Front Cover
 Concept: What was the basic technical...
 Design: How was this basic technical...
 Implementation: How was the project...
 Explanation: How was the project's...
 Project description sheet

Group Title: CDIE working paper - University of Florida A.I.D. Farming Systems Research & Extension ; 112
Title: Zambia agricultural development research & extension project (611-0201)
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073348/00001
 Material Information
Title: Zambia agricultural development research & extension project (611-0201)
Series Title: CDIE working paper
Alternate Title: Case studies of A.I.D. Farming Systems Research & Extension (FSRE) Projects, Case Study no. 7
Physical Description: 14 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Byrnes, Kerry J., 1945-
Publisher: Center for Development Information and Evaluation, Agency for International Development
Place of Publication: Washington DC
Publication Date: 1986?
Subject: Agricultural extension work -- Zambia   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Technology transfer -- Zambia   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Zambia
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf 11).
Statement of Responsibility: Kerry J. Byrnes.
General Note: Caption title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073348
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 80943006

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Concept: What was the basic technical idea underlying the project?
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Design: How was this basic technical idea translated into a project?
        Page 3
    Implementation: How was the project managed by the host-country implementing agency, the TA team, and USAID?
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Explanation: How was the project's performance measured or assessed?
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Project description sheet
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
Full Text



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

Case Stuiy No. 7

Zambia Agri:.iltural Development Research & Extension Project1


Kerry J. Byrnes2

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

This CDIE Working Paper is one of the case studies prepared
for a cross-cutting analysis of A.I.D. FSR/E projects, A Review of
A.I.D. Experience with Farming Systems Research and Extension
Projects (A.I.D. Evaluation Special Study, forthcoming). The 12
FSR/E projects reviewed in this series are:

Botswana Agricultural Technology Improvement (633-0221)
Gambia Mixed Farming and Resource Management (635-0203)
Lesotho Farming Systems Research (632-0065)
Malawi Agricultural Research (612-0202)
Senegal Agricultural Research and Planning (685-0223)
Tanzania Farming Systems Research (621-0156)
Zambia Agricultural Development Research & Extension (611-0201)
Nepal Agricultural Research and Production (367-0149)
Philippines Farming Systems Development-Eastern Visayas (492-0356)
Guatemala Food Productivity and Nutritional Improvement (520-0232)
Honduras Agricultural Research (522-0139)
ROCAP Small Farm Production Systems (596-0083)

Information on how to order any of the CDIE Working Papers this
series is provided on the last page of this report.

2Senior Social Science Analyst, Program and Policy Evaluation
Division, CDIE. This case study, prepared under a CDIE contract
with Labat-Anderson Incorporated, is based on a review of project
evaluation documentation. Interpretation of the data reported is
that of the author and should not be attributed to A.I.D. or Labat-
Anderson Incorporated.

Zambia Agricultural Development Research & Extension Project

The Zambia Agricultural Development Research and Extension
Project (ZAMARE) was authorized, as a five-year project (Phase
1), in September 1980, for $12,515,000. The Project Grant Agree-
ment with the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) was
signed in late 1980. Technical assistance (TA) to ZAMARE was
provided by the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana as
lead university, Southern Illinois University, and the University
of Maryland Eastern Shore.

While ZAMARE was anticipated to start in February 1981, the
TA contract was not signed until December 1981. Further, the TA
team personnel comprising the project's FSR/E component did not
begin arriving in country until August 1982, and were not fully
on board until October 1982. The TA team positions were team
leader (an agricultural economist), maize breeder, soybean
breeder, sunflower agronomist, farming systems economist, field
agronomist, and Research Extension Liaison Officer (RELO).

The ZAMARE project was evaluated two times: the first eval-
uation in 1983 (Benoit, et al., 1983), the second in early 1985
(Yohe, et al., 1985; and Sutherland and Warren, 1985). Although
the first evaluation recounts communication problems involved
during ZAMARE's start up phase (Benoit, et. al., 1983), these
were soon overcome. Accordingly, this case study is primarily
based, unless otherwise noted, on the second evaluation which was
conducted 31 months into the LOP of 60 months.

