Citation
A synthesis of AID experience : : farming systems research and extension (FSRE)

Material Information

Title:
A synthesis of AID experience : : farming systems research and extension (FSRE)
Added title page title:
Synthesis of Agency for International Development experience
Creator:
Byrnes, Kerry J.,
Byrnes, Kerry J., 1945-
United States. Agency for International Development.
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C.
Publisher:
Agency for International Development,
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1v. (various pagings) ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
United States.
Agricultural extension work -- Evaluation. -- United States
Agricultural extension work -- Planning. -- United States
Agricultural systems -- Research -- Planning -- United States
Spatial Coverage:
United States of America.

Notes

General Note:
Caption title.
General Note:
At head of title: Draft.
General Note:
"January 18, 1988."
General Note:
Includes bibliographical references.

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 (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
163595563 ( OCLC )

Full Text

.0
.' S
7
It 4$
18. 1988
pRAFT
---
ASynth"esisc'f AIDExQ~rience:
- - - - - - - - ------FarrAingSMstercis Research and Extension (FSR/EU 19 -19 -- - -- -- - -- - -- -- --- --- -- -- -- -4S
by
Kerry J. Byrnes (*)
*' T .
AI'3STRAL..1. The proposed study, by reviewing AID's experience with
- ~. .~. - S
farming systems research and extension tFSR/E), will contribute
to the ::i6going discussion in the Acency about the potential of
a
FSR/E, or the the useful elements thereof, to assist AID iii
meeting its mandate. The study will identify key factors
inCluencing the perfs:.rmance of AID-funded FSR/E projects. To the
t.4tent that this may be useful, and where an FSR/E approach is
appropriate, the study will provide information that can be
applied to improve the design, implementation, and evaluation of FSR/E projects. Where FSR/E projects have not been as successful
as had been expected or desired, the study will identify those
elements of FSR/E which yet would be of value to incorporate into the design of future AID initiatives in development assistance to
agr i ciii tLtre
S ein~nn -t~1~-%
I
Senior Social Science Analyst
Program end Policy Evaluation Division
a
Center for Devel opment In for mat i can and Evaluation
Agency for International Development
SA-16~ Room 208




Archive Only




1. EVALUAT ION OBETVSAD EHDLG
I. i_:acgrouc
This report presents a synthesis of United States Agency for International Develocpment (AID) experience with farmi ng system's research and extension (FSR/E) projects funded by the Agency from 197 to 198 .AID support for FSR/E has been provided through four channel s:
-- Centrally funded, non-tearrcarked support for the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) -- an
estimated 15% of IARC budgets supports farrm'ing systems
research programs (Anderson, 195 #8 5)' ;
-- -Centrally funded 6S&T/Office of Agriczulture projects.-e.g., the Collaborative Research Support Projects
(CRSPs), the Farming Systems R&D Methodsology Project,
anid the Farming Systems Support Projeczt (FSSP);
-- AID Regional Bureau-funded projects -- e.g., the Africza
Bureau-funded CIMMYT Farming Systems Research Project;
an d
-- Bilaterally-funded projects -- E.g., AID/Mali-futnded
Farming Systems Research and Extension Project.
Although USAID country missions continue to design new and/or fund ongoing projects having a FSR/E component, AID funding for the FSSP ended December 31, 1987, thereby terminating a key mechanism through which the Agency provided support for FSR/E. With this development, a question arises whether the current directions and level cof AID support for FSR/E is appropriate relative to the Agency's rnandate.
a .,
Answering this question is di fficult because of theei;.: confusion as to what FSR/E is, how FSR/E diffrsfromi:; conventional approaches to agricultural research and extension,
whenl FSR/E is appropriate, how to implement FSR/E, and whether an~d how to institutionalize FSR/E. As Sands (1966:87) observed,
the aribigulity in termi nolocgy and conceptual izat ion of
FS..hasbcneor act as th rag c. atiitie




T
A s eco-,n d d i f f c zuli t y i s t he i s a 1 ac:: o f inrlfc'rrma t i c'n zn
-- The fa,-t':rs that have influenced the relative success
car fail1ur e ,:f dc'~nczr -supported pr o, jec t s in ir,,pilement ing FEER/E, ;
-- Thme role that ESR/E has played in strengthening the
teczhnology generation and transfer capacity of national agricultural research and extension systems; and
-- The impact that FSR/E has had on rural income, food coznsutrmptionl, and the natural resource base.
A related -cnsideration is the basic issue a:,f what FSR/E can
reasonably be expected to a'Lcomplish within a given time frame.
Expecttiz, sfor FSR/E may have been unrealistic (e.g., som,'eone
oversold the idea). Even if expectations have been realistic,
there is the questio-n o:f what lapse of time is necessary before
assessing whether FSR/E has succeeded c'r failed and to what
deqreCe.
Finally, where FSF:/E projects have been less suczcessfutl than
had been expected ,-r desired, FSR/E could fall into disrepute in
the Agency, with the attendant risk: of the Agency failing to
recognize those elements of the FSR/E approach that are of value
and whic-h should continue to be incorporated into the design of
future development assistance projects in agriculture.
These various difficulties--the confusion surrounding FSR/E,
the lack o-f information in the three aforementioned areas, and
the potential discrediting of FSR/E, while failing to rec-ognize the approach's valuable elements--severely restrict the basis on
which an informed judgern'ent can be made about the direction and level of support fozr FSR/E that is appropriate relative toz the
Agency' s mandate.
'.Yet the Agency has a vested interest in ensuring tht
exper ience gained and lessons learned from' FSR/E projects are:
- "available to assist Agency personnel, "at the "r'ssroads, i
' 'making decisions about the nature and :level :ofI support forFrSR/E" that will be in the Agency's best interest.




I
4
i.4- Objective
The ,_bjective o-f the synthesis is to contribute tc, the
ongoing discussion within the Agiencrbu S/.Mr
speci fically, the synthesis provides the target audience (defined below) with i nfc'rriatic, n about the per formance cof past and ongoing
FSRz/E prc'jects. This inforratic, n, in turn, will be Lusefl1 in
assessing the overall contribution of FSR./E and potential ways in
which FSR/E (or elements thereof) can contribute to the
achievement of AID's mandate. To the extent that this may be
useful, the synthesis also can guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of FSR/E projects or projects including elements
of FSR/E.
A second objective of the synthesis is to identify
indicators of FSR/E project performance. P'erforrnan':e may be
defined narro-wly in terms of degree of success in implementing a
project or broadly in terms of the impact of a project's inputs
arid outputs on the project 's stated purpose and goal.
1 3 Target Audience
The primary audience which the synthesis is designed to
serve is comprised of AID program and project personnel concerned with strengthening technology generation and transfer capacity in
national agricultural research and extension systems. Other relevant audiences include personnel in national agricultural research and extension systems, agricultural universities and
research institutes in the developing as well as developed world, private sector organizations (e.g., agricultural rnoperatives and
input supply firms), and other organizations concerned with
agricultural research and extension or, more specifically, FSR/E.
This synthesis of AID experience with FSR/E projects was ~primarily conducted as an exploratory study (Hendricks, 1967).
The actual collection and analysis of data were based on a mix of
literature review, key informant interviews, and a systematic
review (case survey) o~f existing AID-sponsored evaluations (e.g.,




I
The appr,-,ach to developing the synthesis was based on a
conceptual mo-del that identify es five cycles in the development
of an AID project. These c-ycles are: concept, design,
i1 mpl em ent at iozn, evaluLat ion, and institutional i zat ion. Mc'r re
speci fic questions that could be asked about individual projects were categorized in terms of cone or another of these c-ycles. A
listing ,-f the mozre speci fic- questions kept in mind in the course ,-,f reviewinqg the evaluation documentation is prc',vided in Annex A.
Eaczh of the five identified cycles focuses on a specific
area of concern in AID's overall process of pr.:,'jeczt development
and mranagment, regardless of the project's specific-technical
area. The basic ,-onczern underlying each cycle may be stated as a
quest i ot' :
-- Co~nce t (C) What was the basicz technical idea
underlying the project?
-- -Design (D) How was this basic technical idea
translated into a project? (Logaical Framework)
-- IThliementatio~n (I) How was the project managed by the
ho-st-c cLtutr y imp, element ing agency, the technical
assistance tearm, and USAID?
-- Evalu_ ationL (E) How was the project's .performance
m easured or assessed?
-- InstituticoLalization (I) How did the project provide
for the implementing agency to develop its capacity to
continue to performJ' the types of ac-tivities supported
by the project?
This simple model, referred to herein as the CDIE/I model, as
well as the more spe,-ific questions listed in Annex B, provided a
general framework for reviewing a sample of AID-funded FSR/E :.. projects (or projects including a major FSR/E comrponent)..
....' -Annex B lists the universe of AID-funded projects that were: identified as FSR/E projects as well as the procedure and: I.
' criteria followed in selecting the projects to be reviewed.
The data for the study were drawn primarily from the
available eval uat ion docuruntati on,-'-(e.g., special evaluations,
project evaluation summ varies, and audit reports) fozr the projects




6
This i nfc'rrnati on provided the pri m~ary data base for
ici-t fy g aazng and drawling ccorcclusictns concerni ng the
experience of AID--funded FSR/E projects. While the synthesis was developed primarily as a desk study, work on the synthesis, from
the "project proposal" through the "project a'petol stg- a
periodically reviewed by either FSR/E practitioners or Agenlcy
personnel experienuced with FSR/E (see Annex C).
1. 5 Organizatio ofReport
Chapter 1 introduces the study's objectives anid methods.
Chapter 2,an overview of the FSR/E concept, provides a vantage
point from which to look back on the AID-funded FSR/E projects
that are reviewed an~d analyzed, with examples anld illustrations
drawn fromt' project experience, in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 sumrmarizes the study's findings, sets forth the major conclusions,
and proposes recommrrendationts for the improved design of AIDfunded projects that include a FSR/E componlent. Chapter 5
presents "lessons learned,". a checklist of criteria to guide
project design, imrplementation an~d evaluation, and a diagnostic
model of factors to consider whe~n designing, imrplem~enting, or
evaluating the FSR/E component of AID-funded projects. Chapter 6
briefly discusses potential indicators that would provide
benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating the per form ance of AIDfun~ded FSR/E projects.
[Chapters 3-6 in process)
4 C.
.p <. ..
1. I. ,
.-" ; ". J.i -.' ,- ., 47,"?" "




C
I\
7
2. AnfOverview..'cfFR/E,
Some have recormmended that the termn FSR ncilonger be used.
....the term FSR may have been used inc-orrectly or....fallen
into- disrepute because o~f l,-o-se usge but...it is too
important a cozncept to just abandon. What is important is
t,- recognize that agricultural research sho-uld be geared to the needs of farmers, and that to do' this will require that
research be c-arried out within a farming systems perspective. This does not mean that all researchers will be FSR
specialists, nor d':,'es it mean that FSR research will be carried o-ut within a special FSR unit, but it does mean
that...s,-ientists will have a means to focus their work on the problems that farmers face (Plucknett, et al., 1966:5).
Co-nsiderable discussion has surrounded the farming systems
research and extension (FSR/E) concept over the past decade.
However, a consensus on FSR/E is emerging. This chapter presents
a summary overview of the emerging consensus.
2.1i OriginofFS/EE
The origin of the Farming Systems Research and Extension
(FSR/E) concept lies in pioneering "farmi~ng systems" studies
conducted in West Africa, East Africa, and other developing
'country sites in the post-Green Revolution era of the 1970s. The "farming systems" approach gained rm,, rentuim as the perception grew that mainstream agricultural research and extension institutions
were following a basically "top-down" approach to technology
development that lacked understanding cf the management conditioins under which small farmers operate. As a result, technology develo:prnent was "guided" by a number ,of erroneous assumptions, as
fol lows (adapted from.' Sands, 1966: 88-89).:
" Ta srrallholder farming system inthe tropics and":
:-:.-,.: .sub-tropics are static and primitive. We now ,recognize
.. that these are complex, dynamic systems that evolved in.
.., response to particular agro-climatic, ecological, and
soc: i oeccnomi c c:ondi t i ons.
-- That small farmers reje,:t technologies out of sheer




8C
-- That snall1 farrners seek toz maximize yield and pro-fit in
the production and sale of a crop. We now reco,-gnize
that smMa 1-farm households formulate rmanager,,ent strategies and make decisions within the context of the whole
cooniic syst em explci ted by the household, i tcl1ud inrg
cropping, livestock, and off-farm enterprises. Neither
yield maxim,'izatiomn nor profit rvaximi zat ion can be
assum,'ed to be the appropriate criteria for assessing
the potential utility and acceptabality of a new
technology under the conditions prevailing in
sinal holder farming systems.
-- That research programs can be effective in generating
broad-based technc, lo, ies relevant to smalilholder
farming systems. We now recognize that many broadbased technologies were rendered inappropriate by the great diversity ira physical and socioeconomic conditio-ns under which small farmers operate. .We further
" recognize that if "broad-based" technologies are to be
transferred successfully to small farmers, more
adaptive research is necessary.
In shrand all too frequently, the so-called "improved"
technolc, gies generated in research programs guided by these
assumptions failed to provide the farmer with any incentive to
ad':pt the subject technologies, given the management conditions
under which he or she operated.
Responding ti, this situation, a growing number of FSR
prac-titicners argued: (1) that development of improved
tec-hnology for small farmers must be grounded in a knowledge of
the existing farming system; and (2) that technozlo-gy must be evaluated not only in terms of technical criteria but also in
terms cof the scocioecconc'mic circumstances of the farming system.
FSR programs initiated at various locations during this period
~began t,- provide evidence that multidisciplinary teams comprised
of natural and social sc-ientists could effectively identify
;;opportunities for appropriate technology change among farmers
.... The early work of farming systems pioneers suc-h, as Norman,
,*'*.'Collinsc,n, Hildebr and, and others, as well .as research programs :
initiated by the (IARCs, played a forrm'ative role in teoii
and evolution of FSR. Since the "tarly days" of the farming
systems pioneers, the FSR concept has continued to evolve with
imrplermentationl and practical experience. One sign of this was




0
9
9
A, further sign cof thc' continuing ev,:,luticifn o:f the FSF.
cc ,ept was the addition, of the "/E to the earlier, rmoreC
narrowly defined coc, ~ept o"f FSR as an approach tc', research' and a normal part ofthe agricutltulral research process" (Fluc knett,
1987). However, while FSR is certainly not a new science or
discipline, it has been more than simply "an approach to research" c:'r a "'rrmal part cif the agricultural research
process." FRpractitiozners have sc~ught not only to conduct
research on and increase knowledge of farming systems but also to
use this knowledge as a basis for bringing about productivityand income-increasing change in the farming systems studied.
Viewed in this ligh t, FBR is an approach to and an integral
part of the overall agricultural innovation and technology
management process. For this process to be effective, FSRZ must be linked not only with extension (FSR/E) but also with the full
range of agricultural support institutions governing the speed with which improved technology is generated, tested, evaluated, adapted, disseminated, adopted, and diffused in an agricultural
syst em.S
While nulmerouts terms and aczronyms, have been used to refer to
the "farming systems" approach, the "FSR/E" acronym is used here because it explicitly addresses the need fo:r links among farmers,
extension workers, and researchers (Poats, et al., 1986).
2.2 DefiningjSR/E and "FarminagSystem"
Farming Systems Research and Extensiozn (FSR/E) is an
approach toz the development ,:f "farming systems" that seeks,
through on-farm research and associated extension activities, to
test, adapt, integrate, and disseminate new technologies for
adoption by resoutrce-p'z: or farmers. A "farming sysem as
A unique and reasonably stable arrangement of farming
~enterprises that the household manages according to welldefined practices in response to physical, biological,,and,
.... socioeconomic environments and in accordance with the house--.
hold's goals, preferences, and resources. These factors-"
combine to influence the output and production methods.
More comrrronality is found within the system than between
sytem.Tefrigsse spr flre ytm, g
tse loca Thefrmuityndyse isa par div fe intoe systems, eg
the .......l cim-nity, and can be ivided into% subsystes,




*1
10
-- the i nt erdependenc ies amrcng system ':ompc nents which
farm faril1y hosusehold ni reraber s are able to controll1; and
-- the i nteraction cit these components with the physical ,
bioliici:al and scoci cecinconia: factors not under the
.hcusehc,l d' s ccnttrol (Shaner et al., 1982: 13).
The scope of FSR/E tends to be mocre limited than that of
integrated rural development (IRD) which focuses onl a broadlydefined set of development problems. FSR/E, in contrast, focuses
on a rnor e narrowly-defined pr obiein--devel opi ng impro ved agr icLultural technologies and disseminating these technologies for adopt ion by farm~ers.
RFR/E also: may be distinguished from what has been called the Farmidng Systems Approach to, In~frastructural Support and Policy (:FSIP). Productivity m ay be improved not only by developing and disseminating relevant technology (FSR/E) but also by implementing appropriate policy and suppczrt systems (FSIP). FSR/E is a strategy aim 'ed at developing and disseminating
improved agricultural technologies at the farm level. The principal product cof FSR./E is technology and the prim 'ary clients are 1lirnited resource farmers. FSIP operates at a more macro level than FSRz/E and attempts to analyze and influence policy and/or the progress of institutions which rway affect small farm:'ers. The principal product of FSIP is information, and the primary clients are policy makers and managers of services and infrastructure (Hildebrand and Waugh, 1983).
2.3 Gcal sof -FSR/E
Nearly a decade ago,, the Technical Advisory Ccmmittee (TAC) to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CI3IAR) commissioned a Review Teamr to analyze the farming systems research (FSR) programs at the Internlational Agricultural Resear chl Centers (IARC)s. The overall goal of FSR, in the view of the Review Team, is "to contribute to the imnprove-ment-of human wel fare through sustainable increased agricultural; i.. f; productivity" (Dillon, et al., 1978:17). Adapting the Review Team''s conception of the mrore speci fic goals of FSR, the goals of
FSR/E mray be stated as fsllo'ws (adapted from, Dillon, et al., 1978: 17; and Plucknett, 1967):




