academic curricula of some FSSP support entities,
considerable work remains to be done to adjust them to the
shorter time frames and to adapt them to the instructional
settings, especially in Africa.

FSSP will also have ready in 1984 a one-week orientation
course/workshop for host-country nationals in Africa. This
course will have as its aim the sensitization of participants to
the FSR/E approach.

By the end of 1984, a rapid-survey simulation exercise,
described in the following section, will be ready for Africa.
This simulated diagnostic survey exercise can be used in several
of the projected courses and will be an important contribution to
the training effort since such surveys orient FSR/E efforts.

Work will be initiated or continued in 1984 on four other
courses dealing respectively with diagnostic surveys, economic
analysis, on-farm trial design and agronomic data analysis, and
micro computer analysis of on-farm and on-station trials. These
courses will be ready for delivery in 1985. A detailed
description of all courses now follows.


Orientation Courses/Workshops

These courses, of one-week duration, are designed to orient
participants to the philosophy and methods of the FSR/E approach
to agricultural research and extension. They seek to sensitize
rather than to train, for this brief instruction is not adequate
for implementation of the approach. The audience for them is







well educated in issues of agricultural research and extension.
The courses involve considerable interaction among participants
with presentations by them. The FSSP has delivered two types of
orientation courses to date one largely for domestic
participants and held in the United States, and the other for
host-country nationals and delivered abroad.


Domestic Orientation Course/Workshop

Five of these courses were held in 1983, two at UF and one
each at VPI, MSU, and CSU. The courses relied heavily on
slide/tape "modules" augmented by discussions and other
presentations of topics not covered by the modules. Participants
included mainly Land-Grant university faculty, although several
USAID-funded graduate students trainees and USAID employees also
attended.

A critical objective of these workshops is to initiate an
expansion of the domestic FSR/E expertise base, especially among
FSSP participating entities, and thereby move toward the creation
of a reservoir of trained people who can adequately meet the
demands of USAID missions for support. The workshops seek to
orient, sensitize, and familiarize participants with the FSR/E
approach and concepts rather than to provide in-depth training in
method. They further seek to provide a forum for discussion and
to promote some consensus regarding this new approach to research
and extension, where there is still much confusion and an
unwieldy divergence of understanding. Participant evaluation of
these courses has been positive on the whole. There has been
much constructive criticism of the slide/tape modules and other
pedagogical materials and procedures. In 1984, the FSSP will
revise materials and procedures in accordance with those
criticisms as well as develop new ones.

The approach to these orientation courses is basically sound
and FSSP will continue with them during 1984. They are an
effective and reasonable vehicle for continuing education, for
establishing some much-needed minimal standardization to the
farming systems approach and for moving toward the development of
an expertise base adequate to comply with the FSSP mandate.


Overseas Orientation Course/Workshop

Like the domestic course, the overseas one seeks to orient
and sensitize. The overseas course is also pitched to a
relatively experienced audience which mainly includes
host-country nationals, though local AID personnel and AID
contract personnel are encouraged to participate.

Overseas courses of this kind must differ in important ways
from domestic ones. The overseas courses must be appropriately
tailored to the particular national or regional setting. This







well educated in issues of agricultural research and extension.
The courses involve considerable interaction among participants
with presentations by them. The FSSP has delivered two types of
orientation courses to date one largely for domestic
participants and held in the United States, and the other for
host-country nationals and delivered abroad.


Domestic Orientation Course/Workshop

Five of these courses were held in 1983, two at UF and one
each at VPI, MSU, and CSU. The courses relied heavily on
slide/tape "modules" augmented by discussions and other
presentations of topics not covered by the modules. Participants
included mainly Land-Grant university faculty, although several
USAID-funded graduate students trainees and USAID employees also
attended.

A critical objective of these workshops is to initiate an
expansion of the domestic FSR/E expertise base, especially among
FSSP participating entities, and thereby move toward the creation
of a reservoir of trained people who can adequately meet the
demands of USAID missions for support. The workshops seek to
orient, sensitize, and familiarize participants with the FSR/E
approach and concepts rather than to provide in-depth training in
method. They further seek to provide a forum for discussion and
to promote some consensus regarding this new approach to research
and extension, where there is still much confusion and an
unwieldy divergence of understanding. Participant evaluation of
these courses has been positive on the whole. There has been
much constructive criticism of the slide/tape modules and other
pedagogical materials and procedures. In 1984, the FSSP will
revise materials and procedures in accordance with those
criticisms as well as develop new ones.

The approach to these orientation courses is basically sound
and FSSP will continue with them during 1984. They are an
effective and reasonable vehicle for continuing education, for
establishing some much-needed minimal standardization to the
farming systems approach and for moving toward the development of
an expertise base adequate to comply with the FSSP mandate.


Overseas Orientation Course/Workshop

Like the domestic course, the overseas one seeks to orient
and sensitize. The overseas course is also pitched to a
relatively experienced audience which mainly includes
host-country nationals, though local AID personnel and AID
contract personnel are encouraged to participate.

Overseas courses of this kind must differ in important ways
from domestic ones. The overseas courses must be appropriately
tailored to the particular national or regional setting. This








focusing is to be achieved through guided discussions of
projects/programs extant in that setting, or discussions of the
prospects for instituting the farming systems approach and the
likely problems attendant upon doing so in the setting. The
development of materials germane to the particular setting is
called for; CIMMYT provides a good example.

Such a tailoring will involve the use of informed and
experienced nationals for some of the short-course presentations,
and will require that course organizers and instructors have a
good'knowledge of the setting. The organization of an effective
course requires considerable advance work locating and securing
qualified nationals for presentations, and surveying local
projects and programs appropriate for course visits and
discussions.

The FSSP will be requested to deliver several such in-country
orientation courses during 1984. A flexible training attitude
will be assumed; in a foreign setting the training effort cannot
be "packaged" to the degree that it can be for domestic
presentation.


Practitioner Course

The FSSP will further adapt, the general course for field
practitioners which touches on all aspects of the FSR/E process,
embracing the stages of diagnosis, design, testing, and
extension. The course will be for in-country delivery and will
be of four to six weeks duration. Several practitioner courses
are currently taught at American universities, including the
University of Florida, so a variety of experience and materials
are available for use. Materials are also available through some
of the international centers. The challenge is to develop a
concentrated course for the time frame. Such a course will focus
sharply on key parts of the FSR/E process. This might be
achieved, for example, through the use of mock rapid surveys as
well as of economic and agronomic data sets that make important
pedagogical points.

The practitioner course also will be tailored to the delivery
setting to the extent possible. Circumstances permitting, a
rapid survey of local farmers will be conducted by participants,
and some economic and agronomic analyses will be done using local
data sets when those are available. Attention will be given to
FSR/E in the context of local and national institutions charged
with research, extension, and other pertinent functions. -As with
the overseas orientation course, the practitioner course will be
most effective if delivered by persons knowledgeable of the local
setting.

Many of the materials and exercises developed for use in the
practitioner course will be used in some of the short courses
dealing with parts of the FSR/E process, such as on-farm trial


23







design and data analysis. There is useful overlap in the
development of the practitioner course and some of the short
courses described below.


Manager/Administrator Course

A one week course will be developed for agricultural research
and extension managers and administrators. The course will be
for overseas delivery. Managers are those individuals who
supervise and direct day-to-day operations at the project level,
while administrators are responsible for decisions regarding the
commitment and linkage of institutions and the allocation of
funds for research and extension. The course will focus,
therefore, on both management and administration. A resource
base for this course is evolving from courses offered by a
limited number of SE universities.

Importantly, the course will deal with institutions, the more
so since FSR/E is being introduced to many settings for the first
time. The concern will be how to "fit" the-farming systems
approach to those institutional settings. Yet, the institutional
context of the approach is a problem area that to date has
received only scant research attention. There is a need for
state-of-the-art synthesis/research in order to provide training
content. Several case studies of institutional accommodation to
the approach will be developed from around the world. Out of
such an effort should emerge a set of issues, if not guiding
principles, that can be used to instructional advantage. Useful
problem-oriented exercises will then be devised to involve course
participants with issues and applications of principles,
ultimately important in their own respective settings.


A Course on Surveys

There is considerable interest in the diagnostic stage of the
FSR/E process. Concerns center on what are the survey options,
what options are best for what settings, or how much effort
should be put into surveys, and how does one conduct them. The
two week course will include: 1) The need for surveys in FSR/E,
2) The judicious use of reliable secondary data when available,
3) The different kinds of surveys in general, 4) Conducting
surveys in a team mode, 5) Interview technique, 6) FSR/E survey
approaches that have been found to be appropriate to date, 7) The
establishment of "recommendation domains," or groups of
homogeneous farms,'8) The conducting of a mock survey, 9) The
conducting of an actual rapid survey in a nearby agricultural
area if such an area is readily accessible.

