• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Summary
 Table of Contents
 Foreword
 The selection process
 Proposals selected for agroecological...
 Panel's evaluation of each university...
 Modifications in program
 The management entity
 Meeting on the organization of...














Title: Soil Management CRSP
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080630/00001
 Material Information
Title: Soil Management CRSP reports of the third External Advisory Panel Meeting, September 13-16, 1980 and Meeting on the Organization of the Management Entity, September 25, 1980
Alternate Title: Reports of the third External Advisory Panel Meeting, September 13-16, 1980 and Meeting on the Organization of the Management Entity, September 25, 1980
Physical Description: i, 29 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program -- Management Entity Office
Publisher: Soil Management CRSP,
Soil Management CRSP
Place of Publication: Raleigh N.C
Publication Date: 1980
Copyright Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural extension work -- United States   ( lcsh )
University cooperation   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Summary: These meetings were held to evaluate the proposals of the 16 universities requesting participation in the Soil Management CRSP. Six universities are recommended for participation in the CRSP: Cornell University, University of Hawaii, University of Kentucky, North Carolina State University, the University of Puerto Rico and Texas A & M University. North Carolina State University was recommended for the Management Entity role in the Soil Management CRSP.
Statement of Responsibility: submitted to AID and JRC by The Planning Entity, North Carolina State University.
General Note: "Supported by Grant AID/DSAN-G-0133."
General Note: "October 7, 1980."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080630
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 153290557

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Summary
        Summary
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    Foreword
        Page i
    The selection process
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Proposals selected for agroecological zones
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Panel's evaluation of each university proposal
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Modifications in program
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    The management entity
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Meeting on the organization of the management entity -- Washington, September 25, 1980
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
Full Text










SOIL MANAGEMENT CRSP


REPORTS OF THE




THIRD EXTERNAL ADVISORY PANEL MEETING
September 13-16, 1980


and


MEETING ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY
September 25, 1980


Submitted to AID and JRC



by


THE PLANNING ENTITY
North Carolina State University


supported by

Grant AID/DSAN-G-0133


October 7, 1980










SUMMARY


The External Advisory Panel evaluated the proposals of the 16
universities requesting participation in the Soil Management CRSP,
according to the approved program and guidelines of the General Program
Proposal. Six universities are recommended for participation in the
CRSP: Cornell University, University of Hawaii, University of Kentucky,
North Carolina State University, the University of Puerto Rico and
Texas A & M University. The recommended lead and support roles for each
institution in the priority agroecological zones are as follows:

Agroecological Zone: Country Lead Role Suport Role

I. Humid Tropics: Peru NCSU Cornell
Indonesia Hawaii NCSU
II. Semiarid Tropics: Upper Volta Texas
and Niger A & M
III. Acid Savannas: Brazil Cornell NCSU
Colombia Puerto Rico Cornell
IV. Steeplands: Dominican Republic Kentucky

The rationale for the evaluation of each proposal are given. Some
program modifications were made with representatives of the universities
recommended for participation and the collaborating institutions
overseas, during the following two days.

At a subsequent meeting in Washington representatives of the six
universities recommended for participation selected by majority vote
North Carolina State University as the groups' recommendation for the
Management Entity role in the Soil Management CRSP. A proposed organi-
zational structure was developed at that time and is presented herewith.

The Planning Entity concurs with the conclusions and recommendations
of these two meetings and submits them to JRC/BIFAD and AID for approval.









CONTENTS



FOREWORD . . . . . . . . .

THIRD EXTERNAL ADVISORY PANEL MEETING REPORT .


I. The selection process


II. Proposals selected for agroecological

A. Humid tropics (Priority I) . .

B. Semiarid tropics (Priority II) .

C. Acid savannas (Priority III). .

D. Steeplands (Priority IV) ..

III. Panel's evaluation of each university

A. Cornell University . . . .

B. University of Florida . . .

C. University of Guam . . . .

D. University of Hawaii . . . .

E. University of Illinois . . .

F. University of Kentucky . . .

G. University of Minnesota . .

H. North Carolina State University

I. Ohio State University . . .

J. Pennsylvania State University .

K. Prairie View A & M University .

L. University of Puerto Rico ..

M. Purdue University . . . .

N. Texas A & M University . . .

0. Washington State University .


zones

. . .


proposal

* . .

. . .

* . .

. .


P. University of West Virginia


Page

i
l


........


.










Page


IV. Modifications in Program . . . . . .

A. Field and campus position assignments . .

B. Work plan/position descriptions/other . .

V. The Management Entity . . . . . . .

A. Suggestions for its organization . . .

B. Selection of the management entity . . .

MEETING ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY

I. Recommended Institution . . . . . .

II. Functions of the Management Entity . . . .

III. The Board of Directors . . .. . . .

IV. The Technical Committee . . . . . .

V. The External Evaluation Committee . . . .


. . 23

. . 23

. . 24

. . 26

. . 26

. . 26

. . 27

. . 28

. . 29


. .









FOREWORD


This report describes the outcome of Phase III (Program Organization)
of the Soil Management CRSP. It includes the selection of eligible insti-
tutions recommended for participation in the Soil Management CRSP and the
proposed organization and functions of the Management Entity. The first
task was achieved during the Third External Panel Meeting held in Arlington,
Virginia, September 13-16. This portion of the report has been written by
the Panel Members, because the Planning Agency was not directly involved in
this process.

The second portion reports on a meeting by the administrative officers
of the six universities recommended for participation in the CRSP on
September 25 in Washington to select the Management Entity and determine
its structure.

The Planning Entity, North Carolina State University, concurs with the
above recommendations and submits them to JRC/BIFAD and AID for approval.

The Planning Entity wishes to express its appreciation to the members
of the External Panel, the representatives of the collaborating institu-
tions abroad, AID, JRC, and BIFAD representatives, for their significant
contribution to this crucial phase of the planning process.

Appreciation is also due to the staff of the 16 universities who sub-
mitted final proposals for participation. The Panel had indeed a very
difficult task selecting which universities to recommend for participation
from among the excellent proposals received.









THIRD EXTERNAL PANEL MEETING REPORT*


Arlington, Virginia, September 13-16, 1980


I. The Selection Process

Evaluation of the 16 university proposals was made by the External Panel
in counsel with representatives of collaborating institutions in the developing
countries where research is to be conducted. Selection of participating insti-
tutions was made by the Panel according to the criteria specified in the CRSP
General Program Proposal, June 16, 1980, pages 23 and 24. Evaluation of the
research work plan proposed by each university was made in accordance with each
of the items enumerated on page 23 and in accordance with the research topics
outlined in the CRSP program proposal for the specific agroecological zone in
which the university proposed to conduct research. This was accomplished during
September 13 and 14, 1980. Principal investigators of selected universities
were notified by telephone and requested to join the meeting September 15 and 16
to discuss details of research proposed, plans to initiation of activity, de-
cision regarding the Management Entity and other relevant matters. Principal
investigators or Title XII representatives of the universities not selected were
also notified by telephone on September 13 or 14. Principal investigators from
four of the selected universities attended. Puerto Rico and Kentucky were repre-
sented by alternates, since their principal investigators were unavailable.
Institutional representatives who might serve on the Board of Directors were
also invited and those from Cornell, Kentucky, and North Carolina State attended.
Principal investigators or alternates who attended from the other universities
were authorized by their institutions to represent them officially in the selec-
tion of the Management Entity.

Representatives of the Planning Entity (NCSU) and of USAID met with the
External Panel and the developing country representatives during the evaluation
of research proposals. Present during evaluation of most research proposals
were representatives of JRC and the BIFAD staff. The two Panel members who are
faculty members of institutions submitting proposals, University of Florida and
University of Illinois, absented themselves while their respective university
proposals were evaluated. North Carolina State University representatives also
absented themselves while the proposal from their university was evaluated. The
AID representative was present throughout the evaluation process but neither he
nor the representatives of North Carolina State University nor the representa-
tives of collaborating institutions in developing countries participated directly
in the final evaluation and ranking of university proposals. That was the re-
sponsibility of the External Panel only. The developing country representatives
were asked their opinions about the proposals for work in their countries and
were asked to indicate if they had preference for working with a particular
university. The reasons for selection or rejection of each university proposal
is given in Part III of this report, with universities listed in alphabetical
order.