Concept What was the basic technical idea underlying the

Some 40% of Zambia' population live in urban centers, this
percentage being the highest of any African country south of the
Sahara. GRZ policy, directed at satisfying urban sector food
requirements via subsidized prices, has not stimulated economic
growth in the rural sector. Further, with copper providing 90%
of export earnings, agriculture contributes only 18% of the
country's GDP, this figure being the lowest in Africa. Yet the
number of the country's commercial farmers (about 500) and emerg-
ing commercial farmers (about 5,000) pales in comparison with the
600,000 small farmers producing nearly 60% of the grain marketed
in the country. Among the factors identified in the PP as con-
tributing to the poor performance of Zambian agriculture has been
inadequate attention to developing agricultural technology
tailored to the needs of the country's small-scale producers

With this background, the ZAMARE project's goal was "to
assist the GRZ in improving the welfare of small farmers and
increasing national food production through the development and
adaptation of relevant technology." The project purpose was "to
help the GRZ strengthen the agricultural research capacity of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development (MAWD) and to
increase the effectiveness of the extension service in trans-
ferring relevant agricultural technology with special emphasis on
small farmers." More specifically, the intent of the project was
to strengthen the capability of the MAWD's Department of Agricul-
ture (DOA) to conduct commodity and adaptive research aimed at
developing and extending improved technology for cereal and
oilseed crops grown by SSPs.

Zambia actively searched for over a decade to identify more
effective ways to link the Ministry's research and extension pro-
grams. Initiatives included the LIMA system (an extension pro-
gram designed around a farm input package for use on land units
of 1/4 hectare), the Training & Visit system, and the Adaptive
Research Planning Team (ARPT) system introduced in 1980. At the
time the PP was prepared, the GRZ had made a decision that there
would eventually be one ARPT for each province and an overall
ARPT coordinator. The first ARTP was to be created in Zambia's
Central Province (CP).

The techniques and methodologies gained through the ARPT
work in Central Province will provide guidance to MAWD in
replicating the ARPT in other provinces. It is
planned that as the new agricultural technology is devel-
oped, it will be fed by the [RELO] of the ARPT into the
[Training and Visit System] (PP, p. 25-26).

Administratively, the A.TP was to be located in the DOA's
Research Branch, to provide feedback on small farmer production
constraints to the Commodity Research Teams (CRTs) conducting
experiment station-based research. The ARPT was to provide a
mechanism to determine the technological requirements aitd
capacities of small farmers, and to test new technologies at the
farm level. Further, the ARPT would provide a means tc link
commodity and adaptive research within the Research Branch with
the field-level personnel of the DOA's Extension Branch.

The ARPT would be responsible for introducing a "bottom up"
approach into the process of establishing agricultural research
priorities in Zambia. This approach, sometimes called "adaptive
research," begins by identifying the problems and constraints of
farmers in a geographical region, bringing these problems to
commodity research scientists, identifying opportunities for the
improvement of existing farming systems, testing new technology
at the farm level, and gradually improving the farmer's system.
Also, the ARPT looks at the small farm from "a total system point
of view instead of by a single crop" (Yohe, et al., 1985:17).

The ARPT system of adaptive research or FSR/E basically
follows the four stage model of on-farm research that CIMMYT had
earlier introduced to Zambia: (1) Diagnostic stage: analysis of
farmer needs and farming system potential and constraints; (2)
Design stage: identification of possible improved technologies;
(3) Testing stage: evaluation of promising technologies under
farmers' conditions; and (4) Extension stage: dissemination and
general application.

While the main functions of the ARPT would initially be
limited to research and extension, the PP anticipated the ARPT
would eventually "engage in a broader set of functions. These
include influencing the content of agricultural training and
extension information programs and influencing the operation of
agricultural support services in favor of small farmers" (PP, p.
13). However, the PP "stressed that adaptive research by the
ARPT will complement and interact with commodity research by the
CRTs. The ARPT will influence the choice of CRT research
priorities and the CRTs will generate improved technologies for
testing by the ARPT" (PP, p. 13).

Design How was this basic technical idea translated into a

The project design provided a mix of inputs, including TA,
long-term academic training, short-term training, procurement of
laboratory and field commodities, and some operational costs
support on a sliding scale. Inputs were to be combined in a
two-pronged strategy: (1) to strengthen national-level Commodity
Research Teams (CRTs) through the participation of TA personnel
with applied research expertise in plant breeding (maize and
soybean), agronomy (sunflower), and soil microbiology; and (2) to
strengthen the Central Province Adaptive Research Planing Team
(CP/ARPT) through the participation of TA personnel with
expertise in FSR/E.

