Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Administrative support and delivery...
 Programming for training, technical...
 Technical assistance
 State-or-the-art research
 Appendix 1: ESSP organization,...

Group Title: Annual work plan, Farming Systems Support Project
Title: Annual workplan
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055456/00005
 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
Publication Date: 1984 draft version
Frequency: annual
Subject: Agricultural extension work -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
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.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055456
Volume ID: VID00005
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

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Administrative support and delivery structure
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Programming for training, technical assistance, networking and state-of-the-art research
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Technical assistance
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    State-or-the-art research
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
    Appendix 1: ESSP organization, advisory and support structure
        Appendix 1-1
        Appendix 1-2
        Appendix 1-3
        Appendix 1-4
        Appendix 1-5
        Appendix 1-6
        Appendix 1-7
Full Text




Cooperative Agreement No.: Dan-4099-A-oo-2083-00

Project No.: 936-4099

Submitted to

The United States

Agency for International Development

Prepared by

The University of Florida

in cooperation with FSSP Support Entities

January 1, 1984

Table of Contents

Preface 1

Introduction 2

Administrative Support and
Delivery Structure 4

Programming for Training,
Technical Assistance,
Networking, and
State-of-the Arts
Research 12

Training 17

Technical Assistance 31

Networking 41

State-of-the-Art Research 51

Appendix 1: FSSP Organization,
Advisory and Support

I. Preface

The FSSP 1984 Work Plan and the 1983 Annual Report are

companion documents that illustrate the flow of FSSP program

activity. The Work Plan is designed to be a general guide to the

Project's technical assistance and training support to USAID

Missions and national FSR/E 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

complimentary and interrelated, addressing a common need to

develop, adopt and place technology in an information system

easily accessed by all potential users.

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 FS

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 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 the following three

stages of implementation:

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. The process is iterative and such

generalizations are risky, but a general categorization is

essential if program initiatives are to best address regional,

country and project opportunities.

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. The FSSP, as a

backstop entity in the development assistance process, provides

linkages and mechanisms to USAID Missions through effective

support of FSR/E activities.

Perspectives for 1984

Efficient program delivery by the FSSP in 1984 demands

careful planning and consideration by all Support Entities (SE's)

and USAID Missions. A plan is emerging for coordinated

management and administration of supply and demand, which

delineates capabilities among SE's 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.

Success of FSR/E and the FSSP will ultimately be evaluated by

their impact on agricultural technology generation and extension

among small farmers. But this takes time. Meanwhile, an

external evaluation panel will be formed in 1984 to initiate

annual FSSP evaluations, beginning with the second full year of


III. Administrative Support and Delivery Structure

The FSSP is administered and managed by a core team at the

University of Florida consisting of the following : 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 with general roles and

responsibilities of the components: Advisory Council, Technical

Committee, Task Force and Support Entity linkages.

USAID Mission Relations

Strategies are proposed in this Work Plan for assisting with

needs assessment and program planning at the USAID Mission level.

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 bi-lateral 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

* A

given to USAID/Missions for the match, to reduce both management

time in USAID for necessary fund transfers, and amendments to the

Cooperative Agreement.

Title XII and the FSSP. The FSSP is a Title XII activity

guided by Title XII philosophy and is 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 bi-lateral modes of technical

assistance is a goal of the FSSP. FSSP can provide training

materials, professional expertise, and general knowledge to

strengthen bi-lateral 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 through support mechanisms

including Core staff, the Technical Committee and task forces,

for assimilating experience and information.

Further refinements will be made in the method of payment for

services by support entities and in the management of indirect

costs. Specific emphasis will be given also to methods for

proper financial accounting for management time and for staff

involvement at support entities. Likewise, for the technical

assistance effort, 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


Support Entities

Procedural Guidelines. The SE structure is in place as

anticipated in the 1983 Work Plan. The Technical Committee and

Advisory Council provide administrative and program counsel to

the FSSP Core. Further implementation of the SE structure will

require additional guidelines for the Advisory Council, Technical

Committee, Task Forces, Program Leaders and Program Associates.

These guidelines, to be further refined in 1984, will be flexible

and adjusted to meet specific needs. A procedural manual will be

developed to specify desired institutional linkages and

implementation procedures including financial arrangements,

personnel administration and mobilization, and guidelines for

Council, Committee and Task Force activities.

Building Capability. A moratorium will be placed on signing

new MOA's as of July 1, 1984; only after careful deliberation

will any new MOA's 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 SE's 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 Arrancments. FSSP program delivery

responsibilities, where possible, will be delegated to SE's. The

FSSP Core will give general leadership to coordination and

project allocation. SE's will assume responsibility for specific

assignments to underscore continuity extending beyond initial


To this end the bi-lateral 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 otherwise bilateral

arrangements unless it is essential; and 3) to provide support to

implementing entities through training, communication, evaluation

and experience transfers.