Section II lists each agroecological zone in which research is proposed to
be conducted under this CRSP. The universities which submitted proposals for
that zone are indicated and the one selected to be the lead university is

*Prepared by M. D. Thorne, Panel Member and approved by other Panel Members.









indicated, along with the senior scientist positions at the research site for
which the university has staffing responsibility. If a supporting university
was selected, this is indicated along with on-site senior scientist positions
for which it has staffing responsibility. Since two of the zones have two
proposed site locations each, there is indication of the selected institutions
for each site as well as the institutions submitting proposals not selected.

The following participated in the Third External Panel meeting:

External Advisory Panel

Dr. John K. Coulter, Chairman, World Bank
Dr. Peter E. Hildebrand, University of Florida
Dr. Amirul Islam, Bangladesh Ministry of Agriculture
Dr. Kenneth F. S. King, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya
Dr. Frank R. Moormann, Utrecht University, Netherlands
Dr. Marlowe D. Thorne, University of Illinois
Dr. Carlos Valverde, INIA, Peru

Representatives from Collaborating Institutions Overseas

Dr. D. Muljadi, Soils Research Institute, Indonesia
Dr. Carlos Valverde, INIA, Peru
Dr. Gamini Gunasekera, ICRISAT, West Africa
Dr. Elmar Wagner, Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuaria dos Cerrados, Brazil
Dr. Rodrigo Lora, Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Colombia
Dr. Gustavo A. Nores, CIAT, Colombia
Dr. Cesar E. Lopez, Secretaria de Estado de Agricultura, Dominican Republic
Dr. James Spain, CIAT, Colombia

AID, JRC, BIFAD Representatives

Mr. Eugene Babb, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DSB/AID
Dr. John L. Malcolm, AID, Washington, D. C. (Project Monitor)
Dr. Elmer Kiehl, BIFAD Staff Chairman
Mr. Harold Jones, Africa Bureau USAID and JRC member
Dr. Fred Johnson, BIFAD Staff

North Carolina State University (Planning Entity)

Dr. J. Lawrence Apple*
Dr. C. B. McCants*
Dr. Pedro A. Sanchez
Dr. John J. Nicholaides, III
Ms. Bertha Monar

Other University Representatives

Dr. Frank Calhoun, Texas A & M University*
Dr. Fred Beinroth, University of Puerto Rico*
Dr. Douglas Lathwell, Cornell University*
Dr. Jack Hiatt, University of Kentucky*
Dr. Robert Blevins, University of Kentucky*
Dr. Goro Uehara, University of Hawaii*
Dr. Joseph P. Metz, Cornell University*
*Attended September 15 and 16 only.









II. Proposals Selected for Agroecological Zones

A. Humid Tropics (Priority I)

Ten research topics are outlined (page 10 of the CRSP General Program
Proposal of June 16, 1980) for work in this zone. Two research sites are
proposed with three senior scientist positions for each site.

1. Peru: Research Site Yurimaguas

Universities submitting proposals requiring senior scientist positions)
on-site:

Cornell University
North Carolina State University
University of Illinois

Selected universities:

Lead: North Carolina State University, with responsibility for staffing
positions 1.1 and 1.3.

Supporting: Cornell University with responsibility for staffing
position 1.2.

2. Indonesia: Research Site Transmigration Areas of West Sumatra and
Jambi Provinces; possible headquarters in Bukittinggi,
Sukarami, or Padang.

Universities submitting proposals requiring senior scientist positions)
on-site:


University of
University of
North Carolina
Prairie View A


Guam
Hawaii
State University
& M University


Selected universities:

Lead: University of Hawaii with staffing responsibility for positions
1.5 and 1.6.

Supporting: North Carolina State University with staffing responsibility
for position 1.4.

Universities submitting proposals for supportive work not requiring senior
scientist positions on-site:


University
University
University
Pennsylvani
Washington
University


of Florida
of Kentucky
of Minnesota
a State University
State University
of West Virginia









The Panel did not select any of these for funding but has called attention
of the lead institutions to these proposals. It recommends that complete copies
of the relevant proposals be made available to the lead and supporting univer-
sities. Cooperative arrangements for utilizing the research and graduate train-
ing capabilities of cooperators is encouraged, within limits of the budgets
available for research and training in this zone.

B. Semi-Arid Tropics (Priority II)

Twelve main research topics are outlined (page 13 of CRSP General Program
Proposal of June 16, 1980) for work in this zone. Research site locations at
Kamboinse and Saria Stations in Upper Volta and in the neighborhood of Niamey
in Niger are proposed with collaboration with ICRISAT's West Africa Program,
INRAN and SDS. Three senior scientist positions were specified.

Universities submitting proposals requiring senior scientist positions)
on-site:

Texas A & M University

Universities submitting proposals for supportive work not requiring senior
scientist positions on-site:

Pennsylvania State University
Purdue University
Washington State University

The Panel did not select any of the supporting universities for funding,
but has called attention of the selected university to these proposals. It
recommends that complete copies of the relevant proposals be made to the se-
lected university. Cooperative arrangements for utilizing the research and
graduate training capabilities of cooperators is encouraged, within limits
imposed by budget for work in this zone.

C. Acid Savannas (Priority III)

Thirteen main research topics are outlined (page 15 of the CRSP General
Program Proposal) for work in this zone. Two research sites are proposed with
one senior scientist position at each site.

1. Brazil: Research Site EMBRAPA's CPAC, near Brasilia

Universities submitting proposals requiring senior scientist positions)
on-site:

Cornell University
Purdue University

Universities submitting proposals for supportive work not requiring senior
scientist positions on-site:

University of Florida
University of Minnesota
North Carolina State University
Pennsylvania State University








University of Puerto Rico
Washington State University
University of West Virginia

Selected universities:

Lead: Cornell University with responsibility for staffing position 3.1.

Supporting: North Carolina State University

2. Colombia: Research Site ICA's Carimagua Research Station in the
Llanos Orientales.

Universities submitting proposals requiring senior scientist positions)
on-site:

North Carolina State University
University of Minnesota
University of Puerto Rico
Purdue University

Universities submitting proposals for supportive work not requiring senior
scientist positions on-site:

Cornell University
University of Florida
Pennsylvania State University
Washington State University
University of West Virginia

Selected universities:

Lead: University of Puerto Rico with responsibility for staffing position 3.2.

Supporting: Cornell University

Other than the lead and supporting universities selected for each site, no
others were selected for funding. The Panel has called attention of the lead
institutions to these proposals. It recommends that complete copies of the
relevant proposals be made available to the lead and supporting universities.
Cooperative arrangements for utilizing the research and graduate training capa-
bilities of these universities is encouraged, within limits of the budgets
available for research and training in this zone.

D. Steeplands (Priority IV)

Eleven main research topics are outlined (page 17 of the CRSP General
Program Proposal of June 16, 1980) for work in this zone. One research site
is proposed with three senior scientist positions on-site.

1. Dominican Republic: With locations in the Cordillera Central -
One between Ocoa and Constanza, the other near
San Jose de las Matas.








Universities submitting proposals requiring senior scientist positions)
on-site:

University of Florida
University of Kentucky
Ohio State University

Selected universities:

University of Kentucky with responsibility for staffing positions 4.1,
4.2, and 4.3.

Universities submitting proposals for supportive work not requiring senior
scientist positions on-site:

Prairie View A & M University
University of Minnesota
University of West Virginia

The Panel did not select any of these for funding but has called attention
of the selected university to these proposals. It recommends that complete
copies of the relevant proposals be made available to the selected university.
Cooperative arrangements for utilizing the research and graduate training capa-
bilities of cooperators is encouraged, within limits imposed by budget for work
in this zone.


Table 1. Universities recommended for selection of the Soil Management CRSP.


U. S. University
Agroecological Zone Country Lead Supporting

Humid Tropics Peru NCSU (2)* Cornell (1)
Indonesia Hawaii (2) NCSU (1)

Semi-Arid Tropics Upper Volta/ TAMU (3)**
Niger
Acid Savannas Brazil Cornell (1) NCSU**
Colombia P. Rico (1) Cornell

Steeplands Dominican Kentucky (3)
Republic

*Figures in parentheses indicate number of senior scientist positions on-site
for which the university has staffing responsibility.