Thus, the TA team was to include both personnel working with
the CRTs and personnel working with the ARPTs. The TA team work-
ing with the counterpart ARPT was to include a Farming Systems
Agronomist, a Farming Systems Economist, and a Research Extension
Liaison Officer (RELO). The agronomist and economist were to be
based in the MAWD's Research Branch, while the RELO was to be
based in the Ministry's Extension Branch, to facilitate a close
working relationship with the Provincial Extension Training
Officer. The three-member ARPT would be located at the Kabwe
Regional Research Station. The other four members of the TA team
were to be assigned to work with the Research Branch's CRTs.

The second evaluation of the ZAMARE project noted that the
project was "unique among farming systems projects" in that the
project design called for the National Research Branch to be
linked with the National Extension Branch" through the RELO and
the ARPTs (Yohe, et al., 1985: p. 2 of Africa Bureau Executive
Summary). While recognizing the importance of linking research
and extension, project funding for extension was limited to the
provision of motorcycles to extension supervisors and in-service
training of extension workers in the diagnostic, design, testing,
and dissemination stages of the ARPT process.

That the project design did not provide TA personnel to
extension was noted by the second evaluation as jeopardizing the
institutionalization of effective extension participation in and
support of the ARPT model (Yone, et al., 1985). On the other
hand, the first evaluation, in assessing the project's design,
commented that: "Few research development projects in the A.I.D.
are as well designed (Benoit, et al., 1983:5)."

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

The CP/ARPT was the first ARPT in Zambia to become fully
operational. The origin of FSR/E in Zambia may be traced to
1978, when CIMMYT's East African Economics Program conducted a
series of low-cost farm surveys in the Serenje District of CP.
Based on these surveys, CIMMYT "zoned" the CP into eight recom-
mendation domains (RDs): one "commercial" RD, one "emergent" RD,
and six traditionall" RDs (TRDs). The TRDs, with an estimated
46,000 farm families, were subsequently identified in the ZAMARE
PP as the project's primary target group. Following the "zoning"
of the CP, the Zambians established on-farm trials in the Serenje
District during the 1981-82 cropping season.

By October 1982, the TA personnel comprising the ARPT had
all arrived in country. During the 1982-82 cropping season, the
ARPT initiated survey work in Mkushi District and on-farm trials
in both Serenje and Mkushi Districts. By 1985, the ARPT's
program had expanded to include on-farm trials spread over the
three largest TRDs in the CP. The typical approach for selecting
farmers to participate in ARPT-sponsored on-farm trials was to
hold farmers meetings at which farmers are asked to host trials.
As th- evaluation noted, farmers

outside of the target group may be rejected, but this does
not always happen as the reliability and receptiveness of
more progressive farmers is seen as a valuable attribute.
The main criterion of selection is therefore willingness to
host trials, and representativeness of the target group is
secondary (Sutherland and Warren, et al., 1985:16-17).


But as the evaluation also noted, this approach risks selecting
farmers who are not very representative of the target group and,
thereby reducing the program's social impact because target group
farmers are not integrated into the on-farm research process.

With the on-farm trials being "researcher managed/researcher
implemented" trials, farmers were not being "closely involved
with the design or running of the trials" (Sutherland and Warren,
1985:14). Further, ihile there was -nothing about these trials
that would preclude more farmer involvement, the trials in many
cases had been sufficiently simple to enable "the kind of
collaboration between farmer and researcher which FSR is designed
to promote" (Sutherland and Warren, et al., 1985:14).

Greater interaction between the ARPT and farmers may have
been precluded by expatriates not being fluent in the farmers'
language (Chibemba). Also, the large number of on-farm trials
contributed to a reliance on Zambian trial assistants and a
reduction in researcher-farmer contact. This suggested the need
to intensify zhe training of trial assistants in how to more
fully involve farmers and extension workers in on-farm research.

The Commodity and Specialist Research Teams (CSRTs) worked
closely with the ARPT in CP and other provincial ARPTs that
became operational during ZAMARE, in designing and implementing
on-station verification and en-farm trials. This was encouraging
because inadequate communication between ARPTs and CSRTs had been
recognized as a potential problem since the time that the ARPTs
began to function in 1981. The evaluation noted that:

The re-organisation of the research branch included...the
mandate for ARPTs, as the spokesmen of the small farmers,
...to determine about two-thirds of the content of CSRT
research programs... Sutherland and Warren, 1985:22).

3 Sutherland and Warren (1985:22-23) point out that this
quota was advanced when agricultural research was largely aimed at
developing technology suited primarily to commercial farmers and
high levels of management. Indeed, many CRT programs were

long standing breeding and varietal selection programs under
the direction of experienced expatriates who had spent a long
time in Zambia. These breeders sometimes lacked a farming
systems ;perspective, and in some instances were skeptical
about the value of breeding for the low management and late
planting conditions which prevail in most of Zambia's small-
scale farming systems; the attitude being to change the small
farmer rather than adjust breeding priorities (Sutherland and
Warren, 1985:23).

Faced by the potential of inadequate communication between
an ARPT and the CSRTs, the ARPT national coordinator established
a series of mechanisms to facilitate a two-way flow of informa-
tion between an ARPT and the CSRT. These mechanisms included:

-- Involving CSRT scientists in the exploratory surveys, this
serving to guide the development of the verification survey
questionnaire and to apprise ARPT members of potentially
relevant technological solutions that already exist.

Involving CSRT scientists in Pre-Research Committee Meetings
in which ARPT members present the problems that arose during
the surveys or trials, and proposals for technical component
research and on-farm trials. Following approval of an
ARPT's proposed adaptive research program by the Research
Committee Meeting, the CSRT scientists would comment on the
details of each trial.

Providing CSRT scientists with agronomic data sheets (un-
interpreted but quantitative summaries of ARPT survey data
on agronomic practices and problems in farmers' fields.

Formulating crop research strategies based on the quantified
data collected on farmer systems and CSRT scientists'
knowledge of what research is feasible.

Using standard formats for the ARPT to present identified
problems to CSRT scientists and for commodity scientists to
prepare crop profiles on new varieties for ARPTs, and a
project outline format for adaptive research trials.

These various mechanisms facilitated the ARPTs in providing
information on farmers' problems requiring component research,
and feedback on research conducted under farmer conditions. The
CSRTs, in turn, provided information on possible technological
solutions available for on-farm experimentation (Sutherland and
Warren, 1985:56-57).

Despite these mechanism, the evaluation found that SSPs and
extension workers had

not been closely involved in the identification of research
priorities and the design of trials for farr.ers' fields.
...closer involvement of SSPs should be a primary objective,
especially as the on-farm research becomes less exploratory,
and more verification-oriented.... At present farmers are
only involved at meetings used to recruit volunteers and in
field days. The discussion of existing research priorities
should also be attempted at meetings with farmers.... Simi-
lar meetings could be used to discuss the design of on-farm
trials (Sutherland and Warren, et al., 1985,15).

The ARPT trial assistants involved with cn-far- trials were

extension workers seconded for two years from the extension
service. The intent of this arrangement was to allow for a
rotation of extension workers through the ARPT process "to help
inject a FSR perspective into extension" (Sutherland and Warren,
et al., 1985:15). Recognizing that some extension workers may
not be suitable for training as trial assistants and that others
might require more supervision, the evaluation favored a 3-4 year
rotation and recommended that steps be taken to involve extension
workers more in on-farm adaptive research.

The CP/ARPT was the first ARPT to have a RELO. The RELO
seeks to instill "the FSR component of research into extension,
so that...on-farm research can be...transformed into...recom-
mendations which local extension workers can communicate...to
farmers" (Sutherland and Warren, et al., 1985:17). At the
provincial level, the RELO actively supported the ARPT program by
establishing a training system in FSR/E, whereby provincial level
officers would train block supervisors and district level staff
who, in turn, would train field extension workers.

At the TRD level, the RELO actively collaborated with ARPT
staff in organizing field days for research, extension, and
farmers. However, the evaluation noted that the outcome of these
field days had not been closely monitored.

To date ARPT field days have functioned effectively as
public relations and education exercises, out priority has
not been placed on obtaining feedback from farmers or exten-
sion and research officers visiting the trials. Thus the
impact of farmers and extension staff on CP/ARPT trial
programs through field days has been minimal...(Sutherland
and Warren, et al., 1985:20).

The RELO was also active at the TRD level in seeking to involve
extension workers in farmer surveys, on-farm research trials, and
farm-level demonstrations of technology deriving from the ARPT
program and other sources.

