Mid-term external evaluation of the Farming Systems Support Project

Material Information

Mid-term external evaluation of the Farming Systems Support Project
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida -- Agency for International Development
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
University of Florida ; Agency for International Development
Publication Date:


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


Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.

Record Information

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

Full Text


of the


A Cooperative Agreement


The University of Florida


The Agency for International Development

The following were members of the evaluation team:

Patrick Fleuret, Africa Bureau, AID

Charles A. Francis, Professor of Agronomy,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Raymond E. Kitchell, Development Management Consultant,

Edwin C. Price, Director,
Office of International Agriculture,
Oregon State University

Donald Winklemann, Director General, CIMMYT

October 1, 1985




Executive Summary

I. Purpose of Evaluation

II. Project Background

III. Methodology

IV. Performance to Date

A. Technical Assistance

B. Training and Publications

C. Networking

D. SOTA and Synthesis

E. Organization and Management

V. Issues and Conclusions

A. Conceptualization of FSR/E

B. Strategies, Priorities and Program Development

C. AID Policies and Programs in Relation to FSSP

D. Management

E. Relevance of Existing Project Design

VI. Recommendations


1''-. -FSSP evaluation guidelines and issues

2. FSSP summary memos prepared for evaluation team

3. List of persons contacted by team

4a. Replies of SEs to evaluation questionnaire

4b. Replies of AID field missions to evaluation questions







The Cooperative Agreement specifies that "Internal monitoring through user
ratings must be complemented with periodic external evaluations".
Accordingly, in consultation with the University of Florida (UF) and the AID
regional bureaus, the Office of Agriculture, Bureau of Science and Technology,
assembled a multi-disciplinary team to conduct an on-site review. During the
AID/W briefing of the team, it was provided with a set of "FSSP Evaluation
Guidelines and Issues" as a terms of reference which is included herein as
Appendix No. 1.

Given the timing of this exercise (i.e., three years after execution or
approximately mid-term in the five-year period of the agreement), the
comprehensive and complicated nature of the project, and the limited time
available for the review, the Evaluation Team interpreted the primary purpose
of the evaluation to be as follows:

o to assess project performance and effectiveness to date and
review plans for the remainder of the contract period;

o to review the current validity of the project concept and
approach and recommend new directions if warranted.

This report is focused on these two major purposes and, to the extent
feasible, the specific issues provided to the team have been addressed,
including how the project could be usefully redirected to provide increased
attention to Africa while, at the same time, accommodating probable reduced
funding levels.


Approval Process

The PID for this project was approved in late 1981 and the process for
preparing and reviewing the Project Paper and negotiating the Cooperative
Agreement was accelerated. Partially as a result of the limited time
available for review and because it was not desirable to specify a fixed scope
given the then state-of-the-art in farming systems research (FSR), a
collaborative mode was selected through use of a cooperative agreement (CA)
rather than a contract. Only one member of the present AID Project Management
Team (APMT) participated in this process.

Selection and Start-up

Title XII universities were surveyed and 25 indicated interest in becoming
the "lead university". The field was narrowed to the University of Missouri,
Purdue University, Colorado State University, University of Illinois, Michigan
State University and, of course, the University of Florida which was
apparently selected particularly for its relevant experience in Latin
America. Because of urgent start-up priorities, including activities already
underway, it was not until early in 1983 before the first work.plan was
developed. The early project thrust was on definition of FSR/E and
orientation workshops.


Project Design

As stated in the AID Project Paper, the goal of the FSSP is to
strengthen developing country agricultural research and extension programs in
order to increase the productivity, income, and quality of life among small
farmers. The purpose of the project is (sic) to provide technical assistance
to missions and LDC agricultural research and extension programs for the
design, implementation and evaluation of projects intended for the small or
limited-resource farmer while, at the same time, building institutional
capacity within those countries through training and networking.

Concerning the cooperative agreement itself, its purpose as stated is to
develop, strengthen and expand the capacity of the recipient and collaborating
institutions to provide technical assistance, training and guidance to FSR/E
programs in developing countries. The recipient will perform as the lead
entity and will coordinate the inputs of collaborating institutions with
similar interests in FSR/E.

In both documents,'outputs are described more in terms of
acceptableactivities than specific or pre-determined, significant end-results
expected at project completion, reflecting the "process" nature of the
original agreement. These activities include: technical assistance,
short-term training; networking; and state-of-the-art (SOTA) research.

The FSSP, as originally conceived, is basically intended to provide
field support, viz, making available to USAID missions and agricultural
research institutions technical assistance in the design, implementation and
evaluation of farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) programs on a
global basis.


' AID field missions were queried by cable for their views on (i) most
positive features of FSSP; (ii) most negative; (iii) recommended changes; and
(iv) what impact FSSP activities had on mission funded farming systems
efforts. In addition, at the request of the Team Leader, questionnaires were
sent all FSSP support entities (SEs). Adequate responses from both queries
were received, analyzed and made available to the team, (See Appendix No. 4).

An issues paper was also prepared by AID project staff for team guidance
on the substantive points of most interest to AID, (See Appendix No. 1). The
team first assembled in Washington for two days of orientation and briefings
(June 24-25) which included interviews with appropriate officials in both S&T
and the regional bureaus, as well as BIFAD. Appropriate documentation was
also provided.

The team then conducted its on-site investigations at the University of
Florida (June 26-28). It began with a well-conducted oral presentation by the
FSSP Director and core staff, supplemented by a written presentation on
progress and plans on producing outputs (see Appendix No. 2) as previously
requested by the team leader. This appendix is an integral part of this
report. In addition to FSSP and University of Florida (UF) staff, also at the
team's request and on short notice, a representative of the FSSP Advisory
Council and the Chairperson of the Technical Committee met accommodatingly


with the Team in private sessions in Gainesville. A list of officials and
staff who talked with the team is provided in Appendix No. 3. FSSP staff also
provided the Team with examples of their products, supplemental documentation
and special presentations requested by the Team.

Cooperation during the evaluation exercise by all parties to this
agreement was commendable and the only weak point in the exercise, (aside from
the limited time available) was the absence of direct knowledge on the use and
effect of FSSP services by developing country clients. Nevertheless, during
the evening of June 27 and the next day, the team was able without great
difficulty to arrive at a consensus regarding its assessment of performance to
date and recommendations for the future.

The evaluation report itself is not intended to be a summary of progress
and achievements to date. Appendix No.2, in combination with annual and
other special reports, will provide the reader with this information. Rather,
the Team has attempted to provide the rationale for its assessment of
performance to date, highlighting what it believes to be the most critical
issues requiring resolution, and presenting action-oriented recommendations
for improvements and changes which are intended to help the partners and
collaborators in this agreement arrive at appropriate decisions regarding its


A. Technical Assistance

The first section of the Cooperative Agreement calls for technical
assistance in problem diagrams, design, implementation, and evaluation of
projects involving FSR/E. The agreement envisions this activity as providing
immediate help to resolve specific program implementation issues related to
problems on farms and in program management. In the longer run, there should
be a development of capacity in national organizations through institution
building to develop in-country "professional expertise and commitment" which
is needed for "sustaining coordinated national programs". The FSSP was
envisioned as a field support project which would take its guidance from USAID
missions, and respond to their expressed needs. The specific services which
were included in the agreement would be available during pre-project, design,
implementation, and evaluation phases of projects.

... Project Support

The project was involved in needs assessment in three activities in
1984 for Honduras, for Liberia, and for Cornell University/FSSP training
needs. During the same year there were three activities in project design -
for Jordan, the Gambia, and Sierra Leone. In project evaluation, the FSSP
supplied people for four country activities -- Honduras, Botswana, Zambia, and
Philippines. Team or individual briefings were conducted for four countries
- the Gambia, Honduras, Rwanda, and Jordan. Debriefings were conducted for
teams and/or team leaders from activities in Honduras, Paraguay, Rwanda,
Gambia, and Liberia. Information from the debriefings is destined to be added
to state-of-the-art files and used in the future in modules for training or
for other materials in print.


The evaluation team commends this activity but notes that
disappointment has been expressed in the lower than expected level of demand,
particularly in needs assessment. Since we were not afforded the time or the
opportunity to interview any of the individuals who received this briefing or
specific help in the field, it is not possible to evaluate its effectiveness.
This would require personal interviews or an extensive questionnaires, which
was not envisioned as a part of the exercise. The team was very impressed
with the selection of contracting entities to implement projects in Latin
America which built on the talents of professionals who were native Spanish
speakers and who had extensive experience in the region. However, this
reliance on a single private consulting firm has meant limited opportunity to
build up the capacity of U.S. universities to fulfill this function another
objective of the FSSP. We hope that this support capability is maintained
within the project, although the basis for future contracts should be on a
"payment for services" or "buy-in" basis by missions in this region.

From the mission cables, we were impressed with the projects quick
response capability to do these contracts, and this capacity should be
expanded and made available to missions on a world-wide basis. There was some
concern expressed about the relevance of some of the technical expertise
provided outside Latin America, and every effort should be made to provide
professionals with experience which is relevant to the specific job at hand.


The current biodata resource includes information on more than 54Q
individuals. These "Program Associates" come from twenty six organizations in
the FSSP Support Entity Network, including twenty one universities and five
consulting firms. During 1984, fifty four searches for seventy one
individuals were conducted and, during the first six months of 1985, twenty
seven searches for thirty nine persons. There is an apparent growing interest
in this support function, with .requests coming from universities, AID, and
private consulting firms. Of the searches conducted and individual biodata
supplied, there is no evaluation of how many were actually placed in a
program. From repeat requests from the same institutions or companies, and
from limited qualitative feedback from clients, this biodata service appears
to be filling a need. The job clearly is never finished, and must be expanded
and kept current as people's circumstances change. The pool of specialists in
the current biodata file represents the support entities, and there are many
experts outside the project who should be included. Given.the future cost of
maintaining this activity, we believe the project should consider other
options. Our recommendation would be to merge this biodata file with another
file, such as the one maintained by Winrock International (WI), and by adding
additional identifiers to the WI system this could provide an even greater
pool of professionals to prospective clients at a lower cost. We consider
this activity as one that has been done well, has attracted interest and
provided a valuable service, but should be handled in a more cost-effective
and comprehensive way.

Evaluation Task Force

During 1984 and 1985, a task force was set up to meet a need
perceived by the Technical Committee of FSSP to provide quality, replicable
evaluations of FSR/E projects in the field. After some initial delays in

start-up, a task force was appointed with eight members and nine additional
people in a backstopping group. They have met and outlined a framework for
the evaluation instrument. At the moment, sections of the draft are in
preparation, and the FSSP is making plans to test the instrument in CATIE,
CARDI, and Zambia, plus other projects in Africa.

The evaluation team applauds this recognition of the importance of
evaluation in projects and the need to develop tools which are appropriate to
FSR/E in field evaluation of specific programs and activities. However, there
is a critical need to involve AID/W effectively in the decision-making and
formulation of any tools of this type. There is an institutionalized
evaluation procedure already operational in AID, and a number of handbooks
have been written at large expense to facilitate and standardize this
process. It is critical that the agency which developed these instruments and
which will need to use any new ones or modifications be included in their
formulation. It is important to consider evaluation at the several levels of
the project framework, decide what the evaluation should focus on, e.g.,
efficiency, effectiveness, and/or impact, and how it should be done within the
context of AID contracts. There is need for an evaluative framework and a
uniformity to approach which will use a standard device across as many types
of projects as possible. There is also a need for a USAID technical input
during the testing and evaluation phase of this activity. Thus, the team
commends the effort, but insists on a greater participation by the agency to
ensure the possibility of use within the AID system.

Research/Extension Project Handbook

Development of this handbook has been active over the past two
years. It is envisioned as a document which could be used for future
workshops on management of projects and the institutionalization of the FSR/E
process. There is an assumption by core management that this document would
be widely used by people in USAID missions, national programs, and bilateral
assistance projects. It was cited that nothing exists in this area, at least
in the specific area of FSR/E, and that most projects have no written
guidelines to follow in development of this type of project.

The evaluation team has reviewed the current draft of the
research/extension project handbook, and concludes that although this may be
the only such guidebook to date, its approach is overly simplified and the
draft as presented would be of limited value to managers of FSR/E development
projects. -There are several books available on project design, and AID
currently runs programs on project design and management. These should be
used as a basis from which to start with project handbook development if,
indeed, one is necessary. If so, there is a vital need for active AID/W
participation in the process. The current version is weak on guidelines for
management of interdisciplinary teams, for rigorous design of research on
farmer's fields, and for a specific emphasis on FS research. Since
considerable time and resources have been invested in the development of the
current draft of the book from this project, it could be made available to
development projects in its current form, perhaps in a loose-leaf
arrangement. Given other priorities, it is not recommended that additional
resources be dedicated to this handbook or future activities of this type, but

that emphasis be placed on implementation in the field using existing
materials and procedures.

B. Training and Publications


This performance assessment is based on interviews, a review of FSSP
documents and training materials, a support entity survey done by S&T/AGR, and
a review of cables from missions commenting on FSSP activities. Since there
has been no opportunity to get the direct views of participants in any of the
training sessions.

Inventory of Activities and Assessment

FSSP has initiated a broad range of activities that can be regarded
as training. These include: "sensitivity" workshops in the U.S.;
"sensitivity" and "networkshops" in Latin America/Caribbean and in Africa; the
development of specialized state-of-the-art training networks; a number of
miscellaneous activities; and publications. Each of these five categories is
reviewed separately below.

