Summary Report - Togo Networkshop : "Amimal sic traction in a farming systems perspective"

Material Information

Summary Report - Togo Networkshop : "Amimal sic traction in a farming systems perspective"
Added title page title:
Animal traction in a farming systems perspective
Added title page title:
Animal traction in a farming systems perspective
Poats, Susan V.
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida -- Farming Systems Support Project -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Farming Systems Support Project, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
18 leaves ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Africa ( LCSH )
Farming ( LCSH )
University of Florida. ( LCSH )
Agriculture ( LCSH )
Farm life ( LCSH )
Draft animals -- Africa ( LCSH )
Animal traction -- Africa ( LCSH )
Spatial Coverage:
North America -- United States of America -- Florida


General Note:
"Sponsored by the Farming Systems Support Project, FSSP."
General Note:
"The interim report was compiled by Susan Poats, FSSP, based on documents prepared by the networkshop resource persons for the proceedings which will be published in mid-1985."
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.
Resource Identifier:
ocm7029 ( NOTIS )

Full Text
Sponsored by the Farming Systems Support Project, FSSP
The term "networkshop" comes from CIMMYT's East African Programme, and is used to describe a workshop where peers with common concerns come together to exchange information and results, and to determine common
strategies for solving problems. A "network" of shared results develops from continued support for the same (or nearly the same) group to meet on a regular basis. The Farming Systems Support Project, FSSP, recognizes that both intra-and inter-country peer group interaction will greatly enhance the development of Farming Systems Research and Extension, FSR/E, as a viable agricultural development approach for West africa. The FSSP is committed to the support of existing FSR/E networks in the West African Region, such as the West African Farming Systems Network, WAFSRN, and stands prepared to assist formal networks in developing activities as necessary. However, FSSP also recognizes that networking does and must take place outside of formalized networks and that such activities can often contribute to the growth of formal network structures by creating a "felt need" among researchers and practitioners for peer exchange of problems and results. The Togo Networkshop on" Animal Traction in a Farming Systems Perspective" is an example of such a peer exchange.
The idea for organizing a regional networkshop on animal traction and FSR/E arose out of a concern expressed by participants in previou, :'SR/E training activities that too little attention in FSR/E was placed on the animal systems within West African farming systems. In developing a networking activity to address the issue, FSSP organizers felt that animal systems in general was too broad of a theme for a week long networkshop,
and decided instead to focus on a specific intervention technology and use the FSR/E perspective to explore problems and results found to date in its application in West Africa. Animal traction was selected as the networkshop theme for two reasons. First, USAID/Togo offered to host the networkshop and since animal traction is a focal issue in Togo's agricultural development plans, the topic seemed especially appropriate for this networkshop site. A second and stronger argument for the topic lies in the fact that focusing on animal traction technology provides a very useful entry into the exploration of the crop-livestock intersection in the farming systems of the region, and generally into the utility of the FSR/E approach in the research and extension process.
I This interim report was compiled by Susan Poats, FSSP, based on documents prepared by the networkshop resource persons for the proceedings which will be published in mid-1985.