A mock rapid survey, or sondeo, formed part of the five
domestic orientation workshops held during 1983. It has
generated considerable interest-and seems to be a most effective
way of imparting the techniques of such surveys short of actually







design and data analysis. There is useful overlap in the
development of the practitioner course and some of the short
courses described below.


Manager/Administrator Course

A one week course will be developed for agricultural research
and extension managers and administrators. The course will be
for overseas delivery. Managers are those individuals who
supervise and direct day-to-day operations at the project level,
while administrators are responsible for decisions regarding the
commitment and linkage of institutions and the allocation of
funds for research and extension. The course will focus,
therefore, on both management and administration. A resource
base for this course is evolving from courses offered by a
limited number of SE universities.

Importantly, the course will deal with institutions, the more
so since FSR/E is being introduced to many settings for the first
time. The concern will be how to "fit" the-farming systems
approach to those institutional settings. Yet, the institutional
context of the approach is a problem area that to date has
received only scant research attention. There is a need for
state-of-the-art synthesis/research in order to provide training
content. Several case studies of institutional accommodation to
the approach will be developed from around the world. Out of
such an effort should emerge a set of issues, if not guiding
principles, that can be used to instructional advantage. Useful
problem-oriented exercises will then be devised to involve course
participants with issues and applications of principles,
ultimately important in their own respective settings.


A Course on Surveys

There is considerable interest in the diagnostic stage of the
FSR/E process. Concerns center on what are the survey options,
what options are best for what settings, or how much effort
should be put into surveys, and how does one conduct them. The
two week course will include: 1) The need for surveys in FSR/E,
2) The judicious use of reliable secondary data when available,
3) The different kinds of surveys in general, 4) Conducting
surveys in a team mode, 5) Interview technique, 6) FSR/E survey
approaches that have been found to be appropriate to date, 7) The
establishment of "recommendation domains," or groups of
homogeneous farms,'8) The conducting of a mock survey, 9) The
conducting of an actual rapid survey in a nearby agricultural
area if such an area is readily accessible.

A mock rapid survey, or sondeo, formed part of the five
domestic orientation workshops held during 1983. It has
generated considerable interest-and seems to be a most effective
way of imparting the techniques of such surveys short of actually









doing them. The simulation exercise was developed by Peter
Hildebrand using materials from an actual sondeo conducted by
ICTA in Guatemala. But those materials were not generated with a
view to simulation. A more effective simulation exercise should
be developed by generating materials explicitly for the purpose.
FSSP will develop-such an -exercise, first for an African setting.
Another such exercise, using materials from Las Cuevas, Dominican
Republic, which were gathered for the purpose, is already under
development.

These exercises will have wide utility, for they can be used
in the practitioner course as well as in the two orientation
courses. The use of a matrilineal society setting for the
African simulation survey is under consideration. This exercise
would enhance the FSSP pedagogical base and would have
instructional value for American domestic audiences on the role
of social scientists in FSR/E.


Course in On-Farm Trial Design and Data Analysis

Since on-farm research differs in important ways from
on-station research, the FSSP must provide some guidance here.
Several national programs have already expressed keen interest in
this new area, where the development of methods has just begun
and there is yet a dearth of instructional materials. FSSP will
develop a one-week course for in-country delivery.

For the trial design part of the course, diagnostic survey
data and conclusions (e.g., a sondeo report) will be taken as
point of departure so that participants are then required to
respond with reasonable research designs. For agronomic data
analysis, local data sets should be used. The challenge is to
develop exercises that both encourage participants to solve
problems and are designed to make important pedagogical points
using local data and experience whenever possible.


Course on Economic Analysis

This course, to complement the one above, will treat
micro-economic evaluation of alternative technologies. For
in-country delivery, it too will be of about one-week duration.
The course will also include the development and use of farm
records.

As with the course on agronomic analysis, this course will
employ data sets that stress crucial pedagogical points using
local data and experience and that encourage participants to
solve problems.

Since the courses on economic and agronomic analysis are
complementary, they may be combined into a single course. Both
courses suppose some knowledge of quantitative methods on the









doing them. The simulation exercise was developed by Peter
Hildebrand using materials from an actual sondeo conducted by
ICTA in Guatemala. But those materials were not generated with a
view to simulation. A more effective simulation exercise should
be developed by generating materials explicitly for the purpose.
FSSP will develop-such an -exercise, first for an African setting.
Another such exercise, using materials from Las Cuevas, Dominican
Republic, which were gathered for the purpose, is already under
development.

These exercises will have wide utility, for they can be used
in the practitioner course as well as in the two orientation
courses. The use of a matrilineal society setting for the
African simulation survey is under consideration. This exercise
would enhance the FSSP pedagogical base and would have
instructional value for American domestic audiences on the role
of social scientists in FSR/E.


Course in On-Farm Trial Design and Data Analysis

Since on-farm research differs in important ways from
on-station research, the FSSP must provide some guidance here.
Several national programs have already expressed keen interest in
this new area, where the development of methods has just begun
and there is yet a dearth of instructional materials. FSSP will
develop a one-week course for in-country delivery.

For the trial design part of the course, diagnostic survey
data and conclusions (e.g., a sondeo report) will be taken as
point of departure so that participants are then required to
respond with reasonable research designs. For agronomic data
analysis, local data sets should be used. The challenge is to
develop exercises that both encourage participants to solve
problems and are designed to make important pedagogical points
using local data and experience whenever possible.


Course on Economic Analysis

This course, to complement the one above, will treat
micro-economic evaluation of alternative technologies. For
in-country delivery, it too will be of about one-week duration.
The course will also include the development and use of farm
records.

As with the course on agronomic analysis, this course will
employ data sets that stress crucial pedagogical points using
local data and experience and that encourage participants to
solve problems.

Since the courses on economic and agronomic analysis are
complementary, they may be combined into a single course. Both
courses suppose some knowledge of quantitative methods on the







part of participants as well as the availability of computational
equipment.


Course on FSR/E Data Processing and Data-Base Management

FSSP will develop a one-week short course in the use of
microcomputers and software in the FSR/E process. The course
will be for overseas delivery. Such a course depends on the
availability of appropriate software.

During 1984 FSSP will provide support, financial and
substantive, to MSTAT, a micro-computer program developed by
Michigan State University to facilitate agronomic research design
and the statistical analysis of farm-level agronomic and economic
data. This support will enable the program to be better adapted
to the needs of FSR/E and will provide training for trainers and
field-level practitioners. A workshop to train trainers, mostly
overseas nationals from at least three pilot countries, will be
held in March 1984 in East Lansing, Michigan. In addition,
overseas courses on MSTAT usage for field-level practitioners
from those same countries will be delivered during the year.
Such courses are currently planned for Malawi, Senegal and
Ecuador.


TA Team Orientation/Training

FSSP will conduct briefings of technical assistance teams
prior to their departure. Although a kind of training, this
activity is discussed more fully under Technical Assistance.









VI. Technical Assistance


Objectives

The major objectives regarding technical assistance through
FSSP support entity network for 1984 are:
1) Structuring country demand;
2) Organizing supply of technical expertise through SE's,
other institutions such as the IARC's and CRSP's, and independent
sources;
3) Matching demand with supply;
4) Improving the quality of technical expertise available for
training and technical assistance;
5) Developing state-of-the-arts in
a) management and organization,
b) extension linkages to research and
c) institutional case studies; and
6) Development of briefing and debriefing formats.

In Addition, technical assistance (TA) orientations,
briefings and debriefings must be divided into two major
groupings of long-term (generally two or more years) and
short-term (up to six-month assignments involving needs
assessments, project design and project evaluation activities).
Different formats need to be developed to address TA team and
host country needs based on this major division. While FSSP will
place major emphasis on short-term TA, long-term TA issues will
need.to be considered as well. The Pre-Departure Orientation
Workshop, to be held this spring at the University of Hawaii,
will be a valuable forum for helping to develop TA
briefing-debriefing formats of FSSP.

An ultimate goal of FSSP is to be able to identify and charge
one or two MOA SEs with short- and long-term TA team
orientations. Initially, however, the FSSP management staff will
be closely involved with all aspects of TA team orientations,
especially in the development and verification of briefing-
debriefing formats.


Regional Applications

The technical assistance strategy will react to needs in
Latin America and Asia.. In Africa, FSSP will assume a proactive
stance and help to structure the demand for its TA services. The
approach to TA in Africa includes early meetings to determine
needs on a regional and country basis. Workshops will be held in
The Gambia and elsewhere, and these activities will further help
the FSSP to identify needs as expressed by USAID Missions and
host countries. The FSSP can then plan a timely response by its
support entities.









VI. Technical Assistance


Objectives

The major objectives regarding technical assistance through
FSSP support entity network for 1984 are:
1) Structuring country demand;
2) Organizing supply of technical expertise through SE's,
other institutions such as the IARC's and CRSP's, and independent
sources;
3) Matching demand with supply;
4) Improving the quality of technical expertise available for
training and technical assistance;
5) Developing state-of-the-arts in
a) management and organization,
b) extension linkages to research and
c) institutional case studies; and
6) Development of briefing and debriefing formats.

In Addition, technical assistance (TA) orientations,
briefings and debriefings must be divided into two major
groupings of long-term (generally two or more years) and
short-term (up to six-month assignments involving needs
assessments, project design and project evaluation activities).
Different formats need to be developed to address TA team and
host country needs based on this major division. While FSSP will
place major emphasis on short-term TA, long-term TA issues will
need.to be considered as well. The Pre-Departure Orientation
Workshop, to be held this spring at the University of Hawaii,
will be a valuable forum for helping to develop TA
briefing-debriefing formats of FSSP.

An ultimate goal of FSSP is to be able to identify and charge
one or two MOA SEs with short- and long-term TA team
orientations. Initially, however, the FSSP management staff will
be closely involved with all aspects of TA team orientations,
especially in the development and verification of briefing-
debriefing formats.


Regional Applications

The technical assistance strategy will react to needs in
Latin America and Asia.. In Africa, FSSP will assume a proactive
stance and help to structure the demand for its TA services. The
approach to TA in Africa includes early meetings to determine
needs on a regional and country basis. Workshops will be held in
The Gambia and elsewhere, and these activities will further help
the FSSP to identify needs as expressed by USAID Missions and
host countries. The FSSP can then plan a timely response by its
support entities.








Information Manaqement


To implement TA, FSSP has developed a manual information
management system consisting of CV summary files on program
associates. The next step is to computerize these files in order
that the data can be readily accessible by several sorting
categories, including language, discipline and experience. The
support entity network is in agreement that such biodata files
.are privileged information: FSSP Core staff will only provide
details of a CV with the explicit approval of the individual
involved. Short lists of individuals sorted for a- specific
short- or long-term TA assignment will at least contain names,
telephone numbers, languages (FSI or other "fluency" ratings as
available), and disciplines. Currently, the FSSP has received
approximately 700 CV's of persons with either experience or an
interest in FSR/E projects or activities. Nearly 500 of these
biodata files have been provided by MOA SE's for their program
associates.


Team Organization and Management

To the extent appropriate, FSSP policy is to place
responsibility for short-term TA team organization and management
with the SEs. Support entities and TA tasks will be matched by
several criteria: 1) Interest expressed by support entities; 2)
Emphasis on continued FSR/E training and strengthening of program
associates; 3) Performance in team recruitment and in task
accomplishments; 4) Degree of cooperation with other SE's and the
FSSP; and 5) Interests expressed by USAID missions.

It is not expected that a SE will organize a team completely
from its own program-associate base. Neither is it expected that
an entity will refuse to make program associates available to
other entities organizing a team. Collaboration between
university and non-university SEs is expected. USAID/FSSP
planning efforts must provide information to SEs with enough lead
time so that program associates can plan for involvement. But it
is recognized that such planning will not be possible in every
instance, and every effort will be made to accommodate short-term
and unanticipated needs where immediate support is critical.

Several issues need to be addressed to develop procedures for
managing requests for TA. These issues include: 1) Procedures
for official receipt of requests; 2) Selection of management
SEs; 3) Delegation of technical and financial responsibility on
an institutional basis; 4) Coordination of technical assistance,
training, and specific activities; and 5) Team preparation and
orientation. The general principle to be followed will be to
develop a dependable, well-qualified set of program associates
targeted toward opportunities and problems arising from early
analyses of USAID Missions' TA demands.








Information Manaqement


To implement TA, FSSP has developed a manual information
management system consisting of CV summary files on program
associates. The next step is to computerize these files in order
that the data can be readily accessible by several sorting
categories, including language, discipline and experience. The
support entity network is in agreement that such biodata files
.are privileged information: FSSP Core staff will only provide
details of a CV with the explicit approval of the individual
involved. Short lists of individuals sorted for a- specific
short- or long-term TA assignment will at least contain names,
telephone numbers, languages (FSI or other "fluency" ratings as
available), and disciplines. Currently, the FSSP has received
approximately 700 CV's of persons with either experience or an
interest in FSR/E projects or activities. Nearly 500 of these
biodata files have been provided by MOA SE's for their program
associates.


Team Organization and Management

To the extent appropriate, FSSP policy is to place
responsibility for short-term TA team organization and management
with the SEs. Support entities and TA tasks will be matched by
several criteria: 1) Interest expressed by support entities; 2)
Emphasis on continued FSR/E training and strengthening of program
associates; 3) Performance in team recruitment and in task
accomplishments; 4) Degree of cooperation with other SE's and the
FSSP; and 5) Interests expressed by USAID missions.

It is not expected that a SE will organize a team completely
from its own program-associate base. Neither is it expected that
an entity will refuse to make program associates available to
other entities organizing a team. Collaboration between
university and non-university SEs is expected. USAID/FSSP
planning efforts must provide information to SEs with enough lead
time so that program associates can plan for involvement. But it
is recognized that such planning will not be possible in every
instance, and every effort will be made to accommodate short-term
and unanticipated needs where immediate support is critical.

Several issues need to be addressed to develop procedures for
managing requests for TA. These issues include: 1) Procedures
for official receipt of requests; 2) Selection of management
SEs; 3) Delegation of technical and financial responsibility on
an institutional basis; 4) Coordination of technical assistance,
training, and specific activities; and 5) Team preparation and
orientation. The general principle to be followed will be to
develop a dependable, well-qualified set of program associates
targeted toward opportunities and problems arising from early
analyses of USAID Missions' TA demands.









1984 Action Plan for Technical Assistance


Emphasis in TA for 1984 is on the following: 1) Structuring
country demand; 2) Organizing supply of technical expertise
through SEs and other institutional structures such as the IARCs
and the CRSPs; 3) Matching demand with supply; 4) Improving the
quality of technical expertise available for training and TA; 5)
Developing state-of-the-arts institutional case studies; and 6)
Developing a briefing-debriefing format.

1) Structuring Country Demand. Four orders of priority have
been identified to assist in managing demand.

a) The first order refers to demand that already exists and
that has taken form. Mid-term or final evaluations of on-going
FSR/E projects fall into this category. Lead time for such
routine TA team recruitment should generally be sufficient. FSSP
Core will either facilitate a SE with biodata short lists, or, in
some cases, recruit an evaluation team itself.

b) The second order includes demand that exists but that has
not taken form, such as needs assessment or project design.
Objectives emphasized here are to increase request lead time and
to bring some requests to the FSSP that normally would go
elsewhere.

c) The third order of priority for managing demand has two
components. One is the proactive attempt to transform needs in
Africa into demand for TA in FSR/E. The second is the
structuring of demand for the rest of the world. FSSP aspires to
provide support beyond simply responding to requests.

d) The fourth order of priority is to deal with TA demand for
the rest of the world in a manner similar to the approach for
Africa expressed in c) above. It is unlikely that the FSSP will
act on this priority in 1984.

As information on specific demand becomes firm, FSSP will
notify support entities and request an expression of interest
along with other information necessary to help select the
management SE. This will be a continuous process and will need
to be carefully monitored and tightly managed. FSSP will
carefully account for countries and demand, support entity
expressions of interest, teams in preparation for assignments,
teams in the field, teams returning (through debriefings), and
general team reports. These reports will be made available to
SEs involved in the TA process to help improve overall
operations, and to state-of-the-art literature collections. The
possibility of developing a manual of operations to assist in
managing TA issues will be explored in 1984.

2) Organizing Supply. Specification of supply involves SE
program associates and persons not attached to SEs who may be
available for FSSP TA assignments. Efforts are underway to








establish more knowledge and understanding of SEs regarding: a)
Interest in organizing and managing teams; b) Interest in types
of activities--whether design, evaluation, training, or other; c)
Availability of potential team leaders; d) Geographic interests,
e) Availability of personnel for teams led by other SE's; f)
Procedures for making personnel available; and g) Procedures for
identifying program associates for assignments within specific
programs.

The overriding criterion for identifying institutions and
program associates must be quality of the expected result since
the FSSP must be concerned with the ultimate impact of the FSR/E
effort on farmers and national institutions. Issues related to
equity and other concerns within the SE structure will be
addressed only when TA quality is perceived to be undiluted by
such considerations.