**TAMU = Texas A & M University
NCSU = North Carolina State University








III. The Panel's Evaluation of Each University Proposal

A. Cornell University

The proposal requested leadership in the acid savannas project in Brazil,
a supporting role in the acid savannas project in Colombia and a supporting role
in the humid tropics project in Peru. The Panel approved all these requests.

The project and work plans proposed were well conceived and addressed the
specific research topics outlined in the CRSP General Program Proposal. Evi-
dence was presented that the University has wide experience in the characteri-
zation and management of tropical soils and that the proposed activity would be
a logical extension of work now underway. Cornell has conducted research at the
Cerrado Center in Brazil in soil fertility management, water management, variety
selection and low input cropping systems research. All these topics are inclu-
ded in those listed for research in the humid tropics and/or the acid savannas.
Studies of phosphorus management, liming, cation imbalance in low activity soils,
water management, legume nitrogen management, utilization of plant residues and
investigation of suitability of legume crops not now grown were also specifically
mentioned in Cornell's proposal.

A senior soil scientist was named as principal investigator with an additional
solid commitment of time from four other soil and crop scientists with excellent
professional qualifications and experience. Six additional senior scientists in
crops, soils and atmospheric sciences were indicated for directing graduate stu-
dent training, including short-term commitments in connection with such activity.

Cornell University has demonstrated a long-term interest in developing country
problems and the willingness of faculty to study such problems on a continuing
basis. It has shown interest and leadership in training persons from developing
countries and in organizing and conducting workshops on such subjects as soil re-
sources and fertility, plant adaptation to mineral stress conditions, priorities
for alleviating soil-related constraints to food production in the tropics. The
University also has an abundance of courses available on the campus dealing with
international agriculture.

Materials presented indicated an excellent record in filling long-term over-
seas contract positions with tenured faculty members. While no faculty commit-
ments were yet made for the positions proposed under this CRSP, the expectation
is that both on-site senior scientist and campus support positions would be
filled by recruitment from outside present staff.

Cornell has demonstrated excellent working relationships with the other two
U. S. universities, North Carolina State University and the University of Puerto
Rico, with which it will be associated in research under this CRSP.

The documentation provided did not show strong faculty competence in Portu-
guese or Spanish languages. It does have adequate courses in both these lan-
guages on-campusand it is stated that senior scientists and graduate research
assistants assigned overseas would be proficient in the local language.

The representative from EMBRAPA (Brazil) indicated preference for Cornell
as the lead institution at that site. The follaborating institution represen-
tatives from ICA and CIAT (Colombia) and INIA (Peru) indicated Cornell would
be most acceptable in a supporting role at their sites.








B. University of Florida

The proposal requested leadership in the steeplands project in the Dominican
Republic and interest in the supportive role at both locations in the Acid
Savannas and in Peru in the Humid Tropics. The Panel did not select Florida for
any of the zones.

The University of Florida proposal was judged by the External Panel to be
weaker than desired for research in the steeplands. It was agreed that many
faculty members have expertise and interest in the problems outlined for the
steeplands, but there was inadequate evidence in the proposal that their expe-
rience in this zone is as strong as that of the other universities proposing
major work in this zone. It appears that the majority of faculty named have
experience in tropical agroecological zones but the extent of the experience in
steeplands of those to be involved in this project is not clearly stated.

It is recognized that the university has an active training project in the
Dominican Republic. The representative of the Dominican Republic testified as
to the value of that project and expressed the hope and expectation that it
would continue. The Panel was favorably impressed by the experience and compe-
tence of the forest soil scientist and the agricultural economist who would con-
tribute to the project. It was also impressed by the high degree of faculty
competence in the Spanish language.

The Florida proposal failed to indicate appreciation of the importance of
erosion control for the steeplands. This was listed as the overriding problem
for the zone. Inadequate evidence was given of recognition of need to optimize
utilization of the limited soil water or the need to develop small system irri-
gation with a minimum of investment. There was not strong evidence of experience
in studying physical properties of soils in Florida's international activities.
Competence of some interested staff members in forage production and management
was indicated, but involvement of other staff who have worked extensively in
tropical forages was not indicated and presumably is not available for this proj-
ect. The Panel felt that more evidence of interest in cropping system research
for tackling the problems of the steeplands should have been present.

No clear plan of work was indicated and no principal investigator was named.
While the Panel recognizes the difficulty in providing such information until
the project is more certain of approval, without it the Panel was at a serious
disadvantage in giving a more favorable rating to the proposal.

The Florida proposal indicated a desire to collaborate in the Humid Tropics
and the Acid Savannas but did not request on-site positions in these zones.
Faculty expertise in the problems of acid, infertile soils was indicated and the
Panel recognizes such competence. No clear work plan was presented, no principal
investigator named, and no budget presented. It was concluded that no major
supportive role was indicated but that collaboration of the lead and major sup-
portive institutions in each of the zones with the University of Florida might
be mutually beneficial.

C. University of Guam

The proposal indicated interest in a collaborative role with North Carolina
State University in the Indonesia research site of the Humid Tropics. It re-
quested staffing responsibility for one year only for one soils specialist and
one extension specialist. The Panel did not select Guam's proposal for research
in this zone.








The Guam proposal was centered mainly on soil testing, including evaluation
of laboratory facilities in Indonesia. The representative of the Soils Research
Institute in Indonesia who met with the Panel indicated that quite satisfactory
soils laboratories already exist in his Institute. He did not give high priority
to the proposal from the University of Guam. The Panel appreciates the interest
of the Guam soils staff in the problems of the Humid Tropics and has called at-
tention of the lead university to the opportunity for collaborative work in
Indonesia with the University of Guam and the potential benefits of mutual col-
laboration.

D. University of Hawaii

The proposal indicated interest in a leadership role at the Indonesia site
in the Humid Tropics and requested responsibility for staffing the three senior
scientist positions at that location. The Panel approved the leadership role
for Hawaii in Indonesia and agreed that it should have staffing responsibility
for two of the positions at that site.

The University of Hawaii proposal showed a multidisciplinary approach di-
rected towards the problems of the Humid Tropics enumerated in the CRSP document.
A well respected senior faculty member was named as principal investigator. A
team of capable scientists representing disciplines such as entomology, foods
and nutrition, agricultural engineering, microbiology, environmental psychology,
economics, anthropology and agricultural engineering as well as soil science had
been assembled to participate in the research and training program.

Emphasis was indicated on the development of energy efficient farming systems
and on studying ways to get faster adoption of improved farming systems. The
indicated contribution of the social scientists was judged important, as was the
systems analysis approach. The emphasis on measuring outputs as an indication
of success or failure was also favorably received. Work was indicated on essen-
tially all the research topics which had been previously considered important by
the Panel and the Planning Agency.

The NIFTAL program and the East-West Center backstopping support added
strength to the campus component of the program proposed. It was evident that
considerable planning and detailed contacts with Indonesia had proceeded the
proposal's preparation. The University of Hawaii has an ongoing research pro-
gram in Indonesia and a number of participating faculty members, including the
principal investigator have Indonesian experience and some language competence.

The training component of the Hawaii proposal was sufficiently detailed and
apparently well conceived. Emphasis was placed on utilizing Indonesian nationals
for junior positions and on giving language training in Indonesian and English
as needed by the individuals involved.

The Panel had two concerns which were resolved by a telephone conversation
between the Panel Chairman and the principal investigator before a decision was
reached. The proposal made the assumption that "there is adequate soil manage-
ment knowledge and technology ready for immediate application in the humid
tropics." Panel members could not accept this assumption as they interpreted
its meaning. The principal investigator indicated he meant that knowledge is
ready for adaptation to the humid tropics. The adaptation will, of course,
come through research of the type Hawaii proposes to do. The other concern is
the lack of a clear statement of the number of senior scientists to be located
in Indonesia. The principal investigator assured the Panel Chairman that any of
the senior scientist positions awarded Hawaii which had been intended for on-
site work in Indonesia would, in fact, be located in Indonesia.








The Panel was also concerned about the indicated emphasis on fuelwood pro-
duction in the Hawaii proposal. While this is recognized as a problem in the
tropics, it was not intended to be a significant thrust of the humid tropics
portion of the CRSP. The principal investigator indicated agreement that this
would not be a major segment of the research under this CRSP. The Hawaii pro-
posal emphasized the need for Indonesian input regarding the specific sites for
research in Sumatra. The principal investigator was assured that the tentative
locations of Bukittinggi, Sukarami and Padang had been selected in cooperation
with the Indonesian collaborative institutions.

E. University of Illinois

The proposal was for research at Yurimaguas, Peru in the Humid Tropics and
requested one senior scientist position on-site. The Panel did not select this
proposal for funding.

The proposal was judged meritorious and the University capable of contribut-
ing to the CRSP as indicated in the proposal. The competence of the principal
investigator and the proposed senior scientist to be located in Peru were not
questioned. The proposal indicated involvement of only three resident faculty
members. All are soil scientists and none has had extensive experience in the
humid tropics.

The Panel judged that the resources and expertise seemed to duplicate in
some measure those of the lead university selected. The proposal of the Univer-
sity of Illinois has been called to the attention of the lead university for
consideration for a supportive role in the Peru program.

F. University of Kentucky

The proposal requested a leadership role in the Steeplands Zone with respon-
sibility for staffing all three positions on-site. It also indicated interest
in a supportive role in the Humid Tropics site in Indonesia but made no specific
proposal for that. The Panel selected the University of Kentucky for the lead
institution in the Steeplands with responsibility for three positions at the
Dominican Republic site.

The proposal was well written, addressed the major problems of the zone as
outlined in the CRSP document, and gave evidence of faculty expertise and enthu-
siastic involvement in the proposed research and training programs. It is evi-
dent that Kentucky faculty have extensive experience in working on the problems
of the steeplands. The domestic research program has found satisfactory solu-
tions to many of the constraints to production on their own steepland soils.
The work of the University of Kentucky in reduced tillage systems is well known
and adaptation to soils in other countries has already begun. Kentucky faculty
have valuable experience in adapting the tillage and cropping system to Latin
America and many nationals of Latin American countries have visited Kentucky to
view their work. It is emphasized, however, that no export of a specific
"system" is planned. Rather, the understanding of principles has helped to de-
vise a multiplicity of systems in tropical areas.

It was judged that the proposed activity of Kentucky was more in line with
its in-state program than were those of the other two universities submitting
steepland proposals.








The Kentucky proposal named a senior faculty member as principal investi-
gator and was the only one of the steeplands proposals which gave tentative
personnel assignments to all the on-site positions. It was indicated that if
contractual arrangements could be completed without undue delay, the scientists
could be in the field as early as July 1981. A strong positive response and
commitment from faculty to serve as campus support scientists was reported.
These include six soil and water conservationists, five farming systems agron-
omists and four farming systems economists. A staffing pattern was presented
with complete staffing for campus support by senior scientists and for two of
the three overseas positions through 1985.

Reasonably good faculty competence in the Spanish language was indicated.
On-campus training in the language is available and deficiencies would be cor-
rected before overseas assignment.

The representative of the collaborating institution in the Dominican Re-
public indicated a preference for the Kentucky proposal with a desire for con-
tinuing ties with the other universities submitting proposals for that zone.
The emphasis on training in the Kentucky proposal was judged good. The high
ratio of junior to senior scientists proposed by Kentucky was favorably received.

G. University of Minnesota

The proposal, entitled "Management of Phosphorus on the Acid, Infertile
Soils of Latin America," covered work in the Humid Tropics, Acid Savannas and
Acid Steeplands of South America. Proposed research sites were Carimagua,
Colombia in the Acid Savannas and Yurimaguas, Peru in the Humid Tropics. A
senior scientist position stationed at Carimagua (CIAT) was requested to be
filled on a rotating basis by a team of faculty members from the university.
The Panel did not select the University of Minnesota proposal for funding under
the CRSP.

The proposal identified a principal investigator with valuable experience
during previous employment as a project leader of the IFDC/CIAT phosphorus
project for tropical Latin America. Additional soil scientists were named as
contributors to the research proposed. The scope of work proposed was very
limited in relation to the research topics listed for the three zones. It ap-
peared that the other universities proposing to work in these zones would ade-
quately cover the research Minnesota proposed. There might be distinct advan-
tages in collaboration with the University of Minnesota and especially with the
scientist named as principal investigator. This possibility has been pointed
out to the lead university in each of the zones involved.

H. North Carolina State University

The proposal requested leadership in the Humid Tropics and a supporting role
in the Acid Savannas. Staffing responsibility for four senior scientist posi-
tions overseas was requested: Two in Peru, one in Indonesia, and one in Brazil.
The Panel selected North Carolina State University as the lead institution at the
Peru site in the Humid Tropics with two senior scientist positions, for a sup-
porting role at the Indonesia site with one senior scientist; and for a supporting
role at the Indonesia site with one senior scientist; and for a supporting role
at the Brasilia site in the Acid Savannas, but with no senior scientist staffing
responsibility at this location.







The Panel rated the proposal as the strongest received for research at the
Peru site. NCSU has an ongoing program at Yurimaguas which has contributed much
information towards the alleviation of soils restraints to production in the
Humid Tropics. Linkages with national institutions, international centers and
other U. S. universities involved in Latin America already have been developed
and can be utilized in the project proposed. The work envisioned under this
CRSP would become a logical extension of the current program. The senior
scientist at Yurimaguas on the current project would become the lead scientist
of this project at that location so continuity would be effected.

Two senior soil scientists with excellent backgrounds and extensive expe-
rience in tropical soils were named as co-principal investigators. Both have
adequate Spanish language capability and have personal experience with the
countries in which research is to be conducted. One has Portuguese capability
also. Other university faculty members also have extensive experience in trop-
ical agriculture and in developing countries. Eight other soil scientists,
two crop scientists, two weed scientists, one economist and one forester were
named as campus support faculty. Six are fluent in Spanish and two are fluent
in Portuguese. Six junior scientists, three of whom are from developing coun-
tries, were named for the Peru location.

The training component of the proposal was judged very strong and NCSU has
a long history of providing training for nationals of developing countries,
particularly from Latin America. Students trained by NCSU on-campus and in
connection with research in developing countries have adequately demonstrated
by their professional contributions that the training is excellent and is rele-
vant to country needs. The project document from NCSU indicates that fifteen
Ph.D. and 10 M.S. degrees awarded since December 1973 have dealt with soil man-
agement in developing countries. Eighteen of the 25 theses were by nationals
of developing countries. All these 18 plus two of the U. S. students are now
involved in agricultural research in developing countries.

The proposal for the Humid Tropics addressed very well the problems of this
zone enumerated in the CRSP document. NCSU has demonstrated its capability to
research the problems and its interest in doing so. Its faculty experience is
strong in Latin America but not in Indonesia. The proposal concentrates mainly
on Peru and is quite brief in regard to Indonesia. The Panel judged that while
there may be advantages in having one university play a leadership role for both
locations in the zone, greater advantage would result from having a university
with more experience in Indonesia performing the leadership functions there.
The assigning of a major supportive role in Indonesia to NCSU, including staffing
responsibility for one position, will help to assure that maximum utilization of
pertinent experience in Peru is effected in the Indonesia program.

The NCSU proposal for research in the Acid Savannas was brief and lacking
in a detailed work plan. While it indicated work would be done on many of the
critical problems of this zone, it indicated only that details would later be
developed. The close working relationship of NCSU with Brazil at the Cerrado
Center strengthened the request for a continuing role at that location. The
fine working relationship between NCSU and Cornell is expected to continue with
both universities being involved in Peru and Brazil with each having one lead
and one supporting role. It was concluded that the NCSU proposal for the Colombia
site was not as strong as that of the university assigned the lead role or the
university assigned the major supportive role at this location. However, it was
felt that mutually profitable collaboration of those universities with NCSU might
be developed and this was called to their attention.







I. Ohio State University

A leadership role in the Steeplands zone was proposed with continuing staf-
fing responsibility for two of the positions and for the third position in the
first and fifth years only. The Panel did not select this proposal for funding
under this CRSP.

The proposal shows good recognition of erosion as the overriding problem
of the Steeplands. It proposes a multidisciplinary approach involving systems
analysis. The University has demonstrated capability in tropical soils and in
conducting research projects in developing countries. A senior scientist with
extensive experience in tropical soils and developing country problems was iden-
tified as the principal investigator. The involvement of many faculty in soils,
crops, agricultural engineering, agricultural economics and forestry was indi-
cated. Title XII Strengthening Grant funds have been used to give soils spe-
cialists greater familiarity with the Dominican Republic, although there is not
an indication as to how many might be involved in the proposed research.
Spanish language training is available and apparently is being utilized. The
principal investigator is apparently the only one with the Spanish fluency at
present, however.

The Panel judged the Ohio proposal as being weak in the experience of
faculty in steeplands research and in steeplands agriculture. There is less
opportunity to gain such experience within the state as is the case with the
institution selected for the lead role in the Steeplands zone. A research
project coordinator would have to be recruited. Apparently persons would have
to be recruited for the on-site positions in the Dominican Republic also. The
proposal indicates over 90 percent of previous overseas positions have been
filled with faculty in tenure track positions, however. The attention of the
lead university has been called to OSU's interest and the suggestion made that
collaborative arrangements should be explored.

J. Pennsylvania State University

This proposed research applicable to all sites and did not request respon-
sibility for any overseas positions. The Panel did not select this proposal
for funding under this CRSP.

An interesting line of research was proposed, with two main components:
(1) Improving the land resource data base, and (2) technical soil classifica-
tion systems for practical management purposes. A senior scientist was pro-
posed as principal investigator with support by eight graduate assistants over
a five-year period. The proposed activity would complement a domestic program
of similar nature. This is currently restricted to the state because of funding
sources. The budget requested is modest. The Panel felt this was a worthwhile
activity which might add to the success of the CRSP. It suggests that the
Pennsylvania State propoposal be called to the attention of the Management
Entity as this might logically become a part of the program management. It
was also suggested that the Management Entity should be familiar with the com-
puter data base maintained by CIAT and another maintained by the University of
Hawaii.







K. Prairie View A & M University

Research in the Humid Tropics at the Indonesia site and at the Steeplands
site in the Dominican Republic was proposed. No specific senior overseas posi-
tions were requested, but two graduate student positions on-site were proposed.
The Panel did not select this proposal for funding under the CRSP.

The proposal was vague with regard to exactly what work would be undertaken
and how it might contribute to the overall objectives of the CRSP. The main
effort proposed appeared to be in training by means of on-campus courses,
seminars and workshops along with "on-site, non-formal instruction for extension
and administrative personnel" and "formal competency-based instruction" for
"graduate and senior staff at collaborating, indigenous institutions in areas of
research thrust." Five senior faculty members were identified as contributors
to the program with four departments involved.

The Panel judged that while a contribution might well be made by this pro-
posal, the resources and expertise appeared to duplicate to some extent those
of the lead institution in the zones concerned. Attention of the principal
investigators of the lead institutions has been called to the Prairie View
A & M University proposal with the suggestion that collaborative arrangements
be explored.

L. University of Puerto Rico

A lead role at the Acid Savannas site in Colombia was proposed, with staf-
fing responsibility for the senior scientist position on-site. The Panel selected
the University of Puerto Rico to be the lead institution at Carimagua, Colombia
with the on-site senior scientist position staffing responsibility.

The Puerto Rico proposal addressed the main research topics envisioned in
the planning process and presented a five-year work plan aimed at their solu-
tion. The Panel members and the representative of the collaborating institution
of the host country were impressed with the presentation of the proposed research.
Ten faculty members indicate involvement, with a senior scientist as principal
investigator. The senior scientist to be located on-site will have to be re-
cruited but would be appointed to a tenured position. Two of the campus-based
faculty members involved are Colombian nationals with extensive experience in
Colombia. All except two of the ten faculty who will play supportive roles speak
Spanish as their native language and the other two have reasonable fluency in
Spanish.

The University is currently involved in LDC-oriented research in soil and
crop sciences. Graduate programs through the Master of Science are offered and
students from 20 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have been trained
in tropical agriculture. The University of Puerto Rico has previous linkages
with many other U. S. universities. Of particular note is the association with
Cornell University over many years in soil fertility problems in the tropics,
since Cornell was selected as the major supportive institution for the Colombia
site. The resident faculty at the university are not so numerous and do not
cover such a wide range of disciplines as the Cornell faculty so the combination
of the two universities for the Carimagua site should provide adequate backstop-
ping for the field research team.







M. Purdue University

A leadership role in the Acid Savannas Zone with responsibility for on-site
positions in Brazil and Colombia was proposed. The Panel did not select Purdue's
proposal for funding under the CRSP.

The Purdue proposal did not seem directed to the problems of the Acid
Savannas nearly so well as some other proposals for this zone. While the Panel
did not question the capability of Purdue to undertake research for this zone
nor its record in tropical soils research and in training of LDC nationals, the
proposal did not convey a well planned program for the zone towards which di-
rected. The proposal repeated numerous segments of CRSP documents but did not
show adequately that Purdue's proposed efforts would satisfactorily address the
problems enumerated.

The proposal recognized that research proposed is not site-specific (page
18), but claims that "results will be generally applicable and will allow the
researchers to make predictions for all locations." The Panel had serious con-
cerns about this approach and questioned such wide adaptability because of the
great variation in soils, climates and other relevant factors.

It appeared that much of the work proposed by Purdue would be done in lab-
oratory and greenhouse facilities with field testing by senior scientists. It
was unclear whether the major part of the effort would be in the developing
countries themselves as envisioned in the planning of this CRSP.

The Panel was favorably impressed by the indicated involvement of senior
faculty members from Purdue who have extensive experience in tropical soils.
The availability of a senior professor with previous experience in Brazil for
immediate assignment in that country was also most favorably noted.

The Purdue proposal indicated filling a high proportion of the junior
scientist positions on-site with post doctoral scientists. The Panel questioned
the wisdom of this as compared to using degree candidates as part of their train-
ing programs. While it was felt that both staffing patterns have advantages and
disadvantages, the utilization of post doctorals seemed unduly heavy in the pro-
posal. There appeared to be concomittant weakness in the training component of
Purdue's proposal.

The language competence of the Purdue staff was not adequately addressed
in the proposal. While it was indicated that many have experience in Latin
America, their competence in Portuguese or Spanish was generally not indicated.
Likewise the University's capability in language instruction for proposed senior
and junior scientists was not indicated.

N. Texas A & M University

The proposal requested a leadership role in the Semi-Arid Tropics Zone with
staffing responsibility for the three senior scientist positions in Upper Volta/
Niger. The Panel selected Texas A & M University for the role requested, in-
cluding responsibility for the positions.

The proposal was judged excellent by the Panel and the representative of
the collaborating institution in the host countries for the research proposed.
This was the only proposal, however, which was not in direct competition with








another since it was the only one requesting leadership in the zone. Other
universities proposed supportive work and it is hoped their collaboration can
be considered by Texas A & M University.

The proposal addressed the research topics of the Semi-Arid Tropics out-
lined in the CRSP document. A team of four specialists has been assembled to
devote primary effort to soil crusting problems and their alleviation under
semi-arid conditions. This problem was identified in the CRSP document as one
of the primary constraints in these soils. Specialists in ground cover agron-
omy and crop drought tolerance as well as faculty with specialization in numer-
ous sub-disciplines of soil science also were listed as campus support personnel.
As pointed out in the Texas A & M University proposal, the soil scientists in
Texas deal with semi-arid soils very similar to those in the SAT zone for which
research is proposed. Basic management principles learned in the domestic re-
search program may be adapted to the SAT zone during the course of this project.

The supportive faculty is generally weak in French language speaking capa-
bility, but plans are indicated to correct the deficiency.

Texas A & M University has demonstrated competence in international research
and training. Currently eleven international projects are being conducted by
the university and five have been completed in Africa. Internationally-oriented
courses in appropriate disciplines are offered on-campus. Over 60 participants
from developing countries have received training at Texas A & M University in
soil and crop sciences since 1963. Participant field research has been conducted
in the native country whenever funding and resources have permitted.

A senior scientist with six years experience in tropical areas was named
principal investigator. Twelve other senior scientists were proposed for in-
volvement in the research. The on-site senior scientists would be recruited
from present faculty for one position, if possible. Two positions will likely
be filled by recruiting from outside current staff and all three may be so re-
cruited. It is indicated that most staff hired outside the university to date
for overseas contract positions have been absorbed back into the system upon
completion of the contract service.

0. Washington State University

The proposal involves the Humid Tropics, Semi-Arid Tropics and Acid Savannas
but does not request senior scientist staffing responsibility at any of the sites.
The Panel did not select this proposal for funding under the CRSP.

Washington State University presented an interesting proposal for specific
lines of research which might be conducted at all sites except the Steeplands
one. On-campus research was proposed to adapt to a variety of crops the "rapid,
simple procedures previously developed for screening Al-tolerant cereals. It
further proposed to develop similar procedures for screening these crops for Mn
tolerance and P efficiency. These screening procedures will permit research
personnel of primary research sites and collaborating international centers to
select locally adapted varieties for increased food production at low cost."

The competence of the university and of the three investigators for under-
taking the study appears to be good. The approach indicated may well be worth
attempting and some of the universities awarded funding might explore a colla-
borative arrangement with Washington State University. Perhaps the approach
indicated may be superior to that envisioned by other universities and inter-








national centers for evaluation of plants for tolerance to Al and Mn and for
efficiency in utilization of phosphorus. The proposal should be referred to
those universities which will receive funding.

The Panel did not judge that this proposal should be allocated any of the
limited funding expected to be available under this CRSP unless it be through
a collaborative arrangement with one of the lead universities.

P. University of West Virginia

The proposal envisioned multidisciplinary support to other universities
and possible participation in the Humid Tropics, Steeplands and Acid Savannas.
It did not request any on-site positions. The Panel did not select this pro-
posal for funding under this CRSP.

Campus support in pedology, pasture, livestock, economic analysis and tech-
nology transfer was proposed. Eight faculty are willing to contribute a total
personnel equivalent of 0.7 FTE. The credentials of the university and of the
faculty members available for support activity was not questioned. However, the
Panel felt this proposal should not participate directly in the limited funding
of the CRSP, but might work out a cooperative arrangement with one of the lead
universities to mutual benefit. The proposal should be referred to all lead
universities for their consideration.

The University of West Virginia proposal had strong emphasis on livestock.
It was pointed out that Australia has a large livestock program in Indonesia and
CIAT in Latin America, both which may have application to the objectives of the
CRSP for the Humid Tropics and Acid Savannas, at least. The lead universities
should investigate the applicability of this research as well as the West Virginia
support possibilities.

IV. Modifications in Program

A. Field and Campus Position Assignments

In the selection process, assignment of the senior scientist positions on-
site was made. The Panel, the Planning Entity, the representatives of colla-
borating institutions in the host countries and AID representatives gave further
consideration to assignment of junior positions on-site and to campus-based senior
and junior scientist positions. The following two tables give the agreed-upon
assignments. Table 2 shows senior and junior scientist assignments for field and
campus locations for each zone. Table 3 summarizes positions assigned to each
university.

B. Work Plans/Position Descriptions/Other

The Panel met with the principal investigators) and country representa-
tive(s) for each zone to discuss relationships between cooperating universities
and host countries. Some modifications were suggested and discussed and several
changes agreed upon.

Suggestions applicable to all programs included:

1. Training should have a top priority. The ratio of junior/senior
overseas positions should be as high as possible at each location.













Table 2. Assignment of field senior staff positions by agroecological
zone.



Zone Country Position* University


Humid Tropics Peru 1.1 Soil/Crop Mgmt. NCSU
1.2 Soil Fertility Cornell
1.3 Farming Systems NCSU

Indonesia 1.4 Soil Management NCSU
1.5 Agronomist Hawaii
1.6 Farming Systems Hawaii

Semiarid Upper Volta/ 2.1 Soil Physics TAMU
Tropics Niger 2.2 Soil Fertility TAMU
2.3 Ground Cover Agr. TAMU

Acid Brazil 3.1 Soil Water Mgmt. Cornell
Savannas Colombia 3.2 Agronomist P. Rico

Steeplands Dom. Rep. 4.1 Soil-Water Conserv. Kentucky
4.2 Agronomist Kentucky
4.3 Farming Systems Kentucky
Economist


See Table 2, General Program Proposal.












Table 3. Summary of positions assignment by university (for second
and subsequent years of funding).


Senior Scientists Junior Scientists**
University Zone* Field Campus Total Field Campus Total

------------------- SY's ----------------------

Cornell HT 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.0
AS 1.0 1.2 2.2 3.0 1.5 4.5

Total 2.0 1.7 3.7 5.0 2.5 7.5

Hawaii HT 2.0 1.5 3.5 4.0 2.0 6.0

Kentucky STP 3.0 2.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 9.0

NCSU HT 3.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 7.5
AS 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.5

Total 3.0 2.2 5.2 6.0 3.0 9.0

TAMU SAT 3.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 9.0

P. Rico AS 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0


Total


14.0 10.4 24.4


* Zones: HT = Humid Tropics; S,
Savannas; STP = Steeplands.

** Training positions.


28.0 15.5


43.5


AT = Semiarid Tropics; AS = Acid








2. Discretionary funds might be set aside for training, to be admin-
istered by the Managing Entity, so that if one university cannot
fill its training positions, the funds could easily be used else-
where for training.

3. Counterpart staff should be actively involved in training plans.

4. Training of nationals from other countries in the same ecological
zone should be considered, not just those from the countries with
primary research sites.

5. The Panel endorsed the need for an early flow of funds for on-site
visits and planning at each location.

6. There is need to develop concrete plans for each research site as
soon as possible.

7. Agreement with USAID missions in countries where research is to be
conducted should be secured in writing by principal investigators
on policy and business matters concerned with the program. It was
suggested that a satisfactory way to propose securing approval of
travel of scientists might be for the principal investigator to
notify the mission directly of proposed travel at least 30 days
ahead of arrival date. If no objection is received, the travel
might be considered approved by the mission.

8. Each university senior or junior scientist should be on the payroll
of his/her university and abide by its applicable regulations. Each
has a technical responsibility, defined as well as possible.

9. A team leader at each location speaks for the program when one voice
is needed to represent the total program.

There were discussions, suggestions and some modifications for specific
zones as follows:

1. Humid Tropics

a. Peru. North Carolina State University, Cornell University and the
representative of the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias (INIA),
Peru all seemed to be in agreement regarding the program there. The position
descriptions in the Soil Management CRSP General Program Proposal are satis-
factory. The host institution representative pointed out the necessity for
his organization's input in selection of senior scientists. He also pointed
out the essentiality of Spanish language capability in persons selected for
in-country positions. Third country training possibilities were mentioned and
discussed. The possibility of cross linkages with the Acid Savannas programs
was pointed out. Both NCSU and Cornell are involved at the Brazil location
and Cornell at the Colombia location in that zone.

b. Indonesia. The principal investigator from the University of Hawaii
reported that as a result of discussions with the Panel Chairman, the principal
investigator of NCSU, and the representative from the Soil Research Institute,
Indonesia, the Hawaii proposal had been modified. The locations specified in
the General Program Proposal would be the principal research sites in Indonesia.








Fuelwood production would be de-emphasized and made a subtopic under erosion
control. He requested that the roles of the lead and supporting institutions
be defined as clearly as possible to avoid future uncertainty and/or misun-
derstanding. He also requested that the qualifications of the counterpart
staff be clearly defined.

The representative from Indonesia indicated contributions of the host in-
stitution would be of two types: In-kind and in-cash. In-kind contributions
would be the provision of people and facilities. In-cash contributions would
be utilized for operational expenses mainly. There are less difficulties in
using Indonesian funds for operations than for equipment purchases. He raised
the question about the project providing supplementary salary for counterpart
staff. It was pointed out that it is difficult to get local staff to work in
rural areas such as the selected sites because living conditions for families
are not good and there is little opportunity to supplement salary with second
jobs or with spouses' employment as may be done in larger cities. Such supple-
mentation is possible but it must have host country and USAID Mission approval
even if funds are available.

The principal investigator from Hawaii reported that his university has
good training available in the Indonesian language and all who will work on
the project in Indonesia will be expected to have such training, if needed.

Hawaii had suggested modifications in description of the three senior
scientist positions located in Indonesia. After considerable discussion amongst
all parties involved, the following position descriptions were agreed upon by
principal investigators, the host country representative and the Panel:

Position 1.4 Soil Management Specialist (NCSU responsible for staffing).
A scientist experienced in the science and art of land clearing operations and
their impact on agricultural land use. His/her role is to bring the full re-
search capability of NCSU to bear on the CRSP, including the site-specific
measures and research in respect to soil fertility required to arrive at a
sustained level of economic production.
Position 1.5 Soil/Crop Scientist/Agronomist (Hawaii responsible for staf-
fing). A scientist who will conduct soil management research in the context of
farming systems, emphasizing the conservation and improvement of the soil re-
sources for sustained agricultural production.

Position 1.6 Farming Systems Socioeconomist (Hawaii responsible for staf-
fing). A scientist who will identify socioeconomic factors that lead to adoption
or rejection of soil management innovations and aid in research on constraints
analysis.
It was pointed out that the three positions must function as a team. Hawaii
will designate one of its senior scientists as team leader.

2. Semi-Arid Tropics

The representative of ICRISAT's West Africa Program served as collaborating
institution representative of the host countries: Upper Volta and Niger. He
informed the group that ICRISAT has plans well underway for appointment of a
soil physicist for the West Africa Program, so he requested a change in priority
of filling of positions in the CRSP for this zone. It was agreed that attention








should be given by Texas A & M University to filling the other two on-site
senior scientist positions and defer filling Position 2.1, Soil Physics, until
1982. In the meantime, further discussion of need for that position can be
held amongst all concerned, including the Management Entity. The Panel em-
phasized the need for keeping the three person team intact.

The Texas A & M University principal investigator inquired whether budget
adjustments might be made amongst the zones to account for different start-up
and personnel costs in the various zones. A Panel member inquired as to how
well Texas A & M University staff are aware of research by French scientists
in West Africa's Semi-Arid Tropics. He pointed out that one of the first
priorities of the principal investigator and other senior scientists should
be to become familiar with the pertinent French literature. Competence in the
French language is essential and involved scientists who do not have such com-
petence must take corrective action as soon as possible. The need for an early
planning session with ICRISAT and the principal investigator was emphasized.

3. Acid Savannas

a. Brazil. The Director of EMBRAPA's Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuaria dos
Cerrados indicated that his organization would handle matters such as those con-
nected with entry of CRSP personnel into Brazil and exit from Brazil. Three
months notification of arrival of staff in Brazil is needed. He indicated that
the CRSP senior and junior scientist would be considered staff members of CPAC.
CRSP senior staff and local senior staff should be co-advisors of junior scien-
tists and graduate students. Graduate students should not be assigned to sites
other than CPAC until they have had time to get oriented at CPAC regarding re-
search, Brazilian culture, etc.

There was a short discussion about NCSU's involvement with Cornell at the
Brazil site. NCSU will have junior scientists assigned at the site but no
senior scientist. Cornell and NCSU have worked at this site before and should
do so again with minimum problems, it was concluded.

b. Colombia. Two representatives of CIAT and one representative of the
Institute Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA), Colombia represented the host country.
Agreement between them and the principal investigators of the lead and support-
ing institutions, University of Puerto Rico and Cornell, respectively was
evident. No major changes in the program was envisioned and it can start as
soon as funding and personnel are available. A host institution representative
pointed out that housing for outside staff is critically short at the site.
This will hinder staffing and training of students unless project funds can be
made available for renovation of some houses.

Host country representatives indicated that ICA was not interested in soy-
bean research when planning agency personnel visited the country. Now they
would like to see this work included. The Puerto Rico investigator reported
his university is a partner with the University of Illinois in the INTSOY
(International Soybean) program and could provide all the expertise required.

4. Steeplands

The representative of the SecretarTa de Estado de Agricultura, Dominican
Republic indicated agreement with the program planned. He urged an early on-
site planning session. One Panel member expressed concern that there was no








clear statement about the use of trees in the uplands for erosion control in
the Kentucky proposal. He was assured this would be included and backstopping
would be secured from other universities, if needed.

V. The Management Entity

The BIFAD staff representative outlined the general requirements of the
Management Entity as follows:

1. It cannot be a governmental agency.

2. It is accountable for the funds assigned to the CRSP.

3. It is responsible for the CRSP program; it works up agreements with
the institutions/agencies involved.

4. It is to be selected by the lead institutions funded under the CRSP.
Their selection is sent to the Joint Research Committee as their
recommendation. JRC then approves or disapproves and transmits to
BIFAD which similarly transmits to AID with approval or disapproval.

5. A full time Director is to be appointed by the Management Entity with
approval of the Board of Directors. He/she cannot be a principal
investigator.

6. The Board of Directors includes one administrative level represen-
tative of each university participating in the CRSP as a lead
institution.

The BIFAD staff representative indicated that the Management Entity is re-
sponsible to the Board of Directors and not to the university at which it is
housed. It must, however, comply with that university's regulations concerning
the handling of funds. The question was raised about possible inconsistency in
having the Director responsible to the Board of Directors and yet the Management
Entity is responsible for the program and accountable for the funds. He con-
ceded that there may be some inconsistency but the Director must be protected
from improper interference by administrators of the university at which he is
housed. The Director must be given adequate responsibility and freedom to ad-
minister the program in line with policies set down by the Board of Directors.

A. Suggestions for Its Organization

The Panel considered some aspects of the Management Entity at its second
meeting and made some recommendations which appear in the CRSP General Program
Proposal. The following statements and recommendations came from the Third
meeting and supersede statements in the General Program Proposal whenever they
are not in agreement with the previous write-up.

1. Board of Directors

The Board of Directors will consist of one representative of each univer-
sity selected for a leadership role at one of the agroecological zone primary
sites (6) and one representative of the collaborating institution at each pri-
mary site (6). Each institution will appoint a member with authority to make








institutional commitments to the CRSP. The Board will elect its chairman at
the first meeting. The Director appointed by the Management Entity will be
an ex-officio member of the Board.

Since the recommended size of the Board is somewhat large, the Panel recom-
mends that the Board appoint an Executive Committee with authority to act for
the Board in designated matters. It was suggested that the Executive Committee
might be composed of three representatives of U. S. universities and two repre-
sentatives of collaborating host country institutions. The Board Chairman
should, of course, be one of the members of the Executive Committee.

Some concern was expressed regarding the legality of permitting host
country representatives to have an official vote in allocation of U. S. funds
for which the U. S. universities are accountable. This must have further
study. However, there was unanimous agreement amongst Panel members that, in
principle, there should be some representation of host country representatives
on the Board of Directors.

The Board decides broad policy issues, including the allocating of funds
to the participating universities and primary research sites and overseas rela-
tionships between the Management Entity and the individual universities.

2. Technical Committee

The Technical Committee will consist of the Director appointed by the
Management Entity plus the principal investigators (6) of lead universities
plus the principal investigator of the collaborating institution at each pri-
mary site (6). It is suggested that the Technical Committee might meet at
each primary site, on a rotational basis.

Suggestions were made for four subcommittees of the technical committee--
one for each of the agroecological zones. This was judged to have merit and
would reduce the frequency of meetings of the full technical committee required.

The Technical Committee has responsibility for development of the total
program under this CRSP and for recommending to the Board the allocation of
funds.

3. External Review Panel

An external review panel should be appointed by the Board of Directors for
each primary site. It is suggested that each panel should consist of not more
than four members. Two of the members of each panel should be persons willing
to commit themselves to a continuing relationship to the CRSP and might serve
on review panels for all the zones. The other members of each panel should be
ad hoc appointments for review of the specific site and should have some famil-
rTirTy with the site and the CRSP.

Reviews should be periodic but not necessarily on an annual basis. The
first review should not be held at a site until the program has been underway
for more than one year.

B. Selection of the Management Entity for Soil Management CRSP

Representatives of each of the six universities were asked if their insti-
tution was interested in becoming the Management Entity for this CRSP. Cornell








University and North Carolina State University replied in the affirmative;
the University of Hawaii, University of Kentucky, University of Puerto Rico
and Texas A & M University replied in the negative.

Each of the two universities interested in becoming the Management Entity
was asked to state briefly how they envisioned it would be set up at his insti-
tution. The following summarizes the responses.

Cornell University. The Management Entity would be located in the Depart-
ment of Agronomy, which the soils staff are a part of. The Director would be
selected from amongst the senior professors in soil science. One such faculty
member had expressed interest already.

North Carolina State University. The Management Entity would not be in
the Soils Department. It would be attached to the office of Associate Director
of Agricultural Research Service and Coordinator of International Programs.
The Director would be selected in the same manner as any other campus position,
i.e., open recruitment.

It was pointed out that each of the six lead universities had one vote.
In the event of a tie vote, the meeting would be adjourned for a time and then
another vote taken.

The voting was completed: Cornell University 3 votes
North Carolina State University 3 votes

When the meeting convened again, the following procedure was suggested and
approved in the event of another tie vote: Dr. Lawrence Apple, Associate Director
of the Agricultural Research Service and Coordinator of International Agricul-
tural Programs, North Carolina State University, as administrative representative
of the CRSP Planning Entity will call a meeting of the administrative represen-
tatives of the other U. S. universities and they would decide the matter.

The second vote was a 3-3 tie again. The Third and final meeting of the
External Panel adjourned.









MEETING ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY

Washington, September 25, 1980


The Planning Entity recommends this organizational and management
structure for the Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program
(CRSP). It is understood that the details of this structure may require
modification and refinement after the collaborating institutions and the
management entity are confirmed. However, administrative representatives
from the universities recommended by the Planning Entity for participation
in the CRSP met in Washington, D. C. on 25 September 1980 and adopted this
as a tentative descriptive statement of the Management Entity.*

I. Recommended Institution:

At the same meeting, the group selected North Carolina State Univer-
sity, by majority vote, as the institution to be recommended as the
management entity for the program.

The organizational components and their functions are described below:

II. Functions of the Management Entity:

The Management Entity shall perform the following functions:

A. Negotiate and execute a grant agreement with AID to provide funds
for the CRSP.

B. Negotiate and execute with the collaborating U. S. universities
an agreement embodying the general principles contained in this
statement. These agreements shall stipulate that the lead U. S.
university for each research site is jointly responsible with the
Management Entity for negotiating and signing the necessary
agreements with collaborating host country and international
institutions.

C. Assume fiscal accountability to AID for all grant funds.

D. Employ a qualified CRSP Director and other such supporting staff
as authorized in the Management Entity budget of the grant. The
Board shall concur in the selection of the CRSP Director.

E. Make annual fund allocations to each project and obligate funds
received from AID through subgrant agreements with the respective
collaborating institutions, including suitable procedures for

Participants in the meeting were: Dr. William Furtick (U. Hawaii), Dr.
Theodore Hullar (Cornell U.), Dr. W. Fred Johnson (BIFAD), Dr. Morris
Bloodworth and Dr. Frank Calhoun (TX A&M), Dr. Thomas Dowe (U. Puerto
Rico), Dr. John Malcolm (AID/DS/AGR), and Dr. J. Lawrence Apple (NCSU).
The participation of Dr. Herbert Massey (U. Kentucky) was prevented by
inclement weather, but he has subsequently reviewed and concurred with
this statement.









fiscal and programmatic reporting and for commitment of cost
sharing. The annual allocations will be based on an annual
budget plan prepared by the CRSP Director with the collabora-
tion of the Technical Committee and the approval of the Board
of Directors.

F. Provide for central administration, in accordance with the
annual budget plan, of program funds allocated for purposes of
(but not limited to) the meetings of the Technical Committee and
its working groups, meetings of the Board of Directors, meetings
of the External Evaluation Committee, and reproducing reports,
publications and other documents.

G. Recommend and negotiate with AID the addition or deletion of
component projects and program elements or their modification
based upon the advice and recommendations of the External
Evaluation Committee and/or the Technical Committee and with the
approval of the Board.

H. Provide general administration of the CRSP through the appropriate
administrative office of the university.

I. Report in accordance with the requirements of the grant agreement
to AID and to JRC/BIFAD on the progress and accomplishments of
the CRSP.

III. Board of Directors:

Each participating eligible U. S. institution shall appoint one
administrative representative to the Board. Each institution may also
appoint an alternate representative. Board members should be able to
make institutional commitments.for the CRSP. They may not also be
members of the Technical Committee. Three administrators from
collaborating host country institutions will also be members of the
Board. (The term of appointments and the method of selection of host
country institutional members will be determined by the Board in
consultation with all members of the host country administrative
representatives group). The Board will:

A. Provide liaison between institutional administration and the
Management Entity.

B. Establish policy for the program.

C. Review the general expenditure patterns of the CRSP and approve
the annual budget plan for allocation of funds to projects and
overseas sites.

D. Approve the addition or deletion of component projects and program
elements and changes in program objectives.











E. Receive and utilize in its decisions reports from the External
Review Committee.

F. Review the progress and accomplishments of the CRSP.

G. Concur in the selection of the CRSP Director.

H. Form an Executive Committee (if deemed necessary) to plan for
meetings, to act for the Board between meetings, and to be avail-
able to the Management Entity for consultation.

I. The Board shall elect a Chairman by procedures and for a term
of office as determined by the Board.

J. Invite other host country administrators who are not members of
the Board and administrative representatives of international
institutions collaborating in the program to attend Board
meetings at their discretion and with their own support.

K. Schedule as appropriate special joint meetings of the Board with
the host country administrators (those not members of the Board),
the Technical Committee, the External Evaluation Committee, and
host country principal investigators for indepth .assessment of
program progress and for development of long-term projections.

IV. Technical Committee:

The principal investigator of each component project shall be a member
of the Technical Committee, and the CRSP Director shall be an ex-
officio member. Under the leadership of the CRSP Director, the
Technical Committee will develop plans for integrating the research
and training activities of the component projects to maximize progress
toward the objectives of the program. The Technical Committee will
develop liaison procedures with overseas colleagues to obtain their
inputs into program activities. The Committee will collaborate with
the CRSP Director on:

A. Development of plans for the research and training programs
including the addition, modification, or deletion of components.

B. Development of the annual budget plan for allocation of funds to
the component projects and overseas sites.

C. Development of policies on publication and dissemination of
research results, including joint publications.


D. Preparation of reports.




A
'I *.1P r


29

E. Establishment of Technical Subcommittees for each research site
as a mechanism of research planning, coordination, and
communication.

1. Membership of individual subcommittees will comprise the
principal investigators of the U. S. universities collab-
orating host country principal investigatorss, a represent-
ative of the country USAID Mission (by mutual consent), and
a representative of international institutions(s) where
appropriate. An administrator from the host country collab-
orating institution may serve as advisor to the subcommittee.

2. The annual plan of work for each research site should
originate with the appropriate technical subcommittee.

3. The normal channel of communication of each technical sub-
committee would be through the Technical Committee Chairman;
however, a technical subcommittee may direct communications,
as judged appropriate, to the CRSP Director, Board of
Directors, or to the External Evaluation Committee.

V. External Evaluation Committee:

This Committee shall consist of two or three eminent scientists. Its
members shall be appointed to specified terms by the Management Entity
in consultation with the Technical Committee and upon the advice and
consent of the Board and JRC. Members of the Committee shall be from
institutions other than those participating in the Soil Management
CRSP. The Committee membership shall be augmented as necessary from
an approved list of scientists for specific evaluation assignments.
The Committee shall:

A. Review the projects and program of the CRSP as requested and
provide written evaluation reports to the Management Entity, the
Board, AID, and JRC/BIFAD.

B. Make recommendations on the addition, elimination, or modification
of component projects and overall objectives.

C. Make recommendations to the Management Entity on retention or
elimination of overseas work sites and on the selection of new
ones as necessary.




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