Animal traction is a rather unique technology in the general
agricultural development portfolios of donor organizations in Africa. It is a "shelf technology" with a long history of proven utility and adoption worldwide. It is a farmer-generated technology many centuries old, round in virtually every ecological zone. Though it spread successfully to most parts of the world without the assistance of extension systems and donor funds, its development and diffusion in West Africa, despite considerable donor funding, has been uneven and problematic. For this reason, it seemed particularly useful to explore the topic in the context of a networkshop where researchers, practitioners and policy makers could have an opportunity to discuss whether animal traction really is a suitable technology for the region, and if so, what mechanisms would promote greater and more successful utilization.
The Networkshop objectives included:
1. Establishing an information exchange among animal traction projects
in West Africa.
2. Developing an inventory of animal traction proj ects and activities
in the sub-region..
3. Identifying animal traction research problems and potential
4. Developing a research agenda for the specific regional problems.
5. Developing follow-up programs which might involve exchange visits,
technical assistance and training activities, and further
On the first working day, keynote presentations were made relating to FSSP (S. Poats), on-farm research methodology (H. Zandstra), animal traction in Africa (P. Starkey) and a conceptual typology of animal traction programs (J. Lichte). Background information and observation
frameworks were presented for the subsequent field visits.
The second day involved group field visits to four distinct_.areas and many different farmers, projects and associations. Field trip teams met
during the evening to discuss their findings and conclusions.
The third day involved synthesis of the field trip experiences,
combined with further information from the projects of the participating countries. Slide presentations were given illustrating the work of the Sierra Leone Work Oxen Project, ILCA, Senegal, and animal traction activities elsewhere in Africa. A report was presented on the CIMMYT networkshop on feed resources and animal traction held in Swaziland in 1983.
The fourth day involved intensive small group discussions, followed by
group presentations on the subjects of management of draft animal technology, forage and feeding, preconditions for successful animal traction, methodology for animal traction research and the monitoring and evaluation of animal traction activities.

The final day involved further small group discussions, followed by
plenary presentations and discussions relating to possible solutions to the problems raised. The networkshop closed following synthesis of the week's
experiences and the discussion of follow-up activities. Following the workshop, (after departure of the participants from outside Togo) the
resource group had a day of discussions with representatives of the Togolese animal traction program.
The attached networkshop schedule provides greater detail on the events
and presentations made during the week.
Small group discussion during the workshop focused on changes in
farming systems related to the adoption of animal traction. Such changes were considered with regard to at least 4 different farmer situations:
A. Farmers who have no cattle raising tradition and have never used
animal traction.
B. Farmers with cattle raising traditions but who have not used animal
C. Farmers who use animal traction but perhaps only partially or have
problems with the management of their system. (Care must be used when
considering poor management. Extensive systems often appear poorly managed and executed even though they may be very appropriate given
labor and capital constraints and risk factors.).
D. Farmers who have a good technical level and use animal traction well,
but perhaps can be helped with more advanced technical themes and/or
the area of animal feeding.
Three aspects of the change in farming systems related to animal
tidc~cion adoption were considered in some detail during the workshop.
1. Animal feeding. Dry season maintenance and feeding of livestock is a
problem recognized through out West Africa. Due to the animal traction
theme, the main focus for discussion was on cattle and other large ruminants. Maintenance of cattle or other traction animals without
recourse to transhumance is perhaps the most important constraint to animal traction and the integration of livestock into crop-oriented
farming systems. The effective use of existing forage, the use of crop
residues, the possibility of using purchased feeds and supplements,
improved forage production and the elaboration of minimum maintenance rations using locally available feedstuffs were some of the techniques
to be discussed with regard to their contribution toward over coming
this constraint.
2. Management of new techniques/technology. The introduction of
technology has often failed because farmers did not have the technical
(management) level necessary to use the technique/technology to
advantage. Three to five years of accumulated experience may be
necessary to manage a new technique well. This delay is exacerbated by the use of technology packages which require a farmer to learn a number

