FSSP SUMMARY MEMOS PREPARED FOR EVALUATION TEAM, JUNE 1985
AGENDA ................................................................. 1
FSSP SUMMARY MEMOS
Accmplishents to June 1985 ........................................... 3
FSSP Evaluation Issues ................................. .............. 5
Publications, progress, and plans, 1985 ........................... .. 6
Visitor' s Progran .................................................... 9
D mestic Wobrkshops ............................... ..0*.................. 10
Evaluation Task Force Activity Statement, 1984-85 .................... 12
Biodata Searches, Jan to June 1985 ................................... 14
FSSP Training Program .................................. ............. 15
Program Development Statement, 1985 .................................. 17
State of the Art ........................................................... 19
FSSP/Population Council FSR/E Case Studies Project ............... 21
Project Activities in Latin America and the Caribbean ............... 28
1985 Activity Calendar for Latin America and the Caribbean ........... 30
Asia Policy Development and Strategy Statement, 1984-85 .............. 31
FSSP Africa Policy and 1985 Activities ............................... 34
Index of items for the FSSP Evaluation ............................... 37
Memo to Dr.Bertrand regarding FSSP West Africa Support ..............39
Africa Budget ................................................... 43
FSSP Budget ............ .* *.............................. 44
Base Support Budget in Africa ..... .............................. 45
FSSP Budget and Release ............................................. 46
Agenda for the FSSP External Evaluation June 26 to June 28, 1985
Evaluation Team: Project Managers:
Raymond Kitchell, Leader Don Osburn
Chuck Francis Wendell Morse
Wednesday June 26, 1985 8:00 8:05 Discuss agenda
8:05 8:40 Project Background Chris Andrew, Pete Hildebrand
1. Why FSR/E
2. Why FSSP
3. Organization and structure for FSSP delivery
4. Background, status and future
8:40 9:00 Discussion
9:00 10:00 Evaluation Issues & recommendations for considerationRaymond Kitchell, Chris Andrew
10:00 10:15 BREAK
10:15 12:00 Presentations 10:15 10:25 1. Networking Susan Poats
a. Worldwide linkages b. Domestic programs 10:25 10:30 Clarification
10:30 10:40 2. Technical Assistance- Dan Galt a. Evaluation Task Force b. Handbook
c. Biodata Lisette Walecka 10:40 10:45 Clarification
10:45 10:55 3. Training- Jim Jones a. Training for trainers b. Training Unit Developmemt- Lisette Walecka c. Delivery
10:55 11:00 Clarification
11:00 11:10 4. Program Development- Dan Galt 11:10 11:15 Clarification
11:15 11:25 5. State of the Art- Dan Galt a. Farming System Case Studies
1. For Training- Susan Poats
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)
2. Other Uses- Dan Galt b. Minimum Data Set
c. Contributions to Methodology- Pete Hildebrand 11:25 12:00 Discussion
12:00 1:15 LUNCH with K.R. Tefertiller, Vice President for Agricultural
1:15 -2:15 Regional Presentations 1:15 1:25 1. Latin America Jim Jones 1:25 1:35 2. Asia/ Near East Dan Galt 1:35 1:55 3. Africa Susan Poats 1:55 2:15 General Discussion 2:15 3:00 TEAM BREAK 3:00 4:00 Individual meeting with Susan Poats 4:00 5:00 Individual meeting with Dan Galt
DINNER (no prearrangements made, left to discretion of team) Thursday June 27, 1985
8:00 9:00 Individual meeting with Jim Jones 9:00 10:00 Individual meeting with Lisette Walecka 10:00 11:00 TEAM BREAK 11:00 12:00 Individual meeting with Chris Andrew 12:00 1:15 LUNCH with Hugh Poponoe, Director, International Programs,
1:15 2:15 UF Program Support meeting- Peter Hildebrand, Hunt Davis,
Director, Center for African Studies
2:15 2:45 UF Administrative Support meeting- Judy Meline 2:45 3:15 TEAM BREAK 3:15 5:00 Coamunication with SE's (here or on telephone)
Interact on-call with FSSP Core or Administrative staff
DINNER (no prearrangements made, left to discretion of team) Friday June 28, 1985
8:00 3:00 TEAM WORKING TIME 3:00 4:00 Summary Comments- Team and FSSP
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 2
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON: ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO JUNE 1985 Countries Involved
AID Needs Tech. Training Net- Countries
Mission Assessment Assistance work- benefited
Africa 18 7 17 9 17 29
Latin Am 10 5 10 9 3 15
Asia/NE 7 4 4 2 2 7
Total 34 16 31 20 22 49
Visitors Days Countries Person-Days
FSSP 186 267 37 1360
IP 34 104 17 449
Participants in Short Courses, Workshops and Exchanges
Latin America 345
US/Dcmestic Workshops 307
Universities with FS Courses 9
current FS Minors at UF 7 PhD 8 Masters
graduated FS Minors at UF 8 Masters 1 PhD
FS assistantships UF 4
1985 Applicants for FS/UF Assist. 73
FSSP Su rnary Memos (06/85) 3
Newsletter US International Total
English 1616 1601 3217
Spanish 7 896 903
French 30 495 525
TOTAL 1653 2992 4645
Support Entities 21 Universities 690 Program Assoc.
Collaborating Institutions 10 Universities
Regional Centers 8
East West Center
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 4
1. Program and Fiscal Planning
Annual planning and implementation are hampered by limited, divergent and delayed information from the
agency concerning funding and program emphasis.
2. West Africa Base
Emphasis on location of core in W. Africa calls for
decisions among priorities (Asia, Africa, Program
Development), short and long range program support, and
within region priorities.
3. Support Entity Involvements
Concern with adjustments in the overall FSSP structure
generally but specifically related to program
associates/bio data management, SE project
participation, the role of the Technical Ccrmittee and
concern for strengthening the university support base.
4. Short and Long Term FSSP Priorities
Management calls for decisions relative to short term
demand/ workload/ organization and emphasis to be placed
in systematic activities such as domestic workshops,
visitors, bio data maintenance and management, bilateral
networks, newsletters, documentation center etc.
5. Backstop Support to FSSP through UF by the State of Florida
FSSP stresses standard administrative and fiscal
procedures of any IP or state structure yet facilitative
support through adaptation of state regulations is
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 5
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
PUBLICATIONS, PROGRESS AND PLANS, 1985
1) FSSP Newsletter: two issues of the FSSP Newsletter have been published and distributed (Vol. Three, Nos. One and Two). French and Spanish versions of No. Two are presently at the printers, scheduled for completion and distribution this week.
Two additional issues are planned for this year, maintaining a
quarterly distribution. At a quarterly issue frequency by the end of 1987 nineteen issues will have been published (the log frame calls for 18 in the life of the project). Special issues could be published in addition, and may, if project activities warrant doing so.
Present distribution is approximately 3600 English, 1000 Spanish, and 600 French (for newsletter distribution information see information appendix to the 1984 Annual Report). FSSP log frame calls from distribution of 1000 newsletters; present distribution of approximately 5,000 has levelled-off. List maintenance continues on a weekly basis and is expected to be fully computerized this quarter (IFAS Mailing and Distribution Services are in the process of upgrading their equipment and capability.
In compliance with the statutes of the State of Florida and in the
interest of maintaining a "qualified" distribution for the newsletter, a purge will take place beginning in the Fourth quarter of this year. This will also provide an opportunity to proffer a survey of readership, the general analysis of which may be published in the newsletter. The survey instrument has not yet been designed and could benefit greatly from core staff input.
2. Networking Papers: Six issues of this series have been distributed to date; five of these were distributed in 1985. The present committee of Susan Poats, Dan Galt and Steve Kearl is responsible for selection of items for inclusion in this series. The committee was set up to rotate membership among core staff and is due for new members in the Fourth quarter of this year. While there is no specific budget for Networking Papers, the series was initiated to meet a perceived need of field practitioners in employing a sounding board for peer review of their farming systems activities. (For a definition of purpose or intended use of this series see the introduction to Networking Paper #1 or the introduction in any issue of this series).
3. On Demand and On Networking: These network newsletters were initiated in 1984 to inform recipients of anticipated demand or services, news, and upcoming program activities. Distribution is to nearly 600 program associates and includes the Technical Committee, Advisory Council, Core Staff and AID/Washington project management. Five issues of On Demand were issued in 1984; none have been released in 1985. Fourteen issues of On Networking were issued in 1984; eight have been distributed to date in 1985.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 6
A current purge of these newsletters is underway. Margarita Rodriguez holds a folder with returned renewal/discontinue forms. Coments from readership are available for consideration in this folder. Response has been especially positive.
4. 1985 Annual Report: It is intended that the various core staff contributions for this document will be called for in an Action Memo to place the report process in a time frame for delivery to AID/Washington by December. In practice this has been found to be a workable approach to the formulation of this document. Annual Reports have been solicited frm Support Entities and a collection of those submitted is on file with the project.