C
II
IiI
-.- Tci assess the interaction amcng technologies and
between technologies and the envirc'nrnent, thereby irnpro\'ing the appropriateness and relevance of new
t echncol ogji es ;
-- To, ensure that new technologies contribute to the longterrn maintenance and enhancement of agricultural
productive capacity;
-- To fac iliitate corn'uni cation among far rers, researchers,
extension (o~r development) agents, and representatives
c~fother agricultural support institutions; and
-- Tm-, assist in the formnulaticon of development policies
and nmethcds that effectively address the problems of
far mers.
2.4 Ob4 J etivescfFESR/E
The TAC FSR Review Team proposed that a well-structured FSR
prcograrn, should d aim at meeting a number of cibjectives that are also relevant to, this paper's more broadly defined concept of
FSR/E. These objectives are (adapted from Dillon, et al., 1978;
Plucknett, et al., 1986; and Plucknett, 1987):
-- To understand the physical (land including climate) and
soc i ceconomi c environment within which agricultural
production takes place;
-- To, identify and evaluate existing, important. farming
systems in specific physical and socioeconomic environmenit s, in particular the practice and performance cit
these systems; and to improve our understanding of the
farmer's skills, preferences, and aspirations;
;, ,-- To improve problem identification (target areas,
-". ... .Lonstraints, etc. ) and opportunities for change in :existing farming systems and thereby toa is n
" : :, "focusing research on key constraints that limit" '"
production, farm income, and their sustainability;
-- To, enhance the capacity of research organizations to
conduct research on priority f arming systems' prcebl ems
_. JL | I J | |




12
-- T eauac' potentially improved systems, c~r system
'..ompozriert s, c'n fa-r ws in r,,ajctr product ioln areas under
nov rel far m ccnd iti, ens; and
- Toz assist in extending, monitc'r ing the adoption of, and
assessing the impact and benefits of improved farming
syst eras.
While these objectives imply an active FSR/E program, all
objectives likely would not receive full or equal treatment in a
given FSR/E program.
2.5 CDore Charateristics c'f -FSR/E
Basically, FSR/E combines the following characteristics
(adapted from Sands, 1985, 1986; Wiese, 1965; Hildebrand, 1985;
and Fartingtc,'n and Martin, 1987):
-- FSR/E is farrer-orieLted. FSR/E targets small-farm
families as the client grcup for agricultural research and technology development. Thus, FSR/E's fundamental
* objective is to generate technology relevant to the
management conditions of this client group. This is done by identifying these conditions before proposing .. technological solutions, and by adapting technologies
~tc' local circumstances and needs..
-- FSR/E involves the client group aspriiat in the
researchandextensio__rocess. FSR/E pr act i tioners
i nvcolve and work with cli ent group mem 'bers Ci -e. small farmers) inl the design, implementation, and evaluation
of research and extension activities.
-- FSR/E recc, gnizes thejlocational seci ficity..of
, ~~techntic2al an~dhurmanfac-tors. CIlent groups are
.:. identified in terms of relatively homogeneous groups of
, farming systems in specific agro-cliraatic zones. These
' .. 'groupings may be further de fined in terms of rsac,
reomedatio, ad di ffusio domains The ciei
-: used to classify farming systems ;into a domain will
depend onl the objective of the FSR/E practitioner. For example, an IARC may develop generalized categories of
farms groutped largely according to agro-czlimaticz




0
S
I
13'
-- is sxstems-oriented. FSR/E, while viewing the
---- - ----- -- - -
total farm in a holistic manner as a system cut natural and human ccampc'nents, focuses on a speci fic production subsystem in carder to evaluate (1) interactions between that subsystem and other subsystems, and (2) the potential for and impact on the farm of intrc'ducirig a technc'lc'q
chance in the y of the tarQet subsystem.
-- FSR/Eisa"2roblern-sculvi ng% apQrciach. Once a s
- -a
farming systems have been grouped into homogeneous agr ci-ci imatic zones (domains) FSR/E identi fies the
1 limiting technical, biological, and sc'cioeconc'mic
I
onstrai nts to i mpra:'ved product i on. Then techno cegi es potent jelly effective in removing or relaxing identified constraints and feasible for the client group of farming households to adopt are proposed and tested.
-- ~ trials. On-farm
- - --- - - - -- --~ - a- a - - a - -coil aborati on between farmers and FSR/E practitioners provides each with a deeper understanding of the farming system and the farmer's decision-making criteria, and allows for potentially i mprc'ved technolcugy ta:a be evaluated under the environmental and manaciernent conditions in which it will be LtSCd.
-- FSR/E is inte.rdisci Qlinary. Collaboration among agri- - -- a - -
cultural and social scientists facilitates identificatictn of the conditions under which small farmers operate; accurate diagn':'sis of constraints; and design, conduct, and evaluation of research and extension activities aimed at developing and introducing improved technologies suitable to the client group of farmers.
- FSF.:/Eccampj events~ not reaiaces~jnainstream commodity
- - --- ----- - a - - - -- - - -- -
and disc i nary agricultural research. FSR/E draws
- - - ma
upon 0the body of knowledac" of technologies and
management strategies generated by discipline and commodity research and adapts this knowledge to speci fic agro-ci imatic environments and socioeconomic circtiri-rstances of a relatively homogeneous target group~ of farmers.
*
-- FSR/ ELasadxnamlc and ~ provides
- - - - -- - - - ------ -
ft~:tuI2L~L~.~gresearch QLi or iti es and ~gri- - - - a ------ -- --- -- -
ft S *l 4~ 1 r~ -. 1 *' .- .**~ -. C, ri I C* -. .- --.- t J .-t C .-t tr ~ 4- .- A.- -~. *-- ,. a a




14
FSR:/E entails five. stages (adapted from Nornman and
Ccoilinscn, 19 85; and Sands, 19 86: 94-96); (1) diagnosis or
description, (2) design or planning, (3) testing c'r experin'entat icn, (4) e.,tensi,-on or re,-o':mmendat ion and di ssemi nation, and (5)
ni itor-ing and evaluation. In practice, boundaries between stages tend to overlap because of the dynamic and iterative
nature ,of FSR/E as an R&D (" research and development.) process.
2.6.1 Diagnosis or Descriptian
During this stage, the farming systems of a region are
examined in relation tc, the total environment, the constraints
farmers face, and the potential for change in the systems. While various methods of data collection are Ltsed, four basic steps are
followed: (1) a review of secondary sources for basic data and descriptive inforrratio'n on the target region, (2, the identifi:atic,n o~f recnnraendatimn d':mains or target groups of farmers, (3) an exploratory survey or reconnaissance of the region, and (4) a
for mal ver-i f icat iocn survey.
2.6.2 Design or Planning
. . . .. .. .
During this stage, potential strategies are formulated to
deal with the constraints identi fied in the descriptive or
diagnostic staQe. Here the "body of knowledge" of past research
(for example, exper irent station trials) as well as farmers'
knowiedg play an important role in identi fying potential
technologies tc,' deal with the identi fled constraints. Also
~important at this stage is the x ante evaluation of a technology L: or practice with regard to its technical feasibility, economic' viability, and social acceptability for ,the target region.




C\
15
2.6.. Testing .crEx!rr_ aiDuring this stage, techn'lcsgies identifdnt IN tedsg
stage are tested under farml conditions to iet y
the step-wise nmodi fications... awhich...will allow farmers to exploit the available bioloq ical resources more efficiently, an~d which...are both feasible and attractive for farmers to
adopt.... On-farm experiments test the proposed technologies and adapt them to local conditions. They...* fine-tune
the.. .technology to farmers' needs and circumstances in a two, tco three year experimental process. Early trials are
usually managed by researchers with far rer s' cooiperat ion.
As the technology becomes more refined, it is tested and
evaluated in farrrer-mLanaged trials (Sands, 1966:95).
The farm family's participation in on-farm trials is
critical'. Farmers evaluate new technologies under their own
umanagerrient co'nditions. These evaluations are channel led to the
research station to help scientists formulate more realistic and relevant research priorities. Co:ncurrently, FSR/E practitioners
gain knowledge and insight on the farming systems, farmers'
knowledge of their environment, and farmers' management
strategies and resource allocation priorities and decisions.
2.6.4 Extension or Recommendation and D~isserainat ion
During this stage, adapted technologies are disseminated
through extension to other farmers within the recommrendation
domain. Where extension personnel have been actively involved in
the earlier FSR/E stages, they wil.l know how to use the technol ogy, the farming systems for which the technology is relevant,
how farmers respond to the technology, and how to introduce the ~technology to farmers most effectively.
.5Monitoring and Evaluation -' ...-.'..
~During this stage, which occurs throughout the FSR/E
process, the pattern of farr~er adoption of technology is
monitored as a check on the technology's relevance and utility.
Within resource limitations, the FSRz/E practitioner obtains data




C
16
2.7 Data Sotr,-es ij FSR/E
Data ,-,_-,le,-ti,-,n and analysis are essential in agri,-ultural
researc-h. However, the speci fi,- data si:'Lrrces used in FSR/E can vary depending on the nature of the data required. Three types ,zf data sozurczes may be identi fied: base data studies, research
station studies, and o-n-farm studies. Colleczti:an and analysis of
data in these areas may occzur sequentially or cyclically buit generally proc,,eed ,-_ncurrently with interaction and feedback
(Pucnet et al. 1986: 7).
2.7. 1 Base Dat a St ud ies
Base Data Studies focus on the collection, collation, and
analysis of data on the factors characterizing the environment
and farming systems of a regio-n. These studies usually rely on
se,;,-nuary data, ,zorplercented by cm-site investigation, toz
descr ibe and understand existing farming systems. Base data
studies are particularly useful in agroze,_,-logical zoning,
typc gial classi ficzation of existing farming systems, and
identi fying resour-e constraints and ,opportunities for
i mnpr,-_vement.a
2.7.2 Research Station Studies
Research Statiozn Studies focus on generating new techlool,,i es, designing te,-hn,-,lczQical cormponents fcor new systems, or
modifying,-existing systerms. Although usually carried out at a
research statio-n, the orientation of the research, in comparison
with conventional commodity or discipline research, is toward the
farming oyster,, and the interactions within that system rather
than to the cozmmodity c-,r discipline er se.
2.7.3 OnFr, tde -.
On-Farm Studies focus on developing research at the farm
level, inc-luding ,on-farm, experiments (or trials), studies of
tec-hnlogy ad,_ption., and assessme nt of the impact of new




C
17
2. 8 xs.. frF/
While FSRz/E initiatives may vary in terms of the specific
data sources ,or cc r',binatiomn o'f data sozurczes used in research on
farming systems, they also may vary in terms of the speci fit: type
problem the initiative aims to solve. Thus, the relative
emphasis placed on research :r extension varies fromm one type of
FSR/E to the next. Fozr example, farming system component
researc-h (FSCR as described below) places little (omr no) emphasis
c'n extension. Yet FSC-R mray be an important step in developing
technology zom,'ponents that are subsequently tested by extension workers in can-farm trials as a central activity of another type
of FSR/E, namely, farming systems adaptive research (FSAR as
described below).
Sands (1986) identified six types of FSR/E: farming systems
analysis, farming systems adaptive research, farming system
component research, farming systems base-line data analysis, new
farming systems development, and farming systems research and
agr ic,:l tur al development.
2.8.1 Farmin S sems Analisis
Farming Systerms Analysis (FSA) aims at in-depth, quantitative description of the structure and function~ing of existing
farming systems, in order to quantify stocks and flows anId
understand the structure of interactions within the system. Key data sozurczes include On-Farm Studies and Base Data Studies. The
typical product of FSA is a model of the system FSA is
basically what Sirronds (1985) called Farming Systems Research
sensu stric-t:.
2.6.2 Far mintSite~ Adamtive Research
" ,,-'th frmn sstmst emsutiit tr
the farming system as the unit of analysis in the descriptive
stage, the design and testing stages more likely focus on a
particular subsystem as a potential point of leverage. Key data
e"--r' e'-. e"-- #' JL . J _" .. ... -.I Jo't ... ..... I- .L..- J.. ....




16
FSAR is anoct her raile fcr what Si mm',nds (1995) and CIMMYT
Dr1e&eta!. ICc82. ilrisc',n, 1982) called On-Farm, Research
with a Farminrg-System~s Perspective (OFR/FSP). This is the type
of FSR/E : mozst frequently conducted under the nare of FSR, particulalyby scientists in national agricultural research system's.
Farming Systerm Component Research CFSCR) refers to stationbased, applied and adaptive research on farm subsystems or
components designed to support Farming System s Adaptive Research (FSAR). Compared with FSAR' s-focus on the farrm'ing system, FSCR focuses on a speci fic subsystem or the management of a speci fic
resource, with the unit of analysis being the field or plot, not the farrming system. Examples of FSCR would include research on
crc, ppina patterns typical of small farm system 's such as intercropping-, m ixed cropping, cor relay cropping; .crop-anim~al. interactions; or stabile-yi eldinig varieties requiring rm'inimal inputs.
FSCR's research agenda is defined either by a station-based
scientist'_V- diagnosis of a constraint affecting the majority of
farm ers in a region o:r by feedback from a FSAR program. Data
generated by FSAR on the m~anaqeratent conditions of farming systems
in a regi:'n are used by station-based scientists in isolating
speci fic problems for more in-depth research and in establishing
more relevant research priorities. The product of FSCR is
prototype technology which becomes part of the "body of
know edge" upon which FSAR can draw.
Many farming systems research initiatives of the IARCsr may
be classi fied as FSCRZ. CIAT's Bean Progran provides a good
example. The typical Latin American sm all farmer's practice of
intercropping m,'aize and climbing beans is taken as a parameter in
on-station experirments aim ed at selecting im~proved bean
varijet ies." Another example is the rice- based Cropping Systems Program-i S of IRRI and the Asian Cropping Systerms Newr. hsprga
~ cmbines PSO:R and FSAR in a process called Cropping Systems:i Research. Having identified land scarcity as the major
constraint lim 'iting rice production in south anid south-east Asia,
the Cropping Systems Program focused on developing technologies to increase croppi ng intensity. Ccro'pcsnent technology es (short t i i q ]k __ _" .... J-- I_ -- .L ..... _"




rC
19
2.8.4 Far9il._S.re ,4-.csBa..-i DataAntialy~S1S
Farming Systems Base-Line Data Analysis (FSBDA) airs at
developing aclassificaticin cit major types of farming systems in
an agrc'-cl imratic zone and diagnosing the mJajor constraints inl those s ystem,'s. The obj'ective is to learn as much as possible
abcut the resources of a regi on zonen) and to determine how
variation in climatic factors and resoLurces affect agricultural
production. Soicicoec on comic factors (e.g. population density,
land tenure, etc.) may also be analyzed. Key data scoLrces
include Base Data Studies and large-scale surveys.
Typical FSBDA products are physical resource, climate, and
land use maps useful in classi fyinlg the major types of farming
systems in a region. The infc:'rr'atiomn may be used by agricultural
scientists to tailor technel:gy development more closely to the
management conditions of a region's farming systems, anid by
planners to set general research priorities and to select sites
for more focused FSCR and FSAR.
FSBDA is an in-depth version of the diagnostic o:r descriptive stage of FSF:/E. However, FSBDA (which fOcuses on an agroclimatic zone. is executed con a 1larqer scale than FSAR. (which focuses on the farming systems within an agro-climatic zone).
The focus of analysis is on the environment and the general
configuration of farming systems rather than on the internal organization of a speci fic type of farming systems. Greater
emphasis is placed on biological and physical rather than socicecconorni c var iabl es.
IAR~s having regional mandates (for example, ICDRISAT, ILCA,
and IXTA) have used FEBDA extensively.
2.8.5 NewEFarmin _Ssem~s Develocpnrt
:- New Farming System,'s Development (NFSD) aims to generate a
' broad-based technology designed to overcome major constraints: in
?' ...a'large agrc'-climatic zone. In contrast to FSAR (which seeks ~to:: i develop technology suitable for stepwise modification of existing
farmings systems), NFSD seeks to bring about revolutionary change
in the farming systems of a region. Farming systems are defined
primarily in physical and biological terms, with socioeconomic