of techniques and their interactions at the same time. The group
discussed the kinds of information and management requirements a farmer must have when facing animal traction adoption from one of the four (or
more) situations described above, and the kinds of information and
training needed to facilitate this transition.
3. Preconditions for successful animal traction adoption. Both exogenous
and endogenous preconditions were to be considered. The exogenous
factors are those from the farmer's environment which may influence the
success of the farming system or its subsystems. These include the
availability of timely input delivery, transportation, marketing
services, animal health services and credit. The endogenous factors are those internal to a farming system such as the farmer's resource
levels, experience with cattle and other large ruminants, cropping patterns, and the level of technical/management skills. Are there
certain resources'. experiences, or technical/management skills which a
farmer should have before undertaking the heavy capital investment
required by the animal traction technology? Preconditions should be considered not only with regard to repayment, but also with regard to
the expectation that animal traction can realistically produce the
theorized benefits for the farmers. From a systems perspective,
perhaps animal traction should be considered as an intermediate
technology in a broader proj ect/development framework. The
introduction or improvement of animal traction might be initiated with
farmers who meet certain preconditions, but the first phase might be
largely devoted to helping other farmers develop the resources and technical/management skills which would allow them to successfully
adopt and benefit from animal traction.
In addition the following two related topics were also discussed:
4. Methodologies for on-farm experimentation with animals. Even though
there are many years of accumulated experience concerning on-farm.
gronomic testing, the correct or best methods are still vigorously disputed. The same kind of experience does not seem to exist with.
regard to on-farm experimentation with animals. Researchers-and
extension personnel often seem to lack the methods which wo-uld allow them to undertake effective animal related testing. Can participants identify procedures or types of on-farm experimentation with animals
which they have found effective or can agree on as likely to I be
5. Monitoring and evaluation criteria for animal traction and projects
including livestock. The lack of generally accepted methodologies for
on-farm experimentation with animals contributes to the difficulty in
identifying evaluation criteria for livestock related project
components. Adoption rates have often been used, but if animal
traction and other livestock components are looked at in a larger
systems perspective and/or as a latter intermediate phase in a
multi-phase process, then the placement of animal traction units is not
an appropriate evaluation criteria during the early phase(s). If the
kinds of preconditions mentioned above can be identified for particular
situations then these might indicate better evaluation criteria. But
it is likely that these preconditions will differ in different farming

systems. This may lead to a system where some evaluation criteria can
not be identified during project design, but must be developed as part
of on-going project monitoring and evaluation.
Although each field trip site and subsequent report differed from the others in a number of ways, it was possible to identify eleven common points or problems raised in all four reports.
1. Adaptation of equipment. Generally, equipment is found to be fairly
well adapted to farmer needs. There is a need, however, for
appropriate peanut lifting equipment.
2. Supply of spare parts. This does not appear to be a significant
problem. The UPROI4A factory in Kara is doing a good job of
producing spare parts and local blacksmiths are also engaged in the
repair business for local animal traction farmers.
3. Cost of animal traction package. Most reports noted the high cost
of the unsubsidized animal traction package. There is a need to ask whether the cost of the package has now gone beyond the means of the
average farmer. There is a high initial cost for the equipment:
one-sixth of the total price or 240,000 CFA currently. In order to
be able to afford the initial payment, the farmers must therefore
have a cash crop for the animal traction use. In this region,
cereal prices fluctuate too much for them to play the role of a
dependable cash crop.
4. Animal supply and availability. Most reports noted that animals are
normally imported from (Burkina Faso) and therefore have both a high
price and considerable health problems. Emphasis for the future
should be placed on using local animals instead.
5. Collective ownership. This was not mentioned in all reports but was
brought up as a potential introduction strategy. Generally,
collective ownership may bring certain benefits, but thee may be
overcome due to the management problems collective ownership brings.
6. Animal health. In all cases, the status of animal health is
directly related to project intervention, rather than to any
coordinated national effort. In the Brokou report, it was noted
that cows were thin and likely having problems of health, but
elsewhere, animal health was generally good. The topic raises an
important question: should animal health continue to be so related
to project presence, or should the national animal health service be
7. Animal feeding. This topic generated alot of attention and a number
of ideas and problems were raised. Two stand out, however. First,
peanut haulms offer a good potential source of feed, and are
particularly beneficial due to their protein quality. However,
problems in successful storage/conservation of haulms by farmers
were underlined. Second, it was generally agreed that an adapted