The evaluation team identified two areas that needed to be
strengthened in the FSR/E process. First, the team saw a need
for extension subject matter specialists (SMSs) to be integrated
in the provincial ARPT and to rave leadership responsibility for
programming and training in their subject in the province (Yohe,
et al., 1985: p. 7 of Executive Summary). Second, the team
identified a need to take extension programs

to farmers...in the context of the total range' of decisions
the farm family faces. Thus more of a complete farm manage-
ment extension training and extension program needs to be
implemented to strengthen the ARPT concept (Yohe, et al.,
1985: pp. 7-8 of Executive Summary).

Two issues appear to underlie these needs: (1) that ZAMARE
did not provide inputs (e.g., expatriate TA to extension and
long-term training of extension personnel to M.S. level) to
develop extension as an institution; and (2) that the ARPT's
adaptive research methodology (on-farm trials, etc.) placed
relatively little emphasis on approaching the farm in a
systematic or holistic manner.

A final point merits comment concerning implementation of
the ZAMARE project. USAID/Zambia and the Mission's Project
Support Unit (PSU) provided a range of incountry backstopping
services to the contractor, with the cost of these services being
covered by funds retained by the Mission from the project's
budget. The PSU, in collaboration with the contractor, was
instrumental in ensuring that equipment and supplies were avail-
able to the TA team upon their arrival. Further, early action by
the Mission and the MAWD was instrumental in implementing the
participant training program, with the result that trained
Zambians were scheduled to begin returning to their posts as
early as January 1984. "Most AID development assistance projects
don't see equipment and supply purchases until the second to
fourth year of a project and often trainees don't return until
after a project has terminated" (Yohe, et al., 1985:2).

If the ZAIARE project can be judged as one of the more
successful A.I.D.projects, this may owe in part to the excellent
logistical support USAID/Zambia afforded the TA team. This
included not only the support services provided by the PSU but
also two project-funded Zambian staff persons who assisted the TA
team leader in handling the myriad of administrative details
involved in implementing a project, thereby enabling the team
leader to focus a greater percentage of his time on providing
leadership for project implementation.

Evaluation How war the project's performance measured or

Overall, the second evaluation found that ZAMARE had "been
so successful that logistic problems...occurred because of
increased activity and involvement over what the design paper
envisioned" (Yohe, et al., 1985: p. 3 of Executive Summary). In
short, the "ARPT concept has been very successful" (Yche, et al.,
1985: pp. 3-4 of Executive Summary).

Areas in which the evaluation cited ZAMARE as having con-
tributed to the development of improved technology included the
development of two early-maturing maize varieties with high yield
potential and disease tolerance, development and release of a
free-nodulating soybean variety, and introduction of two more
efficient strains of a local Rhizobium inoculum for soybean.

The evaluation found that the adoption rate of "the new
technologies developed is evident through the amount of new seed
of maize, sunflower and soybeans that are being utilized by
small-scale producers" (Yohe, et al., 1985: p. 2 of Africa Bureau
Executive Summary).

The RELO concept had proven "so successful" that the team

design adjustment to allow extension subject matter
specialists (SMS) to work more closely and collaboratively
with the ARPT Agronomist, Agricultural economist, and the
RELO. This is the next step toward integrating research and
extension. The SMSs would carry approximately a half time
research appointment and a half time extension appointment
thus making a permanent bridge between extension and
research (Yohe, et al., 1985: p. 4 of Executive Summary).

The ARPT had also been effective in facilitating improved
integration of research outputs with an agricultural production
input supply firm, with the project providing

some of the basic cereal and oilseed to the only seed sup-
plier...in Zambia. This company, ZAMSEED, ...[has] every
incentive to work with the project, as their lifeline is new
varieties...released by the MAWD research branch. ZAMSEED
makes direct and in-kind contributions to the project/pro-
gram and cooperates in the production, certification,
supervision and pricing of seed for national distribution
(Yohe, et al., 1985: p. 3 of Africa Bureau Executive

The project also had substantial impact in knowledge
transfer and information flow

through the Newsletter; by training courses at national,
provincial, district and camp levels; by demonstrations at
[Farmer Training Centers] and the Kabwe Regional Research
Station; by district field days for both [Extension Workers]
and SSPs. The pay-off in terms of an improved and energized
research-extension system capable of operating in a two-way
dialogue with SSPs, and the potential high adoption and
diffusion rates of improved cropping methodologies and
practices by SSPs should become evident within another year
or two (Sutherland and Warren, 1985:41).

