• 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 Projects ; No. 6
Title: Tanzania Farming Systems Research project (621-0156)
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073361/00001
 Material Information
Title: Tanzania Farming Systems Research project (621-0156)
Series Title: CDIE working paper
Alternate Title: Case studies of A.I.D. Farming Systems Research & Extension (FSRE) Projects, Case Study no. 6
Physical Description: 16 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 -- Tanzania   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Technology transfer -- Tanzania   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Tanzania
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf 13).
Statement of Responsibility: Kerry J. Byrnes.
General Note: Caption title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073361
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 80941301

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 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Implementation - How was the project managed by the host-country implementing agency, the TA team, and USAID?
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Evaluation - How was the project's performance measured or assessed?
        Page 7
        Page 8
    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 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Reference
        Page 13
    Annex A - Project description sheet
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Back Matter
        Page 16
Full Text








CDiE WORKING PAPERS


CDIE WORKING PAPER NO. 112

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


Case Study No. 6

Tanzania Farming Jystems Research Proiect (621-0156)


by

Kerry J. Byrnes2

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


This 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.

2Senior 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 attributed to A.I.D. or Labat-
Anderson Incorporated.


PN3 V- -45 ?










Tanzania Farming Systems Research Project (621-0156)


The Tanzania Farming Systems Research Project (TFSRP) was
authorized, as a three year project, August 9, 1982, for
$8,300,000. The Project Grant Agreement with the Government of
Tanzania (GOT) was signed in September 1982. Technical assis-
tance (TA) to the project was provided by the Consortium for
International Development (CID), with Oregon State University as
lead university. The original TA contract, signed in April 1983,
provided for ten TA positions; the amended contract of September
1985, provided for only three positions.

The original TA team, consisting of specialists in agricul-
tural research planning/management, agronomy, and maize improve-
ment, arrived in country in the fall of 1983. A sorghum/millet
breeder joined the team in February 1934. However, effective
July 1, 1984, the GOT disallowed the services of the maize
improvement specialist and the scrghum/millet breeder. While
both individuals had departed Tanzania by late fall, 1984, the TA
team's size remained at three because an agricultural economist
had joined the team on July 3, 1984.

In early 1983, following Tanzania's default on loan interest
payments, the United States Government applied the Brooke Amend-
ment. This resulted in a restriction on future funding to USAID/
Tanzania projects and interrupted orderly implementation of the
TFSRP (e.g., the project's basic food crops research component
was eliminated). While the project's farming systems (FS)
component was retained, the districts in which field activities
were to be conducted was reduced from 15 to 3.

TA was also reduced. The original contract provided for 306
long-term and 30 short-term person months of TA. The amended
contract of September 1985 reduced these figures to 150 and 19,
respectively. By the project's end, actual TA assistance (3.96
person years) was less than half (49.5%) of originally planned
8.0 person years of technical assistance (Faught, 1986:11). TA
was provided through August 1986.

TFSRP was evaluated two times. The first evaluation was
conducted in 1986 (Jackson and Osburn, 1986). Subsequently, a
Project Completion Report (PC2) (Faught, 1986) was prepared.
This case study is based on these evaluations as well the Project
Workplan (CID, 1983) for Years 1 and 2.










Concept What was the basic technical idea underlying the
project?


TFSRP sought "to build...capacity within the Tanzania
Agricultural Research Organization (TARO) to produce and extend
...research i.ore relevant to small farmers" (CID, 1983:1).

This was to be achieved by introducing a FS approach "to
redirect...priorities toward constraints...readily amenable to
correction and to improve...recommendations for increasing
agricultural production" (CID, 1983:1-2). The project workplan
(cited in Jackson and Osburn, 1986:4) stated:

The FSR approach involves assisting on-going agricultural
research and extension activities to redirect...technology
development, testing, and dissemination...toward the needs
of farmers. It views the farm and farm family as a total
entity; seeks to understand the...interactions of the
operation of the farm as a system; and includes the farmer
directly in the agricultural technology development process.

A second key idea underlying the project was that of improving
management of the national agricultural research system (TARO).


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


Six objectives were established for TFSRP, as follows (CID,
1983:2-3):

To develop and institutionalize a national research
organization (TARO) capable of sustaining and extending
adaptive (on-farm) food crop research nationally.

To develop and test a methodology for using the FS
approach as a research and information dissemination
strategy.

To integrate the FSR approach with the ongoing food
crop research program.

-- To develop and test improved technical recommendations
for increasing food crop production by smallholders.

To integrate the activities of the agricultural
research organization with the activities of other GOT
institutions serving the agricultural sector at local
levels to improve the transmission of research results
to srall farmers.










Concept What was the basic technical idea underlying the
project?


TFSRP sought "to build...capacity within the Tanzania
Agricultural Research Organization (TARO) to produce and extend
...research i.ore relevant to small farmers" (CID, 1983:1).

This was to be achieved by introducing a FS approach "to
redirect...priorities toward constraints...readily amenable to
correction and to improve...recommendations for increasing
agricultural production" (CID, 1983:1-2). The project workplan
(cited in Jackson and Osburn, 1986:4) stated:

The FSR approach involves assisting on-going agricultural
research and extension activities to redirect...technology
development, testing, and dissemination...toward the needs
of farmers. It views the farm and farm family as a total
entity; seeks to understand the...interactions of the
operation of the farm as a system; and includes the farmer
directly in the agricultural technology development process.

A second key idea underlying the project was that of improving
management of the national agricultural research system (TARO).


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


Six objectives were established for TFSRP, as follows (CID,
1983:2-3):

To develop and institutionalize a national research
organization (TARO) capable of sustaining and extending
adaptive (on-farm) food crop research nationally.

To develop and test a methodology for using the FS
approach as a research and information dissemination
strategy.

To integrate the FSR approach with the ongoing food
crop research program.

-- To develop and test improved technical recommendations
for increasing food crop production by smallholders.

To integrate the activities of the agricultural
research organization with the activities of other GOT
institutions serving the agricultural sector at local
levels to improve the transmission of research results
to srall farmers.










To develop the skills of Tanzanian researchers in basic
(on-station) and adaptive (on-farm) food crop research.

TFSRP was to be implemented as a pilot project by the TARO
in three agro-ecological zones, with initial activities in a
small number of administrative districts in two zones during the
project's first year, and expanded to other districts and a third
zone in the second and subsequent years. Activities such as
diagnostic surveys and on-farm trials were to be carried out by
TARO personnel assigned to zonal and regional field teams.

When TFSRP was initiated, various technologies were being
tested at crop-specific Agricultural Research Institutes (ARIs),
with three to five years of research already completed on
component inputs (including varieties) and cultural practices for
basic food crops (maize, sorghum/millet, and legumes).

The workplan (CID, 1983:26-27) developed by the contractor
indicated that:

The two Senior FSR Specialists...will supervise and manage
the FSR Project in Tanzania, and, by the end of the
contract, will have developed FSR institutional capacity in
TARO from national to local levels such that the program
will continue after contract personnel have departed....
The Senior FSR Specialists will be assigned Tanzanian
counterparts for each agro-ecological zone within which the
project operates. They will operate from the Planning/
Evaluation Department of TARO Headquarters, with frequent
trips to the assigned agro-ecological zones. They will
serve as advisors to the ARI Directors (zonal coordinators)
and the Commodity Coordinators on food crop research
activities and coordinate the district FSR research/
extension teams. They will be responsible for establishing
working relationships with the various zonal, regional, and
district level agricultural extension staff and supervise
the work of the FSR teams in the regions and districts.

The senior FSR team will work closely with the regional and
district agriculture extension staff to find representative
sites to conduct village trials and to identify farmers
through village leaders to conduct on-farm trials. To run
on-farm trials, FSR teams should collaborate with the
Regional Agricultural Development Officer (RADO) and the
District Agricultural Development Officer (DADO) to select
the villages. The FSR Team, along with the DADO designated
Farming Systems Officer, discusses the matter with the
Village Council...to select the farm sites and the farmers.










The FSR Team will assist Crop Coordinators in setting up
village [on-farm] research trials...to determine if the new
technology is relevant to farmer needs. The CID Crop
Improvement specialists as members of the FSR zonal teams,
will assist the...Senior FSR Team in identifying and
collecting all previous diagnostic field surveys conducted
in the specified zone and in coordinating all future
diagnostic surveys. The information obtained from the
farmers will be analyzed by the...Senior FSR Team and a work
plan for the next planting season developed for both food
crop research and the farming systems programss.

Training, another component of the project's workplan, was
to be provided by the contractor and by the AID-funded CIMMYT
Farming Systems Research Project based in Nairobi, Kenya.

It is of interest to note that the project workplan stated
that the "underlying philosophy...was to surpass the existing
state of -he art for FSR field operation" (cited in Jackson and
Osburn, 1986:4). Further, the project's FS approach embraced:

explicit economic performance criteria to (1) measure the
economic performance of technologies...used by farmers...
[and]...establish benchmarks against which introduced tech-
nologies will be evaluated, (2) establish research
priorities which meet farmer/researcher choice criteria
including technical feasibility, cost effectiveness and time
sensitivity, (3) provide continuous screening of introduced
technology...[against] technical/economic criteria to
eliminate technologies with little promise and modify
promising technology to enhance potential for adoption and
(4) measure actual level of economic gain when adoption
occurs] (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:4).

The workplan also stated that, based on the existing FSR/E
literature, "it appears that the Tanzania Project is the first
FSR project to embrace the development and use of explicit
economic performance criteria." However, the workplan also noted
that the project would "seek to identify and evaluate non-
economic factors that influence farmers decisions."

Asked whether the project's design had in any way been
deficient or inappropriate, a former TA team member noted that
the project's design had entirely divorced TARO, physically and
conceptually, from the research organizations it represented.
"Institutionalization should have begun within the research
center at Ilonga, NOT in this hypothetical organization that was
ostensibly created to unify all the research in the country" (A.
Cunard, personal communication).










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


While responsibility for implementing TFSRP was placed in
TARO, the staff of the TA team generally operated throughout the
project without specifically assigned counterparts. There were
long delays in assigning Tanzanian staff to t.e project and to
field positions; and the actual number of Tanzanian staff
eventually assigned to the project fell short of project needs,
although two zonal teams were functional at the close of the
project. The limited project staffing was complemented by the
collaboration of at least seven TARO scientists working on joint
experiments and eight extension people who assisted in conducting
field trials.

Project implementation was also plagued by inadequate
leadership in TARO. A former TA team member recalled that the
Eirector-General of TARO often was not available to the project,
while the Tanzanian Project Director had other demands competing
for his time and attention (A. Cunard, personal communication).
Further, TFSRP was "not designed with the inputs of Tanzanian
researchers and this was one of the major reasons why it was so
difficult at first to obtain their collaboration" (A. Cunard,
personal communication). For example,

the Extension Division authorities were never consulted or
had any inputs in the project design. Nobody ever thought
to ask these people first what they thought about FSR....
Surely it is not difficult to understand why there was so
little cooperation from Extension! (A. Cunard, personal
communication).

Although the evaluation team found that the project's
diagnosis stage had been adequately designed, the team noted that
the project had not investigated "all...the resource allocation
decisions that farmers must make" nor addressed "the functioning
of the total system...in an explicit systematic fashion" (Jackson
and Osburn, 1986:5). The team recommended that the project
conduct earlier-proposed market analysis and intra-household
studies "to provide...the missing links regarding the total
system" (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:5).

Another problem acted as a constraint on moving ahead with
the activities specified in the project design:

...almost all commodity researchers are also part-time
farmers. ...one would expect them to be readily cognizant
of the constraints that farmers in the area have, and in
turn, that hands-cn experience would influence their
commodity research activities. Apparently this is not the
case in that the commodity researchers rarely, if at all,
visited FSR/E...tria]s. In additicn the constraints that











commodity researchers had with their own farm operations
were significantly different than other farmers. ...the
commodity researchers lacked the total system perspective
and were not fully aware that other farmerss] constraints
were different (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:7).

Further, tne staffing of field positions with inexperienced
professionals (recent college graduates) led to problems in
implementing on-farm trials (e.g., the problem of getting
appropriate bean density levels among treatments and an adequate
control in terms of farmer traditional planting density levels).

There were also cases where extension personnel established
on-farm trials independently of those established by the
project's FSR team. This was problematic where extension had not
yet developed adequate FSR capability, and pointed to the
importance of integrating the FSR team and extension personnel to
ensure adequate hands-on, learn-by-doing, on-the-job training,
supplemented as appropriate by formal short-term training
activities.

The project was particularly effective in documenting
project activities and outcomes. More than 100 documents were
produced, many authored or co-authored by Tanzanians. These
publications provided support material for short-course training
activities, and facilitated exchange of information within
country and among FSR programs across countries.

It may be of interest to note the background that led to
having the Tanzanians play an active role in the co-authoring of
project reports. This, according to a former member of the TA
team, grew out of Tanzania's brand of socialism and its ramifi-
cations for the project. For example, no agricultural reports
written after 1976 were available in the TARO documentation
center, "the reason given being that the prominence and prestige
gained by a researcher in publishing a report was against the
socialist idea of equality for all. It made the others who did
not write seem inadequate" (A. Cunard, personal communication).
Consequently, the TA team encouraged the junior members of the
TARO staff attached to the project to co-author the Reconnais-
sance Survey Reports that were intended to provide commodity
researchers at Ilonga with feedback on farmers' problems. The
Chief of Party was then successful in getting these reports
published.











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


The FSR team's diagnostic surveys had identified February as
the month in which there was a food shortage in Kilosa district
of Ilonga. The FSR team designed a set of on-farm trials to test
potential technology solutions to this problem. One technology
was an early-maturing maize variety known as Kito:

Appropriate trials were designed to test adoption feasi-
bility for the traditional [farming] systems. Early on-farm
trial results were whopping successes. Almost all farmers
were pleased. Seed is in great demand and is reflected in
scarce seed supplies (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:9).

The "Kito" story illustrates FSR's role in identifying problems
faced by farmers and designing appropriate on-farm trials to test
potential solutions. Kito was a shelf technology developed at
the Ilonga research station. While the variety had not proven
popular with farmers, FSR discovered and assessed its
adaptability to farmer systems (Jackson and Osburn; 1986:10).

The station's major emphasis had been developing varieties
for production during the Masika (long rains) season. While the
Kito reduced the risk of crop failure from drought when planted
in the Masika season, Kito produced lower yields than full season
varieties when planted in a normal season. However, when planted
in the Vuli (short) season, Kito yielded as well as traditional
long season varieties and provided a harvest several weeks
earlier than the traditional varieties. Also, it was found that:

subsequent Masika season crops of maize or cotton following
Kito planted in the Vuli season yielded 20 to 30 percent
more than they did if planted after traditional full season
varieties. Over the two year period that the trials were
run approximately 50 farmers per season grew Kito and in the
1.985/86 season Kito seed were sold to an additional 500
farmers (Faught, 1986:4).

Thus, in addressing varietal development on the basis of
maximum yield, the narrower commodity focus saw Kito as having
little or no value. But this analysis was incorrect and shed
light on the consequence for researchers and extensionists of not
adopting a total system perspective (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:
10). The "Kito" story brings home the need to look at the total
system rather than a component, and highlights the necessity of
an adequate technology generating or research support system.









Another positive contribution of the project's approach to
FSR was evidenced in the research on the maize/cotton relay
association. The cotton researchers had recommended, and the GOT
had legislated, that farmers should not intercrop maize and
cotton, because of the risk of destruction of the cotton by
Heliothis which used the maize as an alternative host. However,
some farmers were successfully intercropping maize with cotton.
The project arranged for the cotton researchers to visit the
fields of these farmers. "The end result was that the very next
season there was a trial laid out on the station to test this
relay cropping technique" (A. Cunard, personal communication).

Comparing the project's actual accomplishments relative to
those initially planned, the Project Completion Report (PCR)
.otes the following end of project status (Faught, 1986:15):

Instead of 18,000 farmers in 15 districts utilizing new
technology, some 500 farmers in 3 districts are
utilizing at least one technology package.

The nethcdology for using FSR as a technology
development and dissemination strategy has been tested
in two rather than three agro-ecological zone.

S One team is staffed and trained to teach colleagues FSR
methods, and two teams are partially staffed and
partially trained. However, only a small fraction of
TARO's scientists are agricultural economists and none
are social scientists.

-- TARO will most likely continue to sustain a food
crop/adaptive research program on a national basis.
The quality and relevance of the research is more
questionable.

The purpose of the TFSRP was to introduce a FS approach
within TARO as a means of increasing the relevance to farmers of
that organization's food crop research program. The PCR
concluded that the project had "certainly...been successful in
introducing the farming systems approach, but it was on too
limited a scale and conducted for too short a time to have had
any significant impact on improving the research program"
(Faught, 1986:15). However, as a former TA team member added,
ore

should also take into account some of the proposals that
were made and possibly acted upon by the research staff at
IIonga in order to give a proper evaluation of the success
of the project. Most of these are described in the "End of
Tour Report".... If only the.. projectt had been
designed better and had lasted long enough, rany of these
useful innovations would have been absort-e into the pre-
'-l-:- s ystem (A. Cunar: ...n cni::nicn;










and Cunard, 1985).

Finally, in evaluating the success of the project, one
should not forget that the Tanzanian farmer's ability to adopt
improved technology was constrained by a range of factors beyond
the control of the TFSRP. These problems included

a) the rigidly controlled Government market for cereals,
which gave rise to a purchase and payment system that
deprived the farmer of any incentive to produce more than
absolutely necessary, b) the UJAMA "villagization" scheme
that removed farmers from their fertile fields and gave them
infertile ones, and c) the inability of the Government to
make good on many of its promises to villagers in providing
them with services (A. Cunard, personal communication).

Since most of these problems stemmed from the country's political
situation, an argument could be made that the "primary thing"

that should be done before eve thinking of writing up an
FSR project proposal should be to make an evaluation of the
political and social conditions in the country. I don't
believe this was done or being done presently by USAID. The
result was pure frustration for team members and even for
the participating Tanzanians themselves (A. Cunard, personal
communication).


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?


The FS approach requires interaction between researchers and
farmers; however, it also implies limitations on the extent to
which a relatively small number of researchers can meaningfully
interact with the relatively large number of farmers. Extension
potentially can play a major role in overcoming these limitations
and facilitating interaction between researchers and farmers.
Indeed, the evaluation zeam noted that extension's role











could become more crucial should FSR/E funds and personnel
be reduced. In fact, FSR/E survival could be determined by
the extent to which extension participates and is integrated
into the FSR/E activities (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:8).

While the evaluation team recognized the FSR/E approach as "a
source of knowledge ard techniques that could revitalize...
extension," this currently "is not the case because extension
personnel did not articulate such benefits associated with the
FSR/E approach" (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:7).

These conclusions suggest that TFSRP encountered diffi-
culties in defining and/or developing extension's involvement in
the project. Indeed, the project implementation plan was based
on the assumption that:

The Directorate of Extension and Technical Services (DETS)
will help insure that the FSR Project is properly integrated
with the extension workers in the field. DETS will insure
that the RADOs and DADOs are adequately briefed and become
actively involved with project implementation. The DETS
will also provide one person at the District level to be a
permanent member of the district FSR Team. Also, in
selected villages within each district, the village
agriculture extension worker will help conduct surveys,
carry out field trials and demonstrations and do other work
to implement the project (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:3).

However, when compared with the project's success in establishing
a close working relationship with TARO commodity researchers, the
project was less successful in establishing "close ties with
extension workers...due at least partially to differences in
level and type of training" (Faught, 1986:4)

The project's relatively greater success in working with
TARO researchers owes in large part to the FSR/E training that
the project provided this group. Opportunities for training
included on-the-job training; national FSR/E training seminars;
long-term, discipline-oriented, academic training; and short
courses and workshops supplementing long-term academic training.
Some trainees also participated in the Farming Systems Research
and Extension Symposium at Kansas State University.

Training of personnel in FSR/E is a necessary condition for
institutionalizing a FS approach in a national agricultural
research and extension system. However, training alone is not a
sufficient condition. Trained personnel must be assigned to
positions where they can apply their training. In this regard,
the PCR noted that there had been an expectation










that a substantial number of scientists and technicians
trained under the Tanzania Agricultural Research Project
would be posted to the Farming Systems Research Project but
these postings never occurred. Recruitment of alternative
personnel was slow and, in fact, never completed (Faught,
1986:2).

Further, commenting on the ten participants who had been sent for
advanced degree training, the PCR stated:

This group, along with the group that has worked on the FSR
project in-country for the past two years would constitute
an excellent cadre for continuation of the FSR program.
However, only four of the ten advance degree trainees were
employed on the FSR project prior to starting their graduate
program. There is no assurance that the six rot previously
employed in the FSR unit will be posted there on their
return. In fact, there is no assurance that even the four
previously employed in the FSR unit will be retained there
(Faught, 1986:2).

Thu: while TFSRP was notably successful in establishing a
good relationship with farmers in the areas where the project
functioned, the PCR concluded that the project "failed to
establish a firm organizational niche within the Government
structure" (Faught, 1986:4). The PCR noted the following as
potentially contributing to this failure:

S It was probably unrealistic to expect to achieve
institutionalization within the limited time frame and
restricted geographic area in which the project was
required to operate.

With a strained budgetary position, the Government was
unable or unwilling to commit continuing recurrent
budget support for a new organizational unit.

The continued weakness of TARO, to which the FSR unit
was attached, probably discouraged institutionaliza-
tion.

Another potentially influencing factor was likely the sharp
reduction experienced in the project's teclinical assistance
component.

The PCR indicates that the project was also generally
successful in establishing and strengthening ties with other
agricultural organizations. Less successful were the project's
efforts to improve TARO management capability. In this respect,
the PCR noted that:










It seems probable that the experience of going through
planning, budgeting, and monitoring and other exercises
involved in a research program jointly with trained and
experienced researchers...must have improved the skills and
capability of the TARO staff to carry out these activities
in the future. .Any improvement in TARO management
that did occur may have been wiped out with the dismissal of
the TARO Director and other top staff shortly before
USAID/CID participation terminated (Faught, 1986:5).

At a more general level, the project may also have had an
impact at the policy level. As the PCR notes, the Government's
position relative to the FSR approach is set forth in the section
on agricultural research in The Agricultural Policy of Tanzania
(Ministry of Agriculture, March 31, 1983). This policy states
that a comprehensive research program would be developed which
would "be linked with the extension program as closely as
possible" so that "the peasant's experience may be incorporated
in research" and "research will be given a farm-centered,
problem-solving approach" (cited in Faught, 1986:4). However, it
is not clear whether this policy was promulgated as a sincere
"declaration of support" for FSR/E or simply to meet a require-
ment or condition precedent for AID funding of TFSRP.

Overall, as the PCR noted:

The major lesson that should have been learned, or perhaps
more appropriately re-learned, is that development of a
research capability and the institutionalization of such
capability is a very long term activity. Resources that are
used for short-term support of such activities are
generally, if not always, wasted (Faught, 1986:16).

In the last analysis, one may ask to what extent and in what
ways TFSRP was successful in institutionalizing a more effective
approach to agricultural research and extension in Tanzania? A
former TA team member responded to this question as follows:

I don't think I would be able to give a valid answer to this
question. I left the country in 1985...and have not had any
news since about what has happened to the FSR unit attached
to the research station at Ilonga. I was more concerned
with getting the researchers at Ilonga to...orient their
research...programs with the needs of farmers. If this kind
of involvement becomes general, then surely the institution-
alization process has been achieved. If the researchers go
out themselves to look at farmers' problems and start
devising methods to solve them, the FSR/E approach should be
well on its way. But, has it done so in Tanzania? It would
be worth a two week visit to go and find out (A. Cunard,
personal communication).











References


Consortium for International Development (CID)
1983 Tanzania Farming Systems Research (621-0156) Project
Workplan (Years 1 and 2). (PD-BAO-051)

Cunard, A.
1985 End of Tour Report, Tanzania Farming Systems Research
Project.

Faught, William A.
1986 Project Completion Report: Tanzania Farming Systems
Research Project (621-0156). (PD-AAU-448)

Jackson, Robert I. and Donald D. Osburn
1986 Report of Evaluation of the Tanzanian FSR Project and
Related Activities Land Development and Station
Development at Ilonga. (PD-BBB-811)










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 Projects, 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).










Tanzania/FSRP Farming Systems Research Project (621-0156)

Initial Authorization: 1982 (for 3 years)

Goal: "Increase per capital food production. Better yielding and
more profitable crop varieties and practices developed and dispersed
to farmers."

Purpose: "To improve the food crops research program...by
increasing its relevance to farmers through the introduction of a
farming systems approach to research"

Outputs:
1. Research planning and management guidelines and plans developed
by the Tanzania Agricultural Research Organization to: (a)
conduct farming systems research; (b) strengthen the linkages
between on-farm and off-farm research; and (c) establish
linkages with other GOT institutions serving agriculture;
2. Agronomic research recommendations for maize, legumes, and/or
sorghum/millet in each of the Central, Norther, and Western
agro-ecological zones in Tanzania;
3. Five-year plans for major food crops implemented and
coordinated by Tanzanian researchers;
4. Improved physical facilities at Ilonga Agricultural Research
Institute;
5. Crop trials program expanded;
6. Crop genetics improvement program continued; and
7. Short- and long-term training continued.

Specific FSRP objectives relating to FSR were:

To develop and institutionalize within the Tanzania
Agricultural Research Organization a capability to sustain and
extend adaptive (on-farm) food crop research nationally;

To develop and test a methodology for using the FSR approach as
a research and information dissemination strategy; and

To integrate the FSR approach with the ongoing food crop
research program.

Implementing Agency: Tanzania Agricultural Research Organization
(TARO).

TA Contractor: Consortium for International Development, with
Oregon State University as lead university.

Evaluations: Two -- in 1986 (Jackson and Osburn, 1986); and a
Project Completion Report in 1986 (Faught, 1986).


Constraints: C.4, C.4 (+), 0.2, 0.3, 0.8, G.3, G.6.










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)

Vignettes 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