• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Introduction
 Concept - What was the basic technical...
 Design - How was this basic technical...
 Implementation - How was the project...
 Evaluation - How was the project's...
 Institutionalization - How did...
 Reference
 Annex A - Project description...
 Back Matter














Group Title: Case Study - A.I.D. Farming Systems Research and Extension ; No. 8
Title: Nepal agricultural research and production project (367-0149)
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073360/00001
 Material Information
Title: Nepal agricultural research and production project (367-0149)
Series Title: CDIE working paper
Alternate Title: Case studies of A.I.D. Farming Systems Research & Extension (FSRE) Projects, Case Study no. 8
Physical Description: 23 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Byrnes, Kerry J., 1945-
Publisher: Center for Development Information and Evaluation, Agency for International Development
Place of Publication: Washington DC
Publication Date: 1986?
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural extension work -- Nepal   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Technology transfer -- Nepal   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Nepal
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf 20).
Statement of Responsibility: Kerry J. Byrnes.
General Note: Caption title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073360
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 80938850

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Concept - What was the basic technical idea underlying the project?
        Page 2
    Design - How was this basic technical idea translated into a project?
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Implementation - How was the project managed by the host-country implementing agency, the TA team, and USAID?
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Evaluation - How was the project's performance measured or assessed?
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Institutionalization - How did the project provide for the implementing agency to develop a sustainable capability to continue to perform the types of activities supported by the project?
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Reference
        Page 20
    Annex A - Project description sheet
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Back Matter
        Page 23
Full Text
o I. i/g







Ji CDIE WORKING PAPERS


CDIE WORKING PAPER NO. 112

Case Studies of
A.I.D. Farming Systems Research & Extension (FSR/E) Projects


Case Study Ko. 8

Nepal Agriculturdl Research and Production Project (367-0149)1


by

Kerry J. Byrnes2

Center for Development Information and Evaluation
Agency for International Development
Washington, DC 20523



1This CDIE Working Paper is one of the case studies prepared
"for a cross-cutting analysis of A.I.D. FSR/E projects, A Review of
A.I.D. Experience with Farming Systems Research and Extension
Projects (A.I.D. Evaluation Special Study, forthcoming). The 12
FSR/E projects reviewed in this series are:

Botswana Agricultural Technology Improvement (633-0221)
Gambia Mixed Farming and Resource Management (635-0203)
Lesotho Farming Systems Research (632-0065)
Malawi Agricultural Research (612-0202)
Senegal Agricultural Research and Planning (685-0223)
Tanzania Farming Systems Research (621-0156)
Zambia Agricultural Development Research & Extension (611-0201)
Nepal Agricultural Research and Production (367-0149)
Philippines Farming Systems Development-Eastern Visayas (492-0356)
Guatemala Food Productivity and Nutritional Improvement (520-0232)
Honduras Agricultural Research (522-0139)
ROCAP Small Farm Production Systems (596-0083)

Information on how to order any of the CDIE Working Papers this
series is provided on the last page of this report.

Senior Social Science Analyst, Program and Policy Evaluation
Division, CDIE. This case study, prepared under a CDIE contract
with Labat-Anderson Incorporated, is based on a review of project
evaluation documentation. Interpretation of the data reported is
that of the author and should not be attribute, to A.I.D. or Labat-
Anderson Incorporated.









Nepal Agricultural Research and Production Project (367-0149)


The Nepal Agricultural Research and Production Project
(ARPP) was authorized, as a five-year project, on December 4,
1984, for $10,000,000. The Project Grant Agreement was signed
September 30, 1985.

Technical assistance (TA) to ARPP is being provided by the
Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development
(WI). The nine-person TA team includes a Research Management
Specialist (Chief of Party), Farming Systems Research Specialist,
Socio-Economist, Minor Crop Agronomist, Research Station Manage-
ment Specialist, Agro-Forestry Research Specialist, Livestock
Research Specialist, Seed Production Specialist, and Production
Agronomist

A mid-term evaluation of the ARPP was conducted in late 1987
(Rood, et al., 1988). It should be noted that ARPP was preceded
by two USAID/I.epal-funded projects: Food Grain Technology (FGT)
Project (Project No. 367-11-110-G53; 367-0054) from 1957-1974
(Simmons, et al., 1982); and Integrated Cereals Project (ICP)
(367-0114) from 1975-1981 (A.I.D., 1978, 1979; Gilbert, et al.,
1983). The present case study is based on the information
provided in the APPP mid-term evaluation (Rood, et al., 1988), a
white paper on "The Status of Farming Systems Research through
ARPP in Nepal" (Galt, 1988) by one TA team v.ember, and conversa-
tions with the TA team Chief of Party (John DeBoer, personal
communication).

The record indicates that several project components were
not adequately assessed by the mid-term evaluation. In
particular, Galt (1988:1) wrote that the

only case I know of where technical advice for evaluation of
the FSR component in a USAID project text was ignored has
been Nepal in regard to the ARPP. ...the [Farming Systems
Support Project] project evaluation guidelines, which were
submitted to USAID a year ago this month..., were not used
at all in (1) selection of the team for the mid-term ARPP
evaluation;, or (2) in the orientation and briefing of the
ARPP mid-term review team once it reached Nepal.

Consequently, some relatively major "key indicators" were
either overlooked by the mid-term review team, or were not
included in their report to [GON], USAID and ARPP.










Concept What was the basic technical idea underlying the
project?


Many donor countries and international organizations have
assisted Nepal in developing the country's agricultural sector.
Agriculture is the mainstay of Nepal's economy, provides employ-
ment and income to over 90% of the population, and accounts for
two thirds of the GDP. However, farming remains largely tradi-
tional and subsistence oriented. The country's farming systems
are a mixture of several enterprises including grains, livestock,
fruits, and vegetables. The principal crops in the Terai are
rice, maize, and wheat, while maize and finger millets are the
most dominant crops in the hill regions.

During the past three decades, USAID/Nepal has made a large
commitment to the development of Nepal's agricultural sector.
The Food Grain Technology Project emphasized a commodity-based
research program to test and develop appropriate technologies; at
the same time, an adaptive research program provided for the
linkage of research and extension. The Integrated Cereals Proj-
ect (ICP) strengthened the wheat, maize, and rice commodity
programs through infrastructure development and intensive
training.

ICP introduced the concept of Cropping Systems Research and
demonstrated the importance of socio-economics in the transfer
and adoption of technology by farmers. Another project, Seed
Production and Inputs Storage (SPIS), cooperated with ICP in
developing systems for multiplying and distributing the seeds of
the new varieties coming out of the commodity programs.

Despite the progress made by these predecessor projects, the
ARPP evaluation noted that what was yet lacking was

a bridge to link the research and extension activities
firmly together. The ARP Project was designed in a way to
continue the past work of the ICP and SPIS project but at
the same time trying to resolve, through institution build-
ing, many of the constraints which plagued these former
projects. The development of the Farming Systems Research
[and Development] Division and the Socio-Economics Research
and Extension Division [in the National Agricultural
Research Service Center] are a step in the right direction
(Rood, et al., 1988:v).

The Farming Systems Research and Development Division (FSRDD) and
the Socio-Economics Research and Extension Division (SERED) are
two of the operational divisions of GON's National Agricultural
Research Service Center (NARSC) within the Department of Agri-
culture (DOA) of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA).

ARPP's goal is "to increase the sustainable productivity of










Nepali small farmers" (A.I.D., 1984:13). The project purpose is
"to (a) strengthen GON institutional capabilities to develop
appropriate new technologies for small farmers; (b) develop
methodologies for conducting comprehensive production programs in
the hills; and (c) improve hill farmers' access to improved
seed."

Thus, the intent of the ARP Project was to strengthen the
capability of the national agricultural research system to
develop appropriate technologies, especially for the resource-
poor hill farmers. Also, it was planned that the Project would
develop and demonstrate the methods for extending these new
technologies to farmers through a program of on-farm testing at
farming systems sites and subsequent block production programs
concentrated in four hill districts. This work was to be
supported by a seed program.

It may be noted that, according to Galt (1988:4), the GON
"never wanted a full-scale FSR project" and felt "that Nepal was
not ready for an TSR project." Further, the GON interpreted

the subsequent Project Paper as a continuation of the best
parts of ICP and SPIS. This interpretation of ARPP by [GoN]
stakeholders led to continuous misunderstanding between
those technical assistants implementing the FSR components
of ARPP...and the leadership of MOA.... Essentially, we
were not referring to the same project even when we were all
talking about ARPP. no [GON] stakeholder expressed
any interest in the creation or permanence of FSRDD and
SERED, the two new divisions given the major responsibility
for introducing the switch from CSR to FSR in Nepal.


Design How was this basic technical idea translated into a
project?


In addition to long-term TA and short-term TA, ARPP's design
provided for construction (e.g., a Central Agricultural Research
Building to house the library, FSRDD, SERED, and NARSC); out of
country training (degree training and short courses, study tours,
and participation in regional seminars and workshops); in country
training; ccmncdities (e.g., vehicles); and local currency
funding on a diminishing percentage basis. The local currency
funds were "to strengthen the operational support components of.
the various programs targeted for ARPP activities. The Project:
Grant Agreement allocated approximately $1.155 million for this'
activity" (Rood, et al., 1988:64).








The project outputs included three components: research,
Hill Production Program, and seed (National Seed Development
Board, and hill seed program). The research component included
six activities, as follows: improved administration and manage-
ment, agricultural research library, commodity research, research
support funds, Farming Systems Research and Development Divi-
sion (FSRDD), and Socio-Economic Research and Extension Division
(SERED). This case study focuses on two of these activities--
Farming Systems Research and Development Division (FSRDD) and
Socio-Economic Research and Extension Division (SERED).

To achieve ARPP's objectives, the project design provided
for the creation of four new bodies:

Research Coordination Committee (RCC);
-- National Agricultural Research Services Center (NARSC);
-- Farming Systems Research and Development Division
(FSRDD); and
-- Socio-Econonics Research and Extension Division
SERVED) .

Design aspects of FSRDD and SERED are now reviewed.

Farming Systems Research and Development Division

Building on the success achieved in the ICP's Cropping
Systems Research Program, farming systems research (FSR) (includ-
ing crops, horticulture, livestock, agro-forestry, and minor
crops) was considered a logical next step in developing tech-
nology for resource-poor hill farmers. Expected project outputs
regarding FSR were as follows:

1. A Farming Systems Research and Development Division
(FSRDD) was to be established at Khumaltar (Kathmandu)
as a Disciplinary Division of NARSC. This Division's
core staff were to be deputed from the parent Disci-
plinary Divisions, Commodity Programs, Department of
Livestock Development and Animal Health (DLDAH), and
the Forestry Research and Survey Office of the Depart-
ment of Forests (DOF).

2. FSR sites were to be established in five Development
Regions, one each in the Eastern, Central, Western,
Mid-Western, and Far-Western Development Regions.

3. FSRDD would plan and monitor research conducted at FSR
sites. Key research areas would be high hill crops,
forages and fuel, pulses and oilseeds, agro-forestry,
and horticulture. FSRDD was to cooperate closely with
the Soil Science Division to identify and promote bio-
logical sources of plant nutrients. The Division was
also to work on revegetation of denuded land; on-farm
production of green manure, fodder and f::elwood from










trees; production of fruit and coffee; and inter-
cropping trees with other food crops. A TA team member
pointed out that progress in this area had been impeded
by a lack of support from the various research
divisions and commodity programs.