5. Work Plan: It is anticipated that the 1986 Work Plan will be directly affected by the recommendations of the 1985 Project Evaluation Report, as well as by subsequent core and AID/Wahington management decisions and funding.
It is also anticipated that the time frame for input of information
will delay a timely and expedient work plan. This may be an advantage in the sense that it could provide an opportunity for the annual core staff planning session (Cedar Key II), recommendations frm support entities through the 1985 annual meeting, and overall program considerations fram that meeting to provide definitive considerations for the project. An important qualification to this observation is the fact that the 1985 Annual Work Plan was initially submitted to AID/Washington in mid-December of 1984. However, after many revisions, the evolution of that document never in fact became, or necessarily contributed to, the actual Work Plan which was largely written (and subsequently accepted) by AID. Instead, the final version submitted by the project was adopted by the project as a 1985 Implementation Plan for FSSP; it had to be, the project was four months into the year.
6. Publications in Progress:
- Book of Readings:
- selections and copyright okayed except for 1 or 2
which may require substitutions
- PEH intros done, final printout going on now
- commercial printer mid-sumner
- Spanish translation of selections 2 more to do
- initial issue in Vol 2 No 4 newsletter
- approximately 150 additions received
- plan to publish as a separate document Fourth quarter
(IDRC mailing next month) hopefully for Kansas
Neil Carpenter/FAO interest no new progress
- Minimum Data Set/Fieldbook:
- no time frame
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 7
- Liberia Report:
- completed and initial distribution
- ILCA Livestock Workshop Proceedings and Research Plan
Guidelines in production in July
- Procedural Manual draft printed and distributed plan to
maintain feedback file for revisions
- Other internal items
- Training Unit Development materials
- Management Guidelines Evaluation Task Force
- Case Studies
- Togo Workshop
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 8
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
VISITOR' S PROGRAM
Visitors, with interest in the Farming Systems approach to agricultural development, began caning to the University of Florida in mid 1981 as information regarding the North Florida FSR/E Project became known. This predates the FSSP by more than one year. With the inception of the FSSP, the visitor flow has constantly increased.
The maps which indicate these visitors show that, while visitors in
1983 were predaninately fran the United States, those in 1984 reflected the growing interest in FSR among persons fran other countries. The 1983 visitors were generally from the growing network of Support Entities (SE's) of the FSSP. The 1984 visitors, on the other hand, came from a wide spectrum of countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
As each visitor has a different agenda, the FSSP has endeavored to
tailor a program for each individual visitor or group. These programs have varied from mere "appointment making" with University of Florida faculty to intensive short courses in the Farming Systems methodology, as well as field visits to Florida agri-business concerns, Agricultural Research Centers and the North Florida FSR/E Project.
The character of the visitors also shows great variation. Visitors have ranged fran U. S. graduate students and faculty, to international graduate students studying in the U.S., to FSR practitioners fran both International Research Centers and bi-lateral contracts as well as other countries, to Directors and Ministers of Agriculture and Extension of their countries.
As the FSSP Visitor's Program is demand driven, it is sanewhat
difficult to plan specific activities in advance. The FSSP will endeavor to provide the same services to visitors as have been available in the past. Implementation will be carried out as required, according to scheduling demands of other FSSP activities.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 9
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
Domestic Workshops, sponsored and supported by the FSSP, fall into two distinct categories; (1). General Introduction to Farming Systems Research Methodology, and (2). Specific Applications of the Methodology. The latter represent a second, and higher level of curriculum. These include
Diagnosis in FSR/E, Agrononic Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials, and Management of Research and Extension Projects.
Number 2 above represents the product of the 1985 Training Unit Development Workshop, held in Gainesville, and are targeted to FSR practitioners who desire specific information regarding the methodological steps of the FSR process.
In 1983, the FSSP offered the General Introduction to FSR/E Workshop twice in Gainesville and supported three other workshops at other
institutions in the U.S. These were held at Colorado State University, Michigan State University and at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, all of which are Support Entities (SE's) of the FSSP. 142 persons were trained during this year.
In 1984, the General Introduction Workshop was given three SE's;
University of Minnesota, Virginia State University and the University of
Florida. These workshops, as those in 1983, were given primarily to upgrade the FSR capabilities of the Support Entities, although a larger number of international graduate students attended these workshops. 117 persons were trained in 1984.
To date, in 1985, one Introductory Workshop was given at the University of Arizona. 48 persons attended this workshop.
As the demand for FSR training has shown same change in direction fron Introduction to FSR towards more specific information regarding implementation of the Farming Systems approach, the FSSP has focused more on the specific information required by FSR practitioners. Virginia State University has agreed to become the permanent host for the Introduction to Farming Systems Research and Development Workshop. VSU will host, at least, one workshop per year for interested persons. It is anticipated that more international graduate students will become involved as their hme countries and bi-lateral contractors will be required to provide some sort of Farming Systems Orientation. These workshops will be supported by the FSSP, to a limited degree.
The strategy for the second level of workshops is still being
developed. The first steps have been implemented, however. The FSSP has presented the first "Management of Research and Extension Projects" workshop. Participants were persons fram SE's who have experience and/or interest in this type of work. The group, which participated in Gainesville, helped to polish the presentation of these materials. The Management workshop will be presented, with FSSP support, at interested U.S. institutions by the personnel who attended the first workshop in Gainesville.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 10
At the same time, the "Design and Analysis" workshop was being
presented in the Gambia, using materials developed at the Training Unit Development Workshop. This workshop will be presented, to U.S. Support Entity personnel, in July, 1985. Again, the plan is to expose U.S. personnel to the concepts of the Training Unit so that they will be able to use the materials in their own institution and in bi-lateral training situations.
It should be noted that the multiplier effect of domestic workshops is quite large. By training U.S. personnel in Farming Systems methodology,
the resource base of all participating institutions is substantially strengthened.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 1
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
EVALUATION TASK FORCE ACTIVITY STATEMENT, 1984-85
The evaluation task force -- or ETF evolved from interest expressed at a technical ccmittee meeting in April, 1984, to the need for quality, replicable evaluations of FSR/E projects in the field. An On-Demand advertisement for interested support entities went out from core, and fran the five interested submissions, a lead entity -- Winrock International -was selected in September, 1984. Interested individuals from several other support entities were also asked to participate on the ETF. The composition of the ETF, including the lead entity and leader designate, were announced to the FSSP support entity network shortly thereafter.
The leader-designate of the ETF subsequently accepted a position at Michigan State University, and Winrock was not interested being lead entity on this activity without the active participation of the leaderdesignate. During the KSU FSR Symposium in October, three pre-organizational meetings were held with representatives of the support entities involved in the ETF. It was decided that Washington State University would replace Winrock as lead entity, and that the leader-designate of the Washington group, James Henson, would act as leader of the ETF.
Evaluation Task Force
The ETF consists of the following members and affiliates:
1. James Henson, ETF leader, Washington State University
2. Rick Bernsten, Michigan State University
3. Tan Cook, Research Triangle Institute
4. Dan Galt, FSSP, ex-officio advisor and liason to FSSP
5. Jan Noel, Washington State University
6. Mike Patton, University of Minnesota
7. Ken Swanberg, AID/S&T, ex-officio advisor
8. Don Voth, University of Arkansas
In addition, the ETF is backstopped by a larger group. This backstop group consists of the following individuals: (1) Gustavo Arcia, RTI, (2) Robert Butler, WSU, (3) Merle Esmay, MSU, (4) Dale Harpstead, MSU/BIFAD,
(5) Marcus Ingle, UOM, (6) Don Isleib, MSU, (7) Ken McDermott, FSSP, (8) Tom Trail, WSU, and (9) Kim Wilson, MSU. This group was put together to respond to ETF output during implementation of the activity.
The ETF first met in November, 1984. At that time, a working definition of "FSR" was called for and subsequently developed. More importantly, Tan Cook presented an evaluative issues framework to the group, which
he was requested to expanded upon for a subsequent meeting. After sane inter-institutional negotiation period of about three months, this framework was produced and circulated to the rest of the ETF members for comments and reaction.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 12
After allowing sufficient time for members to comment and juggling travel schedules, Jim Henson called for the second meeting of the E7F during June, 1985. The following was accomplished at this meeting:
--The framework was expanded to contain these 4 basic sections:
b) Mid-term evaluation framework for FSP/E projects
c) Adaptive instructions for other types of evaluations
Sections a), b) and d) are of equally high priority. Section b) will represent a restructuring of the framework produced by Tan Cook. It is being revised to incorporate the FSP/E issues and items suggested by the ETF group. It is also being reorganized around the five basic steps of the FSR/E sequence. This latter reorganization, suggested by Mike Patton, is to minimize the difference between the evaluation framework and the FSR/E projects likely to be evaluated using this framework.
Tan Cook volunteered to expand the framework (section b). All others from the group have contributed to section d), which consists of the details to allow evaluators to use the evaluation framework in an evaluation setting. Thus, actual details needed for understanding the evaluation of FSR/E projects are being produced by the group for this section. This organization allows the framework to remain a concise, highly canprehens ible document of great utility to any level of evaluator: professional or novice, disciplinary specialist or generalist.
While the whole thrust of the ETF will be to develop a protocol to evaluate projects mid-term, section c) eventually will provide instructions to users on how to adapt the framework to near-end and end of project evaluations. The writing of section c) has been assigned lowest priority by the ETF.
Goals for the Future of the EFT
The ETF has decided to merge the proposed "dry run" test of the
framework with a "training/orientation/briefing" session to be held for the first evaluation team to use the draft framework. Possible projects considered for the initial field test include CATIE, CARDI and Zambia. Jim Henson will try to identify other projects in consultation with representatives fran the Africa Bureau. A field test could occur as early as Late October or November, 1985. It is not yet known if sufficient funds remain in the sub-contract between WSU and the FSSP to allow the process to proceed through the proposed field test.
The ETE is continuing to interest other AID bureaus in the draft
evaluation instrument. Mike Patton's visit to AID in July to consult with Nina Vreeland's division is the next step in this legitimization process.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 13
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
BIODATA SEARCHES (Jan. to June 1985)
Total Requests = 27
(note: same requests include more than one person search)
Total Person Searches = 39
SUPPORT ENTITIES OFFICIAL FSSP/AID NON-AFFILIATES
DAI = 1 FSSP = 1 TOTAL = 8
KSU = 1 USAID= 9
IADS = 2 TOTAL= 10
AGRIDEC = 1
WINROCK = 1
MSU = 1
UOF = 1
UOI = 1
TOTAL = 9
DISCIPLINES LANGUAGES FARMING SYSTEMS EX
Agronomny = 11 Spanish = 3 15
Ag. Econmanist = 7 French = 15
Animal Sci/Lvstk = 1 Soil/Water Mngt = 1
Rural Soc/Anthro = 5 Research Admin = 2 REGION
Agroforestry = 2 Africa = 14
Agric. Admin = 1 Asia = 6
Farming Sys. Dev = 1 Latin America/Car = 5 MONTH
Geographer = 1 Near East = 0 Jan = 6
Evaluator = 4 Other(US or non-LDC)= 2 Feb = 6
Education = 1 Mar = 6
Public Health = 1 Apr = 1
Environmentalist = 1 May = 5
Jun = 3
These figures show the activity of the biodata file for the six mont period of 1985. The figure for the 1983-1984 period appear in the 1984 Annual Report, Appendix 5. For the period from 1983 to mid year 1985, the total number of requests has been 73 (Support Entities = 24, Official FSSP/AID = 26, Non-Affiliates = 23) for a total of 113 individuals.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 14
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
FSSP TRAINING PROGRAM
The first training materials developed by the FSSP, mostly during 1983, were a series of slide-tape modules. There were few good materials available anywhere in farming systems research and extension(FSR/E). Our modules were to reach a wide audience, both U.S. domestic and foreign, and were designed mainly to sensitize people to the FSR approach. They were heavily supplemented by other materials and techniques at the discretion of trainers, especially when used overseas. Translated into Spanish and French, the modules were widely used and were for the most part well received, particularly by U.S. domestic audiences, where the demand for them has been considerable, but also by audiences in Latin America. FSSP
thinking at the time involved the development of entire courses, more or less in packaged form.
We realized after more than a year that there was a need for better materials for overseas training, materials that would give trainers more flexibility in course design and that would involve trainees to a greater degree. This was one of the major conclusions of an FSSP workshop held at Iowa State University in the summer of 1984 to develop FSR/E trainers. We entered this workshop with the idea that FSR/E, because it was a novel approach, somehow required novel training techniques. But we learned that this was not so, that conventional training techniques were quite adequate. We left Iowa State with a renewed appreciation for the value of good trainers and a feeling that no materials could compensate for a lack in this regard-- indeed, really good trainers could even design and deliver effective courses with poor materials.
Following the workshop at Iowa State, the project launched a
concerted effort to develop the needed training materials. We began to think, not of developing courses, but of developing units that trainers could ccmbine in any number of ways to design and deliver courses that would respond to the needs of different training settings. Accordingly, we held a training unit materials development workshop(a TUD workshop) in Gainesville in February of 1985. Participants from several FSSP support entities gathered for a week to develop units for the FSR areas of diagnosis, agronomic design and data analysis, and project management. Much headway was made during the week, and the effort continues.
The development of training unit materials is following a
three-stage process: initial development, testing and refinement, and distribution. The week long collaborative effort resulted in the first-stage development of the three units noted above. Since then, each unit has been technically editied by at least one member of the original development group. Two of the units, Agronomic Experimental Design and Analysis, and Management and Administration have been partially tested in workshops in The Gambia and Gainesville. We plan to test the Diagnostic unit at the soonest opportunity and hope to use it in Cameroon in the fall of 1985. Completion of the work on content and revisions based on testing are in process. We plan to have the first edition ready by December of 1985. All subsequent revisions will be incorporated into the second edition planned for December of 1986.
FSSP Sumary Memos (06/85) 15
The development of these materials has cost the project to date
about $55,000, and to ccuiplete them as planned would cost another $35,000. The total effort would have an estimated cost of between $90,000 and $100,000.
The strategy for delivering training courses is a function of region and will be dealt with there.
FSSP Summiary Memos (06/85) 16
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT, 1985
A coordinator for program development was appointed in the Spring, 1985. The position of program development coordinator was created to address these coordination needs of the project:
1) Verify that the functional areas of technical assistance,
training and networking cover all priority areas so designated by the project;
2) Assist in avoiding duplication of effort;
3) Make sure that joint, or overlapping, areas of effort are
properly blended back together as activities proceed and/or are canpleted;
4) Verify that jointly-assigned activities proceed along acceptable tracks and time frames;
5) Make sure FSSP policies are not implemented at cross purposes
with one another, especially in the three general areas of regional policy in Africa, Asia/Near East and Latin America/Caribbean.
6) Coordinate state-of-the-art (SOTA) activities, suggest further SOTA activities, and assist in the transition of completed tasks and activities frcm SOTA into the appropriate functional areas of technical assistance, training, or networking.
To date, this new coordinating function has:
1) Suggested that each regional area coordinator consider forming a support entity advisory conittee -- similar to the Near East and Asia Advisory Committee (NEAAC) -- to assist core in policy advice and delivery of activities. This mechanism will give support entities more of the responsibility for regional FSSP policy and implementation, allowing more support entity input into project delivery. This mechanism is viewed as an efficient way of transferring responsibility for overall project implementation f ran core to the FSSP support network.
2) Begun the more formal process of integrating regional policies.
Examples so far include using the expertise of a support entity formerly confined to Latin America -- AGRIDEC in West Africa in technical assistance and training, and asking representatives of Southeast Asian universities to participate in a West African university networkshop activity scheduled for early 1986. Integration of regional policies will allow more and more Asian and Latin American FSR/E expertise to be focused on African FSR/E problems and needs.
Goals for the Remainder of the Project
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 17
Based on the short experience of 1985, the following areas will be
considered for program development stress during the rest of the project:
1) Strengthen two accomplishments of 1985.
2) Provide integration between the case study activity, the
guideline handbook activity, and the evaluation task force. The relevant outputs frame these three activities should be focused mainly on practitioners, projects and programs implementing FSR/E approaches. Coordination and synthesis will be required. The diffusion mechanism may be through a series of SOTA publications. Sets of SOTA publications may be developed for the following FSR/E stakeholders:
a) Field practitoners (both project and host country
b) Chiefs of party;
c) Campus/private firms backstop personnel;
d) AID contracting and project officers, bureaus and missions; e) Other host country governmental representatives, especially
those dealing with FSR/E at substantive and administrative
3) Work with the coordinator for African policy to integrate the three major threads of Afican policy, including the policies of (a) short-term, crop-based networking, (b) short-term, animal-based networking, and (c) long-term, West African university-based networking.
4) Work with the coordinator and assistant of training to oversee the final development, production and distribution of the FSSP training units. General issues to consider include (a) revision policy and (b) integration of training-tested and newly-created materials, activities, caselettes, case studies and suggestions back into the units. A specific issue to consider is the development and integration of the necessary socio-econmic materials into the diagnostic and agronomic experimental design and analysis units.
5) Work with the African-based core staff member and whomever is designated to backstop this staff person here in Gainesville, if a core individual is transferred to Africa. Issues may include smoothing the transition of core staff to Africa and maintaining camunication between the project and AID/W, Africa Bureau and the various West African missions.
6) Develop and implement a better method to facilitate information flow between Gainesville and AID/W project management.
