<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Preface
 Introduction
 Administrative, support and delivery...
 Summary of activities in Afric...
 Technical assistance and training...
 Networking activities
 Technical assistance and training...
 Summary and conclusions
 1983 work plan
 Summary of MOA support entity specialty...
 Newsletter distribution breakd...
 Chapter contents for preliminary...
 List of 100 FSR publications submitted...
 FSSP visitors to the University...
 FSSP program and related activities...
 FSSP core staff activities,...
 FSSP fiscal report, 1983
 Acronyms used in this report
 Annual meeting summary report
 FSSP organization, advisory and...


PETE FLAG IFAS PALMM UF



Annual report
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00066218/00001
 Material Information
Title: Annual report
Physical Description: v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
United States -- Agency for International Development
Publisher: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Farming Systems Support Project.
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Creation Date: 1983
Frequency: annual
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural extension work -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Periodicals -- Latin America   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Periodicals -- Africa   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Periodicals -- Asia   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Issuing Body: Submitted to the United States Agency for International Development.
General Note: Description based on: 1983.
General Note: Latest issue consulted: 1985.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 70867122
lccn - 2006229373
System ID: UF00066218:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Preface
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Administrative, support and delivery structure
        Page 7
        Core team development
            Page 7
        Support entities
            Page 8
        Inter-institutional cooperation
            Page 9
            Page 10
        The geograpic implementation strategy
            Page 11
            Page 12
    Summary of activities in Africa
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Technical assistance and training in Latin America
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Networking activities
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Technical assistance and training support base
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    1983 work plan
        Page A 1
        Page A 2
        Page A 3
        Page A 4
        Page A 5
        Page A 6
        Page A 7
        Page A 8
        Page A 9
        Page A 10
        Page A 11
        Page A 12
        Page A 13
        Page A 14
        Page A 15
        Page A 16
        Page A 17
        Page A 18
        Page A 19
        Page A 20
        Page A 21
        Page A 22
        Page A 23
        Attachment A: Policy and administrative guidelines
            Page A 24
            Page A 25
            Page A 26
            Page A 27
            Page A 28
            Page A 29
        Attachment B: Memorandum of agreement
            Page A 30
            Page A 31
            Page A 32
        Attachment C: Cooperative agreement
            Page A 33
            Page A 34
            Page A 35
            Page A 36
            Page A 37
            Page A 38
            Page A 39
            Page A 40
            Page A 41
            Page A 42
            Page A 43
    Summary of MOA support entity specialty areas and future interests
        Page B 1
        Page B 2
        Page B 3
        Page B 4
        Page B 5
        Page B 6
        Page B 7
        Page B 8
        Page B 9
        Page B 10
        Page B 11
        Page B 12
        Page B 13
        Page B 14
    Newsletter distribution breakdown
        Page C 1
    Chapter contents for preliminary book of FSR readings
        Page D 1
        Page D 2
        Page D 3
        Page D 4
    List of 100 FSR publications submitted to DIU
        Page E 1
        Page E 2
        Page E 3
        Page E 4
        Page E 5
        Page E 6
        Page E 7
        Page E 8
    FSSP visitors to the University of Florida, 1983
        Page F 1
        Page F 2
        Page F 3
        Page F 4
    FSSP program and related activities calendar, 1983
        Page G 1
        Page G 2
        Page G 3
        Page G 4
    FSSP core staff activities, 1983
        Page H 1
        Page H 2
        Page H 3
        Page H 4
    FSSP fiscal report, 1983
        Page I 1
        Page I 2
        Page I 3
        Page I 4
    Acronyms used in this report
        Page J 1
        Page J 2
    Annual meeting summary report
        Page K 1
        Page K 2
        Page K 3
        Page K 4
        Page K 5
        Page K 6
        Page K 7
        Page K 8
        Page K 9
        Page K 10
    FSSP organization, advisory and support structure
        Page L 1
        Page L 2
        Page L 3
        Page L 4
        Page L 5
        Page L 6
        Page L 7
Full Text

ao Il


Farming Systems Support Project


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


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


I L _

















1983

ANNUAL REPORT

FARMING SYSTEMS SUPPORT PROJECT







Cooperative Agreement No.: Dan-4099-A-00-2083-00
Project No.: 936-4099


Submitted to

The United States

Agency for International Development




Prepared by







University of Florida
in cooperation with
FSSP Support Entities

December 31, 1983








CONTENTS

Page

I. Preface 3

II. Introduction 5

III. Administrative, Support and Delivery Structure 7

Core Team Development 7
Support Entities 8
Inter-Institutional Cooperation 9
The Geographic Implementation Strategy 11

IV. Summary of Activities in Africa 13

V. Technical Assistance and Training in Latin America 19

VI. Networking Activities 23

VII. Technical Assistance and Training Support Base 27

Domestic Orientation Workshops, 1983
Development of Materials

VIII. Summary and Conclusions 31

IX. Appendices

1. 1983 Work Plan
Attachments: A Policy and Administrative
Guidelines
B Memorandum of Agreement
C Cooperative Agreement
2. Summary of MOA Support Entity Specialty Areas
and Future Interests
3. Newsletter Distribution Breakdown
4. Chapter Contents for Preliminary Book of
FSR Readings
5. List of 100 FSR Publications Submitted to DIU
6. Visitors, 1983
7. Program and Related Activities Calendar, 1983
8. Core Staff Activities Calendar, 1983
9. Fiscal Data
10. Acronyms used in this report
11. Annual Meeting Summary Report
12. Organization, Advisory and Support Structure








I. Preface

The Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) provides
leadership in developing an understanding and maintaining
convergence about activity commonly referred to by the generic
term "farming systems research." Farming Systems Research and
Development (FSR&D), for purposes of the FSSP, embodies two
complementary approaches including Farming Systems Infrastructure
and Policy (FSIP) and Farming Systems Research/Extension (FSR/E).
These distinctions were made in the 1983 Work Plan and activity in
the first year of the FSSP has reinforced consistency in these
farming systems concepts, supporting a growing consensus in
implementation and evaluation of farming systems programs.

The primary purpose of the FSSP is to provide technical
assistance, training and networking support to practitioners and
administrators of Farming Systems Research/Extension Programs.
This is accomplished through collaborative support from
universities and other institutions in response to USAID/Mission
requests evolving from developing national institutions. This
combined effort is designed to strengthen farming systems programs
and assist in the development of integrated research and extension
efforts directed toward the resolution-of farm level problems.
FSSP training, networking and technical assistance have made
considerable headway and the project has developed a base for
programming in 1984 and beyond.

Farming Systems Research/Extension and Farming Systems
Infrastructure and Policy support are not replacements for
institutional structures that embody research and extension
programs. They constitute an approach to research and extension
in the development process. The farming systems approach provides
a means for further integrating fundamental and basic research
with applied research to meet problems of farmers. Farmers are
incorporated into the research, technology development and
transfer processes in an effort to increase the utility of
research while incorporating natural and human resources of the
implementing country as a part of national goals. The Farming
Systems Support Project facilitates communication, coordination,
collaboration and the overall effectiveness of the farming systems
approach, as served by national institutions. In this way, the
FSSP can perform a service in the development process, emerging to
fill a role and responsibility by strengthening agricultural
research and development through technical assistance mechanisms.


A Changing Environment

As the FSSP began, significant concerns were expressed as to
what farming systems was all about. Although these concerns are
still heard from those not closely associated with on-going
research and development in farming systems, consensus and
consistency of thought and practice have emerged to a considerable
extent. This is particularly true for those who consider the
farmer as the primary client.








Cooperation by USAID, FSSP support entities and various
institutions involved in FSR&D has made it possible to move toward
greater unity regarding the role and responsibility of farming
systems research and extension. There is an emerging realization
that Farming Systems is a complement to and not a substitute for
research and extension programs. There is less concern with syntax
and acronyms and more concern with actual programs. The FSSP
finds itself working with a wide diversity of institutional
settings yet with a strong similarity or convergence on
farmer-orientation with the farmer clientele as a common
denominator. A positive attitude is filtering through the farming
systems community to create an environment for productive
exploration and implementation of farming systems concepts in
research and extension.

Investments in Farming Systems projects worldwide are
accentuating the importance of spanning the spectrum from basic
research through developmental research and technology generation
to adoption at the farm level. The FSSP is working to provide a
qualitative advancement in agricultural research and development
using the farming systems approach, making research more
farmer-oriented. Time will show that the FSSP is a worthwhile
investment, enriching technical assistance, training and
development programs of USAID and other donor agencies. Those
involved with the project are confident of this and expect that a
review of this Annual Report and the 1984 Annual Work Plan will
stimulate similar optimism. The task before the FSSP is not easy
but it is faced with enthusiasm.






Dr. Chris 0. Andrew,
Director, FSSP
December, 1983






II. Introduction


Nineteen eighty-three was a formative year for the FSSP, both
conceptually and programmatically. Indeed, the first major effort
of the Project was the preparation of a 1983 Work Plan to
delineate project organization and policy in accordance with the
Cooperative Agreement between the University of Florida and the
United States Agency for International Development (See Appendix
1). Not only did the Work Plan address FSSP organization and
policy but it set forth some of the immediate priorities for the
Project. A broad range of responsibilities were anticipated for
the FSSP in 1983 and beyond.

The 1983 Annual Report reflects the FSSP accomplishments in
meeting its preliminary objectives as set forth in both the
Cooperative Agreement and the 1983 Work Plan. It is organized in
accordance with the primary responsibility areas of Core staff,
but addresses those areas to include the integrated and
complementary involvement of support entities and cooperating
institutions.

This report addresses the administrative support and delivery
structure for the FSSP including the lead entity staff (Core) at
the University of Florida and the project support entities. These
entities include universities and consulting firms which have
signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the FSSP, as well as
other entities such as the International Agricultural Research
Centers (IARC's) and national institutions.

Technical assistance and training strategies and
implementation results for Africa, Latin America, and Asia are
summarized. Interaction of technical assistance and training is
assessed in terms of project ground work for future programs.
Networking, as discussed, includes the status of the FSSP
Newsletter and mailing list, publications, the documentation
program, and a visitors program. Support materials developed
during the year are summarized with an overview of their use in
farming systems orientation workshops during the year. A series
of appendices include the 1983 calendar of events, fiscal data,
documentation lists, and a summary of support entity MOA
commitments.












III. Administrative, Support and Delivery Structure


Core Team Development

FSSP experience through the year has shown that every farming
systems team fielded by the project has included a balance of
agronomic and social scientists. In many instances, biological
scientists have led these support activities. The core is
dedicated to maintaining balanced teams to accommodate the
multidisciplinary demands of FSR/E.

Core staffing completed during 1983 is as follows:

Dr. Chris Andrew became Director of the FSSP at the inception
of the USAID/University of Florida Cooperative Agreement,
September, 1982.

Dr. Jim Jones joined the project in December, 1982 to provide
coordination and leadership in training and Latin American
programs.

Mr. Steve Kearl joined in April, 1983, as editor/communicator
with responsibilities for the newsletter, support to the training
program in the development of training modules and support to
other communication and publication efforts.

Dr. Susan Poats joined the project in June, 1983, to
coordinate network and related efforts including workshops,
regional and sub-regional networks, documentation and publication
programs, and to provide leadership for African programs.

Dr. Ken McDermott joined the project in September, 1983, with
responsibility for coordinating technical assistance program
requests from USAID for the entire project and to serve as a
Washington-based liaison.

Dr. Dan Galt also joined the project in September, 1983, to
work closely with support entities in the supply of technical
assistance and training teams and in coordinating Asian programs.

Other complementary support to the project is as follows:

Dr. Peter Hildebrand provides state-of-the-art, technical
support and consultation for the FSR/E program in general and
training in particular, through the development of training
materials.

Dr. Robert Waugh consults with the project regarding
management and administration issues in FSR/E projects, both in
technical assistance and training.

Mr. James Dean is responsible for the visitors program,
support to development of training materials, reference facilities
and network logistics within the United States.









III. Administrative, Support and Delivery Structure


Core Team Development

FSSP experience through the year has shown that every farming
systems team fielded by the project has included a balance of
agronomic and social scientists. In many instances, biological
scientists have led these support activities. The core is
dedicated to maintaining balanced teams to accommodate the
multidisciplinary demands of FSR/E.

Core staffing completed during 1983 is as follows:

Dr. Chris Andrew became Director of the FSSP at the inception
of the USAID/University of Florida Cooperative Agreement,
September, 1982.

Dr. Jim Jones joined the project in December, 1982 to provide
coordination and leadership in training and Latin American
programs.

Mr. Steve Kearl joined in April, 1983, as editor/communicator
with responsibilities for the newsletter, support to the training
program in the development of training modules and support to
other communication and publication efforts.

Dr. Susan Poats joined the project in June, 1983, to
coordinate network and related efforts including workshops,
regional and sub-regional networks, documentation and publication
programs, and to provide leadership for African programs.

Dr. Ken McDermott joined the project in September, 1983, with
responsibility for coordinating technical assistance program
requests from USAID for the entire project and to serve as a
Washington-based liaison.

Dr. Dan Galt also joined the project in September, 1983, to
work closely with support entities in the supply of technical
assistance and training teams and in coordinating Asian programs.

Other complementary support to the project is as follows:

Dr. Peter Hildebrand provides state-of-the-art, technical
support and consultation for the FSR/E program in general and
training in particular, through the development of training
materials.

Dr. Robert Waugh consults with the project regarding
management and administration issues in FSR/E projects, both in
technical assistance and training.

Mr. James Dean is responsible for the visitors program,
support to development of training materials, reference facilities
and network logistics within the United States.







Mr. Wendell Morse, USAID Project Manager, USAID/Washington
serves as the project's direct interface with AID.

In practice, the Core staff of four coordinators and the
editor/communicator exercises a broader range of responsibilities
than can be delineated by the above work assignments, and includes
effective overlap and strong mutual support. The assignments
represent primary contacts for the program and areas of
responsibility to the FSSP director and USAID.


Support Entities

A'support entity structure was delineated and put into place
in'1983. Specifically, the FSSP organizational and response
structure includes support elements evolving from the
universities, consulting firms, USDA and other institutions,
through faculty and staff who are designated as program
associates. (See Appendix 2: FSSP Organization, Advisory and
Support Structure.)

Each support entity is represented through program associates
with program leaders serving to coordinate their interface with
the FSSP. Program associates can be drawn upon for teams in
technical assistance, training, network and state-of-the-arts
support activities. An Advisory Council, consisting
of three members drawn from the support entity structure, works
directly with the Director of the FSSP and the Core.

A Technical Committee was established and general policy
guidelines were prepared. The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to help identify task groups for contributions to
the overall farming systems effort and the FSSP. The committee
consists of 15 members, named on a rotational basis, including six
members and three alternates from support entities, nine members
from developing countries (yet to be named) with three members
each from the Asian, African, and Latin American regions.
Regional sub-committees will be established to include the three
international representatives and others in number sufficient to
represent each region. The committee will convene annually. It
is expected that the various regional subcommittees (Asia, Latin
America, Africa, U.S.) will meet three or four times per year.

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

The Core Staff of the FSSP is the coordinating body for
implementing farming systems research and development programs
requested by USAID/Missions through the respective regional
bureaus and USAID/S&T. With this implementing structure and
working through the AID/Missions, farm level research and
development needs are addressed and FSSP training and technical








assistance efforts support national institutions that work
directly in farm oriented activities.

Affiliation with the FSSP has been through a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the University of Florida and each support
entity (SE). This MOA (Appendix 1) is simple yet demands a
program and staff commitment from each institution to the support
base. Because the signing of MOAs is a process which will
continue until July 1, 1984, the summary of FSSP capability
included in this report is not final. Those institutions with
signed MOAs are identified and their contributing support
capability is specified in Appendix 2. Through November, 1983,
fourteen entities signed support agreements with the FSSP
including the following universities: Colorado State, Kansas
State, University of Kentucky, Iowa State, Michigan State,
Minnesota, Missouri, Penn State, VPI and Southern Illinois. The
following consulting firms signed support agreements:
Development Alternatives, Inc., International Agricultural
Development Service (IADS), Research Triangle Institute and
Winrock International. Two universities are close to signing
agreements at the time of this report. Fourteen other
universities have expressed interest in agreements with the FSSP
but not all are expected to sign MOAs.

The program associate base from which the FSSP might draw
includes more than 300 professionals. The universities and firms
have contributed significant institutional resources to programs
designed to expand the capability and experience of their program
associates for work in the FSSP. This investment is an on-going
endeavor and signals the strong commitment made by the support
entities to the FSSP.

Program associate preparation has included attendance at FSSP
Orientation Short Courses and the Annual Kansas State Farming
Systems Symposium through Strengthening Grant support, on-campus
workshops and seminars, and other institutional functions.
Involvement in FSSP technical assistance and other assignments
internationally has provided further opportunities for
participation by support entity program associates.

Task force efforts and planning sessions at the FSSP Annual
Meeting have been supported predominantly by program associates.
The task force concept is one of flexibility with emphasis on
immediate application. By design, the task force concept is not
one of standing committees but one of ad hoc committees for
specific assignments to strengthen the overall FSSP effort (See
Appendix 2).


Inter-institutional Cooperation

Collaboration and cooperation with IARCs emerged during the
first project-year. The FSSP assisted with a training program
under the auspices of the International Institute for Tropical
Agriculture (IITA). The course included participants from the
Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Cameroon and was an early effort by IITA








in delivery of on-farm research training. Along with this
activity, the FSSP participated in the formulation of the West
African Farming Systems Research Network (WAFSRN). Both of these
activities established communication with IITA and provided a base
for future cooperation.

Work with the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Miaz y
Trigo (CIMMYT) has been important to the FSSP and CIMMYT. CIMMYT
has cooperated with the FSSP by participating in a farming systems
evaluation, training and design effort in Latin America. Close
contact has been maintained throughout the year in terms of
specific country programs so that FSSP/CIMMYT collaboration can
result in establishing broad-based programs.

An FSSP, CIMMYT interface has started to evolve in East
Africa. The FSSP participated in two CIMMYT workshops which
brought together representatives and peer practitioners from the
14 countries within the CIMMYT African mandate. The workshop
topics included research administration and draft animal power.
In addition, FSSP cooperated in the overall evaluation of
CIMMYT/East Africa, concluding that the work effort there is
outstanding and should be strongly supported by USAID and the
FSSP.

FSSP Core staff has visited CIMMYT headquarters in Mexico to
exchange training information and for general collaboration on a
world-wide basis. With the CIMMYT outreach staff recently posted
in Asia, it is expected that cooperation will emerge in future
activities in that region.

On a lesser scale, cooperation began with the International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and
the International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA). With
ICRISAT, FSSP participated in a major workshop held in Upper Volta
on the state-of-the-arts in farming systems research
methodologies. With ILCA, involvement in a task force is giving
emphasis to the role of livestock in farming systems. Other IARC
contacts were made with ISNAR, ICRAF, CIAT and CIP, and
cooperation with these centers will emerge in the future.