Institutionalization How did the project provide for the
implementing agency to develop a sustainable capability to
continue to perform the types of activities supported by the

A key contribution of ZAMARE to institutionalizing improved
research and extension capacity was the support the project pro-
vided for long- and short-term training of Zambians participants.
The PP had planned for 34 participants; all were expected to have
completed their training during the LOP.

A preoccupation during the early stages of institution-
alizing FSR within the Research Branch was to avoid threatening
or arousing any animosity on the part of the scientists with the
Commodity and Specialist Research Teams'(CSRTs). Further, given
the considerable attention and TA and training support being
given to ARPT by the GRZ and outside agencies

there has been a danger that technical component research
would be overlooked. This is due in part to the tendency to
see farming systems research as a panacea. However, it has
become very obvious to those with ARPT that it is not, and
that whilst it does have several unique and important
features it must be seen as an integral part of the Research
Branch complementing the work of the CSRTs. For, when no
technical component research has been undertaken...., then
ARPT is not able to test any possible technological situa-
tions (Sutherland and warren, 1985:56).

Concluding their evaluation of ZAMARE's socio-economic
component, Sutherland and Warren (1985:40-41) state:

It is clear that there is a growing understanding of the
principles and philosophies upon which FSR and ARPTs are
based. Members of both ARPTs and CSRTs are beginning to
develop the avenues for improved collaboration. Sensitiv-
ity by MAWD personnel down to the camp level has improved
regarding the important role of the SSP in the ARPT process.
One small-scale cooperating farmer in Serenje even designed
his own research trial intercropping maize and sunflower in
rows and determined that the mix was not one he would

A further indicator of the institutionalization of FSR/E in
Zambia is provided by the fact that Adaptive Research Planning
Teams (ARPTs) now exist in six of Zambia's nine provinces. While
each ARPT is supported by a separate donor, all operate under a
National Coordinator who reports to the Chief Agricultural
Research Officer.

The progress be ZAMARE by the time of the second evaluation
led the evaluation team to recommend that USAID/Zambia extend
ZAMARE into a Phase 2, with a modification in the project design
to include provision of a mix of TA to extension and long-term
training of 25-35 SMSs to the M.S. level. The evaluation also
recommended that a sociologist be added to the CP/ARPT.


1980 Project Paper for Zambian Agricultural Development
Research and Extension Project (611-0201). (PD-AAG-

Benoit, Randy, Bantayehu Gelaw, and Kenneth McDermott
1983 Evaluation of Agricultural Development Research and
Extension Project (ZAMARE) (611-0201). (PD-AAN-807)

Sutherland, Alistair and Mike Warren
Z-5 Socio-Economic Component of the USAID Mid-Term
Evaluation of the Zambia Agricultural Research and
Extension Project (ZAMARE) (611-0201). (Appendix 3 of
iohe, et al., 1985; PD-BAW-778,

Yohe, John, Loy Crowder, Earl Kellogg, Eugenio Martinez, and
Eugene Pilgrim
1985 Report on Midterm Evaluation of Agricultural
Development Research and Extension Project (ZAMARE)
(611-0201). (PD-BAW-778)

Annex A. Project Description Sheet.

This Project Description Sheet lists the core, operational,
and generic constraints identified in this project, per the
following codes: core (C), operational (0), and generic (G). A
positive (+) sign after a constraint indicates that the project
was effectively coping with the identified constraint.4

Core Constraints (C)

C.1 Farmer Orientation
C.2 Farmer Participation
C.3 Locational Specificity of Technical and Human Factors
C.4 Problem-Solving Approach
C.5 Systems Orientation
C.6 Interdisciplinary Approach
C.7 Complementarity with Commodity and Discipline Research
C.8 Technology Testing in On-Farm Trials
C.9 Feedback to Shape:
a. Agricultural Research Priorities
b. Agricultural Policies

Operational Constraints (0)

0.1 Stakeholder Understanding of FSR/E
0.2 Agricultural Research Policy/Strategy Defining Role of FSR/E
0.3 Long-Term Commitment of Resources
0.4 Existing Research Capability and Shelf Technology
0.5 Consensus on FSR/E Methodology
0.6 Capability to Process Farming Systems Data
0.7 Consensus on Criteria for Evaluating FSR/E
0.8 Links with Extension
0.9 Links with Agri-Support Services
0.10 Links with Farmer Organizations