4. Field surveys and socio-economic studies would be
carried out at FSR sites.

5. Research farm/station personnel were to support and
backstop the FSR sites. A TA team member noted that
research farm/station personnel have no incentive to do
this activity because it is not defined in their annual
targets.

6. ARPP was to fund training for staff members at regional
short courses and monitoring tours, and staff in-
country training programs.

7. A Farming Systems Coordination Committee (FSCC) was to
guide FSR activities, while a Farming Systems Working
Group was to implement the FSR work and prepare annual
plans based on technical discussions of results, for
approval by NARSC through the FSCC. A TA team member
pointed out that this activity is proceeding but in a
vacuum due to lack of progress in activity areas 1 and
3 above.

FSRDD was also to link with several other project components
including the Hill Production Program, the Crops Improvement Pro-
gram, livestock, agro-forestry, and bio-fertilizer.

Socio-Economic Research and Extension Division

The Socio-Economic Research and Extension Division (SERED)
was to concentrate on farm-level socio-economic problems. Its
activities were to include:

1. Backstop training and planning support for extension
programs;

2. Conducting socio-economic research on agricultural
technology development and adoption;

3. Economic analysis of agricultural research; and

4. Assisting other units with the analysis of research
results and thvi design and preparation of extension
materials.










A TA team member pointed out that the first activity has not
worked because extension has now been split off from the NARSC.

The Division was to be staffed with 16 persons, including
agricultural economists, rural sociologists, statisticians, and
other support staff. ARPP was to provide TA, training, and
office furniture and equipment. As of mid 1988, only two
officers has been assigned to SERED.

Specific activities set forth in the Division's workplan
were:

1. To participate in multidisciplinary site surveys and
the formulation of site research activities in
collaboration with the FSRDD;

2. To use economic criteria to evaluate agronomic trials
in farmers' fields;

3. To study constraints to adoption by farmers of
different production package components; and

4. To evaluate the impact of production programs.

A TA team member noted that, as of mid 1988, all of these four
activities were being met to some degree despite aforementioned
problems (e.g., lack of staffing). SERED was also to conduct
research on the various economic and management problems of the
mini-seed houses and other seed enterprises in the hills; to
assess the role of a mini-kit program as an important seed
dissemination tool; and to evaluate the relative value of
different extension methodologies used in Nepal. As of mid 1988,
staff shortages precluded implementation of these activities.

SERED's scheduled activities for 1986 and 1987 included
support to the FSRDD, the Hill Production Program, and the MOA
and MOF.

FSRDD -- This was to include baseline and reconnaissance
surveys to support FSRDD in site selection, participation in FSR
methodology development, field implementation and follow-up
surveys of FSR sites, and assistance in monitoring farmer field
trials.

Hill Production Program -- Activities in this category were
to include design and conduct of baseline surveys in selected
districts to identify areas for production programs; participa-
tion in the design of trial production programs; and assistance
in monitoring Pre-Production Verification Trial (PPVT) and
carrying out topic-specific followup (to baseline) surveys.











MOA and MOF -- Activities in this category were to include
conducting research on the effectiveness of extension methods
currently being used or developed in Nepal; studying the impact
of selected agricultural farms and research stations; providing
assistance in economic analysis to various Departments; assisting
in training District Agricultural Development Officers (ADOs),
Junior Technicians (JTs), Junior Technical Assistants (JTAs), and
Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs); and liaison with the Department of
Food and Agricultural Marketing Services (DFAMS).

Other Activities -- In addition to the above activities,
SERED was expected:

To support, assist, and strengthen the Lunle Agricul-
tural Center (LAC) Planning Unit and support FSR
methodology developed at Lumie;

To interact with, and exchange methodologies and ideas
with the French Technical Assistance Prograr in the
Western Region of Nepal; and

To draw upon relevant socio-economic experiences from
Pakhribas Agricultural Center (PAC) and International
Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs).

A TA team member noted that, as of mid 1988, no formal links had
yet been developed between SERED and these activities.

Commenting on the design of ARPP, Gait (1988:4) noted that
an enthusiastic USAID/Nepal official had "allowed the conditions
of the grant to be contingent upon the creation of three new
divisions in the MOA" (NARSC, FSRDD, and SERED). But, as Gait
(2988:4) also noted:

While the ARPP Project Paper gives much weight to the
creation of NARSC, FSRDD and SERED, the definition of
"create" has not been made clear by USAID. Is temporary
division or unit status sufficient? Or is creation
something which will be accomplished only when divisions or
units are made permanent within the [GON] agricultural
research structure?










Implementation How was the project managed by the host-country
implementing agency, the TA team, and USAID?


ARPP's FSR/E work was implemented within a "dispersed and
vaguely defined" management structure. The evaluation noted:

Under the primary responsibility of the Project Officer,
several USAID offices were assigned responsibility .
Similarly, [GON] was to have a Project Director (the
Director General of DOA) and a DOA staff member was to be
Project Coordinator. The role and authority of the Project
Coordinator was never defined, and he has not been given
adequate staff to support much real coordinating, planning,
[or] monitoring. Indeed, even the Project Director has not
been very much involved in Project management, especially
after NARSC was established as a new ministerial body,
separate from the DOA (Rood, et al., 1988:67).

Indeed, Gait (1988:5) noted

(1) that none of us ARPP technical assistance advisors have
identical concepts of what ARPP should be, and (2) no team-
building meetings [have] been held in which various FSR
opinions were polled, discussed and built upon or modified
in a systematic way.

Thus, in more than two years of project implementation, "little
if any progress has been made to reconcile professionally the
differences" between the USAID/Nepal and GON positions vis-a-vis
ARPP.

Specific problems that arose in connection with ARPP's
support of FSR/E are noted in the following discussion.

Farming Systems Research and Development Division

The FSRDD was formed in September 1985. The Division's
personnel were, until 1987, basically agronomists, deputed from
the Agronomy Division, although the FSRDD Chief had been deputed
from the National Wheat Development Program. While the TA team's
FSR Specialist had been in country 22 months as of December 31,
1987, the NARSC had yet to assign to the FSRDD any staff from the
Livestock, Horticulture, Vegetable, or Forestry Divisions. The
evaluation noted the requirement for both a core of back-up staff
at Khumaltar and outreach staff based at the FSR sites. While
the FSRDD had requested 13 new gazetted officer positions at
Khumaltar, and 10 (temporary) office posts at the FSR sites, the
manpower in the division at the time of the evaluation was only 7
officers at Khunaltar and 9 officers at FSR sites, all in a
temporary capacity.

The evaluation expressed concern that the task of gaining a










good understanding of hill farming systems might be difficult if
the FSRDD's staff were limited only to "basically agronomists"
(Rood, et al., 1988:10). Further, the evaluation noted that the
delay in creating permanent posts and in appointing personnel to
the existing temporary posts was preventing the FSRDD from
working at its full capacity. Temporary staff stay only

until they can become permanent somewhere else thus a lot of
Project effort in training such staff becomes a futile
exercise. The morale of the staff in the Division is low as
FSRDD is not considered permanent by many until it contains
permanent posts. Directives have not been issued to depute
staff from other Divisions, Commodity Programs, Departments
or Ministries. Neither have directives been issued to
include FSR type activities in the workplans of other units.
It would, therefore, appear that institutionalizing FSR
activities in a disciplinary division has not been as
efficient as planned in promoting an understanding of FSR as
a collaborative research strategy (Rorid, et al., 1988:11).

Far-inc Systems Coordination Conmittep (FSCC) -- Because of
limitations of manpower, resources, and lack of understanding of
the FSR perspective and the concept itself, Division/Commodity
Program personnel had "little enthusiasm for direct involve-
ment...in FSR work" (Rood, et al., 1988:11). The net result was
that the FSCC had yet to play an effective role.

Farrmina Systems Working Group (FSWG) -- While the FSWG had
met twice, the rain thrust of the meetings was to review what
other agencies in Nepal had been doing in FSR. A proposal was
being considered to hold FSWG meetings twice a years, the one
meeting focusing on technical sessions and field trips to FSR
sites, the other or budget planning and program formulation.

Progress at FSR Sites -- During the first half of 1986, the
FSRDD reviewed the status of on-going ICP-established cropping
systems sites. Also, survey work was completed in two areas.
Work continued at six FSR sites during the second half of 1986,
while an additional site was added during the first half of 1987.
However, given the FSRDD's limited staffing, a decision was made
that the Division could not maintain high standards of research
at more than 5 FSR sites. Consequently, two sites were closed.

The evaluation team found that the work at the FSR sites
tended to emphasize production of cereal crops. Except at one or
two sites, little attention was being paid to minor grain crops,
pulses, oilseeds, roots, forages, livestock feed production,
horticulture or agro-forestry. Generally, forestry and livestock
activities at most of the sites were being supported by the TA
team personnel. However, the SERED was providing good support at
all sites as well as at rianning meetings, workshops, etc.










Model Farms -- Activities toward establishing two "model
farrs" had been initiated in collaboration with the Rampur and
Belachapi Research stations. However, the evaluation team cau-
tioned "that it is very difficult to emulate the conditions of
resource-constrained small farmers especially when the modelling
is done on government farms" (Rood, et al., 1988:12). Here the
evaluation team felt that additional thought about methodology
and implementation was needed for the "model farm" concept to be
a useful FSR/E tool.

Methodology Development -- The evaluation team felt that the
ARPP's work on FSR methodology development had established a firm
foundation for the research farms/stations to plan and execute
on-farm activities. Methodological work completed to that point
'had included (1) defining the characteristics of an area, produc-
tion constraints, and research priorities; (2) conducting trials
in farmers' fields; (3) increasing farmer participation in trial
design and evaluation (farmer group meetings and short evaluation
surveys); and (4) designing a new set of field data recording
forms for improving trial planning, monitoring, data collection,
and analysis.

Conclusion -- The evaluation team identified several
problems that the team felt needed to be addressed in order for
"FSRDD activities to fall in line with the original Project
objectives" (Rood, et al., 1988:13).

1. The GON's delay in creating permanent posts and in
appointing personnel to temporary posts prevented long-
term planning of research and training as well as
working at full capacity. There were no officers from
livestock, horticulture, or agro-forestry, and the
division was still not considered permanent.

2. While the evaluation did not question the need for a
multidisciplinary approach to agricultural research for
hill farming systems, the research base for component
technologies for hill agriculture was poor; thus, there
was a lack of technically feasible, economically
viable, and socially acceptable technologies.

3. Little progress was made in marshaling support fcr the
FSRDD from the Disciplinary Divisions, Commodity
Programs, and research personnel assigned to NARSC
research farms/stations. Given the FSR concept's
newness, many disciplinary divisions were "dubious
about the objectives and role of a new FSR Division"
(Rood, et al., 1988:14). To bring component research,
researchers, and FSR together, there was an urgent need
for "clearcut directives frc. the central level" (Rood,
et al., 1988:14).

4. The pronortion of GON funds allocated to research









operations at FSR sites was "much too low," while the
delayed release of budgets precluded work at FSR sites
from operating smoothly.

5. Difficulties and delays were encountered in nomina-ting
candidates for training and clearing them for travel to
regional training programs.

6. The project attempted to utilize the samuhik bhraman
(multidisciplinary group trek) to facilitate inter-
disciplinary discussion on the identification of
priority problems and potential component technologies
to solve those problems. But there was little
participation in this activity by Disciplinary
Division/Commodity Program researchers, which defeated
the very purpose of this innovative activity.

Gait (1988:0) notes that the samuhik bhraman is "undertaken
to assist FSR site coordinators to re-design their research
programs, and is based on farmer reactions to CSR trials and upon
their liste- and prioritized problems."

Socic-Economic Research and Extension Division

During 1985, the newly formed SERED lacked a full-time
leader and required personnel; thus, there was only limited
activity. In 1986, SERED activities began to develop with the
deputation of a full-time chief. At the time of the evaluation,
the SERED staff consisted of six officers (including the chief
and three officers provided by TA contractor local hire), two
assistants, two enumerators (TA contractor local hire), and six
support staff persons. Two officer posts and one assistant post
which had been approved by the GON were still vacant. Four PCVs
were also assigned to SERED.

FSRDD -- SERED activities in support of FSRDD were limited
to site selection studies in four districts; a study of farmers'
participation in FSR; and participation in a workshop on farm-
level monitoring. SERED staff also worked with FSRDD in conduct-
ing key informant surveys in four FSR sites and modified key
informant surveys in five districts in and around the Kathmandu
Valley. The Division's staff also organized a workshop on trial
design for on-farm research. SERED staff participated in the
samuhik bhramans. During 1987, SERED hosted a training program
with FSRDD on FSR skills and methodology development.

Hill Production Program -- SERED supported the Hill Produc-
tion Program by completing the baseline surveys for selected
Danchayats of three districts and a similar survey was ongoing in
another district.

MOA and MOF -- Activities in this category included an
impact study of four of the farms/research stations; organization










of a two-day workshop on labor issues; training of JTs, JTAs, and
PCVs on field survey methods; and training of ADs and Subject
Matter Specialists (SMSs) on socio-economic research methodology.

Other activities included documentation of socio-economic
and agricultural extension research activities in Nepal, prepara-
tion of a study on women's participation in agricultural exten-
sion in three districts, and completion of a study to measure the
impact of mini-seed houses and to determine if these houses could
be run by farmers.

Conclusion -- ARPP envisioned that the SERED would play a
catalytic role in supporting all Project components. SERED could
only play this role successfully by establishing a coordinated
working relationship with other project components. The evalua-
tion found that SERED had been able to maintain a close relation-
ship with FSRDD but not with the other divisions and programs.
According to the evaluation, neither SERED nor the Project had
developed a

specific mechanism...to maintain the close coordination
needed between SERED and other component activities. Within
SERED, productive relationships and linkages, especially
with PCVs, have not been established. As a result, SERED
staff in Kathmandu are not adequately aware of what field
staff are doing or planning to do. Consequently, the SERED
Central Office has been unable to properly guide and support
field staff. Similarly, SERED has been unable to guide and
support the field staff of other Project components (Rood,
et al., 1988:22).

Linkaces with other Project Components

Hill Crops Improvement Program (HCIP) -- The HCIC program
was focused on crops such as buckwheat, amaranthus, finger millet
and barley. The program was to assist the FSRDD in developing
and packaging appropriate technologies for hill farmers. The
evaluation found that the HCIP was working closely with the FSR
sites and the production districts both in the distribution and
testing of technologies.

Livestock -- The livestock component was being implemented
through the DLDAH. This component was designed to assist the
FSRDD in executing livestock research at the FSR sites. Live-
stock research was being developed at two FSR sites where PCVs
were stationed. While progress had been slow at Khanbari, at
Naldung small "fodder banks" had been started on the farms of ten
cooperating farmers; monitoring of milk production and reproduc-
tion nad been initiated. ARPP planned during 1988 to establish a
small fodder tree nursery to distribute saplings to farmers.









While the livestock research at FSR sites initially focused
on pasture and fodder improvement, the evaluation team suggested
that there was also a need for research on an integrated program
of livestock breed improvement, health, management practices, and
organized marketing of livestock produce.

Aero-Forestry -- The agro-forestry component was based on
the precise of interdependence between crops, livestock, and
forests in hill farming systems. ARPP was to examine, in con-
junction with FSRDD, the interactions between trees and agri-
cultural crops for developing sustainable land use systems for
adoption by small farmers. The evaluation found that the TA
team's agro-forestry research specialist had participated in the
samuhik bhrarans at three FSR sites. As a result, several types
of trials were designed (e.g., spacing trials to determine the
density at which unacceptable negative impact on crop produc-tion
occurs). Also, at each site, a "fodder tree survey" was being
conducted.

The TA Ccntractor hired an agro-forestry research technician
to work with expatriate agro-forester in improving technical
backup to the -SRDD program. But agro-forestry was not a program
within either the DOA or DLDAH; thus, an agro-forestry trained
counterpart was not available within the DLDAH. The evaluation
concluded that "the chance that the agro-forestry component may
be institutionalized during the life time of the Project does not
appear to be a feasible expectation" (Rood, et al., 1988:34).

Bio-Fertiiizer Proaram -- The FSR program was to cooperate
closely with the new Biological Fertilizer Program in the Soil
Science Division, and assist in this program's field trials at
FSR sites. While the Project provided budgetary support for
staff salaries in the Soil Science Division, "the additional
staff envisioned...to work with the Bio-Fertilizer Program [had]
not been provided" (Rood, et al., 1988:35). The evaluation found

little cooperation between the Bio-Fertilizer program and
the FSRDD. Only a few trials have been implemented by the
FSRDD usi.:g technology from the Bio-Fertilizer Program and
these have concentrated mainly on using Dhaincha as a green
manure crop. Likewise, the production districts have not
been fully involved in the testing program of the Bio-
Fertilizer Program. Little benefit to the FSR sites or to
the production districts has resulted from the funding of
this program" (Rood, et al., 1988:35).

The evaluation concluded that FSR and production sites should be
the major testing areas for the Bio-Fertilizer Program but recom-
mended (1) that the GON should ensure that the program is
provided adequate staffing, and (2) that USAID/Nepal monitor the
use of Project funds to ensure that the program operates as
planned.










Evaluation How was the project's performance measured or
assessed?


The Project Paper outlined a "Project Monitoring Plan" that
was divided into two categories: routine project implementation
monitoring, and impact monitoring. The latter was broken down
into the three major Project components: agricultural research,
production program, and seed program. Impact indicators for each
component were identified, but without clearly identifying how or
when they would be reported, nor by whom. The following impact
indicators were proposed:

1. For the agricultural research component, the Research
Planning Specialist, during his first visit in year
one, was to quantify GON research activities, develop
quantitative indicators for research relevance and
quality, and establish targets for improvement. ARPP
was to aim for a five percent annual increase in the
number of research activities and for two new varieties
of cereals, and two new varieties of pulse, forage, and
tree crops to be released each year.

2. For the production program, the impact indicator was to
be the number of hectares under the production program
and the percentage of production increase resulting
from ARPP participation. The targets were a planned
hectarage increase from 60 ha. to 1,430 ha. by year 3,
and a 10 percent annual increase in production by
participating farmers.

3. For the seed program, impact indicators were to be the
production of improved seed at small seed plants and
metal bin sites, and the percentage of farmers using
improved varieties of rice, wheat, and maize. The
targets were a planned increase in seed production from
an estimated 400 MT to 1,250 MT by year 3, a 50 percent
increase in area under improved rice and maize, and a
10 percent increase in area under improved wheat.

The PP assigned monitoring responsibilities to the TA
contractor, GON agencies, and USAID/Nepal. While the PP listed
the various elements to be included, a plan of how the monitoring
would be done, by when, and by whom was not included.

The mid-term evaluation was conducted about two and a half
years after ARPP started. All parties had complied with routine
project reporting requirements but the evaluation team "could
find no evidence of any specific reporting on impact achievement
under the Project, nor any indication that the Project Paper Plan
was ever adjusted or used" (Rood, et al., 1988:87).









A report on "Suggested Guidelines for Research Monitoring
and Evaluation" was prepared by NARSC's Planning, Monitoring and
Evaluation (PME) Unit. This document emphasized the system of
reporting and the flow of information within NARSC but did not
provide measures of research success. Thus, the evaluation
concluded that the report was "only a first step toward the
articulation of NARSC's program objectives, expected achieve-
ments, and targets for improvement that would be needed for a
genuine impact monitoring system" (Rood, et al., 1988:67-68).
Further, the evaluation team reported that it "could not find any
evidence that this report has been used, nor that any further
work on the development of a research monitoring system has taken
place" (Rood, et al., 1988:68).

SERED prepared baseline surveys that would provide data for
production program monitoring. While the baseline surveys were
designed to establish indicators to measure the impacts of
production technology testing at a few FSR sites in each produc-
tion district, the evaluation concluded that there was "no way to
measure broad production impacts of the program, as planned by
the Project Paper" (Rood, et al., 1988:68).

In the case of- the seed program, there had been many changes
in the program and in program sites, all of which made seed pro-
duction and farmer participation monitoring very difficult. Even
with the sound model for farmer-managed seed production that was
developed by the Project, the evaluation felt that the Project
yet needed to establish a proper baseline and monitoring system
"so that the impact of this model can eventually be determined"
(Rood, et al., 1988:68).

Conclusion

The Systems Approach -- Despite these difficulties, the
evaluation team concluded "that farming systems research (FSR) as
a methodology is appropriate for the development of technologies
for the various agro-ecological and socio-economic environments
in Nepal" (Rood, et al., 1988:74). The team also concluded that
directing ARPP's FSR activities through NARSC's research station
outreach program would strengthen research-extension linkages. A
TA team member reported that this is the avenue which the project
is now pushing to develop. Looking further down the road, the
evaluation indicated a need for project-supported FSR activities
to focus on fruits, vegetables, and other cash crops, on input
supply problems, and on post harvest problems such as processing,
storage, and marketing. Indeed, the evaluation called for
stronger market analysis to guide the research process.









The evaluation also noted the need for "greater farmer
participation in the research process" (Rood, et al., 1988:75).

The Evaluation Team feels that priority should be given to
farmer participation in research outreach programs. By
better utilizing farmers to conduct simple on-farm research
the direct role and cost of government efforts can be
reduced. Active local farmers have been employed as Field
Assistants by some projects to support field trials and to
facilitate communications between farmers and researchers.
The ARP Project and any subsequent follow-on project should
assist in identifying how farmer participation in research
can be further organized and used to effectively extend farm
outreach programs (Rood, et al., 1988:75).

On this count, the evaluation noted the possibility of "informal"
farmer researchers as a potential means to better utilize scarce
research resources and increase farmer involvement in the
research process.

Research and Extension Linkages -- lhe evaluation
identified two areas in which SERED could contribute to research
on extension: (1) analyzing and synthesizing extension
experience in ongoing programs in Nepal; and (2) economic and
social analysis of technology to ensure that it is remunerative
to and socially feasible for farmers. But the evaluation still
concluded that SERED should take the lead in developing research
"to better determine appropriate extension methodologies for hill
production, and to determine how to organize inputs and services
for production" (Rood, et al., 1988:75).

Marketing Research and Private Sector Linkages -- The
evaluation noted the need for appropriate and timely policies to
support market-led growth. This, the evaluation concluded, could
be facilitated by reorganizing and strengthening the role of
marketing research under NARSC by combining DFAMS' marketing
research function with SERED. In turn, the evaluation recom-
mended, SERED should include marketing analysis as part of its
socio-economic research, develop and maintain inventories of
markets and marketing systems for research outreach sites that
the Division is supporting, and prioritize and direct marketing
research on specific topics directly relevant to work at research
outreach sites.

Finally, the evaluation noted the potential for expanding
private or non-governmental research through the ARPP's Research
Support Grants component. In other words,

given that there are many horticulture, spice and other cash
crops existing in dispersed geographical areas that have
considerable commercial value, and that [GON] will unlikely
have the resources to effectively undertake the research
needed to guide the development of these crops, the better










mobilization and use of private resources to undertake
research and development of these crops is a priority
concern. Movement to a Research Council concept and expan-
sion of the Research Grant Program are two ways to start to
address this need for expanded private research. Further
USAID assistance might be provided to further develop these
as well as other models for this research (Rood, et al.,
1988:76).