leguminous cover crop could be a potentially beneficial introduction into local rotation patterns. However, serious problems were raised
as to the real potential of such an introduction (such as,
Stylosanthes sp.) given the difficulty in collecting or obtaining
seed for planting. It should be pointed out that to those visitors
from more Sahelian environments, the field trip areas seemed to have
abundant feed resources by comparison.
8. Animal care. The lack of a livestock tradition among most of the
farmers in the field trip site areas underlines a generally poor understanding of animal care due to inexperience. This points to
the need for intensive training in animal care and management, as a
basic component for any succesful project.
9. Soil management/fertility. While land availability was not noted as
a major constraint in the project areas visited, maintaining soil
fertility is a continuing problem and has not beep adequately
resolved. Manure is generally poorly utilized. It should be kept
in mind that animal traction without attention to soil fertility
maintenance, may increase soil degradation.
10. Use of tillage techniques. Generally, it was found that everyone
plows but very few people weed. Yet, weeding technology is where
gains to the farmer have greatest potential benefit. The
introduction of animal traction is a long, slow process. A project
has to have a long time-frame (many estimate 10 yrs before benefits
to farmers are seen), and must be able to deal with farmers on at
least three different levels at the same time; beginners, partial
adopters and advanced adopters.
11. Multiplicity of projects. It is apparent that Togo in general, and
the northern region in particular, has numerous projects dealing
with animal traction. The multiplicity of projects and services
seems to create confusion for farmers, and thus underlines both the
necessity of PROPTA (the new coordinating office for aivimal traction
activities in Togo) and the difficulty this organization will face
as it develops its coordinating role.
1. The number of animal traction units placed is not a good criteria
for evaluating an animal traction project.
2. Farmers are likely to experience a decrease in net income initially
when adopting animal traction.
3. Weeding is a key component of the animal traction package in terms
of making it profitable.
4. Animal traction allows a substantial reduction in labor inputs per
hectare even when the time needed to care for the animals is
5. Good extension support to farmers is vital to the success of the

proj ect.
6. The introduction of animal traction is a long term process and the
evolution of that process should be constantly evaluated.
1. Feed Resources and Animal Feeding:
A major problem facing livestock in West Africa is feeding and
maintenance of animals,, especially during the dry season and into the start of the rainy season. Our charge was to discuss the major problems facing livestock owners, and in particular, draft animal owners and to come up with viable short and long term solutions to the problems of animal feeding. In summary, four basic problem areas were identified relating to draft animal feeding:
1. Use of animals either part time or full time;
2. Feeding programs which vary from no selective feeding to those
providing supplemental feeding all year;
3. Traditions of livestock ownership and rearing; and
4. Feed availability, climate, land pressure, cultural biases, and
water availability.
While the problems were broken down into four areas specifically related to feed availability and management, the solutions were more systems oriented and seen as vertical:
1. The need for farmers to recognize the nturitional needs of their
2.1 The need for on-station and on-farm research on developing
bectter/more feed resources;
3. The need for information transfer to farmers via various channels;
4. The need to increase feed supply; and
5. The need to assess water and passage problems.
2. Management of Technology:
This group focused on the management (technical) capabilities needed by a farmer in order to use a technology such as animal traction to advantage. The information or training needed to help facilitate adoption was also discussed. The group focused on problems at the farm and farmer level.
Initially, there was a tendency to ass ume that the technology and project recommendations were all adapted and appropriate and that farmers who did not use the technology as recommended were poor managers. This created a lot of discussion which caused the group to refocus their presentation and also look at the responsibility of proj ects to adapt a technology so that it responds to the needs and constraints of local farmers. Information must be readily available or training provided in order for farmers to learn to use a technology quickly and well.
The group outlined several potential solutions to resolve problems of management of technology at the farm level, including: organization and management of the farm as a whole (especially related to diverse. crop/animal mixtures requiring differing levels of management capability),