Contacts have been made and cooperation has evolved with
several regional institutions. Based upon early initiatives, it is
expected that the FSSP will work with CATIE (in Central America)
in some capacity. PRECODEPA has participated with the FSSP by
involving one staff member in training programs. Also, IICA (in
Latin America) has indicated a similar interest for purposes of
strengthening network activities. Cooperation with SAFGRAD (in
Africa) helped to provide a basis both for the workshop in Upper
Volta and for considerable collaboration with Purdue University in
that activity.

Collaboration with the CRSPs is also expected. The Director
of the FSSP attended CRSP meetings in Washington to recommend
collaboration affecting the overall international research
picture. The FSSP can complement the more fundamental research
activities of the IARCs and the CRSPs by helping to strengthen









ties with host country institutions, and to assist with
developmental research efforts in applied technology generation
and its subsequent farm level adaptation and adoption.


The Geographic Implementation Strategy

The 1983 Annual Work Plan stated that FSSP emphasis would
focus on Africa with a less active role in Latin America and Asia.
This policy has been followed and a pro-active African strategy
has emerged which is being further implemented in the 1984 Work
Plan.

A response strategy to Latin America, has been pursued.
Through support from Latin American scientists and Latin American
institutions, the involvement of FSSP staff in that effort has been
minimized relative to the amount of demand expressed by Latin
America.

For Asia (defined here as Asia plus the Near East) the FSSP
strategy has been to maintain a reactive stance toward support for
USAID/Missions there. Given the relative maturity of the farming
systems approach in Asia it was anticipated that few requests for
FSSP affiliation would be forthcoming during 1983. FSSP activity
in this region has been minimal to date. Nonetheless, the FSSP
stands ready to collaborate with institutions managing on-going
farming systems programs in the region, and to support
institutions having bilateral contacts with Asian or Middle
Eastern countries.

FSSP/Asian activity is summarized as follows:

1) An initial visit was made to Sri Lanka by Larry Zuidema (CU) on
behalf of the FSSP to inquire further into a request from the
USAID/Mission to initiate future collaboration.

2) Discussions have taken place between representatives of USAID,
MSU and the FSSP regarding the delivery of FSR/E training courses
in Pakistan.

3) The FSSP has been in contact with USAID personnel in Morocco,
Jordan and Egypt for preliminary discussion of FSSP initiatives in
these countries at a future date.

It is anticipated that 1984 will see a response to these long
range requests received in 1983 from Asian and Near East Missions.













IV. Summary of FSSP Activities in Africa


Strategy

FSSP strategy in Africa has emphasized support assistance to
West Africa through initial meetings and workshops to determine
USAID Mission needs. Collaboration with entities working within
West Africa such as the IARCs and WAFSRN has been initiated and
will continue. In East Africa, cooperation with CIMMYT is
underway to further strengthen both CIMMYT and the FSSP. These
relationships are emerging in a productive manner which will
provide a broad base for support to USAID Missions and national
research and extension entities. A summary of the implementation
follows.


Implementation


IITA

The FSSP began cooperation in late 1982, shortly after the
project began, with the IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria. Both IITA and FSSP
participated in a two-day workshop at Moor Plantation in January,
hosted by the National Cereals Research Institute. Jim Jones
represented FSSP at the workshop. Researchers from several
Nigerian research institutes also attended that meeting, which was
convened in part to plan for a later March workshop at IITA.
Discussed at Moor Plantation was the issue of planning farming
systems research in Nigeria, especially the incorporation of the
approach with existing agricultural research structures.
Researchers from the several institutes in Nigeria related their
experiences with the systems approach in their respective
settings.

Following the Moor Plantation workshop, a two-week workshop
on farming systems research was held on the IITA campus in March.
The workshop involved resource people from both IITA and the FSSP.
Jim Jones and Bill Schmehl, (CSU) represented FSSP. Participants
also included ranking researchers from the Ivory Coast, Cameroon
and from four research institutes in Nigeria. After three days of
discussions at IITA on methods, procedures and the use of
secondary materials, the group divided into two teams and spent
four days conducting a rapid field survey in four nearby villages.
Three days were then devoted to discussion of results, the
formulation of research hypotheses and designs for testing, and
the team-writing of final reports. The workshop served not only a
training function (even for some of the resource people) but also
provided initial guidelines for research in the survey zone, where
a development project is scheduled. Response from participants
suggested that the workshop -- first of its kind for IITA -- was a
success. This undoubtedly was due to the universal enthusiasm of








the participating researchers as well as to the tireless efforts
of several people, especially Dr. Hank Mutsaers, leader of the OFR
Sub-program at IITA and chief organizer of the workshop. As FSSP
networking activities, both the Moor Plantation workshop and the
IITA workshop provided excellent points of entry for FSSP into FSR
activities in West Africa. Many useful contacts and associations
were established. These led to further involvement elsewhere
during the year as well as an on-going interaction with IITA.


WAFSRN

The West African Farming Systems Research Network (WAFSRN)
was initially organized in November, 1982, with support from IITA,
IRAT and ICRISAT. Both Chris Andrew and Jim Jones represented
FSSP as observers at this organizational meeting. WAFSRN is
governed by a seven-member steering committee supported by a
rotating secretariat. Dr. Jacques Faye of Senegal is president of
the steering committee and Dr. George Abalu of Nigeria heads the
secretariat. Though WAFSRN did not hold a formal meeting during
1983, Jim Jones and Bill Schmehl met with the steering committee
during the course of the IITA workshop in March. FSSP is
committed to the concepts by which WAFSRN was created and hopes to
assist particular in the areas of training and networking in West
Africa. Discussions between WAFSRN and FSSP during 1983 dealt
with the possibilities for FSSP to assist with the organization of
additional workshops and seminars covering topics of concern to
national researchers of the region.


CIMMYT

FSSP became involved with CIMMYT's East Africa Farming
Systems Program several times during 1983. Chris Andrew attended
the CIMMYT Administrators and Managers Workshop in Nairobi, Kenya,
April 15-22. This workshop, lead jointly by Michael Collinson,
Allan Lowe and Donald Winklemann, was attended by participants
from 11 East and South African countries. The workshop
discussions provided an excellent opportunity for exchanging ideas
on efficient administration of farming systems research and
extension programs. They also provided a good basis for the
creation of a network among the 33 participants and the programs
they represented.

USAID/Africa Bureau requested FSSP assistance in the
evaluation of the CIMMYT farming systems programs in a sample of
countries including Lesotho, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Ken McDermott,
who had just joined FSSP, participated in these evaluations
October 14-29. Though he did not visit Zambia at this time, the
information from his earlier evaluation of that project was
included in the CIMMYT evaluation report. The CIMMYT program is
performing in an outstanding manner and should be maintained under
similar funding arrangements with an expanded budget. The
training and network workshop programs are well received and
beneficial to the participating countries. A productive interface
between the FSSP and CIMMYT is evolving toward complementary









activities where country programs can benefit from the unique
roles provided by each entity.


ZAMBIA

Ken McDermott evaluated the USAID/Zambia Farming Systems
Project, fielded jointly by the University of Illinois and
Southern Illinois University, September 12-26, at the request of
USAID. The Zambia Farming Systems Research program is one of the
best developed FS efforts in Africa and embodies major
institutional changes. The FSSP will, as appropriate with CIMMYT
and the bilateral contractors, document this institutional
development process so that other countries can benefit from the
experience.


IVORY COAST

Following the Moor Plantation workshop, Jim Jones (FSSP) and
Bill Schmehl (CSU) accompanied Hank Mutsaers (IITA) and the Ivory
Coast participants on a visit to the Ivory Coast On-Farm Research
project (OFRIC). Both Jones and Schmehl were impressed with OFRIC
work to date and discussed the possibilities of future
collaboration between OFRIC and FSSP.


MALAWI

Involvement with the USAID/Malawi Agricultural Research
Project has been strong since FSSP's inception because the
University of Florida is the contractor on that project.
Following the signing of the FSSP project, Jim Jones went to
Malawi under the auspices of the Florida Bilateral Contract to
assist with data evaluation and publication from the farming
systems work conducted by Malawi team member, Art Hansen. He was
joined by Bob Waugh (UF) who was involved in an evaluation of the
Malawi Project and subsequently by Peter Hildebrand (UF) who
participated in a training activity. Communications and visits by
UF Malawi Project members to the FSSP have continued over the
year. In November, Dr. Henry Mwandamere, Deputy Chief
Agricultural Research Officer of the Malawi Department of
Agricultural Research, visited the FSSP and explained the
reorganization of research to Malawi participants studying at the
UF. In December, Larry Janicki, of the UF Malawi team, presented
two seminars to Florida FSSP program associates, Core staff and
Malawi participants about the adaptive research/extension program
in Malawi.


LIBERIA

In March, following the IITA workshop, Jim Jones went to
Liberia as part of the initial response to a request by the
USAID/Mission for assistance with a farming systems project. The
mission was interested in the feasibility of using the farming








systems approach to orient research on the CARI Station.
Louisiana State University subsequently sent the team leader of
their project in Liberia, Harold Young, to attend the farming
systems orientation workshop held by FSSP in Gainesville in July.


ZAIRE

Following the Morocco trip, Jim Jones spent May 23-June 15 in
Zaire, at the request of USAID/Kinshasa. He participated in a
design effort (PP) which sought to incorporate the farming systems
approach in an agricultural commodity research and development
project centering on corn, cassava and tropical grain legumes.
The purpose of their efforts was to integrate research, extension
and the farmer around these commodity programs.


ISNAR

Jim Meiman (CSU) represented the FSSP at a workshop on
Management and Project Implementation, sponsored jointly by ISNAR
and CIMMYT, held September 27-30 at The Hague, Netherlands. Bob
Waugh, consultant to the FSSP, was a resource person for ISNAR at
the workshop. The workshop dealt with concerns pertaining to many
world regions, with special attention given to the issues
involving management of farming systems projects in Africa. The
management area is one of considerable importance within the FSSP.
This workshop stimulated dialogue that will in time strengthen
training and network activities to assist managers and
administrators of R/E programs generally, and specifically where
the FS approach to R/E is common.


MALI

In early 1983, a request was made to the FSSP to handle the
design of a national-level FS project in Mali, funded by USAID.
DAI, assisted by the FSSP, subsequently fielded a nine-person
design team in Mali in August 1983. Several members of the team
were briefed on the design effort by FSSP and AID/Washington staff
prior to their departure for Mali. In addition, three members of
that design team attended the FSSP orientation workshop held in
Gainesville in July. Also attending that workshop was Ralph
Conley, USAID/Bamako. Conley, the three team members, FSSP staff
and interested workshop participants discussed the upcoming Mali
design effort, including the institutional setting.


UPPER VOLTA

The FSSP held a sub-regional workshop in Ouagadougou, Upper
Volta, September 25-October 2. A planning visit for the workshop
was made by Susan Poats to the USAID/Ouagadougou in August. At
this time arrangements were made for participation in the workshop







by members of SAFGRAD/FSU and ICRISAT-Upper Volta. Logistical
arrangements were handled through John Becker, ADO, and Dale
Rochmeler.

Participants in the workshop numbered 38, with 23
representing'Upper Volta, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Togo, as
well as WARDA and INSAH. Representatives of local USAID/Missions
and USAID/ Washington were also present. Objectives of the
workshop focused on the FS approach to agricultural research and
development in general, providing some first-hand experience with
FSR methodologies, insights to the problems of institutionalizing
FSR programs, and providing a forum for exchanging personal
experiences of FSR. The workshop helped formulate tentative plans
for FSSP support of FSR programs in the participating countries.
The SAFGRAD/FSU farming systems project, fielded by Purdue
University, was examined as a case study during the workshop, and
researchers from the project participated in several workshop
activities. SAFGRAD/FSU also organized a field trip during the
workshop. Follow-up initiatives from the workshop for additional
FSSP interface are currently being pursued with Togo and Upper
Volta. Workshop leaders were Susan Poats (FSSP), Louise Fresco
(Agricultural University, Wageningen) and Steve Franzel (DAI).
Chris Andrew and Peter Hildebrand also attended.


ICRISAT

ICRISAT jointly sponsored a colloquium on farming systems
research with IRAT and SAFGRAD, September 21-25, in Ouagadougou,
Upper Volta. Peter Hildebrand (UF) gave a paper entitled "Summary
of FSR/E Participants, Activities, Products and Time Frame."
Susan Poats and Louise Fresco also attended. This colloquium,
with participants from Latin America, Africa, South Asia and
Southeast Asia, provided an excellent forum for networking
activities. Fresco and Poats met with a number of persons working
on FS projects in Francophone West Africa in order to obtain
training materials and reports for use in the Upper Volta
workshop, as well as to consider future FSSP activities in the
region. Interactions with researchers from European development
agencies working in West Africa provided the beginning basis for
linkages between FSSP and other donor projects towards the common
goal of promoting the farming systems approach.



ZIMBABWE

Chris Andrew and Ken McDermott attended the ADO/RDO West
Africa conference in Harare, December 4-9. This was an excellent
conference and provided numerous opportunities for the FSSP to
assess interests and needs for support in farming systems. It was
clear that several USAID/Missions were working with outstanding
national programs where the FS approach to research and extension
is beginning to take form. With support from the Africa Bureau







representatives and Jo Albert (USAID/S&T), the FSSP was able to
explain the overall support capability of the FSSP support
entities and discuss specific USAID/Mission needs generally with
more than 20 USAID/Missions.









V. Technical Assistance and Training in Latin America

Strateqv

The FSSP strategy for Latin America has been one of response
to requests from USAID Missions. The demand in 1983 was
significant. In response, the FSSP involved as many Latin American
scientists with experience in Farming Systems as possible to
implement training and technical assistance programs. FSSP Core
time has been held to a minimum in favor of strengthening programs
in Africa. Nevertheless, the Latin American response strategy has
been sound and very productive. This is because numerous Latin
Americans have had farming systems experience and several entities
have assisted with program implementation. A summary of that.
implementation follows.



Implementation

CARD

In April and May, an FSSP team composed of Bob Hart
(Winrock), leader; Bob Waugh (Consultant) and W.W. McPherson (UF)
and several CARDI staff members representing Eastern Caribbean
territories, completed a project design effort. The team report,
which served as the basis of a Project Paper to address
opportunities in research, extension and institutional areas
concerned with a farming systems approach, was submitted to
USAID/Barbados in May. Also, as a result of this team effort, Dr.
Hart prepared strategy materials to be used as overall FSSP
guidelines for technical assistance (TA) project design teams.


Paraguay

From June 13 to July 2, Federico Poey (Consultant), Juan
Carlos Martinez (CIMMYT) and Ramiro Ortiz (ICTA) reviewed the AID
Small Farm Technology project which has focused primarily on
extension. Their goal was to suggest alternatives appropriate for
the final stages of the project. Following this review, Paraguay
requested a one-week FSR orientation course for December 12-16.
The Spanish-language course was offered by Federico Poey, Sergio
Ruano (PRECODEPA) and Edgardo Moscardi (CIMMYT). A one-month
course for practitioners is scheduled for January-February, 1984
which will bring extension and research technicians together in a
FSR field-level training experience. CIMMYT personnel also
participated in the complete Paraguay program and will continue
with future FSSP and CIMMYT courses.


Dominican Republic

Following a two day visit by Peter Hildebrand (UF) in July, a
one-week course on the economic analysis of on-farm data was








organized and presented September 5-9 by Federico Poey
(Consultant), Jose Alvarez (UF) and John Wake (UF). Thirty
technicians attended the Spanish-language course, where nine
Spanish FSSP modules and several readings were used. As a part of
the course, farm records were obtained from 20 farmers in the Ocoa
area for their peanut enterprise.


Ecuador

A TA visit by Dan Gait (FSSP Core) was made to Ecuador
(October 2 21) in association with UF Rural Technology Transfer
System (RTTS) contract. Four regions were visited, and in the
Napo region, four days were devoted to a FSR/E reorientation. An
operating plan to blend on-station and on-farm research in the
PIP-Napo was developed for 1984 and beyond. The report also
recommended that follow-up training, reorientation and
interdisciplinary team dynamics be provided by INIAP using their
own FSR methodology.


Honduras

Two Sondeos were conducted in a training and technical
assistance effort for a USAID supported IPM project in Honduras in
September. Tito French (UF) headed the team which also included
Sergio Ruano (PRECODEPA) and Grace Goodell (Consultant).
Entomology and additional agronomy expertise was supplied by
project personnel in Honduras. This activity provided farm-level
research direction to the IPM effort.


Peru

Jim Jones, (FSSP), visited, for one week in October, to
discuss possibilities of reorienting the Plan Meris project in the
Sierra to a FS research focus. The AID Mission wanted to know how
the FSSP could assist in the effort. Jones returned November 6 -
13 to visit four of the subproject areas in the Mantaro Valley and
prepared a report with guidelines on how the project might be
reoriented and assistance given. A technical assistance and
training request will be forthcoming.


Jamaica

Efforts were made through DAI to bring a team from the
Government of Jamaica to Florida for orientation and to visit the
North Florida Farming Systems project. No visits were possible
because of scheduling conflicts. A one-week course is now being
planned in Jamaica for January or February, 1984, and Dr. Steve
Franzel (DAI) will be the course coordinator.








CIMMYT (Mexico)


Two visits were made to the CIMMYT headquarters by Chris
Andrew and Jim Jones, (FSSP). The first visit provided a general
orientation, the second covered training issues and included
Jones' participation in a planning session between INSORMIL and
CIMMYT. The FSSP will assist in a workshop for INSORMIL in
September of 1984.


CATIE

CATIE has requested that at least two of their people visit
Gainesville in early 1984 to discuss possible collaboration.


CIAT

Peter Hildebrand and Dan Galt participated in the review of
the CIAT Bean Program's on-farm research project December 12-16.

The FSR experts invited to review the on-farm trial efforts of
the CIAT Bean Program included Michael Collinson, Peter
Hildebrand, David Norman, Ken Sayre and Antonio Turrent.













VI. Network Activities


It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the
networking function of FSSP from the training and technical
assistance functions of the project. In fact, networking
activities are largely spawned by the needs and requirements of
communications support and information handling in all aspects of
the project. The FSSP has taken an aggressive stance in the
exchange of newsletters and other publications with those
organizations and institutions involved in international
agriculture. With its own newsletter, the FSSP has been energetic
in list-generation in order to reach a wide range of people
interested and involved in farming systems activities. There is
no shortage of information in the field. Rather, there is a great
deal of information ranging from past FSR activities to current
ones, on-going research, the activities of various Title XII
institutions, the extensive programs of the international centers,
the program efforts of the FSSP Core staff and the activities of
the.SE program associates.

As a networking function the FSSP is attempting to draw
information from varied sources and incorporate it into a farming
systems network. All of the information generated from these
efforts and activities is available in one information system or
another. This effort is intended to improve established linkages
between developers and users of farming systems information.

The FSSP is working to help coordinate the flow of
information, serving as a catalyst in both securing and
disseminating material of topical and timely interest. This has
held true in the development of orientation and training
slide/tape presentations, in the content and direction of the FSSP
Newsletter, and in the organization of the FSSP Annual Meeting.
The Core staff attempts to assess information needs, then fulfills
those needs by communicating the necessary information.

Networking activities have been a cumulative effort of the
FSSP Core and SE representatives in their day-to-day interactions
on behalf of the project. Since its inception, the FSSP has
undertaken the building process of establishing contacts, both
with individuals and institutionally, to foster a network of
farming systems research and development interests.


Newsletter

The FSSP Newletter has served as a means of dispensing
information about project activities, training and technical
assistance efforts and on-going farming systems research
activities in a modest but world-wide effort. The circulation of
the newsletter has grown from a beginning of 900 to a current
mailing of more than 4,500. Requests for additions to the mailing
list continue.









The FSSP Newsletter is published quarterly in English,
Spanish, and French and its distribution reflects the predominant
language of a given region (See Appendix 3).

Content of the newsletter reflects broad representative
participation by support entities as well as national government
practitioners in preparing articles. FSSP Core staff have
regularly made contributions on project activities and the
conceptualization of farming systems methodology. The newsletter
has become a viable means of communicating information to, and
sharing information within, a far-reaching network of people
actively involved in farming systems research and development.


Publications

As specific examples of the feedback received through the
newsletter, both the call for papers for the Kansas State
University Farming Systems Symposium and the request for an
inventory of farming systems research projects qualify. Each
request to the network resulted in a response that will eventually
culminate in publications under the auspices of the FSSP. From
the call for papers and the ensuing KSU Symposium, there will be a
proceedings available January 1984. From the inventory request,
nearly 200 responses were received representing 76 farming systems
projects. It is a beginning, one that needs refinement, expansion
and direction before being published as a reference. In both
cases the network established by the FSSP is working--providing,
securing and recycling information in a meaningful way.

The FSSP has prepared a number of publications during the
year. These include an information series bulletin, a working
paper, and a series of training module scripts. In addition, the
Core staff has worked to prepare a draft of a book of readings in
farming systems research (see Appendix 7). The readings, Farming
Systems Research and Extension Methods, draws from recent and
current experiences in farming systems research and development
efforts throughout the world. Readings have been selected to
further define the current thinking in farming systems research
and to cite examples from various authors on the application of
the methodology. It is anticipated that the book of readings will
ultimately be published as part of the FSSP effort to disseminate
information about farming systems.


Documentation

Networking activities promise to expand significantly as a
result of the documentation efforts of KSU on behalf of the FSSP.
In addition to preparing a bibliography of farming systems
literature housed in their library, KSU has been responsible for
the generation of a list of 100 readings in farming systems that
provide an overview of both the literature and farming systems
research and development. The list has been prepared, approved by
the FSSP Core staff and delivered to the Documentation and








Information Unit (DIU), Washington. Through the DIU, these
readings will be made available worldwide to practitioners and
researchers in the field. A copy of the list of documents to be
made available from DIU is attached as Appendix 8. Kansas State
will continue in this networking activity throughout the life of
the FSSP contract, with the addition of 100 pieces of literature
per year made available in a similar manner through the DIU.

Fugitive literature in farming systems has also been a
responsibility of the support efforts at KSU. Researchers and
academicians can access the documents contained in this library
collection at Manhattan, Kansas. This literature will be copied
and microfiched both for their archives and to provide hard copies
of the literature to the FSSP at the University of Florida. It is
expected that with the increasing number of visitors to the FSSP
offices, this literature will begin to play an important role in
the preparation of training materials, module development, as case
study information for technical assistance, and as a depository
for state-of-the-arts information in farming systems. It will
also provide additional access to the fugitive literature in
farming systems for students in domestic academic farming systems
programs as well as visiting professors and researchers.


Visitors

Visitors to the FSSP and the UF's Farming Systems Research
Project in North Florida have provided the FSSP with another
networking responsibility (See Appendix 9 for a chronological
account of FSSP visitors). Both domestic and foreign visitors
have their visits coordinated with the Core staff of the FSSP and
with ongoing farming systems activities. Often this includes an
orientation to the FSSP, and an orientation to farming systems
methodology, philosophy, and activities through the presentation
of FSSP training modules, discussions and seminars. Visitors are
also scheduled to meet with UF and FSSP staff in areas of specific
interest.

Hosting visitors has placed an additional demand on FSSP
staff but is recognized for providing a valuable contribution in
network-building with institutions, organizations and individuals
involved in farming systems work. This networking activity
provides the opportunity for collaboration, resource-sharing, and
personal cooperation on an international scale.





















O









VII. Technical Assistance and Training Support Base


Domestic Orientation Workshops, 1983

The FSSP sponsored five domestic orientation workshops
during 1983. The first and second were held at University of
Florida (June 6-10; July 18-22), the third at Michigan State
University (August 21-24), the fourth at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute (August 29-September 2), and the fifth at Colorado
State University (September 26-30). Participants included
personnel from several land-grant universities, consultants,
USAID personnel, foreign graduate students enrolled in
American universities, foreign researchers/administrators,
and others. A numerical distribution of participants appears
below.

Participants in FSSP Domestic Workshops, 1983

United States University Personnel 84 (64%)
Consultants 6 ( 4%)
Foreign Researchers/Administrators 8 ( 6%)
USAID Personnel 12 ( 9%)
Foreign Graduate Students in U.S. 20 (15%)
Others (Representatives of Peace Corps
and African Development Bank) 2 ( 2%)


132 (100%)



A critical objective of these workshops was to initiate an
expansion of the domestic FSR/E expertise base, especially
creating of a reservoir of trained people who can adequately meet
the demands of AID Missions for support. The workshops sought to
orient, sensitize, and familiarize participants with the FSR/E
approach and concepts, and to promote some consensus regarding
this approach to research and extension.

Although these workshops received much constructive criticism
from participants, there was strong agreement that they were both
worthwhile and that their objectives were substantially met.
Accordingly, the FSSP will continue with similar workshops in
1984.


Development of Materials

A series of slide/tape presentations has been developed to
address and explain farming systems methodology. These
presentations have been redefined in conjunction with workshop
activities of the project and of program associates. Valuable
feedback in the form of criticism and suggestions from workshop
coordinators and participants alike has not only helped to
crystallize concepts in the FSSP presentations, but has also








pointed the way for additional slide/tape presentations that need
to be developed. A brief description of those currently in use
for orientation and training is given below.

Introduction to Farming Systems Research and Development -
describes FSR&D approach to agricultural development and offers
some insight into its evolution and purpose. The concept of
limited-resource farmers is explained in terms of their
commonality world-wide and the importance of including them in the
development process.

Overview of Farming Systems Research and Extension explores
the farming systems approach to technology research, development,
and dissemination for limited-resource, small-scale family
farmers. It defines the role of FSR/E and uses examples to show
how an FSR/E program works. This module answers the following
important questions: Who is expected to benefit from FSR/E? How
does FSR/E work to benefit this group? Why would one expect FSR/E
to work in his or her country or area?

Economic Characteristics of Small-Scale, Limited-Resource
Family Farms Part 1 discusses the implications for technology
development in terms of the resources and constraints these
farmers have to work with. It discusses the concept of "limited-
resource" farmers as a social, cultural and economic environment
of the family. Part 2 moves beyond the economic characteristics
of the farmer into the economic considerations of technology
inputs. It considers the resource base and various outcomes a
farmer might expect in the allocation of those resources. The
presentation also looks at learning curves, or learning to use a
new technology, as a function of management.

The Small Scale Family Farm as a System discusses
relationships among and between the household, crops, animals and
the market. Three kinds of systems in Asia are examined:
swidden, humid uplands and lowland rice agriculture. A farming
system typical of the Central American Highlands is also examined.
The models representing these systems reflect the interactions
within the various systems and the modifications that evolve as
population pressure increases and infrastructure improves.

Land Use in Upper Volta a case study of the relationship
between family and farming systems. It describes the subdivision
of household land and some of the implications of these subdivided
rights to its use. It stresses the importance of understanding
family economic and social roles, since these can have a
pronounced effect on farming systems.

Defining Recommendation Domains uses a case study of
Santiago Sacatepequez, Guatemala. In farming systems research,
recommendation domains are useful delineations of geographical
boundaries for groups of farms with similar farming systems. The
definition and usefulness of this boundary is the topic of this
presentation.











Designing Alternative Solutions a series of case studies
that portray the farming systems approach to different kinds of
agricultural problems in various parts of the world. Each
slide/tape presentation describes specified problems and factors
influencing the design of solutions for limited-resource family
farms. Current case studies in modular form include: Zapotitan,
El Salvador; Jutiapa, Guatemala; and the North Florida (USA) FSR/E
Project.

Design and Analysis of On-Farm Agronomic Trials concerns
one of the main tools in the farming systems approach to the
development of technology for small-scale, limited-resource family
farms. For farming systems research to properly evaluate the
technology, it is necessary for the trials to be conducted under
the real conditions of the farmers for whom it is being developed.
This module discusses both the trials and the importance of farmer
participation in the evaluation process.

In addition to the slide/tape presentations listed,
development is underway on a continuing and complementary set of
additional instructional materials. This includes the following:
Initial Characterization The Rapid Survey or Sondeo; Continuing
Characterization; Hierarchy of Constraints; Promotion of
Acceptable Technology; Enterprise Records; Directed Surveys;
Evaluation of Results; Household; and Nutrition. Additional case
studies are being sought from various farming systems research
teams to broaden the scope of the material that the FSSP can make
available in its orientation and training efforts. Case studies
are revised and updated to introduce new and targeted information.

During the year FSSP slide/tape presentations were employed
in a variety of orientation activities at various locations.
These included formal, structured presentations at the orientation
workshops described in the training section of this report, as
well as similar presentations in Paraguay, Ecuador, and the
Dominican Republic. Many of the visitors to the project at the
University of Florida spent some of their time going over these
presentations. In addition, various institutions requested the
use of these materials at their own facilities and with their own
farming systems orientation and training programs. A summary
listing of this institutional distribution follows:

AID/Manila AID/Senegal
AID/Upper Volta AID/Washington
CIMMYT-Turkey CIP-Peru
IITA-Nigeria OICD/USDA


And the following universities:

Arizona California-Davis
Colorado State Florida
Hawaii-Manoa Illinois.
Southern Illinois-Carbondale Iowa State








Kentucky
Minnesota
Oklahoma
Utah State
Washington State


Michigan State
Missouri-Columbia
Oregon
VPI









VIII. Summary and Conclusion


Efforts of the FSSP since the signing of a Cooperative
Agreement between USAID/S&T Agriculture and the University of
Florida in the fall of 1982, and the initial meeting of UF and
support entities in December, 1982, have embodied a variety of
activities to establish a program support base for USAID/
Missions involved with FSR&D projects. The Cooperative Agreement
(Appendix 1) provides for flexible program development by the FSSP
so that needs can be assessed and response efforts designed to
help resolve problems where traditional USAID contracting modes
may be less responsive. The Cooperative Agreement thus provides a
mechanism of support to BIFAD and collaborative programs embodied
within Title XII.


Two sections are used in this summary to
assess the first year of FSSP activity. First,
State of the Art, not addressed directly in the body of the
report, serves to demonstrate (1) where the farming systems
approach is and how it might contribute to agricultural research
and extension, and (2) where and how FSSP might assist, USAID and
other technical assistance entities to fulfill the needs of third
world national institutions in establishing viable and effective
agricultural research and extension programs. The second section
is a review of the 1983 Work Plan (Appendix 1) to determine how
well anticipated activities were achieved.


State-of-the-Art

State-of-the-art can be viewed as descriptive, diagnostic or
developmental research related to FSR&D, FSR/E and FSIP. Within
the FSSP, such research tends to be primarily descriptive and
somewhat diagnostic, while much of the diagnostic and
developmental research comes from related efforts such as
bilateral contracts, CRSPs, IARCs, Regional Centers and National
Programs. In 1983, little direct state-of-the-art work was
initiated, but activities listed below contributed to a broader
understanding of the farming systems approach. They indicate
general convergence, greater consistency and improved consensus
concerning farming systems research and extension methods,
particularly by those most directly involved in FS programs.
Activities emerging to contribute to this needed focus were not
entirely under the auspices of FSSP but were stimulated in many
instances or supported by various AID efforts and the FSSP. Some
of the activities follow:

1) Major networking meetings, workshops and conferences: IITA and
ICRISAT in West Africa, CIMMYT in East Africa, KSU/FSSP with
world-wide participation held in Kansas, USAID/Africa within the
ADO and RDO conference held in Harare, Zimbabwe.







2) Evaluations and reviews of programs in IITA, CIAT, CIMMYT,
Zambia and Paraguay.

3) Development of information systems and diffusion of information
through the FSSP Newsletter, the FSSP/USAID documentation efforts
at KSU and USAID/DIU, an FSSP book of readings, establishment of
an FSSP Working Paper series.

4) Initial documentation of on-going farming systems programs
through an inventory of USAID supported FS programs, other donor
support programs and national programs. This task is an on-going
effort and will serve as a base to draw forth state-of-the-art
experience for. communication through workshops, newsletters and
other publications.

5) Initiation of a plan for briefing and debriefing technical
assistance and training teams to draw forth experience
from FS applications and from institutional development and
managerial interventions to strengthen research and extension.
This process has only begun and will be refined and strengthened
throughout the FSSP.

6) A Technical Committee was established and the US members
identified (Appendix 12), with members from Asia, Africa and Latin
America to be identified in 1984. The Technical Committee,
responsible to the Advisory Council and the Director, will give
counsel to establishing priorities for addressing technical
concerns in FSR/E applications and methodologies. As necessary
priority issues requiring descriptive, diagnostic and conceptual
attention are identified, task forces may be empowered to provide
needed technical input for training and technical efforts.

7) The FSR experts invited to review the on-farm research efforts
of the CIAT Bean Program (Michael Collinson, Peter Hildebrand,
David Norman, Michael Fayre and Antonio Turrent) brought to bear
between them some 50 years of FSR expertise from three continents.
These practitioners focused on assisting FSR personnel in the CIAT
Bean Program redefine their research priorities by reviewing their
respective state-of-the-art experiences. Few, if any
methodological differences exist between these FSR practitioners
when the maior client of the FSR methodology is perceived as the
farmer and the farm household--the focus of all five experts.
This agreement can be summed up in one word: consensus. However,
these participants pointed out that such methodological consensus
should not be allowed to mask several difficulties which lie ahead
for future and on-going FSR projects. Some of these critical
issues include: (1) how the FSR team, and individual members
manage research priorities and budget time, (2) the difficulties
encountered in, and the lag time necessary for, institutionalizing
FSR methodology into a host country agricultural research or
extension institute, and (3) the unique problem involved in
introducing FSR into African National Programs.

Additional issues to be considered by the IARCs and the FSSP
Network are: (1) Network/Communication facilitation for
practitioners who feel isolated working overseas and between








different IARCs, (2) Sensitizing future FSR practitioners to host
country concerns, constraints and political realities in
implementing the whole FSR process, and (3) Facilitating the
involvement of more people in FSR who have no prior experience but
plenty of interest and enthusiasm (the multiplier effect). In
conclusion, state-of-the-art discussions are evolving from general
methodological discussions to consideration of fine tuning
differences required to institutionalize FSR on a case by case,
country by country, basis.



Progress in 1983

An assessment of FSSP activity in 1983 against the 1983 Work
Plan is revealing. Generally, expectations were met where demands
could be anticipated. A purpose of the FSSP has been to support
USAID/Mission needs in the rapidly evolving area of FSR/E.
Definition of these needs is, in part, a responsibility of the
FSSP. For this reason, strategies began to unfold almost
immediately following presentations of the 1983 Work Plan that
were not fully anticipated; thus, some results were altered from
expectations and some results were entirely new. The process has
worked well, but we believe an analysis of these results, relative
to the plan, is instructive. Points of reference for this
assessment follow:

1) The FSSP has adhered to its purpose in developing support for
collaborating institutions and programs whose objectives are the
improvement of family farms with limited resources through FSR&D
principles. This base is established but the focus on farming in
developing countries, through collaboration with those
institutions that provide support to farmers, must now be
strengthened.

2) An assessment of FSSP support entity capability was initiated
and relationships through a Memorandum of Agreement were
established with 11 universities and four consulting firms. Other
universities may join the FSSP until July 1, 1984, after which
additional new member entities will be limited. Program
associates (more then 300) from support entities are now listed
with credentials for assignments with the FSSP. Further training
of this support base is underway by the SEs. Five orientation
workshops were held in 1983 for program associates, supported
primarily from Strengthening Grant funds. This process should
continue in 1984.

3) Specific state of the art assessments began in 1983 but need
further attention in 1984 and 1985. Areas delineated in the 1983
Work Plan are: alternative methodologies, institutional concerns,
extension, training needs and cost effectiveness of FSR/E.

4) A debriefing process for gleaning information from experiences
gained by training and technical assistance teams is being
developed but needs further attention. Staffing delays for the
FSSP Core limited achievement of a complete briefing/debriefing








structure. This is an important concern and it is emphasized in
the 1984 Work Plan.

5) Workshop support began in 1983 in West Africa and at the Annual
KSU FS Symposium to encourage exchange of experiences. The
workshop function must be more fully developed within the FSSP.
To further strengthen communication and research, 100 abstracted
titles of FSR/E and related literature were provided by KSU/FSSP
to USAID/DIU. Plans are underway to better handle management of
fugitive literature.

6) A training task group was not identified in 1983. The
orientation workshops served as a base for constructively testing
the training materials under development. The training plan in
1984 calls for specific course development needs where
individuals, groups and entities will be empowered to act.

7) The orientation workshop was developed for technical assistance
advisors and USAID project managers as expected in the 1983 plan.
Refinements are necessary in pedagogy and materials, while the
basic approach and material seem sound.

8) Two further courses, anticipated for 1983, were fully developed
for an international graduate student clientele but need adaption
and revision for use in specific country settings; they are a
general FSR/E practitioner course and an administrator course.

9) Training modules (tape-slide) were developed as planned in 1983
and received extensive use. Further revisions are called for, in
the modules, as they are moved into specific training programs.

10) An inventory of FS training courses and materials was not
completed as planned. Initial steps were taken in that direction
with several universities and IARCs. This task must be completed.

11) A world-wide inventory of networks was not completed but is
being formulated through regional emphasis. Working knowledge of
networks in Africa has been attained and cooperation emerged with
IITA and ICRISAT in support of WAFSRN and with CIMMYT in East
Africa.

12) In networking, five goals were attained including:
establishment of a newsletter in French, English and Spanish;
planning of workshops and seminars; development of mailing lists;
support to regional networks; and creation of a documentation
center.