Domestic Workshops

Three different types of domestic workshops have been organized by
FSSP. Most of these were basic orientation workshops; in addition, one
methodology application workshop has been held and one workshop to train FSR
trainers (Iowa State). The table below summarizes these workshops:

Table 1 FSSP Domestic Workshops

Type 1983 1984 1985 Total

Orientation 5 4 1 10

Application 0 0 1 1

Training of Trainers 0 1 0 1

Total 5 5 2 12

Several aspects of these workshops deserve comment. First, there has
been commendable success in having them sponsored by support entities; of the
twelve workshops, only four were held in Gainesville and these have been for
the most part pilot activities. Eight other institutions hosted the remaining
workshops, and one Virginia State University has agreed to become the
permanent home of the orientation workshops. Only one per year is now thought
necessary, but the team believes the "orientation" mission has been

Second, the domestic workshops have proved very useful as a way of
building relationships among-the U.S. community interested in FSR/E. This
emerges strongly in the SE survey conducted by S&T/AGR.


Third, there was significant involvement of AID employees and foreign
nationals (administrators, scientists, students) in the U.S. activities; about
one-half or so of all participants were in this category.

A fourth point is that the domestic workshops have improved over
time. Initially they were very weak both pedagogically and technically and
AID criticisms and suggestions were often ignored, but significant
improvements have been made.

Finally, the number of activities is large given the relatively short
period of time FSSP has been in operation, which is a compliment to the energy
and organizational talent of the FSSP core staff, but also reflects the lack
of a "programmatic" focus.

There are a number of points where improvement must be sought.
First, FSSP staff attempted to use the domestic workshops to assess overseas
training needs (for Africa especially). This "informal" needs assessment
however was no substitute for a rigorous assessment through visits to AID
field missions and national program leaders as is commonly done in other
centrally-funded projects. A limited amount of this was done on a somewhat ad
hoc basis in West Africa, but all-in-all the attempt to understand the full
range of indigenous training needs was inadequate. This has led to
disagreement among various concerned parties regarding the focus of many of
FSSP's activities. Second, the early slide-tape modules were of lesser
utility than they could have been; rather than attempting to prepare these
materials in-house, FSSP could have used their Technical Committee structure,
with AID participation, to gain access to people able to strengthen the
materials both with regard to region-specific content as well as A-V technique.

Third, the workshops have been implemented by relatively junior and
inexperienced people-again FSSP could have done better by administering the
workshop process but leaving implementation to people with the breadth an
depth of experience required.

Fourth, the workshops have been relatively heavy on social science and
process, but light on technical content and problem focus. (Again this could
have been improved through greater reliance on outside expertise and AID

In sum, the domestic workshop series has been spotty but it is
encouraging that things appear to be getting better as time goes on. Probably
too much was attempted by the core staff itself in the beginning; quality
suffered. The current intent to de-emphasize the introductory workshops and
concentrate on a few priority areas, is a laudable attempt to prioritize and
focus the FSSP effort and should be given strong support by AID.

Overseas Workshops

A relatively large number of overseas workshops of varying duration
have been held. In some of these FSSP was solely responsible for the
proceedings, in others responsibility was shared and in some FSSP has played
an ancillary role. Some attempt to categorize the activities along these
lines is made in the table below (this does not count workshops organized by
others at which FSSP was represented.)


Table 2 FSSP Overseas Workshops

Year Region Major Moderate Minor Total

AFR 1 1 0 2

ASIA 0 0 0 0

LAC 2 0 0 2

1984 AFR 1 1 1 3

ASIA 0 1 1 2

LAC 2 0 0 2

1985 AFR 2 1 3 6

ASIA 0 0 0 0

LAC 1 3 0 4

Total 9 7 5 21

The following positive points need to be recognized. First, the LAC
workshops have apparently been implemented very well judging from mission
cables which are on the whole complimentary. Second, the quality of
activities has improved with time, indicating that FSSP staff are learning
from their experience. (This is particularly evident in Africa). Third, the
large number of activities undertaken suggests a very high level of energy and
commitment on the part of FSSP core staff and their hard work should be

There are also some areas where improvement is warranted. First, the
Africa workshops have been weak with regard to Africa-relevant content, with
regard to the availability and quality of French language translation for both
oral presentations and written materials; and with regard to A-V technical
quality. Although some improvement has been made over time, the current
materials are still far too weak. This must be addressed as a high priority,
preferably by drawing on the technical resources of others actively engaged in
FSR and related activities in the region.

Second, the very large number of activities carried out suggests that
the FSSP staff have been giving too much attention to doing things and not
enough attention to doing them well. A third and related point is that the
workshops exhibit little sense of strategy, direction, or problem-focus. FSSP
has seemingly been willing to support nearly anything anywhere, with the
result that their staff and intellectual resources have been fragmented. Two
noteworthy exceptions to this general rule are the Togo animal traction
workshop, which was preceded and succeeded by related activities that appear
technically-oriented and cumulative in nature; and the Paraguay program, which
although little advertised is very important.

A final point relates to the Paraguay activity specifically and the
LAC program generally: these activities have been implemented very often by a
private consultant firm, and it is questionable whether this is the best
approach to host country institutional development. AID/Paraguay makes this
point explicitly in their cabled assessment of the FSSP activities there and
notes the lack of a multiplier effect associated with U.S. university

In sum, the overseas workshop program has been implemented with
admirable energy but has been weakened by inadequate attention to the quality
and relevance of training materials. Good trainers can compensate to some
extent for weak materials, but all-in-all-FSSP needs to devote much greater
attention to improving their materials with effective involvement of the SEs
and AID. This is recognized by FSSP leadership and staff and is, we believe,
in accord with their own emerging sense of priorities.

Training Materials Development

Much of what needs to be said regarding this topic has been touched
on in the sections above. But it is important to note that FSSP staff have
progressed over time in their approach to training materials development, with
the result now that energies are being focused on refinement of three training
units or modules on diagnosis, design of field trials, and management/adminis-
tration. This focus should be encouraged and supported, but even further
prioritization is needed. Specifically, the management module should receive
lesser priority than the other two. This is not because management is
unimportant, but because (a) the other modules are more central to FSSP's
basic mission; (b) it will be easier to introduce good technical content and a
sense of problem into the first two than into the third; (c) the management/
administrative module as currently presented is technically much weaker than
the other two; and suffers from the same deficiencies noted in the Project
Handbook; and (d) FSSP has strict limitations of staff time, financial
resources, and time remaining until project completion. Attention should be
concentrated on improving the first two modules and institutionalizing their
delivery in appropriate SEs and host country national programs.

Miscellaneous Training Activities

FSSP has sent core staff or SE representatives to an impressive
number of meetings, conferences, and workshops. FSSP has also provided useful
support to relatively large numbers of individual scientists overseas,
enabling them to attend activities that they could otherwise have missed.
While admirable in intent, the cumulative impact of these various disconnected
efforts is probably not great and there is an unfortunate fragmentation of
staff attention as a result. Especially now that funding levels have
declined, FSSP management should re-think the approach to such activities and
give serious attention to reducing the level of support provided.

Publications and Related Matters

FSSP produces a number of useful printed materials that deserve
mention. The newsletter has been generally accepted in the U.S. and is very
highly regarded overseas. The distribution list is large (nearly 5,000), and


it is available in Spanish and French as well as English. It is possible to
quarrel with the content of the newsletter and with the translations, but
overall this service is a valuable one and FSSP should be commended for having
done the job well.

FSSP is also responsible for generating 100 bibliographic entries
each year and arranging for them to be annotated and distributed by AID's
central evaluation office (PPC/CDIE). In addition, all such materials are
retained at the Kansas State University (KSU) documentation center. One
problem is that the annotation service provided by AID/PPC/CDIE has been both
slow and technically weak. This reflects a flaw in the original project
design. The annotations should be done by FSSP (preferably through SEs), not
by CDIE. S&T/AGR should address this problem immediately.

Many other documentary efforts are also underway various books,
manuals, an inventory of FSR activities, guidelines in various fields, and so
forth. It is clear that this represents a dispersion of staff effort and
financial resources, and not all the activities can be regarded as high

FSSP management should undertake a careful review of these activities
and thin down the number considerably both to conserve core funding and help
staff prioritize their time. As already noted, two obvious candidates for
elimination are, first, the manual on project management guidelines, which is
peripheral to FSSP's basic mission. Moreover, this topic is addressed by a
large number of other books, articles, and training courses. The second clear
candidate for elimination is the series of country briefing books. While
undoubtedly useful, these represent an extremely low-priority undertaking
given FSSP's basic purpose and limitations of staff and funding.

C. Networking

1. Introduction

Program design gave this activity a high priority and it was a
featured part of the FSSP presentation during the review. It was clear that
FSSP staff have thought long and hard about networking and its implementation,
e.g. see Chris 0. Andrew, "Considerations for Networking Development to
Support U. S. Technical assistance," 1985. Several specific activities were
listed in briefing materials (see exhibit #1) and the process itself was given
considerable attention.

FSSP told us a network links three or more in sustained interaction. It
features exchange among equals, a collegial activity resting on common
concerns. FSSP's role is to actively promote such networks-"to
foster/fuel/fan" in the words of one. To this end FSSP seeks to identify
themes of high priority to farming systems research, to identify individuals
with interest in the theme, to facilitate their coming together, and to
structure an environment in which they can initiate and sustain the exchange
of ideas. The aim is to improve performance through the stimulation that such
sharing engenders and through the sense of endorsement from peers with common


Exhibit # 1

Universities (BIFAD, CRSP)
USAID Missions
National Institutions
CGIAR & Others
Existing Networks
FSSP Activities
PVOs & Others


Program Associates
Technical Assistance
FSR Inventory
Biodata Files


FSSP sees several lines through which networks can be developed: 1)
within the U. S. support base, 2) through IARC networks, or through such
regional institutions as SAFGRAD, 3) inside countries, 4) through groups bound
together by topical interests, 5) through private firms, and 6) through the
creative crossing of barriers.

2. Achievements

In looking at the six activities initially envisioned it is clear
that FSSP's major success to date has been in fostering the development of a
network among those in U.S. universities and private firms (SEs) who are
concerned with FSR/E. One possible measure of this is the undocumented FSSP
Management estimate that every dollar of funding from FSSP for this activity
Shas called forth up to two dollars of added spending by others.

Emphasis has been given to technology generation through
collaborative, on-farm research in which interactions and the farmer play
critical roles. Coming together in FSSP sponsored meetings, and in the
context of an ever clearer framework of ideas, has contributed much to the
exchange among practitioners based in U.S. universities. The principal FSSP
activity here is the annual workshop at Kansas State University. This
recurring event is certainly the fulcrum of international farming systems
activities in the U.S. With growing participation from non-U.S. practi-
tioners, it is arguably the single most significant gathering in the world
for those involved in farming systems researc..

A second major U.S. based effort is the nine "introductory"
workshops. These are seen by FSSP as training and are discussed above but it
is likely .that a great deal of peer exchange occurs and that much sustained
exchange has been touched off. To the extent this surmise is true, then those
workshops have fostered/fueled/fanned networks among those of like interests.
FSSP has undertaken several training courses in developing countries. While
these have featured a teacher-student stance of varying quality, it is again
likely that significant peer exchange has occurred and that potential networks
have emerged.

Among the networking activities to date, perhaps the most significant
for the future were the focused efforts in Africa. There, three classes of
networks were identified for the west-commodity based, animal based, and
S university based-and a pace setting animal traction workshop was held in 1985
in Togo. It was judged by participants and observers to be quite useful. Its
format will, according to FSSP staff, set the pattern for future efforts.
S While it is still early to say whether sustained communication among
practitioners will emerge, there is cause for optimism. As well, the model
(and that for a similar effort in early 1984 in Southern Africa) contributed
to an Africa wide workshop on animal traction at ILCA in July 1985 to which
FSSP contributed.

Judgment about these earlier efforts must necessarily be tentative.
Networking, after all, requires a sustained,, continuing exchange if it is to
be cost-effective. It seems likely that sustained exchange has come about
through the efforts in the U.S. An unresolved issue is the extent to which
FSSP should take a leading role in networking vis-a-vis efforts to supplement,
expand, or reinforce ongoing networking activities carried out by IARCs,


regional organizations, and others concerning FSR/E problems already
identified and prioritized. Clearly sufficient time has not yet elapsed to
see if that will emerge from the Togo session.

3. Projections

FSSP staff expressed a strong commitment to creating networks in the
future. They have the animal traction theme as one point of departure. The
more general farming systems research theme is another. FSSP staff are well
aware that much attention is already being given to networking in Asia, Latin
America, and Africa. Indeed the funds already committed by others-West
Africa, for example, has networks in each of several commodities and in
farming systems research, the last through IITA and others-total well more
than will be available to FSSP. In these circumstances, they see themselves
as taking steps which will complement the activities of others. As can be
noted, this reflects some internal inconsistencies in approach.

FSSP is optimistic about farming systems networks based on West
Africa university staffs. These professionals have, as we understand it,
participated less than their NARC colleagues in existing networks. With the
success of the Togo workshop, FSSP plans to use that effort as a model for
future networking. Along with workshops, FSSP will incorporate other vehicles
for structuring and facilitating exchange, e.g. exchange of staff,
professional visits and exchange of publications.

4. Conclusions

SIn evaluating FSSP's. efforts in networking and in commenting on its
future, several conclusions can be reached and suggestions offered, as.follows.

o Less emphasis should be given to networking in the U.S.
With what has already been accomplished, FSSP can reduce
its commitments and expect that participants will find the
Funding necessary to carry on this work.

o The role for FSSP in farming systems networks in West
Africa has yet to be clearly defined. For instance, it is
not clear what an institution based in the U.S. can do to
ensure that the role of identifying priority themes and
participants for developing countries is satisfactorily
played, especially given the substantial-commitments
already made to the development of networks by others.

o FSSP, in collaboration with AID, should bring more evident
purposiveness to their networking efforts. This means
identifying priority problems, priority countries, and
priority participants. It also means framing appropriate
supporting materials, reducing the role of opportunism, and
reinforcing structure and design in the planning of FSSP
supported networking activities.


o Given the cost of the activity and the uncertainty
associated with the utility of output, the evaluation team is
forced to question the cost-effectiveness of the current
approach and urges that, as part of a collaborative strategizing
process, the purpose, scope and approach of future networking
activities be clearly defined, particularly in Africa.

D. State-of-the-Art and Synthesis

1. Introduction

"State-of-the-art" (SOTA) activities are the synthesis of current
information and experience on farming systems concepts, methods, and technical
issues. The purpose is to make such information, including guidelines and
training materials, conveniently available to practitioners. This is
important because the FSR/E projects that produce and use the information are
often small and widely separated. It is difficult to learn where information
is available and to obtain it. Accordingly, it is difficult for individual
FSR/E groups to compare and evaluate various approaches, procedures and
results. SOTA activities in the FSSP are a service to FSR/E practitioners and
others who set the direction of agricultural development efforts located in
universities and other contractors for FSR/E projects and AID. Thus, it is
important for FSSP to obtain access through effective linkages with the
deliverers of FSR/E services.

This review of "state-of-the-art" and synthesis activities within the
FSSP addresses their following aspects: general approach; procedures; level
of achievement; and future directions. The basis for review includes oral
presentations and answers given to the evaluation team by the FSSP staff and
other informants, program documents (the 1982 Cooperative Agreement, 1984
Annual Report, 1985 Annual Work Plan, 1985 Implementation Plan for the 1985
Annual Work Plan, and FSSP Summary Memo on State-of-the-Art Developme'nt
prepared for the evaluation team and several State-of-the-Art subject matter
papers. These sources appeared representative of the scope and quality of
work required of FSSP and of FSSP's response, and hence adequate for the

2. General Approach

The Cooperative Agreement (October 1982) suggests.that
state-o'f-the-art research should identify issues common to FSR/E programs and
evaluate causes, solutions and possible consequences of the concerns most
frequently expressed. The work is expected to yield five practical field
guidelines that might cover alternative methodologies used by national
programs, organizational concerns, extension, training and the cost-
effectiveness of FSR/E.

The summary memorandum on SOTA given at the June 1985 review
indicates that efforts to systematize SOTA development have just begun. SOTA
development is regarded as an implicit activity in training, networking and
technical assistance, but no specific strategy has evolved. Fifteen topics
are listed on which information has been assembled, or soon will be. The


topics are prioritized presumably according to the need expressed by
practitioners of FSR/E, and hence in the order in which work on them will be
completed. Unfortunately, AID was not invited to participate in this process.

Intervening reports and workplans discuss SOTA activities but do not
reflect a consistent approach or consistent themes in conceptualization of
this area of activity. Each discussion tells what is being done but the steps
aren't clearly related. In presenting SOTA syntheses, one report highlights
the role of the Technical Committee and the bibliography, another training
units, and another case histories; all no doubt related to SOTA development
but not according to a particular plan. A definition of SOTA is not found,
nor the purpose of SOTA, its objectives, or a plan for achieving the
objectives. Nevertheless, from several sources and through diverse
activities, syntheses of information on a number of topics are being
accomplished (See Appendix 2).

The sources of SOTA synthesis vary. The role of extension and issues
with respect to livestock in FSR/E were examined by special task forces. Many
of the topics are to be treated in training units. Agro-forestry is covered
in a workshop proceeding, as is traction power, while integrated pest
management is presented in a University of Florida course, and nutrition in
case studies.

The Evaluation team wishes to express the following concerns about
FSSP's general approach to SOTA and synthesis development:

o A definition (and perhaps renaming, if it aids
understanding) of SOTA/synthesis activities is needed, and a
stronger conceptualization of the job to be done.

o Given a definition of the concept, a strategy and work plan
for achieving objectives is needed. A strategy might show how
aims suggested in the cooperative agreement are linked to
activities (bibliography, case studies, technical committee,
course development, etc.) at any given time, how activities are
linked one-to-another, and how these together are linked to -
expected SOTA products.

o If convenient access to synthesis of information on
frequently cited issues in FSR/E is indeed an objective, as we
think it should be, then the present passive approach (i.e.
leaving the syntheses to comprise mainly of products from other
activities--training units, textbooks, courses, workshop
proceedings, network operations, etc.), requires modification.
Accessing and using information from such diverse sources and in
such diverse formats may not be an easy task.

o Even if information were easily available and understood
from these various sources, it is not clear that it would
represent a state-of-the-art synthesis. Training courses, for
example, might reasonably contain the basics of FSR/E,
emphasizing "tried-and-true" methods, but go light on theory,
history, or comparative review that a synthesis might contain.


Similarly, workshops, textbooks and case studies often are
developed with objectives that may not support a synthesis.
There is no substitute for SOTA/synthesis in a dynamic setting
based on research.

3. Procedures

Identifying issues for study, prioritizing them and getting the work
done are the major procedural concerns. The Technical Committee of the FSSP
is to provide guidance on the identification of issues for study and, presum-
ably, in the setting of priorities. This is to be done through a representa-
tive of the FSSP core on he Technical Committee. Information is then
assembled and synthesized through the various means mentioned above-training
unit development, task forces, bibliography, workshops, etc. In practice, the
leadership and initiative for getting the work done, and much of the direct
responsibility for SOTA activities, presently resides with the FSSP core staff.

A review of the procedures followed and results obtained suggests
that identification of issues and setting of priorities with respect to those
issues has been satisfactory. That is, the areas of SOTA activities listed in
Appendix 2, particularly the highest priority areas, appear an appropriate
beginning set of problem areas for study. However, the prioritization was
apparently done primarily by core staff, with little input from the technical
committee and no discernable input from AID. The set of issues contains
technical problems (e.g. agro-forestry, IPM, livestock), methodological areas
(diagnostic surveys, on-farm trials), institutional questions (e.g. extension,
social science, in FSR/E and evaluation of FSR/E approach), and principles of
FSR/E (e.g. economic characteristics of small-scale farmers).

The identification of issues and setting of priorities, however,
might be improved by:

o Organization of issues in a manner that provides a sense of
the kinds of expertise required for their study-e.g. principles
of FSR/E, methods of FSR/E, organization of FSR/E, technology of
FSR/E, economics of farming systems, etc.;

o Establishing procedures for identifying issues that more
explicitly incorporate the views of FSR/E project staff
overseas, e.g., what are the FSR/E backstopping issues that can
be explored by FSSP for bilateral contractors?;

o Associating with each problem area a quantitative or
qualitative measure of the importance of the issue (e.g.
projects that requested work on nutrition, areas of the world
where agro-forestry technology is a concern, economic conditions
under which crops/livestock technology is lacking, expected
gains from closer linkage of research and extension).

The slow progress to date in developing and implementing an overall
plan for SOTA activities within the core FSSP, and the largely untapped
greater capacity of the FSSP program as a whole (including the support
entities), suggest that a larger amount of the responsibility for SOTA


development should be distributed to associated universities. A needed
expansion of activities that are explicitly planned; a process closely
involving the Technical Committee with AID participation, for SOTA synthesis
(i.e. not simply comprised of training units, workshop proceedings, etc.),
cannot and should not be accomplished solely by an already heavily committed
core staff. Both the quality and the volume of SOTA development
accomplishments require a wider base for contributions to this effort.

4. Performance

The level of achievement of the FSSP with respect to SOTA activities
is reviewed on the basis of selected SOTA materials already identified.
Assuming the products presented by the FSSP to be the appropriate kind of
output, how satisfactory are they?

o The range of topics selected by FSSP management for study as
SOTA activities appears an appropriate beginning list of farming
systems problems areas. As methodological and conceptual issues are
resolved, the program should increasingly focus on technical issues
identified through network activities. Traction power is an example
of such an issue already covered. Additional issues should be
identified according to their importance in the countries where
farming systems projects are being carried out.

o Prioritizing the SOTA problem areas, in collaboration with AID,
is also a useful step and should similarly be based upon likely
benefits in countries where FSR/E is being carried out with linkages
to the FSSP.

o Production of SOTA materials has been slow, with very few of the
15 initial topics considered finished. As cited earlier, SOTA
materials have been developed mainly for other purposes and without
much central direction. Apart from content consideration, this
approach has undoubtedly delayed SOTA output, compared to identifying
resources and proceeding with a specific plan for producing SOTA

o Materials vary widely according to the apparent target
audience. The "Task Force Report on Livestock in Mixed Farming
Systems" may be useful to a high level research officer to
.understand broad concepts, perhaps as input into a decision of
whether to commit agency resources to a farming systems
livestock project. The report is not likely to be of much use
to a field practitioner needing to know the state-of-the-art for
conducting livestock research in FSR/E. This problem is shared
by many of the materials because they were not planned as SOTA

o The quality of SOTA documents needs improvement, largely
from the standpoint of comprehensiveness and practical
usefulness. In most cases, one or two items are recommended as
the SOTA documentation on a topic. Again, perhaps ,because they
were not produced as SOTA documents and often written by a few
authors, they necessarily lack the perspective and credibility.


usefulness. In most cases, one or two items are
recommended as the SOTA documentation on a topic. Again,
perhaps because they were not produced as SOTA documents
and often written by a few authors, they necessarily lack
the perspective and credibility.

In summary, the quality and rate of progress of work on SOTA
activities to date suggests that a specific strategy and multi-year plan for
producing a limited number of priority SOTA products be formulated and that
resources be identified among the support entities to conduct the work in a
timely manner. The materials produced should be carefully reviewed for
comprehensiveness, soundness, understandability and practical use to
practitioners. Review of SOTA might be conducted by either the Technical
Committee or by independent scholars recognized for their expertise in the
respective fields.

5. SOTA Strategy

There is little in FSSP documentation to suggest planning or
direction of SOTA activities. The above recommendations with respect to
general approach, procedures and level of achievement imply future steps to be
taken. Most important is an overall strategy and plan, agreed to by the
principal parties of interest, that defines what SOTA activities'are, who is
the target user of the documents and for what purpose, and that shows where
the SOTA program is headed.

Finally, usefulness of the term "State-of-the-Art" without reference
to synthesis should be reconsidered. Its meaning may be sufficiently obscure
as to inhibit understanding of FSSP objectives within FSSP, USAID, and country
projects. Another acronym or word denoting "modern methods, principles and
S technology" may be more useful than "SOTA", per se.

E. Organization and Management

1. General

The management of this project has reflected, to a significant
extent, the problems in a collaborative arrangement involving a large number
of institutions in an innovative and experimental effort. The FSSP project
management team, that is, the Director and his core staff, have a number of
clients to deal-with and satisfy, e.g.; the Title XII community in general,
and particularly the FSSP participating universities (generally referred to as
support entities); AID including S&T, the regional bureaus and field missions;
and, ultimately, the end-users including bi-lateral contractors, NARCs, IARCs,
etc. The cooperative agreement itself is vague regarding expected results and
the signals coming from AID are sometimes distorted or contradictory, or at
least are interpreted as such. Since there is not complete agreement or
understanding among all the players as to the purpose and principal thrusts of
the projects, annual work planning and result-oriented progress reporting
becomes a difficult process and, without an agreed upon strategy, short-term
and activity-oriented. As will be briefly described, the FSSP has made
a strong effort to develop organizational and procedural guidelines* but it

*See "Procedural Manual Operational Guidelines for the Farming
Systems Support Project:, a draft dated April 1985.


appears that often there is more structure than substance in the arrangements
and materials.


Lead University

The Cooperative Agreement specifies that the University of Florida
will "... perform as the lead entity and will coordinate the inputs of
collaborating institutions with similar interests in FSR/E." It goes on to
explain that the FSSP will be administered centrally with core administrative
and management staff coordinating and supervising overall program activities.
Program and administrative support was envisioned as emanating"... from a
confederation of entities working cooperatively with the recipient." The
precise advisory and participatory structure was not stipulated in the
agreement but was expected to evolve as the dimensions of the program became
more obvious. Many entities are to-be called upon to participate in and
prepare for implementation responsibilities. A "core program", presumably to
be worked out in the work planning process, was to multiply expertise by
helping developing "core areas", also undefined, at various institutions
directed toward establishing specific areas of strength. It is worthy of
particular note that the CA language states:

A coordinated organizational administrative
and managerial strategy will be essential
to achieve that end. The rapidity with which
the FSSP is being initiated through the coop-
erative agreement has not provided the inter-
institutional communication.time required to
finalize a particular mode.

The FSSP Director pointed out to the team that "lead entity" is not
the same thing as a "management entity" as used in CRSPs. The participating
universities or support entities are not equal and there is no cohesive
research objective to provide the basic framework. Therefore, one of the
earliest challenges facing the project leader/director was to recruit his core
staff and build-up the project structure and organization.

Core Staff

The original agreement contemplated three core staff members, i.e., a
project leader, 1 coordinator for technical assistance, and a coordinator for
training and'networking, plus supporting staff. It was anticipated that
consultants would provide many of the short term services required by the
agreement. The current staffing pattern is listed on pages 50-52 of the
Procedural Manual and includes, in addition to the Director, five
coordinators. Core management has also actively been seeking AID's approval
and funding of a regional support program based in Cameroon and the assignment
of an additional full-time coordinator. In addition to advice received by
organizations mentioned below, the Director receives counsel from a
senior-counciler in residence (Pete Hildebrand) and from time-to-time, may
seek external advice, e.g., the hiring of a consultant (Bob House Vanderbilt
University) on FSSP management.


In the view of the team, and as expressed elsewhere in this report,
the core staff has taken on more responsibilities and delivery activities than
originally contemplated or desirable. This is due, at least in part, to the
pressure on them to produce results, the absence of an approved long-range
strategy and agreement on the priority and nature of specific expected results
(i.e., outputs), and their individual and collective high motivation to
produce. It has had, however, some unfortunate consequences regarding quality
and relevance of work undertaken and/or planned. The size and skill
composition of the core staff is obviously at issue, particularly in light of
the current funding difficulties. Since these are non-tenure track positions
and, according to the Director, are more management than substance or
discipline oriented, it was not possible to recruit an agronomist or other
bio-scientist for the core staff. The net result, except for a former AID
research management specialist, is an unbalanced team of young and ambitious
social scientists who are learning (and they are learning), but mostly by
trial and error. In the process, the natural self-preservation instinct of
the core staff (like any institution) may be subconsciously modifying the
original project approach to fit personal capabilities, objectives and

Particularly in the early days, there was a reluctance for core
management to involve the SEs effectively in the central program and to accept
SE proposals but, according to a member of the Advisory Council, this has
improved and there is more acceptance of "delegating a chunk of the program to
specific SEs" There can be little doubt, however that some SEs felt spurned.

The Project Director, a long-term and tenured faculty member of the
University of Florida and an economist with extensive experience in Latin
America, has a good personal style and is well-liked and respected. He has
done a very good job in separating FSSP per se from the UF in the eyes of the
university community while, at the same time, getting good UF support. He has
not, however, always been equally as successful in dealing with AID. Core
management is not always sensitive as to when AID should be involved in FSSP
decisions and activities and at what level. Confronted with conflicting
signals, or signals he doesn't like, the Director has shown a tendency to
treat the cooperative agreement as an iron-clad contract rather than a
partnership. This is an indication that, after three years, there is still a
great deal of misunderstanding, confusion or disagreement as to what FSSP is
to accomplish and the optimum way to do it

Advisory Council

An Advisory Council, composed of three members selected from amongst
the SEs of the FSSP network, was established as an advisory body to the
Director and a sounding board for policy purposes. Current representation
includes: (1) Larry Zuidema, Cornell University; (2) Jim Meiman, CSU, and (3)
Dale Harpstead, MSU. S< E A U

Apparently this council has been quite active and has the support of
the university community. It has been involved in the selection of SEs, in
policy meetings with AID officials, and, most important, in melding.the
various views regarding FSR/E, at least at the policy level. It has helped in
establishing the Technical Committee and providing general support to the


Director. The Council, which is non-technical in composition, has suggested
or concurred in areas of program concentration but agrees that more can be
done in strategizing and using a problem focus; possibly through the use of
regional committees. As a support project, FSSP activities are viewed as
about right with a need to broaden the base of faculty participation. If the
Council can be faulted at all, it would be in taking too soft a role in
encouraging program development and project design revision, providing more
programming guidance to core management, and in advising the Director on the
more effective timing and level of AID involvement as a partner in major
project decisions.

Technical Committee

The Procedural Manual describes the Technical Committee as the only
"standing committee" of the FSSP and as advisory to the Director and core
staff. It is to serve as a technical resource base and as regional and
institutional representative for network and communication purposes. Areas to
be considered include: research, extension, management, data retrieval and
analysis, family, livestock, cropping, agro-forestry, soil and water
infrastructure and policy systems. Its purpose, inter alia, is given as (a)
provide for common goals and serve as trustees of the systems approach (b)
assist in developing guidelines and roles for task force strategies and (c)
representing disciplinary interest in farming systems through
multi-disciplinary interfaces and integrated approaches to research and
extension programs. Membership selection is primarily from Program Leaders
with core staff representation.

Given the size and composition of the core staff, the Committee was
viewed as a mechanism to involve the technical agro-disciplines but, by the
admission of most parties, it has not yet functioned effectively. The
Committee as originally composed was balanced and with good people but after
two meetings attendance began to fall off, partly due to indecision about the
advisory role of the committee and its clients. There have been no inputs
into networking or training with the only concrete result being the review of
submissions for the bibliography of readings in farming systems by the
Committee itself (Kansas State University serves as the lead institution in
this documentation effort).

The current chairperson indicated some frustration in attempting to
set priorities for a support or passive type project. There has been an
attempt to come up with task force subjects and people, e.g., in evaluation,
animal traction, and intra-household dynamics, and to determine SOTA
priorities but they are mostly short-term and reflect on-going functions. To
a considerable extent, this reflects a lack of sufficient guidelines and/or
delegation from the core staff. In turn, this may also reflect the conflicts
between a service and research orientation. The Director himself has
indicated concern about the gap which has evolved and the underuse of the
committee to date. It appears obvious to the team that a good part of the
problem concerns the role of the core staff vis-a-vis the supporting entities
and the FSR/E community in general.


Task Groups

k o The task force concept (ad hoc committees) is employed to address
technical support needs as an instrument of the Technical Committee and core
staff. The task-oriented approach is to be employed to support training,
technical assistance, networking, and SOTA/synthesis A product is expected.

/ The most active task force appears the one concerned with evaluation,
a subject initiated by the Technical Committee and reflecting their concern
/ with the need for quality, replicable evaluations of FSR/E projects in the
field. A lead entity Winrock International was selected in September,
*. 1984. The group, led by James Henson from-WSU, includes membership from
'\i several universities, The Research Triangle Institute, with ex officio
A-t .--advisors from FSSP and AID. The evaluation task force is also backstopped by
a large group of individuals but there is a significant gap no professional
representation from the AID evaluation community. Since AID already has a
Q"' well-developed and institutionalized project evaluating system, the team is
\V~' concerned that the end product may not be acceptable in part or in whole to

Other task forces have been created, e.g. on livestock, in connection
with the animal traction workshops, but to date this mechanism to involve
\4 technical expertise has been underutilized.

Support Entities

An important objective of the project is to increase the quality and
quantity of U.S. expertise in FSR/E to strengthen the base for the FSSP and
other AID initiatives in FSR/E. As the lead university, U.F. is expected to
"...eagerly solicit help from and cooperate with other institutions" which
will collaborate in providing technical assistance, training and guidelines to
FSR/E programs in the developing countries. The agreement is non-specific
regarding the structure of the "confederation of entities" which will work
cooperatively with UF. Therefore, one of the first tasks of the Director was
to develop the University support base which was formalized in a non-funded
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the purpose of linking support entities
(universities and private firms) to the FSSP. According to the 1984 annual
report, there are 26 support entities in the base, including five consulting

Some-AID officials have indicated surprise at the large number of SEs
which was decided by the Director with the assistance of the Advisory Council
but without consultation with AID/S&T. It is important to note, in this
connection, that the execution of MOA does not, by itself, give an accurate
picture of SE participation since, on the one hand they are non-funded and, on
the other, SEs may use other than FSSP funds when participating in an FSSP
related activity

At the request of the team, FSSP management supplied some rough data
on the issuance of funded Purchase Orders (POs) to SEs. This was difficult to
do because the accounting system is not set up to provide aggregate data by
SEs. In the $250,000 to $302,000 bracket were, in order of magnitude:


AGRIDEC, CSU, MSU, and KSU. In the $50,000 to $249,000 bracket were, also in
order of magnitude: U. of Arizona, WSU, VPI, Development Alternatives, Inc.,
and U. Minn. In effect, the major recipients of FSSP funding have been two
private consulting firms and approximately seven universities neither an
unwieldy nor impressive number. It appears that MOAs are used mostly as
public relations instruments rather than as the basis for programmed linkages.

At the request of the Team Leader, the S&T project manager prepared a
survey questionnaire which was sent to all SEs asking for their response to a
series of statements describing their reactions, on a rough favor-to-disfavor
scale, to FSSP activities. Nineteen program Leaders and 18 Administrative
Coordinators responded. The two groups did not differ substantially in their
replies and were therefore consolidated. The questionnaires and a compilation
and analysis of replies is included as Appendix No. 4.

The support entity survey reflects the judgment of the respondents
based upon direct observation, information provided by the FSSP, and other
sources. A significant number of the respondents had no opinion regarding the
training and networking activities in foreign countries. Perceptions of the
members in the joint venture regarding the performance of the project,
however, are important regardless of the amount of direct involvement in the
Project. Although the responses in large part are self standing, some major
Conclusions from the "objective" questions are evident.

( o Members of the support entity group are more favorably impressed
S\ wirh the domestic workshop training activities than the delivery
of training and networking activities in developing countries.

o A great deal of dissatisfaction exists regarding the lack of
involvement or contribution to the support of FSSP activities.
SIn addition, the type of involvement is not strongly correlated
with original expectations as reflected by the MOA.
o Almost all institutions believe they have considerable expertise
and capability in FSR/E. This finding has implications with
respect to the development and delivery of future domestic

o At this point in the project, only about half of the respondents
feel that the FSR/E methodologies and training support materials
are appropriate. This finding warrants additional follow-up to
determine the basis for this response.

o The institutional impact of participating in FSSP is mixed. A
majority of the respondents feel it is beneficial; however, over
one third of the respondents feel FSSP participation has not
enhanced their institutional capability in farming systems.

Among the top-ranked positive features of the FSSP reported in an
"open-ended question" fashion were:

o opportunity to participate in FSR/E work overseas without a
long-term project (particularly for smaller universities);


o opportunity to interact with FSR/E thinkers and
practitioners; and

o providing a forum for synthesizing and testing key systems

On the negative side, the features most reported were:

o lack of opportunity to gain overseas experience;

o start-up problems, including visible mistakes such as the
slide-tape modules for training materials;

o inadequate technical inputs;

o excessive reliance on the "old-boy" network; and

o heavy on organizational structure and light on SOTA/research

On one point there seems to be universal agreement. The annual FSSP
conference at Kansas State has been, in the short life of this project, almost
institutionalized indicating a real need for this type of mechanism to bring
universities together in the development and use of FSR/E.

Program Management

While this subject is also addressed in other parts of this report,
it is important to note that there has'been an undue reliance on the annual
work planning process to provide the framework for strategizing, refining or
redesigning the project and to develop priorities. Program development has
been conceived by core staff as primarily an internal rather than a
collaborative or joint process with AID and FSSP collaborators. With an
evolving (hopefully ) project concept and the collaborative mode provided by a
cooperative agreement, this has proved to be a weak reed to lean on. There
has also been little interaction with other AID centrally-funded activities of
interest, e.g., in livestock, aquaculture and crop systems analysis.

There are indications that the Director and his Advisory Council may
be uncertain as to where the project is going, or should go, and what AID
actually wants. This is manifested by the protective tendency to rely on a
strict interpretation of the CA wording. To some extent this is
understandable given the conflicting signals sometimes coming from Washington,
e.g., global v. Africa approach, support v. research. It is also reflected in
the FSSP core confusion or intransigence as to who is in charge in AID/W
despite a recent letter to the Director, dated March 12, 1985, which clearly
designates the "S&T/AGR management team" and its specific responsibilities.

Finally the extraordinary interest in this evaluation exercise by
both parties indicates a realization that serious problems exist and need
prompt resolution.


University and State Support

There is ample evidence of support of the FSSP by the University of
Florida, both directly and indirectly. In addition, U.F. also acts as an SE.
There are problems, however, in applying State of Florida regulations to
international and national activities, e.g., in sub-contracting, per diem
rates, provision for travel advances, and late payments. Since a large number
of out-of state institutions are involved, this is serious enough to warrant
special attention.

3. AID

From the organization and management point of view AID has had its
own share of problems beginning with, and to some extent the result of, the CA
itself and an over-reliance on the annual work planning process as the
mechanism for collaboration. At some point after the first year or so of
operations, it could have been reasonably expected that a project redesign or
definition could have been attempted. This, too, is awaiting the results of
this evaluation a heavy burden for a limited and external exercise.

The relationships of the first project manager with FSSP, insofar as
day-to-day activities have been concerned, have been excellent. However, for
some reasons beyond his control, he has not been able to act effectively as a
consensus mechanism for AID itself. The Project Committee appears to have
become inoperative and "considered" regional bureau inputs based on a clear
understanding of the project have been difficult to obtain.

While the PP or CA does not mention an Africa focus, the Assistant,
Administrator of S&T believes this is the raison d'etre for the FSSP. While
all concerned now realize that Africa is, or will soon be, the principal if
not the exclusive focus of the FSSP, signals from the Africa Bureau have been
mixed, have not been adequately reviewed by mid-level management, and have not
been communicated to the FSSP management core through proper S&T channels.
Problems with the inter-bureau communicating process and AID's collaboration
with FSSP are also exacerbated by the appearance of split responsibility
within S&T, i.e., between its offices of Agriculture and Rural Development.
As an example, despite the March 12, 1985 letter on new project management
arrangements, a staff member from S&T/RD introduced himself to the team as the
"project co-manager", and apparently he is still considered so by U.F.
Perhaps S&T/AGR thought it was solving this problem when an IPA officer
assumed*responsibility for overall project management and direction but this
does not yet appear to be the case either internally to AID, or with the FSSP
and its Advisory Council, and will not be until a single officer is designated
as the project manager.

A final observation on management concerns the nature of AID staff
relationships in a cooperative agreement. It is unlike a contract involving
specific services or products which, after negotiation, involves AID primarily
in an oversight and facilitative role with the contractor responsible for
implementation. Rather, in a CA, AID and the recipients become partners,
throughout the entire project cycle, in a joint effort to achieve.the project
purpose using an approach that requires flexibility and experimentation. This
means that staff and backup resources must be available at appropriate


organizational and technical levels and in a timely manner to interact with
FSSP management including its Advisory Council, Technical Committee and task
groups. Staffing and funding shortages have made this difficult for AID staff
to perform effectively, at least up to this time.


The Team, on the basis of its analysis of performance to date and
current planning, believes that the major issues involved may be summarized as

o Lack of consensus regarding the contribution of a centrally-
managed support project to FSR/E;

o Absence of a long-term strategy as the basis for joint
determination of FSSP priorities and as the basis for
program development;

o Major changes in AID policies and priorities;

o The management difficulties in this type of project and
the proper balance between core and SE participation; and,
in light of the above;

o The need to review the current relevance of the original
project design.

In this section, the report repeats or expands on the team's analyses,
conclusions and suggestions on these principal issues which, in an
action-oriented version,'are summarized in Section V as team recommendations.

A. Conceptualization and Synthesis of FSSP

A sense of diversity in views and approaches was a major
consideration in establishing the need for the FSSP. Why this idea emerged
and what the Project has done about it is itself an interesting story.

Step back a bit and see the impressions about agricultural research
over the last decade or so. Most notably, there was an impression -
supported by study -- of the great potential for investment in such research.
Accompanying that was a spotty record for development assistance investment in
the research systems of developing countries, some enormous successes but
overall an uneven record. Finally, there was an emerging impression that the
research paradigms which had had such apparent success were not the most
relevant for research aimed at the problems of small farmers in developing
countries. Practitioners were coming forward with different ideas. Among
these were a set of guidelines featuring farmer participation in research,
on-farm efforts, collaborative or interdisciplinary activities, and some
broadly defined problem settings. Activities with this flavor came to be
called farming system research and development assistance agencies saw great
potential in their application. USAID in particular invested substantially in
this pursuit through bi-lateral programs and a diverse set of undertakings was


soon in place. As well, there was a sense that extension and research were
not coming together as they should. Somehow, it was thought, communication
among farmers, researchers and extension agents was not as it should be.

By 1980, with vocabularies coming from several disciplines and with
ends defined by a multitude of purposes, the farming system field presented
great apparent diversity. While at its core the concepts are clear and
simple, farming systems research soon encompassed virtually everything in
agriculture -- from technology generation, through markets and infrastructure,
the rural household, women's roles, to rural development and agricultural
policy. Many sought to keep technology generation, testing and diffusion at
center stage. Even so, however, there was still scope for diversity as, along
one spectrum, attention varied from a commodity or enterprise emphasis all the
way to simultaneous coverage of the entire pattern of production with crops
and livestock accorded appropriate weights. Little wonder, then, that
practitioners (or managers, or apologists or interpreters) frequently talked
past one another.

USAID saw the need to bring order and coordination to their own
programs and to contribute to harmony and understanding in farming systems
research wherever it was underway. This led to the FSSP project, which was to
"foster and coordinate the many farming systems research and extension
programs (FSR/E) instituted in the last decade" (Cooperative Agreement, Page

As we understand it, FSSP was to offer two kinds of support to those
concerned with FSR/E. One went to AID missions and involved assistance with
the program cycle -- briefings, PID preparation, PP, needs assessments,
evaluation,. debriefings where farming systems was involved. The second
related to the intellectual dimensions of FSR/E and involved training (for
Title XII teams and for NARC staff), networking, and assessing the evolving
dimensions of the work itself.

What has happened with these objectives over time? First, the need
for the first kind of support has not evolved as predicted. The emphasis on
FSR/E Title XII participation has not grown as was projected. Moreover,
recently USAID regional bureaus are finding advantage in having project
preparation undertaken by the same entity which will implement the project.
These developments have led to a lower than anticipated demand for assistance
through the project cycle.

On the intellectual front, time has brought substantial change.
Impressions about what farming systems research is all about have begun to
jell. FSSP's activities (along with those of CGIAR and many other
institutions) have contributed to this. FSSP, as with a great many others,
sees such research (1) focused on technology generation and diffusion, (2) for
well defined sets of farmers, (3) involving collaborative efforts (e.g.,
biological and social scientists), (4) with significant on-farm activities,
and, (5) sensitive to the heavy influence of interactions (concurrent and
through time, biological and economic) on the decision making of small farmers
in developing countries. This last point, with the emphasis on interaction,
makes it possible to accommodate research on whole systems as well as that on


commodities or enterprises within the farming systems rubric, so long as the
research is undertaken with full awareness of the interactions, e.g., across
enterprises, into the household, and including off farm work.

These developments have forced a change in the priorities among
clients. As an example, service to overseas missions has been less than
originally anticipated while networking for Title XII contractor overseas
staff is being given higher priority. These new priorities and opportunities
are described in the subsequent portions of this section.

B. Strategies, Priorities, Program Development

A Change in Approach

FSSP staff expressed to the evaluation team two approaches to the
selection and scheduling of activities, a response approach and a proactive
approach. The response approach means to inform clients of capabilities then
supply services upon request. This approach was also referred to as the
"opportunistic mode" of operations. The proactive mode implies the
formulation of a strategy for reaching a goal, the creation of an environment
in which clients are likely to request services, and otherwise elicit actions
by clients that advance FSSP goals.

The FSSP has largely followed the "opportunistic" or "response"
approach until now. This, perhaps, was appropriate to the intended
"cooperative mode" of the FSSP's design by which the project's services would
be redesigned as the need becomes evident. Indeed the opportunistic approach
has been useful in the early phase of FSSP. Clients' needs and FSSP's
comparative advantages'in services were initially unclear. The opportunistic
approach facilitated an assessment and matching of needs and capabilities.

It is a major conclusion of the evaluation team that more of FSSP's
activities should be conducted in a proactive mode. Or in a somewhat negative
context, strategic planning and priorities setting are not yet apparent in the
principle activities of FSSP. Lack of planning and strategizing is apparent

Program development
Technical assistance
... Networking
Program development
SEs structure and linkages

Some unilateral prioritization is apparent in SOTA but it is not
clear how they were set or how this relates to level and scheduling of
effort. Much more needs to be done.

Response Modes

Associated with the inclination of the FSSP toward a "response
approach" is an apparent emphasis on the process and dynamics through which
FSSP actions and decisions happened rather than on the content and direction


of actions based on any strategy to achieve desired results. The evaluation
team recommends the following.

o The emphasis on an African focus, while justifiable,
should not exclude the use of relevant experience in
Asia or Latin America as it may apply to Africa or limit
their access to FSSP products. Technical services to
these regions, however, should be supplied on a "buy-in"

o Identify technical problems that critically affect food
production, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa, which
prospectively can be solved through a FSR/E approach.
Principle activities of FSSP should relate to those
technical issues, including networking, training, SOTA,
technical assistance, and the distribution of responsi-
abilities to SEs. Network activities on traction power
is a step in the right direction. Additional examples
of possible technical issues are: weed management in
upland system, small farm irrigation practices, dryland
range management, efficient water use in arid and semi-
arid regions.

o The formulation of an FSSP strategy with respect to
Africa should have a problem focus and be carried out
in close collaboration with SEs, S&T, and the regional
bureaus. Questions such as'whether to post core staff
in Western Africa should await the results of such a

o Program development should be defined to include the
inputs of not only the internal management of the core
FSSP team, but all collaborators including SEs, task
groups and others. Particular attention must be given
to planning how they might diverge from activities
planned under the original project design. Strategic
decisions should be consistently reflected in work plans
and annual reports.

o While it may be clear internally to the core what the
.. priorities and strategies are, it does not come through.
These must be clearly articulated in processes and
products from the various program activities.

o The Technical Committee should be immediately given the
task of performing a more active role in strategizing,
technical review, promoting access to technical resources,
and to follow up evaluation of FSSP outputs.

o AID should be recognized by FSSP management as.a full
partner in strategizing, program development, and work
planning at the purpose and output levels.


C. AID Policies and Programs in Relation to FSSP

FSSP has experienced a number of difficulties in implementation due
to unresolved contradictions about AID's approach to agricultural development
in Africa and elsewhere. Three of the most prominent contradictions are
discussed below, and a final section draws conclusions that shed light on the
question of what needs to be done over the next two years.

1. Field Support vs Research

At the time FSSP was conceptualized it was generally felt that FSSP
should not do research per se but should rather provide support for field
research activities. This is reflected very strongly in the PP and
Cooperative Agreement. Now, however, the pendulum has swung in the direction
of research and FSSP is criticized for being insufficiently involved in or
linked closely to field-level work,

This is not fair to FSSP management and should not cloud our judgment
of the value of what has been accomplished. There is more subtle aspect to
this as well. By restricting FSSPs involvement in actual FSR/E work, the
PP/Cooperative Agreement made it very difficult for FSSP to develop (SOTA),
training materials and problem-oriented networks. This is because only
hands-on involvement in the process of agriculture research can generate the
up-to-date and well-targeted guidance and knowledge required. On the other
hand, FSSP management has been slow in establishing working linkages with
field researchers. FSSP has also been too slow in bringing a technical
orientation to their work. However, the overriding problem was a basic flaw
in, which assumed that SOTA field support could be provided
independently of hands-on involvement in agriculture research.

2. FSR/E vs Commodity Work

Within the Agency there is considerable ambivalence and lack of
clarity regarding what FSR/E is and what it should do, particularly regarding
the relationship between FSR/E and commodity research. People's different and
often partial conceptions led to conflicting expectations regarding FSSP. All
this might have been resolved had more time been spent putting together the
project paper, but this process was rushed. FSSP was left to generate a
definition of FSR that would suit various actors in AID, and the FSR/E
community, an obviously impossible task. Now, however, at least with regard
to Africa, an -gency consensus on the role of FSR/E has been achieved, FSSP
should carefully review the Plan for Supporting Agricultural Research and
Facilities of Agriculture in Africa, and discuss the implications with those
in S&T and AFR who share responsibility for guiding the evolution of FSSP. In
the meantime, however, FSSP should not be regarded with disapproval for having
failed to develop a definition of FSR/E that would satisfy everyone in AID and
outside as well.

3. Networks and Networking

As with the concept of FSR/E, there has been considerable uncertainty
and disagreement regarding the role of "networks" in agricultural-
development. FSSP management has chose, perhaps inevitably given their lack


of involvement in on-going research programs, to concentrate on simply
facilitating the exchange of views and experience in the realm of FSR/E
broadly defined. At the same time, there has been within AID a growing
conviction that the "network" concept should have the following basic
attributes: (a) be organized around the definition and resolution of
particular technical issues or problems arising in agricultural research; and
(b) facilitate the exchange of genetic material and trial results on a
regional basis among cooperating scientists when joint activities complement
and support one another. This understanding had not been concisely stated
until publication of the Plan referred to above, and it has not yet been
effectively communicated to FSSP management. Thus their networking activities
are viewed with some disfavor due to the general lack of technical content;
but until recently it was not all that clear what AID expected of a network -
and in any case FSSPs "support" role makes it difficult for them to take any
sort of technical leadership role in supporting network development. There
are a range of possible solutions, including careful discussions with S&T and
AFR of the networking guidelines contained in the Plan (which represents an
AID consensus on this point); more careful attention to ensuring that
technical issues guide the development of future networking activities; and a
general withdrawal from the "sensitization" type of FSR workshops.

4. Redefinition

This evaluation has identified some significant issues in commu-
nication between AID and FSS"P management with regard to implications for the
future shape of FSSP programs, particularly in Africa. The one-week exercise,
however, does not provide sufficient scope to wholly resolve these issues and
atrive at definitive, viable, and pragmatic conclusions. It is not possible
for an external group to say at this point exactly what FSSP should do to meet
emerging AID interests in research as opposed to program support. It is not
clear to us how a project directly focused on FSR/E can effectively address
the commodity tie-in; given FSSP distance from national programs and IARC's.
It is difficult to state how they can best help support networks; and there is
insufficient information available to judge how best the focus can be
sustained and increased. For these reasons it would be prudent to defer major
decisions on re-orientation of FSSP and the nature of the Africa program in
particular until early 1986, prior to which AFR, S&T, and FSSP would have
participated in a joint strategy review leading to a respecification or
redesign of the Cooperative Agreement which would have taken into
consideration the recommendations included in this report.

D. Management of FSSP

The management of a complex project of this nature, (i.e., an
innovative effort in an evolving interdisciplinary systems approach to on-farm
management involving a large number of competitive universities and disci-
lines with differing perceptions and needs) is bound to be difficult and
challenging for it is breaking new ground. In a cooperative agreement,
management control is shared and even diluted further when there is a lack of
an operational consensus as to the purpose of the project and .the approach to
be taken among the principal FSSP players, including AID. These problems,
some already identified under "performance", are reiterated below along with
the teams' suggestions of what might be done. The team wishes at the outset,


however, to make clear that in its view, all the parties have been making
significant and honest efforts to improve the management of this project in
order to assure its success. In many cases, the problems are due to resource
and other constraints beyond the control of the participants. The pressure to
get started and show results has sometimes affected their quality and
relevance. Some critical assumptions made at the beginning of the project,
e.g., a projection of USAID field demand for project-cycle support in FSR/E,
have not the been validated. In hindsight, it is easy to find fault. This is
not the intention here. Rather it is to provide the rationale for considering
immediate steps which can be taken to improve the management of the FSSP
within the context of the other findings, conclusions and recommendations
included in this report.

1. Organization

Lead Entity

The Director of the FSSP, under difficult circumstances, has done a
good job in: (i) mollifying most of the universities who originally competed
for the "lead" role; (ii) separating FSSP core management from the University
of Florida; and, in the process (iii) gaining acceptance from the FSR/E
community in general. The ability of the Director and his core staff to work
effectively with AID, however, is subject to some qualification regarding
timing and sensitivity to AID needs, complicated by problems within AID

While an elaborate organizational plan has been developed covering
the purpose and role (operational guidelines) for the FSSP, including its
mandate, organization, and procedures, the university support base, etc., it
is often more structural and procedural and lacking a programmatic rationale.

This is particularly serious in the case of the role and functions of the core
, management staff vis-a-vis the SEs, including the Technical Committee and its
task groups.

While sincere recruitment efforts were undertaken, because of the
lack of tenure-track positions and other reasons, most of the core staff are
young social scientists and there is an absence of adequate
biological-scientific input. Under pressure to produce, through
trial-by-error jf necessary, the staff has become too involved in delivering
per se.but without the cohesive framework of a high level of USAID mission
.demands or overall strategy. Quality and relevance of results have suffered
thereby and appear ad hoc in nature. Given the nature and history of the
project, perhaps this development was inevitable and improvements are being
made! In the team's view, however, they are not sufficient and require, inter
alia, a clarification of the core's role vis-a-vis AID, SEs and task groups
which takes into account the expectation of continual funding limitations. In
short, core staff should become more involved in planning and facilitative
effort while "delegating" more implementing responsibilities to selected SEs
and providing support to them through backstopping services and supplemental


The University Private Sector Base

Land-grant universities and five private consulting firms, all U.S.,
make up the FSSP base. Twenty-one universities have signed MOA's and,
together, they thereby become "support entities". The lion's share of FSSP
funds, however, have flowed to two private firms and seven universities.

The SEs are the primary source of members serving on the FSSP
Advisory Council, the Technical Committee, and the two or three task groups
established to date. The team was not able to ascertain the policy and
criteria for the number of entities selected and the reason thereof except a
willingness to sign an MOA and expand the'base.

The Advisory Council appears to be functioning in a useful manner as
a small advisory group to the Director and a buffer to both the university
base and AID. It has not, however, been of much use to date in helping him to
strategize, at least on a more formalized and long-range basis, or in putting
life into the Technical Committee. The team sees the Technical Committee,
which has had a marginal impact to date, as the mechanism or the means to add
substance and interdisciplinary technical input to the core management
function and as a means to more effective technical and problem-oriented
participation of the SEs and others, including AID, in FSSP activities. More
use of problem-oriented task forces seems called for under the leadership of a
specific SE, with core support not leadership. AID staff, not just confined
to the S&T project management team, also needs to be involved at the
working/technical levels with field participation when feasible. The absence
of such involvement, and the possible negative consequences, is particularly
noteworthy in connection with the Evaluation Task Force.


There are similar problems evident on the AID side. From an
organizational point of view, they are not helped by the received split in
project management responsibilities both within S&T/AGR and between S&T/AGR
and S&T/RD. It is in the process of being exacerbated further as the focus
shifts to Africa. Despite recent attempts to clarify matters, the FSSP
Director acts confused as to who is calling the signals in AID and at what
level. Since these signals have sometimes been contradictory, he takes refuge
in a literal interpretation of the CA, a position which is not conducive to
eventual project; effectiveness and success. For the time being, at least,
senior-management in the S&T (and perhaps the Africa Bureau) must provide more
guidance to the APMT staff, allocate the resources necessary to operate in a
collaborative and joint manner, ensure that the intra-agency consensus process
is working, and closely monitor progress over the next 12 months. While it is
desirable that many bureaus and offices of AID are involved in implementation
through participation in the Technical Committee and working groups, for
strategizing, program development and work planning, a unified AID front must
be maintained through S&T's Office of Agriculture.

At this point, the team wishes to note that the collaborative mode
involving joint decision-making, as usually envisioned in a CA, while often
indispensable is also a difficult mode for AID and S&T in particular, given
its multitude of goals, programs and clients combined with continuing staffing


and support constraints. It is particularly severe when a centrally managed
project involves a number of technical disciplines and combines research and
similar activities with technical assistance and support of field activities.
When the basic approach and the expected results are unclear, it puts even a
greater responsibility on AID staff who may not have the time, inclination
and/or capability or background to contribute to the process. In extending
this project or entering into new CA's, these facts of life need to be
considered by AID programmers and managers.

2. Management Processes

Operational Framework

The report repeatedly points out the need for a new project framework
which, as the result of experience to date, should provide a verification or
revision of the original project logic, i.e., project purpose and approach,
including a rationalization of research and support, the establishment of
desired end results/project activities (outputs), critical assumptions, and
performance and EOPS indicators. This redesign should be the result of a
strategizing process which involves AID, FSSP core management, and
representation from the Advisory Council and Technical Committee in a joint
exercise. It is evident that the annual work planning process with its
short-term and activity orientation has not and cannot provide the raison
d'etre which appears missing in the eyes of some important officials within
AID and the Title XII community. Such a redesign, and its acceptance by the
major players, must be a pre-condition for any.consideration of extension of
the FSSP.

During this process, the issue concerning the role of the core
management vis-a-vis the APMT, the SEs, Technical Committee, and expanded use
of problem-oriented task groups, must be considered. The potential and
!":/desired interface with other AID/S&T projects should also be reviewed.- The
globall vs regional focus of the project and its ramifications must also be
-resolved as quickly as possible. On the basis of this redesign, a work plan
should be developed for the remainder of the project emphasizing, as suggested
S elsewhere, SOTA/synthesis, development of priority training modules, and
networking/support activities, with new starts postponed until the
justification for an extension is clearer.

The team was impressed and a bit concerned with the role both parties
were granting to the Evaluation Team regarding these issues. While it is
hoped and expected that our analyses and suggestions will help in arriving at
critical project management decisions, these issues must be resolved by the
"partners" themselves, i.e., UF/FSSP and AID, in a joint, collaborative and
continuous fashion.

Reporting and Accounting

One of the advantages of a redesign as suggested above is that it can
provide the basis for improved reporting on progress involving pre-determined
results using milestone events even when qualification is not feasible. An
annual report of the plans, activities, and accomplishments of the Advisory
Council and Technical Committee would also be useful, combined with a


similar report on the annual FSSP conference. Rather than requiring quarterly
reports, per se, progress reports by various task groups might be more useful
in the future and more feedback on the effectiveness and impact of field
activities. There also should be more reporting on how FSSP is impacting,
directly and indirectly, on the U.S. FSR/E community.

In addition, accounting data could be adjusted or repackaged to
provide more programmatic information, e.g., the amount of funds transferred
to individual SEs and task groups and the results obtained and the cost of
producing major products such as training modules and manual. This would help
in making more rational choices from program alternatives and choosing the
most cost-effective outputs. The need for both a work plan, based on an
output concept, and an implementation plan appears redundant.

Annual Conference

As both a management tool and networking device for the FSSP, the
annual KSU symposium has been widely recognized as very useful and valuable
and should be continued. The process of using the annual symposium to involve
SEs in planning and decision-making should be continued and strengthened,
including more effective AID participation.

State of Florida

Finally, it has.been noted that the regulations of the State of
Florida regarding contracting, travel costs and advances, etc., are not always
comparative with a project which has a nationwide and international
dimension. This problem has been faced and solved by other universities in
similar circumstances. Solutions range from special legislation granting
exemptions to establishing "institutes" with special authorities. If the
University of Florida wishes to continue its role as sponsor for the FSSP,
i.e., as the "lead" university, and enter into similar arrangements in other
subject-matter areas, the team believes that the University should initiate
action with its legislative committee to seek a satisfactory and immediate

3. Follow-up

The limited time available to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of
this project precluded an in-depth investigation regarding specific
activities, e.g., views of officials who received training, discussions with
individual SEs, or any assessment of field activities. For these reasons, it
is believed that some follow-up evaluation on specific topics, particularly
those of interest to the Africa Bureau, should be undertaken by qualified
consultants) in collaboration with AID staff.

4. Specific Recommendations

Management of FSSP

o The core management staff should be reduced in size and become
more involved in planning, coordinating and facilitative effort
while transferring more implementation/delivery responsibilities


to selected SEs and task groups, providing support through
liaison and backstopping services and allocating FSSP seed
and/or supplemental funding.

o Greater recognition needs to be given by FSSP management and
core staff to the "partnership" role of AID in this cooperative
venture. As part of an effort to increase the relationship
between FSSP and AID, there should be at least ex-officio AID
representation on the Advisory Council (outside of the APMT),
formal representation of the APMT on the Technical Committee, an
increased AID participation in task groups.

o The Advisory Council should assist the Director of FSSP in the
further elaboration of the FSSP -FSR/E approach and in
multi-year strategizing with assistance from the Technical

o The Technical Committee should be revitalized, with help from
FSSP core staff and the APMT, to serve as the mechanism for (i)
supplementing and expanding the technical and interdisciplinary
base necessary to carry out basic functions; (ii) to serve as
the nexus between the core and SEs in problem-oriented FSR/E

o In pursing the above, greater use Eaould be made of SEs and
others, through problem-oriented task groups, lead by selected
SEs and with core support. AID sta:f participation at the
working level should be encouraged and facilitated.

o Senior management in S&T, and in the Africa Bureau if a regional
focus is decreed, should provide clearer guidelines to the APMT,
ensure that an effective intra-agency consensus process is
working, allocate the necessary priority and resources (time and
travel funds) necessary to operate in a collaborative and
partnership mode, and closely monitor progress over the next 12
months-particularly the implementation of recommendations in
this report which are acceptable to them.

o A unified agency project management responsibility should be
maintained in one office, viz, S&T/AGR. This should be made
abundantly clear to the Director of FSSP, including those
problems or subjects in which higher-level participation may be

o An exercise should be initiated as soon as possible to attempt
the formulation of at least a preliminary, multi-year
strategizing process which will provide the basis for the
following actions:

revision of the project logical framework (design)
including a verification or change in project purpose and


rationalization of the research (SOTA/synthesis and
methodology) versus project-cycle support focus;

selection of regional (Africa) v. global scope, or some
reasonable combination of both;

resolution of the role (including size and composition) of
core management vis-a-vis the SEs;

determining desired interface with other AID centrally and
field managed (i.e., bilateral contracts) projects; and
within the context of these actions;

redefining the major project design elements, i.e., clearer
statements of project purpose and approach, specification
of desired end-results (major outputs) of project
activities, explicit statements of critical assumptions and
provision of performance and BOPS indicators.

o Based on the results of the above recommended joint
strategizing, rationalization and programming exercises, develop
an output-oriented work plan for the remainder of the current
project life, limited to SOTA/synthesis, development of priority
training modules and problem-oriented networking and support

o Also deriving from the steps suggested above is an improved and
more useful reporting system for management purposes, which,
inter alia, would:

focus on progress (through use of milestone events) in
producing major results and problems encountered;

provide more information on the plans, activities, and
achievements of the Advisory Council, Technical Committee,
SE, and the task groups;

provide a feedback on the effectiveness and impact of field

*- present highlights on the impact of FSSP in involving the
SEs, in particular, and the US FSR/E community in general;

discuss the results of the KSU-FSR/E symposium and plans
for the next one.

Budget and fiscal data should be repackaged to provide more
programmatic information, for example:

the purpose, cost and results of FSSP activities carried out by
SEs, task groups, core staff and others; and


actual and/or projected costs to produce major products such as
training modules, management manuals, evaluation methodology;

o High level representation to the appropriate authorities of the State
of Florida should be made by the University of Florida for
appropriate relief from State contracting and similar regulations
which impede FSSP activities involving a nationwide as well as
international dimension; and

o Finally, that necessary changes in budget categories and increased
allocations be made for the high transaction costs involved in a
cooperative agreement of this nature.

E. Relevance of Existing Project Design

After two and one half years of project implementation, it is timely
to access the relevance of the project design as envisioned by those who wrote
the project document, and how this was translated into the Cooperative
Agreement. This must then be evaluated in light of the above analysis of the
project, and how the perceived needs have changed during the interim.

Programs and needs evolve, as do the perceptions of what farming
systems is or can be for projects and for the farmer. This evolving
understanding of concepts and ways to implement them need to be reflected in
the types of specific plans and their implementation in the field. This
project is a "support project", and the types of support to AID missions,
bilateral contractors, and national programs has changed as the FSSP has
attempted to provide specific types of services over the past two years. Some
activities have generated interest and response, while others have not This
is the framework within which we analyze the current relevance of project

The evolving needs for support in farming systems were envisioned by
AID in their choice of the cooperative agreement mechanism instead of a
contract for this project. This meant that a regular dialog hopefully would
occur between project management and AID to assure that the project is
developed in concert with the needs of the agency and other clients. In the
absence of other mechanisms, the annual work plan has turned out to be the
main instrument around which this dialog occurs. There has been a relatively
long and cumbersome process surrounding the preparation and negotiations of
this plan, witbhthe recipient expressing concern about the length of time
needed to "get it accepted by AID", the lack of direct involvement by
"appropriate" level administrators, and the resources and time invested in
rewrites and additional trips to Washington. AID expresses concern about the
recipient ignoring or not seriously incorporating its suggestions and the poor
quality of its proposals. Clearly, there is a need to streamline and clarify
this approach, although the choice of a cooperative agreement mode still
appears to be the appropriate one to maintain the relevance of the project
approach from year to year.

Several shifts in emphasis in project design are regarded as critical
by the evaluation team as already proposed. A major objective is .to improve
the capabilities of intermediaries those who cause things to happen on the


farm. Any redesign must consider a reappraisal of the purpose of the project,
deciding what the project will produce as a measurable output, and how this
may be evaluated. Recommendation to this effect are included in this report.

Any project design must reflect the fact that the most important
level of networking is within developing countries. Networking is needed
among bilateral contractors, among CRSPs, among IARCs, among national
programs, and linking all these entities when appropriate with each other and
with USAID mission people and projects. This is an important support function
which should receive major importance in future strategies. Both networking
and training should emerge from any project redesign with a strong problem

Comparative analysis of experiences and synthesis of lessons learned
as specified in the Cooperative Agreement is a worthwhile activity, and one
specific project in cooperation with the Population Council with partial
support from outside (Ford Foundation) is under way. This should be
encouraged, with a minimum investment from core funding. The center at KSU
also provides a resource for projects in the US and other countries. This is
not synthesis, but the use of these materials and the continued publication of
key papers by experts in the area of farming systems (networking papers) can
help to move this process along. This is not a high-cost item, and should be

The documentation center at KSU has done an outstanding job of
bringing relevant materials together, cataloguing them, and making this
resource available to people throughout the world who are interested in
farming systems. This activity should definitely continue and remain a part
of the project design. The evaluation team views this activity as an
excellent prototype for contracting specific projects to institutions in the
supporting entity group.

State-of-the-art research was envisioned as a part of the original
project design. This has not received high priority in the FSSP, although
many individuals associated with the project have carried out research under
other sources of funding and their reports often are found in newsletters,
papers, the KSU symposium, and in specific project implementation papers or
reports. The case study project is a good example of attracting outside
support to synthesize information and provide this to people interested in
farming systems research and extension.

The balanced use of funds for SOTA, training, and networking is
important for the project, and determining this balance on the basis of a
central strategy is a function of the design considerations each year when
developing the annual work plan.

In summary, the project design needs to be an evolving activity which
takes into account past experience in the project and elsewhere, the current
thinking in AID, in the central bureau and in missions, and the current
ability of the contractor and supporting entities to deliver. This process
needs to work more efficiently than it has in the first two years of the
project, and every effort should be made to keep the project relevant to
current needs of client groups, the thinking of AID, and growing capacities of
the project and the supporting entities.



The previous narrative has included many explicit and implied recommenda-
tions which are "actionable", i.e., if approved by the parties to the FSSP
Cooperative Agreement, action may be taken to implement them or initiate
follow-up actions. They are compiled and consolidated below to facilitate

Technical Assistance

1. Provide future technical assistance to non-Africa regions through
"buy-ins" only.


2. Handle bio-data services on a more-cost effective and comprehensive
basis, e.g., merge with WI system and add additional identifierss".

3. Include AID evaluation community participation in the Evaluation Task

4. Distribute current version of draft FSR/E project handbook in
loose-leaf form. Do not allocate additional resources or staff time
to this or similar activities of this type.

5. A careful review of documentation efforts should be undertaken by
FSSP management, in collaboration with the APMT, to reduce
considerably the number, conserve.core funding and prioritize staff

6. Annotation services now provided by AID/PPC/CDIE should be done by
FSSP, through an SE. S&T should address this problem as soon as

7. Continue KSU publication of key papers and its documentation center

8. Continue support of annual KSU-FSR/E symposium.

Training, .

9. FSSP management, on a priority basis, should address the identified
weaknesses in current training methodology and materials partic-
ularly for content relevance to Africa-by drawing on the technical
resources of SEs and others actively engaged in FSR/E related

10. Develop an overall training strategy which, inter alia:

o withdraws from "sensitizing" type workshops;


o emphasizes international training workshops with specific focus
on priority African agricultural problems;

o concentrates on development and refinement of priority training
modules using the technical resources of the entire SE network
and other institutions and individuals with unique capabilities;

o re-thinks miscellaneous training activities and reduces level of


11. A specific plan for SOTA activities leading to a useful synthesis of
experience in a small number of priority areas should be formulated
in collaboration with AID, which will include an identification of
resources and (at least preliminary) assignment of responsibilities
among SEs.

12. This plan should include a strategy statement which defines what
SOTA/synthesis activities involve within the FSR/E framework, who are
the target users or clients for its products and for what purpose,
and where this program is headed, both in the short and long-term
time frame.

13. As methodological and conceptual issues are resolved, SOTA activities
should shift to technical issues of relevance to developing countries
where FSSP-associated projects are conducted.

14. Encourage joint efforts involving outside support (e.g., Population


15. As in training and SOTA, and in collaboration with AID and the SEs,
FSSP management should establish an overall strategy for networking
activities in FSR/E, which includes:

o concentrating on problem and technical-oriented networking
-activities within the developing countries;

o the results of a careful review of the AID/AFR "Plan for
Supporting Agricultural Research and Facilities of Agriculture
in Africa", particularly in relation to a problem and commodity
focus; and

o continue networking activities at the current level but in
support of existing viable networks.

Program Development and Project Redesign

16. As mentioned in several categories above, there is an urgent need to
relate the principal activities of FSSP, i.e., networking,
SOTA/synthesis, training and technical assistance to technical


problems critically affecting food production, particularly in Africa. FSSP
management, in collaboration with S&T, AFR, the Advisory Council and the
Technical Committee, after review of the conclusions and recommendations in
this report, should embark as soon as possible on a strategizing process
leading to a project redesign in early 1986 for the remainder of the existing
agreement. This redesign and/or respecification should include:

o revision of the logical framework, including a verification or
change in the project purpose and approach;

o rationalization of the research (SOTA/synthesis and methodology)
versus project-cycle support focus;

o selection of regional (Africa) v. global scope, or some
reasonable combination of both;

o resolution of the role of core management vis-a-vis the APMT and
the SEs; and

o determining desired interface with other AID centrally and
field-managed projects.

17. Within the context of the above actions, redefine the major project
design elements, i.e., develop clearer statements of project purpose
and approach, specification of desired end-results (major outputs) of
FSSP activities, explicit statements of critical assumptions, and
provision of performance and EOPS indicators.

18. Based on the results of this collaborative strategizing and planning
exercise, an output-oriented work plan should be jointly developed
for the remainder of the current agreement term, limited to
SOTA/synthesis, development of related training modules, and
problem-oriented networking and support activities.

19. A special review should take place within the next 12 months to
assess the results of this strategizing and planning and its impact
on performance, including the quality and relevance of activities,
for the purpose of recommending extension or phase-out of the project.

20. The co-laborative strategizing and program development process should
bean annual and evolving one, needed to keep FSSP activities
sensitive and relevant to the current needs of client groups, the
thinking of AID, and the growing capacities of the SEs.


21. Core management staff should be reduced in size with a change in
duties to involve more planning, coordinating and facilitative effort
while transferring implementation/delivery responsibilities to
selected SEs and task groups, providing support to them through
liaison and backstopping services, and allocating FSSP seed and/or
supplemental funding.


22. Greater recognition needs to be given by FSSP management and core
staff to the "partnership" role of AID in this cooperative venture.
As part of an effort to increase the desired and necessary
collaborative relationship, there should be ex-officio AID policy
level representation on Advisory Council and formal APMT repre-
sentation on the Technical Committee.

23. The Advisory Council should assist the Director of FSSP in further
elaboration of the FSSP/FSR/E approach and in multi-year strategizing.

24. The Technical Committee should be revitalized, with help from core
staff and the APMT, to serve as the mechanism for (a) supplementing
and expanding the interdisciplinary base necessary to carry out basic
functions, (b) to serve as the nexus between the core, AID, and SEs
on technical matters, and (c) to accelerate the more effective use of
SEs in problem-oriented FSR/E activities.

25. In pursuing the above, greater use should be made of SEs and others,
through problem or technically oriented task groups, led by selected
SEs with core support. AID staff participation at the working level
should be encouraged and facilitated.

26. Senior management in S&T, and in AFR if a regional focus is decreed,
should provide clearer guidelines to the APMT, ensure that an
effective intra-agency consensus process is working, allocate the
necessary priority and resources (time and travel funds) necessary to
operate in a collaborative and partnership mode, and closely monitor
progress over the next 12 months-particularly the implementation of
recommendations in this report which are acceptable to them.

27. Unified agency project management responsibility should be maintained
in one office, viz, S&T/AGR and with one, and only one, project
manager through which all communications to and from FSSP must pass.
This should be made abundantly clear to the Director of FSSP and core
staff, including those problems or subjects in which higher level
agency management participation may be appropriate.

28. Deriving from the steps recommended for strategizing and program
development, an improved and more useful reporting system for
management purposes should be installed which would, inter alia:

o focus on progress (through use of milestone events) in producing
major results and solving problems encountered;

o provide more information on the plans, activities and
achievements of the Advisory Council, Technical Committee,
Support Entities and task groups;

o provide feedback on the impact of FSSP in involving the SEs in
particular, and the US FSR/E community in general; and

o discuss the results of the annual KSU-FSR/E symposium and plans
for the next one.


29. Budget and fiscal data should be repackaged to provide more
programmatic information, e.g.:

o the purpose, cost and results of FSSP activities carried out by
SEs task groups, core staff and others; and

o actual and/or projected costs to produce major products such as
training modules, management manuals, evaluation methodology.

30. High level representation to the appropriate authorities of the State
of Florida should be made by the University of Florida for
appropriate relief from State contracting and similar regulations
which impede FSSP activities involving a nationwide as well as
international dimension.

31. Necessary changes in budget categories and allocations should be made
to cover the high transaction costs involved in a cooperative
agreement of this nature and to implement these recommendations.


* *

Annex 1


I. Review the project objectives and purpose, as developed by the
concept papers, PID, PP, log frame and contractual documents, as well
as the subsequent workplans. Detefine the degree to which the
current interpretation of this objective-by the principal
participants in the "Farming Systems Support Project" is consistent
with AID policy and strategy for the technology generation and
transfer process, and the present day "state-of-the-art" in the field
of farming systems, as viewed by evaluation team members. Recommend
new directions if warranted.

.1. One purpose of the cooperative agreement is to develop, strengthen"
and expand the capacity of the recipient and collaborating
institutions to provide technical assistance, training and guidance
to kSR/E programs in developing countries. The recipient institution
is to function as tne lead entity and act as coordinator of the
irzuts from collaborating institutions with similar interests in

i. ~ave support entities sf--- vely cr-i,'buted in this
2. What factors influencee participation levels among support

3. Is there an optimum number and mix of support entities?

Source of information for review of this issue would include (1)
Memorandum of Agreement with the support entities, (2) the value of
staff time spent in training, technical assistance and state-of-the-art
research and synthesis activities, and participation in foreign and
domestic workshops, and (3) other summary statistics from the Support
Entity Survey.

2. A working definition of the FSSP is to develop the indigenous human
resource capacity to assess the constraints to agricultural
production, identify potential interventions for overcoming such
constraints in existing faring systems, and generating and testing
the effectiveness of alternative approaches to achieve these goals.
?ow has the project addressed these issues and how are they
proceeding to implement this task? Is this effort adequate and
properly designed for achieving tnis goal?

.V. A number of methodological issues warrant consideration. FSR/E
authorities (Referenced by Shaner, et. al.) state that the FSR/E
approach views the farm systems as a hole and focuses on the
inrerpendencies between the components under the control of farm
household members and how these cceponents interact with he physical,
biological, institutional, political and eccncmic factors not under
the2.r control.

1. Have project activities demonstrated agreement with this
statement and a thorough understanding of its implications?

2. The whole-farm approach means that total farm resources must
be analyzed in a way which allocates these resources to the most
productive activities in terms of farmer and country welfare
objectives. When total farm resource use .and allocation issues
are addressed, constraints to production can be significantly
different from those assumed with single enterprise analysis.
In addition, the whole farm analysis can give valuable input
into identifying agricultural comparative advantages and
associated constraint identification can feed back to policy
makers dealing with prioritizing the research/extension agenda.
Does the project explicitly deal with this issue, and in
general, have the methodologies for analyzing the economics of
farming systems been developed to an equal level of.adequacy and
competency as the agronomic trials worK?

3. There are several methodologies which could be employed for
each stage in tne FSK/t. development process. Has the project
reviewed these methodologies to determine the comparative
advantages of each with regard to their most favorable context,
and imparted the notion of choice of methodologies according to
different environments in the project's training and networking

Reference documents: Louise Fresco's comparison of anglaphone/
francophone FSR/t approaches and FSSP networking paper, 115.

Is a redirection of FSSP indicated by reduced funding levels and
increased attention to Africa?

1. Ave tools (newsletters, networking, training activities,
Setc.) consistent with "new needs"?

2. Assess the role, assignment, and location of core staff.
Can FSSP effectively carry out programatic thrusts when limited
to one geographic focus?

illUllX h




Accomplishments to June 1985............................. ...........
FSSP Evaluation Issues...............................................
Publications, progress, and plans, 1985..............................6
Visitor's Programn ........9... .......o-.......*.............. .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......j.... 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

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

8:40 9:00 Discussion

9:00 10:00

Evaluation Issues & recommendations for consideration-
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 Galt
a. Evaluation Task Force
Sb. 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 Galt
a. Farming System Case Studies
1. For Training- Susan Poats

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

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 Gait

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




Net- Countries
work- benefited

Latin Am 10


7 4 4 2 2 7

Total 34 16








Participants in Short Courses,

Latin America
US/Domestic Workshops

US Training

Workshops and Exchanges



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 Sunnary 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 Cammittee 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 Sumnary 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 caopliance with the statutes of the State of Florida and in the
interest of maintaining a "qualified" distribution for the newsletter, a
purge will 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 Cammittee, 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 Summnary 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 t!he 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 frame 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, Agronanic 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 sane 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 same
sort of Farning 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 fran 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 front 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 frnm
the five interested submissions, a lead entity Winrock International -
was selected in September, 1984. Interested individuals front 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. Tan 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 STF 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, UCM, (6) Don Isleib, MSU, (7) Ken McDermott, FSSP, (8)
Tan 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, Tan 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 cam-
ments and reaction.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

After allowing sufficient time for members to cnrment 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 Tam 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.

Tam 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 Jecided 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 tSU 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

Total Person Searches = 39

Requests by:

more than one person search)

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 4
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 month
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 .hade 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, Agroncmic 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 Sunmary 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 Sunmary 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 canpleted tasks and ac-
tivities frma SOTA into the appropriate functional areas 9f 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 Carmittee (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 coo-rdinator for African policy to integrate the
three maior 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-econcmic materials into the diagnostic and agronanic experimental
design and analysis units.

5) Work wih 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)




The 1984 Work Plan (pp. 39-43) offers a summary of first, second and
third-degree State-Of-The-Art (SOTA) priorities as viewed by the project
at that time. However, c.goordj..i.n.a.tion of SOTA has lagged behind other areas
during project implementation. This is partly because SOTA is a natural
component of nearly every activity -- formally considered training, tech-
nical assistance or networking -- that the project has under taken. In
addition, at a very early date in project history, core staff became more
than fully occupied in functional and regional assignments. For these
reasons, no conscious effort was taken to develop a specific strategy to
consider SOTA systematically until recently. This does not mean that SOTA
activities did not, and do not, occur. It does mean that a specific SOTA
strategy has not lead training, technical assistance and networking, nor
has it lead any regional strategy. This is as it should be.

Recently, SOTA coordination has been placed under program develop-
ment. A specific FSSP policy on SOTA development has yet to be developed.
The n.'a. policy in place is to oversee developments in the three
functional areas, to suggest particular SOTA activities for each, and to
assist in placing.SOTA output back into circulation to field practitioners
and other interested users. of .....act.i. .i.ti.e.s .....p.rese t.

Because .there has not been a coordinated SOTA policy does not mean
that SOTA activities have not occurred. In fact, almost all of the SOTA
priorities specified in the 1984 Work Plan have been addressed by the

Several SOTA items -- such as the Hildebrand/Poey text titled
"On-Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming Systems Research and Extension,' and
the Farming Systems Case Studies activity (jointly with the Population
Council) -- began as.nearly pure SOTA activities. The former addressed a
high-priority felt need in FSR/E methodology, while the latter case stud-
ies are cutting-edge FSR/E SOTA activities. However, results of both have
had, or will have, an increasing influence over training, and both are
also keeping field-level practioners abreast of new

Other SOTA items began as 'routine' activities and have expanded
naturally to encompass relatively large SOTA dimensions. Examples of the
latter include the Guidelines Handbook development activity and the
evaluation task force. The next page contains a current status summary
table of SOTA activities identified in the 1984 Work Plan.

?.. Acti ity ......

1 FSR/E institutional setting

1 Role of extension in FSR/E

1 On-farm trial design and analysis

Project/program evaluation

Economic characteristics of small-
scale family farms

Nutrition and FSR/E

The farm household as a unit of

Diagnostic surveys

Role of social science in FSR/E

Livestock in FSR/E

Agroforestry in relation to FSR/E

IPM in rela-ion to FSR/E

Agricultural and household

Policy and infrastructure

.i.VITI.ES.... AS ...OF .... NE..... 19.85.

... u r.. .t...r .. t... s............. ............ .............................

Evolving from TUIIf

Task force: completed

(1) Hildebrand/Poey text,.
(2) Evolving from TUIIb

(1) Evolving from Guidelines
(2) Evaluation task force:
work in progress

Not addressed

May evolve out of Farming
Systems Case Studies

Farming Systems Case Studies

(1) Evolving from TUIIa
(2) Addressed in Networking
SPaper No. 5

Not addressed

(1) Livestock task force:
(2) W. Af. livestock network

East-West Center, FSR/E-Agro-
ecosystems joint workshop,
Aug., 1985

Barfield/Poats course at UOF

Partially addressed by Togo
animal traction workshop

(1) Evolving from TUIIf
(2) Evolving from Guidelines

Evaluation of FSR/E approach

FSSP will not handle




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 frcm 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 summary 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 carmittee are begun.

November 1984. A list of 50 potential advisory carmittee 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 committee 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 Sumary 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 andadvisory committee reps. attend a
casewriters' workshop to develop the outlines, pedagogical objectives and
teaching notes for each case. Cases are thoroughly reviewed for agronanic,
FSR/E, socio-econcmic 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
lIowa State University
LeBaron Hall, Room 173
,Ames, Iowa 50011
(515) 294-8608

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

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

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



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)



11 1
9 5
8 3
3 (projects)_
* 74 30

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

/4s .r T. n-.2! 4 5

n~j7 Po prqoos~/r /Io~ 6Cq'.Llh~BL


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 zhat 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 & Aja-ed Nica- -

H1 ,4 <- ^ fL 3,1yAvvA

10 0 -*A



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,
frcm 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 frame 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 sane of the workshop participants.

The FSSP assisted CATIE this year in the design of a one-week
s: 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
SOCAP, 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 frame 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 Sumnary Memos (06/85)



Centro Agronamico 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
agroncmic trial data.


June 18-274 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 canmittee, known as NEAAC (Near East and Asia Adivsory Comnittee),
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 committee provides advice to the
core regarding Asia and Near East policy and implementation strategy. The
NEAAC crnmittee met 3 times during the 1984 FSR Symposium ae KSU last Octo-
ber. The co-coordinator for Asia and the Near East keeps the committee
abreast of the demands on the FSSP frcm these regions, as well as delivery
by FSSP core and NEAAC members. Cocposition 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 missionsand 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 (tw6) and
to CIMMYT outreach staff. A NEAAC member has visited AVRDC.

FSSP Sumnary 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-
ccmmittee 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
Caomittee) membership. Those members starred witi an asterisk (*) have
agreed to serve on the NEAAC policy development and delivery subcommittee:
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

S 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 Sumary Memos (06/85)

May: Africa Bureau/S&T Seminar on Results of Togo Networkshop (SP)
Senegal workshop on agronanic 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 Ccnmittee 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 FSBjE Symposium and FSSP annual meeting: African members of
Technical Caomittee 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 finding 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 1 of the 1983 Annual Report)
Work Plan
Work Plan Caomittments
Work Plan
Implementation plan for the 1985 Work Plan






to 12/31/82
to 03/31/83
to 06/31/83
to 09/31/83
to 12/31/83
to 03/31/84
to 06/31/84
to 09/31/84
to 12/31/84


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)






1 Pr.

Technical Overview of FSR/E
Introduction to Farming Systems Research/ Development
Introduction to the Economic Characteristics...
Economic Characteristics fo Small Scale....Farms...
The Small Scale Family Farm as a System
Land Tenure in Upper Volta
Defining Recommendation Domains
Initial Characterization: The Rapid survey or SONDEO.
Designing Alternative Solutions- Jutiapa, Guatemala
Designing Alternative Solutions- Zapotitan, El Salvador
Designing Alternative Solutions- North Florida FSR/E
Women and Cassava Production in Zaire
ILCA Highlands Animal Traction- Ethiopia
Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials
The Land Grant System and the University of Florida
Training-Unit: Agronomic Experimental Design and Anal.
Training Unit: Management and Administration in FSR/E
Training Unit: Diagnosis-Getting Started in FSR/E
Selected Readings for FSR Methods (Hildebrand)

* slide/tape modules (script available)

** 4

Newsletters Vol. I, Nos.
Nos. 1 and 2
On-Demand 1 thru 5
On-Networking 1 thru 21

1,2,3; Vol. II, Nos. 1,2,3,4; Vol.III,

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

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






DATE: May 28, 1985


TO: Dr. Anson Bertrand

THROUGH: Don Osburn & Wendell Morse

FROM: Chris 0. 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 cnnmunication 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 recommend 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

SFSSP 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 became 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 accamodated
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 (commodity 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 stiuary 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 some 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 Summary 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 '6). 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
become 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 frcm 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)






+ SA


* 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










61,700 78,910

Ind. @ 32




Office Equip.
Fuel & Rep. 4
Ind @ 32


151,074 145,081

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)













-I a 0 f



Apr 1-
Oct 1









W/O Af. Based Core


W/Af. Based Core










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

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)







Annex 3



Gloria Steele

Dale Harpstead

Bill Judy

Harlan Davis

Phil Church

Ken McDermott

Marc Winter

Ken Prussner

Ken Swanberg

Ed Rice

Don Wadley

Ralph Cummings, Jr.

Wendell Morse

Jeryis Oweis

Chris Andrew

Peter Hildebrand

Susan Poats

Dan Galt

Lisette Walecka

James Jones

Ken Tefertiller

Hugh Popenoe

Larry Zuidema

Cornelia Flora

Don Osburn


Agr. Economist



Deputy Director

Division Chief

Agr.. Economist

Division Chief

Deputy Division Chief

APMT member, FSSP


Deputy Agency Director

Special Assistant

APMT member, FSSP


Project Director

Agr. Economist

Associate Director

Associate Director

Assistant Director

Associate Director

Vice Pres., Agr. Affairs

Director, Int'l. Programs



Project Manager, FSSP

















University of Florida,





University of Florida

University of Florida

FSSP Adv. Council,
Cornell University

FSSP Technical Committee,
Kansas State University


Annex 4a


(Administrative Coordinators and Program Leaders Combined)

Check the response that best reflects your judgment.

1. Technical assistance implementation activities of the FSSP have been
effectively carried out.

Strongly agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree
Number: S.A. 3 A. 18 N.O. 12 D. 2 S.D. 2
Percent: 8.1 48.6 32.4 5.4 5.4

2. Domestic training activities of the FSSP have been effectively carried

S.A. 4 A. 23 N.O. 5 D. 5 S.D.
10.8 62.1 13.5 13.5

3. Training workshops in developing countries have been effectively
carried out.

S.A. 3 A. 9 N.O. 22 D. '3 S.D.
8.1 24.3 59.4 8.1

4. Networking activities in developing countries have been effectively
carried out.

S.A. 3 A. 11 N.O. 15 D. 3 S.D.
8.1 29.7 40.5 21.6

5. FSSP slide tape modules are useful.

S.A. -43 A. 18 N.O. 11 D. 5 S.D.
S8.1 48.6 ~-2.7 .-- .5 -

6. Our contribution to the overall success of the FSSP has been consistent
with our original expectation.

S.A. 3 A. 13 N.O. 4 D. 12 S.D. 5
8.1 35.1 10.8 32.4 13.5

7. Our contribution to FSSP has been in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between our institution and the University of Florida.

S.A. 7 A. 16 N.O. 4 D. 9 S.D. 1
18.9 43.2 10.8 24.3 2.7

8. Our institution has contributed to the success of FSSP.

S.A. 8

A. 18

N.O. 3

D. 5

S.D. 3

9. Our institution has considerable expertise and capability in FSR/E

S.A. 17

A. 19

D. 1

10. The FSR/E methodologies identified by the FSSP are comprehensive and

S.A. 2

A. 14

N.O. 4

11. Training support materials for FSR/E are appropriate.

S.A. 3

A. 18

N.O. 7

D. 9

12. Have representatives from your institution provided assistance in any of
the training workshops in developing countries?

Yes 14 No 23
37.8 -Y.2

13. Have representatives from your institution participated in FSSP technical
assistance activities?

Yes 22 No 15
59.4 40.5

14. Has your institution had representation on the technical committee?

Yes 17 No 20
45.9 54.0

15. Has your institution had representatives on task forces?

Yes 24 No 13
--64.9 35.1


D. 17




16. Have you attended domestic workshops?

Yes 19 No 18
51.3 48.6

17. Have representatives from your institution attended domestic workshops?

Yes 33 (Approximate No.

) No


18. Has your institution provided leadership (organized, served as a trainer,
or hosted) in domestic workshops where FSSP provided major support
(workshop where FSSP personnel, materials, etc. were utilized)?

Yes 15 No 22
40.5 59.4

19. Has anyone from your institution participated as a "participant add-on"
for any FSSP activity?

Yes 4 No 33
10.8 89.2

If yes, evaluate the experience (pro and con).

20. What do you considerr the most positive features) of the FSSP?
than .one response, please rank in importance).

(If more