animal management and maintenance, and the care and management of feed and equipment.
3. Preconditions for Successful Animal Traction Adoption:
The diversity and complexity of farming systems makes it impossible to
provide a definitive list of preconditions for successful animal traction. Nevertheless, there are some generalizations have been presented, and these
fall into five broad interacting categories: socio-economic profitability, socio-cultural factors, knowledge, financial resources and the availability of services. It is of particular note that several commonly held perceptions of pre-requisites are not considered as essential p .reconditions. For example, previous animal 'husbandry experience, animal size, and the provision of project or governmental services are not essential to the long-term success of animal traction, although they may be important fators in determining the speed of adoption. Using the principle of limiting factors, a schematic model was developed. The model is
necessarily simplified for it represents extremely complex combinations of interacting social, economic and environmental criteria, which are not
constant,, but which evolve with time. However, it is intended that such an approach may allow a farming systems research perspective to assist in decision7-making at the national, project or development agency level.
4. Methodologies for On-Farm Experimentation with Animals:
The important concepts of on-farm trials with a focus on livestock were outlined as a result of the discussion:
1. 'The participation of different disciplines is of great importance.
2. Trials must begin with a clear definition of the objectives,
including variables to be studied (time of planting, time of
feeding, amount of feed consumed, etc.)
3. Measurement methods must be defined and then limited to only key
treasures, and must be kept as simple as possible.
4. The number of replications for the suggested trial should be a
minimum of six farms each with a pair of oxen and a similar area of
forage production and another six farms identified as the control or
check farms which represent the traditional system.
5. A minimum of one year. duration, completing a normal yearly cycle is
recommended for a forage/oxen trial. A second and even a third year
should be considered as a means of confirming the intervention and
measuring year to year effects.
6. Careful selection of farmer cooperators is key to success of on-farm
trials. Frequent visits to trial sites and careful instructions to
mo nitors or enumerators recording trial data increase the likelihood
of carrying the trial through to completion.
7. Farmers must be protected against any undue risks which could result
from the tiral.
8. Simple analytical methods should be used, and as many non-treatment
effects as possible should be removed by statistical analysis.
* 9. The analyses should simulate the impact of the partial results on
the whole production system.
10. Conflicts between resources should be identified and qualified in
economic terms that can be related to the farmer.

5. Monitoring and Evaluation:
This discussion group was charged to identify evaluation criteria which
would be more appropriate for animal traction projects than simply using the total number of traction units placed on farms. The group found it necessary to first identify a general overarching goal for animal traction
proj ects in order to then identify appropriate evaluation and monitoring criteria. The objective agreed upon was: to increase production in a manner that permits repayment of any credits related to the purchase and use of animal traction technology without any decrease in thle farm family's standard of living. It was felt that this combined the social objective of increasing production while considering the minimum short run objectives of the farm family. It was agreed that the basis of an evaluation must be a comparison with the situation which existed prior to the introduction of
the project or program. However, it was recognized that many projects did not have this information available, and that is is difficult to collect after a project has been going on for some time. It was, equally recognized that conducting large baseline studies during the first two years of a. proj ect is usually impractical. Thus, some guidelines were developed for the kinds of information which would be the minimum to include in a monitoring and evaluation system:
1. The availability of family labor.
2. The effectiveness of animal health services.
3. The availability of arable land and the manner in which it is used.
4. The availability of waterand feed resources for livestock.
5. The technical level and use of weeding, fertilizer, and carting.
6. Marketing of produce.
7. Access to production inputs such as credit, equipment, spare parts,
and fertilizer..
8. The effect of animal traction on the environment:
- physical environment
- social environment (women, children,. intra-household effects).
9. Evaluation of extension service available to farmers and tne content
of the training provided.
1.Regular surveys of production statistics.
This group had very little FSR/E experience and found it difficult to understand how rapid reconnaissance techniques could be used to obtain information needed to conduct an evaluation. Training in FSR/E methods could be useful for further delineation of useful evaluation and monitoring systems.
The networkshop succeeded in bringing together fifteen African
nationals and twenty technical cooperation personnel involved in animal traction and farming systems research. The formal and informal information exchange and contact development between the individuals and oganizations was considered of great value by all concerned. The small group discussions of both the field visits and the specific problem areas led to very useful synthesis of experiences, clarification of the major constraints, and the identification of potential solutions. The diversity, of project experiences in the different countries and ecosystems prevent .ed
the development of generalized, or simplistic solutions. However,

convergence of opinion on the need for a multi-disciplinary, farming systems approach to animal traction research and extension was noticeable. The recommendations and guidelines prepared by the groups on management, feeding systems, research methodology, preconditions for successful adoption and the monitoring and evaluation of draft animal programs were considered valuable, and should benefit all the participating projects. The objectives set for the networkshop were comprehensive, and by their open-ended nature could never be perfectly accomplished. However, significant progress was made in all objectives and the various follow-up activities will continue to ensure that the information exchange, inventory preparation, problem identification, research program development and methodological improvements continue in the coming year. There was
unanimous assertion of the value of the networkshop, with the main potential for improvement being in the number of countries officially represented.
Potential networking activities on livestock in West African farming
systems which could be supported by FSSP in the future include: additional networkshops, support of West African livestock researchers for study and networking visits to other countries, and reports on various topics relating to livestock research and extension.
1. The 1986 Networkshop
Concensus of this networkshop's participants was that yearly
networkshops should be held. To insure network continuity, the theme of animal traction in Farming Systems Research and Extension should be continued at least for the 1986 networkshop.
For the 1986 networkshop, more specific topics relating to animal
traction will be discussed in detail that was not possible in the first network~hop. Topics that networkzshop participants erpresssed an interest in included: a more thorough discussion on animal feeding research on
station and on-farm, methodologies for training farmers including the possibility of developing a training manual, training for trainers
(especially extension staff) on-farm livestock research and monitoring in general, implement design and production, and traditional animal health and husbandry.
A coordinating committee for the 1986 networkshop was selected and a chair and secretariat were designated: Chair: Paul Starkey, Sierra Leone
Secretariat: Sandra Russo, The Gambia
Solomon Owens, The Gambia
Members: Bai Kanu, Sierra Leone
K. Apetofia, Togo
Adama Faye, Senegal
Yessoh Philidor, Ivory Coast
Abou Berthe, Mali

Networkshop participants were impressed by the enthusiasm of the Sierra Leone Work Oxen Project representatives for their research and extension work with farmers. An almost unanimous decision was made to hold the networkshop in Sierra Leone sometime between March and May 1986, pending official government approval for such an activity.
2. Support of West African Researchers
All of the following are proposals which must be approved by USAID,
FSSP, and the governments of other organizations named.
1. A visit by Togolese researchers to the Sierra Leone Work Oxen
Project's plowing competition in May, to be followed by a Sierra
Leonean researcher's visit to Togo for a work/study visit of
Togolese Animal Traction Projects.
2. Support for at least one West African livestock researcher to attend
the ILCA conference on methodologies for on farm research with
livestock in June and to present a paper on his/her research.
3. The opportunity for a West African Group (one anglophone, one
francophone, one facilitator) to join the Asian Cropping Systems
Network's livestock monitoring tour in August 1985.
4. A meeting of the coordinating committee for the 1986 Networkshop on
animal traction, together with at least one FSSP representative, to
be held in The Gambia in November 1985, to finalize plans and agenda
for the networkshop. A tour of animal traction programs in Senegal
and The Gambia will be included.
3. Reports
lit addition to the proceedings of the 1985 networkshop, an annotated
bibliography of documents specifically related to animal traction should be produced as part of FSSP's documentation effort. Reports on topics of interest relating to livestock in FSR/E should be commissioned-over the coming year to serve as background papers at the 1986 networkshop.

John Lichte Susan Poats
Consultant FSSP Associate Director, FSSP q
38 Walman Drive International Programs
Sun Prairie, Wisconsin 3028 McCarty Hall
53590 USA Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
Jim W. Oxley Vincent Barrett
Deans Office Consultant, FSSP
College of Agriculture 7470 Center St.
Colorado State University West Falls, New York,
Ft. Collins, Colorado 14170 USA
80523 USA
Paul Starkey Sandra Russo
Work Oxen Project C/O American Embassy
Private Mail Bag 766 P.O. Box 2596
Freetown, Sierra Leone Banjul, The Gambia
after June 30, 1985 2 Wychwood Crescent Early, Reading RG6 2 RA, U.K.
Solomon Owens, Mixed Farming Project c/o American Embassy P.O. Box 2596
Banj ul, The Gambia
Richard Schuman P.O. Box 582
Banjul, The GAmbia
Adama Faye
ISRA Secteur Centre Sud BP 199
Kaolack, Senegal
Burkina Faso:,
Joseph Nagy Herbert Ohm
BP 1783 Bp 1783
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

Rudo Wynands
Ghanaian German Implement Factory
Bp 4040 Ouagadougou Burkina Faso
Sierra Leone:
Jaques Delobre Bai Kanu
Work Oxen Project Work Oxen Project
Private Mail Bag 766 Private Mail Bag 66
Freetown, Sierra Leone Freetown, Sierra Leone
Hans Sagebiel
Ghanaian German Ag. Dev. Project P.O. Box 9698 Uobolla Int'l Airport Accra, Ghana
Hubert Zandstra
Head, Ag. Food and Nutrition Division Int'l Development Research Centre, IDRC
P. O. Box 8500
Ottawa, KIG3H9
Tchapo Tabe Dejean Koffi Tebou
Project Vivier Project Vivier
BP 69 BP 69
Kara, Togo Kara, Togo
Michael Handlas Kokou Dake Dogbe
GTZ/Project de developpement Ag. DRDR/FED
BP 86 BP 3
Sokode, Togo Kara, Togo
Pakoubatcho Lekezime Joseph Howell
Project Culture Attelee PROPTA
BP 3 c/o Projet Culture Attelee
Kara, Togo DRDR Savannes
BP 56
Dapaon, Togo

Tom Remington Arthur Westneat
Projet Culture Attelee PROPTA
BP 3 BP 82
Kara, Togo Atakpame, Togo
Kossi Loho Kossivi Apetofia
BP 3 BP 82
Kara, Togo Atakpame, Togo
Christian Sebastien Payato Padjawe Toky
Projet Vivier SAFGRAD
BP 69 BP 03
Kara, Togo Kara, Togo
Kossitse Amouzou Adjevi Mensah
BP 86 Sokode BP 3
Sokode, Togo Kara, Togo
Ekoue Assiongbon Bouraima Olagboye
DRDR Savannes Promotion Cooperative Region
BP 56 Kara BP 3
Dapaon, Togo Kara, Togo
James Lewis Craig Kramer
Projet Culture Attelee/USAID Projet Culture Attelee
BP 162 BP 104
Kara, Togo Dapaon, Togo
after September 1985: after Septemrer 1985:
10001 Rt. 108 7709 88th Ave.
Columbia, Maryland Kenosha, Wisconsin
21044 USA 53142 USA
Interpreters Logistician
Awa Coulibaly John-Malcolm Aste
08 BP 1614 2299 Jefferson Ave.
Abidjan, Cote d'Ovoire Memphis, Tennessee
38104 USA
Soungalo Diarra
BP 13222
Lome Togo

9:00 Left Lome for Lama-Kara via bus
12:00 Lunch at hotel in Atakpame
4:30 Arrived at Hotel Kara, Lama-Kara
5-6:00 Arranged meeting room
6:30 Words of Welcome
Introduction of participants Cocktail
8:00 Opening Mr. Komi Gbeblewoo, Directeur de Statistique
Agricole, Ministere de Developpement Rural 8:15 Overview: Housekeeping, procedures, workshop
What is FSSP? Susan Poats, FSSP What is FSR/E?, workshop objectives, topics of
discussion, workshop schedule, day's objectives John Lichte, FSSP
10-10:30 BREAK
10:30-12 Keynote address Hubert Zandstra, IDRC
12-2:00 Lunch
2:00 Overview of animal traction in Africa -Paul Starkey,
Work oxen Project, Sierra Leone
3:00 Conceptual framework John Lichte
1. Agro-climatic zone
2. Livestock traditions
3. Project influences
4. Socio-economic factors
4-4:30 Break
4:30 Placing country experiences in conceptual framework,
1. Sierra Leone
2. Gambia
3. Togo
5:30 Free Period
6:30 Field trip preparations description of sites,

logistics, topical focus 1. Management of Technology
2. Animal Feeding
3. Preconditions for Adoption Tuesday
8:00 Departure of 4 small groups on separate field trips
(picnic lunch prepared by hotel and sent with each group)
3-5:00 Groups returned from field trips
5-6:00 or
6-7:00 Groups prepared field trip reports
8:00 Day's objectives
8:10 Field trip reports
Atchangbade Jacques Delobre Kante Solomon owens
Brokou Bai Kanu
Landa Pozenda- Adama Faye
9:50 Summary of field trip experiences Vince Barrett
10:10-10:40 Break
10:40 Remainder of the other topics of discussion
4. Methodology
5. Monitoring & evaluation 11:05 Field trip experiences related to methodology and
monitoring & evaluation
12-2:00 Lunch
2:15 Problems in animal traction programs outside Togo
I. Sierra Leone Bai Kanu 3-3:30 2. Eastern ORD, Burkina Faso Vince Barrett
3:30-4:00 Break
4:00 Problems in animal traction programs outside Togo
3. Senegal Adama Faye 4:30 Report on CIMMYT Swaziland workshop Sandra Russo
5-6:30 Free period
6: 30-7:30 Slide presentations
1. Paul Starkey, animal traction

2. ILCA slide module, FSSP
3. Adama Faye, Senegal Thursday
8:00 Day's objectives
Identification of small discussion groups 8:20 Small group discussion to list and prioritize problems
related to group's topic 1. Management of technology
2. Animal feeding
3. Preconditions for adoption
4. Methodology
5. Monitoring and evaluation 10-10:30 Break
10:30 Small group presentations, problems related to topics
12-2 :00 Lunch
2:30 Small group presentation, problems related to topics 4
& 5
3:30-4:00 Break
4-6:00 Small group discussions to propose solutions and
strategies related to group's topic 6-6:30 Free period
8:25 Day's objectives
8:30 Small group presentations, solutions and strategies
topics 1-3
10-10:30 Break
10:30-11:50 Small group presentations, solutions and stratgies
topics 4&5
11:50 Parting comments Hubert Zandstra
12:05-2:30 Lunch
2:30 Workshop wrap-up comments by resource people and K.
Apetofia, Togo 3:00-3:30 Verbal and written evaluations
4:00-4:50 Discussion of follow-on workshop: topics, location and

Nomination of coordinating committee Sandra Russo Solomon Owens
Paul Starkey Bai Kanu
Kossivi Apetofia Adama Faye Yessoh Philidor Abou Berthe (not present)
5-6:00 Break
6:00 Official closing
6:30 Closing cocktail
Meeting of workshop resource people with personnel involved in the Togo Animal Traction Project:
Kossivi Apetofia Vince Barrett
Pakoubatcho Lekezime Sandra Russo
Adjevi Mensah Susan Poats
Kossi Loho John Lichte
Koffi Tebou Jim Oxley
M. Yassim Paul Starkey
Joe Howell
Tom Remington
Art Westneat
George Brunei
Jim Lewis
Craig Kramer
Sid Bliss
8-8:30 Overview of TAT project
8:.0-10:00 Discussion of policy related proolems
10:30-12:00 Discussion of techmical problems in small working groups
LAB001: 3

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EEMFN1F16_98RIJW INGEST_TIME 2018-12-20T21:02:44Z PACKAGE UF00056169_00001