3) Matching Supply and Demand. FSSP serves to strengthen,
support and complement on-going BIFAD and USAID programs and to
assist wherever possible in timely and qualitative delivery of
TA. In general, FSSP will develop a systematic procedure to
select SEs to meet AID Mission demands. At other times, FSSP
Core staff will handle short-term TA team formations, briefings
or debriefings. In all cases, FSSP biodata short lists will be
available to SE's to assist them in team composition. An
iterative evaluation process will evolve between various SE's
handling TA assignments and the FSSP TA core staff for assessing
the match of supply to demand.

4) Quality of Supply. There is a continuing need for general
quality improvement through training for SE program associates
involved in all aspects of TA. Specialized training is also
necessary for specific assignments. The emphasis in 1984 will be
on the development and implementation of a methodology to prepare
program associates for short- and long-term TA assignments.

Guidance will be provided to help teams on design and
evaluation assignments. Successes and failures will be
evaluated. Guidelines and general principles for more successful
work in these areas will be established. University personnel
will be informed about AID criteria and procedures. It is hoped
that each SE will end up having an expert in AID procedures on
its staff.

Responsibility for upgrading the program-associate base will
be shared by the FSSP and SEs using USAID and university
mechanisms. It is not assumed that program associates are
automatically qualified for TA assignments. Each TA assignment
will require tailoring and provision of information to address
the specific needs of a host-country and an AID project or
program. Scheduling should include general workshops or training
sessions in advance of actual assignments so that "last-minute"
training can focus effectively on such specific needs. It is
anticipated that each SE might be asked to identify a training








officer to take responsibility for preparing faculty for general
assignments in FSR/E. In some cases, it may be quite appropriate
to designate either the Administrative Coordinator or Program
Leader to fulfill this role. FSSP will assist with these TA
training programs by providing training materials and core staff
backstop assistance.

5) Developing State-of-the-Arts: Institutional Case Studies.
An important TA area to receive attention in 1984 is the
development of case studies of on-going efforts to
institutionalize the FSR/E approach. It is likely that case
studies of the recently reorganized research systems such as
those in Lesotho, Malawi and Zambia will be initiated. These
will be joint efforts between the FSSP and the bilateral
contractors in those countries (Washington State University in
Lesotho, University of Florida in Malawi, and University of
Illinois/Southern Illinois University in Zambia). While the
entire procedure of FSR/E case studies may fall more logically
under state-of-the-art research, it begins with TA evaluations
and debriefings of long-term TA teams.

6) Briefing Debriefing Format. Every project in any given
country contains an experimental, or learning, component. FSSP
is responsible for summarizing and analyzing that experience,
and for making it available to other countries and interested TA
teams. This responsibility will be discharged through briefings,
debriefings and case studies.

The briefing format will be designed to help prepare a team
for its assignment, and will provide information on a) the
country, b) the AID strategy and program, and c) the assignment.
It wi.l give the team leader a chance to organize the team. It
will give the team the benefits of earlier experiences and will
help to achieve a certain degree of standardization for FSSP TA
assignments.

A debriefing format will also be developed to provide the
standard feedback essential to good management and continued
learning. It will feed information into the pool of experience
to be used for subsequent teams and to enhance state-of-the-art
literature collections.













VII. Networking


Building on the networking activities of 1983, the FSSP will
address seven major areas of networking activity in the coming
year. The areas are enumerated below, followed by a brief
description of the activities for each and a time frame for
implementation.

1. FSR Inventory
2. Strengthening Network Contacts
3. West African Networkshop(s)
4. FSR/E Network Committees
5. West African Farming Systems Symposium
6. Meetings, Workshops and Symposia
7. Publications and Documentation

FSR Inventory

Initial assessment efforts were started in 1983 for an
inventory of farming system research projects. The inventory
results to date are given below. While this represents response
to a request in the FSSP Newsletter, plus the incorporation of
various lists, and is limited in scope by those factors, it is. a
substantial beginning.

Table 1

On-Going Research Projects with Farming Systems Components (Total
127)
Africa 66 Latin America 39
Asia 14 Near East 5
United States 2 Sweden 1

Table 2

Proposed Research Projects for 1984 Having Farming Systems
Components (Total 57)


USAID World Bank Asia Bank

Africa 7 18
Asia 3 9 5
Latin America 4 5
Near East 6


To complete this initial assessment, the FSSP will follow-up
on the known research with a survey instrument designed to
summarize each project, or FSR component of a project, in a










VII. Networking


Building on the networking activities of 1983, the FSSP will
address seven major areas of networking activity in the coming
year. The areas are enumerated below, followed by a brief
description of the activities for each and a time frame for
implementation.

1. FSR Inventory
2. Strengthening Network Contacts
3. West African Networkshop(s)
4. FSR/E Network Committees
5. West African Farming Systems Symposium
6. Meetings, Workshops and Symposia
7. Publications and Documentation

FSR Inventory

Initial assessment efforts were started in 1983 for an
inventory of farming system research projects. The inventory
results to date are given below. While this represents response
to a request in the FSSP Newsletter, plus the incorporation of
various lists, and is limited in scope by those factors, it is. a
substantial beginning.

Table 1

On-Going Research Projects with Farming Systems Components (Total
127)
Africa 66 Latin America 39
Asia 14 Near East 5
United States 2 Sweden 1

Table 2

Proposed Research Projects for 1984 Having Farming Systems
Components (Total 57)


USAID World Bank Asia Bank

Africa 7 18
Asia 3 9 5
Latin America 4 5
Near East 6


To complete this initial assessment, the FSSP will follow-up
on the known research with a survey instrument designed to
summarize each project, or FSR component of a project, in a









standardized format. .In the interim, a listing of the 184 known
or proposed projects will be published in the FSSP Newsletter in
an effort to stimulate interest on the part of those researchers
who may not have responded to the earlier request for inventory
information.

Summary results of this inventory effort will be prepared in
published form for distribution at Kansas State University's
Farming Systems Symposium in October. Results will be available
to those participating in the inventory via their projects, and
to practitioners, generally.


Strengthening Network Contacts

Interfacing with other networks will include specific target
activities for 1984. These targets consist of farming systems
newsletters, institutions and editors affiliated with them. One
of these is the Farming Systems Newsletter, edited by Michael
Collinson and published by CIMMYT in their East Africa Farming
Systems Program. Another is the newly formed Farming Systems
Research News, edited by Paul Neate and published by ICARDA,
representing the Middle East and North Africa. A third interface
is with the incipient West African Farming Systems Research
Network (WAFSRN) initiated by IRAT, ICRISAT and IITA. At this
time WAFSRN does not publish a newsletter, but overtures were
made in this regard during 1983. FSSP recognizes the potential
of this growing network and is supportive of their activities.

These target interfaces are by no means exclusive of other
FSSP networking activities with various institutions and
organizations. Association will continue with WARDA, IITA,
ICRISAT, ILCA, ICRAF, and ICIPE, in Africa. Similarly, it is
anticipated that the FSSP will continue to foster a growing
relationship with CIMMYT, CATIE, CIP, CIAT, and IICA in Latin
America, and maintain contact with CIMMYT and IRRI as an
FSSP/Asian interface emerges.


West African Networkshop(s)

At least one networkshop will be organized by FSSP for
delivery 'n West Africa in 1984. The workshops and symposia
attended by FSSP during the past year indicated an expression of
interest by participants in this type of activity. FSSP has an
opportunity to strengthen the linkages of regional and
sub-regional networks to each other, and to provide an
opportunity for people involved in FSR/E projects to learn how
their counterparts cope with FSR/E issues.

The networkshop is conceived of as an opportunity to address
specific interests among FSR/E practitioners and
administrators/managers that involve two or more countries. Peer
groups will be identified with common concerns, where information









standardized format. .In the interim, a listing of the 184 known
or proposed projects will be published in the FSSP Newsletter in
an effort to stimulate interest on the part of those researchers
who may not have responded to the earlier request for inventory
information.

Summary results of this inventory effort will be prepared in
published form for distribution at Kansas State University's
Farming Systems Symposium in October. Results will be available
to those participating in the inventory via their projects, and
to practitioners, generally.


Strengthening Network Contacts

Interfacing with other networks will include specific target
activities for 1984. These targets consist of farming systems
newsletters, institutions and editors affiliated with them. One
of these is the Farming Systems Newsletter, edited by Michael
Collinson and published by CIMMYT in their East Africa Farming
Systems Program. Another is the newly formed Farming Systems
Research News, edited by Paul Neate and published by ICARDA,
representing the Middle East and North Africa. A third interface
is with the incipient West African Farming Systems Research
Network (WAFSRN) initiated by IRAT, ICRISAT and IITA. At this
time WAFSRN does not publish a newsletter, but overtures were
made in this regard during 1983. FSSP recognizes the potential
of this growing network and is supportive of their activities.

These target interfaces are by no means exclusive of other
FSSP networking activities with various institutions and
organizations. Association will continue with WARDA, IITA,
ICRISAT, ILCA, ICRAF, and ICIPE, in Africa. Similarly, it is
anticipated that the FSSP will continue to foster a growing
relationship with CIMMYT, CATIE, CIP, CIAT, and IICA in Latin
America, and maintain contact with CIMMYT and IRRI as an
FSSP/Asian interface emerges.


West African Networkshop(s)

At least one networkshop will be organized by FSSP for
delivery 'n West Africa in 1984. The workshops and symposia
attended by FSSP during the past year indicated an expression of
interest by participants in this type of activity. FSSP has an
opportunity to strengthen the linkages of regional and
sub-regional networks to each other, and to provide an
opportunity for people involved in FSR/E projects to learn how
their counterparts cope with FSR/E issues.

The networkshop is conceived of as an opportunity to address
specific interests among FSR/E practitioners and
administrators/managers that involve two or more countries. Peer
groups will be identified with common concerns, where information








sharing has the greatest potential for benefitting participants.
FSSP will help identify these concerns, facilitate and coordinate
the networkshop(s), identify resource people appropriate to
organize and participate in the and summarize results for use
in other communication and training outlets.

While specific topics are not currently defined, it is
anticipated that the workshop would be organized around a theme
of common interests. For example, workshop themes may include:
animal traction in West Africa, institutional structures for
adaptive research and extension in Africa, extension methods and
FSR/E, research administration with an on-farm component, or the
design and analysis of on-farm trials. These workshops can be
designed to serve objectives such as training, peer level
communication, review of research experiences, review of
literature, state-of-the-art synthesis for publication,
development of training materials, and general support of
networking and networks.


FSR/E Network Committees

Steps will be taken to form FSR/E Network Committees for
FSSP activities in each of the following world regions: Africa,
Latin America, and Asia. Each Committee will be comprised of one
practitioner from a participating country, one FSSP Core staff
member or their representative, and one USAID member (project
officer, or their designee). These committees will assist in
planning and scheduling networkshops for 1985 1987. Their
mandate will be helping to determine the theme and location of
networkshops that address pertinent and timely concerns of FSR/E
practitioners and programs.

The FSR/E Network Committees were conceived of in the
Cooperative Agreement between the University of Florida and USAID
as a means of identifying areas of farming systems concerns that
could be of particularly valuable if addressed in a regional
focus. As these committees are formed and begin their planning
activities, they are expected to contribute to the program
planning for FSSP network activities for the duration of the
project.


West African Farming Systems Symposium

FSSP will work with WAFSRN and others engaged in farming
systems activities to lay the groundwork for a farming systems
symposium in West Africa for 1985. As the FSR/E Network
Committee for Africa is formed during the year, candidates for
the committee may help facilitate this 1985 activity, which may
then serve as a formal meeting time and place for the committee.

Input from WAFSRN and other FSSP technical assistance efforts
and training activities will be sought in conjunction with the








sharing has the greatest potential for benefitting participants.
FSSP will help identify these concerns, facilitate and coordinate
the networkshop(s), identify resource people appropriate to
organize and participate in the and summarize results for use
in other communication and training outlets.

While specific topics are not currently defined, it is
anticipated that the workshop would be organized around a theme
of common interests. For example, workshop themes may include:
animal traction in West Africa, institutional structures for
adaptive research and extension in Africa, extension methods and
FSR/E, research administration with an on-farm component, or the
design and analysis of on-farm trials. These workshops can be
designed to serve objectives such as training, peer level
communication, review of research experiences, review of
literature, state-of-the-art synthesis for publication,
development of training materials, and general support of
networking and networks.


FSR/E Network Committees

Steps will be taken to form FSR/E Network Committees for
FSSP activities in each of the following world regions: Africa,
Latin America, and Asia. Each Committee will be comprised of one
practitioner from a participating country, one FSSP Core staff
member or their representative, and one USAID member (project
officer, or their designee). These committees will assist in
planning and scheduling networkshops for 1985 1987. Their
mandate will be helping to determine the theme and location of
networkshops that address pertinent and timely concerns of FSR/E
practitioners and programs.

The FSR/E Network Committees were conceived of in the
Cooperative Agreement between the University of Florida and USAID
as a means of identifying areas of farming systems concerns that
could be of particularly valuable if addressed in a regional
focus. As these committees are formed and begin their planning
activities, they are expected to contribute to the program
planning for FSSP network activities for the duration of the
project.


West African Farming Systems Symposium

FSSP will work with WAFSRN and others engaged in farming
systems activities to lay the groundwork for a farming systems
symposium in West Africa for 1985. As the FSR/E Network
Committee for Africa is formed during the year, candidates for
the committee may help facilitate this 1985 activity, which may
then serve as a formal meeting time and place for the committee.

Input from WAFSRN and other FSSP technical assistance efforts
and training activities will be sought in conjunction with the









planning of this symposium, and in the identification of likely
presenters and participants. The posture of the networkshops
leading to the symposium, and the symposium itself, will be one
of conveying practitioner research and extension experiences.

Symposium and networkshop activities will be publicized in
the FSSP Newsletter and an effort will be made to ensure that
information about these activities is widely available through
comparable dissemination means.


Meetings, Workshops, and Symposia

Networking activities are a function of the FSSP Core staff,
various representatives of SEs and all others interfacing with
the activities of the FSSP with an interest in furthering FSR/E.
Sometimes this involves very specific networking functions on
behalf of the FSSP. Sometimes activities are conducted in a more
informal and less structured manner. The Kansas State University
Farming Systems Symposium and the FSSP Annual Meetings are two
formal gatherings where considerable networking activities occur
on.behalf of the FSSP and various participants. The proven
successful combination of these activities resulted in their
being scheduled in tandem again for 1984. FSSP will participate
in and support these activities.

Many opportunities exist for networking in a more indirect or
informal manner. FSSP Core staff and SE representatives
participate in a wide variety of meetings, workshops, and
symposia during a year. It is anticipated that where these
activities are compatible with the concepts of FSR/E and in the
interest of the FSSP, participants will exert their efforts in
support of both. This may be as simple as forwarding a request
to have someone's name placed on the FSSP Newsletter mailing
list, or directing an inquiry related to specific technical
assistance needs. It may require some initiative beyond that,
such as arranging for appropriate case study materials to be
channeled into the FSSP training program, after experiencing an
excellent presentation.

The types of meetings and symposia that offer this kind of
opportunity vary by discipline and by institutional setting.
Some examples are: international visitors to respective campuses
and institutions, Title XII and Bilateral Contract interfaces,
professional society annual meetings, and other professional
associations.

As a matter of policy, the FSSP Core staff will consider
networking an activity consistent with technical assistance and
training and the furtherance of the farming systems approach. As
a matter of principle, networking is viewed as an important
activity that individuals can perform of their own initiative.








FSSP Documentation and Publications


Documentation efforts of KSU and the FSSP have provided the
USAID/DIU with the first set of 100 FSR/E documents, which will
be made available through the DIU Annotated Bibliography Series.
Search and selection of the 1984 set of 100 readings is underway.

The documentation efforts at KSU have resulted in the
formation of a collection of documents from the "fugitive
literature" in FSR/E. A vertical file collection of some 2,000
items has been established within the KSU libraries. With its
potential utility for practitioners and students, the FSSP will
provide KSU with the necessary support to microfiche and archive
the existing collection, and to make it computer-accessable.
Recognizing the needs and interests of visitors to the FSSP at
the University of Florida, a copy of the KSU vertical file
collection also will be established at this facility.

Forthe future, documentation network activities have the
potential for being more widespread. Similar or duplicate
collections could be established where regional FSR/E training
programs are regularly conducted, such as in Zimbabwe, the
Philippines and Costa Rica, facilitating their use by
researchers, trainers and students in other parts of the world.
Initial steps to determine the feasibility of such a proposal
will be undertaken in 1984.

FSSP publications will continue with those initiated during
the past year. These will include four issues of the FSSP
Newsletter (in English, Spanish and French), additions to the
Working Paper and Information Series, and a continuation of the
Training Module Scripts. Two major publications for the year
that warrant mention in this report are the FSSP 1984 Annual
Report and the FSSP 1985 Work Plan.

Considerable revision has taken place in the Book of Readings
for FSR/E that has been developed in conjunction with the
training and orientation efforts of FSSP and various support
entities. In 1984 the costs and logistics of commercial
publication of these readings will be explored.

Another area of exploration will be the possibility of
establishing either a monograph series or a journal in farming
systems. Either of these options would reflect the content and
caliber one might expect from a professional publication.










VIII. State-of-the-Art Synthesis/Research


Introductory Comment

Since research methodology and the scientific method have
already gained their niches in human intellectual history, a word
is necessary on technology innovation methodology. In
agriculture the distinction between science and technology has
never been made conceptually as it has in industrial fields where
the terminology "R and D" is common. Yet the distinction is
critical because farmers seldom use science directly, they use
technology.

Although the flow from science to technology and vice versa
must be closely related, methodologies for each differ substan-
tively. In science, associated with research, all variables are
rigidly controlled so that knowledge can be gained about one.
Scientific research analyses by abstracting from the randomness
of the environment.

The development of technology synthesizes. It brings in a
number of variables and aims to produce something that works or
is useful in an environment that is not. controlled. FSR/E work
falls almost completely in the area of technology development---
generating, testing, and adapting technology to the farming
systems) of an area.

Methodologies developed for scientific research are not
adequate for technology development. FSR methodologies are
essentially technology development oriented.

The major role of the FSSP is synthesizing state-of-
the-art experience in applications of a farming systems approach
to research and extension. FSSP can help do for the research/
extension technical assistance network what farming systems,
through a methodology for technology development, can do for
fundamental research and classical extension system. In this
synthesis role FSSP addresses institutional linkages at several
levels. FSSP state-of-the-art activity refers to both
institutionalization issues and applications of the farming
systems approach.

A Synthesis Strategy For 1984

Experience in 1983 demonstrated that many important
questions and issues remain unanswered and unresolved. There is
a definite need for research in several areas of the farming
systems approach. This research is imperative not only to
provide training content for some of courses the FSSP is to
offer, but also to fill gaps more generally in this new approach
and thus better enable the project to respond adequately to
requests for technical assistance. State-of-the-art research,









then, is inextricably bound to both training and technical
assistance.

Much of this research will involve a synthesizing and
focusing of materials from case studies and from more basic
research already conducted. A debriefing of technical assistance
teams returning from the field, also will provide useful
material. There also is a need for research that forays into as
yet unexplored areas. The FSSP therefore, will encourage further
research on topics listed below during 1984. The first four of
14 topics the institutional setting, the role of extension,
on-farm trial design and data analysis, and project/program
evaluation will take priority, meaning that reports on them
will be produced in 1984.

A second priority grouping will be addressed in 1984 by the
technical committee for further consideration by task groups,
selected institutions or selected individuals. Areas to be
considered are: economic characteristics of small-scale, family
farms; nutrition; the household as a unit of analysis; diagnostic
surveys; the role of social science in FSR/E; livestock;
agroforestry; integrated pest management, and agricultural and
household engineering.. These topics also will be considered
within the priority of on-farm research, particularly with
reference to livestock and agroforestry. Reports on these nine
topics may or may not be ready by the end of the year.

A third priority concern policy and infrastructure will
not be addressed directly in 1984 because it extends beyond the
scope of the FSSP. Nevertheless, where appropriate, experience
will be identified to help address this issue as it pertains to
FSR/E.


First Priority Concerns


The Institutional Setting and Expectations

Little attention has been given to the institutional
setting of FSR/E and to research and extension policy. There is
an urgent need for research here, because the FSR/E approach,
when introduced to a setting for the first time, must be "fitted"
to a certain institutional configuration. This is precisely the
situation now facing many USAID Missions when they design FSR/E
projects. It is suggested that research might partially proceed
through the analysis of actual cases from different parts of the
world in order to develop useful guidelines. For example, good
case material should be available from Malawi, Zambia, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, and the
Philippines.









then, is inextricably bound to both training and technical
assistance.

Much of this research will involve a synthesizing and
focusing of materials from case studies and from more basic
research already conducted. A debriefing of technical assistance
teams returning from the field, also will provide useful
material. There also is a need for research that forays into as
yet unexplored areas. The FSSP therefore, will encourage further
research on topics listed below during 1984. The first four of
14 topics the institutional setting, the role of extension,
on-farm trial design and data analysis, and project/program
evaluation will take priority, meaning that reports on them
will be produced in 1984.

A second priority grouping will be addressed in 1984 by the
technical committee for further consideration by task groups,
selected institutions or selected individuals. Areas to be
considered are: economic characteristics of small-scale, family
farms; nutrition; the household as a unit of analysis; diagnostic
surveys; the role of social science in FSR/E; livestock;
agroforestry; integrated pest management, and agricultural and
household engineering.. These topics also will be considered
within the priority of on-farm research, particularly with
reference to livestock and agroforestry. Reports on these nine
topics may or may not be ready by the end of the year.

A third priority concern policy and infrastructure will
not be addressed directly in 1984 because it extends beyond the
scope of the FSSP. Nevertheless, where appropriate, experience
will be identified to help address this issue as it pertains to
FSR/E.


First Priority Concerns


The Institutional Setting and Expectations

Little attention has been given to the institutional
setting of FSR/E and to research and extension policy. There is
an urgent need for research here, because the FSR/E approach,
when introduced to a setting for the first time, must be "fitted"
to a certain institutional configuration. This is precisely the
situation now facing many USAID Missions when they design FSR/E
projects. It is suggested that research might partially proceed
through the analysis of actual cases from different parts of the
world in order to develop useful guidelines. For example, good
case material should be available from Malawi, Zambia, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, and the
Philippines.











The Role of Extension


It is often remarked that FSR/E is a scheme that integrates
research, extension, and the farmer, but the remark usually stops
there. The role of extension remains controversial and has not
been dealt with adequately. There is widespread confusion
regarding precisely what part extension should play in the FSR/E
process; or, what part FSR/E should play in the extension
process. The FSSP desires to identify linkages and common
elements to simplify the process of integration.


On-Farm Trial Design and Data Analysis

The design of on-farm trials and the analysis of data from
them pose several problems not encountered in on-station
research. Just how one does on-farm research is a concern now
uppermost in the minds of many national researchers. While there
has been some research conducted on the subject, much remains to
be done. There is a need to synthesize extant research and to
conduct further research in this vital area.


Project/Program Evaluation

Although not properly an FSR/E substantive research topic,
the area of project/program evaluation is of special concern to
USAID since projects are subject to periodic evaluations on which
important decisions rest. Reference here is to evaluation of
neither FSR/E methods or FSR/E versus other approaches to
research and extension. Many FSR/E methods never can be
evaluated in the abstract, while the very existence of the FSSP
implies some prior evaluation of the latter kind.


Second Priority Concerns


The Economic Characteristics of Small-Scale, Family Farms

The small-scale family farm is in a delicate balance.
Under stable conditions, it probably produces mostly near the
"Stage I/Stage II" interface (Schultz's efficiency theorem).
However, weather, market, or technological changes can easily
shift this position, forcing it into Stage I or Stage III (areas
of inefficient production). There is a need to address this topic
more thoroughly, for current economic thought does not treat this
production situation adequately.









The Role of Social Science in FSR/E

The agronomic and economic sciences are readily accorded a
role in the FSR/E process. This is less true for sociology or
anthropology. The conceptual basis for FSR/E--the farm as
holistic system--has been central to social anthropology for most
of the current century. The survey and interview techniques
(e.g., the ethnographic interview) of FSR/E are basically
anthropological in nature and many of the principles used in
technology development and diffusion come from applied
anthropology. The role, actual and potential, of the social
scientist in farming systems research further needs to be
clarified.


Livestock

There has been little research to date on how either mixed
systems or predominantly livestock systems are to be accommodated
by the farming systems approach. On-farm research with
livestock, for example, poses a series of problems not
encountered by on-farm crop research. Yet, livestock are
important over much of Africa, especially in the more arid
northern regions.


Agroforestry

The area of agro-forestry merits the attention of FSR/E and
the FSSP. The importance of mixed systems that include trees,
crops and livestock is recognized but not adequately anticipated
in many programs. Emphasis must be given to further
understanding the interfaces and interactions in those systems as
an aid to appropriate research and technical assistance.


Integrated Pest Management

IPM is an important area with methodological similarity to
FSR. Besides drawing on the methodological merits of IPM to
strengthen FSR/E, attention can be given to improved
understanding of pest management in small farm systems.
Currently labor requirements to accommodate and minimize pest
problems are substantial as are concerns for production and
productivity losses.


Agricultural and Household Engineering

Consideration of tools and equipment to support
agriculture at the smallest scale is needed for food production,
preservation, preparation, and marketing. Animal traction, for
example, is one possible means for solving.small-farm labor









problems. Equipment is needed if animal power is to be
effective.


Third Priority Concern


Policy and Infrastructure

It is now widely agreed that policy and infrastructural
(FSIP) environments bear importantly on the enterprise of
technology generation and diffusion. There is a need to
elucidate the linkages, perhaps through case studies, and a
further need to provide guidelines on how FSR/E projects and
programs might incorporate policy and infrastructural
considerations in their work. The FSSP will cooperate with the
AID/S&T Policy Strategies Project in this endeavor.

Evaluations

A comprehensive evaluation methodology for the Farming
Systems approach is lacking, but the FSSP will not tackle this
task per se. Evaluation of FSR/E methodologies continues on an
evolutionary basis by practitioners. The FSSP will continue to
stimulate this activity through publication and communication in
workshops and symposia.