Generic Constraints (G)

G.1 Project Management Structure
G.2 Government Funding to Meet Recurrent Costs
G.3 Staffing with Trained Manpower
G.4 Management of Training
G.5 Management of Technical Assistance
G.6 Factors Beyond a Project's Control

4An analysis of these constraints in 12 FSR/E projects appears
in A Review of A.I.D. Experience with Faring Systens Research and
Extension Projects, A.I.D. Evaluation Special Study (forthcoming),
available from A.I.D.'s Document and Information Handling Facility
(per instructions on last page of this report).

Zambia/ZA-MARE Agricultural Developrent Research & Extension
Project (611-0201)

Initial Authorization: 1980 (for 5 years)

Goal: "to assist the GRZ in improving the welfare of small
farmers and increasing national food production through the
development and adaptation of relevant technology."

Purpose: "to help the GRZ strengthen the agricultural research
capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development
(MAWD) and to increase the effectiveness of the extension service
in transferring relevant agricultural technology with special
emphasis on small farmers."

1. Strengthening of the MAWD Commodity Research Teams on
oilseeds and cereal grains;
2. Effective operation of MAWD's first Adaptive Research
Planning Team (ARPT) in Central Province;
3. Enhancement of the capacity of the extension service to
diffcse usable agricultural technology to small farmers
through improved research/extension linkages and
communication; and
4. Upgrading of the professional and technical skills in
agricultural research and extension within MAWD through
selected academic and practical training in Zambia, the
U.S., in other African countries, and at international

Imple-enting Agency: Research Branch, Department of Agriculture,
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development.

TA Contractor: Universily of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana as
lead university, Southern Illinois University, and the University
of Maryland Eastern Shore.

Evaluations: Two -- in 1983 (Benoit, et al., 1983); and in
early 1985 (Yohe, et al., 1985; and Sutheriand and Warren, 1985).

Constraints: C.2, C.7, C.9 (+), 0.1, 0.2 ;-), 0.8, 0.9 (+),
G.4 (-), G.5 (+).


This CDIE Working Paper is a case study that was prepared for a
cross-cutting analysis of A.I.D. FSR/E projects, A Review of A.I.D.
Experience with Farming Systems Research and Extension Projects,
A.I.D. Evaluation Special Study (forthcoming). A total of 13 case
studies were prepared. These may be ordered from the A.I.D.
Document and Information Handling Facility, 7222 47th Street, Suite
100, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Telephone: (301) 951-9647. Please
request CDIE Working Paper No. 112, followed by the required Case
Study No. and PN number.

Botswana Agricultural Technology Improvement Project (633-0221),
CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 1. (PN-ABC-073)

Gambia Mixed Farming and'Resource Management Project (635-0203),
CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 2. (PN-ABC-074)

Lesotho Farming Systems Research Project (632-0065), CDIE Working
Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 3. (PN-ABC-075)

Malawi Agricultural Research Project (612-0202), CDIE Working Paper
No. 112--Case Study No. 4. (PN-ABC-076)

Senegal Agricultural Research and Planning Project (685-0223), CDIE
Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 5. (PN-ABC-077)

Tanzania Farming Systems Research Project (621-0156), CDIE Working
Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 6. (PN-ABC-078)

Zambia Agricultural Development Research & Extension Project (611-
0201), CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 7. (PN-ABC-079)

Nepal Agricultural Research and Production Project (367-0149), CDIE
Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 8. (PN-ABC-080).

Philippines Farming Systems Development Project-Eastern Visayas
(492-0356), CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 9. (PN-ABC-

Guatemala Food Productivity and Nutritional Improvement Project
(520-0232), CDIE Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 10. (PN-ABC-

Honduras Agricultural Research Project (522-0139), CDIE Working
Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 11. (PN-ABC-083)

ROCAP Small Farm Production Systems Project (596-0083), CDIE Working
Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 12. (PN-ABC-084)

Vignettes of Core, Operational, and Generic Constraints in 12
A.I.D.-Funded Farming Systems Research and Extension Projects, CDIE
Working Paper No. 112--Case Study No. 13. (PN-ABC-127)

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs