Issues and initiatives relative to expansion of the soil management CRSP in Africa; a report to AID and BIFAD

Material Information

Issues and initiatives relative to expansion of the soil management CRSP in Africa; a report to AID and BIFAD
McCants, C. B.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Africa ( LCSH )
Farming ( LCSH )
Agriculture ( LCSH )
Farm life ( LCSH )
Spatial Coverage:


Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.

Full Text
Issues and Initiatives
Relative to Expansion of the
Soil Management CRSP in Africa
A Report to AID and BIFAD
March, 1987

Issues and Initiatives
Relative to Expansion of the
Soil Management CRSP in Africa
A Report to AID and BIFAD
Prepared by C. B. McCants
Director, Management Entity
March, 1987

Executive Summary
By telephone and letter the Management Entity (ME) for the Soil Management CRSP (SM-CRSP) was informed that AID and BIFAD were concerned that proper approvals had not been granted for the proposed phasing-down of the program in Brazil, for increasing the program in Africa and for revising the distribution of funds among participating universities. This subject arose during their discussions of a protest by the University of Hawaii regarding the level of funding projected for its program.
The letter from Dr. Gill requested that the ME (a) provide relevant background information that led to the planned program and budgetary changes, and (b) cancel a trip to Cameroon by SMCRSP personnel that was scheduled to begin less than two weeks from the date of the communication. A request by the ME for a meeting with AID and BIFAD to discuss the issues was not granted.
Encouragement by AID and BIFAD, since 1984, to reduce SMCRSP activities in Brazil and increase them in Africa was common knowledge in Washington and by the ME and by all program participants; it reached a climax in 1986. Approval to explore the potential for work in Africa, and specifically Cameroon, was granted with acceptance of the three-year work plan which began in 1984; authorization for the ME to modify the allocation of funds within the SM-CRSP is provided in the grant. AID and BIFAD personnel were in meetings where these subjects were discussed and were informed via copies of relevant correspondence.
The Board of Directors, Technical Committee and External Evaluation Panel were active participants throughout the initiatives. Support and funding for an expanded program in Africa is a major concern among universities in the SM-CRSP with the greatest potential for loss of funds.
A pre-determined plan was followed for considering an
expansion of the program in Africa. It included consideration of countries with agroecological zones, available personnel and an infrastructure where a collaborative program could be undertaken that would capitalize on available soil management technology. Significant attention was given to the potential for linking with existing programs.
This approach led to extensive investigation on initiating a program in Zambia that would have been collaborative with the University of Illinois. The initial results were favorable, but the prospect was shelved when the outlook became dim for continuation of the University of Illinois project in Zambia.
Attention was then directed to Cameroon due to its inclusion in the five-year plan for the SM-CRSP, the favorable response

from the USAID Mission and the potential for linking with IITA. The preliminary discussions were favorable and arrangements were completed for an on-site study, April 4-11, by representatives of IITA, the ME, Cornell University and Texas A & M University. The trip was cancelled in response to AID's request.
Funds received by the University of Hawaii are 19% of the
total SM-CRSP expenditures through December 1986 and projected to be 21% of the total during the three-year extension. Funding for the program in Peru and Indonesia was approximately 58% and for Africa 25% of the total through December 1986. Under the current budget projections the amounts are 47% and 29%, respectively, for 1986-1989.
Copies of communications and financial details related to actions taken are included in the report.

Issues and Initiatives Relative to
Expansion of the Soil Management CRSP In Africa A Report to AID and BIFAD
Prepared By
C. B. McCants
Director, Management Entity
March 1987
I. Purpose
This report is a response to Dr. Tej Gill's (1)1 oral and written request for information about proposed changes in research and allocations of funds in the Soil Management (SM) CRSP. In particular, Dr. Gill inquired about:
1. The CRSP's decision to investigate the potential
for intitiating research in Cameroon. (Under this proposed expansion, Cornell University would serve
as the lead university).
2. Recommendations to the SM-CRSP's Board of
Directors that research by Cornell in Brazil be
reduced and that changes be made in budgetary
allocations as a result of these shifts.
In a telephone conversation with Dr. Gill on March 9 and March 13, he stated that the University of Hawaii (UH) had contacted the AID legislative affairs office to protest the fact that its budget was being reduced at the same time the CRSP was considering an expansion of the program in Africa and the budget for Cornell was being increased to support this expansion. Dr. Gill reported that a member of BIFAD was disturbed that these program and budget actions had not received BIFAD's approval. Concern was also expressed about the need to avoid political difficulties for AID and the SM-CRSP.
According to Dr. Gill, AID and BIFAD had concluded that
representatives of the Management Entity, Cornell University and Texas A & M University should cancel a trip to Cameroon, scheduled for April 4-11, because the travel was to undertake activities that had not been formally approved.
1 Numbers in parentheses refer to reference documents that are
included in the appendix.

A request by the Management Entity (ME) to Dr. Gill's office for a joint meeting with officials from BIFAD, AID/S&T, AID/African Bureau and AID/Asian Bureau to discuss the issues raised by them was denied.
This report attempts to respond to the concerns of Dr. Gill, BIFAD and AID by summarizing the facts and reasoning that led the CRSP to consider revisions in program orientation and funding allocation.
II. Facts and Interpretations Underlying the Management Office
The current grant to the ME for continuation of the SMCRSP states that "North Carolina State University was
selected as the ME with total program and fiscal responsibility for the CRSP"' (2, Article I, Section D). This lanlanguage is basically the same as used in the initial grant.
The interpretation of the charge is that the ME will maintain close communications with AID and BIFAD to determine
their current views and long-range projections on areas of emphasis and priorities, and will keep informed on program
capabilities and performance among participants from each
university and host country. These facts are to be analyzed
and adjustments made as necessary and feasible to provide
the maximum support for AID and BIFAD objectives; such
efforts are to be undertaken in a spirit of mutual confidence and respect. The assumption has been that formalities
would be limited to those necessary to meet federal government and University business operations and fiscal
The Management office, under the leadership of the
Director, is charged with the responsibility to carry out the requirements of the ME. Consultation with and advice
from the Board of Directors (Board), Technical Committee
(TC) and External Evaluation Panel (EEP) is fundamental in
the decision-making process and subsequent operations.
However, due consideration has to be given to the fact
that the Board and TC are composed of administrative and
research personnel from the constituent universities. Naturally, each member advocates for his or her program. It is
not possible for the Director to always promote or carry out
actions that satisfy all four universities.
III. AID and BIFAD Signals on Decreasing SM-CRSP in Brazil and
Increasing Activities in Africa
When approval was given to initiate the program in
Brazil (3), and during the discussions on the three-year
extension of the program in the country, both AID and BIFAD
were apprehensive about this activity because it would be

centered in an AID graduate country. They, however,
accepted the ME's analysis that (a) the information obtained in Brazil would be applicable to other regions, particularly
some in Africa, because of similarities in agroecological conditions and (b) the information could be obtained much
more economically in Brazil than in other countries,
particularly those in Africa, because of the local personnel
availability and infrastructure development. There was a clear understanding with AID and BIFAD that the ME would
seek to capitalize on these two features and that the Brazil
component would not be viewed as a long-term operation.
In virtually all meetings with the SM-CRSP during 1984
and 1985, AID and BIFAD encouraged the CRSP to reduce the
program in Brazil and to expand the one in Africa. This
message became even more emphatic in 1986, due to pressure
from the U.S. agricultural sector to reduce support for work in Brazil and the public concern about starvation in Africa.
Among those urging the CRSP to restructure its program were:
Dr. Nyle Brady, Dr. Jack Robbins, Dr. Anson Bertrand, Dr.
Tej Gill, Dr. John Malcolm, Dr. Fred Hutchinson, Dr. Fred Johnson and Dr. Robert Kleiss. The prevailing opinion in
AID was recently summed-up by one high-ranking AID official
who, when told we were planning to reduce the program in
Brazil and increase it in Africa, commented, "Why reduce it
in Brazil? Why not get out?"
Given these continuing messages from all levels of
administration, it seemed superfluous and unnecessary to ask
for written approval; not to have undertaken initiatives
would have been irresponsible.
The common knowledge that the SM-CRSP should expand in
Africa is reflected in the five-year plan developed to
support the request for extension of the SM-CRSP (4).
Cameroon is specifically identified as a target country.
The fact that AID and BIFAD approved this plan was assumed
to be all that was needed to proceed with exploratory
details. The Grant (2, Article III, Section 2) lists the
procedures for initiating work with a host country. There is no statement or suggestion that prior approval for such
initiatives is necessary from AID or BIFAD.
IV. Exploring Potential For Expanding the Program In Africa
A. Formal Communications with AID and BIFAD on Exploring
New Initiatives in Africa.
Although a large number of the communications
with Mr. Cal Martin and others were informal, there are records of meetings or actions where the ME and Cornell

University discussed related information in the
presence of AID and BIFAD personnel.
1. At a Board meeting on October 17, 1985, the
Director of the Management Entity reviewed
the "Zambia Initiative by Cornell University"
(5, page 3).
2. on October 11, 1985, Dr. Thurman Grove of
Cornell wrote Mr. John Patterson, USAID!
Lusaka, to review his trip to Zambia and proposals for follow-up activities (6).
3. On October 14, 1985, Dr. Grove advised Dr.
John Malcolm, Mr. Marcus Winter, and Mr.
Leonard Pampa, on the exploration work in
Zambia (7, 8, 9).
4. On November 20, 1986 there was an extensive
discussion by the Board on the Africa initiative and phase-down of the program in Brazil.
In attendance was Mr. Fred Johnson of BIFAD.
Dr. Duane Acker was briefed on this discussion (10, pages 3, 4, 5, and 6).
5. A copy of a telex to Dr. William Judy,
USAID/Yaounde, to formalize telephone discussions was sent to Dr. John Malcolm (11).
6. Dr. Judy's reply to the ME telex was sent by
cable through normal AID channels (12).
B. Involvement of Board, TC and EEP in Considerations on
Expansion of SM-CRSP in Africa
All three groups have been active participants in
the informal and formal discussions on expansion of the
program in Africa. The underlying plan was that this expansion would occur under the leadership of Cornell
University, and would depend in part on a phase-down of
Cornell's operations in Brazil. Records of the fact that this subject was discussed occur in the Program Plan for 1984-1989 (4), minutes of Board meetings in
October 1985 (5) and November 1986 (10), and a report
of the EEP (13).
C. Management Entity Response
Urged on by AID and BIFAD to phase-down the program in Brazil and expand in Africa, the ME concluded in 1986 that it should take a more assertive approach.

Thus, recommendations were made to the Board at its
November, 1986 meeting that Cornell University be
encouraged to pursue efforts to establish a collaborative program in Africa and to post a senior scientist
in the region (14). The recommendations were approved
(10, page 4).
D. Divergent Views
Throughout the considerations, representatives
of the Board and TC from North Carolina State
University and the University of Hawaii have orally and
in writing expressed reservations to the Director
of the Management Entity about expanding the program
in Africa. Their concern is that such an action could
reduce the funding for their programs (15, 16, 17).
E. Initiatives
1. The Plan. We recognized that, although there is
a great need for additional soil management
information in Africa, it is a difficult area in
which to conduct collaborative research. Major
contributing factors are (a) the limited qualified
personnel and supporting infrastructure and (b) the large number of programs that are competing
for these scarce resources. Furthermore, the cost of an expanded program in Africa would be substantially higher than the one conducted by Cornell in
Brazil. The need to reallocate funds within the SSM-CRSP to provide the additional resources was
recognized and considered justifiable.
The basic plan was (a) to study agroecological conditions in Africa, (b) select areas where
the Cornell expertise could be most usefully
applied, (c) examine specific sites within the
areas with the potential to carry out a collaborative program and (d) submit a formal proposal to
AID and BIFAD for approval when all the SM-CRSP criteria had been met. The purpose of advising AID and BIFAD was not only to obtain its concurrence, but also to demonstrate that we had
received its message to institute program changes
and had given it a positive response.
2. Initial Investigations. Dr. Armand Van Wambeke,
Cornell University soil scientist, has extensive
experience in Africa. He, along with Dr. Douglas
Lathwell, developed a project proposal and
submitted it to the ME in October, 1984, in which

they outlined a specific plan for identifying the
areas in Africa where extropolation of information obtained in Brazil may be technologically feasible
Texas A&M, under the leadership of Dr. Frank
Calhoun, already had a program in Niger and Mali;
the plan was to link it to other programs that
might be started in Africa. Thus, Dr. Calhoun was kept informed on the Cornell activities, (19), and was provided opportunities to make inputs into the
evaluation (20, 21). The ME was kept fully
informed on all the developments.
3. Investigations for a Program in Zambia. Based on
the general studies conducted in 1984 and early
1985, and discussions with Dr. Cal Martin and
Dr. John Malcolm, the decision was made to focus on Zambia. The reasons were (a) encourqagement
from the African desk of AID; (b) the country contains agroecological zones where available TropSoils information is applicable; and, (c)
there was a possibility of linking with the
University of Illinois's ZAMERE project.
Dr. Van Wambeke, while on a trip to Zambia on
other business, and paid by non-SM-CRSP funds,
obtained more detailed information on the soils
and agroecological zones and reported this to Dr.
Lathwell, Dr. Calhoun and the Management Entity
(22, 23).
Dr. Thurman Grove, Cornell University,
attended the SMSS Forum on Soil Toxonomy and
Agrotechnology transfer in July 1985 and during this trip made extensive contacts with Zambian, USAID and other personnel with knowledge of the
local situation (24). The cost of this trip was
paid by Cornell University from non-Soil
Management CRSP funds.
There were immediate internal communications
in Zambia as a result of the Grove and Van Wambeke trip (25), as well as, communications from personnel in Zambia with Dr. Grove (26,27,28,29,30).
There was extensive telephone communications with
the University of Illinois and USAID/Lusaka, and
some confirming correspondence (31,32,33).
In late 1985, communications with the USAID/
Lusaka indicated that local financial support for

a TropSoils program in Zambia was dimming but
there continued to be expressions of hope that something could be worked out so that TropSoils
could provide some local assistance (34).
Efforts to arrange for a Soil Management CRSP
supported trip by Dr. Grove to Zambia to make
a further on-site analysis were denied by USAID/
Lusaka (33). However, because of the strong
interest of the University of Illinois in linking the ZAMERE program with the Soil Management CRSP,
it made arrangements for and paid the cost of a
trip by Dr. Grove in April, 1986, to study further
the appropriateness and feasibility of such a
linkage. The results were communicated to USAID/Lusaka, Government of Zambia and the
University of Illinois (35, 36). Dr. Grove
recommended that Cornell proceed with its plans to initiate a program in Zambia and to post Dr. Bowen
on-site (36, 37). AID/S&T was sent a copy of
these recommendations.
During the latter half of 1986, mission
support for the ZAMERE project decreased and the prospects for a program in Zambia substantially
diminished (38).
4. Investigations For a Program in Cameroon. When
the prospects for a program in Zambia appeared
slim, our major attention turned to Cameroon. It had been considered as a potential location when
we developed our plan of work in 1984 (4, page
19). Discussions with Mr. Cal Martin, Dr. Robert
Kleiss and others in AID and BIFAD indicated it
was a priority country on their agenda.
Dr. Pedro Sanchez, while attending an IBSRAM
meeting in Cameroon in January 1986, was invited by USAID to give a report on TropSoils work (39).
The results of the seminar and follow-up events
and discussions were quite encouraging. Dr.
Sanchez communicated this assessment to the Management Entity who then wrote to Dr. J. P. Ekekil and
advised him of our interest in exploring further
the potential for a collaborative program (40).
Cornell, Texas A&M and AID were provided copies of
this communication.
From information provided by AID, the possibility was raised of linking a program in Cameroon
with an on-going IITA program. Dr. Tony Juo, the
IITA leader of that program was contacted and

arrangements were made to meet with him during the annual meeting of the American Society of Agronomy
(41,42). The discussion was held and he strongly favored and encouraged us to consider Cameroon as
a priority site for expanding the program in
Africa (43). During the same ASA meeting, the
Director of the Management Entity talked with Dr.
William Judy, USAID/Yaounde who also encouraged us to examine the potential for a program in Cameroon
Two telephone calls were made to Dr. Judy to confirm Mission interest and to request guidance on appropriate procedures (45). His response was that
we make a formal request, via telex, which could
also serve as the official request for country
clearance as required by AID procedures. The telex
was sent, and a copy sent to AID (11).
USAID/Yaounde response, via cable through normal AID channels, was to approve the objectives
of the trip, the date, and the travelers (12).
Communications were undertaken with IITA to obtain
approval for Dr. Juo to participate in the study
(46, 47, 48, 49). Meeting schedules were arranged,
visas were obtained and airline travel completed.
The trip was cancelled after receiving the written
request to do so from Dr. Gill (1).
V. Budgeting, Allocations and Expenditures
A. Background
The report from Dr. Gill stating that the University
of Hawaii was dissatisfied with the budget for its program was no surprise. The ME had been informed by
University personnel of this discontent both orally and
in writing (50, 51). Exercise of political action to
influence a change, however, was not expected since the
budget had been approved by a three to one vote of the
Board (52).
B. Principles Employed In Budgeting Funds
The grant which established the SM-CRSP in 1981
contained a time-phased budget for each of the four
universities and the ME. Allocation of funds by the ME
to each university was based initially on a formula
calculated from data in the Grant. As we gained
experience, it became evident that this procedure was
unsuitable because it provided no flexibility to adjust

funding to individual program needs, program quality,
university capability or utilization of allocated funds.
For example, after three years the University of Hawaii had used only 54% of the funds allocated by the ME and
37% of the amount prescribed in the Grant (53).
At the June 1984 meeting of the Board and TC, the
ME recommended that the SM-CRSP shift from the block grant form of budgeting and fiscal management to one that is project oriented. Under this form, a given
program, e.g. University of Hawaii, would consist of a series of projects, each one self-standing and with its
own budget (54). This recommendation was
accepted. The procedure-was used in developing and
reviewing the Plan of Work for the three year extension (55). It became fully operational with the beginning of
1986-1987 program year, October 1, 1986 (56).
In June 1986, each program coordinator was asked to
develop a detailed budget for each project and submit
it to the ME by August 1. The procedure for analyzing
and acting on these requests are described in detail in
"Projects and Budgets for the Soil Management CRSP, 1986198711 (56).
C. Fiscal Management by University of Hawaii
This program has a history of under-utilization of
allocated funds during the peak funding period, over
expenditure during times when reduction should be
occurring and laxity in attention to fiscal details.
After two, three and four years in operation, funds used were 25, 54 and 74% of the funds allocated, respectively
(53). During the fifth year the ME reduced the allocation from the amount calculated by the formula. This
action resulted in an increase in the use of obligated
funds to 92%.
For the period October 1 December 30, 1986, the
University of Hawaii initially requested $161,000. A
request for an additional $208,000 was made later (57),
making the total for the period $369,000. The actual billings during the three-month period were $672,905.
D. University of Hawaii Faculty Participation
one of the fundamentals of the SM-CRSP is that the
research programs are to be led in large part by campusbased faculty. The program is not intended to depend
primarily on field-based expatriates. The University of
Hawaii has had the fewest campus-based faculty leaders of

any unive rsity in the program (58). The absence of
campus-based faculty involvement seriously limits its
ability to conduct a program of this type, and is
considered to be one of the factors contributing to the
under-utilization of allocated funds.
Their request to employ three field-based senior
scientists during 1986-1987 was considered unjustified, in light of the limited number of campus-based participants and the reduction in AID funding.
E. Actual Funding to Each Component for the 1986-1987
Program Year
The funding requested by each university for
1986-1987 and the funds which have been or will be allocated are given in the Appendix (59). For the
University of Hawaii the amount to be allocated is 103%
of the request; for the SM-CRSP as a whole its 86%.
AID imposed some restrictions on the use of funds
such that certain ones had to be used prior to January 1, 1987 and others could be used only after January 1, 1987.
Thus, it was necessary for the ME to allocate them under
these terms (60). Each Program Coordinator was fully informed on this situation and advised to use prudent
management techniques (61). The fact that the University
of Hawaii received a higher percentage of the annual
funds during the first three months of the program year than the other components should have posed no special
fiscal management problems.
F. Projected Funding for Each Component During the ThreeYear Extension, 1986-1989
The projected funding for each component is based
on the actual funds provided during October 1, 1986 September 30, 1987, plus the projected funding recommended to and approved by the Board (59, 60, 62, 63) is
given in the Appendix (64). A summary of the University
of Hawaii account follows:
$ 164,000 obligated October 6 (65)
$ 130,000 obligated November 3 (66)
$ 75,000 committed November 8 (67)
$ 900,000. projected December 30 (62)
$1,269,000 total

For the University of Hawaii, total reimbursements
from September 1981 through December 1986 is 19% of the
total actual SM-CRSP expenditures (68). The current
projected allocation during the three-year extension is
21% of the total projected SM-CRSP expenditures (64).
G. Redistribution of Funds
During the past 5 1/4 years, approximately 58%
of the total SM-CRSP funds have been spent in
Indonesia and Peru and 25% in Africa (68).
Under the projected budget, and assuming half of
Cornell's budget is spent in Africa, the expenditures
would be approximately 47% in Peru and Indonesia
and 29% in Africa. Given the admonitions from
AID and BIFAD to increase the program in Africa, the
projected shift in funds seems modest.


Table of Contents
Reference Identification
1 Letter from Tej Gill to C.B. McCants and reply
2 Grant DAN-1311-G-SS-6018, covering letter and
pages 1-4
3 Amendment 3 to Grant-DAN-1311-G-SS-1083
4 Global Plan, from "TropSoils Program Plan,
5 Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting,
October 17, 1985
6 Letter to John Patterson from Thurman L. Grove
7 Letter to John Malcolm from Thurman L. Grove
8 Letter to Marcus Winter from Thurman L. Grove
9 Letter to Leonard Pampa from Thurman L. Grove
10 Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting,
November 20-21, 1986
11 Telex to William H. Judy from C.B. McCants
12 Telex to John Malcolm from USAID/Yaounde
13 Report of the External Evaluation Panel based
on the April, 1986 Review, pages 14-17 14 Recommendations of the Management Entity
Relative to Programs. Submitted to Board of Directors, November 20, 1986 15 Memorandum to C.B. McCants from R.H. Miller
and reply
16 Pedro A. Sanchez, Analysis of Proposed
TropSoils Budget, November 18, 1986. Excerpts only.

17 Letter to C.B. McCants from M. Ray Smith and
18 Memorandum and Research Project Proposal to
C.B. McCants from D.J. Lathwell 19 Letter to F.G. Calhoun from A. Van Wambeke
20 Memorandum to C.B. McCants from F.G. Calhoun
21 Letter to F.G. Calhoun from A. Van Wambeke
22 Letter to D.J. Lathwell from A. Van Wambeke
23 Letter to D.J. Lathwell, et al., from A. Van
24 Memorandum and Trip Report to C.B. McCants
from Thurman L. Grove
25 Letter to Acting Assistant Director from
R. James Cheatle
26 Memorandum to Assistant Director from
R. James Cheatle
27 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove
28 Letter to Thurman L. Grove and F. Calhoun
from R. James Cheatle
29 Letter to D.J. Lathwell from Bal Ram Singh
30 Letter to R. James Cheatle from Thurman L.
31 Letter to John Nicholaides from Thurman L.
32 Letter to Thurman L. Grove from John
33 Letter to Thurman L. Grove from Willie F. Cook
34 Letter to R. James Cheatle from Thurman L.
35 Letter and Report to B.K. Patel from Thurman
L. Grove
36 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove

37 Memorandum to D.J. Lathwell from Thurman L.
38 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove
39 Pedro A. Sanchez, Cameroon Trip Report,
January 21-29, 1986, pages 10-11 40 Letter to J.P. Eckebil from C.B. McCants
41 Telex to Tony Juo from C.B. McCants
42 Telex to Tony Juo from C.B. McCants
43 Memo to File by C.B. McCants
44 Memo to File by C.B. McCants
44-A Memo to File by C.B. McCants
45 Memo to File by C.B. McCants
46 Letter to L.D. Stifel from C.B. McCants
47 Telex to C.B. McCants from Dunstan Spencer
48 Telex to Tony Juo from C.B. McCants
49 Telex to C.B. McCants from Tony Juo
50 Letter to Joanne Hale from Goro Uehara
51 Letter to C.B. McCants from M. Ray Smith and
52 Letter to C.B. McCants from Edwin B. Oyer
53 Funds Budgeted by AID, Funds Allocated by the
Management Entity and Billings Submitted for the University of Hawaii, September 25, 1981-December 31, 1986 54 Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting,
June 5-6, 1984
55 TropSoils Program Plan, 1984-1989 (Cover Only)
56 Procedures, from "Projects and Budgets for the
Soil Management CRSP, 1986-1987" 57 Letter to C.B. McCants from Goro Uehara and

58 Campus-Based Personnel Who Have Served as
Leaders of Active SM-CRSP Funded Projects, 1981-1986
59 Funds Requested by Each Component and
Obligated by the Management Entity, October 1, 1986-September 30, 1987 60 Funds Allocated to Each Component, October 1,
1986-September 30, 1987
61 Letter to Goro Uehara from C.B. McCants
62 Memorandum to Board of Directors from C.B.
63 Letter to C.B. McCants from Edwin B. Oyer
64 Allocated and Projected Budgets, All
Components, October 1, 1986-September 30, 1989
65 Amendment No. 6 to Subgrant to University of
66 Amendment No. 7 to Subgrant to University of
67 Letter to Goro Uehara from C.B. McCants
68 Budgets For and Reimbursement to Each
Component, September 25, 1981-December 31, 1986

ZC 23!EZ3
March 17. 1987
Dr. Charlie McCants Soil Science Department North Carolina State University P.O. Box 7113
Raleigh, N.C. 27695-7113
Dear Charlie:
This is to confirm my last week's telephone conversation with you that our office and BIFAD needs relevant background information which lead the Soil Management CRSP to explore, as we understand, termination of the Brazilian site, consideration of Cameroon as a new site, and changes in budgetary allocation related to this shift in the CRSP design. This requested relevant information should include, minutes of meetings of EEP, Board, ME or others, during the past year or two.
As the Agency and BIFAD is much concerned about the possible implications of any major change in the CRSP design we request that you submit a formal proposal to our Office requesting a review and amendment to the current CRSP plan. Such a proposal will be given an expeditious consideration.
In the meantime we suggest that you postpone the planned 3 person team visit to Cameroon until such time that the Agency and BIFAD has an opportunity to review the requested proposal and make a decision on its disposition.
Tejpal S. Gill
Renewable Nautural Resources Office of Agriculture Bureau for Science and Technology
cc: D. Bathrick
R. Kleis
F. Johnson J. Malcolm

North Carolina State University
School of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Management Entity
Soil Management CRSP
Box 7113, Raleigh 27695-71'3 March 23, 1987 (919) 737-3922
Dr. Tejpal S. Gill Agency for International Development S&T/AGR/RNR
Washington, DC 20523
Dear Tej:
I have received your March 17 letter in which you ask for information regarding certain activities of the Soil Management CRSP.
The background details requested will be provided as soon
as they can be assembled and organized into a formal report form. Preparation of an official request for approval to revise our program operations will be delayed until the Management Entity has discussed these recent developments with the Board of Directors and the External Evaluation Panel and receives their input into an appropriate response.
The trip to Cameroon has been cancelled. There will be no plans for travel to explore new initiatives until the current situation is resolved.
C. B. McCants
CC: Dr. John L. Malcolm
North Carolina State University is a Land-Grant University and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.

Reference. 2.
WASHINGTON 0 C -,523 DAN-131 1-G-SS-6018
Dr. C. B. McCants
Director, TropSoils
Soil Management CRSP
Box 7113
North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7113
SUBJECT: Grant No. DAN-1311-G-SS-6018-00
Soil Management Collaborative Research
Support Program (CRSP)
Dear Dr. McCants:
Pursuant to the authority of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, the Agency for International Development (hereinafter referred to as "A.I.D." or the "Government*) hereby grants to North Carolina State University (hereinafter referred to as "ME," "University" or "Grantee"), an amount not to exceed $870,000. This amount represents initial funding to support the University acting as the Management Entity (ME) of the Soil Management CRSP as detailed in the Schedule (Attachment A) and the Program Description (Attachment B) of this Grant.
This Grant is effective and obligation is made as of the date hereof and shall apply to commitments made by the Grantee to support Grant activities during the three (3) year period from September 25, 1986 through September 24, 1989.
The total estimated cost for this grant is $9,000,000. A.I.D. will obligate additional funds, subject to funding availability, up to the total estimated cost. However, the Government shall not be obligated in an amount exceeding the amount stated in the first paragraph above. The obligated amount is considered sufficient to fund activities through February 11, 1987.
This Grant is conditioned upon the University's administration of funds in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Schedule, the Program Description, and the Standard provisions (Attachment C) which are appended hereto and to which the University agrees by acknowledging receipt of this Grant by authorized signature below.

Page 2 NCSU, DAN-1311-G-SS-6$8-00, Soil Management CRSP
Please sign the original and eight (8) copies of this grant, and return the original and seven (7) copies to the undersigned, making sure to return all copies marked "funds available."
Joyce E. Frame
Grant Officer
Chief, Food and Agriculture Branch AID/W Projects Division Office of Procurement
A Schedule
B Program Description C Standard Provisions D Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement E CRSP Guidelines
Name: *.. ,,
HOWARD W. ETZEL Title: Assqc Dean for Research
PIO/T No.: 6361547 r...
Appropriation uo.: 72-1161021.3 fficeofinacalan
Allotment No.: 643-36-099-00-20-61 Budget Plan CoQe: DDAA-86-13600-AGll Project No.: 931-1311 Project Name: Soil vianaqement CRSP Total Estimated Amount: 9,000,000 Total Obligated Amount: $870,U000 Funding Source: S&T/AGR, AID/W DUNS No.: 99-099-0301

A. Under Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, A.I.D. is authorized to provide assistance in support of the Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP), including support of research projects identified for
specific problem-solving needs.
B. Title XII provides for the creation of a Board for
International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD) whose
responsibilities include participation with A.I.D. in recommending, planning, developing, implementing, and
monitoring Title XII activities.
C. BIFAD and A.I.D. have developed a CRSP approach to research in
areas falling within the provisions of Title XII. The CRSP
approach is designed to link institutions including U.S.,
international and developing country agricultural institutions,
under the auspices of a Management Entity (ME), which will be
the prime Grantee, having common interests in organized
programs of research on selected problems. The ME is to have
overall responsibility for managing the CRSP and administering
the funds made available by A.I.D. in support thereof.
D. Pursuant to the authority of Title XII, in cooperation with
BIFAD, A.I.D. developed a CRSP for research in the area of Soil
Management. North Carolina State University was selected as the ME with total program and fiscal responsibility for the
performance of the CRSP. The administrative work of the CRSP,
organized and funded through the ME, is achieved through the
Program Management outlined below. The purpose of this Grant
is to provide continuing A.I.D. support of the University as
the ME and participating Universities as detailed herein and in
the Program Description, Attachment B. All activities of this
program will operate under the "Guidelines for the
Collaborative Research Support Programs Under Title XII of the
International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975,"
dated June 21, 1985.
A. General
1. The objective of this program is to develop and adopt
improved soil management technology that is agronomically, ecologically and economically sound for developing nations
in the tropics.

Page 2
2. The funds made available under this grant may be used to
finance the costs specifically incurred by the Grantee in
the implementation of this CRSP in accordance with Schedule
ARTICLE VI FINANCIAL PLAN and Attachment B hereto and
subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.
B. Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of this Grant are to enable the Grantee
to organize and mobilize financial and human resources
necessary for mounting a major multi-institutional U.S.-LDC
collaborative effort of research and training related to soil
management by:
1. Linking institutions having common interests in organized
programs of research on this CRSP;
2. mobilizing and coordinating the research talent from
eligible institutions to ameliorate world food, nutrition and proverty problems by research in the priority area of
this CRSP; and by
3. Achieving optimum collaboration under a Global Plan for
information exchange on this CRSP with A.I.D. Missions,
International Research Centers, and LOC Institutions.
A. General
The Grantee is both the ME and Fiscal Agent assuming
responsibility for the performance of research for this CRSP.
In assuming this responsibility, the Grantee will undertake the
following tasks in the implementation of this Grant:
1. Continue existing linkages and establish new linkages with
developing country institutions (with the assistance of
A.I.D. Regional Bureaus and Missions), and work with those
institutions to define the portions of the program to be
done in the developing countries.
2. Maintain a program global plan that displays the specific
objectives, budgets, schedule of expected inputs, outputs and indicators of each project (both in the U.S. and with
specific institutions in developing countries), and the
critical and supporting relationships among projects. The
program global plan will also define the managerial and
funding relationships among program participants.

A description of the anticipated arrangements f subgrantee project, including relationships wit.
institutions, will be included in the program global plan to the extent that the planning for such arrangements has been completed at the time of program plan submittal. A
copy of the program global plan will be submitted to A.I.D.
for comment and will be used by A.I.D. to assess the
progress of the program and of its component projects. It
is understood that the initiation of CRSP activities with
any additional approved host country will include the
following general procedures:
a) on-site visits by U.S. scientists to develop complete
understanding between the host government
administrators and the appropriate CRSP entity.
b) Drafting and approval of Memorandums of Understanding
between the host governments and the appropriate CRSP
c) Identifying the highest priority global problems with
host country scientists at collaborating institutions.
Specific research areas will be identified.
d) Development of detailed work plans with the
determination of exact research site.
e) Drafting of work plans and budgets by the U.S. and host
country principal investigators.
f) Planning research facilities and infrastructures.
g) Research project budget needs and research goals for
future years.
h) As the program develops, put forth efforts to seek
means for expanding attention to research other areas.
3. The Grantee, in assuming responsibility for the performance
of research for this CRSP, and for the relevance of that
research promoting program goals, will undertake such tasks as may be necessary to integrate the research activities of
subgrantees and to promote the usage of the research
results by the LDCs extension system.
4. The Grantee shall, throughout the duration of this three
(3) year Grant, retain the right to phase out, on
appropriate notice, the activities of the program at any
overseas worksite, providing that in the opinion of A.I.D.,
there is good and sufficient reason for so doing,
consistent with program objectives.

Page 4
B. Eligible Subrecipients
The Grantee may make subgrants only to those institutions that
meet the requirements of eligibility as defined in Section 296(d), Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and which are so designated (see 43 FR 37049, dated
August 21, 1978). Other U.S. institutions may receive
subcontracts, but not subgrants. The Grantee and subgrantees
may make appropriate financial arrangements with LDC
institutions as necessary to support a research project of the
Grantee or subgrantee carried out under this Grant.
C. Review and Evaluation
The Management Entity (ME) will monitor projects' fiscal
management on a regular basis. Annual programmatic evaluations
will be carried out by the External Evaluation Panel (EEP).
Other evaluations will be performed as deemed appropriate.
(See "Program Management" below)
D. Related Activities
Each subgrant should identify any activity otherwise being
conducted by the subgrantee which is relevant to this CRSP but which is neither a part of the work encompassed by the subgrant
nor entails any obligation on the part of the suograntee under
this Grant. This should include a substantive description of
the activity, identification of the principal personnel
involved, and, if feasible, an approximation of the dollar cost.
E. Program Management
1. Management Office (MO)
The Management Office consists of two people -- the
Director and an Administrative Assistant. In May 1984 an
editor was employed. That position was jointly funded: 70 per cent from the Soil Management CRSP and 30 per cent from
the International Programs office of the University. The
two person administrative personnel staff, with the
assistance of occasional temporary labor, is considered adequate to meet the foreseeable needs of the Management
Board of Directors and Technical Committee Meetings
An increase in the frequency of meetings of the Board of
Directors and Technical Committee, both jointly and
separately, will be necessary in the future. Now that all programs are operational (this CRSP is an on-going effort

JUL 2 I 982
Dr. Henry P. Smith
Dean for Research
Research Administration North Carolina State University Post Office Box 5356
Raleigh, North Carolina 27650
Subject: Amendment No. 3
Grant No. DAN-1311-G-SS-1083-00
Dear Dr. Smith:
Pursuant to the authority contained in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, the subject Agreement is hereby amended effective the date of this letter to reallocate budget amounts to include research on soil of the acid savannas. The total estimated cost of this grant is unchanged.
1. Under the Program Description, add the following:
"5 Research on the Acid Savannas Brazil
Investigations with field work in Brazil with Cornell
University, North Carolina State University and the host
institution, EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropequaria will do the following:
a. Characterize the soil of the experimental sites on the
experiment station at Planaltina and on farms where
cooperative experiments may be conducted.
b. Seek ways to reduce the cost of lime and fertilizer on
the acid infertile soils of the acid savannas.
c. Develop practices to maintain an adequate balance of
bases, CA, K, and Mg in soils of the region.
d. Estimate the economic returns from lime and fertilizer
use under present circumstances and a range of possible
cost/price/yield response scenarios.

Page 2 Am. 3., CRSP, DAN-1311-G-SS-1083-00, NCSU
e. Explore ways to increase the rooting depth of field crops
and pastures.
f. Identify crops which may tolerate adverse soil conditions
or extract essential plant nutrients more efficiently,
reducing the amount of fertilizer and lime needed to
produce a satisfactory crop."
2. Under Article XIII, Bud et, delete "A. Budget Summary" in its entirety and replace wit "A. Budget Summary" attached hereto as Attachment A and made a part hereof.
All other terms and conditions of the grant remain unchanged.
Please sign the original and seven (7) copies of this grant in the space provided and return the original and six (6) copies to this office.
. Singer yours,
Morton Darvin
Grant Officer
Agriculture/Nutrition Branch Central Operations Division Office of Contract Management
Fiscal Data
AID's Obligated Amount: $3,450,000
Appropriation No.: 72-1121021.3 Allotment No.: DDAA-82-13600-AG11
(243-36-099-00-20-21) PIO/T No.: 931-1311-3621015

Reference 4
In establishing and funding the Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program, TropSoils, the Agency for International Development (AID) drew on a comprehensive set of studies and recommendations from the Planning Entity. The Planning Entity, an experienced group of experts in international agricultural development, assessed the need for such a program, articulated its goals and proposed a mode of operation. At the same time, the Planning Entity submitted what has come to be called a global plan. This global plan, endorsed by AID, has from the beginning been integral to the design and management of TropSoils. The plan that follows, updated to take advantage of new insights gained from the first three years of operation, renews the essential commitment to global attack and coordination on soil constraints to food production first set forth by the Planning Entity.
TropSoils' global plan, in outline, is:
--to conduct user-oriented research based on established
principles of soil management, along with
principle-oriented research as needed, to overcome soil constraints to crop production for developing nations in
the tropics.
--to conduct these studies in collaboration with partner
nations and international research centers so as to make
the best use of available knowledge and resources, ensure the research is adapted to both user and setting and link
people and institutions into active soil-management
--to deploy the research efforts according to
agro-ecological zones, which are groupings of tropical
regions that share many soil and climatic characteristics
in common, so as to focus the programs and facilitate the
extrapolation of results from one area to another.
--to establish and sustain long-term research at primary
sites in each zone and develop secondary sites as needed
to adapt new technologies to achieve the efficiency and
continuity necessary for sound soil-management programs.

--to coordinate work at each of these primary sites under
the leadership of a U.S. land grant university with
proven expertise in its respective zone, so that projects
draw on all the resources and experience of the university, both in the field and on the campus.
--to team these programs, and their respective networks, into a single, unified program, global in scope, assisted
and guided by the Technical Committee, the Board of
Directors, the External Evaluation Panel, the Management
Entity and the primary funding agency, AID.
--to encourage the broadest exchange among all components
of this unified program, through publications, site
visits, technical conferences and other regular
The background of this global plan, its components and expected impact, follow.
Projections are that food production must increase at the rate of 3 percent per year during the 1980's and 3.8 percent per year during the 1990's to meet demands in the developing nations. Estimates are that approximately one-third of the additional food will be produced on new land and two-thirds by increasing yields on land already in cultivation. To accomplish this goal, about 200 million hectares of newly cleared land must be brought into production within the next 20 years. This area is equivalent to all of the cropland in the United States.
There is enough land available to meet this need. However, the greatest potential for new cropland, as well as the greatest need for technology improvements, occurs in the tropics, where, without careful management, soil constraints will severely limit plant growth and food production.
None of the tropical lands available for increasing food production are ideal. The humid tropics and acid savannas, which for the most part have favorable rainfall and temperature regimes, have soils whose chemical properties constrain plant growth. The semi-arid tropics and steeplands have many of the same kinds of soil-related problems, plus population pressures and limitations imposed by climate.

Reference. 4
The areas eligible for agricultural development have been ic as some of the world s most fragile ecosystems. Thus, it will be difficult to both farm these lands and at the same time preserve natural resource base--the soil. Already, badly managed fields havE abandoned, and valuable forests are being cut and cleared to replace them.
Since soils play a critical role in the success or failure of
farming systems in the tropics, it is not enough to focus only on the crop or commodity. Appropriate soil-management technology is essential to the task of increasing and sustaining food production under the socio-economic conditions of developing nations. This technology is lacking.
The goal of TropSoils is to develop and adapt improved soil management technology which is agronomically, ecologically and economically sound for developing countries in the tropics.
Aciroecological Zones. -While developing nations in the tropics share in common such soil constraints as soil acidity, nutrient deficiencies, physical problems and water stresses, these constraints manifest themselves in varying ways and degrees from region to region. The strategy conceived by the Planning Entity, approved by AID and implemented by the Management Entity, is to structure the attack on the soil constraints along agroecological zones. While a given zone is not a homogeneous unit, the constraints are sufficiently common to provide a focus for the research. The zones and their basic features are as follows:
I. Humid Tropics. This is the portion of the tropics where there is no more than a three-month dry season and temperature is not a limiting factor to plant growth. The native vegetation is tropical rainforest. Soil acidity and nutrient deficiencies are common chemical constraints to crop production.
2. Semi-arid Tropics. This zone of the tropics is characterized by a protracted dry season of six-to-nine months duration. Erratic precipitation, wind and water erosion, desertification, soil acidity (accompanied by phosphorus deficiency) are major constraints to crop production.
3. Acid Savannas. This portion of the tropics is characterized by a strong dry season of four-to-six months duration, savanna vegetation and predominantly acid soils with inherently low nutrient levels but generally good physical conditions. Temperature is not a limiting factor to plant growth.

4. Steeplands. This category includes the densely populated regions of the tropics where soil erosion is a major concern. Soil properties, moisture and temperature regimes vary.
Primary Research Sites. The second component of the strategy is to utilize primary research sites within an agroecological zone. This feature enables the research to be concentrated in a manner that will maximize the output from limited resources and the continuity necessary for long-term research. There is a primary research site within each agroecological zone and there are two in the humid tropics. The countries with primary sites are:
Humid Tropics (Latin America) Peru
Humid Tropics (Asia) Indonesia
Semi-arid Tropics Niger
Acid Savannas Brazil
Steeplands to be determined
Lead University. A third component of the strategy is to designate research leadership responsibility for a primary research site to a U.S. university that has experience with the predominant soil constraints. This approach provides a means to utilize the scientific expertise in specialized subjects and to provide a focal point for overall program management. The TropSoils plan provides for the following lead university arrangement:
Humid Tropics (Peru) N. C. State University
Humid Tropics (Indonesia) University of Hawaii
Semi-arid Tropics (Niger) Texas A&M University
Acid Savannas (Brazil) Cornell University
Steeplands undetermined
Collaboration. The fourth component of the strategy is inherent to the CRSP concept--collaboration. The primary participants are AID, the U.S. universities and the collaborating country agricultural research organization. For the various zones these are:
Humid Tropics (Peru) NCSU; INIPA
Humid Tropics (Indonesia) UH; NCSU; CSR
Semi-arid Tropics (Niger) TAMU; INRAN; ICRISAT
Acid Savannas (Brazil) CU; NCSU; EMBRAPA
NCSU: North Carolina State University INIPA: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Promocion UH: University of Hawaii
CSR: Center for Soils Research TAMU: Texas A&M University
INRAN: Institut Nationale de Recherches Agricoles der Niger CU: Cornell University
EMBRAPA: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria ICRISAT: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

Reference- 4
In addition to the collaborating country institution, attention given to expanding the sphere of activity to a broad base of organizations with related interests. In this group are international agricultural research centers, to include IITA and CIAT, and count,,. other than those for the primary research sites, for example Mali and Cameroon in Africa and Ecuador and Bolivia in South America.
The role of soil management in the food production is to rectify mismatches between soil characteristics and plant requirements. Several basic concepts undergird the TropSoils experimental approach and serve as a base of reference for determining if a project is likely to contribute to the program's goal:
1. The research establishes cause-and-effect relationships between soil properties and plant growth, as influenced by climate.
2. The approach uses established principles of soil and crop
science. When necessary, basic research is conducted to clarify existing principles or, to explore new ones.
3. Technology packages generated through research are designed to be flexible enough to accommodate both the user and the resource.
4. The soil-management technology must be effectively transferred from the research sites to other locations, making it truly global in scope and application.
Research to provide soil management technology for developing
countries is dynamic and, thus, must be sustained. Research needs change as users of the resource change. This has been demonstrated in developed countries. Recognizing this need for continuity, the TropSoils plan uses a collaborative approach to establish a soil management research infrastructure within each partner nation. This collaborative approach develops in the partner nation a pool of trained scientists and leaders who can direct their own research and technology-exchange programs. Furthermore, it links people and institutions into a network that will serve to keep attention directed on ways to most effectively use and conserve the soil resource.
TropSoils is a research program. Its goal is to develop soil management technology that is user oriented. For the technology to

have an impact on food production, it must be applied. While technology transfer is not a designated TropSoils goal, TropSoils does have a vital interest in the ultimate outcome of the technology developed. Therefore, it will seek opportunities to interface with technology transfer programs, to provide constructive inputs and to use the results of these interactions in assessing and prioritizing its research efforts.

Reference. 5
Executive Committee of the
TropSoils Board of Directors for the
Soil Management CRSP
Westpark Hotel
Rosslyn, Virginia October 17, 1985
i. Committee Members Present
Dr. Ada Demb
Dr. Robert H. Miller
Dr. Edwin B. Oyer
Dr. E. C. A. Runge
2. Others Attending at Various Times
Dr. John Malcolm, AID/S&T
Dr. Tej Gill, AID/S&T
Dr. Anson Bertrand, AID/S&T
Dr. Jack Robbins, AID/S&T
Dr. Robert Kleiss, BIFAD Dr. Fred Johnson, BIFAD
Dr. John Coulter, World Bank
3. General Remarks
3.1. Dr. Kleiss recently has been appointed as Executive Director of BIFAD, replacing Dr. Fred Hutchinson. The level of expectation for outputs by CRSPs is exceedingly high -- perhaps more so than is reasonable, he said, and consequently critics of the program are quick to seize on any weaknesses or limitations to enhance their position. The situation is especially critical within AID at this time because of financial constraints and the resulting effect of all programs striving to maintain their financial base. He stressed the importance of conducting proarams where there is mutuality of interest for all collaborators in the CRSP.
3.2. Dr. Robbins focused on some of the criticisms directed toward the CRSP and suggested some actions that are appropriate. Much of the criticism of the CRSP arises from persons without technical backgrounds in the subject matter. Reductions in personnel within AID has eroded severely the number of people with the technical competence to evaluate or understand many of the S&T programs. Thus, more concerted actions by leaders of such programs is necessary to fill the void and help blunt the criticism. He spoke to the well-known issue that many field missions are either neutral or negative toward the CRSPs. The level of

support varies in proportion to the level of CRSP activity in a given country. At a recent meeting of ADO's in the LAC region, those from countries where CRSPs.are active were generally supportive; those from countries where there was no direct CRSP activities were generally negative. He stressed the importance of maintaining close communication with mission personnel in the collaborating country to help get the technology developed in place and of working with those in other countries where the program is relevant, to the extent that is feasible. He also stated that he "didn't think the CRSP should play a brokerage role." (These comments and one by Bertrand that 11CRSPs should not get involved in technology transfer, but take the information to the gate," leaves unanswered and further confuses the responsibility of CRSPs in the dissemination of the technology they develop). Robbins spoke at some length on the current controversy about the contribution of AID supported programs, past and present, to the current farm crisis situation in the U.S. He provided several documents (copies on file in the management Entity office) that refute many of the allegations.
The importance of the EEP was stressed and was said to be one of the strongest elements of the CRSP. Its role needs to be carefully considered and it should not be expected to be judge, jury and executioner. The EEP should not be "forced to do management work," Robbins said. Rather it should examine strategies employed and progress being made to achieve objectives.
3.3. Dr. Bertrand was not expected to attend the meeting due to a conflict; but due to a change in his schedule was able to be present. He requested that we do more to help the ADOs understand the relevance of CRSP activities. The Inspector General is studying the contributions of AID programs to improved farming in developing countries. Presumably this will include the CRSPs and Bertrand is concerned there may be some adverse effects. A preliminary report on another AID supported activity is said to conclude that, except for the development of improved rice and wheat varieties, the "IIARCs have been totally ineffective." He spoke of the need for more members of the EEP to participate in the review of the field sites. Presumably he was referring to the visit of Coulter to Indonesia, Thorne to Brazil and Niger and Hildebrand to Indonesia. The reasons for these actions were explained and he was advised that full panel reviews of the program in Niger and Indonesia are scheduled for 1986.
3.4. Malcolm reported that documentation is being developed which will allocate the SM-CRSP the remaining funds authorized under the original grant. The amount is $2.3 million and is for funding through September 25, 1986. The level of funding for the three-year extension has not been established, though he is hopeful that the $3.0 million per year requested can be obtained. He

requested that information on accomplishments be disse to him and others -- as rapidly as possible in order t program highly visable. He called again for more evid linkages among components of TropSoils.
3.5. Dr. Coulter commented on the problem of the CRSPs
meeting the high level of expectation, given the difficulty of the task, the time required to conduct meaningful research and the fact that measurement of progress is being judged on the basis of program impacts. Efforts are now underway to estimate the impact of the IARCs; this is resulting in considerable controversy. He suggested that a more appropriate approach may be to evaluate the CRSPs on the bases of their output rather than their impact.
4. Management Office Report
Some of the major developments in each of the program components that have occurred since the last meeting were highlighted. These are outlined as follows:
Acid Savannas
- Lathwell and McCants trip to Brazil in August
- Change in administration of EMBRAPA, Louis Carlos Pinheiro Machado, President
- Change in administration of CPAC; Dr. Guido Ranzini, Director
- Eduardo Dos Rios, New Board representative
- Zambia initiative by Cornell University
- Scientist exchange program
Semi-Arid Tropics
- Calhoun and McCants trip to Niger in June
- Status of program
- Budget issues
- Field review scheduled for 1986
Humid Tropics Indonesia
- Uehara, McCants and Cassel visit to indonesia in March
- Hildebrand visit in June
- Field review scheduled for 1986
- Change in team leader Colfer replacing Thompson
- Need for increase in on-site personnel
- Collaborating institution inputs
Humid Tropics Peru/Brazil
- Change in government in Peru
- Change in Board representative
- Change in project leader for Brazil

- Network development delayed
- Relationship of program to IBSRAM
Management office
- Personnel changes
- Emphasis on publications
- Manaaement review by AID
- Annual reports and annual review
- Request for external review of Management Office
- Data in Tables 2-6 reviewed
~.Board Discussion
3.1. Annual Review. There was a concensus that an annual review by the EEP of progress of the research and based on the annual report is desirable. The suggestion was made that the Board should attend this review but following considerable discussion no formal action was taken. The Management Office will consult with the Board, and to the extent possible, schedule the review so as many as possible will not have a conflict and thus can attend if they choose. The question of extent of participation by collaborating country scientists and Board representatives was addressed. The Management Entity was encouraged to obtain as much participation as practical.
3.2. Budget for Semi-Arid Tropics Program. Background information was presented by the Management Entity and the proposed actions in Table 6 recommended. The subject was discussed at some length by the Board after which it was decided to postpone a decision pending further study by the Management Entity. This study is to involve Texas A & M University program and administrative personnel and to include acquisition of more precise data on past and future expenditure actions amd administrative procedures. The Management Entity is to submit a report of its study to the Board for consideration.
5.3. Review of Administrative Office. The program director called attention to the reviews either conducted or planned for the research programs of TropSoils and suggested that a thorough review of the administration would seem appropriate. The program is entering its fifth year and much improvising and individual judgements have been made regarding policies and administrative procedures. While they seem to be working reasonably well, revisions can and should be made wherever they would improve operations and efficiency. The Board, in Executive Session, discussed the request and agreed to initiate such a review. The details are still under development, but the following general features emerged: (1) the review should be under the control of the Board, not the EEP; (2) the review team would consist of the

Chairman of the Board plus an outside consultant with in program management and (3) the study should involve Participation by the Program Coordinators.
5.4. Technical Committee. After discussing the historical functioning of the technical committee, there was a consensus that a need exists to better define its role and operations. The feeling among the Board was that more peer reviews of projects and progress could be beneficial. The value of a meeting of all project leaders was discussed and there was general agreement that this would be useful but costs and logistical problems may make it unfeasible. The subject will be discussed further.
5.5. Budget. The Board approved funding of programs for
year 6 at 93% of the level recommended in the Program Plan. The funding level for year 7 will be determined after the oral review is complete, now scheduled for the spring, 1986.
5.6. Board Chairman. The Board at its February, 1985
meeting agreed that the term of the Chairman would be for two years. The current Chairman, Dr. Demb, was elected to the position at the October 1983, meeting. The executive committee elected Dr. Ed Oyer to succeed Dr. Demb, subject to concurrence by the collaborating country representatives on the Board. Dr. Demb will communicate with the full Board on these actions.
Note from Director: Dr. Demb has been an able and
effective Chairman and a valuable source of counsel and guidance to the Management Office. Her rational and incisive analysis of situations and articulate presentation of her views and the TropSoils program have been significant constructive factors in the progressive development of TropSoils.

Reference. 6.
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
Cornell University
- Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
October 11, 1985
Mr. John Patterson, Director
USAID/Department of State
Washington, DC 20523
Dear Mr. Patterson:
During July I attended the SMSS Forum on Soil Taxonomy and
Agrotechnology Transfer in Lusaka as a representative of the Soil Management-CRSP (TropSoils). While there I discussed potential collaboration between TropSoils and Zambia Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development (MAWD) with MAWD. Minister Chinkuli and Dr. Nicholas Mumba expressed considerable interest and referred me to Dr. Patel for
discussion of specific possiblities.
Collaboration among Cornell, TropSoils,and MAWD seems especially
appropriate. Approximately 80 percent (24 million hectares) of the soils in the high rainfall areas of northern Zambia are highly weathered Oxisols and Ultisols. Constraints to agricultural production on these soils result from soil acidity and inadequate soil supply of phosphorus and nitrogen. During the past fifteen years Cornell and other TropSoils institutions have accumulated considerable expertise on such soils while conducting research in South America, the Caribbean, and West Africa. Technologies have been developed to overcome constraints and the soils are productive when properly managed. These technologies are likely transferrable to Zambia
after adaptive research to match them to local conditions.
Discussions with Dr. Patel resulted in identification of specific research
priorities that would be appropriate for a collaborative program. I visited the mission and spoke with Marcia Ellis. Mr. Gibson had left for his new assignment and the new ADO had not yet arrived. Neither you nor Mr. Perry
was available.

Dr. Patel suggested that a beneficial program would involved adaptive research on amelioration of soil acidity, management of phosphorus, and management of nitrogen, especially organic sources, in a project situated at the new research station at Mutanda. This location seems ideal. Population growth is rapid in the Northwest province and local food production is desirable. Soils at Mutanda are principally highly weathered Ultisols that are not only extensive in Zambia, but occupy substantial areas in Angola and Zaire. Consequently, resultant technology would be of regional importance. Mutanda is situated near the copper belt and services are reasonably available for expatriate staff. While this location seems desirable, we're flexible and open to alternate suggestions.
Dr. Patel's proposal is for us to provide two professional staff for field studies at Mutanda and one professional soil scientist to provide laboratory support at Mt. Makulu. Junior staff, as available, would work on specific problems under the supervision of senior staff. All staff would fulfill a training function for Zambian counterparts. Opportunities would exist for Zambian soil scientists to pursue graduate studies at Cornell. Dr. Patel suggested a schedule that would have staff in place by September for the 1986 growing season. This schedule would ensure a minimum of three years of field expeirments as TropSoils is funded through fall 1989. If TropSoils is funded beyond 1989, we would be prepared to continue studies beyond this date.
Dr. Patel also expressed a desire for us to conduct a workshop, preferrably in July or August 1986 on management of highly weathered soils. This workshop would serve to identify national priorities for soil research, it would establish coordination among soil research programs in Zambia, and it would serve as a planning tool for the collaborative program. Cornell has conducted similar workshops in Latin America which were well attended and proved very useful.
Recent discussons with Dr. John Nicholaides, Director of International Agriculture at University of Illinois, have reinforced the importance of soils research in Zambia. Dr. Nicholaides suggested that the ZAMERE program has identified the importance of soil constraints to agricultural production. He expressed Illinois' willingness to collaborate with potential TropSoils programs in Zambia. We anticipate collaboration with ZAMERE In research programs and the workshop.

Reference. 6(continued)
We solicit your comments on the compatibility of our proposed
with USAID objectives. If our programs are complementary, we requU,. yuu, participation in the planning process. We also solicit your consideration of financial support. Cornell's current budget does not allow for as large a program as that proposed by Dr. Patel. However, we believe that Dr. Patel's proposal is appropriate to the needs for soils research in Zambia. We will investigate the possiblities of reallocation of funds within TropSoils, but feel that we should simultaneously investigate alternate sources of financial support. Preliminary budget estimates for a research program and the workshop are appended. Current TropSoils support is indicated.
We look forward to your response.
Thurman L. Grove
Cornell /TropSoils

Collaborative Research Project Preliminary Budget Estimates*
Object: 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Total
Senior Staff (3) $99,000 $108,000 $120,000 $327,000 Junior Staff (2) 22,000 24,000 26,000 72,000
Fringe Benefits:
Senior Staff 25,000 27,000 31,000 83,000
35,000 35,000 35,000 105,000
10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000
35,000 10,000 10,000 55,000
International Travel:
30,000 20,000 20,000 60,000
Other Direct Costs:
5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000
Indirect Costs:
75,]00 80,000 82.000 237,000
$336,000 $319,000 $339,000 $984,000 Current Funding:
J~QQ J~Q J ~ ____ 000
I1OO9,0 00 24,000 130.000 36,3 0O Additional Funds Required: $227,000 $195,000 $209,000 $621,000
* Assumes rental housing available and that Zambia MAWD provides routine field equipment, e.g. tractors, plows, planters, etc.

Reference- 6(continued)
Workshop on Management of Highly Weathered Soils Preliminary Budget Estimate
Airfare (4 Americans, 2 Brazilians, 1 IITA Scientist) $15,000 Per diem: (7 days, 7 foreigners) 4,000
(5 days, 15 Zambians) 4,000
Miscellaneous: (programs, proceedings, etc.) 2,000
Total: $20,000

Reference -7
(607) 256-2287
October 14, 1985
Dr. John Malcolm USAID/S&T/AGR/RNR USAID Department of State Washington, DC 20523
Dear Johns
We continue in our efforts to establish a collaborative program with the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development (MAWD) in Zambia. Enclosed find copies of letters to MAWD, USAID/Lusaka, and John Nicholaides at
University of Illinois. Dr. Nicholaides has expressed
interest in collaborating throught the ZAMERE program that is managed by his office.
We thank you for your advice in this matter and will keep you informed of our activities.
Thurman L. Grove Cornell Trop Soils

(607) 256-2287
October 14, 1985
Mr. Marcus Winter USAID/AFR/TA/ARD USAID Department of State Washington, DC 20523
Dear Mr. Winter:
Cornell University and the Soil-Management CRSP have entered deliberations with the Zambia Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development (MAWD) concerning a collaborative soil-management research program on highly weathered soils of northern Zambia. Enclosed for your information are copies of letters to MAWD, USAID/Lusaka, and Dr. John Nicholaides at University of Illinois. Dr. Nicholaides
has expressed interest in collaboration with us through the ZAMERE program.
Thurman L. Grove Cornell-Trop Soils

Reference 9
(607) 256-2287
October 14, 1985
Mr. Leonard Pampa USAID/AFR/Zambia Desk USAID-US Department of State Washington, DC 20523
Dear Mr. Pompa:
Referrence is made to our telephone conversation of 17 September 1985 during which I informed you of our
interests in collaborative soil-management research with the Zambian Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development (MAWD). Enclosed for your information are copies of letters to MAWD, USAID/Lusaka, and Dr. John Nicholaides at University of Illinois.
Thank you for your advice and comments on our activities. We will inform you of future developments.
Thurman L. Grove Cornell Trop Soils

Reference 10.
NOVEMBER 20-21, 1986
Present were Charles McCants (North Carolina State), Ed Oyer (Cornell), Robert Miller (North Carolina State), Ray Smith (a new Board member from Hawaii), Lawrence Apple (from the Management Entity in North Carolina), and John Malcolm (USAID Washington). Ed Runge was elected Secretary for this meeting. Dr. Ed Oyer serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors for TROPSOILS.
Minutes will be distributed to the Board members and the Management Entity in attendance and after they have had a chance to correct the minutes, they will be distributed to Board members, members of the Technical Committee (project coordinators for the four universities). Dr. Charles McCants will send out the minutes after they are finally available.
Dr. Bob Kleiss from BIFAD was present for approximately an hour and a half at our meeting. He was introduced to the group by Dr. Ed Oyer.
Dr. Kleiss indicated that a letter from the administrator of USAID was sent to the Title XII officers at 35 different universities. There were ten points in the memorandum and the responses are available for review in Dr. Kleiss' office. Summaries of responses will be made and distributed. However, individual responses will not be circulated. Dr. Kleiss indicated that the survey was a 2 1/2 page letter and had gone out the last couple of years from Dr. E. T. York. It was sent in late May and contained questions such as "Why
isn't the technical support to missions used more?" Questions about the management of university projects versus contracts, etc. Generally the responses were good. They also went out to 70 missions and 50 of the 70
missions responded. Only 17 of the 35 universities responded. There was no
discernable dicotomy in responses from these groups.
Issues were raised as to the quality of university staffing and their preparation for assignment, promotion and tenure track for some university employees versus less than that for other universities for their overseas employees. Questions regarding the continuity of contractors for follow on projects evidently was discussed. Evidently there shouldn't be a need to go out for bids in some instances and sole source contacts can be issued. To use sole source contracts you will probably need to visit with the AID mission directors and the Assistant Administrator for AID in the various regions such as the Ivory Coast for Niger and Mali. Sole source follow-ons may also have to be discussed with the contract officers at the mission.
Evidently several summaries of these responses were made and have not been distributed at this point. Bob Kleiss did one, Buster Brown did one, and Irv Long did an unsolicited summary. Management of university projects came out as a problem identified by AID missions. They want more field authority for the Chief of Party on contract interpretations. Evidently AID has decentralized much more to the field in recent years. Mission directors now serve 42 months versus 31 months as an average tenure time.

Page 2
Dec. 12, 1986
Duane Acker is Agency Director for Food and Agriculture, S&T/FA, and has taken up his responsibilities. His deputy is Bill Furtic. David Bathrick, from
Peru, has been selected to take Anson Bertrand's position and will join the Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Science and Technology January 1, 1987. Irv Long retired and his position is likely to be filled by Dr. Curtis Jackson. This is the research and university relations position with AID.
CRSP evaluation is in a wind-down. Ed Hogan is doing the final report and it is due in December 1986. Dr. Kleiss feels that it will be a positive report.
USAID still does not know the budget for the CRSP. They hope to be treated no worse than centers and that will be a 13.5% reduction. There was also discussion on the definition of the CRSP objectives. Is it still the narrow research focus as identified by Dr. Bertrand or is it wider than that? Dr.
Kleiss feels we still need a clear research focus, however there is some criticism because of the lack of technology transfer for some of the CRSP that may be valid and needs to be addressed. CRSP's do not have the resources to do this transfer but it is a part of the collaborative research program as presently understood.
Dr. Tej Gil joined the group. He is acting in the position formerly held by Dr. Bertrand (retired) as well as his previous role within AID/W. He commented
that we are in highly uncertain times with uncertain policies with new people. One production CRSP (small ruminants) was critically reviewed and recommended for phase out. Dr. Brady asked that they not phase out any project at this
point. The centers' cut was 13.5% and it appears that CRSP will not be cut any more than the 13.5% according to Dr. Brady. Dr. Gill discussed various budgets scenarios. He feels the best is the 13.5% reduction but there is much ambiguity of what base will be used in applying this 13.5% reduction. Dr. Gill indicates that everyone is tense at this point and morale is the poorest it has been in his 16 year tenure.
The Inspector General's review is written. Evidently they brought up "what did the CRSP do versus what they said they would do?" He feels there may be a need to emphasize natural resource land conservation and environmental safeguards over production at the present time. There are many groups around the world that would support such an approach.
The budget approach at the present time needs to emphasize core funding and buy-ins. For example, mission support for specific research in various countries may be vital to carrying out objectives. The soils CRSP has more money authorized than we can ever expect to receive. The current limit for mission support to CRSP is about $100,000. We also discussed the possibility of grants versus contracts. Evidently grants such as we have are much more flexible than contracts.
John Malcolm discussed the Inspector General's Report. He feels the fact that they are called "Inspector General" gives more status to the report than the competency of the people preparing it even it the report is later refuted. He -eels it is absolutely essential to document objections to reports such as the Inspector General has prepared. We also need to keep in mind that people

Reference. 10
TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 3
Dec. 12, 1986
at the various missions in countries where we work receive most of their advancement and credit for planning programs that will be carried out in a couple of years. They won't be in their same position five years from now.
Consequently, we need to adjust and write our output to answer this short term need when it is possible to do so. He also stressed that communication is essential. The three-year progress report was good. We can't be this elaborate on a regular basis, but similar documents should be prepared when possible. With reduced funding, he feels we should continue to use all our sites but may have to change the way we run our business. One of the main problems in our Soils CRSP is determining what base everyone is using to calculate our budget. It was brought up that we have to make commitments to graduate students on a three-year basis and it is hard to do so with our present budgeting climate.
What strategy should TROPSOILS pursue was discussed. Should we stress the natural resources area? Obviously it is important to have something on
technology transfer, etc. It is also felt that deemphasizing productivity
might be useful with commodity groups. I'm not sure we were in agreement on this. We need to press forward with as much force as possible given the reality of our present budget. If the 13 1/2% reduction is on top of the
projected funding of $200,900/month, we would be at a spending rate of about $175,000/month. This is considerably less than all project coordinators feel is reasonable.
The Board discussed the need for a mid-course adjustment. The Soils CRSP was originally conceived to be a total research document. Training per se was not included in the TROPSOILS CRSP originally. Employing graduate students wasn't considered to be a part of training, but the purpose was to carry out research. Consequently we refer to graduate students as junior scientists and all of us need to do this consistently. It was also emphasized that the Soils CRSP needs to move with the times and emphasize training, institution building and technology transfer in addition to research. However, we will need to
prioritize among these based on the funding that is available. In summary, we need to adjust the Soils CRSP to the times in which we are working.
We also discussed the African connection. Cornell has moved toward Africa and maybe Zambia. The University of Illinois project in Zambia has an uncertain future at present. Movements to Cameroon were discussed and will be discussed further in the document.
At this time Fred Johnson joined us from the BIFAD office. He works with BIFAD and particularly is in charge of tracking CRSP.
Cornell responsibility in the CRSP was discussed further. It was mentioned whether or not we should continue to maintain differences between the acid savannas and the humid tropics. The soils are both acid and many of the same techniques apply. The bigger difference is that there is a wet/dry season in the acid savannas and that is not true in the humid tropics. Should Cornell phase down in Brazil? It qas a feeling of the Board that additional pressure to reduce activity in non-USAID countries was inevitable, and that a shift in

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 4
Dec. 12, 1986
resources from Brazil could be used to increase an African connection for the CRSP. In general, the Board would like to see Cornell maintain some ties with 'Brazil but that new efforts really need to be made in Africa, probably Cameroon. Evidently there is a Cornell-Rockefeller initiative on root and tuber crops in the Ivory Coast at the present time. They would like to look at Ghana and Cameroon as well but only have an invitation from the Ivory Coast so far.
In general the Board felt another African site should be pursued and that priority should be given to Cameroon. Connections with the Texas A&M program should be in Niger and Cameroon and needs to be considered by Cornell. Texas A&M needs to consi der Cornell Is interest as well. Possibly cooperation in
Niger as well as Cameroon between the two institutions can be accomplished even with the small amount of funds. We discussed the recommendations of the
Management Entity relative to programs.
The BOO endorsed a mid-course adjustment in the TROPSOILS CRSP program to increase emphasis on the management of natural resources (soil and water) to enhance the well-being of farmers while sustaining the resource base and maintaining environmental quality.
A majority of the CRSP resources should continue to support an improvement in our knowledge and a better understanding of soils of the tropics. The BOO requests the ME to plan and implement a shift
in program emphasis toward technology development and its dissemination. The BOO encourages the continuation of training of
U.S. and developing country scientists to perform independent soil management research and the enhancement of the institutional base that can sustain soil management research. To accomplish these
goals, the BOO endorses the Management Entity's additional
1. That Cornell University be encouraged to continue its efforts to
establish a collaborative program in the acid savannas and/or humid tropics of Africa, and to post a senior scientist in the
2. That the University of Hawaii be encouraged to initiate an
expanded program (a) to eval uate the utility of its "expert systems" technique for making soil management recommendations and (b) to establish collaborative relationships with other countries
in southeast Asia.
3. That North Carolina State University be encouraged to accelerate
its networking and technology validation programs in the Latin Amer ica-Cari bbean region and to explore the o 'pportunities of and potential for such activities in the humid regions of Asia and
A fr ica.

Reference. 10(conti nued)
TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 5
Dec. 12, 1986
4. That Texas A&M University be encouraged to investigate the
opportunities and potential for increased collaboration with other African countries and programs in the semiarid tropics and
to submit a proposal for relevant action.
It is the intention of the BOD that the program adjustments recommended above be implemented within the funding levels available but any major new initiatives in Africa must be dependent on
supplemental resources. This document was passed by the Board.
The big problem with the Management Entity recommendation is what to do with them relative to our pending budget reduction. Cornell has hired Buddy Bowen
on their staff and expects to place him in their overseas program. The
question is where? His Ph.D. work was done at the Brazil location.
in conclusion, the Management Entity should work out an orderly reduction in the Brazil operation with Cornell and channel resources to Africa to the degree p o s s ible. Certainly we need to be careful about sending the wrong signals to the Braz ili ans Any new African initiative needs to be at a level consistent w it h f un d ing. Adequate funding for an African initiative needs to be defended with Dr. Acker, Dr. Brady and others. Evidently there is supposed to be money ava; lable in Africa at the mission level since these missions were not cut to the degree the others were. There is also a need to solve problems in Niger to the degree possible before we split our efforts in such a way that we are not effective either in Niger or at another site such as Cameroon.
This pretty well summrarizes our discussion through November 20, 1986.
The Board reconvened on Friday morning, November 21st. Budget was discussed.
We are currently funded at a $200,900 level per month. The money not
previously used was rolled forward to fund the program from September through December 31, 1986 except for the Management Entity. Funding is now approved
through April 27, 1987. Therefore, any cut that takes place in the $200,900
per month level should take place after this time. Evidently any funding that
we receive beyond April 28, 1987 will be for one additional year on a calendar or fiscal year basis.
The document titled Projects and Budgets for the Soil Management CRSP 1986 to 1987 was discussed. The sunmmary is on pages 5, 6, and 7 and are allI based on
a S200,900/month basis. Obviously these will have to change and priorities
made when we know our final budget. For example, Cornell's budget on page 10
for project 103 is new and relates to Dr. Buddy Bowen's program. Existing
projects will have to be looked at very closely after funding is available. .bviousl.' the program coordinators, the Management Entity, as well as the Board of Directors will have to be involved in making these decisions. Decisions on
vacant positions and other matters need to be postponed until funding is 7 4e were joined by Fred Johnson and John Stovall from the BIFAD Board. 3udget
discussions were reviewed with them as well, and how to approach Duane Acker, who we were going to see at 10:00 was discussed. It was moved and seconded by

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 5
Dec. 12, 1986
the Board that the Board of Directors endorse a mid-course correction for the TROPSOILS CRSP. The recommendations of the Management Entity as modified by
the Board of Directors needs to be reviewed as part of this motion previously incorporated in these minutes.
Drs. Johnson and Stovall indicated that cuts to AID have a lot of exceptions, Africa, child health, etc. Taking exceptions meant the rest of AID would take a 26% cut. Centers and CRSP were cut 13% instead of the 26% the rest of AID's people took.
We adjourned at this point and went and visited with Dr. Duane Acker who had replaced Dr. Jack Robins.
Dr. McCants started our discussion by indicating that a substantial base of technology which was applicable to other parts of the world has been developed by the Soil Management CRSP. The real questions is "how do we go the next
1. Do we expand programs in Africa?
2. Do we increase networking?
3. Do we do more in technology transfer?
4. How can we do more when funding is being constrained?
Dr. Acker asked "what is the technology that has been developed?" Various members of the Board discussed the technology that had been developed which they felt could be used, such as looking at the landscape in the Peru area and determining what cropping production practices should be carried on at these landscape positions. The fact that the semi-arid tropics has a soil chemistry problem that overwhelms water utilization in the area is another significant finding and needs further research.
Dr. Acker indicated that CRSP forward funding through April 1988 is in place. The reduction in spending is projected at 13 1/2%. The real question is "what base is being used to apply the 13 1/2% to?" During the last twelve months, the TROPSOILS spent at the rate of $241,000/month. Gramm Rudman changes imposed a $200,900/month spending level. That was the figure Dr. Acker had in his printouts. Last year there was an 18% reduction in the CRSP, but there was no reduction to the centers funded by USAID. Evidently, AID will be closing one $340,000 project. Others could be closed but political reality is unlikely to allow it.
It was also emphasized that the cost of operating in Africa versus elsewhere is much higher. Certainly AID is interested in Africa and work there by the Soil Management CRSP. The cost of technology transfer program was also discussed
w-th Dr. Acker. Networking of the Peru projects using Yurimaguas as a training site for other countries was discussed.

Reference -10
(continued )
TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 7
Dec. 12, 1.986
The fact that soil problems in the Sahelian region are holding back the adaptation of improved cultivars such as sorghum, millet, peanuts, etc. was discussed. The soil acidity and fertility problem will have to be solved before many of these cultivars can be successfully tested or grown in many regions in this part of the world. Hawaii's experts systems extraplolation was discussed as well.
It was mentioned to Dr. Acker that Dr. McCants, Dr. Apple and Dr. Oyer will be visiting with Dr. Brady on Wednesday, November 26th.
In summary we had a very good visit with Dr. Acker. Good information was mentioned by each member of the Board of Directors in attendance and Dr. Acker seemed to be very receptive to the group.
The recommendations of the Management Entity relative to budget was discussed. The new figures were written in by all of us on Table 1. We really couldn't act on budget detail because of undetermined cuts. It was indicated what would happen to budgets if the $175,000/month figure becomes reality. The Board of Directors discussed recommendations relative to budget and it was decided to delay action pending future information. Dr. McCants was asked to redo the budget with this information. (Dr. McCants is presently working on this budget and will be turning it in soon). The recommendations are reproduced here as part of this report.
1. That the recommendations submitted in the memorandum to each
Board member dated November 6, 1986 on the subject "Allocation of
Funds from Grant DAN-1311-G-SS-6018," be approved.
2. That the projects ana budgets submitted in "Projects and Budgets
for the Soil Management CRSP, 1986--1987," be approved.
The Board of Directors also received the recommendations of the Management Entity relative to the external evaluation panel. There are three
recommendations of the Board in this category. Again, they are reproduced here as part of this report.
1. That the number of full members on the panel remain at three and
the responsibilities emain the same as previously defined.
2. That a panel of associate members be kept up to date with
recognized expertise in Soil Science, Systems Analysis and Socioeconomics and whose primary responsibility will be to
provide technical evaluations of individual research projects.

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 8
Dec. 12, 1986
3. That the Management Entity exercise its responsibilities to
ensure that the Panel Is recommendations are implemented as
appropri ate.
The Board discussed the need for major review of the Soil Management CRSP at the end of 1987 similar to that held in Atlanta in February of 1986. Full
scale reviews of the Hawaii and Brazil programs will be held in the next several months. In general it was felt that the annual review was needed and
should include Board members, EEP, project coordinators, etc. The best time to hold this would probably be in the fall of 1987, somewhere in the October to December time-frame. The Board of Directors moved that such a review be held
and it was seconded and passed.
The generic document with the International Board of Soil Research Management, Inc. was discussed. Basically we are in agreement with this generic document, but it needs to be finally approved after it is available in the final form.
This pretty well summarizes the discussion of the Board of Directors as we met in the Westpark Hotel in Rosslyn on November 25 and 26, 1986.
E. C. A. Runge, Secretary

W(J700 GA
9'7 13 3 2 2 3 -1NCSU SOILS RAL
8120955 I'-(3'T 1129 1: E'D "a-, 9 8 7
A M E M B Y A 82231-(N
0-43 '17.33
1- 1:7 T '12. 1987
NCISM 80,11-3 RAL
C M C, C N T 53
N 17 i B Y ;3 2 2 3 K% N
0 0 4 8 M *1 N (3

ACT ION De (rnn tt Reference 12
PAGE 01 YAUD01733 27171SZ 4227 814&93 AIDODDS YAOUND 01133 2;
STFA-01 TVA-01 RELO-01 AFMrS-93 /018 A6
I NFO LOG0-00 AF-00 /goo j
----------------------032041 271746Z /39
P 271637Z FEB 87
E.O. 12356: N/A
STATE 39065

Reference. 13From: "Report of t
External Evaluation
Panel Based on the
April 1986 Review"
A. Alternatives for matching the work program to the resources
available in view of the impending major cut in resources for
the CRSP.
1. Terminating one of the country programs
2. Making cuts in some or all of the existing programs
with attendant reduction in program objectives.
3. Finding less costly ways to accomplish the same objectives,
e.g. by closer collaboration amongst the four universities.
4. Supplementing the budget by other funding.
Various combinations are also possible.
B. Criteria used to select the agroecological zones when the CRSP
was planned were reviewed by EEP to ascertain if those criteria
continue to be valid for TROPSOILS research sites.
These criteria included:
1. Area of land involved in the zone
2.' Number of people involved in the zone; number
presently there and number zone potentially can support

3. Chances of achieving something useful by research in the
4. Level of support indicated by the USAID Mission(s) in the
5. Level of support indicated by potential host country(s)
6. Technical and socio-economic feasibility of research
7. Presence of ongoing development projects
8. Logistical problems involved in research conduct
9 Present poverty level (1/GNP) of countries in the zone
This led to the selection of these four agroecological zones for
the CRSP research:
1. Humid tropics 2. Acid savannahs
3. Semi-arid tropics
4. Steeplands
When funding below the anticipated level was apparent, the
steeplands program was dropped in order to keep a minimum size program in any one country. The planning group considered an
annual budget of $500,000 to be the minimum acceptable level for
any program conducted by a U.S. university under TROPSOILS.
Strong emphasis was placed on this criterion of an annual budget
of minimum size; hence the decision to limit the participation
to a small number of universities, in contrast to some of the other CRSPs which have a much larger number of participating
C Conclusion of EEP regarding continuation of research in
the four agroecological zones:
It is the opinion of the EEP that the conditions listed above
have not changed appreciably since the initiation of TROPSOILS.
Hence EEP recommends to the ME and Board that they continue
supporting the existing programs in Brazil, Indonesia, Niger and
In support of this decision, the EEP points out the following:
Since 1979, events in Africa have emphasized the need for
new technology to improve agricultural production. Such
technology cannot be imported from elsewhere without major modifications to meet the social and economic conditions of the countries concerned. Furthermore, the deterioration in
the semi-arid tropical areas is attracting more and more
attention from AID and donors generally.

The population pressure of people and cattle can only increase and can only be alleviated by increasing the productivity of the better areas and encouraging the
regeneration of the woodlands being destroyed rapidly by
demands of cultivators and city dwellers for firewood.
The world has become increasingly concerned about the
destruction of the forests of the humid tropics and there is more and more pressure to conserve these or to convert them to non-destructive self-sustaining agriculture. The
Amazon area and South East Asia are the primary targets for
these pressures.
Development of the acid savannahs in Latin America and Africa with their good potential under high management
would relieve some of the pressures on the rain forests.
D. The Management Entity should take a detailed look
at finding less costly waxs to accomplish the same program
Apart from closer collaboration amongst participating
universities, there may be opportunities for other international
institutions to undertake some of the work without use of CRSP
Supplementing the budget may be a possibility, though some of the funding may be short-term. Nevertheless, if the "core" of the program could be maintained, short-term funding could be
E. The above notwithstanding, the CRSP must adjust to a significant
cut in budget. Therefore, EEP recommends the following in
regard to TROPSOILS budgets andprograms:
1. Semi-Arid Tropics:
EEP recommends CRSP funding for the TAMU-TAES/NigerProgram
at no less than the level in the proposed budget.
This program may need some additional funding to maintain its existing size. While this program has had difficulty
in getting underway and some setbacks from personnel
changes, the proposed 1986-87 budget is slightly below the
minimum size envisioned by the TROPSOILS planning group.
As indicated above, the importance of the semi-arid
tropical areas in the U.S. and world concerns requires that

this program continue to be supported at a level which
will give it good chance to provide its potential benefits.
A small amount of additional funding may be required to examine the socio-economic aspects of the program. As a
beginning, a consultant might be added to appraise the
socio-economic studies already made in Niger by ICRISAT and
others, to ascertain their applicability to the TROPSOILS
program. This is a difficult economic and social
environment and the assistance of a socio-economist is
needed to determine the applicability of research results
to the zone.
2. Acid Savannahs:
EEP recommends CRSP funding for the Cornell/Brazil Program
at the level in the proposed budget.
If some additional work is undertaken in the acid savannahs
of Africa, additional funding will have to be obtained,
probably from non-CRSP sources.
The proposed 1986-87 budget for this project is well below
the minimum size envisioned by the planning group and has
never been as great as that minimum annual amount.
3. Humid Tropics:
a. EEP recommends CRSP funding for the University of
Hawaii/Indonesia Program at the level in the proposed budget and that only two resident senior scientists in
Indonesia should be supported from CRSP funds: one
social scientist and one biological scientist.
b. EEP recommends funding for the NCSU/Peru Program at
a slightlZ reduced level.
c. EEP recommends continuation of the cooperative
arrangement under which North Carolina State
Universityprovides backstopping for a scientist in
Indonesia dealing with management of lands cleared
from forest.
4. Management Entity:
EEP recommends that the Management Entity look very
closely at the allocation of resources in the total CRSP in
the light of this evaluation.

of the
Management Entity Relative to Programs
1. That the research programs be designed and conducted in a
manner that will contribute (a) to an improvement in our
knowledge and a better understanding of soils of the tropics, (b) to the development of technology that has immediate application, (c) to an increase in the number of LDC
scientists with competence to perform independent soil management research and (d) to establishing an institutional base that can provide sustained soil management
2. That resources be allocated and utilized in a manner which
will provide effective support for each of the above stated
3. That Cornell University be encouraged to continue its
efforts to establish a collaborative program in the acid
savannas and/or humid tropics of Africa, and to post a
senior scientist in the region.
4. That the University of Hawaii be encouraged to initiate an
expanded program (a) to evaluate the utility of its "expert
systems" technique for making lime recommendations and (b)
to establish collaborative relationships with other
countries in southeast Asia.
5. That North Carolina State University be encouraged to accelerate its networking and technology validation programs in
the LAC region and to explore the opportunities of and
potential for such activities in the humid regions of Asia
and Africa.
6. That Texas A & M University be encouraged to investigate the
opportunities and potential for increased collaboration with
other countries and programs in the semiarid tropics of
other African Countries and to summit a proposal for relevant action.
1 Submitted to Board of Directors for consideration at its
November 20-21, 1986 meeting.

Reference. 15
North Carolina State University School of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Academic Affairs, Extension & Research
Department of Soil Science ':V
Box 7619, Raleigh 27695-7619
(919) 737-2655 X0 1,0
MEMO TO: C. B. McCants "
FROM: R. H. Miller
SUBJECT: Proposed Tropsoils Budget
DATE: November 25, 1986
The news of a further USAID budget cut for Tropsoils was certainly a shock and disappointment. It will test the patience of all of us, and it certainly will make your task as well as mine a great deal more difficult.
There are a number of observations which eminated from the Board meeting which need further comment. This is especially true since the Board in Executive Session did not take any action on a proposed budget.
1. It would be my desire that the Board of Directors be involved in determining
and/or approving the final proposed budget. It was not apparent to
me if this was the procedure which will be followed. It was a topic
left without resolution.
2. I am highly supportive of the gradual move of Cornell into Africa
as discussed and approved by the Board. However, I am not supportive
of the proposed increase in Cornell's budget to support this effort
until the latter part of 1987 or early 1988 when all necessary investigations
of opportunities are completed and the Board of Directors has met to
evaluate the chance for success and future impact on Tropsoils activites.
3. Although I recognize and appreciate that all universities in Tropsoils
will be seriously hurt by the budget reductions, I am convinced that
the NCSU program will be the most seriously impacted. Our level of
program activity and large variety of initiatives make us particularly
vulnerable. I ask you sincerely to provide us an opportunity to plan and disengage in a manner which will cause us the minimum of negative
4. It would seem useful for you, Lawrence Apple and perhaps Pedro or I
to meet with N. Carolina's Congressional delegation to talk about the
USAID agriculture budget in general and the Soil Management CRSP budget
in particular. Sometime in December or early January would seem appropriate.
cc: L. Apple
North Carolina State University is a Land-Grant University and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.

( ~'& ~ North Carolina State University
School of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Management Entity
Soil Management CRSP
Box 7113, Raleigh 27N95-7113
(919) 737-3922
FROM: C. B. McCants
DATE: December 11, 1986
SUBJECT: Proposed TropSoils Budget
This reply is to your memorandum of November 25 on the above subject. I appreciate you sharing these views and suggestions with me and trust the following response will be useful.
1. It was not clear to me from the Board's action on the
Management Entity's budget proposal, what was intended
to be the next step. I discussed it with Ed Runge and his
interpretation is that, because of the uncertainties at the time of the meeting on the base for the budget cut,
that the ME needed to reconsider its recommendations
after the situation was clarified, and submit them to the
Board for consideration. The problem with this delay is
that subgrants, including funding commitments, must be
developed and approved before December 31 for the Participating Institutions to have access to operating funds.
I have prepared another budget based on a new set of
criteria and submitted it to Dr. Apple. The figures in
this proposal are the basis for the budgets given in the
subgrants. After he has responded to the proposal and any adjustments made, it will be transmitted to the Board for
action. Any changes arising from Board recommendations
will be incorporated into the subgrants via the amendment
2. With respect to the Cornell initiative in Africa, aside
from personnel costs there is less than $5000 budgeted
for new programs. Thus the major portion of the funding for any work they undertake in Africa will need to come
V, by diversion from Brazil or from other sources. Thus the
only way to significantly reduce the cost of the African
initiative being undertaken by Cornell would be to terminate Bowen's appointment, an action I'm not prepared
to support.
3. You can be assured of my continued efforts to assist the
North Carolina State University is a Land-Grant University and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.

Reference 15
N. C. State program in its difficult transition tion. However, I do not think it will be usefu in terms of accomplishing this by assuming sig
reallocations of funds from other programs.
4. We need to continue to make known the assets of our
program and how they can contribute to the management of tropical soils and the significant accomplishments that
we've achieved. I don't believe, however, that it will be
productive to singularily engage legislative bodies on this issue at this time. I'm concerned that it would be
counterproductive. At a later date and through some jointly organized effort, we could have some impact.

Reference. 16
From: Sanchez, P.
"Analysis of
Proposed TropSoil
November 18, 1985
b) Page 2. Personnel: NCSU was the only university that suffered a
cut in personnel already employed for the period Jan 1-Sept 30,
c) Cornell: Africa is not included nor mentioned in any of Cornell's
projects. The Cornell budget increase is therefore to support Cerrado research in Brazil, a low priority in USAID's eyes and very difficult to justify. If Cornell is to be involved in Africa, specific projects for Africa should be developed before budget
approval is given by the Board of Directors.
5. The cuts are not uniformly distributed. The projections for Year 7 and
8 show the following cuts as percent of peak funding years:
Hawaii 45%
NCSU 41%
Texas 31%
ME 10%
Cornell +2%
6. In terms of the total CRSP budget, the changes in distribution among
institutions in Year 4 vs. Years 7 and 8 are:
% of CRSP % of CRSP
Year 4 Year 7 and 8 Change
NCSU 32 25 -7
Hawaii 22 16 -6
Texas 22 21 -1
ME 13 19 +6
Cornell 10 18 +8

Reference. 17
University of Hawaii at Manoa
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources Gilmore Hall 202 e 3050 Maile Way
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Office of the Director January 15, 1987
Dr. Charles B. McCants
Soil Management CRSP
N.C. State University
Box 7113
Raleigh, NC 27695-7113
Dear Charlie:
Upon my return from the TROPSOILS Board of Directors Meeting and also after receiving Dr. Goro Uehara's report of the Program Coordinator's Meeting. I discussed the projected budgets for all Soil Management CRSP components prepared by the Management Entity with our College Administration (Dean and Director). I have attached a copy of our analysis of the obligated and projected distribution of funds and several comparisons of monthly rates among the CRSP components. Needless to say, we are somewhat displeased with this projection. As a Board Member of Tropsoils, I feel obligated to present this reaction to you and ask you to consider taking steps to correct the disproportionate distribution of allocated funds among TROPSOILS components.
We have reread the discussion notes and minutes from previous BOD meetings and also detailed notes and communications on the current status of TROPSOILS prepared by Dr. Ada Demb before leaving the Board. Nowhere in these documents and records of previous discussion and decisions of the BOD do we find any indication of program deficiency or lack of performance in the Hawaii program to explain or justify your projected distribution of funds. In fact, the results of the most recent EEP review of the Soils Management CRSP provide a recommendation that the Hawaii program be continued at the same level, with no indication of the desirability of a disproportionate cut of the Hawaii program with respect to the other components.
The projected distribution of funds will clearly weaken and drastically
reduce the Hawaii component activities. I know this is also true for the North Carolina State program, but the Hawaii component will be taking a larger percentage cut relative to all other TROPSOILS components.

Dr. Charles B. McCants -2- January 5, 1987
We believe that Dr. Goro Uehara has effectively defined the goals of the
Hawaii program, namely, to improve and validate its soil acidity expert system and to develop a soil phosphorus model. Further, indications are that these results can be readily coupled with the soil-plant water balance model at Texas A&M and the soil nitrogen management capability at Cornell.
The informal feedback that the UH has received from Indonesia is that the TROPSOILS is very highly regarded and praised by officials and field scientists of both AARD and the USAID Mission. The projects are in mid-course, and despite staff changes during the past year, the results are now beginning to be transmitted into needed soil management recommendations for resource poor farmers in Indonesia. But even more important is the fact that the UH program is now prepared to produce a soil management information system based on the work done by UH, Cornell, and Texas A&M that will p1ovide answers to questions about the management of soil acidity, phosphorus and nitrogen, and water balance for both millet and rice, in environments ranging from the semi-arid to the humid tropics. We strongly believe that the final results of the program review in Indonesia scheduled for February 1987, will further bear this out.
In response to your memorandum of 12/30/86 to the Board of Directors
requesting Board action on the ME budget projections, I have related these concerns to Ed Oyer by telephone. I have further indicated my negative vote on the budget projections based on the following points:
1) The previous EEP evaluation report indicated that the Hawaii component
should be maintained at the current level (relative to other
2) It is reasonable that final decisions on the long-term budget should
await the February evaluation of the Hawaii component by the EEP.
3) The BOD voted in November, 1986 that no new thrusts in Africa
(Cameroon) should be initiated without new money being allocated to the
TROPSOILS CRSP. The relatively large expansion of the Cornell program
into Africa is contrary to this BOD action.
Therefore, I request that you consider developing a new distribution of
CRSP funds once the program review in Indonesia is completed that would provide some level of additional support to the Hawaii component.
I would appreciate receiving your response to our concerns and the above request.
M. Ray 3
Acting Assistant Director
cc: Dr. Goro Uehara

Reference. 17
Distribution of Funds to TROPSOILS Components. Dollars x 1000
Obligated Monthly Projected Monthly %
Rate 1/87 4/87 Rate 5/87 9/89 Change
Cornell 26.3 27.5 + 4.6%
Hawaii 37.1 26.1 -29.6%
NCSU 56.4 37.3 -33.9%
TAMU 42.2 32.3 -23.5%
ME 38.9 25.8 -33.7%
Contingency 0 4.7
200.9 153.7
Requested Monthly Projected Monthly %
Rate 10/86 12/86 Rate 5/87 9/89 Change
Cornell 29.0 27.5 5.2%
Hawaii 53.7 26.1 -51.4%
NCSU 73.7 37.3 -49.4%
TAMU 49.0 32.3 -34.1%
ME. 40.7 25.8 -36.6%
Contingency 4.7
246.1 153.7

Percentage Change From Requested Monthly Rate (10/86 12/86) to
Obligated Monthly Rate (1/87 4/87)
Cornell 9.3%
Hawaii -30.9%
NCSU -23.5%
TAMU -13.9%
ME 4.4%
Percentage of Total Allocation to TROPSOILS Components
10/1/86 12/31/86 1/1/87 4/26/87 1/1/87 9/30/89
% %
Cornell 11.8 13.1 17.6
Hawaii 21.8 18.5 17.6
NCSU 29.9 28.1 25.5
TAMU 19.9 21.0 21.6
ME 16.5 19.4 17.6

North Carolina State University
School of Agriculture and.
Management Entity
Soil Management CBSP
Box 7113, Raleigh 2*65-7113 January 30, 1987
(gg) 737-3922
Dr. M. Ray Smith
Department of Agriculture Equipment
and Mechanization
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Dear Ray:
I have received your January 15 letter regarding the
proposed TropSoils budget. The following background and facts are submitted for your information.
1. Initially, the Soil Management CRSP operated under a
block grant funding procedure; the various components
were allocated a predetermined amount and percentage of
available funds. In 1985, the Management Entity
recommended, with EEP support, and the Board approved
shifting the management format to a project oriented basis; requests, evaluations and funding would be by
projects. The procedure became fully operational with
the 1986-1987 program year.
2. Utilizing the information in "TropSoils Program Plan,
1984-1989," the Management Entity prepared a "Project Statement" for each project in the Plan and submitted
it to the respective Program Coordinator for review and
revision. The Statements, as approved by Dr. Uehara
for the University of Hawaii, are included in "Projects
and Budgets for the Soil Management CRSP, 1986-1987,"
referred to hereafter as "P and B, 1986-1987."
3. Each Program Coordinator was requested to submit a
detailed budget worksheet for each Project Statement,
including salary and related information, with the understanding that it would be held in confidence.
An example of one such worksheet from the University of
Hawaii, with salary information blanked out, is
attached. A summary of the requested budget, by object category, is given for each Project Statement in "P and
B, 1986-1987."
4. After reviewing all the requests, program operations
and projected funding for 1986-1987, the procedures
described on Page 1 of "P and B, 1986-1987" were
North Carolina State University is a Land-Grant University and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.

adopted. A basic decision was that currently filled
positions would be given priority over vacant positions.
5. The primary reason why the University of Hawaii appears
to have received a disproportionate reduction in funding
is that its budget proposal included requests for a
large number of vacant positions for the research
projects. In addition, its backstopping request did not
provide the personnel details requested, even though
several special attempts were made to secure it, since I
assumed that persons were currently employed in the
positions. These facts are shown by the following data,
part of which are given on Page 33 of IT and B, 1986198711 and the remainder calculated from information in
the Detailed Work Sheets provided by Dr. Uehara.
Funds Requested, 1986-1987
Personnel Costs $535,000
Current employees 258,000 Vacant positions 134 000 Backstopping 143,000
Non-Personnel Costs 110,000
Total $645,000
6. Even though the necessary personnel details were not
provided, the Management Entity did include $86,000
for backstopping. In addition, funding for a vacant GRA position ($15,000), plus funding for non-personnel costs
in excess of that requested, was provided. These facts are shown in the following table and reported on Page 33
of 11P and B, 1986-1987.11
Funds Projected, 1986-1987
Personnel Costs $359,000
Non-Personnel Costs 140,000
Total $499,000
7. When we received the notification in November of a
reduction in funding, revisions in the previously developed projected allocations for 1986-1987 were
necessary. The current allocations for the University
of Hawaii are projected as follows:
October 1 December 31 $164,0001
January 1 April 27 144,000
April 28 September 30 151,000
Total $459,000

Reference. 17
(conti nued)
lAn additional $130,000 was formally obligated and
$100,000 tentatively obligated for the October 1
December 31 period. Thus the total allocations for the
1986-1987 budget year will be approximately $689,000.
8. Projections beyond 1987 are highly speculative and are
for general planning purposes only. Actual allocations will vary depending on program priorities, progress on
individual projects and available funds. Attempts to compare funding between university components beyond
1987 is not considered to be productive.
9. While there is no a priori right of any University
to a given percentage of the budget, the 17% projected
for the University of Hawaii for January 1987
September 1989 in the December 30 memorandum to the Board is consistent with the University of Hawaii's
historical relative expenditure rate as given by the
following data.
Total Billings By Components of SM-CRSP
September 1981 October 19861
Component Total%
Cornell 780,910 7
Hawaii 2,004,295 18
NCSU 4,599,587 41
TAMvU 2,718,406 24
Mgmt. Ent. 1,177,545 10
Total 11,280,743 100
1This is the latest date for which billings have been
submitted by all universities.
10. In response to other points in your letter:
a. The EEP report in April 1986 assumed level funding
and I do not interpret it as recommending any special
considerations be given to the University of Hawaii.
The appearance of a disproportionate cut is due to the requests for a large number of vacant positions which
were not funded, as previously discussed.
b. Funding for the expert systems project, referred to
on Page 2 of your letter, is provided at the full amount
requested (see Page 55-56 of 11P and B, 1986-1987"),
contrary--to what you apparently have assumed.-

c. Substantial funding for soil-phosphorus modeling
is still provided, though after five years, no definitive results from this activity have been presented.
d. The program at Sitiung has received good reviews and Carol Colfer's leadership, influence and productivity were unquestionably outstanding. However, in assessing the program at Sitiung, the major impact of
North Carolina State University must be included due to
the input of on-site senior scientist Dr. Mike Wade,
graduate students Dan Gill and Karim Makarim and back-up
campus faculty, Dr. Kamprath and Dr. Cassel.
e. I talked with Ada Demb many times on a range
of concerns about the University of Hawaii program.
However, I did not feel it necessary nor desirable
to formalize them in writing. Her response was always
one of support and defense of the questioned activities.
I have talked also with Goro on several occasions about
(a) lack of any meaningful research program output by
Dr. Thompson, during his time with the program (b) lack
of University of Hawaii graduate students in the field
program (only two in five years), (c) failure to utilize funds on a timely basis, (d) questionable qualifications of Dr. Guyton for the needs of the program in Indonesia
and (e) the low productivity of the program.
f. The CRSP is structured around major inputs by
campus based faculty. To date, there have been only
two University of Hawaii faculty with any apparent
input into the program, Dr. Uehara and Dr. Yost.
g. The decision to provide a relative increase in
funding to Cornell University was made by the Management Entity based on the following primary considerations: (1) a shift in its operations from Brazil to
Africa, (2) high campus-based faculty input into the
program, currently numbering seven, (3) quality of its
work (4) capability to conduct and manage a larger
program and (5) low backstopping costs resulting from
substantial campus administrative support.
My conclusion is (a) that the relative proportion of the funds allocated and projected for the University of Hawaii is consistent with its historical expenditure pattern, program performance and management potential and (b) the amount allocated and projected should enable it to conduct a productive program that focuses on high priority issues within its area of' expertise.

Reference. 17
I'll be pleased to discuss the budget and program with you and Goro at any level of detail you desire after the EEP review is complete and to work with you all to maximize the outputs consistent with available resources.
Since your letter pertains to a matter involving the Board of Directors, I'm sending them a copy of my response.
C. B. McCants Director
cc: Dr. Goro Uehara
Dr. E. B. Oyer
Dr. R. H. Miller Dr. E.C.A. Runge
Dr. J. L. Malcolm

Reference 18New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
October 24, 1984
TO: Dr. C.B. McCants FROM: D.J. Lathwell RE: Future sites for collaborative research
Enclosed is a project proposal Dr. Van Wambeke and I prepared for
site review for extrapolation of the acid savanna research. In addition maps with estimates of potential areas that Dr. Van Wambeke prepared are included.
You may wish to fund this through the Management Entity as our overhead rate is now approaching 70% and yours may be somewhat lower and result in some saving to the overall CRSP costs. I leave that to you, however.
It does appear that there are significant land areas where extrapolation of results might be tested. We believe this is worthy of investigation.

Program: Management of Soils of the Acid Savannas
Project Leader: D.J. Lathwell, Professor of Soil Science
A. Van Wambeke, Professor of Soil Science, Cornell University
C.B. McCants, Director, Management Entity
Research Topic Title: Evaluation of sites in the Acid Savannas for future
collaborative research
Goals: To locate sites in Latin America and Africa on soils of the acid savannas and to develop linkages with host country institutions where future collaborative research of mutual interest might take place.
Project: Site visitation and evaluation for future collaborative research
1) To construct soils, climate, and vegetation maps of the continents
to locate and describe the acid savanna regions of the world.
2) To establish contacts with institutions in several countries where
acid savannas occur.
3) To visit several countries to determine the feasibility of
developing collaborative research programs complementary to that
under way at CPAC.
Reasons for the project:
At least one-half of the acid savanna regions are found outside the
main body of them in Brazil. Large areas occur in Colombia and
Venezuela in South America and limited areas are found in Central America. Extensive areas of acid savannas are found in West and
Southern Africa. While we believe it is reasonable to expect that much
of the work on the Oxisols in de Cerrados of Brazil can be transferred to
Oxisols with similar properties in other regions. The behavior of the
Ultisols may be somewhat different. The extent of these two soil
orders in the acid savanna region needs to be known. This would be
followed by contact and visitation with institutions in potential host
Relevance to other programs:
If, indeed, suitable sites can be located and working relations
established with host institutions, then the results of research from
CPAC can be tested and its suitability for other regions projected.
Generalized procedure:
Information on soils, climate, and vegetation for Africa is being put
together to locate regions of similar conditions. Contacts will be

Reference. 18
(conti nued)
made by collaborators from Cornell and the Management entit:.
determine the potential for working in these regions (or countries).
If suitable conditions are found then a collaborative program will be
explored and developed.
Potential sites for collaboration:
Panama in Latin America offers potential as Cornell already has a
program underway. The soils are Oxisols but the savannas are limited.
In West Africa, the Ivory Coast offers possibilities as a potential
site. In Southern Africa, Zambia appears to offer promise. Other
possibilities may exist in Central Africa. Anticipated duration:
The phase of establishing contact and exploring possibilities should
take from 6 months to a year. January 1, 1985 to December 1, 1985.

Object 1/l/85 12/31/85
Salaries None
West Africa 15,000
Southern Africa 20,000
Direct Costs 2,000
Copying, etc.
Indirect Costs 26,000
Total $63,000

Reference. -18
Estimates of Areas with Acid Savannahs in Africa
The source was the FAO Soil Map of Africa (1977). Ferralsols were taken as the equivalent of Oxisols. Acrisols were correlated with Ultisols, and the Ferralic Arenosols considered to be similar to Psamments.
The comparison between the Cerrado in South America with the African savannahs results in the following table (in hectares
South America Africa
Oxisols 94.5 182.6
Psamments 34.3 58.5
Ultisols 19.1 76.8
147.9 317.9
(million hectares)
The vegetation units of the FAO publication equated with the Campo Cerrado included in the computation all the savannahs (FAO symbol 4) and the large leaved dry forests (symbol 2c) of the FAO vegetation legend.
An additional table (attached) gives the areas covered by each soil component in each country. The Central African Empire, Zaire and Zambia are most typical for Oxisols, Tanzania has dominantly Ultisols, and Angola has large areas of sandy savannahs.
In West-Africa it would be worthwhile to contact Dr. P. Ahn who is at the Institut des Savannes (IDESSA) in Bouake, Ivory Coast leading a cropping system research team.

9 It
9 c
J- 41
20.4t 4, A,
2c id 411
3,1 4 ; 41
11' 31 c
T11p;_I'l in_1'
R u da od icil unrest 3.
Tr,,p:ca -anr. r,-9 tT "P rn-nt-n '- f-"t zt,
a d-1 -n Inrov
T-Pic.1 ttennidec d-., nnlne firrm 2h
1,arve le-d rain-cr-n 1- fi--t
a r-es, -1 -i-W t.... 3n
.. Manv--s
a Lm-l ... :1 -id,01-- I," -ann- 44
I': (In, n ram. 'P: i fho-trep Sal-na
In nd -d --na
Dr, a va a
Hi' dr, s-nna 1,4 1
1.- 20
c. Th-nk-h st-na Ze
111-1-In ,.I ,h,.I, b-h- (n,-hia) 71 a_--t
PartIv .,,R 4.
a U-ifnr-, In
f-st 11
-,rxne,, 1-6 f-eV 71
It kinfit
1, rd I "a, .1 fnr,,l
E v ak rin, r,-It 3. to.
r-st 41
FTF.r r F
-t-Mln 4.
mDarile drv hort,-5 qt-nne 4,
C. T-,nck t,pre
a, T 20
h" -i no -"le'" 96 10
hribby e evilentS
VT n I, a.d b I rpui,,l 5-id-r, I- -,,vitinn
Sicc lent iemideiert
e llaZ 5"i letter!
a. S bfrnof-l d"ert ilth ruihl- plants soh. Dl elle.ith I.."121.d t-ht.
, S and tl qprl 20
'J. T-v I r ., -ritan, d,,,rt
1. llilwh, 't, deerl Sc.le
1 4 el a tinn
a zoo .00 .00 foo
30. 10.

Reference. 18
6. DROA (continued)
'1-- 410*0
42 5
90 3
o too oo -01
j*** so3

0, f
90 14
94 4
c 9,1 it
- 4 It It
'52 4b
3o 3.
4..4, %
T-Id 11 I.-Is-ld .I., folietil
Ir"Id'al I
d r. I C
t 2o
1:1DECIMIOUS d Irt -st
T p
:dvo- rl-1; t, f-em 49
3, 'It I.- st (%IV c
, it-Ites-d r: g,rn 1,,
d .014f. try I-eil -th
- 11 Z, d
3 -n -I't A [I
It- ;a,....
11,ghl"Id, &Y ....
N p _d I u
A.. T F. AND
Nfj-I:jtArk. AND W(Nljl
i 2,
h.' .1'
ZO-1 4. 4
b: dry ss,,,o -Rrzs sti,
c r,, ,, it etp,
Sk N)Nb
Th -4 Id cde 'Its
C. I,
"'.o. ell
9 45F.If I FIMNIA I fulls
10 It-,, Ilh -01- Vivo,
b. U... rt 111,011
c S, ,I d 20
d. "I"ware o"firl
0 JOG 400 $00 Soo 000
L 4L -& e-ki k- ;L -.43

Oxisols Ultisols (Qf)
Angola 29445 1633 36043
Burundi 1722
Cameroon 3822 890
Central Afric. Emp. 32484 4507 9692
Chad 81 42 2700
Congo 492
Ethiopia 379
Ghana 180
Guinea 5434
Ivory Coast 8252
Kenya 2804 71
Malawi 3146
Mali 740
Mozambique 16749
Nigeria 2423
Rwanda 1040
Sierra Leone 1099
Sudan 13831
Tanzania 3010 31926 2878
Uganda 11547 2137
Upper Volta 111
Zaire 22556 23282
Zambia 38281 18
Zimbabwe 1022
182,639 58,543 76,778
57.4% 18.4% 24.1%
Areas of Soil Associations containing Oxisols (except Humox), Ultisols and Psamments under savanna and large-leaved dry forests (Myombo) in Africa not including Madagascar.
(source FAO, Soil Map of Africa)

Reference. 19New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
- Cornell University
- Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853
(607) 256-5457 0) ,
December I 0, 1984
Dr. Frank 6. Calhoun
Texas A & M University
Department of Soil and Crop Science
College Station, TX 77843-2474
Dear Frank:
I am sending you herewith the documentation I had prepared for Dr.
Lathwell regarding the areas covered by soil associations containing Oxisols, Ultisols or Psamments, where they occur under savannas and large
leaved dry forests in Africa.
From these data it results that Oxisols occupy the largest areas in the
Central African Empire, Zaire and Zambia. Ultisols would be dominant in Tanzania and Ivory Coast. Angola and Zaire are the countries which
contain most Psamments.
As we discussed in Las Vegas, it may be interesting to estimate the
area of the semi-arid tropics in Africa where CRSP research can be conducted or to which it can be extrapolated. You may wish to extract this from the FAO map to identify the countries which would physically be the
most representative.
On the basis of this inventory and other considerations, we may then
ask the appropriate individuals to select a small number of locations which would offer the highest probability for a successful soil research
activity in Africa.

I thank you in advance for keeping me informed about further developments in this matter.
A. Van ambeke Professor of Soil Science
AVW:vaw Enc.
cc: D. Lathwell
C. McCants
E. Oyer

Oxisols Ultisols (qf)
Angola 29445 1633 36043
Burundi 1722
SCameroon 3822 890
Central Afric. Emp. 32484 4507 9692
Chad 81 42 2700
Congo 492
Ethiopia 379
Ghana 180
Guinea 5434
Ivory Coast 8252
Kenya 2804 71
Malawi 3146
Mali 740
Mozambique 16749
Nigeria 2423
Rwanda 1040
Sierra Leone 1099
Sudan 13831
Tanzania 3010 31926 2878
Uganda 11547 2137
Upper Volta 111
Zaire 22556 23282
Zambia 38281 18
Zimbabwe 1022
182,639 58,543 76,778
57.4% 18.4% 24.1%
Areas of Soil Associations containing Oxisols (except Humox), Ultisols and Psamments under savanna and large-leaved dry forests (Myombo) in Africa not including Madagascar.
(source FAO, Soil Map of Africa)

May 17, 1985
TO: C.B. McCants
FROM: F.G. Calhoun .-RE: Acid Savanna/Semi-Arid Tropics Program expansion Africa
Attached please find the following:
1. Analysis report for program expansion
2. Letter Van Wambeke to Calhoun
3. Response from Calhoun to Van Wambeke
It apears appropriate that analysis and dialogue on program expansion into Africa on the part of Cornell and Texas A&M now merits your reaction to the
above docw uents.
Reaction of Management Entity to the joint recomendations in analysis for this effort would be appreciated. Specific reaction to the identified countries arind the mechanisms to achieve this joint effort specifically relating to items 5A-D and item 6 in the recommendation from Van Wamiibeke is needed.
Speaking for the Semi-Arid Tropics Program our primary concern at this point in time is the start up of the Mali Program, and balancing off the cost of that expansion program with the current costs of operating a fully staffed
program in Niger. ImplemLentation of a third Semi-Arid Tropics Research site in Africa will require additional funds from the core budget for the Soil
,anargenent CRSP for us to participate. A reaction from the Mianagemnent Entity would be preferable at this point in time before Texas A&m and Cornell proceed with a proposal for identification of a third research site for the semi-arid tropics and an African expansion site for Cornell in the acid savannas.
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station College of Agriculture Texas Agricultural Extension Service

Reference. 21.
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
(607) 256-5457
May 6, 1985
Dr. Frank Calhoun
Texas A&M University
Department of Soil and Crop Science College Station, TX 77843-2474
Dear Dr. Calhoun:
I read the report on possible expansions of the Soil Management CRSP's to Africa dealing with acid savannas and the semi-arid tropics.
I agree with the choices of countries which result from this study. It could serve as a focus on locations where to start further inquiries. It does not necessarily eliminate other possibilities.
Some remarks on the report follow.
1. I do not think that Cornell is interested in the development of soil management packages on acid leached Psamments. I believe we would prefer concentrating our efforts on Oxisols and Ultisols.
2. The report mentions joint research projects. I understand these are similar research topics to be carried out in different agro ecological zones. In my understanding it should not mean that we search for one site which could represent both the semi-arid tropics and the acid savannahs. The sites, of course, could be located in the same country where the two zones occur, and this may stimulate interchange of ideas and have a beneficial effect on the research.

3. The comments on Table 3 discussing the soil moisture regimes confirms my impression that an attempt was made to identify a station with an intermediate soil moisture regime between the semi and and the savannah environments. I do not think that it is possible to find such a site.
4. The four countries which have been identified (Cameroon, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia) should offer the best conditions for further investigations on locations of the CRSP projects.
5. The mechanisms to achieve this would in my view probably have to include the following steps:
(a) Consultation with the Africa Bureau at AID, Washington on conditions in these four countries with respect to the political, economic and social situation.
(b) A review of literature and detailed inventory of research capabilities, infrastructure, influence of the Research Institutions and the Ministry of Agriculture in these countries, and their willingness to cooperate with joint projects. Include the activities of the International Centers in the review.
(c) Visits to the four countries and preliminary discussions with potential institutions.
(d) Installation of projects.
6. 1 consider that the selection of African sites will require the appointment of a permanent senior staff member for a period between 12-24 months. He should be well versed in technical, administrative and diplomatic skills. Ideally he should speak French and English. I believe he should be at a centrally located site in Africa from which he can easily travel. I believe that Kenya or a country close to that location would be optimal.

Reference. 21
Please let me know what further assistance I can give to the expansion of activities in Africa and I will be glad to help.
an ambeke Professor of Soil Science AVW:vaw cc: C. McCants
T. Grove

Reference.22New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
- Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
4Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
(607) 256-5457
August 8, 1985
Dr. D. Lathwell
Agronomy Department
8th Floor Bradfield Hall
Cornell Campus
Dear Doug,
I submit a short report on my trip to Zambia in connection with
Tropsoils' plans to set-up research activities in Africa.
I have been able to collect climatic data on the major
agro-ecological zones in Zambia. They seem very similar to the conditions of most of the acid savannas in the tropical regions. I
also have detailed information on about 20 soils located in or close to experiment stations or farms. The samples were analyzed at the
Lincoln-Nebraska USDA Soil Conservation Service Laboratories and the classification of these profiles in Soil Taxonomy and the FAO system
has been done in the field.
Dr. Grove has been introduced to the Ministry of Agriculture
and interviewed with the Minister himself. I had an opportunity to
talk to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Zambia at Lusaka, Dr. Ben Mweene; I could not see the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Dr.Jay Mwanza who is a Cornell alumni. Dr. Mweene was
very interested in seeing US Universities involved in agricultural
research in Zambia.
At the USAID mission, I talked to Dr. James G. Snell, agricultural
economist, who said that the Tropsoils objectives were in line with the development goals of the USAID mission. He pointed out that Zambia, as well as Cameroon, is listed by AID among: the countries capable of providing the necessary infra-structure for agricultural research.
I had also an opportunity to explain the Tropsoils objectives to Dr.
Kelvin Martin, Agricultural Research Officer at the Africa Bureau in AID/Washington. Further contacts with these individuals should be continued. I could not see Dr. Ragan, Head of the Illinois Crops
project with the Ministry of Agriculture in Lusaka.

I will prepare a detailed report on the soil and climatic
conditions in Zambia in order to allow the Tropsoils Management Unit to make an appropriate choice for a possible expansion of the Soil Management CRSP in Africa. I am confident that conditions representive of the acid savanna environment will be' found in Zambia. I do not
know whether the aridity in the southern part of Zambia will be sufficient to be included in the objectives of agricultural research conducted by the University of Texas.
Sincerely yours,
A. an Wa hk&Professor of Soil Science
cc: E. Oyer
R. Lucey

New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences a Statutory College of the State University Cornell University Department of Agronomy Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853
(607) 256-5457
TO: Dr. D. Lathwell
Dr. E. Oyer
Dr. F. Calhoun
FROM: A. Van Wambeke
DATE: October 17, 1985
RE: Zambia Report
I am sending you herewith a copy of my report on Zambia. It focuses on the physical environmental factors which are important in considering areas suitable for research under the Soil Management CRSP.
Although Zambia seems to offer possibilities both for the Semi-Arid and Acid Savannah components of the CRSP, I suggest that other countries in Africa be considered for the same objectives.
I wish to thank all sponsors of this travel for their support. Since most data in the report have been taken from the work of others, it is recommended to use the report for in-house purposes only.

Reference 24
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Enwrson Halls, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853
September 13, 1985
TO: C. B. McCants
Trop Soils Board of Directors
External Evaluation Panel
Program Coordinators
FROM: Thurman L. Grove
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the report from my recent trip to Zambia. I travelled as a representative of Trop Soils to investigate possiblities for collaborative studies in Zambia. I'm pleased to report that the Zambians are enthusiastic about collaboration. We will continue in our efforts to establish a Zambia-Trop Soils program.
/ ,
., .,, .? .

Zambia Trip Report
12-19 July 1985 Thurman L. Grove
The purposes of this trip were to attend the SMSS Forum on Soil Taxonomy and Agrotechnology Transfer, to become familiar with current soil research activities in Zambia, and to investigate possibilities for collaboration between TropSoils CRSP and Zambian counterparts. The nature of this report is primarily administrative rather than technical. Professor Armand Van Wambeke participated in the SMSS forum and will report on the technical aspects of soil and climatic resources of Zambia.
SMSS Forum:
The forum was well attended by members of the Zambian soils community, expatriot soil scientists working on technical assistance programs in Zambia, and representatives from Botswana and Zimbabwe. Several high
ranking officials of the ministry including the Honorable Minister attended the forum during the first day. The forum thus provided good opportunities for accomplishing the objectives of the trip.
I was provided a half-hour on the formal schedule for a presentation of the TropSoils program. 1 outlined the history, objectives, and current status of TropSoils projects.
Current Research Activities:
There are limited numbers of Zambian soil scientists and consequently few Zambian soil research projects. Most research is conducted within

Reference. 24
bilateral technical assistance programs that are staffed by with smaller numbers of Zambian counterparts. It appears that crop production is sparse and research on soil management is even less common. Brief reports on several projects follow:
Soil Survey is sponsored by NORAD in collaboration with the Department of Land Use of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development (MAWD). Robert Magaii is leader of the Zambian Soil Survey Unit with headquarters at the Mt. Makulu Experiment Station. There are Soil Survey Units in each province. Soil Survey appears to be an intensive effort that employs large numbers of Zambians and a fair number of expatriates. The Soil Characterization Laboratory at Mt. Makulu provides analytic support to the Survey. The lab is well equipped and also provides analytic services to the MAWD Departments of Research and Extension. R. James Cheatle supervises the lab and acts as soils coordinator for the Ministry. Twenty-five percent of Zambia's soils are mapped and one-hundred twenty-five survey reports are available.
Integrated Rural Development Project at Mpika is sponsored by the British Overseas Ministry, Carl Berryman project leader. I did not have direct contact with this project, but understand that it is a small farming systems study.
Soil Productivity and Research Project at Kasama is sponsored by NORAD and performed by Agricultural University of Norway, Carl Solberg project leader, Alfred Mapiki, MAWD Department of Research counterpart. This
program focuses on agroforestry and legumes. To date soil research has been limited. Alan Stapleton, a soil physicist, has recently joined the project. Bal Ram Singh, a soil chemist, will join the program within a year.

Zam-can Wheat Research Project at Mt. Makulu and Mbala is sponsored by CIDA and performed by a private firm from Saskatchewan, Richard Little project leader. Wheat is an important crop in Zambia as 92% of consumption is imported. The Zam-Can project includes breeding, basic agronomy, and soil science. Ted Angen, a Canadian soil surveyor, works on the program matching soil resources and genotypes. Most wheat is grown in the south under irrigation on soils with high base status. Bill Aulakh, a Canadian agronomist, is conducting field trials under rainfed conditions at Mbala near the Zaire border. Soils at Mbala are Oxisols with low CEC, low pH, and high Al saturation in the subsoils. The project includes trials with varieties (Brazilian varieties are used on the Oxisols), green manures, liming, and phosphate fertilization. Angen and Aulakh have visited CPAC and with advice from Dale Ritchey have started some experiments on leaching of calcium. There's no evidence of leaching during the first two years.
ZAMERE is sponsored by AID and managed by the University of Illinois, Jim Ragin project leader. This is a crop breeding program conducted in collaboration with MAWD Department of Research. A recent review of the program recommended addition of a soil research component.
Belgian Aide Programme to Department of Soil Science at the University of Zambia (UNZA), Jaak Lenvain, team leader, Obed Lungu, acting department head. The Soil Science Department consists of five members of whom two are in residence, two are in Belgium working towards Ph.D. degrees, and the Department Head is on sabbatical leave. Two Belgian soil chemists and
Lenvain, a physicist, serve as replacements for the absent faculty members. Lungu (Ph.D. Davis) and the Belgian chemists are doing soil fertility trials on Alfisols at the University research farm. Vernon Chinene (Ph.D.