Professional Involvement. SE institutional/professional

responsibilities will emphasize strengthening institutional ties

and professional involvement for specific assignments with the

FSSP. Direct professional invovlement that is not through SE's

will be limited because 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 SE's. 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 SE's to achieve effective

long-term back-stop capability for USAID Missions.

Other cooperators

Emphasis will continue in strengthening ties with the IARCs.

Specifically, the FSSP will provide FS support to complement

center research 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, support will be provided as appropriate to ILCA,

ICRISAT, IITA, and WARDA. The principle is to improve

communication and linkages, thereby strengthening 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 thread

that can be strengthened by the FSSP.

Further,the FSSP will link with the CRSP's 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 program 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

ties 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 would strengthen the FS program in USAID.

In summary, the full intent of a cooperative agreement will be

pursued by the FSSP in the context of USAID and BIFAD goals,

policies and programs.

Programming for Training, Technical Assistance,

Networking and State-of-the-Art Research

FSSP operations recognize the close interrelations between

training, technical assistance(TA), networking, and

state-of-the-art(SOA) research. These relations are manifest

throughout this document. 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. In like manner, technical assistance

teams are given orientation briefings before their departure and

are involved in counterpart exchanges during their TA management,

both being forms of training; and teams are then debriefed upon

their return, a way to collect information for state-of-the-art

research. In these and similar ways the four functional areas of

the FSSP grade imperceptibly one into another.

The first activity of support with a USAID Mission is through

needs assessment, followed by support/response as a second

activity. 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 needs

assessment and effective program implementation. The needs

assessment and support/response framework activities are

discussed below.

Needs Assessment

In the context of agricultural project programming at the

country level, the functional areas (training, technical

assistance, networking and state-of-the-art) are not only related

but are also mutually dependent. It is for this reason that the

FSSP will assist USAID Missions and national governments in a

needs assessment at the country level. This assessment will

determine what activities are called for and establish a time

frame for their implementation. It will provide the FSSP with

sufficient advance time to prepare for those activities as well

as to adapt 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, the

FSSP will submit questionnaires to USAID Missions. A fuller

team assessment will subsequently be conducted once the FSSP has

a Mission request to provide FSR/E support. Present indications

suggest a greater urgency for needs assessments 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 the FSSP rests with the Director and

Core staff, the capacity of the support/response framework is

incumbent upon the support entities. In addition to field

implementation tasks like project design and the delivery of

training courses, support entities, or individuals from them,

will be charged with state-of-the-art 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


Domestic orientation 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

support entity personnel to improve their understanding of the

approach and concepts of FSR/E and increase their capacity to

perform on behalf of the FSSP.

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 their respective programs in order to

broaden the domestic expertise base for FSR/E activity conducted

not only under the auspices of the FSSP, but also in relation to

bilateral contracts between these entities and USAID. The

development of these support entity programs and their associated

personnel is an important investment in the future.


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 the FSSP is currently engaged. A domestic workshop to

train trainers for West Africa is planned for June of 1984. The

FSSP is already operating with a cadre of trainers for Latin

America, most of whom have considerable FSR/E experience.

Technical Assistance

The technical assistance component of the FSSP is

coordinating information and personnel data handling that will

serve both training and technical assistance staffing efforts. A

biodata file has been established that includes support entity

program associates and others with an expressed interest and

capability in FSR/E training and technical assistance. The FSSP

biodata file will eventually be computerized. And, as project

activities expand into 1984, data handling and information

processing will continue to grow in importance for Project needs.



The experiences of 1983 have been instructive about training

in farming systems research/extension and we seek to incorporate

them in this workplan. 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 and little

is anticipated for the near future. Latin America and Africa,

then, are the regions uppermost in our minds for 1984.

The two regions differ importantly along cultural,

historical, and agroecological 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 sociocultural

heterogeneity in Latin America than in Africa. Such differences

bear significantly on training in the two regions. In Latin

America, the FSSP is operating 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.


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


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, of which

training is an integral part. In this way not only will training

be more relevant as part of a wider plan, but the FSSP can better

schedule and prepare for training and other activities.

A country needs assessment is conducted by an FSSP team in

collaboration with USAID Mission officials and nationals. The

priority is for needs assessments in West and Central Africa, so

teams will be dispatched to this region during 1984 to 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


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 must have 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.

Two courses, a one-month methods course for field

practitioners and a one-week course for managers and

administrators, will be ready for overseas delivery in French by

the third-quarter of 1984. 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 to Africa.

The FSSP will also have ready in 1984 a one-week orientation

course, perhaps better termed a 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

as well as presentations by them. The FSSP has delivered two

kinds of orientation courses to date, one largely for domestic

participants and held in the United States, 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 and trainees as well as 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, to sensitize, and to 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 on the whole

positive. 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 the 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 includes mainly

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. Further,

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 in the way of locating

and securing qualified nationals for presentations as well as of

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


Practitioner Course

The FSSP will further adapt by third quarter 1984, 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

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 course of about one week in length 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 operate at higher levels of

the bureaucracy and take key 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


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 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 might emerge a set of issues, if not guiding

principles, that could be used to instructional advantage.

Useful problem-oriented exercises would then be devised to

involve course participants with issues and applications of

principles, ultimately important in their own respective


A Course on Surveys

There is considerable interest in the diagnostic stage of the

FSR/E process. But there is confusion about how to proceed.

Concerns center on what are the survey options, and what options

are best for what settings; or how much effort should be put into

surveys, and how does one conduct them. There is a need for a

two week course that would be delivered abroad. Such a course

would include at least the following: 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.

The FSSP will develop such an exercise, first for an African

setting owing to the prevailing involvement of the project there.

Another such exercise, using materials from Las Cuevas, Dominican

Republic which were gathered for the purpose, is already under


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 an "exotic" setting (e.g., a matrilineal

society) for the African simulation survey, thereby enhancing its

pedagogical worth, would have instructional value for American

domestic audiences, where the role of social scientists in FSR/E

is not well understood.

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. The FSSP

will develop a course of about one-week duration for in-country


For the trial design part of the course, diagnostic survey

data and conclusions(e.g., a sondeo report) might 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 will be

to develop exercises that encourage participants to solve

problems and that 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

microeconomic evaluation of alternative technologies. For

in-country delivery, it too will be of about one-week duration.

The course might also include the development and use of farm


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, there may be some potential for combining them

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

The 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 the 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 for the training of

trainers and field-level practitioners. A workshop to train

trainers, mostly overseas nationals, from at least three pilot

countries will be held in March of 1984 in East Lansing. 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, for a

Francophone African country yet to be determined, and perhaps for


TA Team Orientation/Training

The 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.

Technical Assistance


The major objectives regarding technical assistance through

the 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.

Additionally, technical assistance (TA) orientations,






host count

place majc

need to be


will be a


An ult

charge one


be closely


.nd debriefings must be divided into the two major

)f long-term (generally two or more years) and

(up to six-month assignments involving needs

;, project design and project evaluation activities).

ormats need to be developed to address TA team and

-y needs based on this major division. While FSSP will

* emphasis on short-term TA, long-term TA issues will

considered as well. The Pre-Departure Orientation

;o be held this spring at the University of Hawaii,

valuablee forum for helping to develop TA

-briefing formats of the FSSP.

.mate goal of the FSSP is to be able to identify and

or two MOA SE's with short- and long-term TA team

is. Initially, however, the FSSP management staff will

involved with all aspects of TA team orientations,

in the development and verification of

briefing-c briefing formats.

Regional I >plications

The t(

Latin Amei



assess nef

:hnical assistance strategy will react to needs in

.ca and Asia. In Africa, the FSSP will assume a

tance and help to structure the demand for its TA

he approach to TA in Africa includes early meetings to

.s 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 Management

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 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 430 CV's of persons with either experience or an

interest in FSR/E projects or activities. Nearly 330 of these

biodata files have been provided by MOA SE's for their program


Team Organization and Management

To the extent appropriate, FSSP policy is to place

responsibility for short-term TA team organization and management

with the SE's. 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 SE's is expected. USAID/FSSP

planning efforts must provide information to SE's 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


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

SE's; 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 analysis 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 SE's and other institutional structures such as the

IARC's and the CRSP's; 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. In general, lead time

for such routine TA team recruitment should be sufficiently long.

The FSSP core will either facilitate a SE with biodata short

lists, or, in some few 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


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. The 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 demands becomes firm, the 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. The 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 de-briefings), and

general team reports. These reports will be made available to

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 SE's who may be

available for FSSP TA assignments. Efforts are underway to

establish more knowledge and understanding of SE's 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


The overriding criteria 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. The 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, the FSSP will develop a systematic procedure to

select SE's to meet AID mission demands. At other times, the

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 SE's 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 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/SoutherV 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.

The 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 will 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.

Networking 84 Work Plan

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


1.) FSR Inventory

2.) Strengthening Network Contacts

3.) West African Mini-Workshop (s)

4.) FSR/E Network Committees

5.) West African Farming Systems Symposium

6.) Meetings, Workshops and Symposia

7.) Publications and Documentation


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.

On-Going Research Projects with Farming Systems Components



United States

Latin America

Near East


Total 127

Table 1

Proposed Research Projects for 1984 Having Farming Systems



World Bank

Africa 7 18

Asia 3 9 5

Latin America 4 5

Near East 6

Total 57

Table 2

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



Asia Bank

Summary results of this inventory effort will be prepared in

published form for distribution at the Farming Systems Symposium

at Kansas State University in October. In addition, results will

be made available to those participating in the inventory via

their projects, and to practitioners, generally.


Interfacing with other networks will include specific target

activities for 1984. Specifically, these targets consist of

farming systems newsletters and both the institutions and the

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 in this regard is with the

incipient West African Farming Systems Research Network (WAFSRN)

initiated by IRAT, ICRISAT and IITA. At this time the 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.


At least one mini-workshop will be organized by the FSSP for

delivery in 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 both 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 mini-workshop is conceived 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. The FSSP will help

identify these concerns, facilitate and coordinate the

workshopss, identify resource people appropriate for the

workshopss, and summarize results for use in other communication

and training outlets.

While specific topics are not presently defined, it is

anticipated that the workshop would be organized around a theme

of common interests. For example, workshop themes might include

one or more of the following: 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



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 workshops for 1985, 1986, and 1987.

Their mandate will be to help determine the theme and location of

workshops 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 to identify areas of farming systems concerns that

might be of particular value to address 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.


FSSP will 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 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. Input will also be welcomed from the WAFSRN

members, who may become actively engaged in both the FSR/E

Network Committee for Africa and the 1985 Symposium.

These activities will be publicized in the FSSP Newsletter

and an effort will be made to insure that information about these

activities is widely available through comparable dissemination




Networking activities are a function of the FSSP Core staff,

the various representatives of support entities, and all others

who are 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

the activities are conducted in a much more informal and less

structured way. Clearly the Kansas State University Farming

Systems Symposium and the FSSP Annual Meetings are two formal

gatherings where considerable networking activities take place on

behalf of the FSSP and various participants. The proven

successful combination of these two activities has resulted in

their being scheduled in tandem again for 1984. FSSP will

participate in and support these activities.

Opportunities that exist for networking in a more indirect or

informal manner are many. FSSP Core staff and SE Representatives

participate in a wide variety of meetings, workshops, and

symposia in the course of 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 of these 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 important activity

that individuals can perform of their own initiative.


The 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


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, as well as to make it computer-

accessible. Recognizing the needs and interests of visitors to

the FSSP at the University of Florida, a copy of the KSU vertical

file collection will be established at this facility also.

For the future, the documentation network activities have the

potential for being more widespread. Similar or duplicte

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 developing

country researchers, trainers and students. Initial steps to

determine the feasibility of such a proposal will be undertaken

in 1984.

Publications of the FSSP 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 the 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

calibre one might expect from a professional publication.

State-of-the-Art Research

Experience in 1983 demonstrated that many important

questions and issues remain unanswered and unresolved. There is

a definite need for further research in several areas of the

farming systems approach. This research is imperative not only "

to provide training content for some of the 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


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

te ms returning from the field, an activity further discussed

under Technical Assistance, will also provide useful material.

But there is a need also for research that forays into as yet

unexplored areas. The FSSP will, therefore, encourage further

research on the topics listed below during 1984. The first

four of fourteen 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. Among 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 will be considered also

within the priority are 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


First Priority Concerns

The Institutional Setting and Expectations

Little attention has yet been given to the institutional

setting of FSR/E and to research and extension policy. There is

an urgent need of 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 faced by many AID 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


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 by the pundits. There is

widespread confusion regarding precisely what part extension

should play in the FSR/E process; or, as some would have it, 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 both to synthesize extant research as

well as to conduct further research in this vital area.

Proiect/Procram 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. There is little agreement regarding

evaluation methodologies, and in particular regarding just what

should be measured, at what time, and how.

It must be stressed that reference here is to evaluation of

neither FSR/E methods nor FSR/E versus other approaches to

research and extension. Many FSR/E methods can never 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.


Considerable concern has been expressed for the nutritional

consequences for farm families of the introduction of new

agricultural technologies. Several case studies have shown that

a change in technology, though resulting in greater productivity

and higher income, can at the same time cause a decline

in producer-family nutritional status. The issue here is how the

farming systems approach might safeguard(or enhance) the

nutritional status of impacted populations. This is part of a

larger issue that centers on the ultimate goals and criteria for

measuring the success of farming systems work: Are increased

productivity and higher income sufficient criteria, or must we

focus on human welfare more generally and search for other,

perhaps broader, criteria?

The Household as Unit of Analysis

The household has been singled out as an important

analytical unit for farming systems research. The small farm(the

peasant farm) of the developing world necessarily consumes an

important fraction of its product; it is first and foremost a

"household," a "home," and not a "firm," or commercial

enterprise. Much FSR/E wisdom argues that research must turn to

the household as decision-making unit in order to understand

resource allocation and risk aversion. But the household may not

always be a valid unit of analysis.

Agricultural researchers often implicitly operate with

Western family models that are bilaterally structured and male

dominated. Not only does household structure vary throughout the

world, the utility of the concept as unit of analysis has

recently been challenged, especially for Africa. There, critical

agricultural decisions are often made at the level of village or

clan and can be significantly conditioned by out-migration. The

locus of decision-making, for example, has important implications

for rapid surveys of the kind frequently employed by farming

systems research.

Diagnostic Surveys

The farming systems approach employs several kinds of

surveys to diagnose problems and provide direction to research.

Yet, there is much confusion among researchers regarding the use

of surveys in the research process. Just what are the survey

options, when to employ which one and how to implement it, are

all questions that many researchers now face with considerable

disquiet. A synthesis of survey research as it applies to the

farming systems approach, therefore, is needed.

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 present 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 needs to be further



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.


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.

Presently, 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. But equipment is needed if animal power is to be


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.


Although not properly an FSR/E substantive research topic,

the area of evaluation is of special concern to AID since

projects are subject to periodic evaluations on which important

decisions rest. There is little agreement regarding evaluation

methodologies, and in particular just what should be measured and

how. A comprehensive evaluation methodology is needed 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


Evaluation of projects is an important role of the FSSP and

is considered under the technical assistance section of this work


Evaluation of the FSSP is an on-going effort and will

institutionalized in 1984 with the identification of an external

review panel. A mid-term evaluation of the project will occur in

1985 following two years of FSSP activity.



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.


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,
(1984 Chairman)

Dr. Dale Harpstead
Mich. State'Univ. 1984, 1985,
(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

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

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.

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 Hens on
Washington State University 1984, 1985

Cornelia Butler-Flora
Kansas State University 1984, 1985,

John Caldwell
virginia Polytechnic Institute 1984, 1985,

Steve Franzel
Development Alternatives, Inc. Alternate

1 (L,

Ken Buhr
University of FloridE

Michael Joshua
Virginia State Unive2 ;ity

The committee cc isis
rotational basis, inc .udi
alternatives from sul )ort
private firms and otl ?r U
members from develop: ig cc
each from Asia, Afric i an

The technical cc imitl
identified to provide sub
with geographic and : isti
Greatest priority wi: be
capability: FS exper: ?nce
contributions to FS ter
multidisciplinary exi iriel

The committee w .1 c<
expected that the va: ous
(Asia, Latin America Afr
three or four times I r y

U.S. Members
Selection of th( tec
the U.S. will be bas. I up
FSSP Director for ap: -ova.
Clearance for indivic lal
through the respect' adi
the participating en- -ty.
from Program Leaders it w
entity has signed or .s n
of Agreement with tht Far

Tenure of the T( :hni
following basis. Two iemb
one-year term, two m, fiber
members for a three-, ar
maximum of three yea ; fo
Alternates will be s .ect
candidates for openi is o
term they may period :all
assignments on behal of

International Member
Of the three Te inic
each continent, two .11
and one from region or
as the IARC. Rotatio for



ts of 15 members, named on a
ng six members and three
entities (universities,
.S.-based entities), and nine
countries with three members
d Latin America.

tee members will be
ject matter balance along
tutional representation.
given to technical
, international experience,
ature, discipline base and

convene annually. It is
regional subcommittees
ica, and U.S.) will meet

hnical committee members from
on recommendations by the
1 by the Advisory Council.
appointments will be obtained
ninistrative coordinators at
Selection will be primarily
ill be eligible if their
ear to signing a Memorandum
ming Systems Support Project.

cal Committee will be on the
ers will be named for a
s for a two-year term and two
term. Term length will be a
r any given individual.
ed annually and may be
n the committee. During their
y assist with specific
or as adjunct members of the

al Committee members from
be from national institutions
international entities such
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.

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,
4,- U

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'committe
or major project responsibilities.

*^ I "'

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

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