Positive results not anticipated in the 1983 Work Plan were
several:

1) The strategy for Africa led to the subregional orientation
workshops for four to six countries as a means for addressing AID
mission needs, providing information about the FSSP and providing
a brief orientation to FSR&D. The first workshop in Upper Volta
was a successful learning experience for all which will benefit









1984 implementation.


2) The ability of Latin American professionals to carry the
response effort in that region attests to important investments by
USAID in the region in the 1970's. Also experience shows a need
for low-key but steady monitoring and backstop support to
encourage continued progress in agricultural research and
extension with a farming systems approach.

3) Responses by support entities to external endeavors for
strengthening the support base through workshops, seminars and
travel grants will be rewarding to the FSSP and USAID in general.

4) Rapid convergence in Farming Systems thought relative to
methodologies, once the clientele focus became clear, has
illustrated that this approach to research and extension can
benefit US technical assistance programs.







APPENDIX 1
1983

WORKPLAN

FARMING SYSTEMS SUPPORT PROJECT


Cooperative Agreement No: DAN-4099-A-oo-2083-00
Project No: 936-4099


Submitted to

The United States

Agency for International Development





Prepared by


University of Florida
In Cooperation with FSSP Support Entities


January 1983








CONTENTS


I. Summary




II. Introduction

A. The Farming Systems Perspective

B. Purpose: 1983 and Beyond

C. FSSP Responsibility

D. Administrative and Policy of Support Entities


III. Support Response Base

A. Advancing the State of the Arts

B. Technical Assistance Needs and Response
Capabilities

C. Addressing Varied Training Needs

D. Developing and Strengthening Networks

E. Evaluation: Strengthening the Knowledge and
Assistance Base


IV. A Delivery Strategy: Africa, Latin America, Asia,
Near East

A. Regional Priorities

B. Request Review, Structure and Response
Mechanisms


V. Africa in '83
Proactive Support

1. International Institutions

2. USAID Missions








A. Implementation

1. Training

2. Technical Assistance

3. Network Development

4. State of the Arts



VI. Latin America, Asia, Near East in '83

A. Limited Response Strategy

B. Implementation Plans




Diagrams:



1. FSSP Organizational and Response Structure

2. FSSP General Plan 1983

3. FSSP Proactive Plan, Africa 1983

4. FSSP Responsive Plan, Latin America and Asia 1983



Attachments:


A Policy and Administrative Guidelines under the FSSP: A
First Approximation based on the Atlanta Meeting


B Memorandum of Agreement: FSSP/Support Entities


C FSSP Cooperative Agreement


1-3








SUMMARY


The Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) seeks to
provide leadership in developing and maintaining consensus
about activities commonly referred to by a generic term -
"Farming Systems Research". Farming Systems Research and
Development (FSR&D), for purposes of the FSSP, embodies two
complementary approaches including Farming Systems
Infrastructure and Policy (FSIP) and Farming Systems
Research/Extension (FSR/E).

The primary purpose of the FSSP is to provide technical
assistance, training and networking support to practitioners
and administrators of FSR/E programs. The FSSP provides for
collaborative support by at least twenty-two universities
and other institutions to assist AID missions and third
world institutions involved in developing farming systems
programs.

Support entities (presently universities, consulting
firms, USDA, with potential involvement by international
centers, national institutions and others) have convened to
suggest administrative guidelines and policies for the FSSP
(See Diagram 1). The implementation structure includes
program associates, program leaders, task groups, technical
committees and an advisory council to the Director and five
core program and administrative leaders. Support entity
involvement will be based in a Memorandum of Agreement with
the FSSP/UF as an instrument of the FSSP Cooperative
Agreement between USAID and the University of Florida as
lead entity (See Diagram 2). Response capability includes:
1. state of the arts work based in task groups, field
experience reporting procedures, documentation and
workshops; 2. technical assistance with preproject
assessments, design of FSR/E programs, assistance in
implementation programs, and in evaluation of FSR/E efforts;
3. training for administrators, practitioners, AID project
managers and agricultural officers and technical assistance
advisors; and 4. network development and support initially
through a newsletter, workshops, seminars and documentation
center.

A response strategy for the FSSP delineates priorities
for 1983. Proactive assistance to FSR&D will focus on
Africa while Asia, Latin America and the Near East will
receive assistance on a response basis. Proactive support
to Africa will address international institutions and AID
missions through networks, training and technical assistance
oriented to laying a solid base for future farming systems
support. Priority will be in Western Africa early in 1983
followed by Eastern and Southern Africa. To present, eight
responses have been received from missions in Africa to the
AID Washington, D.C. cable soliciting an expression of








needs in farming systems. Responses from other regions
include Asia 6, Latin America 7, and Near East 2.
Most of the requests call for early design and pre-project
assistance (See Diagrams 3 and 4).

A general calendar for initiation of the FSSP program
is presented in summary format in the following tables. The
work plan for 1983 follows, in many instances, lacking the
detail expected in the 1984 plan following experience in
initial phases of the effort. Flexibility is desired to
provide for responsive program development as the Farming
Systems Support Project gains maturity in field
applications.


INTRODUCTION


Farming Systems Research and Development



The term "farming systems" was applied in the 1970's to
several different activities being developed around the
world. These activities had a common thread and general
purpose, but the methods used to pursue the goals differed
widely. The threads that bound them all together and are
basic to the farming systems approach are:

1. A concern with small scale family farmers who
generally reap a disproportionately small share of
the benefits of organized research, extension and
other developmental activities;

2. Recognition that a firsthand and thorough
understanding of the farmers' situation is
necessary to increase their productivity and as a
basis for helping to improve their welfare; and

3. The use of scientists and technicians from more
than one discipline as a means of understanding the
farm as an entire system rather than the isolation
of components within the system.


In the 1980's, as the generic term "Farming Systems
Research" (FSR) came into more common use, (see, for
example, Byerlee, et al. 1982), it became evident that two
basic components when, taken together, comprise the farming
system approach to research and development. This is very
similar to the concept used by Shaner, et al. (1982) who
termed it FSR&D* This terminology will be adapted by the
FSSP. The two complementary components of FSR&D recognized
by Norman** (1982) under slightly different terminology,








are:


1. The farming systems approach to infrastructural
support and policy (FSIP), and

2. The farming systems research and extension (FSR/E)
approach to technology generation, evaluation and
delivery.



FSIP and FSR/E

FSIP is more "macro" in scope than is FSR/E. Since it
deals with policy, the variables it treats are mainly
outside the farm gate and involve more social scientists and
economists than agro-biological scientists. Methodologies
frequently include surveys to provide the perspective on
farming systems as a means of more accurately predicting
farmer responses to different policy stimuli.

FSR/E is more "micro" in scope and it deals mostly with
conditions inside the farm gate. Being concerned with
technology generation, evaluation and delivery, there are
more agro-biological scientists than socio-economic
scientists involved and methodology is heavy in on-farm
biological research with relatively little time devoted to
surveys.

FSIP is applied, farmer oriented, socio-economic
research, supported by the agro-biological sciences in a
team effort. The principal product is information. The
primary clients are policy makers and managers of services
and infrastructure. FSR/E is applied, farmer oriented,
agro-biological research, supported by the socio-economic
sciences in a team effort which includes extension
responsibilities. The principal product is technology. The
primary clients are farmers.

FSIP is not efficient for technology generation,
evaluation and delivery nor is FSR/E efficient in policy
analysis, because FSIP is not primarily designed to create
technology and FSR/E is not primarily designed to change
policy. The two components use different mixes of
scientists and methods; and their primary clients are
different, but they are highly complementary and compatible.
FSR/E can have significant impact on policy makers because

* Shaner, W.W., P.F. Philipp and W.R. Schmehl. 1982.
Farming Systems Research and Development, Guidelines for
Developing Countries, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
* Norman, D.W. 1982. The Farming Systems Approach to
Research. Farming Systems Research Symposium. "Farming
System in the Field," Kansas State Univ. Manhattan,
Kansas.








it can provide more detailed information on farms and
farmers than FSIP can obtain. FSIP can have significant
impact on agricultural technology because it can provide
FSR/E with more complete information on infrastructure and
policy than it would otherwise be able to obtain.

Hence, taken together FSR/E and FSIP comprise a
complete development concept termed here FSR&D.



Purpose: 1983 and Beyond

1. The purpose of the Farming Systems Support Project
(FSSP) is to develop support for collaborating
institutions and programs whose objectives are the
improvement of family farms with limited resources
through FSR&D principals, emphasis in FSR/E and
including FSIP. This will be done through
technical assistance, training, networking,
publications, general guidance and evaluation.

2. The FSSP will be focused on farming in the
developing countries through collaboration with
those institutions that provide support to farmers
for improving production and consumption while
improving the well being of rural populations.
Emphasis initially will be on proactive support to
Africa with reactive support to other regions until
viable assistance structures are established in
Africa.

3. The FSSP is to provide a flexible environment
wherein research, extension and other development
strategies are focused upon cultural, economic and
biological aspects of farming; the farmer (as a
client for improved technology) participates in the
process of determining relevant technology.


The FSSP is not to become an end in itself nor is it to
become a rigid institution; FSSP activities and delivery
structures will be modified as the farm oriented approach is
further developed.


FSSP Responsibility


A broad range of responsibilities will emerge for the
FSSP in 1983. Responsibility criteria for the FSSP are
summarized below:


1-7








1. The FSSP, embracing a concept known as FSR/E, which
begins and ends with farmer involvement, will
strengthen research and extension systems
particularly focused on limited resource farmers.

2. The FSSP, with AID missions, will address FSR/E
needs of administrators and practitioners as
primary clientele who work with farmers.

3. The FSSP will focus on training and technical
assistance concerned with the broad spectrum of
farm level research and extension concerns and on
the interface with policy and institutional
conditions necessary for successful farming systems
research and extension.


Thus, the main thrust of the FSSP will be in support of
FSR/E which involves different groups in the generation,
testing (evaluating), and transferring of beneficial
technologies to farmers in identified regions and farming
systems. The different groups are:

1. Institutional management and administration.

2. Commodity and discipline research.

3. On-farm researchers.

4. Farmers.

5. Extensionists.

6. Collaborating agencies.


Although FSR/E is flexible to fit the agricultural and
institutional conditions found in different country and
cultural settings,it will usually involve steps similar to
the following sequence:

1. Initial characterization and analysis of existing
farming systems through close consultation with
farmers.

a. Tentative partitioning into homogeneous farming
systems or recommendation domains.

b. First estimation of problems and constraints.


2. Planning and design of first phase work.








a. Biological research.

b. Continuing agro-socioeconomic characterization.


3. Selection, generation and evaluation of
technologies.

a. Commodity and discipline research on experiment
stations and in laboratories.

b. Researcher managed on-farm trials with farmer
participation.

i. Exploratory trials.

ii. Site-specific trials.

iii. Regional agronomic trials.

iv. Agro-socioeconomic trials.


c. Farmer managed trials.

i. Individual evaluation of acceptability by
the farmers.

ii. Refined partitioning of recommendation
domains by researchers.

iii.-. Initiation of technology transfer
activities.



4. Information accumulation and analysis.

a. Agro-technical data from on-farm trials.

b. Economic records on farm enterprises from
farmers.

c. Other agro-socio-cultural-economic and
political information through directed surveys
of area residents.


5. Frequently programmed reevaluation of research
information to:

a. Refine partitioning of recommendation domains.


1-9








b. Make recommendations of acceptable technology
for dissemination into specified recommendation
domains.

c. Feedback into the sequential process.

d. Serve as a basis for planning future work.


6. Extension of acceptable results throughout
appropriate recommendation domain(s).

Administration and Policy of Support Entities

The FSSP is to provide a catalyst for collaboration,
coordination, communication and effective utilization of the
farming systems approach to resolution of farm level
production and management problems. The desire is to
provide an administrative and policy structure that will
effectively respond to demands expressed by AID Missions.
Establishment of the FSSP such that participating support
entities can further strengthen their capability for
response to FSR/E training and technical assistance needs is
anticipated in the structure. (See Attachment A).

FSSP support entities, including universities,
consulting firms and others, are a source for qualified
farming systems scientists. As a resource and program
coordination effort the FSSP structure can be expanded to
include international research centers and national
institutions. Diagram 1 provides a view of the general
structure of the FSSP including clientel and support entity
relationships.

The implementing structure proposed by the FSSP
institutions includes six tiers:

1. FSSP Institutions Universities, firms and other
entities.

2. FSSP Program Associates support faculty at
participating entities.

3. FSSP Program Leaders for each participating entity
to provide program leadership, communicate with the
FSSP administration and serve as a standing program
advisory committee for the FSSP.

4. An FSSP Council composed of representatives from
participating entities with advisory
responsibilities to the FSSP Director (a
Provisional Council named by the Director includes
Drs. Larry Zuidema, Cornell University; James
Meiman, Colorado State University and Wendall
McKenzie, University of Missouri).








5. FSSP Technical Committees Standing committees for
advisory support to the FSSP Director and Council
which will be kept to a minimum compared to the
more flexible task groups.

6. FSSP Task Groups (ad hoc in nature) to address
specific needs and maintain responsive capability
and flexibility to prepare for and adjust to
changing demands placed on the FSSP. The task
groups will provide program advisory support as a
technical advisory base for well defined tasks with
specific time (usually very short term)
assignments.


An assessment of FSSP support entities to determine
institutional capability and the combined support entity
potential for meeting needs of third world farming systems
programs will be completed. The assessment includes
specification of: a. Program base and priority areas
relative to farming systems; b. Regional and geo-climatic
focus; c. Institutional and scientist capability in
specific countries relative to the program base.

Support entity commitment will be ascertained and
solidified through a Memorandum of Agreement (See Draft in
Attachment B) signed between FSSP/UF and the support entity
calling .for: a. Identification of an FSSP Program Leader,
B. Identification of FSSP Program Associates, c.
Specification of strengthening efforts to further develop a
base for FSSP work presented in a plan for program and
faculty development prior to faculty and institutional
participation; and d. Indication of a flexible
administrative/ implementation posture for collaboration
with other support entities in the FSSP. The basic
framework for this collaboration is being established and
seeks flexibility to provide for innovation in program
development and administration (See Attachment A).

The FSSP will be successful only if the program base is
strengthened collectively and separately by the support
entities. The purpose is not to draw solely upon individual
faculty interests without careful concern for support entity
goals, policies and programs. This will provide for
coordination and leadership in broad program areas such as:

1. Production sciences,

2. Socio-economic sciences,

3. Component and program interfaces such as:

a. Crop and livestock systems,


1-11








b. Family household and farming systems,


4. Agro-ecological/farming systems relationships,

5. Farming systems methodology,

6. Organization, management and reorientation for
farming systems project, and

7. Policy, institutional and other macro interfaces
with farm focused concerns.


FSSP administrative and program .leadership is seated
with a Director at the lead institution who works closely
with the AID/FSSP project manager from the Bureau of Science
and Technology. This liason provides the basic mechanism
for coordinating regional bureau .and local mission requests.
Within the core UF/FSSP management, four professional
positions cover responsibilities in both function and
program related areas. Job descriptions will remain
flexible as these people are identified such that the best
people can be tapped for work in the program and that all of
the major function and program responsibilities are embodied
effectively by the Director and the five core staff. An
editorial assistant will head publication of the newsletter
and other major communication support efforts for FSSP
program associates as participants in field teams and
contributors to the state of the arts.


SUPPORT RESPONSE BASE

An important issue to be addressed by support entities
throughout the project but intensively in 1983, is
development of a broad support entity base for institution
building in third world countries relative to farming
systems needs. It is recognized that farming systems
programs cannot succeed without support from an
understanding and responsive institutional and policy
structure within the national government. Well planned,
integrated and complementary FSSP technical assistance,
training and networking activities will assist with this
task as specified in the Cooperative Agreement (See
Attachment C). These activities are interrelated and will
not be viewed as separate components which would reduce the
effectiveness of the farming systems program.

A general calendar of 1983 activities for the FSSP is
presented in Diagram 2. Some amendments are expected,
particularly for the last six months of the year, based on
emerging needs of AID missions.


Advancing the State of the Arts








The FSSP Cooperative Agreement calls for state of the
arts assessments in at least five general areas which may
include: alternative methodologies, organizational concerns
(institutional adaptation and development for farms systems
programs), the role of extension (including the
research/extension interface), training programs (content,
pedagogy, clientele) and cost effectiveness of FSR/E.
Besides these areas, the FSSP support entities have
suggested topical and functional areas for attention to
advance the state of the arts which interface or are
integrated with farming systems as follows: livestock
systems, household and family, water management, marketing,
policy, farm modelling, economic/statistical analysis,FSSP
diagnostic approaches and general methodology.

Task groups, identified to help initiate state of the
arts assessments, will be assigned from the above areas.
These task groups will prepare priorities, guidelines, and
support material to advance the state of the arts and assist
with training and technical assistance.

Reports from technical assistance and training
experiences by- program associates returning from FSSP
assignments will be an important basis for compiling
information. A standardized format will be developed in
1983 to be managed through word processors which will
facilitate retrival for developing training and technical
assistance guidelines and materials. The information will
serve as a network base to develop newsletters, general
contract 'reports, state of the arts documents and
orientation materials for FSSP program leaders and
associates.

Documents prepared from FSR/E work by field
practitioners will communicate advances in the science of
farming systems. The FSSP will initiate action with support
entities on the present knowledge base to assist in making
it known to field practitioners. Through workshops and
publications, practitioners will be encouraged to present
research/extension experiences and results. The support
entities have suggested that a publication task group
address various communication alternatives including a
Farming Systems Journal. With AID/S&T/DIU an FSR/E
documentation center will be established in 1983 including
up to 100 abstracted titles to be included in an annotated
bibliography. The task group will assist in establishing
guidelines with AID for successful implementation of this
effort and for developing appropriate linkages to and among
present holdings of farming systems documents such as those
at Kansas State University and Purdue University.It is
expected that a documentation center for broad support of
FSSP training, technical assistance and networking would
entail several thousand items in time and should be
established at a University. It would complement the center
in AID which has a more limited purpose.


1-13








Workshops will be held sub-regionally, regionally and
internationally for purposes of networking FSR/E experience
and information. Emphasis will be given to developing
consensus and advancing farming systems methodologies for
improved FSR/E programs at the practitioner and farmer
level.


Technical Assistance Needs and Response Capabilities

Implementation assistance to AID missions in 1983 and
beyond will include pre-project assessments, design of FSR/E
programs, assistance in design of implementation efforts and
assistance with evaluation of FSR/E programs.

Identifying and structuring technical assistance needs
in 1983 will be a collaborative process emerging between the
FSSP and AID missions. FSSP efforts in the first year will
respond to well enunciated needs, identified from careful
diagnostics and planning. The FSSP entities can then
prepare for delivery of training and technical assistance
support designed to meet long range needs. The opportunity
for systematic program development to address a very complex
concern in support of small farm systems, demands consistent
and dedicated collaboration. Immediate response can be
counter productive, unless the need is well diagnosed and
structured.

With early diagnosis and planning, the FSSP will be
able to further strengthen the response capability of the
support entities. The management structure of the FSSP is
flexible so that a mechanism can evolve to perfect a union
between AID missions and the FSSP for long term
implementation throughout and beyond the present Cooperative
Agreement. Early technical assistance endeavors will
provide important experiences for both AID and the FSSP in
developing the needs/response structure.

Access to the support entity capability requires
attention to availability of program associates, interface
with Farming Systems interests on a program basis and
institution/university programs and policies relating to
faculty, department and college management that represent
the long term base of support for international technical
assistance. Nuturing the institutional and program base
creates faculty depth to address Farming Systems needs in
broad multidisciplinary efforts. For this reason, early
efforts in 1983 by the FSSP will be devoted to
systematically organizing programs for establishing a
support base for AID missions. Similarly, the FSSP will
assist AID to strengthen overall capacity for addressing
Farming Systems program management concerns within the
agency centrally and the missions.


1-14








Addressing Varied Training Needs

A primary goal of the FSSP is to assist with
institutionalizing farming systems training within national
programs. To this end, emphasis will be on training
trainers located in developing countries. Only through this
emphasis will sustained capacity emerge to support
indigenous FSR/E programs.

Training responsibilities are identified in the
Cooperative Agreement. The FSSP plans to identify a
training task group to further specify materials, messages,
delivery techniques, clientele needs, etc. for the training
program. Complementarity between training and technical
assistance will occur over the full range of technical
assistance. Discussions with FSSP support entities have
identified possible courses to cover the complex of
technical assistance needs. These are:



1. Administrator course targeting administrators and
managers of farming systems projects in developing
countries which would include both classroom and
field orientations (this course has been presented
further refinement planned).

2. Practitioner course for individuals charged with
designing and implementing FSR/E projects (several
courses have been designed and offered both in the
U.S. and in developing countries further
refinement and coordination planned).

3. AID Project Managers and Agricultural Development
Officers workshop/course offered at sub-region,
region or U.S. sites, depending on time and focus
(to be developed for presentation in mid 1983).

4. Technical Assistance Advisors workshop/course for
U.S. people to be sent on AID assignment whether
with long term contracts or the FSSP. FSSP
entities have pinpointed a need for continued
"certification" of training and technical
assistance advisors to account for some program
"standardization", continuity and updating relative
to the state of the arts. This task will be
studied and addressed with guidelines in 1983.


The above courses will be developed and taught in 1983.
Courses for administrators and practitioners with FSR/E
programs are of highest priority in the course development
process and are well underway. For solid technical
assistance programs, workshop courses for AID mission people
and FSSP program associates are essential.

1-15








Mobilization of training programs, which must be
need-responsive and time flexible, will be achieved by
initiating the development of training modules in 1983.
These will be abstracted from the practitioner and
administrator course program including, for example, family
systems and household influences on farming systems,
cropping and livestock systems, diagnostic surveys, on-farm
research design and data analysis, institutional
considerations, policy and marketing considerations, etc.
Module development will be a continuous process emanating
from task groups appointed for a given topic and/or based in
subcontracts with support entities under the Memorandum or
Agreement. These modules can then be assembled and adapted
to the local and regional context. Broad based discipline
and entity involvement will be needed if these courses are
to meet the systems needs of the FSSP.

Before launching courses and modules, an inventory will
be taken for those presently in existence. Universities and
centers, (such as CIMMYT, IRRI, CATIE-Central America and
ICTA-Guatemala), have developed courses on or related to
farming systems from which materials and ideas can be drawn.
Early involvement in 1983 of developing country practitioners
and institutions is desired to further improve the training
program, to train trainers in national institutions and to
commence the process of institutionalizing farming systems
training within developing countries.

Plans will be made in 1983 for two other training
courses to complement the four courses listed above.
Academic courses in FSR/E to fit into a university
curriculum have been developed by several Universities.
These courses should be further developed and adapted for
location at both U.S. and developing country universities
so that farming systems training is coupled with discipline
specific programs. Another course is needed for in-service
training with an ideal length of four to nine months to
cover a cropping season and for delivery with ongoing
farming systems projects in developing countries.


Developing and Strengthening Networks

Early in the project a world wide inventory of
agricultural networks, including farming systems, will be
accomplished. Full cooperation will be given to those
entities presently assisting with network activities.
Network interrelationships will address not only those
established from outside stimuli, but also those indigenous
to a region. Also a conscious effort will be made to
include women's groups in networks due to the important role
of family systems and women in farming systems.


1-16








Emphasis in..1983 will focus on five areas to commence
implementation of the networking process:



1. The creation of an international newsletter in
Spanish, French and English,

2. Planning of workshops and seminars,

3. Development of mailing lists for newsletters and
other publications,

4. Organization of regional networks, and

5. Creation of a documentation center and network.


It is expected that the FSSP will focus heavily on
training early in the program and, as Farming Systems
activities move through a development process, network
demands upon the FSSP will expand significantly into major
long term support needs.


Evaluation: Strengthening the Knowledge and Assistance Base

Application of a systems approach to administration,
management and implementation of the FSSP will be directed to
continuous evaluation of field experience and effectiveness.
Team and individual reports will be systematically
structured and reviewed to serve as an information resource
for all subsequent activities. The reports will also serve
as an instantaneous mechansim for internal evaluation, a
basis for periodic reports to AID and the FSSP Support
Entities and reference material for external evaluation.

During 1983, an informal external evaluation panel will
be named to provide general council based on the 1983
experience. This process will continue and serve as
information for adjusting the implementation program.
Flexibility in the organization of the support entiy base
provides a responsive structure for adjusting to problems
and opportunities identified in the evaluation process. The
task force mechanism will assist with the program related
issues while the core administrative group and Advisory
Council will address management and administrative concern.



A DELIVERY STRATEGY:


Africa, Latin America, Asia, Near East








Regional Priorities

Because the intensity of agricultural development
problems on a regional basis is most severe in Africa and
because farming systems and agricultural technical
assistance work have, until recent times, not focused on
Africa, AID has mandated that emphasis be given to this
region early in the FSSP program. Proactive assistance to
farming systems program development will focus on Africa
while Asia, Latin America and the Near East will receive
assistance on a response basis. It is expected that general
expertise in the non-African regions for farming systems
work will produce solid requests to which the FSSP can
respond effectively but at levels requiring less assistance
than in Africa. Thus, in keeping with the Cooperative
Agreement, it is expected that a majority of the FSSP work
in 1983 will be in Africa.


Request Review, Structure and Response Mechanisms

Information has been provided to AID missions through
the Project Paper about the role and scope of the FSSP. An
AID Washington cable requested that the missions respond by
specifying needs and timing relative to FSSP capabilities.

The request mechanism is from the mission through the
AID/S&T/Ag office (requests to the Bureaus, AID-Multi Sector
Development, or the FSSP will be channeled first to the
S&T-Ag office) for review by the AID Project Manager and
placed in context relative to AID concerns. The Project
Manager will verify receipt of the request, evaluate the
request to ascertain if more information is needed and
channel the request to the FSSP Director.

The response mechanism by the FSSP will be strengthened
throughout 1983 as the details of the needs expressed in the
requests become more evident. The FSSP will study the
requests and identify the program response base, FSSP
program associates or teams appropriate to respond to the
request, and informational and logistical support needs for
an implementation effort. The FSSP will propose a response
plan and staffing for clearance by the appropriate AID
Bureau and Mission with implementation to follow including:
team development, team orientation, in country
implementation, team reports and debriefing, and final
evaluation with feedback to the core FSSP program as input
to subsequent efforts.

During 1983 this request/response mechanism will begin
to mature with an immediate goal of becoming both effective
and efficient. The response structure in time, following
adaptation of the FSSP to early requests, will further mold
the response capability emerging through task groups,
FSSP/Support Entity Memorandums of Agreement and subsequent


1-18








subcontracts with the support entities for certain tasks.
Specific request/response activities underway at this time
and other planned activities are detailed by region and
country in Table 2.


AFRICA IN '83


Proactive Support

Early response to the cable announcing the FSSP and its
capabilities has been limited from Africa missions. It is
expected that assistance in identifying farming systems
needs and in formulating requests would be helpful to
missions. Several proactive efforts will be undertaken in
1983 to assist missions and other entities on a
collaborative basis to prepare for broad based farming
systems training, technical assistance and networking.
Priority will be given to Western Africa early in the year
followed by Eastern and Southern Africa. A 1983 calendar of
events for Africa is summarized in Diagram 3 and will expand
as results of the proactive work emerges.

International institutions will be targeted for
cooperation, collaboration and linkages through networks.
For West Africa, contacts will be made and strengthened with
donor countries whose technical assistance agencies work in
farming systems including France (IRAT), Germany (GTZ) and
Canada (IRDC). Regional institutions and international
centers including IITA, ICRISAT, WARDA, SAFGRAD are to be
included in FSSP linkages. To this end, a West African
Farming Systems Research Network (WAFSRN) meeting was called
by IITA in Ibadan, Nigeria in November 1982. FSSP
representatives participated in this effort along with
representatives from the above entities and West African
countries. A network was formalized including a steering
committee and secretariat. It was agreed that the 1983
meeting would further establish the formal network as well
as informal networks among donor agencies and other support
institutions. Farming Systems Training courses were
discussed by IITA and by ICRISAT/SAFGRAD for 1983.

Activity by the FSSP in Eastern and Southern Africa
must be linked closely to that of CIMMYT. It is expected
that 1983 will be devoted to establishing mutual
understanding and joint programming to complement activity
underway by CIMMYT. To this end, very brief discussions
were held with CIMMYT in 1982 but further planning is
necessary in 1983 if the two AID funded efforts are to be
integrated in 1984 or 1985. Representatives from
CIMMYT-Mexico and Africa, AID-Washington and the FSSP will
meet in Washington early in 1983 to discuss administrative,
budget and funding details. The meetings will be preceded
by the FSSP Director traveling to CIMMYT and followed by

1-19








discussions in East Africa for familiarizing the FSSP with
the work presently underway. From this base, plans will
evolve for a collaborative training, technical assistance
and network effort.

AID missions will be the primary focus for early
proactive support. The approach to be followed will:



1. Assemble and anlayze information from
AID-Washington files on planned and programmed
mission activities from CDSS, ABS, PP, PID, and
other sources such as CDA (Cooperative Development
for Africa). A mechanism will be implemented to
assist the FSSP in anticipating needs and preparing
for timely delivery of support.

2. Respond to present requests and those forthcoming
simultaneously with other activities.

3. Facilitate subregional training/need identification
workshops in West Africa with country missions and
bilateral contractors in those countries with
Farming Systems programs in place or anticipated.
FSSP will present concepts and approaches for
effective use of FSIP and FSR/E and the missions
and contractors will enunciate needs, problems and
opportunities to better inform the FSSP concerning
preparation necessary to support local programs.

4. Mission consultation from cable requests will be a
continuous activity of the FSSP following on
results from the subregional workshops and other
information/planning based exercises. The delivery
mechanisms will be the same as those presented
above (A Delivery Strategy).

5. Three Summer short-course/seminars one week in
duration in June, July and August for AID personnel
will focus on FSR/E methods and administration as
well as FSSP capabilities. These courses can be
held at a U.S. location such as Washington, D.C.,
Gainesville or at another FSSP support entity or on
a region basis outside the U.S.



Implementation

Training program support for West Africa in 1983 cannot
be completely anticipated. It is expected that
practitioner, administrator, technical assistance advisor
and AID program leader courses will be prepared and tested.
A practitioner oriented course designed to initiate training

1-20








of trainers will be offered by IITA and the FSSP in French
and English to participants from Ivory Coast and Nigeria.
This three week course starts February 28, 1983 preceded by
three days of orientation/diagnosis with participants held
separately in Ivory Coast and Nigeria. The entire group
will convene together for approximately two weeks of
training at IITA and one week of field experience at a
farming systems site in Nigeria. The course will focus
primarily on researcher managed and farmer managed on-farm
research with supporting course segments introducing the
broader aspects of FSR/E at the farm level along with
institutional and policy concerns in FSIP.

A second short course (one week in August or September)
is in planning stages by SAFGRAD and ICRISAT in Upper Volta.
Leaders will include several experienced international
practitioners and participants will be invited from the
WAFSRN. The focus will be state of the arts oriented with
results from farming systems applications. SAFGRAD has
suggested that FSSP participation would be welcomed.
Further planning is necessary for this collaboration.

It is expected that other courses, particularly for
practitioners and administrators of FSR/E programs will be
requested following the proactive assistance in West Africa.
The FSSP will be preparing modules, course materials and
trainers for this work.

Technical assistance anticipated for Africa in 1983
will evolve through the proactive structure. Current
responses (Jan. 1983) to the cable from AID Washington
include three West African countries (Liberia, Mauritania,
Mali) and five others (Sudan, Senegal, Zaire, Kenya,
Ruwanda). Requests primarily call for technical assistance
with identification and structuring of needs and pre-project
support. Two countries need assistance soon, two call for
support later in the year, two will call for support in
1984, and two needed further information about the FSSP.
Through network activity, in-country experience will become
a major component of any technical assistance as this
experience is identified or emerges with new program
development. For this reason network organization and
support is critical to the establishment of FSR/E programs
and the technical assistance efforts of assessment, design,
implementation and evaluation. Several institutions and
support entities presently in West Africa will be essential
participants in the technical assistance work of the FSSP.

Network development and support in 1983 will focus on
donor and international entities as well as AID Missions and
support entities/contractors involved in Africa. Highest
priority will be with the WAFSRN followed by cooperation
with the network activities underway by CIMMYT in Eastern
and Southern Africa. Linkage for African networks to other
regions of the world through newsletters, documentation and
1-21








workshops is planned. A WAFSRN newsletter is planned and
CIMMYT has established a newsletter. The FSSP newsletter
will complement these efforts by communicating farming
systems activity among the regions. The FSSP newsletter
editor will serve to help establish publication policy and
program linkages as appropriate with the African editors.

Networking will be a learning mechanism for approaches
to FSR/E as well as institutionalization and policy support.
Present plans are for the second annual WAFSRN meeting in
November of 1983. Work early in the year by the FSSP,
including AID mission subregional workshops, will contribute
to structuring and strengthening the support base for the
WAFSRN. Close collaboration is sought among all of the
networks with the primary purpose to strengthen the WAFSRN
as a mode for linking practitioners and administrators in
the various countries. Ultimately, it is expected and
desired that peer groups will be of greater value to the
practitioner and administrator of FSR/E projects than
technical assistance advisors.

State of the art work in Africa will be encouraged
through network activities. Publications and workshops will
be used to encourage practitioners in making methodological
and project results of their work available to the
community. In 1983 the SAFGRAD/ICRISAT workshop/seminar and
workshop presentations at the WAFSRN meeting are a starting
point. Attention will be given to similar activities with
CIMMYT. The Annual Farming Systems Workshop at Kansas State
University, while worldwide in nature, will involve
practitioners and experienced technical assistance advisors
and trainers to further strengthen the FSR/E methodological
and knowledge base. The training modules to be developed
throughout the year also will reflect state of the art.


LATIN AMERICA, ASIA, NEAR EAST IN 1983


Limited Response Strategy

A reactive approach to FSR/E requests in Latin America,
Asia and the Near East by the FSSP will prevail early in the
project and particularly in 1983. Because priority is given
to Africa in the cooperative agreement, a reactive, in place
of a proactive, approach will address those requests that
are integrated into mission strategies and programs. Thus,
assistance will be mission specific but designed to
stimulate well established FSR/E projects. Network activity
will be encouraged so that technical assistance support can
flow among missions, technical assistance contractors, and
national institutions in the respective regions.


Implementation Plans








The course programs available to Africa can be
delivered in these regions with appropriate adaptations.
Experience, which is extensive in some L.A., Asian and Near
East countries, will be drawn upon for training and
technical assistance program development generally.
Similarly experience in these regions will contribute
substantially to state of the arts work and communication of
present programs will be nurtured through networking, the
documentation center, the newsletter and workshops.

A calendar of 1983 activities for Latin America and
Asia is presented in Diagram 4. Specific requests from AID
missions are summarized as follows:



1. Asia Sri Lanka; immediate; Nepal, during 1983;
Indonesia, Philippines, India, in 1984 or beyond;
Bangladesh requests information on the FSSP.

2. Latin America Paraguay, immediate; Dominican
Republic, Honduras, Ecuador in 1983 with Ecuador
serving as possible support to others; Panama in
1984; Mexico and the Caribbean request information
on the FSSP.

3. Near East Jordan, immediate; Egypt suggests
others observe present programs in that country.


A response plan for the above requests will be
developed early in 1983 particularly drawing upon expertise
within the regions. Support from technical assistance
advisors in the regions will be organized where possible and
appropriate drawing upon those support entities and other
institutions holding bilateral AID contracts and with
farming systems projects underway. Several countries
contain this capability. Further study will be necessary to
document this experience which will be covered by the FSSP
through baseline work with AID Washington.


1-23











Attachment A


Policy and Administrative Guidelines
Under the Farming Systems Support Project:

A First Approximation (Atlanta December 9 & 10, 1982)


This is a summary of the first planning and evaluation meeting of
participating entities under the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP)
held in Atlanta, Georgia, December 9-10, 1982. The purpose of the
document is not to be inclusive of all policy, managerial and
administrative first planning and evaluation meeting of participating
entities under the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) held in
Atlanta, Georgia, December 9-10, 1982. The purpose of the document is
not to be inclusive of all policy, managerial and administrative
concerns. It gives guidance to further planning and an administrative
basis for the 1983 work plan. The desire is to provide an
administrative and policy structure that will effectively respond to
demands expressed at AID Missions. Establishment of the FSSP such that
participating support entities can further strengthen their capability
for response to Farming Systems training and technical assistance needs
is anticipated in the structure. Equally anticipated is a proactive
need to further prepare AID Missions to better enunciate needs and
specific demands relative to Farming Systems Research and Extension
work.

STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FSSP

The FSSP is to provide a catalyst for collaboration, coordination,
communication and effective utilization of the farming systems approach
to resolution of farm level production and management problems. It is
desired that the farming systems approach enhance the realization of
opportunities to augment small farm production and income capabilities
within the family system and farming system structure of a given country
or sub-region.

Basic to all considerations for the FSSP in Third World countries
is the farm family and the farm system. The FSSP focuses on those
individuals and institutions who are responsible for research, training
and extension relative to small farm and limited resource food and fiber
production systems. The countries are then to be linked through
regional networks either presently established or to be established to
further strengthen communication of experience and information among
farming systems practitioners and their respective national
institutions. Ultimately, a strength of the program will be experience
gained in various country settings and made available through the
networks to other policy makers and practitioners in farming systems. It
is expected that farming systems experience, while unique to sets of
farming systems and also unique to specific countries, cultures and
other settings, will involve common threads of institutional, behavioral
and managerial experience to further assist administrators and
practitioners in similar countries.


1-24











To facilitate the farming systems support effort, USAID Missions
are to identify host country needs relative to training and preliminary
technical assistance. FSSP technical assistance entities including
universities, firms and others as appropriate, will provide qualified
farming systems' scientists to address these needs. As a resource and
program coordination effort, the FSSP participating entity structure can
be expanded to include other entities such as international research
centers and national institutions. Coordination and network development
must also occur between the FSSP/AID Program and other donor entities
and countries such as IRAT in France, IRDC in Canada, and GTZ in Germany
where farming systems expertise and programs lie.

The implementing structure proposed by the FSSP institutions in
Atlanta includes six tiers:

a. FSSP Institutions universities and firms.

b. FSSP Program Associates (Farming systems support faculty)
at participating entity.

c. FSSP Program Leaders for each participating entity.

d. An FSSP Council composed of representatives from
participating entities with advisory responsibilities to
to the FSSP Director (a Provisional Council was named by
the Director to include Drs. Larry Zuidema, Cornell
University; James Meiman, Colorado State University and
Wendell McKinsey, University of Missouri).

e. FSSP Technical Committees Standing committees for advisory
support to the FSSP Director and Council. Those committees
will be kept to a minimum in deference to the flexible task
groups and would be initiated as task groups to ascertain
the need for standing status.

f. FSSP Task Groups (Ad hoc in nature) to address specific
problems, opportunities and concerns identified by program
associates, program leaders, the director and his staff,
the council and technical committees. It is expected that
through the task group mechanism the FSSP will maintain
responsive capability and flexibility to prepare for and
adjust to changing demands placed on the FSSP. The groups
will be initially important for assessment and advancement
of the state of the arts serving as basis for workshops,
training and technical assistance and material development,
to mention a few needs.


CORE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND LEADERSHIP

The University of Florida was selected by AID from fourteen (14)
universities to be the lead institution for the Farming Systems Support
Project. It is understood that the lead institution should provide
administrative, management and program leadership for the project such
that participating entities can successfully contribute to the effort


1-25











while further strengthening their program base for farming systems
technical assistance and training work. The University of Florida
further believes that the FSSP will be successful only if the program
base is strenghtened collectively and separately by the support
entities. The purpose is not to solely draw upon individual faculty
interests without careful concern to participant/support entity
aspirations, policies and programs.

Overall administrative and program leadership of the FSSP is seated
with a Director of the FSSP at the lead institution. The director works
closely with the AID project manager from the Bureau of Science and
Technology. This liason provides the basic mechanism for coordinating
regional bureau and local mission requests for technical assistance and
training programs. Within the core FSSP management staff to be located
in Gainesville, Florida, four professional positions in farming systems,
cover responsibilities in several areas. Job descriptions will remain
flexible as these people are identified such that the best people can be
tapped for work in the program and that all of the major function and
program responsibilities are embodied effectively by the Director and
the four core staff. Responsibilities include basically the following:

a. Coordination, Management and Administration of:

1. Training Programs
2. Technical Assistance
3. Network Development and Operation
4. State of the Arts Advancement
5. Documentation, Publications and Communication
6. Newsletter Development

b. Coordination and leadership for broad program area emphasis
such as:

1. Production Science
2. Social Science
3. Component and Program Interfaces
A. Crop and Livestock Systems
B. Family, Household and Farming Systems
4. Agro-Ecological Farming Systems Relationships
5. Farming Systems Methodology
6. Policy, Institutional and Macro interfaces with farm
focused concerstems
B. Family, Household and Farming Systems
4. Agro-Ecological Farming Systems Relationships
5. Farming Systems Methodology
6. Policy, Institutional and Macro interfaces with farm
focused concerector and core staff with support from
task groups, technical committees, the council, program
associates and program leaders to identify those
individuals nationally and internationally, through
various team structures and university programs, to
address these needs.

In further support of the above team, an Editorial Assistant is
responsible for support to the core program for publication of a

1-26











newsletter and other materials of relevance to training and technical
assistance programming. The person, as a second priority, will also
assist with the development of training modules.

Clerical support for this program at present includes three
secretarial positions. Should other support become necessary, either in
the basic program leadership areas or on the administrative/
assistant/clerical side, some adjustment can be made. The desire is not
to become top-heavy administratively but it is necessary to have a
responsive administrative support structure to create most effective
results in a complex endeavor.


FSSP POLICY GUIDELINES

The following areas represent general guidelines for policy
consideration:

1. The primary clientele for the FSSP will be research,
extension and training personnel working within
national institutions in developing countries. While
the farmer is the ultimate and priority client, the
FSSP is to train and support those individuals and
institutions who work most directly with farm families
in developing countries. To assist agricultural insti-
tutions and employees to better understand and meet
their farm clientele needs. A systems approach is
necessary in working with these institutions so that
the results best fit the particular socio-political
conditions and concerns of the national government yet are
mindful of the basic need to be responsive to the farm
family.

2. It is essential that the general approach to Farming Systems
Research and Extension be given boundaries with reference
to the roles and responsibilities of the FSSP. The desire
is:

a. To approach but not fully embrace consensus
and standardization,
b. To embody flexibility and receptiveness for
evolution in that process,
c. To achieve a unified "message" generally in
a technical assistance and training sense,
d. To raise the consciousness of farming systems
practitioners and administrators to a level
of effective cooperation, and thereby,
e. To reduce confusion and conflict in the general
FS approaches pursued at the clientele level.

3. A pro-active approach to interfacing with the AID Bureaus
and Missions will help structure demand for the FSSP in a
manner that should make the interface more effective and
reduce confusion. This could include early mission visits
by FSSP representatives, training and briefing workshops


1-27











and preparation of more explicit advance information to be
made available to Missions.

4. Continuous state-of-the-arts research and communication must
contribute to understanding FSSP capabilities and facilitate
more rapid and effective program implementation.

5. In implementation and coordination of FSSP support entity
involvement, it is desired that the approached not become
component based in and of themselves on either entirely
a functional level or with reference to regions and coun-
tries. It is recognized that training, technical
assistance, networking and state-of-the-arts are integrated
and complementary activities. Nevertheless, it is expected
that some specialization among the support entities is
quite appropriate and essential. It must also be recognized
that the responsibility of any entity within and to the FSSP
is one that contains two major components and a broad per-
spective of Farming Systems concerns from

a. farm level problem/opportunity diagnosis and
resolution through a wide spectrum of research
and extension, to

b. institutional and policy concerns necessary for
effective program implementation.

6. The FSSP and participating entities must develop guide-
lines for

a. the regional/country involvement,
b. functional/expertise involvement and
c. an appropriate mix of a and b to achieve goals
of the overall project as well as the participating
entities.

7. Also, participating entity involvement with FSSP relative to
prior contractural commitments and interests, coupled with
those that would follow from the FSSP participation, deserve
serious consideration by the entities involved, the FSSP
administration and USAID. The contracting procedures
through FSSP involvement assume a different dimension re-
lative to both leverage applied by participating entities
and phasing to new bilateral contracts. Interest may
prevail in the program of a specific country and the
potential for long-term contractual opportunities will be
influenced/enhanced by participation with the FSSP.

8. Participation or involvement by non-AID institutions in the
program, as well as by those countries that are not AID
recipients, must be given careful consideration along with
collaboration with other donor entities in the United States
and other countries. Important in this consideration is
collaboration among those who work with third world
countries. An example would be the parallel involvement of


1-28











AID countries within a regional network and those countries
who are not AID recipients.

9. Specific policies are necessary for the implementation
structure of the FSSP Council, technical committees, task
groups, program leaders and program associates. Selection
procedures, authority and responsibility, duration of the
assignment and committee, tenure of participants, and lines
of communication/ responsibility must be delineated. The
general desire is that this structure be responsive and
flexible to meet evolving needs over time and that those
task groups, technical committees and the council structure
can be revised to best address program needs.

10. It is desirable that the program leaders be key program
coordinators with the participating entity organization.
The commitment from the support entities would include
strong leadership at that level such that program associates
could truly become solid, responsive and cohesive groups
for farming systems at the respective entities.

11. Support for these entity-based activities will be founded
on participation and the appropriate level of activity with
reference to the overall AID program needs and the AID
training leaders can very appropriately be placed in
Third World countries as the program evolves to further
gain flexibility and effectiveness in implementation.


1-29









FARMING SYSTEMS SUPPORT PROJECT


Memorandum of Agreement

between

The University of Florida

and






Pursuant to authority contained in Cooperative Agreement No.
DAN-4099- A-00-2083-00 entitled Farming Systems Support Project
(FSSP), between the Agency for International Development (AID) and
The University of Florida (UF), as "Lead Entity", a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between


as "Support Entity" and The University of Florida is hereby
established, with the following provisions.




ARTICLE I STATEMENT OF WORK




A. The Support Entity shall, in keeping with the intent of
Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, assist the
Lead Entity in implementation of the FSSP Cooperative Agreement
(Attachment A) including:

1. Support to AID missions and third world institutions by
providing technical assistance, training and networking
to practitioners and managers- administrators of farming
systems programs as specified in annual plans of work
(Attachment B);

2. Advancement of the state of the arts in Farming Systems
Research and Development (FSR&D) which is comprised of
Farming Systems Infrastructure and Policy (FSIP) and
Farming Systems Research/Extension (FSR/E). Emphasis
will be given to (FSR/E) management, organization and
methodologies for the generation, evaluation and transfer
of technology to family farmers.


1-30









B. The Support Entity shall join other FSSP support entities
in expanding capacity for farming systems assistance
through a flexible administrative structure and, as
evidence to this commitment and appended to this
agreement, has;

1. Identified an FSSP administrative contact,

2. Identified an FSSP program leader,

3. Identified a set of FSSP program associates with
demonstrable training and/or experience in farming
systems documented for the FSSP, and

4. Specified FSSP program interests and institutional
capabilities and a plan for further strengthening
those institutional goals associated with farming
systems work.



C. The Lead Entity, on behalf of FSSP, based on item B4
hereof,, shall facilitate the realization of opportunities to
strengthen the Support Entity's institutional capability in Farming
Systems through training, field experience, counsel on overall
program and participation in task force endeavors.


D. The Lead Entity, on behalf of FSSP, shall include the
Support Entity in networking among regions, countries and support
entities and provide enhanced opportunities to participate in
technical assistance.


E. The Support Entity shall report annually to the Lead
Entity on activities with the FSSP and relative to developments in
section B hereof; and program associates shall participate in other
reporting efforts associated with implementation of field training
and technical assistance projects with which they are directly
involved.


ARTICLE II TIME OF PERFORMANCE



The work described in Article I hereof shall commence on the
date of signing of this Memorandum of Agreement and shall continue
until September 30, 1987, the termination date of the FSSP
Cooperative Agreement; unless both agreements are otherwise amended
to extend beyond that date; or unless, at anytime throughout the
duration of the MOA, either party gives ninety days prior notice of
termination.










ARTICLE III COMPENSATION


This Memorandum of Agreement will serve as a general document
under which funding instruments can be directed to the FSSP
Cooperative Agreement and The University of Florida for specified
tasks either of a short term or long term nature. Such flexibility
is recognized as desirable and necessary for implementation of the
emerging FSSP effort.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
seals on the date indicated.


Lead Entity


Support Entity


C. 0. Andrew, Project Director




H. L. Popenoe, Director, Int'l Prog.


1-32









Cooperative Agreements
Farming Systems Support Project

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

I. Farming Systems Support Proiect

The Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) makes available
to USAID and LDC agricultural research and extension institutions
technical assistance in the design, implementation and evaluation
of farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) programs.


II. Purpose of the Cooperative Agreement

The purpose of this cooperative agreement 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.
Project activities which will allow the recipient and its
collaborators to strengthen their institutional capability to
assist FSR/E programs in developing countries are the following:
1. Technical assistance in the feasibility, design,
implementation, and evaluation of FSR/E;
2. Developing country based short term training programs for
FSR/E field practitioners and administrators;
3. Networking among FSR/E practitioners;
4. Comparative analysis of FSR/E experiences and the
synthesis of lessons learned;
5. A documentation center which will provide FSR/E
publications on a continuous basis; and
6. State-of-the-art research.


III. Scope of Work

The development of FSR/E capabilities in developing
countries involves both technical assistance and institution
strengthening. Technical assistance provides immediate help in
resolving specific problems on farms and in program management.
Institution building helps create, within participating
countries, the professional expertise and commitment necessary
for self-sustaining, coordinated national programs.
Field assistance activities, implemented under this cooperative
agreement are premised on USAID/Mission collaboration and
assistance. Thus, in operation, a mission must request
assistance under this project and specify the time, duration, and
level of effort that best fit into its program. The overall
level of effort of this cooperative agreement is contingent upon
the anticipated receipt of USAID/Mission and developing country
costs having support equal to twenty per cent of the intended


1-33









level of effort set forth herein.
Requests for field assistance under "A. Specific
Activities", to be provided developing country programs, will be
directed to the recipient by the AID/technical project officer.
The FSSP is basically intended to be a field support
project; it can best perform this function by taking its signal
from, and responding to, the expressed needs of USAID/Missions.
However, rather than try to do this in an informal and ad hoc
manner, project design calls for these sources to be canvassed
each year, asking them to identify their assistance needs under
this project for the forthcoming twelve month period. The
Missions may be visited by the FSSP to assist with developing
plans and evaluating opportunities and alternatives for FSR/E
training and technical assistance programs. Missions should
indicate the preferred time-frames for the services requested,
giving sufficient detail regarding manpower and/or other
requirements to allow meaningful planning and scheduling to be
undertaken and an overall Annual Work Plan formulated for AID
approval once all assistance requests have been received,
reviewed and approved. Because of the.cost sharing stipulation,
Missions will also be asked to identify funding arrangements for
the services requested.
This cooperative agreement will support developing country
FSR/E activities throughout the world. It is anticipated that at
least fifty percent of project activities during the life of this
project will support Missions programs in the Africa Bureau.
During its first two years, however, this project is unlikely to
include activities for East and Southern Africa. Roughly forty
percent of project inputs will be shared by countries within the
Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Bureau for
Asia. It is anticipated that very little project support will be
directed to countries in the Bureau for the Near East.


A. Specific Activities

The recipient is expected to engage in four types of
interrelated activities that are designed to strengthen the
recipient, the FSSP supporting organizations and developing
country FSR/E capabilities:
(1) Technical assistance under this project will provide
developing countries with skills required at any stage in the
project cycle.
(2) Short term training courses will strengthen the capacity
of host-country nations both to perform FSR/E work and to
institutionalize FSR/E methodologies.
(3)Networking activities will facilitate communication among
practitioners.
(4) State-of-the-art research will yield FSR/E field
guidelines.


A. (1) Technical Assistance


1-34









Technical assistance will be provided to resolve problems
that arise in farming systems programs at any stage of the
project cycle. Technical assistance teams may include production
scientists (e.g., agronomy, animal science, pisciculture,
forestry), economic and behavioral scientists, and organizational
or administrative scientists.
Services encompassed within the scope of this project
include:
Pre-Proiect: Examples are assessment of the adequacy of
agricultural training, research, and extension to serve limited
resource farmers; current approaches to agricultural research and
extension; the appropriateness of FSR/E in the national context;
and national interest in an FSR/E program.
Design: Design of FSR/E programs within the context of
existing national institutions or recommended institutional
changes, and conduct of required administrative, technical,
economic, social, and environmental analyses.
Implementation : Examples are assistance in the design of
survey instruments; elimination of target groups of farmers;
conduct of rapid field assessments; timely analysis of
information; design of agronomic experiments with farmer
participation; identification and resolution of subsequent
production and post-production difficulties (e.g., agronomic,
pest control, livestock, post-harvest) within the context of
local FSR/E projects; and analysis of institutional implications
(information systems, implementation monitoring).
Evaluation: Assessment of extent and timeliness of
administrative support, clarity of problem definition, caliber of
experimental work, relevance of training program, nationalization
of FSR/E program, and of adoption rates by farmers; farm level
impact; institutional impact and identification of bottlenecks
needing resolution.


A. (2) Training

The recipient will develop two training courses- one for
agricultural research and extension FSR/E practitioner personnel
and one for policy makers, administrators, and educators. Both
courses will cover the same topics, but with different emphases
and different purposes. Generally, the topics will include the
concepts and-methodologies of FSR/E work, technological
diffusion, organization issues, and the relationship between
research and extension. Both courses will be given at Mission
request and will be designed to meet country or regional needs.
Courses will be held in developing countries.
The practitioner course for field personnel will be detailed
refresher course in specific methodologies. A training module
will be developed for the methodologies used at each stage of
the FSR/E cycle. These will include:

areal diagnostics of whole-farm systems and identification
of remedial problems;
experimental design, initiation of on-farm experiments


S1-35








with farmer participation, monitoring of field exper-
iments, and collection of data;
analysis and interpretation of agronomic and economic
data recommendations for a new cycle of experimentation;
and
participation of extension personnel to disseminate
proven technology.

If a national program encounters difficulties during some
phase of the FSR/E cycle, the program officials can request,
through the Mission in that country, a training course in those
specific methodologies. The FSR/E trainer-consultants will then
adapt the relevant training modules into a course. It may be
held in one or two sessions, depending on the nature of the
difficulties and the level of the practitioners. All practitioner
training courses will include actual field work. They will use
experiential training methodologies.
The administrator course, by contrast, will introduce FSR/E
concepts and operations, but will focus more on policy and
managerial concerns. It will introduce the concept of FSR/E and
assess its role in agricultural development. Most of the course
will be devoted to organizational and managerial issues. For
example, how to institute FSR/E programs, given the existing
research and extension institutional setting of their countries,
and how to manage and support a decentrailized FSR/E program from
a centralized agency, might be emphasized. This course should be
designed to deal with the conceptual and the.operational
implications of FSR/E in such a way that the participants leave
with a profound understanding of the importance and difficulty of
implementing FSR/E programs in their own situations.
Both the practitioner and the administrator courses will be
given in the prevalent professional language of participants,
Training courses will be limited to 30 persons per session.
Participants for the practitioner course will be employees or
potential employee o0I te national agricultural reeareh o3
extension services and closely related agencies, in which they
hold or are expected to hold FSR/E responsibilities.
Participants for the administrator course will be decision-makers
concerned with the agricultural sector. In all cases,
individuals will be screened by the Mission and host-country
based upon general criteria provided by the Mission, host-country
and the FSSP, with final approval by the FSSP training
coordinator.


A. (3) Networking

The marked increase of FSR/E activities around the world
makes communication among practitioners a paramount and timely
concern. Practitioners and administrators in many programs now
face many of the same problems. Their solutions to these
problems and their adoption of FSR/E methods for specific needs
and circumstances can readily prove useful to colleagues in other
national programs. This cooperative agreement will promote the

1-36









flow of information among those involved in FSR/E by sponsoring
regional workshops, publishing a newsletter and annotated
bibliography, and contributing materials to a documentation
center to be established by AID.