Most of these tentative program development goals are contingent upon (a) core agreement, (b) concensus that they represent priority areas for the program coordinator, and (c) level of project funding.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 18
STATE OF THE ART 1
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 19
STATE OF THE ART 2
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 20
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
FSSP/POPULATION COUNCIL FSR/E CASE STUDIES PROJECT
Among the sets of documents made available for the evaluation is a complete file on the FSR/E Case Studies Project. These case studies for use in training are being produced in a joint effort with the Population Council, with funding fran the Ford Foundation as well as FSSP. The ccpleted cases will fulfill in part obligations fran the cooperative
agreement in both Training and State of the Arts Research by providing a rich source of training materials based on actual on-going FSR/E projects, and at the same time offering a synthesis of activities and methodologies which have been effectively used in the field.
The eight cases being developed were selected because they represent on-going field projects which have reached a level of development through at least the first three stages of FSR/E (1. diagnosis, 2. design, 3. testing and evaluation), and demonstrate a positive incorporation of either intra- or inter-household and gender analysis within their on-going activities. The cases also include considerable project and institutional background and setting. When completed, the cases should serve as useful training materials for teaching concepts and methods of FSR/E, intra/inter-household analysis, gender analysis, and institutional analysis for management and administration.
Attached to this memo is a list of the members of the Advisory Committee for the FSSP/Pop. Council project, a sunlnary of the proposals (Expressions of Interest) submitted for case study consideration, and a synopsis of the eight selected case studies. The following chronology of events sunmarizes project activity to date. Further details are available in the abovementioned file.
February 1984. S. Poats and J. Bruce, Population Council, meet in Gainesville and the idea for a case studies series is first developed.
July 1984. FSSP, Population Council and Ford Foundation agree to fund the project with an initial three cases, and the potential to develop others depending on interest generated.
August 1984. Hilary Feldstein is hired by the Pop. Council as managing editor and naninations for a project advisory carmittee are begun.
November 1984. A list of 50 potential advisory committee members is completed. When contacted, 17 were willing/able to serve. With input from FSSP core staff, Feldstein, Bruce and Poats met in NY to select the camittee. Ultimately 10 persons were selected.
January 1985. The advisory ccrmittee meets in NY and drafts the guidelines for the case study project, the outline for the case study format, and a Request for Expressions of Interest in writing a case study. Following the meeting, 6000 announcements and EOI forms are mailed out via FSSP, Pop. Council and Ford F. mailing lists.
February 1985. S. Poats and Hilary Feldstein complete the draft of the
FSSP Sumrnary Memos (06/85) 21
case study format.
March 31, 1985. By this cut-off date, 72 expressions of interest have been received. These were reviewed and catalogued as potential, maybe or rejects and reviewed by the advisory committee.
April 1985. TIwo presentations on the case study project are made at AWID and further input is received on the format and a developing analytical framework for the series. The advisory committee meets in NY and selects the 6 best case proposals. The Ford F., impressed with the quantity and quality of the submissions, invites the project to request further funding to expand the original 3 cases to a total of 8. An additional 5 cases are identified as potential and two are selected to make the total of 8.
June 1985. The case writers and advisory committee reps. attend a casewriters' workshop to develop the outlines, pedagogical objectives and teaching notes for each case. Cases are thoroughly reviewed for agronomic, FSR/E, socio-economnic content. A case study specialist from HIID leads several sessions on how to write effective cases.
July-December 1985. Each case writer has developed a plan of work for delivery of drafts. Anticipate completion'of all cases by March 1986.
February 1986. Completed cases will be tested at the Univ. Florida conference on Gender Issues and FSR/E.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 22
Advisory Committee for Population Council/FSSP Case Studies Project
Dr. Harry (Skip) Bittenbender Dr. F/ederico Poey
Department of Horticulture AGRIDEC
Michigan State UnivErsity 1414 Ferdinand Street
East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(617) 353-5473 (305) 271-5694
Ms. Kate Cloud Dr. Mary Rojas
Department of Agricultural Economics 105 Patton Hall
University of Illinois Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Champaign, Illinois 61821 & State University
(217) 333-5832 Blacksburg, Virginia 24601
Dr. Frank Conklin
Office of International Agriculture Ms. Hilary S. Feldstein
Oregon State University Managing Editor
Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Population Council/FSSP
(503) 754-2304 Case Studies Project
RFD 1, Box 821
Ms. Nadine Horenstein Hancock, New Hampshire 03449
Room 3725 NS (603) 525-3772
Washington, DC 20523 Ms. Judith Bruce, ex officio
(202) 632-3992 Program Associate
Ms. Kate McKee 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
Ford Foundation New York, New York 10017
320 East 43rd Street (212) 644-1777
New York, New York 10017
(212) 573-5345 Dr. Susan Poats, ex officio
Dr. Rosalie Norem Farming Systems Support Project
Department of Family Environment University of Florida
Iowa State University 3028 McCarty Hall
LeBaron Hall, Room 173 Gainesville, Florida 32611
Ames, Iowa 50011 (904) 392-2309
Dr. Cornelia Butler-Flora, ex officio Dr. David Nygaard Chairman, Technical Committee FSSP
Agricultural Development Council Department of Sociology
725 Park Avenue Kansas State University
New York, New York 10021 Manhattan, Kansas 66506
(212) 517-9700 (913) 532-6865
Dr. Pauline Peters
Harvard Institute for
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (617) 495-3785
EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST RECEIVED AS OF 4/15/85
1. 72 proposals received
2. Geographic distribution
West Africa 24 (Burkina Faso 6)
Fast Africa 6
Southern Africa 5 .
Asia 20 (Philippines 7)
Latin America/Mexico 8
Europe (Netherlands) 2
3. Disciplines and Gender
Discipline Total Female
Agricultural Economics 22 5
Anthropology/Sociology 24 16
Agricultural Sciences 11 1
Agric/Vocational Education 9 5
Other 8 3
Very mixed or unknown 3 (projects)
TOTALS 74 30
4. Of 74 proposal writers, 36 were nationals of developing countries.
INTRA-11OIISEHOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS CASE STUDIES PROJECT
Synopsis of Projected Case Studies 6/13/85
Botswana, ATIP, Doyle Baker
This is perhaps the most difficult case, as some of the issues raised by ATIP as'a result of the IHH (read female headed household) research could have negative policy consequences for those households. The context is unusual for Africa in that remittances enter every household providing a near minimum of subsistence and the government has resources from other diamonds, etc. such that it has substantially subsidized agricultural inputs and health care. During the three years of the project, there has been a severe drought making a number of desirable trials impractical. The case leads the reader through a process of parallel activities, continuous leveraged trials of tillage/planting and a comprehensive set of socio-economic surveys in which data is disaggregated by household types and/or by gender. The theme of the project has been the difficulty of getting any successful results from the leveraged trials; the increased understanding of factors that differentiate between farmers ability and willingness to undertake arable agriculture (access and control of draft animals; availability of other sources of income including remittances). One agronomic outcome is to put in place non-leveraged trials for post-establishment conditions for households with draft constraints, usually female headed. Another outcome has been to move further into the policy arena, suggesting that policy recognize the different possibilities of different recommendation domains, i.e. resources to better off and more interested farmers can contribute to national production; resources to less well off households (of which the majority are female headed and without access to draft) will help household incomes, but not necessarily be contribution to national production goals. The theme of the case as stated in the last iteration is to emphasize the importance of socio-economic research which includes 11111 to defining agronomic and policy issues. The resource people feel there may be more data and possibilities inherent in the data than the project has considered, but are waiting on the completed analysis of the more recent surveys (which will be 'done for the first draft).
Burkina Faso, SAFGRAD, Joe Nagzy
This case will go carefully through a straight FSR/E process as applied to 3 sample villages in Burkina Faso. The first section will cover background and the information from the initial diagnostic survey leaving to students the task of playing that data against the framework and making their own analysis of the situation. Section II gives project analysis which was to go with trials on tie-ridging as low cost and using available on-farm resources including labor. This section will include the trials with tie-ridging and fertilizer use showing positive agronomic results, but lack of interest by various members of farm households because of labor constraint; labor for tie ridging was provided principally by women and children. Section III will go into new trials with a mechanical tie ridger, requiring capital. resources available to a minority of households and students will evaluate the implications of this strategy. There may also be material on differences between men and women's plots, but Joe needs to dig that out.
CARDI, St. Lucia, Greg Robin and Visantha Chase
The CARDI case builds on the use of an Area Focused Survey, i.e. a
diagnostic survey with considerable socio-economic data including IHH variables, to look at a single valley. In addition to economic and agronomic stratification, the survey showed serious nutritional deficiencies and that a high proportion of the households (38%) were female headed. The decision was made, recently, to transfer a self-sustaining home gardening system being instituted in a nearby island, Domenica, to Mabouya Valley. The case will illustrate the use of the Area Focused Study approach; allow consideration of home gardens as part of a farming system and the importance of female inputs in such a system; and will examine the implications of transferring a successful system from one location to another. Federico's work on this case was particularly helpful in channeling at least the case, and perhaps the upcoming extension of technology in Mabouya, into a more experimental direction concerning the improvement of varieties and practices used in home gardening.
Colombia, CIAT. Jacqueline Ashby
This case will show why IHH variables were important to the testing and evaluation of a production technology, beans, and how they were recognized. Specifically this relates to recognizing the importance of identifying desirable consumption characteristics of different users: the urban market and the subsistence consumer. The importance of understanding desirable consumption characteristics has economic implications in that women cook for hired labor and their cooking task and time is affected by the kinds of beans used. The case will also illustrate a methodology for including participation by multiple members of the household in testing and evaluation.
Indonesia, Sitiung, TROPSOILS, Vicki Sigman and Carol Colfer
The strongest element of the TROPSOILS case is the use of the entire,
multi-disciplinary research team to undertake a time allocation study of the activities of household members in this transmigration site. This study has led to a decision to have trials on forage as forage-gathering was a prime labor constraint, and undertaken principally by women and children. Home gardening also emerges as important in terms of both men and women's time and a nutrition survey done during the same time period suggests the value of its improvement. Because Vicki herself has not yet been to the field, but is going soon to work with Carol, we left the case with a series of questions about how the different pieces have fit together in time and in effect on each other.
Philippines, Lake Balinsasayao, Lini WollenberL
The Lake Balinsasayao project is intended to provide the government with assistance in promoting forest conservation on government lands in the face of increasing migration to the area and in insuring an equitable distribution of benefits. There were two diagnoses undertaken resulting in a large body of agroclimatic and socio-economic data, as well as statements concerning farmer preferences, which students can compare as to methodology and results. A second set of more focused studies--production & consumption, cropping systems, fishing, nutrition, and land use decision making--followed. Each used different methodologies for getting at questions of time allocation and again this will be an exercise for comparing the approaches as to resource costs and benefits. One issue will be the degree to which resource constraints affect the definition of research domains. The relationship of a parallel set of field activities-continuing community organization, literacy programs, demonstration plots, etc.-to the research is also explored. The third section reports the results of the
field interventions and plans for further interventions and ends with the tasks of reviewing the interaction between research and field activities and of looking at what has already been done in view of reorganizing as an FSR/E project.
Zambia, ARPT, Charles Chabala and Robert Nguiru
This case is a classic. The first section will give the country
background, including the institutionalization of FSR/E in Zambia, and the original diagnosis of the area leaving to students the task of identifying research priorities. One element of that information is the heavy labor of women in their (separate) bean fields. The second section details actual trials undertaken by the project as a result of the original diagnosis: one on intercropping beans with maize to-take advantage of the traction being used on family (male headed) maize fields and thereby reduce women's labor as well as the fertilizer that was already being applied to the maize. A second set of trials was on maize for increased yields. Though both trials showed the experiments to be successful in agronomic terms, neither was acceptable to the farmers. In the case of beans, the integration of mens and womens fields resulted in losses to women of the income they got from the sale of small surpluses and women objected. In the case of both beans and corn, the consumption and processing characteristics were not taken into account and therefore the varieties were rejected. The third section covers a Labor Survey designed to get more information on time allocation and men's and women's resources and benefits with respect to particular crops. An interesting aspect of the survey is the methods used to get women's views in light of cultural constraints (and institutional difficulties). The results of that survey are the subject of a final set of tasks to determine what research to tackle next.
It should be noted that these synopses are tentative, based on current drafts and the emphases in any might shift as further work is done and the writers get further into their data.
Vj to af~ XCW -V cSA)
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
PR)JECT ACTIVITIES IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
According to the Cooperative Agreement, the FSSP was to allocate no more than twenty-five percent of its funds to Latin America. Yet, there has been more demand for project services, especially in the early months, fram Latin America than from the other regions. We soon realized that the demand would draw excessively on project resources and began operating on a cost-sharing and buy-in basis with USAID missins in the region. Over the last several months, as funds were withdrawn from our project and as USAID began to give ever more emphasis to Africa, we began requiring USAID missions in Latin America to finance all FSSP services that they requested. That policy is in effect today.
A list of FSSP activities by country for 1983 and 1984 appears in
our annual reports; a summary for this year is appended to this memorandum. The project has been especially active in Paraguay and Honduras. We collaborated with INTSORMIL, the sorghum-millet CRSP, as well as with ICRISAT and CIMMYT in the development and delivery of a workshop at CIMMYT for sorghum and millet researchers from several Latin American countries. We also financed the participation of several of those researchers. We have worked with CIMMYT elsewhere, including in Paraguay when the project first entered that country. And CIMMYT sent two researcher-trainers to help us develop training materials during the workshop this year in Gainesville.
The FSSP worked with PRECODEPA in the design and delivery of an FSR training workshop in Guatemala for potato researchers in Central America and the Caribbean. PRECODEPA is a regional potato research cooperative managed by CIP, who helped with the workshop. We also financed the participation of same of the workshop participants.
The FSSP assisted CATIE this year in the design of a one-week
seminar to analyze six FSR/E cases in Latin America. And again, we covered the participation costs of several seminar participants. At the request of ROCAP, the project is now assembling a team to conduct a final evaluation of the CATIE-ROCAP farming systems project. I just returned after a month in Central America, where I gathered information in five countries that will be used in this evaluation. The prospects for further collaboration with CATIE and ROCAP are good.
An FSSP training team is now in Jamaica delivering an introductory FSR workshop to researchers in that country.
Our training activities in the region have reached about 350
persons. We have sought to use native speakers of Spanish in our training work in Spanish America, since the farming systems approach is a radical departure from the traditional organization of research and extension and ccmmunication is especially critical. For technical assistance, we have been less concerned about language skills, although we still consider them important.
Other countries of the region have expressed an interest in using
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 28
the FSSP. USAID/Peru has indicated that it might soon need assistance in reorienting research and extension in that country. Both Honduras and El Salvador have expressed an interest, though it might prove difficult for the FSSP to find people, at least fran the universities, willing to work in El Salvdor. And Paraguay has just bought into the FSSP at the level of $80,000 for services to be rendered mostly over the next year. Haiti approached us about three months ago regarding advisory support for farming systems work there. It is very likely that the Dominican Republic ask us to conduct further training, since an FSSP person recently went there to help them devise a training plan.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 29
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
1985 FSSP ACTIVITY CALENDAR FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Centro Agroncmico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza(CATIE)
April 22-26: Helped sponsor and plan seminar for presentation of six FSR cases frman Latin America.
July-August: FSSP to field evaluation team for ROCAP, to evaluate CATIE-ROCAP farming systems project. Domninican Republic
March 3-7: One person sent to help Ministry of Agriculture
develop training program to introduce FSR/E
approach to Dominican setting. Honduras
Feb. 1-15: Training team sent to conduct two-week course
on FSR/E approach for Programa de Tecnologia
Rural(PTR). Course addressed to PTR field
teams frman the six regions of Honduras.
March 4-19: Conducted evaluation of FSR/E approach being
used by PER. Helped them plan for 1985.
Identified problems in application of FSR/E
approach and suggested solutions.
March 20-22: Workshop in which PTR regional teams
presented their work plans.
April 20-May 7 Provided technical assistance on use of microcomputers in analysis of on-farm agronomic trial data.
June 18-27: Two-week course to introduce Jamaican
reserchers to FSR/E.
USAID/Gov. of Paraguay buy-in at level of $80,000 for services.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 30
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
ASIA POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGY STATEMENT, 1984-85
By project definition, the regions of the Near East and Asia are considered together for regional policy development. Being the last two regions to be considered for formal policy, Asia and Near East policy development profitted fram the experiences gained in implementing FSSP policies in both Latin America and Africa. In addition, the FSSP acknowleges that (1) core staff has the least amount of experience working in Asia and the Near East and (2) Asia has a longer continuous experience in cropping systems research than any other region of the world.
Given this setting, Asia and Near East policy development began in the Spring of 1984 with the creation of a committee canposed of faculty fram several support entities interested in continuing their work in Asia. This ccmittee, known as NEAAC (Near East and Asia Adivsory Ccamittee), consists of 11 members representing 9 support entities. Its purpose is to provide a cadre of members with both interest in, and expertise fram having worked in, Asia and/or the Near East. The camittee provides advice to the core regarding Asia and Near East policy and implementation strategy. The NEAAC coumittee met 3 times during the 1984 FSR Symposium at KSU last October. The co-coordinator for Asia and the Near East keeps the camnittee abreast of the demands on the FSSP fran these regions, as well as delivery by FSSP core and NEAAC members. Composition of the NEAAC is provided by the attachment to this report.
Since the cable announcing the beginning of an Asian policy and creation of the NEAAC went to missions in July, 1984, the FSSP has been involved in the following activities:
1) Technical assistance was supplied on request to an FSR/E workshop in Sri Lanka. African and Asian expertise was used.
2) Core has made exporatory visits on request to missions and host country representatives of the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Nepal. A NEAAC member accanpanied the core representative during the exploratory visit to Thailand.
3) Follow-up visits to the Philippines and Thailand have taken place. In the first instance, two NEAAC members carried out a training needs assessment, while in the latter, technical assistance was provided for an impending project evaluation and for host country field implementation of FSR/E.
4) Dialogue/collaboration with AVRDC, IRRI, ICRISAT, and CIMMYT outreach has begun. Representatives fran AVRDC, IRRI and ICRISAT have visited the project in Gainesville. Core visits have been made to IRRI (two) and to CIMMYT outreach staff. A NEAAC member has visited AVRDC.
FSSP Sunnary Memos (06/85) 31
5) Through an IRRI-FSSP initiative, an African-Asian linkage has
begun by sponsoring three representatives of the newly-formed West African livestock-based FSR network to attend a forthcoming AFSN crop-livestock monitoring tour in Asia in August.
6) Another Asia-Africa linkage has been started by requesting representatives of the SUAN (Southeast Asian University Agroecosystems Network) system to attend a forthcoming networkshop in Africa for West African universities interested in FSR/E. This activity should take place in early 1986.
7) IRRI and the FSSP have interacted in development and refinement of FSR/E training materials.
8) Technical assistance was provided to the Jordan mission via the University of Arizona in a FSR/E project design activity.
Goals for the Remainder of the Project
NEAAC has proven highly successful during its first year. Recently,
NEAAC membership was asked to form a subcommittee with the objective of becoming more directly involved in Asia and Near East policy. This subcommittee will address itself to the continuing evolution and implementation of FSSP policy in the region, and will account for the majority of the delivery of FSSP activities in the region during the rest of 1985 and throughout the rest of the life of the project. This subcommittee currently consists of NEAAC members, and is included in the NEAAC membership roster attached to this report.
In summary, the core will continue to turn policy development and delivery over to the NEAAC subcommittee, which in turn will continue to
work closely with the core co-coordinator for Asia and the Near East. Two explicit goals for the project in these regions are:
1) Continuing integration with IRRI, CIMMYT and ICRISAT in defining the roles of each entity in FSR/E activities in the regions, including the issues of which entity should lead the activity, which entities should provide support, and how such support should be paid for and delivered;
2) Continuing the search for activities which can for the basis for ribboning between the regions of Africa and Asia/Near East in addressing FSR/E problems and needs.
Finally, activities begun in 1984 between the FSSP and SUAN will
continue into and beyond 1985. Two such activities are the joint meeting of FSR/E practitioners and agroecosystems practitioners, hosted by the East-West Center (with Ford Foundation funding) in August, 1985, and FSSP participation in the SUAN meetings in Chaing Mai, Thailand, November, 1986. The FSSP views the former as a state-of-the-art activity which may lead to use of agroecosystems methods in FSR/E activities, and use of FSR rapid rural appraisal techniques in agroecosystems research.
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 32
ATTACHMENT TO ASIA POLICY STATEMENT
This attachment provides the NEAAC (Near East and Asia Advisory Committee) membership. Those members starred with an asterisk (*) have
agreed to serve on the NEAAC policy development and delivery subcanittee: Regional
NEAAC Member University Affiliation Interest
Randy Barker Cornell Southeast Asia
*Richard Bernsten Michigan State Southeast Asia
*Harry Bittenbender Michigan State Southeast Asia
*John Caldwell Virginia Polytechnic Institute Southeast Asia
Sam Johnson Illinois Southeast Asia
Herb Massey Kentucky Southeast Asia
*Harold McArthur Hawaii Southeast Asia
Mike Norvelle Arizona Near East
Howard Olson Southern Illinois East Asia
Delane Welsch Minnesota Southeast Asia
*Larry Zuidema Cornell Southeast Asia
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 33
FSSP SUMMARY MEMO ON:
FSSP AFRICA POLICY AND 1985 ACTIVITIES
The Cooperative Agreements for the FSSP state that at least fifty
percent of project activities during the life of the project will support mission programs in the Africa Bureau. This memo will provide: 1) a brief summary of regional activities to date, based on reports in the files ccmpiled for the evaluation; 2) a description of activities completed in 1985; 3) a calender of activities planned (both confirmed and tentative) for the remainder of 1985; 4) and an optimal plan of action for the remainder of the project.
(1) The first year of FSSP, 1983, focused on needs assessment, technical assistance and the development of a one-week overview workshop on FSR/E concepts and methods. During 1984, we focused attention on the training area with refinement of the overview workshop and initiation of training materials development geared to the needs of the region, including case studies, training units, diagnostic survey guidelines for West Africa, and
an exploration of the francophone and anglophone approaches to FSR in West Africa and the implications for training. Attention was also placed on preparation of trainers for Africa with the Training for Trainers Workshop at Iowa State University. FSSP supported two MSTAT workshops (Malawi and Mali). Task force activity (household, evaluation, livestock, extension)
also focused attention on key problem areas of FSR in Africa. Work was also begun on the synthesis of field experiences and task force recommendations into FSR/E guidelines.
(2) Activities completed in Africa in 1985.
(Core staff member associated with activity in parenthesis)
January: Briefing for Gambia Ag. Research and Development Design team (DG)
FSSP FSR/E specialist on Gambia GARD design team (SP)
MSTAT course in Senegal (CA)
February: Preparations in Togo for Networkshop (SP)
World Bank Seminar in Ivory Coast Res-Ext Linkage (CA)
Zambia FSR project evaluation (E. MARTINEZ)
March: Networkshop on Animal Traction in a Farming Systems Perspective,
held in Togo (SP, J. OXLEY, S. RUSSO, P. STARKEY, V.
BARREIT, J. LICHTE, H. ZANDSTRA)
SAFGRAD/FSU/PURDUE Workshop on Technologies Appropriate for
Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa (DG + 11 West African
participants sponsored by FSSP)
ICARDA workshop on on-farm research with animals; Head of FSSP
Livestock Task Force attends (J.OXLEY)
Planning of June ILCA/FSSP workshop on On-Farm Research
Methodologies for Livestock (J. OXLEY)
April: Cameroon Technical Assistance Seminar FSSP sent FSR specialist
to give 2 plenary lectures (S. FRANZEL)
Completion of Africa FSR Bibliography (KSU LIBRARIES)
FSSP Sunnary Memos (06/85) 34
May: Africa Bureau/S&T Seminar on Results of Togo Networkshop (SP)
Senegal workshop on agronmanic trials, FSSP facilitator
participated (F. POEY)
Gambia Workshop on Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials; all
trainers and materials supplied by FSSP (SP, DG, LW, J.
CALDWELL, F. POEY)
Senegal networking visit with MSU/ISRA team concerning joint
training, networking and publication activities (SP)
FSSP/Pop. Council FSR/E Casewriters Workshop in Boston;
casewriters for Botswana, Zambia, Burkina Faso attend (SP,
D. BAKER, J. NAGY, C. CHABALA)
June: African Title XII Bilateral Contractors Network meeting in
Chicago as part of initiation of Crop-based networking
activities in W. Africa (SP, DG)
West African Animal Systems Networking: Exchange visits between
animal traction teams in Togo and Sierra Leone (SP,
ILCA/FSSP Workshop on On-Farm Livestock Research Methodologies
(SK, J.OXLEY, R. McDOWELL, H. OLSON)
CIMMYT East Africa Program, ICRAF, ICIPE networking visits (SK)
(3) Activities planned for the remainder of 1985
July: Networking/Training trip to CIMMYT/Nairobi, Rwanda and Burundi
Planning of Egerton College, Kenya, East/West Africa FSR
Workshop; FSSP will support 10 W. African Participants (SP)
August: Egerton College East/West Africa FSR Workshop (SP)
Animal Systems Networking Steering Ccmmittee Representatives to
join Asian FSR Network Livestock Monitoring Tour (SP, P.
Sept.: WAFSRN Symposium in Dakar; FSSP will co-sponsor together with
IDRC and IITA (SP)
Ivory Coast/IDESSA FSR workshop (Proposed; solicited FSSP
October: KSU FSR/E Symposium and FSSP annual meeting: African members of
Technical Caommnittee will meet (DG, SP)
November: ADO/RDO meeting in Togo: FSSP asked to assist in developing preor post workshop activity on FSR/E and animal traction.