C
I ITA' s program to develop a more stable and productive
agricultural system to trtplari shi fting cultivation in the humid
aridsubhumd trpa.cs ,YCri des a gcod exarnpl e of NFSD. This research, involving rri nimal c-,n-farm researc-h, is primarily station-based strategic and applied component research.
ICRISAT's program to develop watershed management units for the semi-arid tropics is a second example of NFSD. Technologies have been developed that improve drainage and enable double cropping o'n deep Vertisol soils. While the technology has produced good results in on-station trials and potentially has
widespread application, majcr farmer acceptability-prcblems emerged in can-farm trials.
This development is not -surprising given NFSD's lack of
attention to sc'cicoeccznormic- factors during the technology design stage. While the research program defined the watershed management units in physical and biological terms, establishment cof these units requires that dispersed, individually-owned 1landhcldings be c,-,nsol idated into a single resourc-e management unit. However, the feasibility of suc-h a radical socio-economic rec rganizati on within the farming -om~munity was not cconsi dered during the tehooy design stage. Social sc-ientists only became actively involved in the research at the on-farrr testing stage. Design and development of the watershed management units could have been facilitated and resources probably used more ef fectively i f socioeconomic factors and farmers' perceptions of
their needs had been incorporated into the research from the beginning.
2.6.6 Farmin~gSsternsRzsearch_at _Agr ic ul tural.Develo~mn'jet
Far ni rg Systems Research and Agr icultuLral Devel oprnent
(FSRAD) aims to implement farming systems research as an integral component of a long-term agricultural development strategy and program for a target region. Although the farming system (with its own physical, biological or socioeconomic interactions) is the primary unit of analysis, the system's links ;with the social, econom'i c, and political environment also are scrutinized to i'tl? identify potential leverage points for improved productivity. L
Thus, FSRAD includes technological development for major farming systems as well as reform cof agricultural support institutions in the region.- The approac-h combines research (including mnainstream'




C
t
"I
21
In short, FSRAD addresses the common prcbJ.lem enco untered in
agrICLu tur al devel opment namely, that a t echncolocgy, while
technically im proved, can be rendered usel ess because ,-f the lack
of adequately developed agric-ultural support institutions.
Rather thati treating such institutions as oie -r fixed,asi
usually do-ne in FSAR, FSRAD treats them, as variables. Exam~ples
of FSRzAD include the Puebla Project in Mexico, the Caqueza
Pro-ject in uC'oron'bia, and the so-called Franccphone approach to
FSR. in Afri,-a. FERAD would appear to be the sam e as the soc:alled Farming Systems Approac-h to Infrastructural Support and
Policy (FSIP) mentioned in section 22
2.9 Research bStrategy in FSR/E
In organizing and conducting agricultural research, two
basic strategies may be followed: (1) the commodity strategy;
and (2) -the resource base strategy.
The commcodi ty strategy, which focuses on a particular crop
oar livesto,-k enterprise, identifies the steps required to
maintain or, more generally, expand production of the commodity.
Research parameters are defined by the comm' odity of interest, the
resources used in producing the commodity, and so on. Relevance of the ':ommodity being studied, as well as the availability of a
suitable resource base, are assumed. The c-ommodity approach
generally is useful in, working on better-endowed lands.
2.9.2 Resource Base St rat ea
. . . . . ..-_ . . g
Z The resource base strategy, which focuses on a particular
,, .resource base, identifies the production system, including its
-",,-.- "commodity components, which can best use the ,available. resources "
" base asit curetly iso might t be modified5 In short, the:" "
4. resource endowment determines the direction of the research,
co-rm'modity selection, singly cor in combination, is determined by
the strengths and weaknesses of the resource base. The resource
base approach is generally useful in working on marginal lands
| I i i t l i




0
While both strategies can contribute to FSR/E, the greatest
,-hallenge to FSR/E--and perhaps its greatest potential benefits
f or r eso-ur ce-po---r farmers--I. i es in the resa:, urce base approach.
Developing countries have specifics ,conditiont.s that are L.nl i kely
to be acc~zc'mcdated adequately, if at all, by a conventional
co rmmodity approach and that im'ply the necessity fozr em,'ploying a
resource base strategy in FSR/E. These conditions include:
-- Continuing need for increased food supplies created by increases-in population, particularly in tropical and subtrocpic:al areas;
-- Increasing use of marginal lands having constraints
that limit the use of technology developed for better
conditions (for example, HYVs bred for optimum cc'ndi t ions)- ,;
-- Threat of accelerated, irreversible environmental
- degradatioan through misuse of marginal lands;
-- Inability of most farmers, lacking the required power or means, to identify and cozmmuniczate their needs to research agencies and policy makers;
-- Wide gaps between results achieved on research stations and o-btained by farmers adopting new technologies; and
- Increased awareness that women contribute to the food supply and that agricultural research has seldom co:n si der ed women s r ol es.
On-Farm Studies, FSAR, and FSCR are important ingredients in
a resource base strategy in FSFR/E. However, Base Data Studies
and FSA also need to be used for characterization of the
environment, while Research Station Studies and NFSD are needed in designing new farming systems adapted to the limitations and problems of marginal lands (adapted from Plucknett, et al.,
-1986: 12).
2.10 Or.ganizat ion cof FSR/E ...
[Alternative models for organizing FSR/E to be summarized here.)]




C
2.1IaatadBeeiso S/
Throfso hthssrone h S/ o~etoe h
vear ha tlo mae th tak o assssig FS/E~ in pac an
Teplonfaion tht has ife surrune tehFSiEscncpoe the
yas hs co at imade w the task of un as essi J engs F SE s ipact nand t
FEr:wores, if triey ineed cprtinuos haet the ipachar
ner,'p fard fromfiassssnteir impact. Whterl tkis inthe
ac early diagxtnostc pihaso FSiEpti dyind parblems laster stae
of tetng cheer tendgcc, ats of merr asring; the
-- aestiallyf odiedarmeing techniqusc rtherlosth
assessc'itngwt the huma-toF/ n elermens of tese [warminSstems)
Adrovides85, in reiw hs pricpeacotuoblshrvstofue itpatth
if ~i npfrecuedation.maycncpul n at rblus
Assesmpet and bene ipt aessenefit EiE idely takibes in tor
accun the extet tnd whicht faE-,pdtio ofarming-sysems:hage
byettrershiv thand ~~frmfmlis n
-- aretuotivelysdesirable in termslofesuchbcityri asuhe
Therewhare panumber of cnetaprobalemst inolved infpropery
assssntenipt of FSR/Einsermsl ofenthlesestwodimson.
foeibili bneitysofretherikstlo andtoe assesseniiaipeed
it recledoi byd wter may-onetual and data problems.~Asmnthe fa-criaeig FSR/Eipctadbnfs is onrly posibleinsterms
echasime crtran such A:oidvda iltrlassa
proect_= tnhelpeind etatioa ofriadutionof recommend changetsio
Another factor in assessing EERIE is the role of assistance
mechanic sins, ranging from IAROs to individual bilateral assistance prc'jec ts, in helping national agricultural research and extension




24
The fc'll,',winQg lits potential benefits of FSR/E (adapted frm F'l uc:knett et al., 1986: 18-19; and Anderson, 1985).
-- FSR/E has str,_-ng imaplic-ations for the organization and
rnanagemetnt oif agr icultrural research and extension;
prcedures need to be developed that facilitate joitt
work without stunting individual initiative and effort.
-- Given the tendency to concentratee resources on farmers
in; resource rich as compared with resource poor areas.
FSR/E can provide a mechanisms, for ensuring adequate
focus o'n the latter areas.
-- FSR/E has the capacity to im 'prove the productivity of
other activities other than those strictly involved in agricultural 'production (For example, a crop becomes
a food only after it has been properly harvested,
stored, cleaned, prepared and, in most cases, cooked.
- Ir,'prcvemnents in these phases cif the overall farm-level
commodity processing system m,'ight exceed retutrns from
efforts directed to improving crop yields.)
[To be revised) ...
r r




C
2.12_c,,,ki t c'- the Rut Lre c' f an Evc'ivi n Coric
~ ... . . . ..i. . . . . . . . . ..-- --
AID continues directly cor indirectly support FSR/E, although
no-t necessarily in the form of funding projects explicitly titled "Farming Systems Research and Extension." Key elements of FSR/E (e.g. can-farml research) are now almost routinely being designed
into AID-funded pr':jeczts aimed at strengthening agricultural research and extension programs in the developing countries.
Beyond AID, other donors continue to support FSR/E-type
projects. "IDRC has been very strongly committed to FSR for the
past 15 years....it will stay committed for the next 5O.' (statemerit by Andrew Ker, c-ited in Poats, et al., 1986:76). While the World Bank has supported the Training & Visit System (T&V System)
#s an extension model in many countries, the Bank has begun in
recent years to take a greater interest in FSR (Simrnonds, 1965).
One may anticipate that future Bank experience with FER, building
,-n T&VQSystem, experience, will lead to additional refinement in
and improved practical application of the FSR/E concept.
CIlient-Or ient ed RSR/E
Further evidence of the continually evolving nature of the
FSR/E c-oncept may be seen in the emerging emphasis on the role of
resource-poor farmers (RPF) and farmer participatory research
(FPR) in the agricultural innovation and techna:'lc'gy mngmn
pro-cess. As Farrington and Martin (1987:1) have observed:
-...there has emerged a growing concern to understand the diverse and ,-omplex environments in which RPF operate so
that... techno, cogy can be tailored to suit their circzumstances and, mere recently, s,-, that farmers' indigenous
technical knowledge (ITK:) can be fed into technology
~~development. It is from~ these areas of concernl...that the i concept of farme rs' direct participation in research (FPR)
Shas arisen. ....
' The seeds for the emerging emphasis on farmer participatory
research CFPR) were planted in a number of studies. For example,
a potentially important variable in implementing FSR/E is the
nature of farmer participation in "con-farm" activities. In a
study of farmer Darticipatiozn in on-farm testing of new phosphate




26
Sc-ientists working in an FSR/E-type rmozde have formnulated
wheat are, in effect, FPR models. Harwcod (1979: prposd
met hozd cof small farm development in whi ch "the mr.t emphasis is on pr,'ducticn research, planned and carried ,out by and with the
farmers o-n their cwn fields." Another example is provided by the
"farnmer-back-to-farmer" (FBTF) model developed at the Internaticihal Potato Center (CIP) (Rhoades and Booth, 1982). A third example is the "farmer-first-and-last' (FFL) model proposed by Chambers and Jiggins (1986). Common to all of these models is
the recognition of the need to orient research to the farmer as the client, hence the term "on-farm client-oriented research" in
a recent study of national agricultural research systems
conducted by the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) (CGIAR, 1967:42). Thus, the emphasis on farnmer
participatory research (FPR) and on-farm client-oriented research suggests a variant of FSR/E which may be called "client-oriented
FSR/E" (CO FBR/E).
Mar ket-Drivyen FSR/E
The emnergencze of the concept of "on-farm c-lient-oriented
research" is an important step in the evolution of the FSR/E
concept. Indeed, this steps opens the door to finding new ways to direct, manage, and fund agricultural research and extension.
In several countries, AID is exploring ways to cultivate not only
*greater private-sector participation in but also private-sector
support and management cof agricultural research and technology
transfer. For example, in Honduras, AID is assisting the
Honduran Agricultural Research Foundation (FHIA). FNIA is a
private-sector organization that conducts research aimed at develoapinrg Hoznduras' potential to compete in non-traditional
agricultural export markets. In the Dominican Republic, AID is
assisting the newly-created Agricultural Development Foundation
to build its endowment, the income from which will be used to
fund agricultural research on non-traditional agricultural export
crops. .
, The growing emphasis on stimulatn rvaescorprii
,T pation in agricultural research and technology transfer for nonh~traditional agricultural export crops helps to bring into relief
that FSR./E could play a more active role in assisting farmers to
identify market opportunities that provide incentives for farmers
tco grow new non-traditional market and export crops. A greater




C
27
C1lient-Di rcted FSRz/E
The emergence of the concepts of "on-farm cli ent-orijented
research" and "market-driven FSR/E" will create a dynamic that further shapes the definition of4 FSR/E as an evolving concept.
Indeed, resource 1limi tat ions and efficiency considerations will likely create pressure to find ways, across heterogeneous agroclimatic zCnes, to mo'ore effectively involve homogeneous groups of
r esour ce-poor farmers in designing, implementing and evaluating
FSR/E. As FSR/E practitioners gain experience working with
farm 'ers and farmer groups, there will be increased pressure and opportunity for farmer groups o0r organizations to assume greater responsibility for designing, implementing, and evaluating FSR/E in particular and agricultural research and extension in general.
In this respect, innovative approaches will likely be
explored, especially where progress has been or could be made by provriding assistance to strengthen private-sector farmer groups
and organizations (e.g., AID/Bolivia's Private Agricultural
Producer Organization Project). There would appear to be great
potential for farmer organizations to play a more active role in funding, designing, managing, participating in, and reaping the
benefits of agricultural research, particularly where such
research is carried out in a FSR/E mode. Where farmer organizations begin to play a m 'ore active role in agricultural research
and extension, not only participating in agricultural research (i.e., FPR) but also in setting the direction and priorities of
such research, one rcay envision that the FSR/E concept will
evolve in the direction of what m 'ay be termed "client-directed
FSR/E" (CD FSR/E).
2. 13 Surrear
This chapter has provided an overview of key concepts that
define that field of farming systems research and extension (FSR/E). Table 1 prides a umry listing of thes key
*. ,
rpts
on c "4




C
Table 1. A Sun',nary of K:ey C:,-n,-epts in Farming Systems Research
and Ext ensai c,.
Fc, re Charac-teristics of FSR/E
:4: Farmer-or iented
:Invol, ves c-lient group as participant in research and extension
:t: RecogQnizes loczational speci ficity of technical and human
factors
:4: Syst enos-or i ent ed
:t: A "problem-solving" approach
:t: Tests technologies in on-farm trials
Interdisciplinary
4: Ccarapl erients, not replaces, mainstream commodity and
disciplinary agricultural research
:t-' Provides feedback focr shaping research opportunities and
agriczul tural policies
Stag f F~~_,_SR/:E
Diagnczsis ,-,r Description
Design car Planning44
Testing ,=,r Experimentation
Ext ens i on cnr Rec c'nmendat i on and D i ssemi nat i con
Monitoring and Evaluation
Data S,-'urces in FSR/E ..
Base data studies
Research station studies
On-Far m St ud ies
Farming systems analysis (FSA)
(farming systems researc-h setrs strict)
Farming systems adaptive research (FSAR)
. ICon-farm research with a farming systems .perspective (OFR/FSP))]
Farming systems component research CFSCR) '"
~~Farming systems : .base-line data analysis (FSBDA),).........
~e arigssems development (NFSD) ... Nwfrigss- .. --. '"-"
Farming systems research and agricultural development (FSRAD)u:
Esirilar to the so-called Franccophone approach to FSR in Africa
o'r the farmEing systems approach to infrastructural support and
p,-lic-y (FSIP) ]




I
&
- 2
4
C3/d63 03) 3/'dSJ Pe~'e)TQ~4LJeTTCI (B/'dSJ OW) B/dSJ UeATAQ-;ekjAvj~J (3/Z1SJ 03) 3/dSJ pe~L4Uet ~Q-;U~ 113
- - -- -- -
ICIAB Lie se B/:dsd
------ - - --------- -
3/dSJ SC' Sq.TJ~E'Ue~ pLJ~ s;:'~ThIi~




a
II
Sc)
Refer en-es
Anders,-n, Jo:k R.
1965 "Assessing the Impact of Farming Systems Research:
Framework and FProbilems,"U Agriczultural Admi ni straticon,
20 : .22=-20u
Ashby, Jacquel ine
1984 Participation of Farmers in Technology Assessment.
Muscle Shoals, Alabama: International Fertilizer
Devel opment Center.
Bycrice, Derek, Larry Harrington, and Donald L. W.inkelmann
1962 "Farming Systemns Research: Issues in Research Strategy
and Technology Design," American Journal ,=f Agriucltural
EconoUi1Cs, 64 (5) (December) :6897-904.
CGIAR -,
1987 CGIAR 1986-1987 Annual Report. CGIAR Secretariat, 1818
H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433.
Chambers, Robert and Janice Jiggins
1986 Agricultural Research for Resource Poor Farmers: A
Par si roni ous Paradigm. Discussion Paper 220.
University of Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.
Ccollinson, Michael P.
1962 Farming Systems Research in Eastern Africa: The
Experience of CIMMYT and Borne National Agricultural
Research Services, 1976-81. International Development Paper Nc'. 3. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University.
OC:nkl in, Frank S.
1982 "FSR/E as a Field Methodology in Third World Countries:
~Its Historical Origins, Current Functions, and
.. Suggestions for Improvement,"peadfothFrin
System Research Symposium Kansas State University,
November 21-23, 1962.
Dillon, John L., Donald L..Plucknett, and Guy J. Vallacys
1978 Farming Systems Research at the International
Agricultural Research Centers. A report to the
Technical Advisory Com~mittee, Consultative Group on'
| I q aL dI | I




31
Far r ingtc on, John and Adrienne Martin
1987 Farnmer P'articipatory R.'esearch: A Review o:f Coc, ,epts and
Practices. Discussion Paper 19. Agricultural Adrinistrati on (Research and Extensiozn) Network, Agricultural
Adinistration Unit, Overseas Development Institute.
Harwccsd, F.Richard R.
1979 Small Farm Development: Understanding and Improving
Farming Systems in the Humid Tropics. Boulder, Colorado:
West vi ew Press.
Hendr i cks, Michael
1987 Learning from Development Experience: An Approach to
Synthesizing AID's Existing Information. Center for
Develoapment Information and Evaluation, Agency for
International Development, Washington, D.C.
Hildebrand, Peter E.
1965 "On-Farm R.'esearch: Organized Coniruni ty Adaptation,
Learning and Diffusion for Efficzient Agricultural
Technology Innovation," Farming Systems Support Project
Newsletter, 3(4) (Fourth. Quarter) :6-9.
Hildebrand, Peter E.arid Robert K. Waugh
1963 "Farming Systems Research and Development," Farming
Systems Support Project Newsletter, 1(1) (Spring):4-5.
Nozr man, David W... .. .
1974 "Fationalising Mixed Cropping under Indigenous
Co'nditi-mns: The Example of Northern Nigeria," Journal
of Development Studies, 11:3-21.
PlLu:cknett Donald L.
1987"Farm,'ing Systems Research at the International
Agricultural Researczh Centers," presented at the MidTerm Meeting of the CGIAR, Montpellier, France, May 19,
1987.
? Plucknett, Donald L. John L Dillon, and Guy J Val ..aeys "-" ,". ...1966 "Review of Concepts of FarMing Sstems Research-.-- .Thep gS :..
-,. .M"; 'What, Why and How, paper preared for the IARO: Wor kshop..?.':"ii! ~on Farming Sstems Research, February l7-21,A986,I
ICRISAT Center.
Po'ats, Susan, Daniel Gait, Chris Andrew, Lisette Walecka, Peter




L .
4k9
Rhc'ades, R.E. and R.H. B,-,othi
1982 "Farrrer-Back-Tc-Farm er : A Model fcr Generat ing
Acceptable Agricultural Technolo:gy," Agricultural Administration, ii1: 127-137.
Sands, Deborah Merrill
1985 A Review of Farm~ing Systemts Research, a paper prepared for the Technical Advisory Corsmittee, i::GIAR.
1966 "Farm'ing Systems Research: Clarification of Terms and Concepts, Experim~ental Agr iculture, 22:87-104
Sharer, W.W., P.F. Philipp, and W.R. Schmehl
1982 Farming Systems Research and Developm~ent: Guidelines for 'Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Sirronds, Normran W.
1965 Farm,'ing Systems Research: A Review. World Bank
Technical Paper Num 'ber 43. Washington, D.C.: World Ban k.
Wiese, Karen
1985 Farming Systemrs Research: Issues for Evaluation,
~prepared for PPC/CDIE, U.S. Agency for International ~Developmtent, Washington, D..203
.4
t. .r




C
1
Technical assistance to the Lesotho' Farm ing Systems Research Project (LFSRQP) was provided by the Consortium for International Dev elopml'ent (OID),, with Washington State University (WSU) as lead university. The project's technical assistance contract began in March, 197'9, providing nine technical assistance (TA) positions. Members of the technical assistance team (TAT) began arriving in c-ountry in July 1979, and were fully on board by August 1980. The original five-year project time period was extended for two years to March 31, 1986, with a subsequent agreement to extend the project t to July 31, 1966.
The LFSRP was evaluated- three times: an interimL evaluation in 1981 (Martin, et al., 1981); a special evaluation in 1983 (Dunn, 1983); and a final evaluation in 19386 (Frolik and Thcampsc'n, 1986).3. 1 Conce~t What was the basic technical idea underlying the
pr cject?
Lesotho is exceptional in Africa in that it relies on offfarro in~core opportunities, principally outside the country, for its people's livelihood. It is estimated that only 17% of household income comes from on-farm', agricultural activity.
The Lesotho' Farming Systems Research Project CLFSRP') was
conceived to assist the newly established Research Division (PD) of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) in conducting agricultural research on naozre productive farm enterprise rm'ixes acceptable to farmers, sensitive to farmers' management ability, appropriate to resource availability, and protective of the land base. As identi fied in the PP (p. 13), "the thrust" of the project was "to develop effective means to reach farmers and gain their understanding and acceptance of the practirces recommended."'
3.2 Design How was this basic technical idea translated into a
project?"-The project's design provided a standard series of inputs




C
Several shortcomings in the project's design were identified
in the first and second evaluations. First, the evaluations
raised a question cn,.erning how the initial and ultimate
beneficiaries had been defined. The second evaluation noted that
the PP had envisaged the initial beneficiaries to be farmers
in~dicating bcth a willingness, and ability to try improved farming
techniques, with the implication that this group would be
ccmnposed primarily of the relatively better-off farmers. The
ultirtate target group was identi fied as "those farmers or farmer
groups who indicate a reluctance to improve traditional
agriculture due to a lack of resources, financial cOr physical, or
knowledge that change is possible." This definition of initial and ultimate beneficiaries "tended to overlook the importance of
classifying farmers on the basis of resources and/or farming
systems practiced and the need to develop agricultural
recommendations for each group" (Dunn, 1983w 8)
A second design shortcoming was the idea of having extension
agents seconded to the Research Divisio~n. The second evaluation
team found that this idea had proven to be less than satisfactory
and that the extension service should have been integrated as a full partner into the project rather than seconding a number of agents ton the project. At the time of the second evaluation, a systematic means of liaison between research and* extension was.
being imrplem'ented by the project in the form of monthly meetings
involving the two groups. However, in the opinionn of the.
~evaluation team, the extension service regarded activities in the
: project's prototype areas (PAs represented the lowlands, foot-,
hills, and mountains) as part of the research program rather than
an integral part ,-f the extension service. In the team's view,
the extension service should have played a major role in
planning, designing, staffing, irrplerenting, and monitoring any trials o0r demonstrations being placed on farmers' fields (Dunn,
1983:43). As the team noted, the project
neglected the development of the district and national
extension service. As an example, project funds were..
4. unavailable for inservice training costs to hold workshops
' with 4-4 district level subect4 rnatter scalissa1d.hc4 ::c
...''district agents to participate in routinelyhedwrso.
I ,', ... Field extension [workers] outside of the -p rototype areas :' "were not provided with a means of transportationo, i e:., .: !> f :':
motorbi kes. While the Research Division provided funds for.-:
printing and distributing extension circulars, the
Agricultural Information Office was constrained financially




C
A third desi gui shcirtcoriing was the limitVaticon o'-f the F"SR
ef fort to: the PAs. The im'pl icatic'n of this design was that o'-nly a strall3 port-iocn (1.0' tc, 1.5 percent) o~f the -.-40, 000 household ds in
Les,"tho would be potential project beneficiaries. The second
evaluation team recommended that a second phase of the LFSRP be
designed to cover a greater number of administrative districts so
that a greater portion of extension resources could participate
with the RD in cm-farm research trials and planning extension demonstrations oni farmers' fields. The evaluation team also
noted that this strategy would reduce the chances of the project
favoring one farmer group over another.
3.2 In'jlem'eftat ion How was the project managed by the hostcountry implenment inrg agency, the technical assistance t earn,
and USA ID?
The first evaluation of the LFSRP noted a host of problems
that the project encountered during its early irmplem-entation:
-- a slow start by the Technical Assistance Team (TAT)
(caused by tearm members being selected without the
involvement of the TAT Leader, lack of orientation to
the project before leaving the States, delays in the
arrival of team members in country, TAT members not
arriving in the sequence planned, lack of orientation assistance of AID when TAT members arrived in country, inadequate introduction of TAT members and the project
itself to GOL agencies and other entities with which they were expected to work, and delays in housing and
of fice construct ion) ;
-- inability of project management (MOA, TAT, and AID) tc'
provide a unified approach to direct and guide planning
and implementing activities at the national and PA
levels;
" ,,. "-- lack of short- and lonq-terc. agr icuitural :ro. search:--*,.
; policy and strategy in the :Research Division ,(RD);
-- limited number of skilled MOA professionals assigned to
the RD;
-- delays in assigning counterparts to be trained to




C
44
--delays in sel_,_ting and proc-essing participants fozr
ac'adem~ic- training (this incree the likelihood that
there wolid not be suffi:ieflt overlap with TAT members
to prc',vi de on-the--job training;
-- selection of PAs that did not have access to inputs and
ma r k e t s ;
-- delays in assigning research extension assistants to
the project; and
-- minimal previous research on which the TAT could draw.
Another constraint became apparent, namely, that the drop
off of 130L budget support to-the project hampered the implementati:'n of trials and the provision of required follow-up. Yet,
despite budgetary limitations, high expectations were held for the project. At the G~OL and donor levels, there were expectations that the project would rapidly develop enterprise m ixes
whi':h could be used in small farmer development programs in the
country. And farmers in the PAs held expectations that the
project would provide inputs and servic-es typically> pr':,svided by
other development pr _jects. RD personnel sought to reduce these expectations through repeated explanations that the project was
not an area development project but rather action-oriented
research that would be slow in welding benefits. ...
The Technical Assistance Tem(A)provided the mix of.
technical skills in agricultural production and supporting' services outlined in the PP. However, TAT effectiveness was
hampered by. "uneven arrival" of team' members in country and "the absence of an ong':,.ing agricultural research program and organizatioinal base" (Martin, et al., 1961:8). While the TAT assisted
in strengthening the foundation of the R.D as a newly forrmed
research institution, the evaluation team recommended that the
TAT needed to play "a stronger role in the management and planrlning areas...to provide a sharper focus on reaching the specific '.; objectives of conducting relevant research and...transferring::: .. ::,technology to small holders" (Marti" -ta. 1966:8).
*,. et al-19 8. 4 .
" ~~In the view of the first evaluation team, t~he project"....." -."
.. designers had been unrealistic in thinking that a FSR Unit could.
be established in] the RD as a newly created research institution.
Ined-h emfud" iegne[f huh nte.etn
tdwdche teFamifnd "astdivRece UniJthsubeit on theu.d .etn
to which- a1 Farming . SystemsP lesarc Unit is eing or shulb




5
Tw':, problems, not anticipated in the PP, were encountered in
implementing the project: (1) the absence of a standard,
published set of cr,-p production recorrmmendatic,'ns; and (2) the
extreme ely limited availability, particularly in the PAs, caf
inputs (fertilizer, seed, chemicals and even simple oxen equipment). Further, the evaluation team found that the pr,_ject and the RD were no-t imrplem~enting "a program of action specifically
designed to follow through on selected alternatives" (Martin, et
al., 1986:12). An absence cof collaboration between farm
managem ent and agronomny toJ identify constraints speci fic to each
alternative also was noted.
The first evaluation team felt the project's "greatest
chance...for...short run impact (probably its only chance)" was
to focus on the production of food crops (Martin, et al.,
1986: 12). The team recommended that the project concentrate con
food crop production, that the research program not be restricted
to the three PAs, and that an agronomist be assigned toz each
ecozlogical zone of the ,country, with the responsibility of attending the PA within the zone but also working as needed
outside the P'A.
The tear, also pointed out that the project could address the
input problem by reporting and analyzing data on the severity o~f the problem, and the potential profitability of inputs under good farming technology. The project also could assist in developing
"a self-sustaining solution of the problem--not a short-run
subsidized easing of the problem that cannot be sustained"
(Martin, et al., 1986: 15). Further, the team suggested, farm
management efforts should focus on helping to develop improved technology, by identi fying the farmer constraints speci fic to
practices or systems being considered. This, as the team pointed
out, involves ,careful monitoring of the economics of the
technologies being tested.
The team noted the importance of the project assisting the
~~RD in developing communication links with the MOA Informration
"- Section. Examples of such links could :include assisting in the
prearaionoftechnical publ ications and ext ensi on :training
4. maerals, providing research reports to other MOA subject matter:
.divsiosand conducting seminars for technical division .chiefs ?:.
:. "and district agricultural officers to epantentr of h
: agricultural research program, the production problems receiving
attention, and the results of station and farmo-level adaptive
research trials which have provided infornati:'n to disseminate to




6
. 4 Eva ._lu atiozn'-_ H,"w was the projec-t' s per forrmance measured o-r
a'._ sssd ."
At the tim,'e of the project's first evaluation, the TAT had
been assisting in project implementation for nearly two years.
At that point, the first evaluation team found that
there was noz evidence that farmers are adopting.. .iroprozved
farming practices developed under project-initiated
activities. The agronoric, range rnangement an d livestock research activities already underway are at the beginning
stage of an applied research programs. These research
activities will need to be carried on for a number of years
before a proven technology exists which can be disseminated on a broad basis to the farming cormrmunity. Accordingly, it
is Luncertain whether or not the Project will reach the
stated objective of reaching five percent c'f the households
in the project area with enterprise mixes (Martin, et al.,
Co'nseqt .ently, in the team's view, "the normal start upperiod of
settling in, and getting organized to do agricultural research
work" had impeded achievement of project outputs. In the team's
~view, it was too early in the research process to determine how
~farmers would accept and util ize new practices of relevantd
technology (Martin, et a, 1961:21)
The evaluation team fund that the project deig eam had1
made a basic assumption that there was a considerable amrounlt lOlf
relevant data available that the TAT and the RD could collect,
analyze, and use tc' develop a research program,' without having to
I'trtfrom scratch. However, the TAT discovered that the
actual data base related to FSR/E was weak and spotty. While TAT
' r, embers collected and analyzed existing data, their efforts
produced mixed results, and there was no attempt to coordinate
~and synthesize the data collected by individually tea. members. : ,
,' For example, none of the materials collected had been used to '
develop a profile of existing famn ytm inLsto
" "" "Such a profile, the team noted, Would ":be".useffdl in ':asi~tsih g">' j:
the RD and TAT "to reach a consensus on what; typeof fames
what extension strategies and what production technologies should:
receive priority attention" (Martin, et al., 1986:19). "Lack of
consensus 20months after initiation oif the project as to who




C
7
One cof the dif(fi culties in reaching consensus was the
existing split in polic-y o-rientation ,-,n agriculture. While donor
pr,_,jects were aimed at the Lescotho small holder, the first
evaluation team found that the GOL was engagedd in a substantial
program' cof l arge-sc-ale mechanized farming to- make the ,-,-Luntry self sufficient in food grains by using modern tehc c y and inputs in a.. commercial o-perati-,,n" (Martin, et al 1981.31).
Even within the projec-t, the evaluation team fo-und a split
between those who felt the projec-t should aim at improving the
level of subsistenc-e versus those who felt the project should aim
at developing a viable sm,'all-scale commercial agriculture. "The
projec-t itself is divided on this issue" (Martin, et al.,
1981:31).Despite splits in po-lit~y orientation, a baseline survey of
households in the PAs had been initiated and was nearing the
analysis stage at the time of the first evaluation. Ho-wever, the evaluation team felt that the formal baseline survey approach was
no-t an-effic-ient or relevant use of project staff.
A f,-,cus o'n rnore rapid metho-ds c'f cc'nduc ti na farming syst ems
research (e. g., following the "Soande,-" method developed in Guatemala o-r that developed by...CIMMYT for use in East and
Southern Africa) would have been a more appropriate appro_-ach
assuming the availability of local staff to carry out such
rapid assessment surveys (Martin, et al., 1986:19l.
In a second evaluation of the project (Dunn, 1963:6) the
evaluation team found that the co-ntribution of data that were to
be provided by the baseline study to the RD had been less than
desirable, and that this information should have been provided in
year two- of the project at the latest.
Farmer reco,-rds were also being developed by the project at
the time of the first evaluation-,. While the evaluation teaa felt
that this information would be useful in problem identification, the team cautioned that the data largely described wh at farmers
. do and needed to be supplemented with information on w farmers
: do what they do. A subsequent evaluation (Dunn, 1983) found that
... .the. project had made progress in identifying and classifying farm ~households according to availability of resources and agricultutral production. However, the team recommended that greater.
attention be given to matching trials with potential adopter
groups.




8
crozp demnstration p1lcts and/,:,r c ommunal gardens had been
established in each of the PAs, the projec-t had taken no steps to nritcr and evaluate the effec-tiveness o=f alternative strategies
for reaching farmers.
A final conclusion o~f the first evaluation team with respect
to, project evaluation was that the GOL, TAT, and AID should be
m,-re systematic in their monitoring and evaluation of the
pr cject t.
The three should plan a truly collaborative evaluation at
least once a year and should formulate specific benchmarks
directly related to agreed plans of action which can be
monitored by all parties on a more frequent basis (Martin,
et al., 1961:32-).
By the time of the second evaluation, the team found that
the farming systems approach had been integrated into the RD and
that farmers were being directly involved in field testing and demonstration (Dunn, 198..,4). Further, training sessions were being held for extension field workers as well as for Village
Agricultural Commrrittees. The team also noted that the total work
time spent by the TAT in the field had increased measurably over the years, with some professionals now devoting .up to 75 percent
of their time in the field. More broadly, the project was
continuing efforts to establish an Agricultural Research and:
Planning Coordinating Council and to assist :.the RD ,in drafting an.
agicultural reerhpolicy paper.' :.....
The increased amount of information on the project available
by the time of the second as compared with the first evaluation
made it possible for the second team to focus on what the PP
referred to as objectively verifiable indicators COVIs).
Evaluation of the project in this respect is now reviewed in
terms o~f each indicator and the project's progress on the
indicator at the time of the second evaluation.
-Far mi n Sxste s Resear ch Unit --- * ** -,. ..-,,. ,.-" .-' ," -.. -""
'-I OVIlI Research priorities are determined through theuseot.:" .. ,, soc ial and economic benefit/cost techniques..y -1179 '. ... ,,,,*- ... :....
- The evaluation team found no evdne hteihrtehiu
was ever applied to selection of research priorities.




9
OVT3. The FR! Unit iis benefitting from improved prc,'fessional
relat iornships with wc'ridwi de research insti tuticons by
The pro ject had initiated, maintained, and strengthened ties with international research institutes (CIMMYT), research staticons in the Republic of South Africa, and universities in the U.S. such as WSU and Utah State University.
0VI4. The FER Unit is pursuing or considering a program for
replicating FSRz/E after the project ends.
Inclusion of the TAT within the RD as a support group for
Division activities provided a foundation for institutionalizing FSP/E in the PD; however, the first evaluation team recommended that the i,-oncept :-,f having a separate FR Unit within the RD be ab andorned.
Far jt .Systes _Pr ogram
0VI5. Three systems using alternative technologies developed
and tested in three phsclenvironmJ'ents by880
The first evaluation noted the lack of a reliable set of crop procduc t i on rcomcrarendat i ons for Lescotho. The second evaluation found the number of on-farm trials in'place to be a vast improvement over the findings of the first evaluation. However, the team also found
a lack of agreement among RD staff and units as to.. .what is the FSR methozdology being employed by the RD.... . The evaluation team feels some concern over the many concepts of FSR held by either. WSU or EBasotho staff in the RD. While we
are very pleased with the effort to develop the Lesotho
model of FSR, the fact remains that all station-generated
and imported technology must be verified on a representative
sample of Lesothoan farms selected from hornoegeneous agroclimatic regions before such technology is ready to .,.
demonstrate (Dunn, 1983:27-28) ".-.
The first evaluation proposed steps to strengthen and expand
on-farm, trials. One step was to give the Deputy Director full responsibility for coordinating farm trials, to facilitate an orderly transition of farm research responsibility from the TAT to Bascatho staff. While the second evaluation voiced "concern




10
OVIE. Alternative strategies for MOA farmer ,communication and
education developed and tested by 6/60.
The project initiated Village Agricultural Committees as an experimental approach to reaching farmers in the PAs. Also, a group approach was being used on communal vegetable fields and grazing schemes. The team recommended fol low-up on these two approc, ,hes to assess adoption rates of recommended technologies. The team also recommended that the project consider testing a
facilitator approach to communicating with farmers.
Trained~ Basotho Personnel
0V17. Bascitho, personnel trained and assigned to 26 positons
in FSR Unit of RD by 3/64.
While the short-term training had progressed well, tardiness
in obtainling qualified participants for lana-term,' training during the early years of the project had resulted in delays in participants completing training and returning to the RD.
Research and Inomto aaBs
OVI8. Not stated in Dunn (1983: 32-35)The first evaluation had recomm ended that the TAT, working jointly with RD staff and AID, should:
-- ...a) analyze and synthesize the available data related
to, Farming Systems...; b) identi fy an.d classify Farmting Systems types; c) identify the immediate beneficiaries
of the Project (based on GO0L policy and USAID growthwith-equity considerationss; an~d d) establish which
farming systems and which potential beneficiaries will
receive priority in research activities. .
-- Identify and disseminate a few proven tehnloie as_soon as possible to give the farming systems approachmore credibility (Martin, et al.,. 1981:58-59)v? .
By the time of the second evaluation, the project had
prepared some annotated bibliographies and demonstrated som'e technologies. Ho-wever, the team,' found "confusion" about which




C
researczhers nee ded to better understand how each research station tria and eaczh farm-level trial or dermo-nstration is related to a
potential adozpter group.
Various RD units (Range Mangernent, Rarrn Manacement, Rural
Sc ciilogy, Marketing, Extensio'n/Cc,rmmrunicatiomn) had collaborated
iti collecting data. However, the secon-,d evaluation cautioned
that "it is crucial that the data collec-ted be analyzed and taken
into c-onsideration when determLining priorities for crop, livesto-ck, and range trials and dem 'onstrationst' (Dunn, 1983:33).
Further, while the first evaluation pointed to the need for the
project to understand why farmers doi what they do, the second
evaluation n'ited that little attention had been given to:
the reasons fc'r the practices followed by the farmers: a
suffic.-ient amount oif information exists o~n what farmers dci but not why. . Ccoiiect ion of information on the Whys
requires a very well designed research effort...C(Dunn,
1983:33).
Acccr dingly, the second evailat ion reco-mmended that the
-- Give to-p priority to research aim ed at understanding
the farmers' rationale for spec-ific crop and livestock practices and intra-household decision-m 'aking related to key variables.
-- Continue work on classi fying farmers and adapting recommendations to the physical resources of each g roup.-- Conduct an economy ic anal ysis based on data from
farmers' fields prior to c_-assi fying a tec-hnology as ready for demonstration and dissemination.
,-- Give greater attention to monitoring, to assess
.. .adoption rates.
' End of Project Status CEOPS)
;;i The EOPS was that at least five percent of the farmers
.(about 146 farm,' households) in the project's PAs will be using technologies developed by the project. Despite progress made
with o:n-farmr trials, the second evaluation team cautioned that:




CI
12
However, by the time of the third evaluation (Frcilik and
Thc 'mpuc 'n, 1968), .sLfficient data had become available to enable
tne~ evaluation team, to conclude tha t the project design target o~f reaching -, at least five percent of the farmers in the PAs had been
been achieved. A factor identified as a major' contributor to
achievement of the design target was the role of the Village
Agricultural Committees (VACs). The use of the VAC had proven to
be "an excellent way of getting farmer and community involvement
in technology testing, transfer, and adoption" (Frcolik and
Thompson, 1986: ii). For example, VAC members assisted in the
choice of research problems and farmers for on-farm trials.
A study by the LFSRP concluded that VAC members had been
effectivee disseminators of agricultural information and diffusers of innovations" (c-ited in Frolik and Thompson,
1986:37), with each VAC member influencing an average of 8.6
persons through a combination c:,f telling, showing, and
facilitating the observation of agizlua noain.Based
oni an extrapolation from a sample cof 54 of the 234 VAC members, the team concluded that "it is likely that farmer contact group mnerbers have di ffused innovati,-ns deriving from farming systems
research to nearly 2000 persons" frozm 1979 to 1964 (cited in
Frc'l lii and Thomrpscn, 1986:37). The effectiveness cif the VACs in
the three PAs resulted in the Extension Division of the
Department of Field Services adopting this model for all 10
extension districts of the country.
3.5- Institution~alization 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
project?
The first evaluation found that the project design had not
adequately addressed the Research Division's manpower and
organizational needs. As the team noted, there were not enough
trained Bascitho agriculturalists to work with the TAT as co~workers and to leave the country for training. Further, existing
4 ,- training plans did not permit allow-sufficient time to recruit
and train national staff in functions that would continue after
project termination. Also, as earlier noted, the project
experienced delays int sel ec.t ing and processing participants for training. Only three participants had been sent for long-terra
training in the U.S. as of the date cof the first evaluation




C
13
To accelerate training and staff development, the first
evaluation team recommended that the project assist the RD in
-t
preparing a manpower development plan to increase the t'JL.al number of Basc'thc' receiving specialized training in aQraculture.
Training could be accelerated by intensive co~trses and on-the-job training in the RD as well as short-term training at the IARCs. By the end of the project, the third evaluation team found that
I
good progress has been made in denree-evel training of RD
personnel. However, the process is a slow and costly one
with many participants entering U.S. LtniversitieE at the beQinning bachelors level. There has been some, but not
extensive, use of non-degree level training at international
agricultural research centers and the U.S. there has been an active program of s.hc'rt courses and in -cervace training
with counterparts. Nevertheless, with the dep~rtu.re of the
WSU team, the RD is not a viable research institution in
terms cot the adaptive research goal E c~et forth in its pal icy
statement (Frol i k and Thc'mpsc'ri, 1986: 28)
According 1 y, the team recommended that AID cant i flue SU.Pt83Y t for training RD personnel
The teem a I so r e': c~mmen d ed that the pr c' .:-z-ct re-dc.>: pits
_ flQ C.
vi ~i bi I ty ac; a Farmi ems Pr o.ject (tli>rt an, *
1991 ~ arid t h&t the AT I dent i ty more Ci ~:IEe1 y 'nth tht RD, or i ent i ng the pr cijec t a the devel c'pri&ent of the Fe~ear sn DiViSion as a Nat a. canal inst i tLlti on. The team nc'teu th;; the RD
needs. to i ncc'rporate two f iindarcientai criteria c'f Farrni rig
Systems Resarch. One of these is a firm knowledge~ ajf the
arrner and his system of farming and a sound understanding
---------------------------------------------------------of whx that system. The second fundamental criteria is the
mci LLSiOri of adaptive or on-farm research, 1 the testing under farm conditions of technology' before it is promoted on
I
a. jarge scale for farmer adoption (Martin, et ~., 1981:23).
A sercand constraint to iflstitLtti canal izing FSRi z, nuued by
U
the team, wa~ th~~ project's Lonfintruent to the PM. .- -.
ar e-as, the team felt, had been ma.de tnn E-FII&I I ~.nQ rest r ~
that wc'r 3<: in each had been so intense that the pr *~ JEtct .~ppeav~r~ - apwenr
II tc' be taki nq an an area devel ~: r atfwr thaw
ErSlnrii ~- -tt--'- mallS At .flflc'vciu 01-1 fr ~ ..~ ..
t *I-.
-'1the- T r~ H sc: not faa: i 1 i tat-ed t H w C'~iU'.i~i 1. u
* *
effective wc'r Li rica rel at i canshi p between the RD -3Vi0 DiEt r Ct




14
Adaptive can-farm, research is only a very small step away
from resul t derncm-nstrati ens---one- -,-olui f the mozSt effective
e:tensio'n tools and district personnel, in their o:wn
interests, not as a favor to research, may participate in trials and be able to rove new technology to farmers...w
see a need for the Research Division and the contractor to
initiate nore collaborative research/extension activities with the District Agriculture Offices. The district level
subject matter specialists could be tapped to assist in the
conducting and mnintoring of adaptive research trials. This
joint collaboration at the district level will aid in
strengthening the professional skills of subject matter
specialists and provide a background for training the
extension offices (Martin, et al., 1981:23-2 4).
Accordingly, the first evaluation tear,i recommended that the
project abandon establishing a Farming Systems Research Unit and
instead focus project resources on institutionalizing an
effective agricultural research and extension capacity in the
MOA. While the LFSRP could make progress toward developing this
capacity, the evaluation, team, felt that:
The development ,-f a research/extensiozn project must be considered long term, with a planning horizon of ten to
twenty years. Given the current state of research in
Lescotho it is not realistic to expect that enough can be
achieved in five years in developing institutional capacity
(Qiartin, et al., 1981:31). :"
The first evaluation team also noted that the PP had made "no
mention...ozf a longer horizon (15-20 years) which is always
needed to develop a purposeful agricultural research institution"
(Martin, et al., 1981:1i).
Although the project output of a FBR Unit had not been
officially changed by the tinme of the second evaluation, all
parties (GOL, TAT, and AID) agreed that the project should ..' strengthen the overall RD ,program rather than establish, a FSR
Unit. However, while the expansion oftepoec owr wit"
.... the entire RD was good for research, the allocation of a greater amount of project staff and counterpart time on non-FSR .'
~~activities was partially responsible fo-r a delay in implementing farm-level trials. Such a dilution of effort was not necessarily
bad. H,-wever, the reorientation ,:f the project should be taken
into acc-ount in evaluating expectations regarding what the
I o i ,q | l I .... '! --|-- -- --




C
15
In terms of inst ituLt io nal izing a rnethodolocgy for FSR, the
second evaltuat icnr report noted that :
the ccurmplete how to0" of FSR, from' the initial states cof
problem diaanosis and farm-level testing to0 the final stages
of demonstration and subsequent adoption, has yet to be
developed for Lesc'thco. Since the 1962-83 crop year
represents the first attempt at systematic on-farm trials,
muc-h of the planning necessary for subsequent phases of FSR
will fall con the RD between the upcoming harvest and the
1963-64 planting season. This evolving methodology, when
finished, will allow extension o0f FSR to other areas of
Lesotho. Also, by relying on the m~any Basotho researchers,
extension agents and farm record raanagers, the Lesotho
method of FSR will be developed jointly between the
contractor and the local staff. Such a joint development rm'eans that the skills to extend FSR to other areas of the
country will be left with Basotho researchers in the RD and
the extension division (DLunnf, 1963:21).
The second evaluation team recommrrended that the project m ake
a greater ef fcrt to involve CIMMYT FSR outreach staff and ICRISAT
staff in planning on-farm trials in future cropping seasons.
This recommrendation irnpl ies that the FSR/E expertise required for
planning con-farrm trials mray have gone beyond that of the TAT.
Progress toward institutionalizing FSR/E in Lesotho by the
end of the LFSRP was surmm arized in the project's final evaluation
report (Frol ik and Tho:mpson, 1966). While the RD has a strong corientatioan to farmers' problem s, excel lent links to farmer and
c orf, mun ity groups, and adaptive research in farm management,
marketing, rural so':ciilogy, and extension, "with the departure of
the WSU team the RD is not a viable research institution in terms cof the adaptive research goals set forth in its policy
statement" (Frol ik and Thompson, 1966: 28). Further,
the RD does not yet have the institutional capacity to carry
out an effective adaptive research program without :
continuing technical assistance. The critical mass of
..:. personnel is lacking in all sections and collectively., Somde .
disciplines received little, if any, support from the FSR. :
project. Capacity to plan, lead, and imt'plement .an .'
effective, well-balanced, adaptive research program is a
critical need (Fro'lik and Thomps'n, 1986:iii).




0C
16
But some signifIicanIt progress had been made. The TAT and
the R.D had successfully oriented the RD to coduti-FS ,-~l
tied to farmers and farm problems. However, while the project had
made progress in wozrkinlg with farmers, similar prc-,gress had not
been made in "building the production research capability of the
RD including the Station and substations" (Frcolik and Thompson,
1986:33 ). Acc,_rdingly, the key area identified in the third evaluatio-n as needing strengthening was the "research station
base cof adaptive research in the production disciplines and a
clear understanding of the need for a balanced program of research stations and substations and/or PA headquarters
experimentation, and on-farm trials, tests, and demonstrations"
(Frc'li k and Thor,'pson, 1986: ii).
The evaluation team called for assistance to the RD to
continue as a component of the follow-an Lesc',thc' Agricultural
Produ,-tion and Institutional Support (LAPIS) project. Also, the
team, recommended that the RD greatly reduce the number of "n
farm" replicated field trials and increase the quality and preci si on of on-stati on replicated experi ments to maximize
productionl of reliable data, allowing cn-farm derncnstrations to
prc'vi de farmers with first-hand information.
References
Dunn, James F.
1963 Project Evaluation Summary of Special Evaluation of Far ring Systems Research Project (No. 632-0065), conducted by Cal Martin, Dan lGalt, and Carolyn Barnes. (PD-AAM-972)
Frc'lik, Elvin F. and William N. Thompson
1966 Final Evaluation of Farming Systems Research Project (No. 632-0065). (XD--AAV-915-A)
; Martin, Cal, Ken McDermott, Ned Greeley, and Torn Bebout
,: 1981 Interim Evaluation of Farming Systems Research Project
4 (No. 632-0065). (PD-AAI-396).




1
Tanzania" Farml"ng SystemsResearchProject (621-0156!
Technical assistance to the the Tanlzania Farming Systems Research Project (TFSRP) was provided by the Consortium for International Development (CUD), with Oregon State University as lead university. Conceived as having; a life of project of 3.5 years, the project's technical assistance contract began March 1, 1963, with technical assistance bein; provided through approximately August, 1986.
The project's orderly im~plementation was interrupted in
early 1983 by factors extraneous to the project's design, namely, that the Brooke Amendm~ent would be applied to restrict future funding to AID projects in Tanzania. This led to elimination of one of the project's original components (the basic food crops research component). While, the project's farming systems component was retained, the number c, districts in which field
activities were to be conducted was reduced from. 15 to 3, with technical assistance input also bein_ cut back.
3.1 Concept What was the basic technical idea underlying the
project?
The TFSRP sought "to build institutional capacity within the Tanzania Agricultural Research Qrgan :zation (TAFzO) to pro-duce arid extend agricultural research more reevant to s~nall farmers (CID, 1963:1). This was to be achieved by introducing "a fannhing systems approach to redirect. ..prior~ties toward constraints to increased production which are readily arenabe to correction and to improve. ..recom-mendations for increasing agricultural production" (OID, 1983:1-2). The project workplan (cited in Jackson and Usburn, 1986:4) stated:
The FSR approach involves assistinc on -coing agricultural
research and extension activities to redirect agricultural
technology development, testing, an d dissemination processes
toward the needs of farmers I: views the farm and farm
family as a total entity; seeks to understand the more
important interactions of the operation of the farm as a
system; and includes the farmer dire ctly in the agricultural
technology development process.




C
2
3.2 Design How was this basic technical idea translated into a
project?
Six objectives were established for the TFSRP, as follows
(CID, 1963: 2-3) :
-- To develop and institutionalize a national research
organization CTARO)...capable of sustaining and
extending adaptive (on-farm) food crop research on a
nat ional scal e.
-- To develop and test a methodology for using the farming
systems approach as a research and information
dissemination strategy.
-- To integrate the farming systems research approach with
the ongoing food crop research proa~ram.
-- To develop and test improved technical recommtendations
for increasing food crop production by Tanzania
sinai holders.
-- To integrate the activities of the agricultural
research organization with the activities of other GOT
institutions serving the agricultural sector at local
levels to improve the transmission of research results
to small farmers.
-- To develop the skills of Tanzania researchers in basic
(on-station) and adaptive (on-farm) food'crop research.
The TFSRP was to be implemented as a pilot project by the Tanzanian Agricultural Research Organ-ization (TARO) inl three agro-ecological zones, with activities initially focused on a small number of administrative districts in two zones during the project's first year, and expanded to other districts and a third zone in the second and subsequent years. Project activities (such as diagnostic surveys and on-farms trials) were to be
carried out by TARO personnel assigned to zoeial and regional
f iel d t eamns.
At the time the TFSRP was initiated, a range of experimental technology had beenl undergoing testing at the crcop-speci fic Agricultural Research Institutes (A~is). In basic food crops




I I,
3
The workplan (CDO, 1963:26-27) developed by the contractor
indicated that:
The two Senior FSR Specialists...will supervise and manage
the FSR Project in Tanzania, and, by the end of the
contract, will have developed FSR institutional capacity in
TARO from national to local levels such that the program
will continue after contract personnel have departed. "h .e
The Senior FSR Specialists will be assigned Tanzanian
counterparts for each agror-ecological zone within which th
project operates. They will operate from the Planning!
Evaluation Department of TARO Headquarters, with frequent
trips to the assigned agro-ecological zones. They will
serve as advisors to the ARI Directors (zonal coordinators)
and the Commodity Coordinators on food crop research
activities and coordinate the district FSR research!
extension teams. They will be responsible for establishing working relationships with the variocis zonal, regional, and
district level agricultural extension staff and supervise
the work of the FSR teams in the regions and districts.
The senior FSR team will rk closely with the regional and district agriculture extension staff to find representative
sites to conduct village trials and to identify farmers
through village leaders to conduct on-farm trials. To run
on-farm trials, FSR teams should collaborate with the
Regional Agricultural Developnment Officer (RAD)O) and the
District Agricultural Developmenit Officer (DADO) to select
the villages. The FSR Team, along w-ith the DADO designated
Farming Systems Offir~er, discusses tihe matter with the
Village Council... to select the farn sites arid the farmers.
The FSR Team will assist Crop Comordinators in setting up village research trials on-farm to determine if the new
technology is relevant to farmer needs. The CID Crop
Improvem~ent specialists as ierbers of the FSR zonal teams,
will. assist the...Senior FSR Team in identifying and
collecting all previous diagnostic field surveys conducted
in the specified zone and in coordinating all future
diagnostic surveys. The information oftained from the
farmers will be analyzed by the.. Senior FSR Team anid a work
plan for the next planting season developed fo both food
crop research and the farrting systems_ prcograwa.
Trinn- nohe-omonn of -h arjc' a orlan wa




C
4
It is of interest to note that the project workplan stated that the *underlying philo sophy...was to suJrpass the existing state of the art for FSR field operation" (cited in Jackson and
Osburn, 1988:4). Further, the workplan stated that the project's farming systems approach embraced:
explicit economic performance criteria to (1) measure the economy ic performance of technologies...used by farmers...
EandJ...establish bench-marks against which introduced technologies will be evaluated1 C2) establish research
priorities which meet farrier/researcher choice criteria
including technical feasibility, cosat effectiveness and time
sensitivity, (3) provide continuocas screening of introduced
technology...E[againstJ technical/ecnormic criteria to eliminate technologies with little promise and modi fy
promising technology to enhance potential for adoption and
(4) measure actual level of. econosaic gain when adoption
occur [s].
The uorkplan also stated that, based o~n the existing FSR/E literature, 'it appears that the Tanzania Project is the first FSR project to embrace the development and use of explicit ecociomic performance criteria.& However, the 6 rkplan also noted that the project would "seek to identify and evaluate nonecc~onic factors that influence farmers decisions. "
3.2 Impleme-tation How was the project raanaged by the hostcountry implem enting agency, the technical assistance team,
and USAI D?
Orderly implementation of the TFSR was interrupted in early l983 by factors ex.tranleous to the project's design (spec-ifically, that the Brc~oke Amendm ent would be applied to restrict future funding to AID projects in Tanzania). As a result, the number of districts in which field activities were to be conducted was reduced from 15 to 3, with technical assistance also being cut back. While the original contract provided for 36ln-eu n
30 short-term person months of technica 306islce-temnd
contract approved in September 1985 reduced these figures to 150 and 19, respectively. By the project's e4nd, ac-tual FSR/E technical assistance (3.96 person years) was less than half (49.5%) of originally planned FSR /E technical assistance (6.0 persons years) (Faught, 1986:1II).




S
While responsibility for implementing the TFSRP was placed in the Tanzanian Agricultural Research Organization (TARO), expatriate staff generally operated throughout the project without specifically assigned counterparts. There were long delays in assigning Tanzanian staff to the project; and the actual number of Tanzanian staff eventually assigned to the project fell short of project needs, although two zonal teams were functional at the close of the project. The limited project staffing was complemented by the collaboration of at least seven TARO scientists working on joint experiments and eight extension people who assisted in conducting field trials.
Although the evaluation team found that the project's
diagnosis stage had been adequately designed, the team noted that the project had not investigated "al1...the resource allocation decisions that farmers must make" nor addressed "the functioning of the total system...in an explicit systematic fashion" (Jackson and Osburn, 1966:5). The team recommended that the project conduct earlier-proposed Market analysis and intra-household studies "to provide...the missing links regarding the total system" (Jackson and Osburn., 1986:5).
Moving ahead with the activities specified in the project
design was constrained by personnel recruitment problems such as delays in staffing field positions. Another problem was
that almost all conmmodity researchers are also part-time
farmers. ...one would expect then., to be readily cognizant
of the constraints that farmers in the area have, and in
turn, that hands-on experience would influence their
commnodity research activities. Apparently this is not the
case in that the contri-odity researchers rarely, if at all, visited FSR/E...trials. In addition the constraints that conmmodity researchers had with their o~'n farm operations were significantly different than other farmers. .. the
commodity researchers lacked the total system perspective and were not fully aware that other farmer Es'] constraints
were different (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:7).
While generally successful in attracting the cooperation of commodity researchers, the FSR/E tea n lacked a senior person who could exercise FSR/E leadership. This, coupled with delays in staffing the project and staffing field positions with relatively inexperienced professionals who were recent college graduates,
Ie to prbln ai -npeetn on--fa- tras (g. th prole




C
4Teewr ~ocssweeexeso esne salse
onfr rasidpnety ftoeetbihdb h
project SR/ tem.Thi wa poblmatc her exenionha
m Tertne ofernelorasesg her F/Etesineeson personnellhd
to ensure adequate hands-on, learn-by-doing, on-the-job training,
supplemented as appropriate by formal short-term training
activities.
The project was particularly effective in documenting.
project activities and outcomes. Over 100 documents were
produced, many authored or co-authored by Tanzanians. These
publications provided support raaterial for short-course training
activities, and facilitated exchange of information within
country and among FSR/E prograr~s across countries.
3.4 Eva1u~ation How was the project's performance measured or
assessed?
Tihe per formnance of the TFSR was measured or assessed by the
evaluation team primarily in terwis of the project's impact on
farmers. Training was also considered but is discussed below in
relation to the section (3.5) on institutionalization.
* The evaluation of the TFSP:P noted that the FSR/E team's
diagnostic surveys provided information useful in identifying
February as the month in which there was a food shortage in the Kilosa district of Ilonga. To address this problem,, the FSR/E
team designed and implemented a variety of on-farm trials to'test
potential technologies. One of these technologies was an early
maturing m aize variety known as K{ito:
Appopratetrils eredesigned to test adoption feasibility for the traditional [farming] system~s. Early on-farm,
trial results were whopping successes. Alrmst all farmers were pleased. Seed is in great dem. and and is reflected in
scarce seed supplies (Jaci scn anid Osturn, 1986:9).
This case helps to illustrate the role which FSR/E can play
in identifying a problem confronting farmers and in designinlg
appropriate on-farm trials to test a potential solution to the
problem. As the evaluation team noted.




7
The Kito variety, which had been developed earlier by
breeders at the Ilonga research station, had not proven popular with farmers. Thle station's major emphasis had been on developing-varieties for production during the Masika (long rains) season which was more dependable and had higher yields. While the short season Kiko reduced the risk of crop failure from drought when planted in the Masika season1, Kiko produced lower yields than full season varieties when planted in a normal season. However, when planted in the Vuli (short) season, Kiko yielded as well as traditional long season varieties and provided a harvest several weeks earlier than the traditional varieties. Also, it was found that:
subsequent Masika season crops of maize or cotton following
Kito planted in the Vuli season yielded 20 to 30 percent
more than they did if planted after traditional full season
varieties. Over the two year period that the trials were
run approximately 50 farmers per season grew Kito and in the
1965fE season K~ito seed were sold to an additional 50
farmers (Faught, 1966:4-).
Thus, in addressing variety development o the basis of
maximum yield, the narrower commodity focus envisaged little or no value of Kito. The partial analysis by commodity researchers was incorrect, and highlights the consequences when researchers and extensionists do not adopt a total system perspective (Jackson and Osburn, 1986:10).
Comparing the project's ac tual accomplishments relative to those initially planned, the Project Completlon Report (POPR) notes the following end .of project status (Faught, 1966:15):
-- Inlstead of 16,000 farriers in 15 districts utilizing new
technology, some 500 farmers in 3 districts are
utilizing at least one technology package.
-- The methodology f or using FSR as a technology
development and dissemination strategy has been, tested
in two rather than three egro-ecological zones
-- Qne team is staffed and trained to teach colleagues FSP
methods, and two teams are partially staffed and
partially trained. However, only a small fraction of
TARO's scientists are agricultural economists and none
JL -- JL __




8
The purpose of the TFSRP was to introduce a farming systems approach within TARO as a means of increasing the relevance to farmers of that organization's food crop research progr.am. The PCR concluded that the project "certainly has been successful in introducing the farming systems approach, but it was on too
limited a scale and conducted for too short a time to have had any significant irnpact on improving the research program" (Faught, 1986: 15).
3.5 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
project?
The farming systems approach requires interaction between
researchers and farmers; it also implies liwiitation~s on the extent to which a relatively small number of researchers can meaningfully interact with the relatively large number of farmers. Extension potentially can play a t~ajor role in overcoming these limitations and facilitating interaction between researchers-- and farmers. Indeed, the evaluation teari noted that extension's role
could become more crucial should FSR/E funds and personnel
be reduced. In fact, FSR/E survival could be determined by
the extent to which extension participates and is integrated
in~to the FSR/E activities (Jackson and Esburn, 1966:6).
While the evaluation team recognized that the FSR/E approach and activities as *'a source of knowledge and techniques that could revitalize...extension," currently "this is not the case because extension personnel did not articulate such t enefits associated with the FSR/E approach" CJackson and Osburn, 1966:7).
These conclusions suggest that the TFSRF encountered difficulties in defining and/or deeopn e-tnso
involvement in the project. Indeed, the project i~plernentation plan was based on the assumption that:
The Directorate of Extension and Technical Services (DETS)
will help insure that the FSR Project is properly integrated
with the extension workers in the field. DETS tuill insure
tha the. RaD an DAD ar ad4atl bree and beco




* ~9
Hc'wever, when compared with the project's success in establishing
a close working relationship with TA RO correo dity researcher's, the project was less successful in establishing "clc se ties with extension wcrkers...due at least partially to differences in level and type of training" (Faught, 1936:4).
The project's relatively greater success in working with
TARO researchers owes in large part to the FSR/E training that the project provided this group. Opportunities for training included on-the-job training; national FSR/E training seminars; long-term, discipline-oriented, academic training; and short
courses and workshops supplementing long-term academic training. Some trainees also participated in the Earning Systerns Research and Extetnsion Symposium at Kansas State University.
Training of personnel in FSR./E is a necessary condition for
institutionalizing a farming system s ap~rcach in a national agricultural research and extension system. I-bwever, training alone is not a sufficient condition. Trained personnel must be assigned to positions where they can apply their training. In this regard, the FOR noted that there had been an- expectation
that a substantial number of scientists ant technicians trained under the Tanzania Agricultujal Research Project
would be posted to the Farm~ing Syzter~a Research Project but these postings never occurred. Re rcitraent of alternative
personnel was slow and, in fact, never cornr'eted (Faught,
1986: 2).
Further, c:ormenting on the ten participants ho had been sent for advance degree training, the PCR statedThis group, along with the grouin tsat has ctrk:ed on the FSR project in-country for the past t years ouild constitute
an excellent cadre for continuation o~f the ESR program.
However, only four of the ten advance degree trainees were
employed on the FSR project prior to starting their graduate
program. There is no assurance th-at the sax not previously
employed in the FSR unit will be poDsted there on their
return In fact, there is no assu~anze that even the four previously employed in the FSR unit will be retained there
(Faught, 1986: 2).




10
reuie tooeae
- Itnasl pobabnwlunrealisc t pet totnun achiee
budget support for a new organizational unit.
-- The continued weakness of TAPO, to which the FSR unit
was attached, probably discouraged institutional izrat i on.
Another potentially influencing factor may have been the sharp reduction experienced in the project's technical assistance component.
The-PCR indicates that the project was also generally
successful in establishing and strengthening ties with other agricultural organizations. Less successful were the project's efforts to improve TARO m~anacernent capability. In this respect, the PCR rioted that:
It seems probable that the expel rience of going through planning, budgeting, and monitoring and other exercises involved in a research program jointly with trained and
experienced researchers...umust have improved the skills and capability of the TARD staff tD carry oat these activities
in the future. . Any iWpr ovement in TARO wanagemnert
that did occur may have been :ped out 'with the dismissal of
the TARO Director and other t, staff shortly before
USAID/CID participation terminated (Facght, 1966:5).
At a more general level, the project ayalso have had at; institutionalization impact at the policy level. As the POR notes, the Government's positive relative to the FSR approach is set forth in the section on agricu4taral research in Th~e Artcultural Polic of Tanzania (Ministry of Agriculture, March 31, 1983). This policy states that a con Dreiensive research program, would be developed which wcosld "be linked with the extension program as closely as possible" sc that "the peasant's experience m'ay be incorporated in research" and "research will be given a farm-centered, probleru-solx'inc approach" (cited in
Fagt-964.Hwvr ti o la -ehrtisplc
wasgt 1986:4)ate Howevinere itdsecarclear of suppr thi olicyR/
0 S r
.- a- : ~ S a- *x -t,-




4C
11
Overall, as the POR noted:
The major lesson that should have been learned, or perhaps
more appropriately re-learned, is that development of a research capability and the institutionalization of such
capabilty is a very long term activity. Resources that are
used for short-term support of such activities are generally, if not always, wasted (Faught, 1986:16).
References
Consortium for International Developnment (CIJ)
1963 Tanzania Farming Systems Research ,'621-O156) Project
Workplan (Years I and 2).
Faught, gillian A.
1986 Project Completion Report: Tanzania Fairminlg Systems
Research Project (621-0156).
Jackson, Robert I. and Donald D. Osburn
1966 Repor-t of Evaluation of the Tanzaa FSF Project and
Related Activities Land Development an d Station
Development at Ilconga.




a o
K Annex A. List of AID-funded Farming Szstems Research and Ext ensi on
(FSR/E)_Projects (November 30, 1967) Yotur assistance in brjngint this list of FSR/E" -ongoing, and planned--u2~to date would be~great1__ rec~t~.If you
are aware of any AID-funded Farm'ing Systems Research and Extension
CFSR/E) projects (or projects with a FSR/E component) in Africa, Asia
and Near East, or Latin America and the Caribbean that are not listed,
please bring them to my attention. A6lso aleasse fill_1in __ ______gisn
information items (denoted by "2") f or which Lou have the needed
informati on.
Thank you.
Kerry J. Byrnes (703) 235-3945 CDIE/PPE, SA-18, Rrn. 208
InformationSources -- The attached list ,of AID-funded Farming Systems
Research and Extension (FSR/E) projects (or projects with a FSR/E
component) was compiled by reviewing the following sources:
*1983 BIFAD Task Force list of FSR projects
* Karen Wiese (1985), "Farming Systems Research: Issues for Project
Evaluation,"u prpared for AID/PPC/CDIE
* Farming Systems Support Project (1985) Farming Systems Research
Project Directory
* "Farming Systems Research and Extension: Status and Potential in
Low-Resource Agriculture,' prepared by Farming Systems Support
Project (1986) for the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress
of the United States
*Frank S. Conklin (1982), "FSR/E asa Field Methodology in Third
World Countries: Its Historical Origins, Current Functions, and Suggestions for Improvement," prepared for the Farming Systems
Research Symposium, Kansas State University, November 21-23, 1982
*The following CDIE information sources:
* AID Project History List (FY 1986) sorted by country name
*AID Contracts List sorted by contract number
*DIF's PRJSRD (data from Contracts Office's michofiche of AID projects)
*AID Congressional Presentation, Fiscal Year 1986: Annex I (Africa)
~~Annex II (Asia and Near East)...
- Annex III (Latin America and Caribbean) -*1.
..* AFR/TR/ARD Functional Information System (11/24/87), printout of"
Farming Systems Research projectS in Africa **Discussions with key informants within the Agency




a C
2
ListingFormjat -- Information listed per following format and codes:
#s (b, *, d, e, f, n, g, i, or r = see below)
Country: Country of Project
Project No.: Project Number (project type code = p or c)
Name: Project Name
Time Frame: FY of Initial Obligation FY of Final Obligation
(if expenditure proposed for FY 68, noted by (88) ) LOP Cost: Authorized LOP Cost (includes cost of activities other
than FSR/E)
Contrac-tor : Contractor Name
Documentation: Selected Evaluation-Relevant Documentation on Project
b = included in BIFAD Task Force List (1985) of FSR projects
* = identified as FSR projects in Wiese (1965) review as FSR projects
d = discarded from Wiese review because FSR "component" was a mi nor
element in relation to project objective, activities, and
expenditure; these projects included predominantly 2 types:
(1) integrated rural developemnt, land
(2> conventional agricultural research and extension
i nst it ut ion-builId ing;
however, the projects of IARCs" were also excluded.
e = excluded from Wiese review because project had not completed
design and approval process L
f = identified in FSSP (1986) as a FSR/E project (or project having ~FSR/E component )
n = identified in FSSP (1986) as a project that "should not count in
the evaluation process as [aJ FSR/E project...."
g = identified as a FSR/E project (or project having FSR/E component)
by Conklin (1982)
i = relative degree of FSR/E institutionalization, as identified by FSSP Project (1986), as follows:
ii -= reorganized to accomodate FSR/E
i2 in process of reorganization, or ongoing FS/ roet
14A *iS some pilot FSR/E efforts:
Projec TypeCodes -- Based on available project logical frmwok
and abstracts, each project was identified as follows:
p = FSR/E appears as a major component
c = FSR/E appears as one of several components




Africa
1. (b, *., f, g, i2, r) Count ry: Bot swan a
Project No. : 633-0221 (p) Name: Agricultural Technology Improvem~ent Project (ATIP)
Time Frame: 1981-87 (68)
LOP Cost : 9,600,000
Contractor: MIAC / Kansas State University
Documentation: PP PD-BAB-133 (7/81)
PES PD-AAQ-448 (12/84) (7/82-7/84) (m: PD-BAU-445)
AR PD-AAS-246 (12/85)
SE XD-AAU-907-A (6/86) (attached to: PD-AAU-907)
PPA4 PD-BBC-924 (7/86)
PES PD-AAU-907 (7/66) (7/64-7/86)
2. (il)
Country: Bur kina Faso
Project No. : 686-0270 (c) Name: Agricultural Research and Training Support
Time Frame: 1988-1993
LOP Cost: 22 ,0000
Contractor :
Documentation: (project at PID stage)
3. (b, *, f i2, r) Country: Burundi
Project No..: 695-0106 (p) Name: Smlall Farming Systems Research
Time Frame: 1983-86 (88) (expenditure completed in 90)
LOP Cost : 7,790,000
Contractor: University of Arkansas./ University of Minnesota Documentation: PP PD-BAO-494 (2/63)
4. (f, i2)
Country: Carner oon
Project No. : 631-0013 (c)
Name: National Cereals Research and Extension
Timge Frame: 1979-84 (86/7) LOP Cost : 7,697,000
Contr act or : I ITA Documentation: PP PD-AAF-112-B1 (5/79)
~~~(attached to: PD-AAN-808) '
SXDAN808- (1/83) (8/791083) f. '"
PES PD-AAN-80 (1/3)(/7-/3
PPA1 PD-AAQ--992 (6/84)




4
5. (f, i2) Count ry: Carer oon
Project No.: 631-0052 (c)
Nam'e: National Cereals Research and Extension II
Time Frame: 1965-93 (88)
LOP Cost : 39,O27,00O
Contractor : I ITA Documentation: PP PD-AAQ-435 (10/84)
Recent evaluation done by University of Florida
6. (b, *, i3)
Country: Cape Verde
Project No. : 655-0011 (c) Name: Food Crop Research
Time Frame: 1982-67 (90)
LOP Cost : 6,967,000
Contractor: University of Arizona
Documentation: PP PD-AAL-824 (8/62)
SE PD-BAY-352 (7/85) (1982-7/85)
PA PD-BBH-276 (5/87) PP1 PD-BBH-276 (5/87)
7. (b, :,f, n, g, i2, not designed as FSR project) Countt ry: Gambi a
Project No.: 635-0203 (c)
Name: Mixed Farming and Resource Management
Time Frame: 1979-84 (86/7)
LOP Cost : 9,000,000
Contrator:COD / Colorado State University
Documentatin PP PD-AAI-645 (10/78)
(mid-term evaluation looked at project and .said itl
wasn't doing FSR; this also happened in lLesotho, Sudan,
and Swaziland)".
8. (e, i2)
Cout try: Gambi a
Project No.: 635-0219 (c) Nam'e: Agricultural Research and Diversi fication (BARD)
Time Frame: 1985-90 (88) (expenditures completed in 92)
LO os:26,120,000
Contractor: University of Wisconsi n tidi o ,.. .., Documentation: PP PD-AAR-O16 -485 1 :K Si: t; t '
4 -- #. ,




|C
90
5
9. (b, d ., appears to be a project development .activity)
Count ry: Gui nea
Project No. : 675-0204
Name: Smaliholder Production PreearTx0t
Time Frame: 1983-85 (87)
LOP Cost : 3,800,000
Contractor :
Documentation: PP PD-BAN-715 (1983)
10. (b, e, i3)
Country: Guinea
Project No.: 675-0210 (p)
Name: Smra11ihol der Pr oduc t ivit y
Time Frame: 1966-90 (91) (not in FY66 CP)
LOP Cost : a.12,000,000
Contractor. SECID (contact Isabel Valencia)
Documentation: o J:, ~d~l F)4unt4 caco~L1~y7 ) fl ?('CW
11. (b, d, f, i2, r) Count ry: Ken ya
Project No. : 615-0180
Name: Drylands Cropping Systems Research
Time Frarne: 1979-86 (87)
LOP Cost : 4,233,000
Contractor : USDA
Documentation: PP PD-AAG-179-A1 (4/79)
PES PD-AAL-064 (3/62) (8/30/79-3/20/82) PES PD-AAP-33~a3 (5/84) (4/82-12/83)
12. (b, e, i2, little FSR except via CIMMYT)
Count ry: Kenya
Project No. : 615-0229
Name: Agricultural Technology
Time Frame: 1986-89 (88)
LOP Cost.: 16,500,000
Contractor : MIAC
Documentation: PP PD-BBD-467 (7/86)




| C
6
13. (il, mainly soil conservation and land management)
Count ry: Lesot ho
Project No. : 632-0031 (c)
Name: Thaba Basio Rural Development
Time Frame: 1973-79 (61)
LOP Cost: 3,239,000 (joint IBRD/AID project)
Contractor: Near East Foundation
Documentation: SE PD-AAB-664-A1 (10/75)
PES PD-AAG-068-A1 (6/60) (1/1/78-4/30/80)
14. (b, *, f, n, g, ii, r)
Count ry: Lesot ho
Project No. : 632-0065 (p)
Name: Farming Systems Research
Time Frame: 1976-65 (67)
LOP Cost.: 12,189,000
Contractor: CID / Washington State University
Documentat ion: N PD-AAB-802-A1
PP PD-AAP-451 (4/78) PES PD-AAG-092-A1 (10/60) (4/78-4/60) PES PD-AAI-396-Al (6/81) (draft?) (4/78-3/61)
PPA PD-AAP-633 (draft/1983)
-PES PD-AAM-972 (3/83) (4/81-12/82)
AR PD-AAN-OO5 (6/83) SE XD-AAV-915-A (4/86) (final evaluation) (attached to: PD-AAV'-915)
PES PD-AAV-915 (6/67) (4/78-4/86)
15. (b, d, il):
Country: Lest.h
Project No. : 632-0221 Cc) ..
"* ,.Nam~e: Agricultural Production & Institutional Support .. ,
Time Frame: 1985-91 (66)
LOP Cost : 6,247,000
Contractor : SECID
Documentation: PP PD-BAT--708 (10/84)
16. (f, 12, FSSP involved in 1st phase which LSU had)
Count ry: Li ber ia
,..Project No.: 669-0188 (c)
Name AgrcultralResearch and Extension II
~~Time Framte: 1984-1992 (88)"" :
" LOP Cost : 19,990,000 -'"" -, '
Contrctor:MIAC / University of MissouriL : 4Documentation: PP PD-AAT-226 (6/84)' ... ..
(psibecontacts: John Lichte
Beth Barham)




C
Si
17. (b, *, f, n, il)
Count ry: Mal awi
Project No.: 612-0202 (c)
Nam'e: Agricultural Research
Time Frame: 1979-82 (67)
LOP Cost.: 14,000,000
Contractor: University of Florida
Documentation: PP PD-AAG-045-A1 (6/79)
SE XD-AAN-267-A (11-12/81) (6/79-12/61) (attached to: PD-AAN-267) PES PD-AAN-267 (7/82) (8/79-12/81) AR PD-AAL-866 (11/82) (8/79-6/82) SE XD-AAM-610-A (2/83) (8/79-2/83) (attached to: PD-AAM-810) SE XD-AAM-810-B
PES PD-AAM-810 (2/83) (8/79-2/83)
18. (il, r)
Count ry: Mal awi
Project No.: 612-0215 Cc)
Name: Agricultural Research and Extension
Time Frame: 1965-88 (68) (expenditures completed in 90)
LOP Cost': 14,000,000
Contractor: CID / Oregon State University
Documentation: PP PD-AAR-669 (7/85)
19. (f, il)
Country: Mal i
Project No. : 688-0219
Name: Semi-Arid Tropics Crops Research
Time Frame: 1979-81
LOP Cost : 550,000
Contractor: ICRISAT (testing materials brought from India; FSR with
a predetermined focus) Documentation: PP PD-AAG-825 (7/79)
SE PD-AAI-705 (11/60) (6/79-11/80) SE PD-AAI-754 C(12/80)
20. (f, il)
Count ry: Mal i
~~Project No. : 688-0226 i
SName: Semi-Ar id Tropics Crops Research II / 4; ;i~ ~ !
"" .Time Frame: 1961-87 (86) ;' i i
-9'LOP Cost: 7,750,000 > ': ?> : '' '"
"* Co8 6tractor:ontrct/ranISAT"
SDocumentation: PP PD-AAL-71(/8) AICota/Gn)
SE XD-AAQ-402-A (1/84) (attached to: PD-AAQ-402) SE PD-AAQ--773 (9/84)




a
B
I
21. (b, e, f, ii)
I
Country: Mali
Project No.: 688-0232 (p)
Name: Farming Systems Research and Extension (PRSPR)
Time Frame: 1965-92 (6) (expenditures completed in 94)
LOP Cost: 19,4931000
Contractor: SECID
Documentation: PP PD-BAT-969 (6/84)
22. (i2)
Country: Mauritania
Project No.: 682-0207 Cc)
Name: Oases Development
Time Frame: 1960-82 (83)
LOP Cost: 1"
,..~61,O0O
Contractor: Arizona State University Document at ion: PP PD-AAG-144-A1 (5/80)
23. (b, d, f, i2)
Country. Niger
Project No.: 663-0225 (c)
Name: Niger Cereals Research
Time Fr~me: 1962-65 C88)
Contractor: Purdue University
LOP Cost: 11,660,000
Documentation: PP PD-AAI-261 (10/81) (or PD-AAJ-456)
PES XD-AAT-892-B (1/86) (7/82-6/85) (attached to: PDAAT-892)
PES PD-AAT-892 (7/86) (6/65-7186) (XD-AAT-892-A and B attached) 'ri.
I
24. (F, i2)
Country: Niger
Project No.,: 683-0234 Cc)
Name: Agricultural Production Support
Subproject 03 Extension Support Center Time Frame: 1982-87 (88)
Contractor: Labat-Anderson / NCBA
LOP Cost: 19,900.000
Documentation: PP PD-AAR-139 (10/81)
SE PD-BAY-456 (1984) (8/82-12/84) K- ~ K'
.2* .' .. .2.
~ ~,, ~.
K?-. t.~.($2;.tt:i - *~ A.
-. ws:., L~4 e 4~ I~, ~.
-' 2 ~n.:. 4 -,. *'.~~>-2& ~ <~?, ~'
- p




25. (icood design with FSR component) Country: Niger
Project No.: 663-0256 (c)
Name: Appliled Agricultural Research
Time Framce: 1967-90 (66) LOP Cost: 5,974,000 (planned)
Contractor :
Dccunment at ion: PP PD-AAV-6796 (5/87)
Count ry: Rwanda
Project No.: 696-0110 (p) Name: Cropping Systems Improvement
Time Frame: 1984-88 (66) (expenditures completed in 91) LOP Cost : 13,300, 000
Contractor: University of Arkansas / University of Minnesota
Lincoln University / IL / PR Documentation: PP PD-AA-454 (6/84)
27. Cb, d, f, ii1) Count ry: Senegal
Project No.: 685-0223 (c) Name: -Agricultural Research and ?lanning Time Frame: 1981-85 (87/8) LOP Cost : 5,350,000
Contractor: Michigan State University Documentation: PP PD-BAE-227 (5/81)
PPA PD-BAV-474 (4/84)
26. (ii1)
Count ry: Senegal
Project No.: 685-0295 (c)
Name: Southern Zone Water Management
Time Frame: 1988-91 (66) (expenditures completed in 95) LOP Cost : 20,000,000
Contractor :
Documentation:




C
29. (b, d, f, i2) Country: Sierra Leone
Project No.: 636-0102 (p) Name: Adaptive Crop Research and Extension (ACRE)
Time Frame: 1978-64 (87) LOP Cost : 9,063,000
Contractor: Southern University / Louisiana State University Documentation: PP PD-AAC-728-B1 (7/78)
SE PD-BAJ-975 (11/75)
PES PD-AAP-095 (9/82) (9/78-11/81) AR PD-AAP-974 (10/64) (1980-4/84)
30. (f, i3, little FSR) Count ry: Somali a
Project No..:
Name: Applied Research and Extension
Time Frame: 1982-1986
LOP Cost :
Contractor : USDA Documentation:
31. (b, *, n, g, i2, n-not really designed to do FSR; team told on
arrival that this would be a FSR project) Country: Sudan
Project No. : 650-0020 (c) Name: Western Sudan Agricultural Research Project (WSARP)
Time rrame: ,1976-1982 (66) LOP Cost: 26,000,000 Contractor: CID / Washington State University Documentation: PP PD-AAF-116-B1 (7/78)
AR PD-AAK-310-A1 (5/80) (through 1/1/60)
SE PD-AAM-508 (1/83) (8/79-11/82)
PES PD-AAN--202 (6/-83)
AR PD-AAP-091 (2/84) (9/78-6/83)
FR PD-AAT-877 (3/86) (Final Report: 8/15/7912/31/85)
32. (b, *, i2, not really designed to do FSR) Country: Sudan
Project No. : 650-0046 (c). Name: Southern Regional Agricultural Development 1
LQP Cost : 4,820,000 .. ......,. ..... ..
Contractor: Louis Berger International, Inc. / DEVRES, Inc. Documentation: PP PD-BAI-88O (8/82)




33. (b, d, f, i2, r, may not have been designed as FSR project-) Country: Swaz i I and
Project No..: 645-0212 (c) Name: Cropping Systems Research & Extension Training
Tim 'e Frame: 1961-85 (88) LOP Cost : 13,126,000
Contractor: Pennsylvania State University / Tennessee State
University
Docurnentat ion: SE PD-AAW-448 (10/80)
PP PD-AAL-472 (6/81)
AR PD-AAP-693 (10/64) (8/81-4/84)
34. (b, .*, f, g, il, r) Count ry: Tanzani a
Project No.: 621-0156 (p) Name: Farming Systems Research
Time Frame: 1962-82 (86/6)
LOP Cost : a,000,000
Contractor: CID / Oregon State University Documentation: PP PD-AAL-526 (8/82)
SE PD-BBB-Bl1 (3/66)
FR PD-AAU-446 (10/86) (9/82-9/86)
- (final Mission report)
FR PN-AAW-254 (12/86)
35. (i2)
Count ry: Zair e
Project No..: 660-0059 (c / more IRD Project than FSR project) Name: North Shaba Rural Development
Time Frame: 1976-85 (86/7)
LOP Cost : 18,025,000
Contractor: Development Alternatives, Inc." Documentation: PP PD-BAC-4271 (9/76)
PPA1 PD-AAT-062) (1978) SE PD-BAK-043 (11/80)
SE PD-BAC-460 (5/82)
SE XD-BAC-460-C (5/82) (attached to: PD-BAC-460) SE XD-BAC-460-D (5/82) (attached to: PD-BAC-460)
PES PD-AAL-278 (6/82) (5/80-82)
PPA2 PD-AAQ-964 (2/83)
AR PD-AAM-831 (5/83) (9/30/76-11/30/82)
SE XD-BBA-962-A (10/85) (attached to: PD-BBA-962)
PES PD-BBA-962 (1/86) (9/78-10/85) :
36. (i2) "
Count ry: Zair e
Project No..: 660-0105 (c) Name: Central Shaba Agricultural Development
Time Frame: 1986-91 (87) (expenditures completed in 95)




C
37. (f, i2, weak-mainly FSR with a predetermined focus on cassava) Count ry: Zai re
Project No.:- 660-0091 (c) Name: Applied Agricultural Research and Extension
Time Frame: 1963-88 (68) (expenditures completed in 89)
LOP Cost : 15,000,000
Contractor : I ITA / ISNAR Docurentat ion: PP PD-BAQ-735 (9/63)
SE XD-BBE-371-A (9/66) (attached to: PD-BBE-371)
PES PD-BBE-371 (9/66) (9/83-6/86)
PP PD-BBH-313 (6/87)
38. (b, *., f, g, il, r, FSR in the small, with a regional mandate) Country: Zambia
Project No..: 611-0201 (c) Name: Agricultural Development, Research and Extension
(ZAMARE)
Time Frame: 1960-84 (67)
LOP Cost : 12,515,000
Contractor: University of Illinois / Southern Illinois University
Documentation: PP PD-AAG-766 (7/60)
PES PD-AAN-607 (11/83) (1/82-9/83)
-SE XD-AAS-309-A (1985) (10/83-3/85) (mid-term
evaluation) (attached to: PD-AAS-309) XD-DAW-778-A (2/85) (Socio-economic component of ami d- term eval uat ion )
PES PD-AAS-309 (4/85) (10/83-3/85)
SE PD-BAW-776 (6/85) (expanded XD-BAW-778-A)
AR PD-AAS-063 (10/85) (9/80-6/85)
39.
Country: Sahel Regional ..
Project No.: 6250605 (c) "
Name: OMYS Agronomic Research II
Time Frame: 1978-83
LOP Cost : 6,190,000
Contractor :
Documentation: PP PD-AAM-383 (7/78)
AR PD-AAI-432-A1 (12/80) (10/78-8/80)
FR PD-AAN-652 (5/81) (5/79-5/81) AR PD-AAU-718 (12/86) (1975-86)
Country: Sahel Regional ..
Project No.: 625-0957 (ap = subproject) Cc)
6880957 (Mali Agricultural Research-sp 02)(c)
6620957 (Mauritania Agricultural Research-sp 03) (c)
(as ald artni GE IPoet
597(aSonealled:icMaurianiesarAGREsp 01) Prjc) 6650957. (SenecalJ Anricultural R&..s... rch-.....01-') (r1




C
41. (b, d) Country: Africa Regional
Project No.: 698-0393 (c)
Name: SAFIGRAD (Joint Project 31)
(supported development of Burkina Faso FSR unit) Time Frame: 1977-86 (67)
LOP Cost : 19,000
Contractor: ICRISAT / IITA / Purdue University
Documentation: PP PD-AAC-361-B1 (3/77)
AR PD-AAL-789 (11/82) (5/77-7/82) PES XD-JAC-534-A (4/83) (5/77-6/81) (to: PD-JAC-534) SE PD-JAC-534 (9/84) (1977-8/84) FR PD-AAU- 169 (5/66.)
42. (b, networking)
Country: Africa Regional
Project No..: 698-0452 (c)
Name: SAFGRAD I I
Time Frarm'e: 1986-88 (88) (expenditures completed in 91)
LOP Cost : 9,800,000
Contractor: ICRISAT / IITA
Documentation: PP PD-JAE-465 (10/65)
43. (b, d)
Country! Africa Regional
Project No.: 696-0444 (p)
Name: CIMMYT Farming Systems Research
Time Frame: 1982-82 (86)
LOP Cost : 2,426,000
Contractor : CIMMYT ..
Documentation: PES PD-AAP-377 (10/83) (5/82-10/83) ,+
SE XD-AAP-377-A (10/63) (5/82-10/63) : '
PES PD-AAQ-815 (3/85) (12/82-12/84)
44. (b, d)
Country: Africa Regional
Project No..: 698-0435 (c)
Name: Strengthening African Agricultural Research
subproject 3: CIMMYT II Farming Systems Research Time Frame: 1982-91 (88)
LOP Cost : 41,000,000 ..
- Contractor: Devres, Inc. / NUCIA "it ++
* SE PD JACS612 (5/83) r'"" +"+ I + :
PD+-JACI"-6.76. .. . .....
*-45. +
Conr:Suhr frc einOAA
PojetN: 690-0065 Afiaoeio-SAA
Project No.: 690-0065 (p)




C
Asia
46.
Count ry: Bang 1 adesh
Project No,.: 388-0051 Cc)
Name: Agricultural Research Phase I I
Time Frame: 1961-91 (88)
LOP Cost : 27,00)0,000
Contractor: International Agricultural Development Service
Documentation: PP PD-AAI-419 Vol. I I (12/80) PP PD-AAJ-777 Vol. I (12/80) PPA PD-AAL-487 (7/82) SE PD-AAU-463 (5/63) AR PD-AAR-876 (4/84) (1/81-12/82) SE PD-AAP-965 (7/64) (6/83-5/84) SE PD-AAS-363 4/85) (7/64-6/65) PES PD-CAP-768 (5/85) (5/84-5/85)
9 PN-AAW-259 (7/66) PPA2 PD-AAU-959 C 11/86)
47.
Country: Bangladesh
Project No. : 388-0062
Name: Homestead Agroforestry Research
Time Frame: 1987-91
LOP Cost.: 14,400,000
Contractor :
Document at ion:
46. (g)
Count ry: Egypt
Project No. : 263-0070 (c)
Name: Major Cereals Improvement
Tim e Frame: 1979-60 (87)
Contractor: 52,400,000
Documentatijot,: PP PD-AAD--978-B1 (5/79) PPA1 PD-AAJ-368 (6/80) SE PN-AAM-661 (7/81) (7/79-6/81) SE XD-AAQ-657-A (5/83) (attached to: PD-AAQ-657) PES PD-AAQ-657 (2/64) (7/79-5/63) AR PD-AAR-447 (8/85),
' 49..;
Co n r tEgypt '' S ..- """
Project No.: 263-0152 Cc)
Name: National Agricultural Research Program
Time Frame: 1985-SO (88)
LOP Cost : 130,000,000
oracor:r Tnternatinal Science &, Technclcgy Institute, Inc.




50. Cf) Count ry: I ndonesi a
Project No... 497-0311 (c) Name. Upland Agriculture and Cd~nservation
Time Frame: 1984-65 (68)
LOP Cost.: 18,90(3,000
Contractor : USDA Document at ion: PP PD-AAP-885 (6/64)
SE PD-AAQ-021 (10/84)
51. (b, f)
Count ry: Jor dan
Project No.: 278-0264 (c) Name: Highlands Agricultural Development
Time Frame: 1985-88 (66)
LOP Cost : 27,500,000
Contractor: CID / Development Associates, Inc.
Documentation: PP PD-AAR-033 (3/86)
52. (b)
Count ry: Mor roc o
Project No.: 608-0136 (c) Name. -- Dryland Agriculture Applied Research
Time Frame: 1978-89 (66)
LOP Cost : 26,323,000
Contractor: MIAC / University of Nebraska
Documentation: PP PD-AAC-469-BI (4/78)
AR PD-AAL-634 (9/62)
PPA1 PD-AAN-O58 (2/83)
PES PD-AAN-972 (5/83) (6/78-5/83)
SE XD-AAN-972-A (6/83) (6/78-5/83) (attached to: PDAAN-972)
PPA3 PD-AAQ-599 (7/83)
SE XD-AAU-302-A (5/86) (attached to: PD-AAU-302)
PES PD-AAU-302 (9/86) (1983-5/86)
53.. (f, there was a first phase) Count ry: Nepal
Project No.: 367-0149 (c) Name: Agricultural Research and Production
Time Frame: 1965-69 (86)
LPCs.10,000,000 ;
Cotrctr:Winrock International IsiuefrArclua
Development .,t i '":: "C " :" ; :
Documentation: PP PD-AAQ-449 (12/84).. ...
Simmons, E.B., J.W. Beausoleil, G. Ender, Geist and J.
Murphy. 1982. "Food Grain Technology: Agricultural Research in Nepal. AID Project Evaluation Report No.
33. USAID, Washington, D.C.




55.
Country: Pakistan
Project No.: 391-0469 (c)
Name: Management of Agricultural Research and Technology
Time Frame: 1964-68 (66)
LOP Cost : 6,500,000
Contractor: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development
Documentation: PP PD-AAP-918 (8/84)
56. (b, f)
Country: PhiIi ppines
Project No..: 492-0356 (p)
Name: Farming Systems Development Eastern Visayas
Time rrame: 1981-68 (66)
LOP Cost : 3,603,000
Contractor : Cornell University
Documentation: PP PD-AAM-430 (8/81)
PD-AAN-758 (1/62) (modification of FSD Project) SE PD-AAP-045 (11/83) (1981-11/83) PID PD-AAT-905 (3/66)
AR PD-AAV-833 (6/87) (9/81-12/86)
57. (b, f)
Count ry: PhiIi pp lines
Project No. : 492-0366 (c)
Name: Rain fed Resources Development
Agroforestry (component of Package I) Bicol Farming Systems (Package II). Time Frame: 1962-67 (86)
LOP Cost : 24,500,000
* Contractor: Development Alternatives, Inc. (Package :I)
Winrock International (Package II) Documentation: PP PD-AAM-243 (9/82) PP PD-AAP-225 (9/83) SE PD-AAW-467 (9/67)
58. (f)
Country: Sri Lanka
Project No. : 383-0058 (c)
iName: Diversified Agricultural Research
... Time Frame: 1984-85 (66) V .
LOP Cost : 11,400,000 ..
icS
.,l.Contractor: International Science & Technology Institute,In..-.. .,lMIAC / CID / DAI l*
,", .Documentation; PP PD-AAQ-055 (9/84)
59. .
Conr:Sr ak
p.
59, Country: Sri Lanka




60. (1f, n)
Count ry: Thai l andt
Project No.: 493-0308 (c)
Nan'e: Northeast Rainfed Agricultural Development (NERAD)
Tim.e Frame: 1961-83 (88)
LOP Cost : 10,000,000
Contractor: University of Kentucky Documentation: PP PD-AAI-149 (9/81) SE PD-AAV-945 (1965)
SE PD-CAN-756 (7/65) AR PD-AAR-746 (9/85) (1981-6/85).
PN-AAX-079 (1987) PN-AAX-080 (3/87) PN-AAX-496 (5/87)
61.
Count ry: Thai l and
Project No.: 493-0332 Cc)
Name: Khon Kaen University Research Development
Time Frame: 1983-86 (88)
LOP Cost : 2,170,000
Contractor: Personal Services Contracts
Documentation: PP PD-AAN-748 (5/63)
SE XD-AAT-771-A (2/86) (attached to: PD-AAT-771) PES P.D-AAT-771 (6/86) (1983-2/86)
62.
Count ry: Thai l and
Project No.: 493-0272 (c) ..
Name: Lamn Nam Oon Integrated Rural Development
Lam Nam Qon On-Farm Development (subproject 03) :
Time Frame: 1977-85 ...
LOP Cost :
Contractor: Louis Berger, Inc.
Documentation: PP PD-AAD-718-A1 (4/77) PP PD-AAD-717-B1 (4/77)
63.
Count ry: Tuni sia
Project No.: 664-0312 (c)
Name: Central Tunisia Regional Development,..
' Time Frame: 1979-65 (88) .; ,':;;
' "LOP Cost : 16,555,000 T _. - "'
"S Contractor: Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere (CARE)
::' ". 'Institute f or Development Anthropology (IDA)i :.i!-.'.I
"Ronco Consul tizng Corporatio
Documentation: PP PD-AAR-961 (11/78)
SE XD-AAN-357-A (4/83) PES PDl-AAN-357 (8/83) (5/79-4/83)




Latin American and the Caribbean
65. (b, f, n)
Country: East Caribbean States (Antigua, St. Kitts/Nevis,
Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia) Project No. : 536-0015 (c)
Name: Small Farmer Multiple Cropping Systems Research
Timn'e Frame: 1976-67
LOP Cost: 2,211,000
Contractor: Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development
Institute (CARDI)
Documentation: PP PD-AAB-986-B1 (8/78)
SE PD-AAN-228 (4/82) (through 4/6/62)
66. (b, f)
Country: East Caribbean States (Antigua, St. Kitts/Nevis,
Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia) Project No.: 538-0099 (p)
Name: Farming Systems Research and Development (Caribbean)
Time Fram:e: 1983-86 CBS)
LOP Cost : 7,550,000
Contractor: SECID / Dimpex Associates / USDA /
- Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development
Institute (CARDI)
Doc-umentation: PP PD-AAN-213 (7/83)
AR PD-AAR-448 (7/85) (3/78-5/85)
67. Cf)
Count ry: Ecuador
Project No.: 518-0032 (c)
Name: Rural Technology Transfer System
Subproject 02 -Technologies for Rural Development Time Frame: 1980-87
LOP Cost ; 7,900,000
Contractor: 9(University of Florida / Utah State University
Documentation: PP PD-AAF-935-A1 (6/80) PPA1 PD-AAL--506 (6/82) PPA4 PD-AAL-620 (9/82) PPA2 PD-AAS-836 (10/85) ~PES PD-AAP-136 (3/84) (8/80-3/83)
,SE XD-AAP- 136-A (3/83) (8/80-3/83)
(attached to: PD-AAP-136) ,, "' ,. .-.SE PD -AAS -189 (7/84) (1980-84) ... ".
... PN-AAU-932 (10/83) (AID-supported suy
~68.
Countr y: Ecuador
Project No. : 518-0068 (c)
Name: Agricultural Research. Extension and Education
"IPJ I ....... 1"% "41 i %,l




69. ,
Countt ry: Guat emal a
Project No. : 520-0232 (f)
Name: Food Productivity and Nutrition Improvement
Time Frame: 1975-80
LOP Cost : 6,355,000
Con t ractocr : 2
Documentation: PES PD-AAA-947-G1 (7/76) (1/78-2/78) SE PD-AAJ- 178 (2/82)
70. (f)
Count ry: Hai ti
Project No. : 521-0069 (c)
Name: Agricultural Development Support I (ADS-I)
(more commonly known as PDAI, French acronmym for
Integrated Agricultural Development Project) Ti me Frame: 1978-67
LOP Cost :
Contractor: Texas A&M /
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Documentation:
71. (b, 1)
Country: Hai ti
Project No.: 521-0092 Cc)
Name.: Agricultural Development Support II (ADS-II)
Time Frame: 1978-68 (66)
LOP Cost : 3,808,000
Contractor: University of Arkansas / USDA / Winrockc (29
Documentation: PP PD-AAB-012-B1 (2/78) ...-"
PES PD-AAU-024 (5/66) (7/83-5/96 "SE XD-AAU-024-A (5/86) (7/63-5/86) (attached to: PDAAU-024)
72. (b, f, n, g)
Count ry: Hondur as
Project No.: 522-0139 (c)
Name: Agricultural Research
Time Frame: 1978-83 (66)
LOP Cost : 2,750,000
Cotrctr:CID / New Mexico State University '
' Documentation: PP PD-AAB-952-B1 (8/78) 7' !
~~~~~PES PD-AAJ-774 (8/80) (10178-1/80).. :"...'
' SE XD-AAJ-313-'A (3/81) (2/80-3/81) i(atcetoPD
~~~~AAJ-313) ....
~~~PES PD-AAJ-313 (12/81) (1/80-3/81) (attached ....
SE PD-AAR-620 (3/84) (10/82-3/84)
73. (f)




