Table of Contents
 Accomplishments to June 1985
 FSSp evaluation issues
 Publications, progress, and plans,...
 Visitor's program
 Domestic workshops
 Evaluation task force activity...
 Biodata searches, Jan to June...
 FSSP training program
 Program development statements,...
 State of th art
 Project activities in Latin America...
 1985 activity calender for Latin...
 Asia policy development and strategy...
 FSSP Africa policy and 1985...
 Index of item for the FSSP...
 Memo to Dr. Bertrand regarding...

Title: FSSP summary memos prepared for evaluation team, June 1985
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055459/00001
 Material Information
Title: FSSP summary memos prepared for evaluation team, June 1985
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publication Date: 1985
Subject: Africa   ( lcsh )
Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Africa
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055459
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Accomplishments to June 1985
        Page 3
        Page 4
    FSSp evaluation issues
        Page 5
    Publications, progress, and plans, 1985
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Visitor's program
        Page 9
    Domestic workshops
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Evaluation task force activity statement, 1984-85
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Biodata searches, Jan to June 1985
        Page 14
    FSSP training program
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Program development statements, 1985
        Page 17
        Page 18
    State of th art
        Page 19
        Page 20
        FSSP/ population council FSR/E case studies project
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
    Project activities in Latin America and Caribbean
        Page 28
        Page 29
    1985 activity calender for Latin America and the Caribbean
        Page 30
    Asia policy development and strategy statement, 1984-85
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    FSSP Africa policy and 1985 activities
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Index of item for the FSSP evaluation
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Memo to Dr. Bertrand regarding FSSP West Africa support
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Africa budget
            Page 43
        FSSP budget
            Page 44
        Base support budget in Africa
            Page 45
        FSSP budget and release
            Page 46
            Page 47
Full Text


AGENDA .................................................................1


Accomplishments to June 1985....................................... 3
FSSP Evaluation Issues...............................................5
Publications, progress, and plans, 1985..............................6
Visitor's Progran ....................................................9
Domestic Workshops................................................... 10
Evaluation Task Force Activity Statement, 1984-85....................12
Biodata Searches, Jan to June 1985...................................14
FSSP Training Program................................................ 15
Program Development Statement, 1985.................................17
State of the Art................................... .............. 19
FSSP/Population Council FSR/E Case Studies Project............... 21
Project Activities in Latin America and the Caribbean ...............28
1985 Activity Calendar for Latin America and the Caribbean...........30
Asia Policy Development and Strategy Statement, 1984-85..............31
FSSP Africa Policy and 1985 Activities..............................34


Index of items for the FSSP Evaluation...............................37
Memo to Dr.Bertrand regarding FSSP West Africa Support...............39
Africa Budget...................................................43
FSSP Budget........................................... .44
Base Support Budget in Africa....................................45
FSSP Budget and Release............................. ......... 46

Agenda for the FSSP External Evaluation
June 26 to June 28, 1985

Evaluation Team:
Raymond Kitchell, Leader
Chuck Francis
Pat Fleuret
Ed Price
Don Winklemann

8:00 8:05

8:05 8:40

8:40 9:00

9:00 10:00

Project Managers:
Don Osburn
Wendell Morse

Wednesday June 26, 1985
Discuss agenda

Project Background Chris Andrew, Pete Hildebrand
1. Why FSR/E
2. Why FSSP
3. Organization and structure for FSSP delivery
4. Background, status and future


Evaluation Issues & recommendations
Raymond Kitchell, Chris Andrew

10:00 10:15 BREAK

10:15 12:00 Presentations
10:15 10:25 1. Networking Susan Poats
a. Worldwide linkages
b. Domestic programs
10:25 10:30 Clarification

10:30 10:40 2. Technical Assistance- Dan Gait
a. Evaluation Task Force
b. Handbook
c. Biodata Lisette Walecka
10:40 10:45 Clarification

10:45 10:55 3.

10:55 11:00

11:00 11:10 4.
11:10 11:15

11:15 11:25 5.

Training- Jim Jones
a. Training for trainers
b. Training Unit Developmemt-
c. Delivery

Lisette Walecka

Program Development- Dan Galt

State of the Art- Dan Gait
a. Farming System Case Studies
1. For Training- Susan Poats

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

for consideration-

2. Other Uses- Dan Gait
b. Minimum Data Set
c. Contributions to Methodology- Pete Hildebrand

11:25 12:00 Discussion

12:00 1:15 LUNCH with K.R. Tefertiller, Vice President for Agricultural
Affairs, IFAS.

1:15 -2:15 Regional Presentations
1:15 1:25 1. Latin America Jim Jones
1:25 1:35 2. Asia/ Near East Dan Gait
1:35 1:55 3. Africa Susan Poats

1:55 2:15 General Discussion

2:15 3:00 TEAM BREAK

3:00 4:00 Individual meeting with Susan Poats

4:00 5:00 Individual meeting with Dan Galt

DINNER (no prearrangements made, left to discretion of team)

Thursday June 27, 1985

8:00 9:00 Individual meeting with Jim Jones

9:00 10:00 Individual meeting with Lisette Walecka

10:00 11:00 TEAM BREAK

11:00 12:00 Individual meeting with Chris Andrew

12:00 1:15 LUNCH with Hugh Poponoe, Director, International Programs,

1:15 2:15 UF Program Support meeting- Peter Hildebrand, Hunt Davis,
Director, Center for African Studies

2:15 2:45 UF Administrative Support meeting- Judy Meline

2:45 3:15 TEAM BREAK

3:15 5:00 Communication with SE's (here or on telephone)
Interact on-call with FSSP Core or Administrative staff

DINNER (no prearrangements made, left to discretion of team)

Friday June 28, 1985


3:00 4:00 Summary Comments- Team and FSSP

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



Countries Involved

AID Needs Tech.
Mission Assessment Assistance


Latin Am 10




Net- Countries
work- benefited


7 4 4 2 2 7

Total 34 16











Participants in Short Courses, Workshops and





Latin America
US/Domestic Workshops

US Training

Universities with FS Courses
FS Minors at UF
FS Minors at UF
FS assistantships UF
1985 Applicants for FS/UF Assist.

7 PhD 8 Masters
8 Masters 1 PhD

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)











Support Institutions

Support Entities

Collaborating Institutions



Regional Centers

21 Universities 690 Program Assoc.
5 Firms

10 Universities




Other Collaborators:


Ford Foundation

Pop. Council

World Bank

East West Center





FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)





1. Program and Fiscal Planning -

Annual planning and implementation are hampered by
limited, divergent and delayed information from the
agency concerning funding and program emphasis.

2. West Africa Base -

Emphasis on location of core in W. Africa calls for
decisions among priorities (Asia, Africa, Program
Development), short and long range program support, and
within region priorities.

3. Support Entity Involvements -

Concern with adjustments in the overall FSSP structure
generally but specifically related to program
associates/bio data management, SE project
participation, the role of the Technical Committee and
concern for strengthening the university support base.

4. Short and Long Term FSSP Priorities -

Management calls for decisions relative to short term
demand/ workload/ organization and emphasis to be placed
in systematic activities such as domestic workshops,
visitors, bio data maintenance and management, bilateral
networks, newsletters, documentation center etc.

5. Backstop Support to FSSP through UF by the State of Florida -

FSSP stresses standard administrative and fiscal
procedures of any IP or state structure yet facilitative
support through adaptation of state regulations is

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



1) FSSP Newsletter: two issues of the FSSP Newsletter have been published
and distributed (Vol. Three, Nos. One and Two). French and Spanish
versions of No. Two are presently at the printers, scheduled for completion
and distribution this week.

Two additional issues are planned for this year, maintaining a
quarterly distribution. At a quarterly issue frequency by the end of 1987
nineteen issues will have been published (the log frame calls for 18 in the
life of the project). Special issues could be published in addition, and
may, if project activities warrant doing so.

Present distribution is approximately 3600 English, 1000 Spanish, and
600 French (for newsletter distribution information see information
appendix to the 1984 Annual Report). FSSP log frame calls from
distribution of 1000 newsletters; present distribution of approximately
5,000 has levelled-off. List maintenance continues on a weekly basis and
is expected to be fully computerized this quarter (IFAS Mailing and
Distribution Services are in the process of upgrading their equipment and

In compliance with the statutes of the State of Florida and in the
interest of maintaining a "qualified" distribution for the newsletter, a
purge will take place beginning in the Fourth quarter of this year. This
will also provide an opportunity to proffer a survey of readership, the
general analysis of which may be published in the newsletter. The survey
instrument has not yet been designed and could benefit greatly from core
staff input.

2. Networking Papers: Six issues of this series have been distributed to
date; five of these were distributed in 1985. The present committee of
Susan Poats, Dan Galt and Steve Kearl is responsible for selection of items
for inclusion in this series. The committee was set up to rotate
membership among core staff and is due for new members in the Fourth
quarter of this year. While there is no specific budget for Networking
Papers, the series was initiated to meet a perceived need of field
practitioners in employing a sounding board for peer review of their
farming systems activities. (For a definition of purpose or intended use
of this series see the introduction to Networking Paper #1 or the
introduction in any issue of this series).

3. On Demand and On Networking: These network newsletters were initiated
in 1984 to inform recipients of anticipated demand for services, news, and
upcoming program activities. Distribution is to nearly 600 program
associates and includes the Technical Committee, Advisory Council, Core
Staff and AID/Washington project management. Five issues of On Demand were
issued in 1984; none have been released in 1985. Fourteen issues of On
Networking were issued in 1984; eight have been distributed to date in

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

A current purge of these newsletters is underway. Margarita Rodriguez
holds a folder with returned renewal/discontinue forms. Comments from
readership are available for consideration in this folder. Response has
been especially positive.

4. 1985 Annual Report: It is intended that the various core staff
contributions for this document will be called for in an Action Memo to
place the report process in a time frame for delivery to AID/Washington by
December. In practice this has been found to be a workable approach to the
formulation of this document. Annual Reports have been solicited from
Support Entities and a collection of those submitted is on file with the

5. Work Plan: It is anticipated that the 1986 Work Plan will be directly
affected by the recommendations of the 1985 Project Evaluation Report, as
well as by subsequent core and AID/Wahington management decisions and

It is also anticipated that the time frame for input of information
will delay a timely and expedient work plan. This may be an advantage in
the sense that it could provide an opportunity for the annual core staff
planning session (Cedar Key II), recommendations from support entities
through the 1985 annual meeting, and overall program considerations from
that meeting to provide definitive considerations for the project. An
important qualification to this observation is the fact that the 1985
Annual Work Plan was initially submitted to AID/Washington in mid-December
of 1984. However, after many revisions, the evolution of that document
never in fact became, or necessarily contributed to, the actual Work Plan
which was largely written (and subsequently accepted) by AID. Instead, the
final version submitted by the project was adopted by the project as a 1985
Implementation Plan for FSSP; it had to be, the project was four months
into the year.

6. Publications in Progress:

Book of Readings:
selections and copyright okayed except for 1 or 2
which may require substitutions
PEH intros done, final printout going on now
commercial printer mid-summer
Spanish translation of selections 2 more to do

initial issue in Vol 2 No 4 newsletter
approximately 150 additions received
plan to publish as a separate document Fourth quarter
(IDRC mailing next month) hopefully for Kansas
Neil Carpenter/FAO interest no new progress

Minimum Data Set/Fieldbook:
no time frame

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

- Liberia Report:
completed and initial distribution

- ILCA Livestock Workshop Proceedings and Research Plan
Guidelines in production in July

- Procedural Manual draft printed and distributed plan to
maintain feedback file for revisions

- Other internal items
Training Unit Development materials
Management Guidelines
Evaluation Task Force
Case Studies
Togo Workshop

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


Visitors, with interest in the Farming Systems approach to agricultural
development, began coming to the University of Florida in mid 1981 as
information regarding the North Florida FSR/E Project became known. This
predates the FSSP by more than one year. With the inception of the FSSP,
the visitor flow has constantly increased.

The maps which indicate these visitors show that, while visitors in
1983 were predominately from the United States, those in 1984 reflected the
growing interest in FSR among persons from other countries. The 1983
visitors were generally from the growing network of Support Entities (SE's)
of the FSSP. The 1984 visitors, on the other hand, came from a wide
spectrum of countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

As each visitor has a different agenda, the FSSP has endeavored to
tailor a program for each individual visitor or group. These programs have
varied from mere "appointment making" with University of Florida faculty to
intensive short courses in the Farming Systems methodology, as well as
field visits to Florida agri-business concerns, Agricultural Research
Centers and the North Florida FSR/E Project.

The character of the visitors also shows great variation. Visitors
have ranged from U. S. graduate students and faculty, to international
graduate students studying in the U.S., to FSR practitioners fran both
International Research Centers and bi-lateral contracts as well as other
countries, to Directors and Ministers of Agriculture and Extension of their

As the FSSP Visitor's Program is demand driven, it is somewhat
difficult to plan specific activities in advance. The FSSP will endeavor
to provide the same services to visitors as have been available in the
past. Implementation will be carried out as required, according to
scheduling demands of other FSSP activities.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


Domestic Workshops, sponsored and supported by the FSSP, fall into two
distinct categories; (1). General Introduction to Farming Systems Research
Methodology, and (2). Specific Applications of the Methodology. The
latter represent a second, and higher level of curriculum. These include
Diagnosis in FSR/E, Agronomic Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials, and
Management of Research and Extension Projects.

Number 2 above represents the product of the 1985 Training Unit
Development Workshop, held in Gainesville, and are targeted to FSR
practitioners who desire specific information regarding the methodological
steps of the FSR process.

In 1983, the FSSP offered the General Introduction to FSR/E Workshop
twice in Gainesville and supported three other workshops at other
institutions in the U.S. These were held at Colorado State University,
Michigan State University and at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, all of
which are Support Entities (SE's) of the FSSP. 142 persons were trained
during this year.

In 1984, the General Introduction Workshop was given three SE's;
University of Minnesota, Virginia State University and the University of
Florida. These workshops, as those in 1983, were given primarily to
upgrade the FSR capabilities of the Support Entities, although a larger
number of international graduate students attended these workshops. 117
persons were trained in 1984.

To date, in 1985, one Introductory Workshop was given at the University
of Arizona. 48 persons attended this workshop.

As the demand for FSR training has shown same change in direction from
Introduction to FSR towards more specific information regarding
implementation of the Farming Systems approach, the FSSP has focused more
on the specific information required by FSR practitioners. Virginia State
University has agreed to become the permanent host for the Introduction to
Farming Systems Research and Development Workshop. VSU will host, at
least, one workshop per year for interested persons. It is anticipated
that more international graduate students will became involved as their
home countries and bi-lateral contractors will be required to provide some
sort of Farming Systems Orientation. These workshops will be supported by
the FSSP, to a limited degree.

The strategy for the second level of workshops is still being
developed. The first steps have been implemented, however. The FSSP has
presented the first "Management of Research and Extension Projects"
workshop. Participants were persons from SE's who have experience and/or
interest in this type of work. The group, which participated in
Gainesville, helped to polish the presentation of these materials. The
Management workshop will be presented, with FSSP support, at interested
U.S. institutions by the personnel who attended the first workshop in

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

At the same time, the "Design and Analysis" workshop was being
presented in the Gambia, using materials developed at the Training Unit
Development Workshop. This workshop will be presented, to U.S. Support
Entity personnel, in July, 1985. Again, the plan is to expose U.S.
personnel to the concepts of the Training Unit so that they will be able to
use the materials in their own institution and in bi-lateral training

It should be noted that the multiplier effect of domestic workshops is
quite large. By training U.S. personnel in Farming Systems methodology,
the resource base of all participating institutions is substantially

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)




The evaluation task force -- or ETF evolved from interest expres-
sed at a technical committee meeting in April, 1984, to the need for qual-
ity, replicable evaluations of FSR/E projects in the field. An On-Demand
advertisement for interested support entities went out from core, and from
the five interested submissions, a lead entity -- Winrock International --
was selected in September, 1984. Interested individuals from several
other support entities were also asked to participate on the ETF. The
composition of the ETF, including the lead entity and leader designate,
were announced to the FSSP support entity network shortly thereafter.

The leader-designate of the ETF subsequently accepted a position at
Michigan State University, and Winrock was not interested being lead en-
tity on this activity without the active participation of the leader-
designate. During the KSU FSR Symposium in October, three pre-organiza-
tional meetings were held with representatives of the support entities
involved in the ETF. It was decided that Washington State University
would replace Winrock as lead entity, and that the leader-designate of the
Washington group, James Henson, would act as leader of the ETF.

Evaluation Task Force

The ETF consists of the following members and affiliates:

1. James Henson, ETF leader, Washington State University
2. Rick Bernsten, Michigan State University
3. Tom Cook, Research Triangle Institute
4. Dan Galt, FSSP, ex-officio advisor and liason to FSSP
5. Jan Noel, Washington State University
6. Mike Patton, University of Minnesota
7. Ken Swanberg, AID/S&T, ex-officio advisor
8. Don Voth, University of Arkansas

In addition, the ETF is backstopped by a larger group. This backstop
group consists of the following individuals: (1) Gustavo Arcia, RTI, (2)
Robert Butler, WSU, (3) Merle Esmay, MSU, (4) Dale Harpstead, MSU/BIFAD,
(5) Marcus Ingle, UOM, (6) Don Isleib, MSU, (7) Ken McDermott, FSSP, (8)
Tom Trail, WSU, and (9) Kim Wilson, MSU. This group was put together to
respond to ETF output during implementation of the activity.

The ETF first met in November, 1984. At that time, a working defini-
tion of "FSR" was called for and subsequently developed. More important-
ly, Tom Cook presented an evaluative issues framework to the group, which
he was requested to expanded upon for a subsequent meeting. After sane
inter-institutional negotiation period of about three months, this frame-
work was produced and circulated to the rest of the ETF members for con-
ments and reaction.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

After allowing sufficient time for members to comment and juggling
travel schedules, Jim Henson called for the second meeting of the ETF
during June, 1985. The following was accomplished at this meeting:

--The framework was expanded to contain these 4 basic sections:

a) Introduction

b) Mid-term evaluation framework for FSR/E projects

c) Adaptive instructions for other types of evaluations

d) Appendices

Sections a), b) and d) are of equally high priority. Section b) will
represent a restructuring of the framework produced by Tan Cook. It is
being revised to incorporate the FSR/E issues and items suggested by the
ETF group. It is also being reorganized around the five basic steps of
the FSR/E sequence. This latter reorganization, suggested by Mike Patton,
is to minimize the difference between the evaluation framework and the
FSR/E projects likely to be evaluated using this framework.

Tom Cook volunteered to expand the framework (section b). All others
from the group have contributed to section d), which consists of the
details to allow evaluators to use the evaluation framework in an evalu-
ation setting. Thus, actual details needed for understanding the evalu-
ation of FSR/E projects are being produced by the group for this section.
This organization allows the framework to remain a concise, highly compre-
hensible document of great utility to any level of evaluator: profes-
sional or novice, disciplinary specialist or generalist.

While the whole thrust of the ETF will be to develop a protocol to
evaluate projects mid-term, section c) eventually will provide instruc-
tions to users on how to adapt the framework to near-end and end of pro-
ject evaluations. The writing of section c) has been assigned lowest
priority by the ETF.

Goals for the Future of the EFT

The ETF has decided to merge the proposed "dry run" test of the
framework with a "training/orientation/briefing" session to be held for
the first evaluation team to use the draft framework. Possible projects
considered for the initial field test include CATIE, CARDI and Zambia.
Jim Henson will try to identify other projects in consultation with repre-
sentatives from the Africa Bureau. A field test could occur as early as
Late October or November, 1985. It is not yet known if sufficient funds
remain in the sub-contract between WSU and the FSSP to allow the process
to proceed through the proposed field test.

The ETF is continuing to interest other AID bureaus in the draft
evaluation instrument. Mike Patton's visit to AID in July to consult with
Nina Vreeland's division is the next step in this legitimization process.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


BIODATA SEARCHES (Jan. to June 1985)

Total Requests = 27
(note: same requests include more than one person search)

Total Person Searches = 39

Requests by:

DAI = 1
KSU = 1
IADS = 2
MSU = 1
UOF = 1
UOI = 1

FSSP = 1
SAID = 9
TOTAL = 10


Agronomy = 11
Ag. Economist = 7
Animal Sci/Lvstk = 1
Soil/Water Mngt = 1
Rural Soc/Anthro = 5
Research Admin = 2
Agroforestry = 2
Agric. Admin = 1
Farming Sys. Dev = 1
Geographer = 1
Evaluator = 4
Education = 1
Public Health = 1
Environmentalist = 1

Spanish = 3
French = 15

Africa = 14
Asia = 6
Latin America/Car = 5
Near East = 0
Other(US or non-LDC)= 2


Jan =
Feb =
Mar =
Apr =
May =
Jun =

These figures show the activity of the biodata file for the six mont
period of 1985. The figure for the 1983-1984 period appear in the 1984
Annual Report, Appendix 5. For the period from 1983 to mid year 1985, the
total number of requests has been 73 (Support Entities = 24, Official
FSSP/AID = 26, Non-Affiliates = 23) for a total of 113 individuals.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



The first training materials developed by the FSSP, mostly during
1983, were a series of slide-tape modules. There were few good materials
available anywhere in farming systems research and extension(FSR/E). Our
modules were to reach a wide audience, both U.S. domestic and foreign, and
were designed mainly to sensitize people to the FSR approach. They were
heavily supplemented by other materials and techniques at the discretion of
trainers, especially when used overseas. Translated into Spanish and
French, the modules were widely used and were for the most part well
received, particularly by U.S. domestic audiences, where the demand for
them has been considerable, but also by audiences in Latin America. FSSP
thinking at the time involved the development of entire courses, more or
less in packaged form.

We realized after more than a year that there was a need for better
materials for overseas training, materials that would give trainers more
flexibility in course design and that would involve trainees to a greater
degree. This was one of the major conclusions of an FSSP workshop held at
Iowa State University in the summer of 1984 to develop FSR/E trainers. We
entered this workshop with the idea that FSR/E, because it was a novel
approach, somehow required novel training techniques. But we learned that
this was not so, that conventional training techniques were quite adequate.
We left Iowa State with a renewed appreciation for the value of good
trainers and a feeling that no materials could compensate for a lack in
this regard-- indeed, really good trainers could even design and deliver
effective courses with poor materials.

Following the workshop at Iowa State, the project launched a
concerted effort to develop the needed training materials. We began to
think, not of developing courses, but of developing units that trainers
could combine in any number of ways to design and deliver courses that
would respond to the needs of different training settings. Accordingly, we
held a training unit materials development workshop(a TUD workshop) in
Gainesville in February of 1985. Participants from several FSSP support
entities gathered for a week to develop units for the FSR areas of
diagnosis, agronomic design and data analysis, and project management.
Much headway was made during the week, and the effort continues.

The development of training unit materials is following a
three-stage process: initial development, testing and refinement, and
distribution. The week long collaborative effort resulted in the
first-stage development of the three units noted above. Since then, each
unit has been technically editied by at least one member of the original
development group. Two of the units, Agronomic Experimental Design and
Analysis, and Management and Administration have been partially tested in
workshops in The Gambia and Gainesville. We plan to test the Diagnostic
unit at the soonest opportunity and hope to use it in Cameroon in the fall
of 1985. Completion of the work on content and revisions based on testing
are in process. We plan to have the first edition ready by December of
1985. All subsequent revisions will be incorporated into the second
edition planned for December of 1986.

FSSP Sumary Memos (06/85)

The development of these materials has cost the project to date
about $55,000, and to complete them as planned would cost another $35,000.
The total effort would have an estimated cost of between $90,000 and

The strategy for delivering training courses is a function of region
and will be dealt with there.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)




A coordinator for program development was appointed in the Spring,
1985. The position of program development coordinator was created to
address these coordination needs of the project:

1) Verify that the functional areas of technical assistance,
training and networking cover all priority areas so designated by the

2) Assist in avoiding duplication of effort;

3) Make sure that joint, or overlapping, areas of effort are
properly blended back together as activities proceed and/or are completed;

4) Verify that jointly-assigned activities proceed along acceptable
tracks and time frames;

5) Make sure FSSP policies are not implemented at cross purposes
with one another, especially in the three general areas of regional policy
in Africa, Asia/Near East and Latin America/Caribbean.

6) Coordinate state-of-the-art (SOTA) activities, suggest further
SOTA activities, and assist in the transition of completed tasks and ac-
tivities frcm SOTA into the appropriate functional areas of technical
assistance, training, or networking.


To date, this new coordinating function has:

1) Suggested that each regional area coordinator consider forming a
support entity advisory committee -- similar to the Near East and Asia Ad-
visory Cammittee (NEAAC) -- to assist core in policy advice and delivery
of activities. This mechanism will give support entities more of the res-
ponsibility for regional FSSP policy and implementation, allowing more
support entity input into project delivery. This mechanism is viewed as an
efficient way of transferring responsibility for overall project imple-
mentation from core to the FSSP support network.

2) Begun the more formal process of integrating regional policies.
Examples so far include using the expertise of a support entity formerly
confined to Latin America -- AGRIDEC in West Africa in technical assis-
tance and training, and asking representatives of Southeast Asian univer-
sities to participate in a West African university networkshop activity
scheduled for early 1986. Integration of regional policies will allow more
and more Asian and Latin American FSR/E expertise to be focused on African
FSR/E problems and needs.

Goals for the Remainder of the Project

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

Based on the short experience of 1985, the following areas will be
considered for program development stress during the rest of the project:

1) Strengthen two accomplishments of 1985.

2) Provide integration between the case study activity, the
guideline handbook activity, and the evaluation task force. The relevant
outputs from these three activities should be focused mainly on
practitioners, projects and programs implementing FSR/E approaches.
Coordination and synthesis will be required. The diffusion mechanism may
be through a series of SOTA publications. Sets of SOTA publications may be
developed for the following FSR/E stakeholders:

a) Field practitioners (both project and host country

b) Chiefs of party;

c) Campus/private firms backstop personnel;

d) AID contracting and project officers, bureaus and missions;
e) Other host country governmental representatives, especially
those dealing with FSR/E at substantive and administrative

3) Work with the coordinator for African policy to integrate the
three major threads of Afican policy, including the policies of (a)
short-term, crop-based networking, (b) short-term, animal-based networking,
and (c) long-term, West African university-based networking.

4) Work with the coordinator and assistant of training to oversee
the final development, production and distribution of the FSSP training
units. General issues to consider include (a) revision policy and (b)
integration of training-tested and newly-created materials, activities,
caselettes, case studies and suggestions back into the units. A specific
issue to consider is the development and integration of the necessary
socio-economic materials into the diagnostic and agronomic experimental
design and analysis units.

5) Work with the African-based core staff member and whomever is
designated to backstop this staff person here in Gainesville, if a core
individual is transferred to Africa. Issues may include smoothing the
transition of core staff to Africa and maintaining communication between
the project and AID/W, Africa Bureau and the various West African missions.

6) Develop and implement a better method to facilitate information
flow between Gainesville and AID/W project management.

Most of these tentative program development goals are contingent
upon (a) core agreement, (b) consensus that they represent priority areas
for the program coordinator, and (c) level of project funding.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



Among the sets of documents made available for the evaluation is a
complete file on the FSR/E Case Studies Project. These case studies for
use in training are being produced in a joint effort with the Population
Council, with funding from the Ford Foundation as well as FSSP. The
completed cases will fulfill in part obligations from the cooperative
agreement in both Training and State of the Arts Research by providing a
rich source of training materials based on actual on-going FSR/E projects,
and at the same time offering a synthesis of activities and methodologies
which have been effectively used in the field.

The eight cases being developed were selected because they represent
on-going field projects which have reached a level of development through
at least the first three stages of FSR/E (1. diagnosis, 2. design, 3.
testing and evaluation), and demonstrate a positive incorporation of either
intra- or inter-household and gender analysis within their on-going
activities. The cases also include considerable project and institutional
background and setting. When completed, the cases should serve as useful
training materials for teaching concepts and methods of FSR/E,
intra/inter-household analysis, gender analysis, and institutional analysis
for management and administration.

Attached to this memo is a list of the members of the Advisory
Committee for the FSSP/Pop. Council project, a sunmary of the proposals
(Expressions of Interest) submitted for case study consideration, and a
synopsis of the eight selected case studies. The following chronology of
events summarizes project activity to date. Further details are available
in the abovementioned file.

February 1984. S. Poats and J. Bruce, Population Council, meet in
Gainesville and the idea for a case studies series is first developed.

July 1984. FSSP, Population Council and Ford Foundation agree to fund the
project with an initial three cases, and the potential to develop others
depending on interest generated.

August 1984. Hilary Feldstein is hired by the Pop. Council as managing
editor and nominations for a project advisory committee are begun.

November 1984. A list of 50 potential advisory committee members is
completed. When contacted, 17 were willing/able to serve. With input from
FSSP core staff, Feldstein, Bruce and Poats met in NY to select the
committee. Ultimately 10 persons were selected.

January 1985. The advisory ccmnittee meets in NY and drafts the guidelines
for the case study project, the outline for the case study format, and a
Request for Expressions of Interest in writing a case study. Following the
meeting, 6000 announcements and EOI forms are mailed out via FSSP, Pop.
Council and Ford F. mailing lists.

February 1985. S. Poats and Hilary Feldstein complete the draft of the

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

case study format.

March 31, 1985. By this cut-off date, 72 expressions of interest have been
received. These were reviewed and catalogued as potential, maybe or
rejects and reviewed by the advisory committee.

April 1985. Two presentations on the case study project are made at AWID
and further input is received on the format and a developing analytical
framework for the series. The advisory committee meets in NY and selects
the 6 best case proposals. The Ford F., impressed with the quantity and
quality of the submissions, invites the project to request further funding
to expand the original 3 cases to a total of 8. An additional 5 cases are
identified as potential and two are selected to make the total of 8.

June 1985. The case writers and advisory committee reps. attend a
casewriters' workshop to develop the outlines, pedagogical objectives and
teaching notes for each case. Cases are thoroughly reviewed for agronomic,
FSR/E, socio-economic content. A case study specialist from HIID leads
several sessions on how to write effective cases.

July-December 1985. Each case writer has developed a plan of work for
delivery of drafts. Anticipate completion of all cases by March 1986.

February 1986. Completed cases will be tested at the Univ. Florida
conference on Gender Issues and FSR/E.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

Advisory Committee for Population Council/FSSP Case Studies Project

Dr. Harry (Skip) Bittenbender
Department of Horticulture
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
(617) 353-5473

Ms. Kate Cloud
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Illinois
Champaign, Illinois 61821
(217) 333-5832

Dr. Frank Conklin
Office of International Agriculture
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
(503) 754-2304

Ms. Nadine Horenstein
Room 3725 NS
Washington, DC 20523
(202) 632-3992

Ms. Kate McKee
Ford Foundation
320 East 43rd Street
New York, New York 10017
(212) 573-5345

Dr. Rosalie Norem
Department of Family Environment
Iowa State University
LeBaron Hall, Room 173
Ames, Iowa 50011
(515) 294-8608

Dr. David Nygaard
Agricultural Development Council
725 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10021
(212) 517-9700

Dr. Pauline Peters
Harvard Institute for
International Development
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-3785

Dr. F/ederico Poey
1414 Ferdinand Street
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(305) 271-5694

Dr. Mary Rojas
105 Patton Hall
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
& State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24601
(703) 961-4651

Ms. Hilary S. Feldstein
Managing Editor
Population Council/FSSP
Case Studies Project
RFD 1, Box 821
Hancock, New Hampshire 03449
(603) 525-3772

Ms. Judith Bruce, ex officio
Program Associate
Population Council
1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
New York, New York 10017
(212) 644-1777

Dr. Susan Poats, ex officio
Associate Director
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904) 392-2309

Dr. Cornelia Butler-Flora, ex officio
Chairman, Technical Committee FSSP
Department of Sociology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
(913) 532-6865



1. 72 proposals received

2. Geographic distribution
West Africa 24
East Africa 6
Southern Africa 5
N.Africa/MidEast 4
Asia 20
Latin America/Mexico 8
Caribbean 2
Europe (Netherlands) 2
U.S. 1

3. Disciplines and Gender
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Sciences
Agric/Vocational Education
Very mixed or unknown

(Burkina Faso 6)

(Philippines 7)

Total Female
22 5
24 16
11 1
9 5
8 3
3 (projects)
74 30

4. Of 74 proposal writers, 36 were nationals of developing countries.

A5 oC JTurt. r

nYD~ir po pyost ho~R s~,,,o~g


Synopsis of Projected Case Studies 6/13/85

Botswana, ATIP, Doyle Baker
This is perhaps the most difficult case, as some of the issues raised by
ATIP as a result of the IHH (read female headed household) research could have
negative policy consequences for those households. The context is unusual for
Africa in that remittances enter every household providing a near minimum of
subsistence and the government has resources from other diamonds, etc. such that
it has substantially subsidized agricultural inputs and health care. During the
three years of the project, there has been a severe drought making a number of
desirable trials impractical. The case leads the reader through a process of
parallel activities, continuous leveraged trials of tillage/planting and a
comprehensive set of socio-economic surveys in which data is disaggregated by
household types and/or by gender. The theme of the project has been the
difficulty of getting any successful results from the leveraged trials; the
increased understanding of factors that differentiate between farmers ability
and willingness to undertake arable agriculture (access and control of draft
animals; availability of other sources of income including remittances). One
agronomic outcome is to put in place non-leveraged trials for post-establishment
conditions for households with draft constraints, usually female headed.
Another outcome has been to move further into the policy arena, suggesting that
policy recognize the different possibilities of different recommendation
domains, i.e. resources to better off and more interested farmers can contribute
to national production; resources to less well off households (of which the
majority are female headed and without access to draft) will help household
incomes, but not necessarily be contribution to national production goals. The
theme of the case as stated in the last iteration is to emphasize the importance
of socio-economic research which includes IHH to defining agronomic and policy
issues. The resource people feel there may be more data and possibilities
inherent in the data than the project has considered, but are waiting on the
completed analysis of the more recent surveys (which will be 'done for the first

Burkina Faso, SAFGRAD, Joe Nagy
This case will go carefully through a straight FSR/E process as applied to
3 sample villages in Burkina Faso. The first section will cover background and
the information from the initial diagnostic survey leaving to students the task
of playing that data against the framework and making their own analysis of the
situation. Section II gives project analysis which was to go with trials on
tie-ridging as low cost and using available on-farm resources including labor.
This section will include the trials with tie-ridging and fertilizer use showing
positive agronomic results, but lack of interest by various members of farm
households because of labor constraint; labor for tie ridging was provided
principally by women and children. Section III will go into new trials with a
mechanical tie ridger, requiring capital resources available to a minority of
households and students will evaluate the implications of this strategy. There
may also be material on differences between men and women's plots, but Joe needs
to dig that out.

CARDI, St. Lucia, Greg Robin and Visantha Chase
The CARDI case builds on the use of an Area Focused Survey, i.e. a
diagnostic survey with considerable socio-economic data including IHH variables,
to look at a single valley. In addition to economic and agronomic
stratification, the survey showed serious nutritional deficiencies and that a
high proportion of the households (38%) were female headed. The decision was
made, recently, to transfer a self-sustaining home gardening system being
instituted in a nearby island, Domenica, to Mabouya Valley. The case will
illustrate the use of the Area Focused Study approach; allow consideration of
home gardens as part of a farming system and the importance of female inputs in
such a system; and will examine the implications of transferring a successful
system from one location to another. Federico's work on this case was
particularly helpful in channeling at least the case, and perhaps the upcoming
extension of technology in Mabouya, into a more experimental direction
concerning the improvement of varieties and practices used in home gardening.

Colombia, CIAT, Jacqueline Ashby
This case will show why IHH variables were important to the testing and
evaluation of a production technology, beans, and how they were recognized.
Specifically this relates to recognizing the importance of identifying desirable
consumption characteristics of different users: the urban market and the
subsistence consumer. The importance of understanding desirable consumption
characteristics has economic implications in that women cook for hired labor and
their cooking task and time is affected by the kinds of beans used. The case
will also illustrate a methodology for including participation by multiple
members of the household in testing and evaluation.

Indonesia, Sitiung, TROPSOILS, Vicki Sigman and Carol Colfer
The strongest element of the TROPSOILS case is the use of the entire,
multi-disciplinary research team to undertake a time allocation study of the
activities of household members in this transmigration site. This study has led
to a decision to have trials on forage as forage-gathering was a prime labor
constraint, and undertaken principally by women and children. Home gardening
also emerges as important in terms of both men and women's time and a nutrition
survey done during the same time period suggests the value of its improvement.
Because Vicki herself has not yet been to the field, but is going soon to work
with Carol, we left the case with a series of questions about how the different
pieces have fit together in time and in effect on each other.

Philippines, Lake Balinsasayao, Lini Wollenberg
The Lake Balinsasayao project is intended to provide the government with
assistance in promoting forest conservation on government lands in the face of
increasing migration to the area and in insuring an equitable distribution of
benefits. There were two diagnoses undertaken resulting in a large body of
agroclimatic and socio-economic data, as well as statements concerning farmer
preferences, which students can compare as to methodology and results. A second
set of more focused studies--production & consumption, cropping systems,
fishing, nutrition, and land use decision making--followed. Each used different
methodologies for getting at questions of time allocation and again this will be
an exercise for comparing the approaches as to resource costs and benefits. One
issue will be the degree to which resource constraints affect the definition of
research domains. The relationship of a parallel set of field activities--
continuing community organization, literacy programs, demonstration plots, etc.-
-to the research is also explored. The third section reports the results of the

field interventions and plans for further interventions and ends with the tasks
of reviewing the interaction between research and field activities and of
looking at what has already been done in view of reorganizing as an FSR/E

Zambia, ARPT, Charles Chabala and Robert Nguiru
This case is a classic. The first section will give the country
background, including the institutionalization of FSR/E in Zambia, and the
original diagnosis of the area leaving to students the task of identifying
research priorities. One element of that information is the heavy labor of
women in their (separate) bean fields. The second section details actual trials
undertaken by the project as a result of the original diagnosis: one on
intercropping beans with maize to take advantage of the traction being used on
family (male headed) maize fields and thereby reduce women's labor as well as
the fertilizer that was already being applied to the maize. A second set of
trials was on maize for increased yields. Though both trials showed the
experiments to be successful in agronomic terms, neither was acceptable to the
farmers. In the case of beans, the integration of mens and women fields
resulted in losses to women of the income they got from the sale of small
surpluses and women objected. In the case of both beans and corn, the
consumption and processing characteristics were not taken into account and
therefore the varieties were rejected. The third section covers a Labor Survey
designed to get more information on time allocation and men's and women's
resources and benefits with respect to particular crops. An interesting aspect
of the survey is the methods used to get women's views in light of cultural
constraints (and institutional difficulties). The results of that survey are
the subject of a final set of tasks to determine what research to tackle next.

It should be noted that these synopses are tentative, based on current drafts
and the emphases in any might shift as further work is done and the writers get
further into their data.

To &A AJ&Ad TNic -1 -

O ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

4l top a taf TCW- cuSA.)



According to the Cooperative Agreement, the FSSP was to allocate no
more than twenty-five percent of its funds to Latin America. Yet, there
has been more demand for project services, especially in the early months,
from Latin America than from the other regions. We soon realized that the
demand would draw excessively on project resources and began operating on a
cost-sharing and buy-in basis with USAID missions in the region. Over the
last several months, as funds were withdrawn from our project and as USAID
began to give ever more emphasis to Africa, we began requiring USAID
missions in Latin America to finance all FSSP services that they requested.
That policy is in effect today.

A list of FSSP activities by country for 1983 and 1984 appears in
our annual reports; a summary for this year is appended to this memorandum.
The project has been especially active in Paraguay and Honduras. We
collaborated with INTSORMIL, the sorghum-millet CRSP, as well as with
ICRISAT and CIMMYT in the development and delivery of a workshop at CIMMYT
for sorghum and millet researchers from several Latin American countries.
We also financed the participation of several of those researchers. We
have worked with CIMMYT elsewhere, including in Paraguay when the project
first entered that country. And CIMMYT sent two researcher-trainers to
help us develop training materials during the workshop this year in

The FSSP worked with PRECODEPA in the design and delivery of an FSR
training workshop in Guatemala for potato researchers in Central America
and the Caribbean. PRECODEPA is a regional potato research cooperative
managed by CIP, who helped with the workshop. We also financed the
participation of some of the workshop participants.

The FSSP assisted CATIE this year in the design of a one-week
seminar to analyze six FSR/E cases in Latin America. And again, we covered
the participation costs of several seminar participants. At the request of
ROCAP, the project is now assembling a team to conduct a final evaluation
of the CATIE-ROCAP farming systems project. I just returned after a month
in Central America, where I gathered information in five countries that
will be used in this evaluation. The prospects for further collaboration
with CATIE and ROCAP are good.

An FSSP training team is now in Jamaica delivering an introductory
FSR workshop to researchers in that country.

Our training activities in the region have reached about 350
persons. We have sought to use native speakers of Spanish in our training
work in Spanish America, since the farming systems approach is a radical
departure from the traditional organization of research and extension and
communication is especially critical. For technical assistance, we have
been less concerned about language skills, although we still consider them

Other countries of the region have expressed an interest in using

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

the FSSP. USAID/Peru has indicated that it might soon need assistance in
reorienting research and extension in that country. Both Honduras and El
Salvador have expressed an interest, though it might prove difficult for
the FSSP to find people, at least from the universities, willing to work in
El Salvdor. And Paraguay has just bought into the FSSP at the level of
$80,000 for services to be rendered mostly over the next year.
Haiti approached us about three months ago regarding advisory support for
farming systems work there. It is very likely that the Dominican Republic
ask us to conduct further training, since an FSSP person recently went
there to help them devise a training plan.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza(CATIE)

April 22-26: Helped sponsor and plan seminar for
presentation of six FSR cases from Latin America.

July-August: FSSP to field evaluation team for ROCAP, to evaluate
CATIE-ROCAP farming systems project.

Dominican Republic

March 3-7: One person sent to help Ministry of Agriculture
develop training program to introduce FSR/E
approach to Dominican setting.


Feb. 1-15: Training team sent to conduct two-week course
on FSR/E approach for Programa de Tecnologia
Rural(PTR). Course addressed to PTR field
teams from the six regions of Honduras.

March 4-19: Conducted evaluation of FSR/E approach being
used by PTR. Helped them plan for 1985.
Identified problems in application of FSR/E
approach and suggested solutions.

March 20-22: Workshop in which PTR regional teams
presented their work plans.

April 20-May 7 Provided technical assistance on use of
microcomputers in analysis of on-farm
agronomic trial data.


June 18-27: Two-week course to introduce Jamaican
researchers to FSR/E.


USAID/Gov. of Paraguay buy-in at level of $80,000 for

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)




By project definition, the regions of the Near East and Asia are
considered together for regional policy development. Being the last two
regions to be considered for formal policy, Asia and Near East policy
development profitted from the experiences gained in implementing FSSP
policies in both Latin America and Africa. In addition, the FSSP acknow-
leges that (1) core staff has the least amount of experience working in
Asia and the Near East and (2) Asia has a longer continuous experience in
cropping systems research than any other region of the world.

Given this setting, Asia and Near East policy development began in
the Spring of 1984 with the creation of a committee composed of faculty
from several support entities interested in continuing their work in Asia.
This committee, known as NEAAC (Near East and Asia Adivsory Caamittee),
consists of 11 members representing 9 support entities. Its purpose is to
provide a cadre of members with both interest in, and expertise from having
worked in, Asia and/or the Near East. The ccnmittee provides advice to the
core regarding Asia and Near East policy and implementation strategy. The
NEAAC committee met 3 times during the 1984 FSR Symposium at KSU last Octo-
ber. The co-coordinator for Asia and the Near East keeps the committee
abreast of the demands on the FSSP from these regions, as well as delivery
by FSSP core and NEAAC members. Composition of the NEAAC is provided by
the attachment to this report.


Since the cable announcing the beginning of an Asian policy and
creation of the NEAAC went to missions in July, 1984, the FSSP has been
involved in the following activities:

1) Technical assistance was supplied on request to an FSR/E workshop
in Sri Lanka. African and Asian expertise was used.

2) Core has made exporatory visits on request to missions and host
country representatives of the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Nepal.
A NEAAC member accompanied the core representative during the exploratory
visit to Thailand.

3) Follow-up visits to the Philippines and Thailand have taken
place. In the first instance, two NEAAC members carried out a training
needs assessment, while in the latter, technical assistance was provided
for an impending project evaluation and for host country field
implementation of FSR/E.

4) Dialogue/collaboration with AVRDC, IRRI, ICRISAT, and CIMMYT out-
reach has begun. Representatives from AVRDC, IRRI and ICRISAT have visited
the project in Gainesville. Core visits have been made to IRRI (two) and
to CIMMYT outreach staff. A NEAAC member has visited AVRDC.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

5) Through an IRRI-FSSP initiative, an African-Asian linkage has
begun by sponsoring three representatives of the newly-formed West African
livestock-based FSR network to attend a forthcoming AFSN crop-livestock
monitoring tour in Asia in August.

6) Another Asia-Africa linkage has been started by requesting repre-
sentatives of the SUAN (Southeast Asian University Agroecosystems Network)
system to attend a forthcoming networkshop in Africa for West African
universities interested in FSR/E. This activity should take place in early

7) IRRI and the FSSP have interacted in development and refinement
of FSR/E training materials.

8) Technical assistance was provided to the Jordan mission via the
University of Arizona in a FSR/E project design activity.

Goals for the Remainder of the Project

NEAAC has proven highly successful during its first year. Recently,
NEAAC membership was asked to form a subcommittee with the objective of
becoming more directly involved in Asia and Near East policy. This sub-
committee will address itself to the continuing evolution and implementa-
tion of FSSP policy in the region, and will account for the majority of the
delivery of FSSP activities in the region during the rest of 1985 and
throughout the rest of the life of the project. This subcommittee curren-
tly consists of NEAAC members, and is included in the NEAAC membership
roster attached to this report.

In summary, the core will continue to turn policy development and
delivery over to the NEAAC subcommittee, which in turn will continue to
work closely with the core co-coordinator for Asia and the Near East. Two
explicit goals for the project in these regions are:

1) Continuing integration with IRRI, CIMMYT and ICRISAT in defining
the roles of each entity in FSR/E activities in the regions, including the
issues of which entity should lead the activity, which entities should
provide support, and how such support should be paid for and delivered;

2) Continuing the search for activities which can for the basis for
ribboning between the regions of Africa and Asia/Near East in addressing
FSR/E problems and needs.

Finally, activities begun in 1984 between the FSSP and SUAN will
continue into and beyond 1985. Two such activities are the joint meeting
of FSR/E practitioners and agroecosystems practitioners, hosted by the
East-West Center (with Ford Foundation funding) in August, 1985, and FSSP
participation in the SUAN meetings in Chaing Mai, Thailand, November, 1986.
The FSSP views the former as a state-of-the-art activity which may lead to
use of agroecosystems methods in FSR/E activities, and use of FSR rapid
rural appraisal techniques in agroecosystems research.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


This attachment provides the NEAAC (Near East and Asia Advisory
Committee) membership. Those members starred with an asterisk (*) have
agreed to serve on the NEAAC policy development and delivery subcaomittee:

NEAAC Member University Affiliation Interest

Randy Barker Cornell Southeast Asia

*Richard Bernsten Michigan State Southeast Asia

*Harry Bittenbender Michigan State Southeast Asia

*John Caldwell Virginia Polytechnic Institute Southeast Asia

Sam Johnson Illinois Southeast Asia

Herb Massey Kentucky Southeast Asia

*Harold McArthur Hawaii Southeast Asia

Mike Norvelle Arizona Near East

Howard Olson Southern Illinois East Asia

Delane Welsch Minnesota Southeast Asia

*Larry Zuidema Cornell Southeast Asia

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



The Cooperative Agreements for the FSSP state that at least fifty
percent of project activities during the life of the project will support
mission programs in the Africa Bureau. This memo will provide: 1) a brief
summary of regional activities to date, based on reports in the files
compiled for the evaluation; 2) a description of activities completed in
1985; 3) a calender of activities planned (both confirmed and tentative)
for the remainder of 1985; 4) and an optimal plan of action for the
remainder of the project.

(1) The first year of FSSP, 1983, focused on needs assessment, technical
assistance and the development of a one-week overview workshop on FSR/E
concepts and methods. During 1984, we focused attention on the training
area with refinement of the overview workshop and initiation of training
materials development geared to the needs of the region, including case
studies, training units, diagnostic survey guidelines for West Africa, and
an exploration of the francophone and anglophone approaches to FSR in West
Africa and the implications for training. Attention was also placed on
preparation of trainers for Africa with the Training for Trainers Workshop
at Iowa State University. FSSP supported two MSTAT workshops (Malawi and
Mali). Task force activity (household, evaluation, livestock, extension)
also focused attention on key problem areas of FSR in Africa. Work was
also begun on the synthesis of field experiences and task force
recommendations into FSR/E guidelines.

(2) Activities completed in Africa in 1985.
(Core staff member associated with activity in parenthesis)

January: Briefing for Gambia Ag. Research and Development Design team (DG)
FSSP FSR/E specialist on Gambia GARD design team (SP)
MSTAT course in Senegal (CA)

February: Preparations in Togo for Networkshop (SP)
World Bank Seminar in Ivory Coast Res-Ext Linkage (CA)
Zambia FSR project evaluation (E. MARTINEZ)

March: Networkshop on Animal Traction in a Farming Systems Perspective,
held in Togo (SP, J. OXLEY, S. RUSSO, P. STARKEY, V.
SAFGRAD/FSU/PURDUE Workshop on Technologies Appropriate for
Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa (DG + 11 West African
participants sponsored by FSSP)
ICARDA workshop on on-farm research with animals; Head of FSSP
Livestock Task Force attends (J.OXLEY)
Planning of June ILCA/FSSP workshop on On-Farm Research
Methodologies for Livestock (J. OXLEY)

April: Cameroon Technical Assistance Seminar FSSP sent FSR specialist
to give 2 plenary lectures (S. FRANZEL)
Completion of Africa FSR Bibliography (KSU LIBRARIES)

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

May: Africa Bureau/S&T Seminar on Results of Togo Networkshop (SP)
Senegal workshop on agronomic trials, FSSP facilitator
participated (F. POEY)
Gambia Workshop on Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials; all
trainers and materials supplied by FSSP (SP, DG, LW, J.
Senegal networking visit with MSU/ISRA team concerning joint
training, networking and publication activities (SP)
FSSP/Pop. Council FSR/E Casewriters Workshop in Boston;
casewriters for Botswana, Zambia, Burkina Faso attend (SP,

June: African Title XII Bilateral Contractors Network meeting in
Chicago as part of initiation of Crop-based networking
activities in W. Africa (SP, DG)
West African Animal Systems Networking: Exchange visits between
animal traction teams in Togo and Sierra Leone (SP,
ILCA/FSSP Workshop on On-Farm Livestock Research Methodologies
CIMMYT East Africa Program, ICRAF, ICIPE networking visits (SK)

(3) Activities planned for the remainder of 1985

July: Networking/Training trip to CIMMYT/Nairobi, Rwanda and Burundi
Planning of Egerton College, Kenya, East/West Africa FSR
Workshop; FSSP will support 10 W. African Participants (SP)

August: Egerton College East/West Africa FSR Workshop (SP)
Animal Systems Networking Steering Committee Representatives to
join Asian FSR Network Livestock Monitoring Tour (SP, P.

Sept.: WAFSRN Symposium in Dakar; FSSP will co-sponsor together with
Ivory Coast/IDESSA FSR workshop (Proposed; solicited FSSP
support) (SP)

October: KSU FSR/E Symposium and FSSP annual meeting: African members of
Technical Cormmittee will meet (DG, SP)

November: ADO/RDO meeting in Togo: FSSP asked to assist in developing pre-
or post workshop activity on FSR/E and animal traction.
Networkshop for COP's of FSR/E or related projects in Africa
(tentative) (SP, DG)
Rwanda FSR/E overview workshop with CIMMYT (SP)
Zambia workshop on research-extension linkages in
institutionalization: CIMMYT/FSSP/INTERPAKS (CA)

December: West African FSR/E Practitioners networkshop, co-sponsored
Cameron FSR/E Overview workshop; to be co-sponsored with AID
mission/IITA/UF Dschang Proj./FSSP (SP)

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

(4) Strategy for the remainder of the project.

FSSP has been asked to develop a plan for placement of a regional
support office and staff member in West Africa. A long range plan and
budget for such an office to be placed in Cameroon was developed by C.
Andrew (See memo May 28, 1985 to Anson Bertrand). While FSSP strongly
concurs with the development of a West African base from which to continue
FSR/E support activities, this will not be possible without additional
financial support from USAID. FSSP does, however, see that a series of
third and half time positions within bilateral contracts could build
towards the development of such a base in the future. FSSP has been
requested in the PP of the Gambia ARD Project to share a trainer position
for two years. This would provide FSSP with two opportunities: 1) to
conduct a series of training short courses in English with hands-on
activities within an on-going FSR/E project for both Gambian and other
English-speaking practitioners from the region, and 2) to develop a model
for the integration of an FSR/E training within an African National Ag.
research and extension program. Both experiences could build into a
regional support base, such as the one proposed for Cameroon. Linking the
Gambian trainer position into other regional training and networking
activities would further strengthen the development of a regional base. A
second shared position with the Univ. Florida Cameroon University Project
could also be considered as another step towards a regional base. Such a
position could build upon Gambian training activities and incorporate them
into a University level training program. Other shared positions with
other bilateral contracts now being bid upon (Mali, Sierra Leone) could
further strengthen linkages upon which to build a support base. FSSP could
then work towards the development of such a base for the remainder of the
project and phase implementation of the base into 1987, provided funding is
made available.

Whether the activities described above are funded or not, the FSSP
will continue with proactive FSR/E support to Africa, primarily in the West
and Central Regions. Major attention will be placed on networking and
training, while maintaining a response and facilitation mode to mission
requests for technical assistance. Networking activities will center
around support for 3 interrelated networks: animal-based farming systems
(as initiated with the Togo networkshop), crop-based farming systems
(initiated with the bilateral contractor network) and a third dealing with
FSR/E in the African University context (which will be linked to the SUAN
network in Asia). Linkages of these activities with IITA, SAFGRAD, INSAH,
IDRC, FORD F., WORLD BANK, and WAFSRN are being discussed and planned.
Training will focus on delivery of courses using the TUD and case study
materials, and adaptation of these to French.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



A-i Project Paper
A-2 UF Response to the Project Paper
A-3 Cooperative Agreement and Logical Framework
A-4 Procedural Manual



Work Plan (See Appendix
Work Plan
Work Plan Crmmittments
Work Plan

1 of the 1983 Annual Report)

Implementation plan for the 1985 Work Plan








D-1 1983 Annual Report
D-2 1984 Annual Report
D-2.1 1984, Summary of FSSP Annual Meetings
D-2.2 Summary of Interests, Capabilities, and Experience of SE's
D-2.3 Biodata Search Summaries (included in the 1985 Annual Report)


E-1 Liberia Report
E-2 Honduras Evaluation Report
E-3 Livestock Report

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



E-4 Handbook
E-5 Evaluation Task Force (in progress)
E-6 Burkina Faso Country Book (not included)
E-7 The Gambia Country Book (not included)
E-8 Sierra Leone Country Book (not included)
E-9 Togo workshop summary
E-10 Upper Volta Workshop report (not included)
E-ll Working Paper 101
E-12 Networking Papers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
E-13 FSR Bibliography
E-14 KSU FSR Bibliography
E-15 Hildebrand, P. and F. Poey. On Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming
Systems Research and Extension.
E-16 FSR/E Case Study Project- FSSP/Population Council


F-l* TMS 101 Technical Overview of FSR/E
F-2* TMS 102 Introduction to Farming Systems Research/ Development
F-3* TMS 201 Introduction to the Economic Characteristics...
F-4* TMS 202 Economic Characteristics fo Small Scale....Farms...
F-5* TMS 203 The Small Scale Family Farm as a System
F-6* TMS 204 Land Tenure in Upper Volta
F-7* TMS 301 Defining Recommendation Domains
F-8* TMS 302 Initial Characterization: The Rapid survey or SONDEO.
F-9* TMS 401 Designing Alternative Solutions- Jutiapa, Guatemala
F-10* TMS 402 Designing Alternative Solutions- Zapotitan, El Salvador
F-1* TMS 403 Designing Alternative Solutions- North Florida FSR/E
F-12* TMS 405 Women and Cassava Production in Zaire
F-13* TMS 406 ILCA Highlands Animal Traction- Ethiopia
F-14* TMS 501 Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials
F-15* Int'l Pr. The Land Grant System and the University of Florida
F-16 TMS 600 Training Unit: Agronomic Experimental Design and Anal.
F-17 TMS 601 Training Unit: Management and Administration in FSR/E
F-18 TMS 602 Training Unit: Diagnosis-Getting Started in FSR/E
F-19 Selected Readings for FSR Methods (Hildebrand)

* slide/tape modules (script available)


G-1 Newsletters Vol. I, Nos. 1,2,3; Vol. II, Nos. 1,2,3,4; Vol.III,
Nos. 1 and 2
G-2 On-Demand 1 thru 5
G-3 On-Networking 1 thru 21

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

DATE: May 28, 1985


TO: Dr. Anson Bertrand

THROUGH: Don Osburn & Wendell Morse

FROM: Chris O. Andrew

RE: FSSP West Africa Support

The following presents results of the recent meetings held in Cameroon
concerning possible location of an FSSP regional support office and staff
in Cameroon. Budget estimates are included to indicate necessary
supplemental support to the core FSSP budget if such action is to be

Based upon our last communication at the FSSP Advisory Council meeting,
we have directed our assessment to establishment of a complete regional
support program based in Cameroon. We believe that this should be the
position taken. Limited support, however, will not achieve better results
than the present mode of operation. A field assistant position (an ex PCV
type) might be appropriate as an extension of the present mode to
facilitate training and network activities if a complete regional support
program is not possible. We do not recrrmmend the limited support

Meetings in Cameroon confirm the position taken by you and the Advisory
Council that a complete support package should be considered. Those
meetings were held with the following leaders and numerous of their support

Dr. Rene Owona Director General, University Center at Dschang
Dr. Joseph Djoukam Deputy Director General, University Center at
Dr. Jean Ongla Director,ENSA (National School of Higher Education)
University Center at Dschang
Dr. Joe Busby Chief of Party USAID/UF/UCD Higher Education Contract
Dr. Emanuel Atayi Chief of Party USAID/IITA/IRA National Cereals
Research to Extension Project
Dr. Herb Miller Acting Director, USAID Cameroon
Mr. Bob Schmeding HRDO/USAID Cameroon
Mr. Bill Litwiller ADO/USAID Cameroon

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

In summary the UCD administration would like to have the FSSP locate
with the University in Dschang assuming that support would be given to the
establishment of a farming systems course in the university curriculum,
that the FSSP would work closely with the two bilateral contracts (UF and
IITA), and that assistance would be given as the UCD jointly establishes
on-farm research with the National Cereals Research and Extension (NCRE)
program. The farming systems arm of the NCRE is the Technical Liaison Unit

The University of Florida technical assistance team reacts positively
to logistically supporting an FSSP unit if that unit is under the
administrative supervision of the Chief of Party for the work in Cameroon.
This is compatible with and supports the UDC administrative position.
Thus, the bilateral contract and the UCD would provide office space,
administrative support (accounting, money transfer capability, etc) and
facilitate establishment of the standard contractor package allowable to
but not exceeding that available to the UF bilateral contract team. In
return the UF expects that FSSP will respond to the desires expressed by
the UCD administrators.

IITA desires to cooperate with FSSP both under present operating
arrangements and if a program office is established in Cameroon. FSSP
might locate with the National Research Institute (IRA) near Yaounde
instead of at Dschang with the UCD. This was suggested by Herb Miller but
not supported generally by others. IITA and the NCRE would probably be
receptive to such collaboration but they agree that cooperative work at UCD
would be most desirable. Two NCRE technical assistance people are located
at the IRA research station in Dschang adjacent to the UCD. One of the
TLUs is near Dschang also so the integration of research and extension
presses for the UCD location. We see full collaboration possible with IITA
under all alternatives. Note that IITA/Ibadan recommended to Hugh Popenoe
in his recent visit to Nigeria that Cameroon would be the place to locate
an FSSP unit. Thus, we have discussed the IITA linkage at all levels and
are very pleased to report that we see excellent potential for a successful
working relationship. It could become a model for not only FSSP/IARC work
but for facilitating and strengthening the IARC/National Research Institute

USAID/Cameroon is supportive of FSSP and desires caution in considering
establishment of a complete regional support program at the UCD. Three
considerations were raised by Herb Miller: not to over tax the UCD which
is undergoing major institutional development changes at present, to
cooperate fully with IITA, and to integrate solidly with the UF bilateral
contract. Discussions with administrators of those entities suggest that
these considerations are very reasonable and that they can be accomodated
for effective programming. Both Bill Litwiller and Bob Schmeding
emphasized the need for adequate financing for a complete program and
optimally a four year minimum time frame. Schmeding was very enthusiastic
about the regional program concept of linking bilateral contractors
together in West Africa for collaborative support and networking. Jay
Johnson is to became Mission Director on June 20, 1985. Jay visited
Gainesville for two days to become familiar with the university and we

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

spent an hour discussing the FSSP. Before I reached the point of proposing
Cameroon as the location for an FSSP program Jay volunteered that he
invited us to consider Cameroon. He was very supportive and will be
excellent for UF and FSSP to work with.

The Program in Cameroon might then assume the following scope:

A. Purpose

1. Establish base for regional training programs in FSR/E.
2. Establish an institutional tie (University Center at Dschang) for
long term educational programming:
a. Short courses linked with viable FSR/E and OFR work.
b. Degree course in the UCD curriculum with viable FSR/E and
OFR work.
3. Establish a network support base to:

a. Facilitate national linkages through bilateral
contractors and national institutions in West Africa.
b. Augment problem commodityy cropping systems, constraints
etc) oriented networks of West African researchers and
educators with agricultural research, training and
extension responsibilities.

B. Basic Requirements

1. Location with a national institution preferably including a
research, teaching and extension mandate.
2. Potential ties with an ongoing FS and OFR program.
3. Full regional complement multi country with bilateral contract
4. A support commitment by USAID S&T, Africa Bureau and Missions:

a. With a minimum 4 year time frame
b. With an adequate budget as specified below see budget

The summary budget for Africa (primarily W. Africa) would call for
$2.377m for the FY period 1986 through 1989 (see attached budget). Four
years of programming would include the Cameroon base at about 25% of the
total budget, a regional budget for linking with bilteral USAID contracts
at about 15% of total budget and a training technical assistance and
networking activity budget at 60% of the budget.

Mission match would influence the overall program but regional training
and network activities can not be supported exclusively with mission
buy-ins. The budget would support up to six major networkshops or training
activities and same training unit development support work.

The Cameroon base budget is attached. Computations cover the 21 month
period from January 1, 1986 through September 30, 1987. Projections to

FSSP Sumnary Memos (06/85)

cover FY 1988 & 1989.

The regional linkage budget anticipated salary only to call forth
designated team members from bilateral contracts for a portion of time
to be spent in regional and national FSR/E training and networking. At
capacity ('87, '88, '89) this could be four people at quarter time or three
people at third time etc.

A consideration of the FSSP budget is necessary as we anticipate the
Africa situation. A summary of the FSSP budget through completion of the
present Cooperative Agreement in September 1987 is attached. It includes
the basis for phasing into an African regional program but does not
anticipate total FSSP costs, should the project be extended.

A summary of projected costs through FY 1987 with and without the W.
Africa strategy coupled with full funding as called for in the Cooperative
Agreement and reduced funding as presently suggested by S&T, is attached.
Generally the data speak to the situation.

The overall budget shows an extremely low input into LA and Asia/NE
without the TUD funding shown in parenthesis for 86 & 87. There can be no
W. Africa program without supplemental funding for the final two years (FY
88 & 89). If all funding in the Cooperative Agreement were available
$100,900 could be carried into the next funding or project period. Even
then there will be a short fall of $468,100 in FY 86 unless the funding is
evened out (moved from 87 to 86). If there is no new program in W. Africa
the FY 86 short fall will be $277,800 and $967,100 in FY 87. To sustain
this reduction Africa delivery could be reduced primarily to Mission
buy-ins, core staffing could be reduced and/or the program development
effort reduced. Probably each would need to be cut where possible
depending upon overall program priorities. The first phase of the FSSP
might be forced to terminate prior to Sept 30 1987 if funding level II is

Hopefully this gives you a reasonably complete picture of where we
might go with the FSSP in Africa relative to the overall funding situation.
In conclusion, our efforts in W. Africa are going very well, contrary to
what many might have expected. Farming systems work in W. Africa has
became in many places an accepted way to address research and extension
needs. FSR/E programs, however, are only in initial stages of evolution.
It will be unfortunate if we reduce activity as we are most needed.

FSSP Sumnary Memos (06/85)


(1000s) FY 86 87 88* 89* Total

Cameroon base ** 151.1 145.1 152.3 159.9 608.4

linkages 39.2 96.6 101.4 106.4 343.6

Training, TA &
Networking 300.0 350.0 375.0 400.0 1425.0

TOTAL 490.3 591.7 628.7 666.3 2377.0

* Projected from base
** See Africa Budget

(base support)

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



87 88


Adm. Sal.
Ind. Cost

Mgnt.: Sal.
Ind. Cost



166.1 174.4
21.3 20.8
88.0 91.7
275.4 286.9
264.7 278.1
96.8 103.3
170.0 179.6
531.5 561.0
806.9 847.9


Core: Cameroon
Total Africa

100.0* 300.0*
100.0 490.3


Program Dev.& World Net
B +D'B handbook
T C (Travel)
S.E.An Meeting travel




Program dev


739.5 1531.6 1531.0

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)








* In present budget
** Desired for training program development not included in totals.


86 87
(9 months) (12 months)

(21 months)

Fringe (23%)


Long term

30,000 42,000
6,900 9,660
7,500 10,500
44,400 62,160










Ind. @ 32









Office Equip.
Fuel & Rep.
Ind @ 32


151,074 145,081

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)




















W/O Af. Based Core


W/Af. Based Core


* 85 Fiscal released April 85
** Preliminary S&T/Ag request

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

Apr 1-
Oct 1




















FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

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