Networkshop for COP's of FSR/E or related projects in Africa
(tentative) (SP, DG)
Rwanda FSR/E overview workshop with CIMMYT (SP)
Zambia workshop on research-extension linkages in
institutionalization: CIMMYT/FSSP/INTERPAKS (CA)
December: West African FSR/E Practitioners networkshop, co-sponsored
FSSP/WAFSRN (SP, DG)
Cameron FSR/E Overview workshop; to be co-sponsored with AID
mission/IITA/UF Dschang Proj./FSSP (SP)
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 35
(4) Strategy for the remainder of the project.
FSSP has been asked to develop a plan for placement of a regional support office and staff member in West Africa. A long range plan and budget for such an office to be placed in Cameroon was developed by C. Andrew (See memo May 28, 1985 to Anson Bertrand). While FSSP strongly concurs with the development of a West African base from which to continue FSR/E support activities, this will not be possible without additional financial support from USAID. FSSP does, however, see that a series of third and half time positions within bilateral contracts could build towards the development of such a base in the future. FSSP has been requested in the PP of the Gambia ARD Project to share a trainer position for two years. This would provide FSSP with two opportunities: 1) to conduct a series of training short courses in English with hands-on activities within an on-going FSR/E project for both Gambian and other English-speaking practitioners from the region, and 2) to develop a model for the integration of an FSR/E training within an African National Ag. research and extension program. Both experiences could build into a
regional support base, such as the one proposed for Cameroon. Linking the Gambian trainer position into other regional training and networking activities would further strengthen the development of a regional base. A second shared position with the Univ. Florida Cameroon University Project could also be considered as another step towards a regional base. Such a position could build upon Gambian training activities and incorporate them into a University level training program. Other shared positions with other bilateral contracts now being bid upon (Mali, Sierra Leone) could further strengthen linkages upon which to build a support base. FSSP could then work towards the development of such a base for the remainder of the project and phase implementation of the base into 1987, provided funding is made available.
Whether the activities described above are funded or not, the FSSP
will continue with proactive FSR/E support to Africa, primarily in the West and Central Regions. Major attention will be placed on networking and training, while maintaining a response and facilitation mode to mission requests for technical assistance. Networking activities will center
around support for 3 interrelated networks: animal-based farming systems (as initiated with the Togo networkshop), crop-based farming systems (initiated with the bilateral contractor network) and a third dealing with FSR/E in the African University context (which will be linked to the SUAN network in Asia). Linkages of these activities with IITA, SAFGRAD, INSAH, IDRC, FORD F., WORLD BANK, and WAFSRN are being discussed and planned. Training will focus on delivery of courses using the TUOD and case study materials, and adaptation of these to French.
FSSP Sunmary Memos (06/85) 36
INDEX OF ITEMS FOR THE FSSP EVALUATION
A. PROJECT REPORTS
A-I Project Paper
A-2 UF Response to the Project Paper
A-3 Cooperative Agreement and Logical Framework
A-4 Procedural Manual
B. WORK PLANS
B-I 1983 Work Plan (See Appendix 1 of the 1983 Annual Report)
B-2 1984 Work Plan
B-3 1984 Work Plan Ccmmittments
B-4 1985 Work Plan
B-5 1985 Implementation plan for the 1985 Work Plan
C. QUARTERLY REPORTS
C-I #1 1982, 4th Quarter 10/01/82 to 12/31/82
C-2 #2 1983, 1st Quarter 01/01/83 to 03/31/83
C-3 #3 1983, 2nd Quarter 03/01/83 to 06/31/83
C-4 #4 1983, 3rd Quarter 07/01/83 to 09/31/83
C-5 #5 1983, 4th Quarter 10/01/83 to 12/31/83
C-6 #6 1984, 1st Quarter 01/01/84 to 03/31/84
C-7 #7 1984, 2nd Quarter 03/01/84 to 06/31/84
C-8 #8 1984, 3rd Quarter 07/01/84 to 09/31/84
C-9 #9 1984, 4th Quarter 10/01/84 to 12/31/84
D. ANNUAL REPORT
D-I 1983 Annual Report
D-2 1984 Annual Report
D-2.1 1984, Summary of FSSP Annual Meetings D-2.2 Summary of Interests, Capabilities, and Experience of SE's D-2.3 Biodata Search Summaries (included in the 1985 Annual Report)
E. TECHNICAL REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS
E-1 Liberia Report
E-2 Honduras Evaluation Report
E-3 Livestock Report
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 37
E-5 Evaluation Task Force (in progress)
E-6 Burkina Faso Country Book (not included)
E-7 The Gambia Country Book (not included)
E-8 Sierra Leone Country Book (not included)
E-9 Togo workshop summary
E-10 Upper Volta Workshop report (not included)
E-11 Working Paper 101
E-12 Networking Papers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
E-13 FSR Bibliography
E-14 KSU FSR Bibliography
E-15 Hildebrand, P. and F. Poey. On Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming
Systems Research and Extension.
E-16 FSR/E Case Study Project- FSSP/Population Council
F-l* TMS 101 Technical Overview of FSR/E
F-2* TMS 102 Introduction to Farming Systems Research/ Development
F-3* TMS 201 Introduction to the Economic Characteristics...
F-4* TMS 202 Economic Characteristics fo Small Scale....Farms...
F-5* TMS 203 The Small Scale Family Farm as a System
F-6* TMS 204 Land Tenure in Upper Volta
F-7* TMS 301 Defining Recommendation Dcmains
F-8* TMS 302 Initial Characterization: The Rapid survey or SONDEO.
F-9* TMS 401 Designing Alternative Solutions- Jutiapa, Guatemala
F-10* TMS 402 Designing Alternative Solutions- Zapotitan, El Salvador F-11* TMS 403 Designing Alternative Solutions- North Florida FSR/E F-12* TMS 405 Women and Cassava Production in Zaire F-13* TMS 406 ILCA Highlands Animal Traction- Ethiopia F-14* TMS 501 Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials F-15* Int'l Pr. The Land Grant System and the University of Florida F-16 TMS 600 Training Unit: Agronomic Experimental Design and Anal.
F-17 TMS 601 Training Unit: Management and Administration in FSR/E
F-18 TMS 602 Training Unit: Diagnosis-Getting Started in FSR/E
F-19 Selected Readings for FSR Methods (Hildebrand)
* slide/tape modules (script available)
G-1 Newsletters Vol. I, Nos. 1,2,3; Vol. II, Nos. 1,2,3,4; Vol.III,
Nos. 1 and 2
G-2 On-Demand 1 thru 5
G-3 On-Networking 1 thru 21
FSSP Sunmmary Memos (06/85) 38
DATE: May 28, 1985
TO: Dr. Anson Bertrand
THROUGH: Don Osburn & Wendell Morse
FROM: Chris 0. Andrew
RE: FSSP West Africa Support
The following presents results of the recent meetings held in Cameroon concerning possible location of an FSSP regional support office and staff in Cameroon. Budget estimates are included to indicate necessary supplemental support to the core FSSP budget if such action is to be undertaken.
Based upon our last comunication at the FSSP Advisory Council meeting, we have directed our assessment to establishment of a complete regional
support program based in Cameroon. We believe that this should be the position taken. Limited support, however, will not achieve better results than the present mode of operation. A field assistant position (an ex PCV type) might be appropriate as an extension of the present mode to facilitate training and network activities if a complete regional support program is not possible. We do not reccrumend the limited support alternative.
Meetings in Cameroon confirm the position taken by you and the Advisory Council that a complete support package should be considered. Those meetings were held with the following leaders and numerous of their support people:
Dr. Rene Owona Director General, University Center at Dschang
Dr. Joseph Djoukam Deputy Director General, University Center at
Dr. Jean Ongla Director,ENSA (National School of Higher Education) University Center at Dschang
Dr. Joe Busby Chief of Party USAID/UF/UCD Higher Education Contract
Dr. Emanuel Atayi Chief of Party USAID/IITA/IRA National Cereals Research to Extension Project
Dr. Herb Miller Acting Director, USAID Cameroon
Mr. Bob Schmeding HRDO/USAID Cameroon Mr. Bill Litwiller ADO/USAID Cameroon
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 39
In summary the UCD administration would like to have the FSSP locate
with the University in Dschang assuming that support would be given to the establishment of a farming systems course in the university curriculum, that the FSSP would work closely with the two bilateral contracts (UF and IITA), and that assistance would be given as the UCD jointly establishes on-farm research with the National Cereals Research and Extension (NCRE) program. The farming systems arm of the NCRE is the Technical Liaison Unit (TLU).
The University of Florida technical assistance team reacts positively
to logistically supporting an FSSP unit if that unit is under the administrative supervision of the Chief of Party for the work in Cameroon. This is compatible with and supports the UDC administrative position. Thus, the bilateral contract and the UCD would provide office space, administrative support (accounting, money transfer capability, etc) and facilitate establishment of the standard contractor package allowable to but not exceeding that available to the UF bilateral contract team. In
return the UF expects that FSSP will respond to the desires expressed by the UCD administrators.