4"C
-II
74. (f)
Country: Central America
Project No.: 596-0083 (p)
Name. Smalli Farm Production Systems
Time Frame: 1980-65
LOP Cost : 8,155,000
Contractor: Tropical Agricultural Research and Training Center (CATIE)
Documentation: PP PD-AAC-659-B1 (12/76)
SE XD-AAJ-278-A (3/61) (4/79-11/80)
(attached to: PD-AAJ-278) PES PD-AA-278 (11/81) (4/79-11/60) PES PD-AAM-808 (4/63) (12/81-9/82) PPA1 PD-AAN-223 (6/83) FR XD-AAT-736-A (1986) (attached to: PD-AAT-736) PES PD-AAT-736 (1/86) (2/79-9/65)
Jt
'4 .,
4 ,
- +:.




0*
S.
Devel mtnt SuggQflt
- Qa~ fl4~
75.
Country: Worldwide
Project No.: 931-1066 (p)
Name: Farming Systems R&D Methodology
Time Frame: 1976-81
LOP Cost:
Contractor: CID / Colorado State University
Documentation: PP PD-AAH-468 (1/78)
PES PD-AAG-350-AI (9/80) (9/78-6/80)
4
JA PN-AAW-176 (1966) (JA = journal article)
76.
Country: Worldwide 4
Project No.: 936-4099 (p)
Name: Integrated Systems for Small Farmers: Farming Systems
Research and Extension (known as "Farming Systems Support Project") Time Frame: 1982-67 (88)
LOP Cost: 9,953,000
Contractor: University of florida Documentation: PP PD-AAL--863 (1982) PPM PD-AAR-370 (9/82) PPA2 PD-AAP-005 (2/64) SE PD-AAU-093 (10/85) (1983-10/85) FR XD-AAT--736-A (1986) (attached to: PD-AAT-736) SE XD-AAU-024-A (5/86) (7/83-5/86) (attached to: PDAAU-024 )
PPA3 PD-'AAU-024 (4/87) -
Collaborative Research SuQgort PrQg~ams (CRSPs)
- - s- -- - ---a---- -- -- -- -- nfl
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Ecuador, Guatemala, Tanzania, and tialawi
Indonesia
Soils Managerrient CRSP
Sorghum/Millet CRSP Mexico, Honduras and Sudan
Small Rurntnants CRSP Kenya and Peru..: t -J
* -, r 4
r
refl~r fl.aajaadsaa It 0__r~i~i~. rL~Js~aA
* a.

nit a
--
Zimbabwe