Institutionalization HOTw did the project provide for the
implementing agency to develop a sustainable capability to
continue to perform the types of activities supported by the
project?


FSRDD -- The "attempt...to base FSR activities in a Disci-
plinary Division had not been as effective or efficient as hoped
in promoting an understanding of FSR as a collaborative research
strategy" (Rood, et al., 1988:1f). If the FSRDD is to be insti-
tutionalized, this requires that the Division be made permanent,
be provided with adequate staff, be given adequate operational
support, and be linked with other divisions and programs to
ensure their collaborative involvement in developing FSR. In
this regard, the evaluation noted that: "The lack of a strong
commitment from other programs and divisions will defeat the
purpose for which the FSR Division was created" (Rood, et al.,
1988:18).

SERED -- At the time of the evaluation, the SERED was still
a temporary Division with temporary or deputed staff. Thus, the
evaluation expressed concern over "the issue of filling the
vacuum that will be created after the [TA contractor] funded
staff depart" (Rood, et al., 1988:21). Further, the GON had
approved fewer positions than proposed in the PP and several
approved positions had been left vacant. The evaluation recom-
mended that SERED be given permanent status by establishing it as
a disciplinary division under NARSC, and that the Division's
staffing problems should be resolved by providing permanent
positions and reducing the dependence on TA contractor local hire
staff. Further, mechanisms for increasing the coordination
between SERED and other divisions and programs needed to be
developed to ensure an effective flow of two-way communication
between programs.

Training -- The evaluation noted that the project had not
been meeting its targets for degree training programs, and that
the lack of permanent FSRDD and SERED personnel was one of the
main reasons for this.









Only three of ten degree candidates had been sent for higher
education mostly as a result of the shortage of permanent
staff positions within the offices scheduled to receive
tr-aiing assistance. In some situations it has led to the
local hire of technical assistants by [the TA contractor] as
an emergency measure to implement Project programs and/or to
provide counterpart staff to the expatriate advisors. This
in the long-term will not prove to be beneficial to the ARP
Project or to the MOA (Rood, et al., 1988:64-65).

The evaluation concluded that, unless; the GON recruits and/or
deputes permanent personnel in the S]XRED and FSRDD, "the training
slots will most likely go unutilized' (Rood, et al., 1988:60). A
TA team member reported that, as of mid 1988, 14 out of
training positions had been filled.

Further, the evaluation noted that changes had been made
regarding the courses for degree training as well as the number
of training slots assigned to different Divisions or Departments.
For example, MA/MS degree training in rural sociology, agricul-
tural economics, and hill crop agronomy had been replaced by
MYA/MS programs in livestock economics and agronomy/plant
breeding, and one Ph.D. in agronomy/plant breeding (pulses).

Counterparts -- The evaluation saw the provision of counter-
parts for the TA team personnel as critical not only to ARPP's
success but also to the effectiveness of the individual advisors.

Advisors can best be used in a collaborative setting with
local MOA/ARPP staff. This type of working relationship
will prove more beneficial to the Project than if advisors
are working on their own or with Contractor hired assistants
(Rood, et al., 1988:65).

Conclusion

In a separate study, Galt (1988:0) identified the steps
that, he proposed, needed to be taken tc institutionalize FSR in
Nepal. The key step, he argued, is to make the FSR approach
permanent by:

Increasing real interdisciplinary research under NARSC;

Abolishing or reforming the GON fiscal year targeting
system for agricultural research;

-- Compensating agricultural researchers adequately for
performing meaningful field (farm-based) research
(i.e., raising researchers' salaries, increasing field
per diem); and


-- Making NARSC a semi-autonomous institution.










The latter step would include making permanent the divisions
of FSRDD and SERED or, failing that, making permanent the samuhik
bhraman process by forming a core of FSRDD and SERED researchers
in NARSC to carry out the training and implementation of FSR; and
by allowing support of FSR training to be institutionalized in
NARSC outreach programs.

However, in the wake of the mid-term evaluation, Galt did
not paint an optimistic picture about the prospects for institu-
tionalizing FSR in Nepal.

Meaningful support to both FSRDD and SERED have been re-
channeled to NARSC and reduced in scope by one-third. .
...with the exception of livestock research technical assis-
tance support, those institutional components of ARPP which
make it a FSR project -- farming sy-tems research, socio-
economic research and agroforestry research -- will all have
been eliminated by August, 1988. However, had the
"original intent" of the project toward the FSR component as
conceptualized by [Richard] Harwood [of Winrock Interna-
tional] and passed down through the Project Paper to the
technical assistants on ARPP [been retained], some of the
problems encountered would have been minimized. What
happened instead was the removal of three-fourths of the FSR
support components (technical assistance) of the ARPP (Galt,
1988:9).










References


A.I.D.
1984 Project Paper for Nepal Agricultural Research and
Production Project (367-0149). (PD-AAQ-449)

Gait, D. L.
1988 The Status of Farming System Research through ARPP in
NEPAL. Draft White Paper on Nepal Agricultural
Research and Production Project.

Rood, Peter G., R.K. Patel, Badri N. Kayastha, Ramesh Munamkami,
Narayan Regmi, Ben Stoner, and Tish Butler
1988 Report of Mid-Term Evaluation of Nepal Agricultural
Research and'Production Project (367-0149). WPI Inc.,
P.O. Box 2077, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02238.