IITA desires to cooperate with FSSP both under present operating
arrangements and if a program office is established in Cameroon. FSSP might locate with the National Research Institute (IRA) near Yaounde instead of at Dschang with the UCD. This was suggested by Herb Miller but not supported generally by others. IITA and the NCRE would probably be receptive to such collaboration but they agree that cooperative work at UCD would be most desirable. Two NCRE technical assistance people are located at the IRA research station in Dschang adjacent to the UCD. One of the TLUs is near Dschang also so the integration of research and extension presses for the UCD location. We see full collaboration possible with IITA under all alternatives. Note that IITA/Ibadan recomended to Hugh Popenoe in his recent visit to Nigeria that Cameroon would be the place to locate an FSSP unit. Thus, we have discussed the IITA linkage at all levels and are very pleased to report that we see excellent potential for a successful working relationship. It could became a model for not only FSSP/IARC work but for facilitating and strengthening the IARC/National Research Institute linkage.
USAID/Cameroon is supportive of FSSP and desires caution in considering establishment of a complete regional support program at the UCD. Three considerations were raised by Herb Miller: not to over tax the UCD which is undergoing major institutional development changes at present, to cooperate fully with IITA, and to integrate solidly with the UF bilateral contract. Discussions with administrators of those entities suggest that
these considerations are very reasonable and that they can be accanodated for effective programming. Both Bill Litwiller and Bob Schmeding emphasized the need for adequate financing for a complete program and optimally a four year minimum time frame. Schmeding was very enthusiastic about the regional program concept of linking bilateral contractors together in West Africa for collaborative support and networking. Jay Johnson is to become Mission Director on June 20, 1985. Jay visited
Gainesville for two days to become familiar with the university and we
FSSP Summnary Memos (06/85) 40
spent an hour discussing the FSSP. Before I reached the point of proposing
Cameroon as the location for an FSSP program Jay volunteered that he invited us to consider Cameroon. He was very supportive and will be excellent for UF and FSSP to work with.
The Program in Cameroon might then assume the following scope:
1. Establish base for regional training programs in FSR/E.
2. Establish an institutional tie (University Center at Dschang) for
long term educational programming:
a. Short courses linked with viable FSR/E and OFR work.
b. Degree course in the UCD curriculum with viable FSR/E and
3. Establish a network support base to:
a. Facilitate national linkages through bilateral
contractors and national institutions in West Africa.
b. Augment problem (comnodity cropping systems, constraints
etc) oriented networks of West African researchers and
educators with agricultural research, training and
B. Basic Requirements
1. Location with a national institution preferably including a
research, teaching and extension mandate.
2. Potential ties with an ongoing FS and OFR program.
3. Full regional complement multi country with bilateral contract
4. A support commitment by USAID S&T, Africa Bureau and Missions:
a. With a minimum 4 year time frame
b. With an adequate budget as specified below see budget
The summary budget for Africa (primarily W. Africa) would call for $2.377m for the FY period 1986 through 1989 (see attached budget). Four years of programming would include the Cameroon base at about 25% of the total budget, a regional budget for linking with bilteral USAID contracts at about 15% of total budget and a training technical assistance and networking activity budget at 60% of the budget.
Mission match would influence the overall program but regional training and network activities can not be supported exclusively with mission buy-ins. The budget would support up to six major networkshops or training activities and sane training unit development support work.
The Cameroon base budget is attached. Computations cover the 21 month period from January 1, 1986 through September 30, 1987. Projections to
FSSP Sununary Memos (06/85) 41
cover FY 1988 & 1989.
The regional linkage budget anticipated salary only to call forth designated team members from bilateral contracts for a portion of time to be spent in regional and national FSR/E training and networking. At capacity ('87, '88, '89) this could be four people at quarter time or three people at third time etc.
A consideration of the FSSP budget is necessary as we anticipate the Africa situation. A summary of the FSSP budget through completion of the present Cooperative Agreement in September 1987 is attached. It includes the basis for phasing into an African regional program but does not anticipate total FSSP costs, should the project be extended.
A summnary of projected costs through FY 1987 with and without the W.
Africa strategy coupled with full funding as called for in the Cooperative Agreement and reduced funding as presently suggested by S&T, is attached. Generally the data speak to the situation.
The overall budget shows an extremely low input into LA\ and Asia,4iE
without the TJD funding shown in parenthesis for 86 & 87. There can be no W. Africa program without supplemental funding for the final two years (FY 88 & 89). If all funding in the Cooperative Agreement were available $100,900 could be carried into the next funding or project period. Even then there will be a short fall of $468,100 in FY 86 unless the funding is evened out (moved f ran 87 to 86). If there is no new program in W. Africa the FY 86 short fall will be $277,800 and $967,100 in FY 87. To sustain this reduction Africa delivery could be reduced primarily to Mission buy-ins, core staffing could be reduced and/or the program development effort reduced. Probably each would need to be cut where possible depending upon overall program priorities. The first phase of the FSSP might be forced to terminate prior to Sept 30 1987 if funding level II is
Hopefully this gives you a reasonably canmplete picture of where we
might go with the FSSP in Africa relative to the overall funding situation. In conclusion, our efforts in W. Africa are going very well, contrary to what many might have expected. Farming systems work in W. Africa has becane in many places an accepted way to address research and extension needs. FSR/E programs, however, are only in initial stages of evolution. It will be unfortunate if we reduce activity as we are most needed.
FSSP summnary memos (06/85) 42
(1000s) FY 86 87 88* 89* Total
Cameroon base ** 151.1 145.1 152.3 159.9 608.4
linkages 39.2 96.6 101.4 106.4 343.6
Training, TA &
Networking 300.0 350.0 375.0 400.0 1425.0
TOTAL 490.3 591.7 628.7 666.3 2377.0
* Projected from base
** See Africa Budget (base support)
FSSP Sunnary Memos (06/85) 43
FY 85 86 87 88 89
Adm. Sal. 79.1 166.1 174.4
Support 9.4 21.3 20.8
Ind. Cost 41.6 88.0 91.7
130.1 275.4 286.9
Mgnt.: Sal. 126.8 264.7 278.1
Support 45.8 96.8 103.3
Ind. Cost 81.1 170.0 179.6
253.7 531.5 561.0 TOTAL 383.8 806.9 847.9
Core: Cameroon 151.1 145.1 152.3 159.9
Regional 39.2 96.6 101.4 106.4
Networking 100.0* 300.0* 350.0* 375.0 400.0
Total Africa 100.0 490.3 591.7 628.7 666.3 2377.0
Program Dev.& World Net
Newsletter 29.2 58.4 58.4
Symposium 18.0 18.0 18.0
Bib 21.0 43.0'
B +D'B handbook 17.5 Program dev + SOA
TUD 85.0 (232)** (200)**
T C (Travel) 20.0 20.0 20.0
S.E.An Meeting travel 25.0 25.0 25.0
Publication 20.0 40.0 40.0
Total 235.7 204.4 161.4
ASIA + L.A. NETWORKING 20.0 30.0 30.0
TOTAL 739.5 1531.6 1531.0
* In present budget
** Desired for training program development not included in totals.
FSSP Sumary Memos (06/85) 44
BUDGET IN AFRICA
FY 86 87 TOTAL
(9 months) (12 months) (21 months)
1. 1 CORE IN RESIDENCE 30,000 42,000
Salary 6,900 9,660
Fringe (23%) 7,500 10,500
44,400 62,160 106,560
Travel 3,400 3.400 ____6,800
Long term 5,400 7,200 ___6,750 7,200 13,950
Freight 3,950 3,950
Storage 1,450 1,950
Car 1,500 ___6,900 5,900 12,800
other 250 250 500
Total 61,700 78,910 140,610
Ind. @ 32 19,744 25,251 44,995
TOTAL 81,444 104,161 185,605
2. SUPPORT IN AFRICA
Secretarial 12,000 15,000
Office Equip. 15,000 5,000
Fuel & Rep. 4,000 4,000
Driver 4,500 6,000
Supplies 750 1,000 ___Total 52,750 31,000 83,750
Ind @ 32 16,880 9,920 26,800
TIOTAL 69,630 40,920 '110,550
3. TO)TAL CORE &
SUPPORT 151,074 145,081 296,155
FSSP Sumiary Memos (06/85) 45
FSSP BUDGET AND RELEASE
FY 85 86 87
Apr 1(1000s) Oct 1
Full 1123* 680 2100
Partial 1123 680 700**
W/O Af. Based Core 739.5 1341.3 1389.3
Full 383.5 (-277.8) 432.9
Partial 383.5 (-277.8) (-967.1)
W/Af. Based Core 739.5 1531.6 1531.0
Full 383.5 (-468.1) 100.9
Partial 383.5 (-468.1) (-1299.1)
* 85 Fiscal released April 85
** Preliminary S&T/Ag request
FSSP Sumary Memos (06/85) 46
FSSP Summary Memos (06/85) 47