A. (3a) Regional Workshops

This cooperative agreement will support regional workshops
for FSR/E practitioners. The common focus of these workshops
will be farming systems research and extension methods. Informal
contact will deal with a wide range of issues, but each workshop
will be organized around particular issues in FSR/E work, e.g.,
methodologies, technologies, organizational concerns. Each
workshop will be held at an agricultural institution involved in
the host country's FSR/E program, so that a monitoring tour for
workshop participants can follow the workshop.
Both the theme and site of each regional workshop will be
determined by a FSR/E network committee to be established by the
recipient in each region. This committee will comprise one
practitioner leader from each participating country, one
representative from the cooperative agreement core staff (the
coordinator for training and networking or his nominee), and one
representative from A.I.D. (the project officer or his nominee).
This committee will meet annually to determine the topic and site
of the next workshop.


A. (3b) Newsletter

The project will publish a quarterly newsletter beginning in
the second quarter of the first year of this agreement. The
content of the newsletter will vary from issue to issue, but all
articles will focus on aspects of farming systems programs. In
the first year of publication, the newsletter will mostly report
the results of technical assistance provided to different
missions. In the second year of publication, the newsletter will
publish synopsis of the guidelines developed through technical
assistance, report results from the regional workshops, and
review national programs inspected during the workshops. The
newsletter will also solicit, edit, and publish summary
contributions from FSR/E practitioners on issues of timely.
importance.
The recipients of the newsletter will comprise all
consultants identified by the technical assistance coordinator,
all participants in the training courses, and other individuals
and institutions who request the publication. In order to
accommodate readers whose professional language is not English,
the newsletter also will be published in French and Spanish.
The first three issues of the newsletter will be made
available free of charge. Thereafter a subscription fee, not to
exceed the cost of printing and distribution, will be charged to
all newsletter subscribers except developing country
practitioners residing abroad.


1-37









A. (3c) Document Center and Annotated Bibliography


To support this cooperative agreement the Agency's Office of
Development Information and Utilization (AID/S&T/DIU), which is
the Agency's repository for information resources, will establish
a centralized FSR/E bibliography. The documentation center and
annotated bibliographies will be established and updated using
inputs supplied to AID/S&T/DIU by the recipient. With the
recipient, the documentation center will establish a network
mechanism to access and provide information concerning existing
bibliographic resources for FSR/E presently available at FSSP
cooperating organizations. Each year the recipient will acquire
and supply to AID/S&T/DIU duplicate copies of pertinent works on
FSR/E and will identify for AID/S&T/DIU up to 100 titles for
abstracting and inclusion in the annotated bibliography.


A. (4) State-of-the-Art

Activities undertaken within the scope of this cooperative
agreement will clearly indicate which areas of investigation will
address concerns common to different FSR/E programs. Concerns
that arise with any frequency will be evaluated to identify their
causes, probable solutions, and possible consequences. It is
anticipated that this state-of-the-art research will yield five
practical field guidelines during the life of the project. The
first guideline will most likely consider alternative
methodologies. It will identify and analytically compare the
different approaches and operations of ongoing national programs.
Subsequent investigations may cover organizational concerns, the
role of extension, training programs and cost effectiveness of
FSR/E.


B. Staff

As previously stressed, one important objective and activity
of this project is that of increasing the quality and expanding
the quantity of U.S. expertise in FSR/E to strengthen the base
for the FSSP and other AID initiatives in FSR/E. The importance
of and need for this stems from a current shortage of personnel
with both the necessary FSR/E experience and multidisciplinary
training, along with critical field experience in LDCs, all of
which are so crucial in this relatively new professional field.
Moreover,not only will this limited resource be stretched thin by
the level of services required under this project but also, when
the needs of AID, World Bank, etc., for both long and short term
technical assistance are added to this, the supply becomes
critical; and, the task of helping expand this pool becomes a
legitimate and necessary activity of this project if it is to
function effectively and achieve its purpose.
It is anticipated that three core staff members are required
to implement this cooperative agreement. These are a project
-leader, a coordinator for technical assistance and'a coordinator


1-38









for training and networking. The core staff which is presented
herein is a best estimate of what is needed for implementation.
It is not anticipated that the project leader will serve as a
field resource for technical assistance training or networking
unless this is done in a consultant capacity. The project
leader, as envisioned, will coordinate project technical staff
and serve as project liaison officer to the AID technical project
officer.
Consultants may provide many of the short-term services
required by this agreement. The recipient will most likely
contract consultant resources on a world-wide basis. In
addition, participants from the practitioner and the
administrator training courses that demonstrate superior ability
and dedication should be asked to participate as integral members
of the short-term technical assistance teams. This opportunity
is highly desirable from a programmatic point of view because it
will provide course participants a practical, applied experience
in an on-going FSR/E program other than the one in which they
work. Other selection criteria, specifically, substative
qualifications that meet the requirements of the Mission making
the request for assistance, of course, remain valid.
Staff providing services to non-English speaking countries
must be proficient in the language required by the requesting
country. It is anticipated that French and Spanish will be
foreign languages used most frequently during agreement
implementation,


B. (1) Management Staff

The project leader will direct implementation of the
cooperative agreement and will be responsible for liaison with
the AID Technical project officer for overall management of the
,project by the recipient institution. This responsibility will
include coordination of activities under the cooperative
agreement and direction of the coordinator for training and
networking. The project leader will be responsible for preparing
annual work plans and annual monitoring evaluation for review and
approval by AID.
The coordinator for technical assistance, under the guidance
of the project leader, will have major responsibility for
developing a roster for consultants (with bio-data), identifying
and handling mission requests, and composing technical assistance
teams in response to those requests. The coordinator for
technical assistance most likely will have worked in FSR/E
programs and have management experience. The individual will
need to spend considerable time at AID in Washington at least at
the outset of this agreement.
The coordinator for training and networking, under the
guidance of the project leader, will manage those project
activities that deal most directly with institution building.
The major responsibilities of this individual are to promote
informal FSR/E networks in each region; to initiate the regional
workshops; to implement the practitioner and administrator


1-39









training courses; to publish the newsletter; to provide the
AID/S&T/DIU center with duplicate copies of all pertinent FSR/E
documents; and to provide to AID/S&T/DIU the list of bibliography
titles for annotation.


B. (2) In-service Training and Experience

The recipient and collaborating institutions should not rely
on a few key individuals to do most of the field work. Rather,
they will devote much of their time to expanding FSR/E expertise
available to conduct field work. This will include helping
identify individuals to comprise the expanded core group and
providing them with the required training and experience. This
training will likely include: (a) intensive orientation workshops
to fully familiarize the group with the project, project
activities and concepts, the training materials available, video
programs, etc.; (b) intensive workshops on team building; (c)
participation in special training programs; and (d) participation
in field missions (TDYs) with current core staff to gain
experience and training. Also, since training is such an
important component of the project, leaders for training teams
should be identified. Since the above effort should start
immediately, the formulation and articulation of strategy on how
to best expand the core group of experience should be give the
highest priority.


B. (3) Use of Graduate Students

Where feasible and appropriate, the use of graduate students
to either work with experienced personnel and/or to carry out
certain tasks should be considered. This not only provides
supervised experience, resulting in the expansion of the
"expertise pool" but it also very often a more effective and
economical way of achieving the same results and/or carrying out
experiments. While inexperienced graduate students should not be
employed as substitutes for the expertise needed, neither for the
most part should they be employed as project staff, funding for
their participation on TDYs studies, will be a wise use of
project funds. Approval from the AID technical project officer
is,'however, required in all cases.


C. Management

General organizational and administrative capabilities will
be directed toward bringing the limited number of FSR/E resources
throughout the world to bear on the FSSP. The recipient
recognizes the need to develop a strong inter-institutional base
for the FSSP. No single institution can respond to all of the
complex and multiple needs of small farm agriculture in
developing countries. The recipient, therefore, will eagerly
solicit help from and cooperate with other institutions.









The FSSP will be administered centrally from the recipient's
campus where core administrative and management staff will
coordinate and supervise overall program activities. This core
will include a project leader (Dr. Chris Andrew, half-time), a
training and networking coordinator, a technical assistance
coordinator, an editorial assistant and three secretaries. The
group will be centrally housed with administrative and backstop
support available from all appropriate university units. Where
appropriate, relative to program commitments and assigned program
responsibilities, administrative responsibility for selected
components of the program may be assigned to the cooperating
institution.
Program and administrative support will emanate from a
confederation of entities working cooperatively with the
recipient. A precise advisory and participatory structure will
evolve as the dimensions of the program become more obvious
during the first year. One meeting to that end has been held
among university administrators whose council again will be
sought early in the first project year prior to developing
advisory committees. A major objective is to hold all such
groups to a small responsive core while recognizing the need for
sound representation to strengthen the overall program. Beyond
administration, of course, many entities will be called upon to
participate in, and prepare for, implementation responsibilities.
The core program will serve to multiply expertise by helping
develop core areas at various institutions directed toward
establishing specific areas of strength along with a solid
general FSR/E base. 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
cooperative agreement has not provided the inter-institutional
communication time required to finalize a particular mode.
Likewise, the nature of the administrative need will become more
evident as the demand for the FSSP finally emerges at the Mission
level and as the first State-of-the-Arts assessment is achieved.


D. (1) Year One

During the first year of this cooperative agreement the
recipient will establish the institutional base from which to
provide to developing countries the FSR/E assistance described in
Section A above. In addition to establishment of the
institutional base in year one, it is anticipated that;

1. 30 person months of technical assistance will be provided
to developing country programs;

2. A field guideline covering alternative FSR/E
methodologies will be published and distributed;

3. Practitioner training course modules will be developed
and field tested in a training program in Africa;


1-41









4. The course content for the administrators course will be
defined;

5. Three issues of the newsletter will be published;

6. FSR/E publications will be supplied to AID/S&T/DIU; and,

7. Up to 100 FSR/E titles will be identified for abstracting
and inclusion in the annotated bibliography.


D. (2) Project Years Two Through Five

During years two through five of this cooperative agreement,
activities to be undertaken by the recipient under this.
cooperative agreement will be specified in an annual work plan
which will be submitted as stipulated in Section E (3) below.


E. (1) Reports

The recipients will submit to the AID technical project
officer by sixty days after return to the home base, ten copies
of an activity report which will be prepared for each technical
assistance team visit, training course, workshop or other service
requested under this cooperative agreement.


E. (2). Within thirty days after completion of each twelve
month cooperative agreement period, the recipient will submit to
the AID technical project officer ten copies of an annual report
summarizing technical services and budget activity under the
cooperative agreement during the preceding twelve month period.


E. (3). By the end of project month three of the first year
the recipient will submit to the AID technical project officer
ten copies of a work plan for agreement year one. By not later
than thirty days before the completion of each agreement year,
ten copies of the work plan for the next year will be presented
to the AID technical project officer. The annual work plan will
indicate anticipated levels of effort for all project activities
described in Section A above and present an implementation plan
for delivering anticipated services. Work plans shall be
approved by the AID technical project.

F. Evaluation

This FSR/E project provides services to several types of
users Missions and LDC governments, trainees, workshop
participants, newsletter readers. The recipient will ask each of
these users to evaluate services provided under this agreement.
These evaluations shall be summarized annually. The project









leader will submit ten.copies of each evaluation report and
summary to the AID technical project officer.
Internal monitoring through user ratings must be
complemented with periodic, external evaluations. Three such
evaluations are scheduled during the course of this project. The
first evaluation will take place at the end of the second year, a
second is scheduled for the beginning of the fourth year, and the
end-of-project evaluation is scheduled for the last quarter of
the fifth year.


1-43










APPENDIX 2


SUMMARY OF MOA SUPPORT ENTITY SPECIALTY AREAS AND FUTURE INTERESTS



This section presents a brief summary of the indicated
specialty areas and future interests of the 15 entities who have
signed MOA's with the FSSP as of November 1983. This group consists
of four non-university support entities (Development Alternatives,
Incorporated, International Agricultural Development Service,
Research Triangle Institute and Winrock International) and 11
university support entities (Colorado State University, Cornell
University, Iowa State University, Kansas State University,
Michigan State University, Pennsylvania State University, Southern
Illinois University, the University of Kentucky, the University of
Minnesota, the University of Missouri and Virginia Polytechnic
Institute).

Altogether, these 15 entities have pledged the services of 325
program associates for either short or long-term FSR&D assignments.
Non-university support entities have nominated 40 program
associates, while university support entities have nominated 285
program associates.

The summary which follows presents institutional preferences,
as indicated in either the MOA document or in supporting
documentation submitted to the FSSP, as to continents or countries
and activities which are associated with the FSSP. Some support
entities generalized their preferences, while others were quite
specific. No effort was made to follow up the information supplied
to the FSSP during the written documentation process in cases where
support entities did not indicate preferences for specialty areas
or future interests.












Development Alternatives, Incorporated

Thirteen (13) FSSP program associates have been identified.

DAI's greatest strenghts and interests lie in these three
areas:

1) technical assistance, particularly for project design and
evaluation,

2) development and dissemination of information through
state-of-the-art papers and other informational activities, and

3) training, particularly in the area of project management.







International Agricultural Development Service

Thirteen (13) FSSP program associates have been identified.

FSR/E is integral to IADS projects in Nepal and Bangladesh
IADS has personnel assigned in Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and
Indonesia. Plans reflecting IADS interests for institutional
development:

1) IADS can serve as the Washington area representative of
FSSP.

2) IADS could serve as a message center for FSSP personnel
(including desk space and secretarial services) while they are
visiting Washington.

3) Good offices of IADS, especially in Asia, could be made
available to FSSP. IADS has its strongest presence in Asia, where
FSSP currently has the least experience.

4) IADS is particularly interested in a seminar featuring Asia
experiences as a means to feed that expertise into the FSSP.

5) Miscellaneous support and services could be made available
to FSSP.

6) IADS has an excellent capability to organize, manage, and
evaluate training courses, seminars and conferences, and a capacity
to arrange or organize training.

7) IADS has special interest in state-of-the-art of FSR/E and


2-2










in development and production of literature that updates and
presents state-of-the-art, especially via technical assistance of
the FSSP to projects.







Research Triangle Institute

Eight (8) FSSP program associates have been identified.

RTI staff have background and experience in the following
areas:

1) Training methods

2) Administrator training

3) State-of-the-arts, such as
a) alternative methodologies
b) cost-effectiveness
c) program evaluation

4) Women in development

5) Consumption and nutrition

6) Family and farming systems

7) Training U.S. faculty

8) Other, including

a) microcomputer-supported FS information systems and
database management systems
b) crop reporting, information and data collection, and
agricultural statistics
c) agricultural sector planning and integrated
development planning

RTI would prefer to concentrate on the FSIP aspects of FSR&D, while
not excluding occasional participation in FSR/E aspects.

Geographic orientation: RTI capability is suitable for work in
Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa.

Considering functional areas, RTI may have comparative advantages
in three:

1) Evaluation


2-3










2) Impact of structural factors and external economies
(including official policies) on the viability of specified
farming systems.

3) analysis of the risk aversion factor and of alternative
approaches to overcoming this constraint

RTI proposed a proactive stance to submit two relatively modest
concept papers covering (1) a typology of policy environments that
affect the viability of small farmer systems; and (2) the risk
factor as a determinant of the rise and fall of such farming
systems. Was funding provided for this from FSSP?







Winrock International

Six (6) FSSP program associates have been identified.

A case study to institutionalize the WI international
experience -- dual purpose goat production system -- is underway
utilizing a three-person interdisciplinary team.

WI national experiences are being brought together in a farming,
systems analysis project staffed by another three-person
interdisciplinary team.

Winrock has assigned $15,000 in core monies to be used by the FSR
group to further develop the institution's capability.

WI's farming system program interests center on the following:

1) Project design

2) Crop/animal interactions

3) Agroforestry (tree/livestock) systems

4) Livestock-focused FSR/D

5) Farm system and production system analysis (LP and
simulation models)

6) Evaluation of project impact











Colorado State University

Twenty-nine (29) FSSP program associates have been identified.

Lead entity for the FS livestock task group. The task group
presented its preliminary report summary during the 1983 FSSP
meetings at KSU.

Task group proposes to address SOTA (state-of-the-art) issues
in.livestock first. Such a task should:

1) Review the literature on FSR&E which relates to integrated
livestock and cropping systems in the LDC's.

2) Identify those studies which can serve as models to further
FSR&E activity, particularly as they may be applied to Africa.

3) Identify needs and geographical areas for further research.

4) Assess strengths and weaknesses of methodologies employed.

5) Prepare priorities, guidelines and support material to
advance the SOTA.

6) Plan a workshop for FS livestock specialists for summer,
1983.







Cornell University

Sixteen (16) FSSP program associates have been identified.

CU has been involved in FSR projects in Asia and Latin
America. CU has established an interdisciplinary group which has
conducted training in FSR for the last four years.

Several staff activities are especially relevant to FSSP interface:

(1) Ecuador: Begining 1978, several staff were involved in a
3-year FSR project with IICA and the Simon Bolivar Foundation;

(2) Ecuador-Guatemala: Bean/Cowpea CRSP (FY1981-85);

(3) Bangladesh: Subcontract w/IADS for short-term staff
provision and U.S. degree training;

(4) Philippines: Negotiation of 5-yr project (FSR) in Eastern










Visayas, collaborating between CU, MOA and Visayas State College of
Agriculture;

(5) Panama: With Rutgers, CU is working w/IDIAP in a 3-yr
project. The director of IDIAP has expressed a strong interest in
developing a FSR capacity in his institution;

(6) South Pacific Countries: W/University of Hawaii, working
in Western Samoa at the South Pacific School of Agriculture.

CU has an interesting FSR interdisciplinary course which involves a
field exercise consisting of small interdisciplinary groups of
students and a faculty member working closely with groups of
farmers in the Ithaca region.

CU is actively seeking involvement in Africa and /or Latin America.

CU has considerable experience with and interest in long range,
in-country institutional capacity building. It seeks as its
ultimate goal the building of institutional capacity to do FSR in
Third World countries. It sees a need to contribute to its own
understanding and the understanding of others, especially
high-level administrators, of the FSRD process.

Specifically, CU proposes:

(1) to identify the range of research methodologies and
techniques and appraise these;

(2) to identify the key elements needed for success in a FSRD
project;

(3) to develop guidelines for conducting research in farmers'
fields under rainfed and upland conditions;

(4) to develop procedures for conducting case studies in order
to document the lessons learned from FSRD projects;

(5) to develop ways for effectively using the evaluation
analyses and supporting data from case studies to communicate to
administrators results and perspectives on FSRD; and

(6) to develop and test materials for the training of
practitioners.

The initial procedure will be to develop a series of case studies
to follow a uniform analytical framework.










Iowa State University

Thirty-two (32) FSSP program associates have been identified.

ISU's training of staff in international rural development has
prepared more than 200 faculty to work with AID projects. ISU's
Morocco Dryland Farming Project emphasizes meeting the needs of
small farmers in provision of technology, training and equipment to
increase production of cereal, legume and forage crops. Other
recent projects have been implemented in Tunisia, Zambia, Costa
Rica, and TSM for East Africa. Another pending contract is in
Botswana.

ISU has expressed interest and capability in these six areas:

1) Training

2) SOTA research: the research-extension interface

3) Program evaluation

4) Consumption and nutrition

5) Family and farming systems

6) Training U.S. faculty








Kansas State University

Fourteen (14) FSSP program associates have been identified.

KSU has collected 3,000 catalogued FSR reference materials and
1,700 additional materials pending cataloguing as an integral part
of the MOA with the FSSP.

KSU is lead entity for the Farming Systems Research Project in
Botswana.

KSU will host FSR/FSSP annual meeting, Oct. 8-12, 1984.

KSU will continue to handle the collection of FSR literature,
acting as the U.S. center thereof. Each year, the 100 "top" FSR
publications will be listed at KSU (for the 5 year duration of the
FSSP) and sent to AID/S&T/DIU.


2-7















Michigan State Uuniversity

Thirty-two (32) FSSP program associates have been identified.

None listed (specialty areas).

MSU FSSP program interests include:

1) Technical assistance

2) Plan and conduct training programs

3) Support regional workshops

4) SOTA research

5) Application of micro-computers as research tool at the farm
level

6) Women in international development

7) Farm family ecosystems in developing countries

8) Conceptualizing FSR&E

9) International extension training

10) Nutrition of low-income families

11) Appropriate agricultural machine selection and utilization

12) Water control and utilization

13) Production-marketing linkages

14) Off-farm employment for rural households

15) Integration of micro-level research with macro-policy
analysis

16) Organization and administration of agricultural research

17) Documentation and annotated bibliographies

18) Kellogg Biological Station study of small-scale agriculture
and farm families














Pennsylvania State Uuniversity

Eighteen (18) FSSP program associates have been identified.

PSU is the lead entity implementing the Swaziland Cropping
Systems Project

No single area of interest was identified. Rather, PSU is willing
to contribute as individuals to discipline-oriented teams or as a
Penn State multi-disciplinary team focusing on a specific area of
concern.






University of Kentucky

Twenty-nine (29) FSSP program associates have been identified.

Main expertise resides in departments of sociology and
anthropology.

Research on farming systems as part of INSORMIL CRSP in three
related areas:

1) Diagnostic farming systems research in Sudan and Honduras.
The latter project is noteworthy because it includes a
consideration of the nutritional consequences of differing farming
systems.

2) Making agricultural research and extension policy: domestic
and Sudan. How researchers determine priorities.

3) Research on the extension system in Sudan.

UK is using a strengthening grant to explore how no-till techniques
can be utilized in developing world farming systems. Countries
involved so far are the Dominican Republic and Ecuador.

The UK in general has two on-going projects in Indonesia and
Thailand.

Courses in FSR exist at UK and include research on farms in
Kentucky.

Interests and capabilities include:

1) Practioner training (countries of experience: Sudan,










French-speaking West Africa, Central America). They have moderate
interest, excellent capability.

2) Administrator training: high level of interest--high
priority and excellent capability.

3) General technical assistance: high priority, excellent
capability in diagnostic pre-project stage.

4) SOTA: high priority, excellent capability for alternative
methodologies, training programs, extension/research interface and
program evaluation.

5) WID: much of the nutritional work may be thought of as
primarily emphasizing women, though in fact it is focused on the
whole family. High priority: focus on all producers and consumers
in farm household.

6) Consumption and nutrition: high priority, excellent
capabilities.

7) Family and farming systems: high priority, excellent
capability.

8) Livestock and cropping systems: high priority, excellent
capability.

9) Training U.S. faculty: high priority, excellent capability.

10) Market systems: high priority, excellent capability.







Southern Illinois University (Carbondale)

Twenty-eight (28) FSSP program associates have been
identified.

SIU is an associated entity with the University of Illinois in
the Zambia Project.

A graduate-level seminar of FS is being taught.

Staff members at SIU have experience in the following countries:
Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bolivia, Turkey, Zambia, Brazil,
Haiti and the Caribbean.

Two recent AID contracts have been in Nepal (primary school teacher
training) and Egypt (training of managers in business sector).


2-10










Finally, SIU has conducted in-country PC training for Western Samca
and Tonga (fall, 1978).

The interests and capabilities of SIU center on four basic areas:

1) Socio-economic analysis of the FS and the farm household
given the cultural context;

2) Agronomic and horticultural changes in the FS through the
introduction of new plant materials and production techniques;

3) Silvicultural analysis of the role of forest and other tree
crops in the FS; and

4) Aquaculture as an enterprise in the FS.

In addition, an AID contract to assist the University of Peshawar,
Pakistan, will call for extensive use of FSR methodology.







University of Minnesota

Twenty-four (24) FSSP program associates have been identified.

UMN has strong interest in FS approaches to rainfed
agriculture and in the area of water management.

UMN is currently involved in AID projects in the Caribbean, the
Near East and Asia. All involve contacts with sister institutions,
and institutional capability in teaching, research and extension.

UMN is specifically interested in the following areas:

1) Production and soil fertility.

2) Crop loss assessment: the UMN group is the acknowledged
world leader in crop loss assessment in a systems approach and the
application of modern, low cost, high speed data processing.

3) Agricultural policy, via the department of agricultural and
applied economics.


2-11










University of Missouri

Thirty-seven (37) FSSP program associates have been
identified.

UMC has a small farm reference library: how can this be
integrated with the collection at KSU? (The collection has been
obtained via UMC's strengthening grant).

UMC's has a large interdisciplinary livestock forage research and
teaching program.

UMC has both an established small farm program (in extension) and a
family farm development program.

UMC has unique experience and capability in program evaluation,
both domestically and internationally.

UMC has done extensive work in teaching FS research and extension
and farm planning. A course has been developed specifically for
LDC's and has been taught twice in the Philippines. Staff is
available to work with others to standardize such a course, or to
adapt that course to FSSP standards.

UMC farm management extension faculty have done extensive work in
adapting the block budget technique to farm planning. This could
be worked into a training module.

Initially, UMC proposes to focus on all activities associated with
the interface between cropping and livestock systems.

UMC has a special interest in developing the SOTA portion of the
FSSP project.

UMC is also interested in networking, especially in establishing
network relationships with a number of institutions in Latin
America. UMC would like to assume the lead role in canvassing the
AID Missions in Central and South America and the Caribbean, and to
plan for and implement training and TA programs in the region.

UMC is prepared and willing to contribute to training at all
levels.

The farming systems course could be worked into a standardized one
with others in the FSSP network.

The UMC block budget technique for farm planning could be made into
a training module for FSR practitioners.


2-12











Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Twenty-six (26) FSSP program associates have been identified.

VPI has on-going projects in Sri Lanka and Nepal and a MOA
with the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC).
AVRDC has outreach programs in the Philippines and Thailand, and is
preparing to establish others in Indonesia and Malaysia.

VPI is prepared to field the following two interdisciplinary teams
from faculty program associates:

1) Caldwell (horticulture), Hansen (Vet medicine), Hoskins
(Sociology), Taylor (Agricultural economics), and Marlowe (Housing,
interior design & resource management).

2) Rojas (Education/WID), Poe (Entomology), G. Norton
(Clothing & textiles), and Carson (Agronomy).

VPI proposes major participation in two areas of FSSP work:

1) Family systems and farming systems, and

2) Technical assistance, training and networking in Asia (VPI
has contacts with Sri Lanka, Nepal and with the Asian Vegetable
Research and Development Center (AVRDC). VPI proposes to use these
contact in coordinating Asian FSSP technical assistance, training
and networking activities.










(A total of 325 FSSP program associates have been identified: 285
with universities; 40 with non-university support entities)


2-13









FSSP SUPPORT ENTITIES WITH SIGNED MOA'S


ADMINISTRATIVE
COORDINATORS


Colorado State University
Cornell University
Kansas State University
Kentucky, University of
Iowa State University
Michigan State Univ.
Minnesota, University of
Missouri, University of
Penn. State University
Southern Illinois Univ.
Virginia Polytech. Inst.
Dev. Alternatives, Inc.
IADS
Research Triangle Inst.
Winrock International


Jim Meiman
Larry Zuidema
Vernon Larson
Herb Massey
J. T. Scott
Don Islieb
Delane Welsch
Mike Nolan
Robert McAlexander
Howard Olson
P. H. Massey
A.H.(Tony) Barclay
Colin McClung
Ronald Johnson
Ned Raun


Bill Shaner
Randy Barker
Cornelia Flora
Billie DeWalt
Eric Abbot
Merle Esmay
Mimi Gaudreau
Donald Osborn
Dean Jansma
Steven E.Kraft
John Caldwell
Eugene (Tony) Babb
Guy Baird
Gustavo Arcia
Robert Hart


FSSP SUPPORT ENTITIES WITH INFORMAL STATUS


ENTITY


Arkansas, University of
Florida, University of
Hawaii, University of
Ill. Urbana, Univ. of
Michigan, University of
North Carolina State Univ.
Oklahoma State University
Purdue University
Tennessee, University of
Tuskegee Institute
Virginia State University
Washington State Univ.
West Virginia University
Western Carolina University


ADMINISTRATIVE
COORDINATORS

Tom Westing
Hugh Popenoe
Hal McCarthy
Earl Kellog

Lawrence Apple
Bill Wright
D. Woods Thomas


Michael Joshua
Jim Henson
Dale Zinn
Mert Cregger


PROGRAM
LEADER


Don Voth
Ken Buhr

Sam H. Johnson,III
Elon Gilbert
Larry A.Nelson
U.J. Grant

Neal Walker
Michael Boateng

Tom Trail
Robert Maxwell
Nancy Blanks


2-14


ENTITY


PROGRAM
LEADER










APPENDIX 3


FSSP NEWSLETTER MAILING LIST DISTRIBUTION BREAKDOWN


TOTALS: Non-U.S.
Destination U.S.
ENGLISH 2,294 1,211 = 3,505

FRENCH 350 11 = 361

SPANISH 715 5 = 720

3,359 1,227 = 4,586


ENGLISH, non-U.S., single copies 624
ENGLISH, non-U.S., multiple copies 60
ENGLISH, non-U.S., single copies sent
with each Spanish
and French mailing 740
ENGLISH, USAID Missions 870 2,294

ENGLISH, U.S., single copies 1,061
ENGLISH,U.S., multiple copies 150 1,211

FRENCH, non-U.S., single copies 169
FRENCH, non-U.S., multiple copies 32
FRENCH, USAID Missions 149 350

FRENCH, U.S., single copies 11 11

SPANISH, non-U.S., single copies 481
SPANISH, non-U.S., multiple copies 58
SPANISH, USAID Missions 176 715

SPANISH, U.S., single copies 5 5

4,586

====DECEMBER, 1983======
DECEMBER, 1983


3-1











APPENDIX 4


FSSP ORIENTATION WORKSHOPS AND TRAINING
PRELIMINARY BOOK OF READINGS IN FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. An introduction to farming systems research
and extension.
1. Whyte, W.F. 1981. Participatory approaches to
agricultural research and development: a
state-of-the-art paper. (Introduction and Chapter I).
Center for International Studies, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.

2. Hildebrand, P.E. and R.K. Waugh. 1983.
Farming systems research and development. FSSP
Newsletter 1(1):4-5.

CHAPTER II. Small-scale family farms as a system.

1. Redfield, Robert. 1962. How human society
operates. In: Human nature and the study of society.
Vol I. Margaret Park Redfield, ed. The University of
Chicago Press, Illinois, pp. 417-439.

2. Hart, R.D. 1979. An ecological systems conceptual
framework for agricultural research and extension.
Iowa State University-CATIE-IICA Seminar on
Agricultural Production Systems Research, Turrialba,
Costa Rica. pp 4-18.

3. Norman, D.W. 1980. Defining a farming system.
In The farming systems approach: relevancy for the
small farmer. MSU Rural Development Paper No. 5.
Michigan State UniVersity, East Lansing, pp. 2-4.

4. McDowell, R.E. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1980. Integrated crop
and animal production: Making the most of resources
available to small farms in developing countries. The
Rockefeller Foundation Working Papers, New York, pp.
5-8, 9-25, 36-39, 51-56.

5. Hildebrand, P.E. 1983. The concept of "homogeneous
systems" and its usefulness. Excerpt. Working Paper,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS),
International Programs, Farming Systems Support
Project, University of Florida.

6. Hildebrand, P.E. 1983. Hierarchy of constraints to the
productivity of small family farm systems. Working
paper, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
(IFAS), International Programs, Farming Systems Support
Project, University of Florida.












CHAPTER III. Economic characteristics of small family farm
systems.

1. Hildebrand, P.E. 1983. Economic characteristics of
small-scale limited resource family farms:
implications for technology. Working paper, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), International
Programs, Farming Systems Support Project, University
of Florida.

2. Hildebrand, P.E. 1983. On the non-neutrality of scale of
agricultural research. Working Paper, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), International
Programs, Farming Systems Support Project, University
of Florida.

3. Hildebrand, P.E. and E.G. Luna. 1973. Unforseen
consequences of introducing new technologies in
traditional agriculture. Presented at Session No. 5,
Public Investment in Research, Education and
Technology, Fifteenth Conference of Agricultural
Economics, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

4. Schultz, T.W. 1964. The puzzle: Panajachel, Guatemala.
In: Transforming traditional agriculture, Chapter III,
Yale University Press, New Heaven, Connecticut.

CHAPTER IV. Initial characterization of farming systems:
comprehending and utilizing what we
see and hear.

1. Bodley, J.H. 1976. Anthropology perspectives on
contemporary human problems. In: Anthropology and
contemporary human problems. Benjamin/Cummings. pp.
10-12.

2. Rhoades, R.E. 1982. The art of the informal survey.
Training document, Social Science Department,
International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.

3. Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Combining disciplines in rapid
appraisal: the sondeo approach. Food and Resource
Economics Department, University of Forida.
Agricultural Administration 8, pp. 423-432.

CHAPTER V. Designing alternative solutions.

1. Norman, D.W. 1982. Necessary and sufficient conditions
for adoption. In: The farming systems approach to
research. Farming Systems Research Symposium "Farming
Systems in the Field," Kansas State University,
Manhattan, Kansas, p.5.











2. Spicer, Edward H., ed. 1952. Human problems in
technological change: a casebook. (Forward and
Introduction). Russell Sage Foundation.

3. CIMMYT. 1980. Prescreening potential
technological components. In: Planning technologies
appropriate to farmers: concepts and procedures,
Chapter 11, CIMMYT, Mexico.

4. Zandstra, H., K. Swanberg, C. Zulberti and
B. Nestel. 1979. Caqueza: living rural development,
International Development Research Center (IDRC),
Ottawa, pp. 255-258.

5. Gilbert, E.H., D.W. Norman and F.E. Winch. 1980.
Farming systems research: a critical appraisal. MSU
Rural Development Paper No.6, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, pp.51-54.

6. Norman, D.W. 1980. Empirical results of farming
systems research. In: The farming systems approach:
relevancy for the small farmer, MSU Rural Development
Paper No. 5, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
pp.10-20.

7. CIMMYT. 1980. Examples of planning on-farm
experiments. In: Planning technologies appropriate to
farmers; concepts and procedures. Chapter 12. CIMMYT,
Mexico.

CHAPTER VI. Technology development and continuing
characterization

1. Hildebrand, P.E., ed. n.d. The role of on-farm research
in technology generation. In: Design and analysis of
on-farm agronomic trials (Draft).

2. Hildebrand, P.E. 1983. Modified stability analysis of
farmer managed, on-farm trials. Journal Series No.
4577, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science,
University of Florida.

3. Zandstra, H., K. Swanberg, C. Zulberti and B. Nestel.
1979. Research to test the value of recommended
practices. In: Caqueza: living rural development,
Chapter 10. International Development Research Center
(IDRC), Ottawa, pp. 160-189.

4. Hildebrand, P.E. Farm records

5. Hildebrand, P.E. Directed Surveys

6. Hildebrand, P.E. Initial extension trials for
field days extension in farmer managed trials.


4-3












CHAPTER VII. Managing FSR/E systems and institutions.

1. Schultz, T. W. 1964. Transforming traditional
Agriculture. Yale University Press.
New Haven, Connecticut.

2. Waugh, R.K. 1983. Research that is planned and managed
for development. In: A compendium of notes on farm
oriented research and extension, Chapter 3,
International Programs, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, pp. III-1
through III-5.

3. Drucker, P.F. 1974. Management, Harper & Rowe,
New York, pp.131-165.

4. ISNAR. 1981. Annual Report, International
Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The
Hague, Netherlands, pp. 9-10, 43.

5. Norman, D.W. 1983. Some problems in the
implementation of agricultural research projects with a
farming systems perspective. Paper presented at
Seminar for Senior Agricultural Research
Administrators, CIMMYT, Nairobi, April 18-20.








APPENDIX 5


100 KEY FSR PUBLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO DIU, 1983:



1. Beets, Willem C. Multiple cropping and tropical farming
systems. Boulder: Westview Press, 1982. 156p.

2. Casey, Frank and Randolph Barker. A course in farming systems
research: the Cornell experience. Ithaca: Cornell University,
Department of Agricultural Economic, 1982. (Cornell International
Agriculture Mimeograph, 93) 92p.

3. Collinson, M.P. Farm management in peasant agriculture: a
handbook for rural development planning in Africa. New York:
Westview Press. 444p.

4. Collinson, M.P. Farming systems research in Eastern Africa:
the experience of CIMMYT and some national agricultural research
services, 1976-81. East Lansing: Michigan State University,
Department of Agricultural Economics, 1982. (MSU International
Development Paper, 3) 61p.

5. Collinson, M.P. A low cost approach to understanding small
farmers. Agricultural Administration 8(6):433-450. 1981.

6. Collinson, M.P.; Croon, S.I.; Mkindi, G.I. Planning an
adaptive experimental programme on maize for farmers of the Ufipa
plateau. Mbeye: Uyole Agricultural Centre, 1980. (Research report,
27) 16p.

7. Creating an on-farm research program in Ecuador/Edgardo
Moscardi, et. al. Mexico: CIMMYT, Economics Program, 1983. (CIMMYT
Economics Program Working Paper, 01/83) 28p.

8. Cropping systems in Perspire, Southern Honduras. Lexington:
University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Department of Sociology, 1982. 103p.

9. Dillon, J.L. The economics of systems research. In:
Agricultural Systems 1(1):5-22. 1976.

10. Dillon, John L. and J. Brian Hardaker. Farm management
research for small farmer development. Rome: FAO, 1980. (FAO
Agricultural Services Bulletin,41) 145p.

11. Economics and the design of small-farmer technology/ed. by
Alberto Valdes; Grant M. Scobie; John L. Dillon. Ames: Iowa State
University Press, 1979. 211p.

12. Farming Systems Research (FSR) in Honduras, 1977-81: a case
study/Darrell Gait, et al. East Lansing: Michigan State University,