Additional References on Predecessor Projects


Food Grain Technology Project

Simmons, Emmy B., Joseph W. Beausoleil, Gary Ender, Gregory
Heist, and Josette Murphy
1982 Food Grain Technology: Agricultural Research in Nepal.
A.I.D. Project Impact Evaluation No. 33, U.S. Agency
for International Development. (PN-AAJ-614)

Integrated Cereals Project

A.I.D.
1978 Project Evaluation Summary of Second Regular Evaluation
of Nepal Integrated Cereals Project (367-0114).
(PD-AAD-038-B1)

1979 Report of Mid-Term Evaluation of Nepal Integrated
Cereals Project (367-0114). (PD-AAM-315)

Breth, Steven A.
1984 Through Farmers' Eyes. Kathmandu, Nepal: Integrated
Cereals Project, Department of Agriculture

Gilbert, Elon H., Russell D. Freed, and Kailash N. Pyakuryal
1983 Evaluation Report of Nepal Integrated Cereals Project
(366-0114). (PD-AAQ-695)










Annex A. Project Description Sheet.


This Project Description Sheet lists the core, operational,
and generic constraints identified in this project, per the
following codes: core (C), operational (0), and generic (G). A
positive (+) sign after a constraint indicates that the project
was effectively coping with the identified constraint.3

Core Constraints (C)

C.1 Farmer Orientation
C.2 Farmer Participation
C.3 Locational Specificity of Technical and Human Factors
C.4 Problem-Solving Approach
C.5 Systems Orientation
C.6 Interdisciplinary Approach
C.7 Complementarity with Commodity and Discipline Research
C.8 Technology Testing in On-Farm Trials
C.9 Feedback to Shape:
a. Agricultural Research Priorities
b. Agricultural Policies

Operational Constraints (0)

0.1 Stakeholder Understanding of FSR/E
0.2 Agricultural Research Policy/Strategy Defining Role of FSR/E
0.3 Long-Term Commitment of Resources
0.4 Existing Research Capability and Shelf Technology
0.5 Consensus on FSR/E Methodology
0.6 Capability to Process Farming Systems Data
0.7 Consensus on Criteria for Evaluating FSR/E
0.8 Links with Extension
0.9 Links with Agri-Support Services
0.10 Links with Farmer Organizations

Generic Constraints (G)

G.1 Project Management Structure
G.2 Government Funding to Meet Recurrent Costs
G.3 Staffing with Trained Manpower
G.4 Management of Training
G.5 Management of Technical Assistance
G.6 Factors Beyond a Project's Control



An analysis of these constraints in 12 FSR/E projects appears
in A Review of A.I.D. Experience with Farming Systems Research and
Extension Proeects, A.I.D. Evaluation Special Study (forthcoming),
available from A.I.D.'s Document and Information Handling Facility
(per instructions on last page of this report).











Nepal/ARPP Agricultural Research and Production Project
(367-0149)

Initial Authorization: 1984 (for 5 years)

Goal: "to increase the sustainable productivity of Nepali small
farmers"

Purpose: "to (a) strengthen GON institutional capabilities to
develop appropriate new technologies for small farmers; (b)
develop methodologies for conducting comprehensive production
programs in the hills; and (c) improve hill farmers' access to
improved seed"

Outputs:
1. Improve research administration;
2. Improved research information and documentation system;
3. Expanded socio-economic research program;
4. Improved farming systems program;
5. Improved commodity program and discipline division research;
6. Hill production program;
7. National seed development board; and
8. Hill seed production program.

The improved farming systems program included a Farming Systems
Research and Development Division (FSRDD), while the expanded
socio-economic research program included a Socio-Economic
Research and Extension Division (SERED).

Implementing Aaency: National Agricultural Research Service
Center, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture.

TA Contractor: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural
Development.

Evaluations: One -- a mid-term evaluation in late 1987 (Rood, et
al., 1988).

Constraints: C.2, C.3, C.5, C.6, C.9.a, C.9.b, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4,
0.7, 0.9, G.1, G.2, G.3, G.4











HOW TO ORDER REPORTS IN THIS SERIES

This CDIE Working Paper is a case study that was prepared for a
cross-cutting analysis of A.I.D. FSR/E projects, A Review of A.I.D.
Experience with Farming Systems Research and Extension Projects,
A.I.D. Evaluation Special Study (forthcoming). A total of 13 case
studies were prepared. These may be ordered from the A.I.D.
Document and Information Handling Facility, 7222 47th Street, Suite
100, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Telephone: (301) 951-9647. Please
request CDIE Working Paper No. 112, followed by the required Case
Study No. and PN number.

Botswana Agricultural Technology Improvement Project (633-0221),
CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 1. (PN-ABC-073)

Gambia Mixed Farming and Resource Management Project (635-0203),
CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 2. (PN-ABC-074)

Lesotho Farming Systems Research Project (632-0065), CDIE Working
Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 3. (PN-ABC-075)

Malawi Agricultural Research Project (612-0202), CDIE Working Paper
No. 112--Case Study No. 4. (PN-ABC-076)

Senegal Agricultural Research and Planning Project (685-0223), CDIE
Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 5. (PN-ABC-077)

Tanzania Farming Systems Research Project (621-0156), CDIE Working
Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 6. (PN-ABC-078)

Zambia Agricultural Development Research & Extension Project (611-
0201), CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 7. (PN-ABC-079)

Nepal Agricultural Research and Production Project (367-0149), CDIE
Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 8. (PN-ABC-080).

Philippines Farming Systems Development Project-Eastern Visayas
(492-0356), CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 9. (PN-ABC-
081)

Guatemala Food Productivity and Nutritional Improvement Project
(520-0232), CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 10. (PN-ABC-
082)

Honduras Agricultural Research Project (522-0139), CDIE Working
Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 11. (PN-ABC-083)

ROCAP Small Farm Production Systems Project (596-0083), CDIE Working
Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 12. (PN-ABC-084)

Vigiettes of Core, Operational, and Generic Constraints in 12
A.I.D.-Funded Farming Systems Research and Extension Projects, CDIE
Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 13. (PN-ABC-127)




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

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