FSSP WORK PLAN COMMITMENTS, 1984


IX. Summary

This summary of the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP)
activities to be accomplished in 1984 is drawn from the FSSP 1984 Work
Plan. The time frame given embodies a continuing process for
planning, refining and implementing activities. Drawing from these
summary elements is an implementation process now underway which
starts with implementation memos that express procedures and
responsibilities. These action memos, prepared by the FSSP core,
outline the following:

1. Why? Variables to consider problems/opportunities
2. How? Strategy plan/structure
3. What? Outputs expected
4. When? Timing
5. Who? Actors entity/group/individual

Initial Memos will be directed to:
A. General Program Areas:
1. Training Courses
2. TA Briefing and Debriefing
3. West Africa Training/Networking
4. Latin America General Strategy
5. Asia General Assessment

B. State-of-the-Art Synthesis
1. Management/Administration/Institutionalization
2. Extension
3. Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials
4. FSR/E Project Evaluation

C. Communication and Support
1. Newsletter/Publication
2. Documentation
3. Visitors
4. US Based Workshops
5. Bio-Data Management
6. Procedures for Support Entity Task Assignment

Following this round of memos, task assignments will be made for
implementation. Some assignments will be very specific with outputs
for immediate training and technical assistance use; others will be
advisory in nature.
This general implementation process will continue with a second
round of action memos by the FSSP Core directed to nine state-of-
the-art topics listed in the summary (..48-49). Results form these
implementation activities will provide further input to strengthen
planning efforts for 1985 to begin formally in July 1984.










--> Developing activity, _> On-going activity, X Specific target date


FSSP Administration & US AID Relations


Quarter
Work 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Plan Activity
Pg #

10 Develop a procedural manual
to specify institutional linkages and
implementation procedures including
financial arrangements, personnel
administration and mobilization, and
guidelines for Advisory Council,
Technical Committee and Task Force
activities. X

15 Assist USAID Missions and
national governments in a needs
assessment at the country level to
l)determine what activities are
called for
2)establish a time frame for their
implementation

9 Further develop procedures for the
funding match (FSSP and USAID Mission
Sources).

8 An external evaluation panel will
be formed to initate annual FSSP
evaluations, beginning
with the second full year of
operations. X

11 Emphasis will continue in strengthen-
ing ties with the IARCs. (CIMMYT,
ICRISAT, IITA and WARDA) with regional
entities.

11 Link with the CRSPs and other USAID
support projects as appropriate.

12 Strengthen ties with the USAID
Regional Bureaus and BIFAD.__ __

37 Prepare 1984 Annual Report

37 Prepare 1985 Work Plan











SE/FSSP Relations


Quarter
Work 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Plan Activity
Pg #

10 Moratorium placed on signing new MOAs
as of July 1, 1984.
New MOAs only after careful
deliberation following October 1,1984. X

10 Delegate FSSP program delivery
responsibilities, where possible,
to SEs. SEs assume responsibility
for specific assignments. ___

30 Develop a systematic procedure to
select SEs to meet US AID Mission
demands.

15 Early priority to charge SE's with: ___
l)implementation tasks like project
design and course delivery
2)state-of-the-art synthesis/research
3)development of courses and training
materials
4)Continuation of domestic work-
shops for SE and AID personnel. _


SEs and Supply of Services


Quarter
Work 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Plan Activity
Pg #I


TA activities will be evaluated;
guidelines and general principles
will be established. University
personnel will be informed about USAID
criteria and procedures.

Develop procedures for managing
requests for TA.

Explore the possibility of developing
a manual of operations to assist in
managing TA issues.


X




---- ----- ------










30 Develop and implement a methodology
to prepare program associates for
short-and long-term TA assignments. >

27 Assist with pre-departure orientation
workshop, University of Hawaii. X

22 Continue Domestic Orientation
Short Courses during 1984.

22 Revise materials and procedures
used in Domestic Orientation
courses/workshops in accordance
with criticisms from 1983
as well as develop new materials. >

16 & Computerize biodata file--- ---- ----
28

16 Coordinate information and
personnel data handling to serve
training and technical assistance
staffing efforts. ____ >

27 FSSP early meetings in Africa to
assess needs on a regional and
country basis.

30 Develop a briefing and debriefing
format. >




State-of-the-Art Synthesis/Research


Quarter
Work 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Plan Activity
Pg #
40 First priority SOA reports will be
produced on the following topics:

l)the institutional setting
2)the role of extension >
3)on-farm trial design and data >
4)project/program evaluation

40 A second priority'set of topics will
be addressed in 1984 by the Technical
Committee for further consideration
by task groups, selected institutions








or individuals. (Reports may or may
not be ready by years' end). --------- ---- ---->

5)economic characteristics of
small-scale, family farms
6)nutrition
7)the household as a unit of
analysis
8)diagnostic surveys
9)role of social science in FSR/E
10)livestock
11)agroforestry
12)IPM
13)agricultural and household
engineering

43 Continue to stimulate interest in
Evaluation of FSR/E methodologies
thru publications and
communication in workshops and
symposia.

33 Will follow-up on FSR Inventory
with a summary survey.

31 Summarize and analyze FSR/E
experiences, make this information
available to other countries and
interested TA teams (through brief-
ings, and debriefings and case
studies). >

31 Institutional case studies initiated
in selected countries. >




Training and Networking

Quarter
Work 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Plan Activity
Pg #
General -
20 Workshops and short courses will be
conducted; training teams need to be
formalized, an FSSP undertaking that
must have high priority in 1984. >

19 Lay groundwork with research,
extension and educational
entities so that the FSR/E training








process can become institutionalized.

30 Consider asking each SE to identify
a training officer. FSSP will assist
with their training programs for
staff and materials.

20 Training assessment will be accom-
plished for Asia in 1984.

34 FSSP will interface with other
networks:
CIMMYT
ICARDA
WAFSRN
Plus other IARCs
Etc...


Courses, Workshops, Symposia
21 FSSP will continue with the further
development of a series of basic
courses, especially needed for Africa.

21 & One-month General course for field
23 practitioners ready for overseas
delivery in French by the end of the
year.

21 One-week course for managers and
administrators ready for overseas
delivery in French by the end of the
year.

21 1984 will initiate or continue work
on four other courses to be ready for
delivery by 1985:
l)diagnostic surveys (2 weeks)
2)economic analysis (1 week)
3)on-farm trial design and
agronomic data analysis (1 week)
4)micro computer analysis of on-
farm and on-station trials weeke)

26 March 1984 workshop to train
trainers from three pilot countries
on MSTAT at Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.

26 MSTAT field-level practitioner courses
1. In Malawi.
2. In Ecuador.
3. In Senegal.

34 Topical workshops, particularly













35









37



37



37




37


37


37



34



34


targeting West Africa will be identi-
fied in 1984, and at least two will
be accomplished.

West African Farming Systems
Symposium groundwork laid in 1984
for a 1985 symposium.


Publications & Inventories
100 FSR/E documents made
available thru DIU Annotated
Bibliography Series.

Microfiche and archive KSU fugitive
literature collection to make it
computer-accesible.

A copy of KSU fugitive literature
collection will be established at
University of Florida.

Initial steps to determine the
feasability of similar collections
regionally (eg. Zimbabwe, Phillipines,
Costa Rica).

Additions to the Working Papers and
Information Series.

Book of Readings costs & logistics
for publication will be explored.

Explore possibility of establishing
either a monograph series series or
a journal in farming systems.

FSSP will follow-up on FSR/Inventory
with a summary survey, publications
distribution.

A listing of FSR/E Projects will be
published in the FSSP Newsletter.


Africa
Identify and develop cadres for
training especially in West Africa.

A domestic workshop to train trainers
for West Africa is planned for June
1984.

Needs will be specified for'training


----- ----- ----- ----->





----- ----- ----- --- >



----- ----- ----- ----->















X
_____________ >




xl


-->X- -->X








in West and Central Africa during
1984 for countries requesting support. --- ---- ---

21 One-week orientation course for
host-country nationals in Africa
ready in second-quarter of 1984. ---->>

21 A rapid-survey simulation exercise
ready for Africa by the end of 1984. X

35 West Africa Farming Systems
Symposium groundwork laid in 1984
for a 1985 symposium. ----->

34 West African Networkshop(s) for
West Africa. ----> X-- ->X









APPENDIX 1


FSSP ORGANIZATION, ADVISORY AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE

The FSSP Organizational and Response Structure
organogram (below) addresses the general position of
the FSSP within the international research and
development system. It also provides a sketch of the
advisory and support components to the FSSP lead
entity, the University of Florida, and to the FSSP
core staff and director's office. The basis for this
structure is presented in the 1983 FSSP Work Plan as
Attachment A of Appendix 1 in this document.



FSSP Organizational and Response Structure


Further amplification of the roles and
responsibilities for the Advisory Council, the
Technical Committee and Task Groups are discussed
below. Detail will be developed to support these
procedures, guidelines and concepts in a
policy/operations manual anticipated for 1984. One
further important component to be added to the three
support elements will be an External Evaluation Panel.
Procedures and guidelines for this activity will also
emerge in 1984.










Advisory Council

The Council is composed of three members. This
small Council can easily and effectively be drawn
together for decision purposes. It demands
"diplomatic" commitment by the members such that
results can be forthcoming without deferring to a
larger group SE representative where expectations
might be less intense.

Composition of the Council with three members
includes a three-year term rotated on an annual,
calendar year basis with one member being reassigned
each year. The three-year term will be inclusive of
the first year as an active participant, the second
year as Chairman of the Council and the third year as
Vice-Chairman of the Council.

The Council serves as a nominating committee to
fill vacant seats. Recommendations for members of the
Council are taken primarily from the administrative
coordinators of the FSSP. The candidates recommended
are considered by the director and the on-going
Council, which makes a recommendation to the
administrative coordinators of the FSSP for election
of a new member at the annual meeting. Each support
entity with a signed Memorandum of Agreement has one
vote in selection of Council members.

The Council is representative of support entities
within the FSSP and is particularly concerned with
operations of the Technical Committee and
implementation of the MOA's. It is primarily
responsible to the director of the FSSP as an advisory
body and a sounding board for policy purposes.

Council members'travel and per-diem costs for
council meetings will be funded by the FSSP. No
salary will be provided for Council activity.


Appointees

The Advisory Council began its role in'1983
following from the December 1982 FSSP Annual Meeting.
It was a Provisional Council until specific policies
and procedures were established by the Director in
consultation with the provisional members. The above
policy was confirmed at the 1983 FSSP Annual Meeting
as was membership on the Advisory Council. The
members, their affiliations and terms are as follows:











Name and Affiliation Term

Dr..Wendell McKinsey
Univ. of Colorado 1983

Dr. James Meiman
Colorado State Univ. 1983, 1984
(1983 Chairman)

Dr. Larry Zuidema
Cornell University 1983, 1984,
1985
(1984 Chairman)

Dr. Dale Harpstead
Mich. State Univ. 1984, 1985,
1986
(1985 Chairman)



Technical Committee

The Technical Committee includes all "standing
committee" responsibilities for technical concerns. A
limit of one standing committee requires the task
force concept (ad hoc committees) to be as flexible as
possible in addressing technical support needs of the
FSSP.

Responsibility and Role
Technical Committee members will be active as a
technical resource base; these regional and
institutional representatives will serve network and
communication purposes. Areas to be considered by the
technical committee include, but are not limited to:
research, extension, management, data retrieval and
analysis, family, livestock, cropping, agro-forestry,
soil and water, infrastructure and policy systems.

The Technical Committee will provide for common
goals in the overall program and serve as trustees of
the systems approach and the FSSP. The Technical
Committee will assist with developing guidelines and
roles for task force strategies. Directions for task
group activity will evolve from and through the
Technical Committee based upon recommendations from
the Advisory Council and the FSSP Director and Core
staff. The Technical Committee will be a forum for
discussing concerns related to training and technical
assistance. It will address consensus building to
achieve greater consistency in the farming systems
program and complementarity with broad concerns for
research and extension. Thus, the Technical Committee









will be representative of discipline interests in
farming systems only through multi-disciplinary
interfaces and the integrated research and extension
programs.

The Technical Committee will contribute, along
with advice concerning short-term technical support
needs, to long-term planning of support efforts that
will engage task groups and support entities to
sustain a viable farming systems technical base and an
evolving support structure within AID Missions and
national governments. It will be a base for
discussing major inter-institutional linkages for
research and extension programs through the overall
network (workshops, communication, documentation and
publication by and for output of practitioners) for
adaptive research and extension.

The Technical Committee will not be a policy
making body for general administration and operation
of the FSSP.

Appointees
In 1984 the memberships of the Technical
Committee will be completed with naming of the
international members. US members we named in
September of 1983 and met first at the FSSP Annual
Meeting in Manhattan, Kansas. The US members, their
affiliations and terms are as follows:

Name and Affiliation Term

Sam Johnson
University of Illinois 1984

Bob McDowell
Cornell University 1984

Bob Hart
Winrock 1984, 1985

Jim Henson
Washington State University 1984, 1985

Cornelia Butler-Flora
Kansas State University 1984, 1985,
1986

John Caldwell
Virginia Polytechnic Institute 1984, 1985,
1986

Steve Franzel
Development Alternatives, Inc. Alternate









Ken Buhr
University of Florida Alternate

Michael Joshua
Virginia State University Alternate


Membership
The committee consists of 15 members, named on a
rotational basis, including six members and three
alternatives from support entities (universities,
private firms and other U.S.-based entities), and nine
members from developing countries with three members
each from Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The technical committee members will be
identified to provide subject matter balance along
with geographic and institutional representation.
Greatest priority will be given to technical
capability: FS experience, international experience,
contributions to FS literature, discipline base and
multidisciplinary experience.

The committee will convene annually. It is
expected that the various regional subcommittees
(Asia, Latin America, Africa, and U.S.) will meet
three or four times per year.

U.S. Members
Selection of the technical committee members from
the U.S. will be based upon recommendations by the
FSSP Director for approval by the Advisory Council.
Clearance for individual appointments will be obtained
through the respective administrative coordinators at
the participating entity. Selection will be primarily
from Program Leaders at will be eligible if their
entity has signed or is near to signing a Memorandum
of Agreement with the Farming Systems Support Project.

Tenure of the Technical Committee will be on the
following basis. Two members will be named for a
one-year term, two members for a two-year term and two
members for a three-year term. Term length will be a
maximum of three years for any given individual.
Alternates will be selected annually and may be
candidates for openings on.the committee. During their
term they may periodically assist with specific
assignments on behalf of or as adjunct members of the
Committee.

International Members
Of the three Technical Committee members from
each continent, two will be from national institutions
S and one from regional or international entities such
as the IARC. Rotation for the participants in the










Technical Committee from the separate continents will
be on a three-year basis with one new member added
each year. Initial assignments will be one, two, and
three years to begin the rotation.

The selection process will include consideration
of recommendations by various national, regional and
international bodies and AID Bureaus and Missions.
The final selection will be made from these
recommendations by the Director in consultation with
the Advisory Council. The regional sub-committees
(Asia, Latin America, Africa) should include more than
three members to appropriately address the broad
concerns in these diverse geographic settings. It is
expected that these subcommittees will be directly
involved with the network activities of the region and
the FSSP.


Leadership
A chairperson of the Technical Committee will be
elected annually by the Committee from the
representatives within the United States so that
coordination can occur between the technical committee
and the FSSP Director and Advisory Council. Each
regional subcommittee will elect a chairman annually.


Financial Support
Travel to Technical Committee annual conferences
and meetings, including both transportation and per
diem, will be funded by the FSSP. No salary will be
provided for the serving on the technical committee.


Tasks and Task Groups
The task-oriented approach to support training,
technical assistance, networking and state-of-the-art
research is conceptualized in two ways. First, tasks
can be performed by a single individual, several
individuals at one support entity, several individuals
from several support entities and non-aligned
individuals (not with an SE) working independently or
with SEs. Second, needs may be expressed to include a
specific task, such as updating or revising a training
module, or a specific theme such as concerns for
linkages of FS to agro-forestry, integrated pest
management or research/extension programs. Each area
- tasks and themes course demand a product, some
being more tangible than ,others.

The specific activities most commonly related to
tasks are those identified by the FSSP Director and
Core while theme activities are those most closely
related to technical concerns (concepts,










methodologies, research needs, institutional
development, etc.), where the FSSP Technical Committee
is primarily responsible.

Identification of those to act upon task and
theme assignments will be made by the Director on
consultation with the Advisory Council, the Technical
Committee and the Core. It is expected that these
groups are in close consultation with the Program
Leaders at each SE for inputs, relative to individuals
most qualified to serve and relative to overall
institutional capability. The biodata files held by
the FSSP/Gainesville and the SE capability statements
are guides in this activity. Final selections will be
made on the basis of expressed and demonstrated
capability. Should an effort require difficult
decisions among "near equals" a competitive procedure
can be followed under supervision by the Advisory
Council and Technical Committee.

Funding will be by the FSSP on an activity basis
where a specific desired product has been well-defined
and is approved through the above structure. Funding
is not on a project basis, per se, but by activity.
Task or Task Group will have an appropriate "sunset
clause" as no task group will have standing committee
or major project responsibilities.