Farming Systems Support Project
International Programs Office of Agriculture and
Institute of Food and Office of Multisectoral Development
Agricultural Sciences Bureau for Science and Technology
University of Florida Agency for International Development
Gainesville, Florida 32611 Washington, D.C. 20523
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
University of Florida
in cooperation with
FSSP Support Entities
December 31, 1983
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
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
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
iO. Acronyms used in this report
11. Annual Meeting Summary Report
12. Organization, Advisory and Support Structure
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&fl), 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 chancrinc 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 o 'f 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,
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 progmrms. 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 FSRIE 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
Pditor/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.
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).
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 Strateq7
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 involvment 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
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 IARC4 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.
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.
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 particulary 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 Traininq in Latin America
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.
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.
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.
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.
A TA visit by Dan Galt (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.
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.
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.
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.
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 has requested that at least two of their people visit Gainesville in early 1984 to discuss possible collaboration.
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 developement interests.
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.
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.
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 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.
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%)
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 FarminT 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 FSRIE 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 "limitedresource" 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.
Defininqr 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/Upper Volta AID/Washington
And the following universities:
Colorado State Florida
Southern Illinois-Carbondale Iowa State
Kentucky Michigan State
Utah State VP I
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 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:M(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.
Procrress 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
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
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
C. Addressing varied Training Needs
D. Developing and Strengthening Networks
E. Evaluation: Strengthening the Knowledge and
IV. A Delivery Strategy: Africa, Latin America, Asia, Near East
A. Regional Priorities
B. Request Review, Structure and Response
V. Africa in 183
1. International Institutions
2. IJSAID Missions
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
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
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
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 prog rams.
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.
Farming Systems Research and Develo9pment
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 19801s, 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,
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
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,
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 Ihe 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
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.
A broad range of responsibilities will emerge for the FSSP in 1983. Responsibility criteria for the FSSP are summarized below:
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.
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
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
a. Commodity and discipline research on experiment
stations and in laboratories.
b. Researcher managed on-farm trials with farmer
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
ii. Refined partitioning of recommendation
domains by researchers.
iii.. Initiation of technology transfer
4. Information accumulation and analysis.
a. Agro-technical data from on-farm trials.
b. Economic records on farm enterprises from
c. Other agro-socio-cultural-economic and
political information through directed surveys
of area residents.
5. Frequently programmed reevaluation of research
a. Refine partitioning of recommendation domains.
b. Make recommendations of acceptable technology
for dissemination into specified recommendation
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
2. FSSP Program Associates support faculty at
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)
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,
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 managment, 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.
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 suport 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.
Adrsing Varied Trainn 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 indiviuals 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.
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 undeer 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 pracitioners 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.
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
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: St rengthening the Knowledge and Assistance Base
Application of a systems approach to administration, managment 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 managment and administrative concern.
A DELIVERY STRATEGY:
Africa, Latin America, Asia, Near East
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 Mi.ssions 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.
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 universitites, 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 slected 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
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 discriptions 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
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
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 institutions 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
2. It is essential that the general approach to Farming Systems
Research and Extension be given bounderies with reference
to the roles and responsibilities of the FSSP. The desire
a. To approach but not fully embrace concensus
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
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 countries. 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 perspective 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 guidelines 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
7. Also, participating entity involvement with FSSP relative to
prior contractural committments 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 relative 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
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.
FARMING SYSTEMS SUPPORT PROJECT
Memorandum of Agreement
The University of Florida
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 ammended, 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
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.
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
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
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.
Farming Systems Support Project
I. Farming Systems Support Project
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
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 Lat-in 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)Networkinqr activities will facilitate communication among practitioners.
(4) State-of-the-art research will yield FSR/E field guidelines.
A. (1) Technical Assistance
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-Prolect: 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; delimination 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 eperiments
with farmer participation, monitoring of field experiments, and collection of data;
- analysis and interpretation of agronomic and economic
data recommendations for a-new cycle of experimentation;
- participation of extension personnel to disseminate
If a national program encounters difficulties during some phase of the FSR/E cycle, the program officials can request, throught 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 Lractitioner course will be employees or potential emploiet ot tnt national ag*i tr-a,! l ef o 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) Networkincr
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
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 workship 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.
A. (3c) Document Center and Annotated Biblioqraphv
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.
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 intiatives 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
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) Managrement 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 responsibilty 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 responsibilty 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
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.
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 andl 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;
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 yoar's 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.
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.
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 entitites 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. N~o 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
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
c) agricultural sector planning and integrated
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:
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?
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
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.
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 meeeting 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:
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.
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 priorioties.
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 capabilites 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).
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.
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.
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)
FSSP SUPPORT ENTITIES WITH SIGNED MOA'S
ENTITY ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM
Colorado State University Jim Meiman Bill Shaner
Cornell University Larry Zuidema Randy Barker
Kansas State University Vernon Larson Cornelia Flora
Kentucky, University of Herb Massey Billie DeWalt
Iowa State University J. T. Scott Eric Abbot
Michigan State Univ. Don Islieb Merle Esmay
Minnesota, University of Delane Welsch Mimi Gaudreau
Missouri, University of Mike Nolan Donald Osborn
Penn. State University Robert McAlexander Dean Jansma
Southern Illinois Univ. Howard Olson Steven E.Kraft
Virginia Polytech. Inst. P. H. Massey John Caldwell
Dev. Alternatives, Inc. A.H.(Tony) Barclay Eugene (Tony) Babb IADS Colin McClung Guy Baird
Research Triangle Inst. Ronald Johnson Gustavo Arcia
Winrock International Ned Raun Robert Hart
FSSP SUPPORT ENTITIES WITH INFORMAL STATUS
ENTITY ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM
Arkansas, University of Tom Westing Don Voth
Florida, University of Hugh Popenoe Ken Buhr
Hawaii, University of Hal McCarthy
Ill. Urbana, Univ. of Earl Kellog Sam H. Johnson,III
Michigan, University of Elon Gilbert
North Carolina State Univ. Lawrence Apple Larry A.Nelson
Oklahoma State University Bill Wright U.J. Grant
Purdue University D. Woods Thomas
Tennessee, University of Neal Walker
Tuskegee Institute Michael Boateng
Virginia State University Michael Joshua Washington State Univ. Jim Henson Tom Trail
West Virginia University Dale Zinn Robert Maxwell
Western Carolina University Mert Cregger Nancy Blanks
FSSP NEWSLETTER MAILING LIST DISTRIBUTION BREAKDOWN
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
FSSP ORIENTATION WORKSHOPS AND TRAINING
PRELIMINARY BOOK OF READINGS IN FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. An introduction to farming systems research
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
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 Uni~ersity, 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
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
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.
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,
7. CIMMYT. 1980. Examples of planning on-farm
experiments. In: Planning technologies appropriate to farmers: concepts and procedures. Chapter 12. CIMMYT,
CHAPTER VI. Technology development and continuing
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.
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
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.
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(l):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,
Department of Agricultural Economics, 1982. (Working Paper, 1) 49p.
13. Farming Systems Research Symposium (1982: Manhattan) Proceedings of Kansas State University's 1982 farming systems research symposium: farming systems in the field/ed by Cornelia Butler Flora. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Conference Office, 1983.
14. Farming Systems Seminar Workshop (1981: Los Banos) Proceedings: Farming Systems Seminar Workshop March 16-18, PCARR Los Banos, Laguna. Los Banos: Integrated Agricultural Production and Marketing Project (IAPMP) 68p.
15. Field data collection in the social sciences: experiences in Africa and the Middles East/ed. by Bryant Kearl. New York: Agricultural Development Council, 1976. 200p.
16. Francis, C.A. Development of plant genotypes for multiple cropping systems. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1981. From: Plant Breeding II/K.J. Frey, ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1981.
17. Gilbert, E.H.; D. W. Norman and F.E. Winch. Farming systems research: a critical appraisal. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1980. (MSU Rural Development Paper, 6) 134p.
18. Gostyla, Lynn and William F. Whyte. ICTA in Guatemala: the evolution of a new model for agricultural research and development. Ithaca: Cornell University, Rural Development Committee, 1980. (Special Series on Agricultural Research and Extension, ARE-3) 48p.
19. Hart, Robert D. Using the concept of agroecosystem determinants to link technology transfer and technology generation to form a farming systems research and extension process. Morrilton: Winrock International, 1983. 14p.
20. A handbook on the methodology for an integrated experiment-survey on rice yield constraints/S.K. DeDatta, et al. Manila: IRRI, 1978. 58p.
21. Harwood, R.R. Small farm development: understanding and improving farming systems in the humid tropics. Boulder: Westview Press, 1979.
22. Hildebrand, P.E. Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal: the Sondeo Approach. Agricultural Administration 8(6):423-432. 1981.
23. ICRISAT. Proceedings of the international workshop on intercropping, 10-13 January 1979. Patancheru: ICRISAT, 1981.
24. Integrated agriculture-aquaculture farming systems / ed. by Roger S.V. Pullin and Ziad H. Shehadeh. Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management and Southeast Asia Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture,