Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Executive summary

Group Title: Quarterly report (Farming Systems Support Project)
Title: Quarterly report
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091285/00011
 Material Information
Title: Quarterly report
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Farming Systems Support Project
Publisher: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Office of International Programs, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, FL
Publication Date: April-June 1985
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091285
Volume ID: VID00011
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Executive summary
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Appendix 1
        Appendix 2
        Appendix 3
        Appendix 4
        Appendix 5
        Appendix 6
        Appendix 7
        Appendix 8
        Appendix 9
        Appendix 10
        Appendix 11
        Appendix 12
        Appendix 13
        Appendix 14
        Appendix 15
        Appendix 16
        Appendix 17
        Appendix 18
        Appendix 19
        Appendix 20
        Appendix 21
        Appendix 22
        Appendix 23
        Appendix 24
        Appendix 25
        Appendix 26
        Appendix 27
        Appendix 28
        Appendix 29
        Appendix 30
        Appendix 31
        Appendix 32
        Appendix 33
        Appendix 34
        Appendix 35
        Appendix 36
        Appendix 37
        Appendix 38
        Appendix 39
        Appendix 40
        Appendix 41
        Appendix 42
        Appendix 43
        Appendix 44
        Appendix 45
        Appendix 46
        Appendix 47
Full Text


April 1 to June 31, 1985





Executive Summary................................................... 1

Main Report

I. Setting .................................................... 2

II. General Accomplishments.......................................2

III. Conclusions................................... ................ .. 4

IV. Activity Reports

Galt/Senegal/04/05 to 04/07/85 ................................5

Galt/Asia-UOH 04/18 to 05/08/85................................7

Jones/Costa Rica/04/20 to 05/10/85.............................. 9

Rohrman and Herrera/Paraguay/04/20 to 05/10/85.................. 12

Andrew/Cameroon/05/06 to 05/12/85 ............................... 14

Poey/Senegal/05/13 to 05/122/85................................16

Walecka/The Gambia/05/17 to 05/29/85.............................18

Franzel and Dean/Jamaica/06/15 to 06/28/85 .......................22

Oxley/Ethiopia/06/17 to 07/01/85.................................24

Appendix I "FSSP Summary memos Prepared
for Evaluation Team, June, 1985 ......................... 28

Executive Summary

Activities this quarter were predominantly,
although not exculsively, concerned with training
development and delivery. Efforts in training
emphasized continuation of Training Unit development
work initiated in the first quarter of this year and
initiation of the development of a number of case
studies in collaboration with the population council.
Workshops were held both internationally and
domestically utilizing the recently developed training
materials and providing a natural forum for their
monitoring and review. Preparations for the forth
coming external evaluation of the FSSP were made. The
potential location of a long term staff person in
Cameroon to serve West Africa was discussed.

The emerging maturity of the project in the
training program and delivery effort is reflected in the
overall activities of the second quarter.

1985, 2nd Quarter


Several major activities in training development and delivery occurred
this quarter as well as efforts in technical assistance. Although the
focus is increasingly toward West African activities, worldwide involvement
is still evident. Training activities emphasized continuation of Training
Unit development work initiated in the first quarter. The objectives of
the training unit development program are to establish a learning base for
capturing experience, to bring that experience back into an environment for
workshops and short courses, and ultimately to facilitate further learning
both by participants and leaders of those activities. International
courses were delivered in The Gambia, Jamaica and for the domestic Support
Entities in Gainesville. Program development continued, particularly for
West Africa. Specific reports for activivities are attached.


The quarter began by completing an acceptable annual workplan for 1985.
The initially submitted workplan was concise and served in summary fashion
to detail specific delivery activities. Acceptance of this plan was
contingent upon several considerations in Science and Technology relative
to the focus on networking and specific delivery activities in West Africa.
The final accepted report was one including implementation backup in the
form of a work plan prepared by the core of the FSSP. That workplan did
not include some of the major program development activities discussed

In continuing the process of developing the Training Units
conceptualized and initiated in previous quarters, emphasis was given to
monitoring and testing the draft materials. Delivery of several workshops
provided the opportunity for the materials to be tested in different
settings. The diagnostic unit was not taken to a full testing but will
receive further attention later in the year. Selected parts of the unit on
diagnosis were used in a 10-day workshop held in Jamaica and in The Gambia
workshop. The unit on design and analysis of on-farm trials provided the
basic resource materials for a one-week workshop held in The Gambia and it
received a sound testing by several core staff and FSSP program associates
through its delivery there.

The activities were monitored carefully by the core and the experience
gained was collected and analyzed in order to incorporate suggestions and
plan for revisions of the training units. The diagnostic unit will receive
further attention later in the year. The on-farm experimentation unit is
well-developed and is a linch pin in the training unit development effort
and the ovedll learning objective approach of the FSSP. Participants
considered that further work is necessary on the management and
administration training unit, but that topical area and general information
provided by the unit were very useful. It is obvious that further
development activity is necessary and will require core support as well as
contributions from technical committee members and others.

Additional training materials are being supported and developed. Case
studies illustrating intrahousehold impacts on farming systems are being

1985, 2nd Quarter

developed in cooperation with the population council through FSSP and Ford
Foundation Funding. In response to a request for proposals nearly 100 were
received from which eight cases were selected for development representing
various geographical and continental and cultural groups throughout the
world. These cases are being developed under a carefully detailed set of
guidelines so that they too can become learning oriented support
interventions for the overall training program of the FSSP and for others.

The case studies coupled with training units and the earlier
introductory training module will in time provide a well rounded base of
material support to trainers. In all instances however, they do not
represent courses per se but are materials that can be drawn on for the
development of short courses, workshops, and other hearing interventions.
One of the greatest contributions of these activities is in providing
general guidelines for the development of other materials of a similar
nature to further support similar training efforts. It is not the
expectation of the FSSP that the process ends once these materials are
developed. The process begins at that time because that is when the
general format is put into place for further synthesis and analysis of the
state-of-the-art relative to farming systems research and extension.

A considerable amount of time this quarter was spent in preparation for
the forth coming evaluation of the FSSP. Time was spent discussing with
project management, the potential evaluation team members, and timing of
the activity. Various materials were assembled for the evaluation
committee. Two boxes including all FSSP publications, reports and
newsletters were prepared in an orderly indexed and file system. One box
was forwarded to Washington for use by the committee upon their arrival for
briefing. The other box was used in Gainesville to provide the committee
with easy access to information for purposes of further review. Also
included were copies of the training modules and their respective scripts
as well as the training units at their present stage of development.
Summary memos for all areas of the projects activities were also prepared
and provided.

Unfortunately, after all of the discussion and planning, the time set
aside for the evaluation team to carry out the evaluation was inadequate
and briefing did not provide for the broad-based knowledge of the project
that was desired by the team itself. The overall activity was fielded
during the last week of the quarter with two days spent in Washington and
two days with the FSSP core in Gainesville. One day followed for consensus
by the team relative to the final report. Given the overall size of the
FSSP this was not adequate to evaluate a worldwide project that has worked
in more than forty countries since its inception from a support base
consisting of twenty-one universities and four consulting firms.

The Africa program was a point of major discussion particularly between
FSSP core staff and the Science & Technology Bureau. It was decided, on
recommendation by the Bureau, that the project director and project manager
should visit the country of Cameroon for purposes of planning and
discussing the potential location of a long term staff person in Cameroon
to serve West Africa. The project director did visit the University Centre
at Dschang as a possible location, the IITA project with the national
cereals research and extension program at Kolbison and also visited with

1985, 2nd Quarter

the USAID mission staff in Yaounde. Unfortunately the project manager was
not able to arrive until the last day of this week of visits and met only
briefly with the mission staff.


The overall output of the FSSP in the second quarter of 1985 begins to
show the emerging maturity of the project in the training and program
delivery effort. As planned in an overall context, the training needs
assessment that occurred informally is now beginning to show results in
development of quality materials. Emphasis in this process is given to the
synthesis of state-of-the-art experience in the form of training units.
These training units serve as a focal point to continue the learning and
synthesis process. Further refinement will be a continuous process with
the training units as the overall program evolves.

1985, 2nd Quarter


Galt/Senegal/04/04 to 04/07/86
Region: W. Africa
Country: Senegal
Assignment: Interact with Josh Posner in regard to upcoming activities,
including (1) The Gambia Workshop and (2) Networkshop III (NWS III).
Name: Dan Galt
Date of Activity: 4 April to 7 April, 1985
Team: None
Home Institution: University of Florida

Address: IFAS/International Programs
3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611



1. Convince Josh Posner to backstop The Gambia workshop, along with
as many Senegalese as appropriate, to add touch of "reality" to

2. Request presence of Posner and appropriate counterparts) at the
forthcoming NWS III, August 5-9.

3. Inform Posner that Federico Poey will backstop Senegal workshop
in May.


1. Posner cannot attend The Gambia workshop in May. Suggestion is
for USAID/TG to request presence of other Senegalese staff
(CAMOANGA) through Jacques Faye. Follow proper chain of command.

2. Following extensive conversations with Posner, suggest that
August NWS III be confined to three day meeting of COP's and host
country counterparts to continue discussions of "impediments to
FSR/E project implementation" which will start with the "Atlanta"
meeting. Try as much as possible for same set of actors (bilateral
contractors) accessed in Atlanta Meeting. Facilities and
simultaneous translation ability excellent Niamey, Niger. Contact
Les Fussell, ICRISAT, for further info.

3. Propose a NWS IV for a later date. Such a NWS would focus on
accomplishments and status of on-going FSR/E projects especially in
W. Afri., would be the "field-level practitioner" NWS. FSSP should
coordinate with SAFGRAD for this type of activity.

1985, 2nd Quarter 5


1. Josh Posner too busy to take on the workshop circuit. In
addition to new duties as liason agronomist in Dakar, is still
agronomist in charge of trials in Casamance. Spends 1 week in 4
there. While we all need to be aware of his general
non-availability, FSSP should be able to think of a way to convince
Josh to do slightly more international travel (1) because of his
excellent expertise and (2) because of everyone's continuing need
for exposure in and to the international community interested in
funding farm-level trial experts around the world. When Josh
leaves Senegal, it is far from certain it will be with MSU.

2. The general problem of internal staff -- host country --
surfaced again. There are few trained to take over the load and
the techniques. What is the solution? Is there one?


Institutions: None
Individuals: Josh Posner
Potential Trainers: Josh Posner
Publication Potential: Josh may write something on the paper I left with
him on interdisciplinarity and diagnostic (SUAN supplementary


Demands on FSSP:

1. Let Federico Poey know that his exploratory trials (45-minute
presentation) can be in English and simultaneous translation can be
arranged. Also, here in Senegal, the "method" followed is
pre-diagnostic (sondeo-type surveys as well as secondary data
useage and pre-zonification), diagnostic (which included two types
of follow-up surveys: formal if necessary and/or tailored types to
zero in on specific problems; and exploratory trials). It is these
types of researcher-managed types of exploratory trials Federico
Poey is to address.

2. Louise Fresco is absolutely welcome to attend the workshop, FSSP
or other source will have to pay her way.

FSSP commitment-promised responses:

1. Let Federico know of 1. above.

2. Get together with Susan Poats to discuss 2. above and to discuss
the phasing of proposed NWS III and NWS IV.

Materials collected: None

1985, 2nd Quarter


Region: Asia
Country: USA

1. To visit the East West Center to dialogue on joint FSR/E
agroecosystems research workshop proposal.
2. To visit the University of Hawaii to discuss FSSP policy with
interested PAs.

Name: Dan Galt
Date of Activity: 04/18/85 to 05/09/85
Team: None
Home Institution: International Programs, FSSP
'Address University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611


1. To discuss a workshop proposed by the East West Center regarding
joint considerations of FSR and agroecosystems research
similarities, differences, and potential complementarities.

2. To interact with UOH PAs regarding UOH's FSSP network activities
and the FSSP policy for the Asia region.

At East West Center:
1. Suggested that Dan Galt attend the workshop (Aug 12-14, 1985) and
possibly some members of NEAAC.
2. General agreements: a) FSR/E and agroecosystems research have
much in common; b) FSR/E as a methodology can learn much from
agroecosystems research, c) agroecosystems can learn much from
FSR/E for the short run.


1. Explained the role of FSSP in Asia.
2. UOH PAs expressed interest in: a) process of the Chicago FSSP
-bilateral contractors meeting, b) membership in the proposed
NEAAC subcommittee, c) Hal McArthur's PAO experience in Honduras,
d) possible attendance at Management and Administration workshop
in Gainesville in May.

Needs/Problems: none noted


1985, 2nd Quarter

1. East West Center
2. University of Hawaii

1. Christopher Gibbs, Research Associate, EAPI
2. Terry Rambo, Research Associate, EAPI
3. John A. Dixon, Research Associate, EAPI
4. Napoleon T. Vergaru, Research Associate, EAPI

1. Hal McArthur, AC
2. Vickie Sigman, PL
3. Perry Philip, PA
'4. Kathy Wilson, PA

Potential Trainers: Gibbs, Rambo, McArthur, Philip and Wilson.
Publication Potential: none


Demands on FSSP:

1. Dan Gait will go (at least part of the week) to UOH workshop.
2. Proposed FSSP network candidates should be invited to UOH
workshop at East West Center expense.
3. Chris Gibbs needs to be informed of the above decisions.
4. Get word back to Tom Kessinger of Ford Foundation above the
Southeast Asian-West African university linkage for 1986.
5. Write thank you note to Percy Sajise. (DG)
6. Send Percy Sajise a note to be included in the PESAM network
newsletter stating types of information that FSSP has and how
PESAM netowrk readers can get on the FSSP mailing list.
7. Write a confirmation letter to Chris Gibbs/Terry Rambo.
8. Send Hal McArthur 1) a copy of Dan Galt's draft piece on the
"process" of designing OFT's. 2) The SP/DG/ draft agenda on the
Chicago meeting of university FSR/E project backstop personnel 3)
copy of the Dan Gait memo/letter to the NEAAC regarding the
formation of the policy/implementation subcommittee.
9. Send Vicky Sigman networking papers 2 + 3.

FSSP commitment Promised responses: Above + add Dr. Hail Eswaran to
the FSSP mailing list.

Materials collected:

1. Beyond the "He/Man" Approach; the case for nonsexist language
signs Journal of Women in Culture and society, Vol 5, No. 3 Sp. 1980.

1985, 2nd Quarter

Jones/Costa Rica/04/20 to 04/25/85

Region: Central America
Country: Costa Rica
Assignment: To attend and assist with seminar entitled: Investigacion
en Sistemas de Produccion ("FSR") y su Contribucion al Desarrollo
Rural en America Latina: Un Analisis de Experiencias.
Name: James C. Jones
Date of Activity: 04/20 to 04/25/85
Team: James C. Jones and Eugenio Martinez
Home Institution: UOF/FSSP
Address: International Programs
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611


To attend and assist with the seminar entitled: Investigacion en
Sistemas de Produccion (FSR) y su Contribucion al Desarrollo Rural en
America Latina: Un Analisis de Experiencias.
i. Made 2 trips to Turrialba over the past few months to assist in
the planning of this seminar.
2. Martinez visited the institutions presenting cases [CATIE, CIMMYT,
ICTA, ICA (Colombia), EMBRAPA-CPATSA (Brazil)].
3. The workshop was successful:
Monday and Tuesday presented cases
Wednesday the cases were discussed in Plenary Session
Thrusday and Friday working groups processed the case material
around themes.
discussed what is meant by FSR/E, role of extension in FSR/E,
role of international centers, contribution of FSR/E to rural
development, what disciplines to involve in FSR/E, costs of
4. The results of this seminar will help CATIE with its forthcoming
evaluation of its FSR program.

1. There was some difficulty in focusing the workshop at the
2. Some of the themes were not well understood and had to be
3. Comparability of the cases was not always possible.
4. Topical areas around which there was interest or confusion
We must be clear about whether we are trying to improve a
traditional system or to change it (replace it) drastically.
Confusion about the role of extension in FSR and its relation to
What is the role of policy in FSR?
Commodity research and FSR are not exclusive.
Research on farmers' fields, or on-farm research, is not per se

1985, 2nd Quarter

equivalent to FSR.
- No rules to move from the diagnostic to the design stage of FSR.
There are no mechanical means to do it, there is nothing in the
methods of economics or agronomy to help researches make this
jump. We are talking about a creative moment.


ICA (Colombia)

Franklin Becerra
Luis Manlio Castillo
Jose Fco. Corella
Carlo Foletti
Nestor Gutierrez A.
James C. jones
David Joslyn
Horacio Juarez Arellano
Ramon Alberto Lozano
Enrique E. Martinez
Eugenio Martinez
Juan Carlos Martinez
Candido Boris Pichardo
Victor Manuel Rodriguez
Gustavo Sain
Margaret Sarles
Jose Hiriam Tobon
Ruy L. de Villalobos
Hernando Urena B.
Angel Gabriel Vivallo
Rodrigo Tarte P.
Romeo Martinez

List of CATIE participants:
Jose A. Arze Borda
Rolain Borel
Carlos R. Burgos
Gugtavo Enriquez C.
Jose J. Galindo
Guillermo G. Gomez Garcia
Vladimir Hermosilla
Victor M. Mares Martins
Luis Navarro
Werner Rodriguez
Franklin Rosales
Joseph Saunders

Costa Rica
Republica Dominicana
El Salvador
Costa Rica

1985, 2nd Quarter

Sergio Sepulveda
Alexander Grafzu Stolberg
Carlos Saenz
Csrmen Sanchez

Alberto Beale
Antonio Carini
William Gonzalez Ch.
Donald Kass
Margarita Meseguer
Omar Miranda Bonilla
Carlos E. Reiche
Marciano Rodriguez
Linnete Roman A.
Ricardo Russo
Paul Sfez

Potential Trainers: none noted

Publication Potential:
Summary of the seminar and its conclusions will be published soon by


Demands on FSSP: none noted
FSSP commitment-promised responses: none noted
Materials collected:
1. Pamphlet describing the seminar
2. Seminar program and supporting materials
3. List of participants
4. Bound collection of the cases presented (in Spanish)

1985, 2nd Quarter

Rohrman and Herrera/Paraguay/04/20 to 05/10/85

Region: South America
Country: Paraguay
Assignment: Consultation for computerized interpretation of research and
extension information in the PTPA/SEAG project in Paraguay.
Name: Frank Rohrman and Manuel Herrera
Date of Activity: 20 April to 10 May, 1985
Team: Frank Rohrman and Manuel Herrera
Home Institution: AGRIDEC

Address: 1414 Ferdinand Street
Coral Gables, Fl. 33134



1. To implement various programs of statistical analyses of experimental
2. To identify specific information requirements,
3. To orient PTPA-SEAG personell in using the existing computers.


'1. Made an assessment of existing resources (equipment and programs).
2. 17 Programs (PASCAL) were installed.
3. Evaluated the needs of different departments of PTPA/SEAG to determine


1. Appls III model has been discontinued and is incompatible with other
systems, and has limited commercial programs available.
2. The amount of storage available on one hard disk is insufficient for
the needs.
(The PPTA/SEAG should consider getting an additional hard disk and also
consider a different type of computer.)


Institutions: PPTA/SEAG
Individuals: Rodriguez, Cesar, Chief of Computer Section, PPTA-SEAG

Potential Trainers: None noted.
Publication Potential: None noted.


1985, 2nd Quarter

Demands on FSSP:

1. Based on the effectiveness of this mission, the administrator of
PPTA/SEAG has shown interest in conducting a follow-up in-service
training in November, 1985.

FSSP commitment-promised responses: None
Materials collected: None noted.

1985, 2nd Quarter

Andrew/Cameroon/05/7 to 05/16/85

Region: West Africa
Country: Cameroon
Assignment: To consider Cameroon as a base for an FSSP regional
support office in general with specific interest in cooperation with
the AID Mission, the University Center of Dschang, the UF Bilateral
USAID Contract, and the IITA Bilateral/USAID Contract
Name: Chris O. Andrew
Date of Activity: 05/07 to 05/16/85
Team: Travel with Dr. E.T. York
Home Institution: UOF/FSSP
Address: International Programs
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611


1. Determine interest of above entities in FSR/E generally and FSSP
collaboration specifically.
2. Study areas of joint interest in program development.
3. Ascertain present capability of the University Center at Dschang
to host the FSSP.
4. Determine the financial and logistical support needs for
establishing a W. African FSSP office in Cameroon.

Accomplishments & Needs/Problems:
The UCD administration would like to have the FSSP locate with the
University in Dschang assuming that support would be given to the
establishment of a farming systems course in the university
curriculum, that the FSSP would work closely with the two bilateral
contract (UF and IITA), and that assistance would be given as the UCD
jointly establishes on-farm research with the National Cereals
Research and Extension (NCRE) program. The farming system arm of the
NCRE is the Technical Liaison Unit (TLU).

The University of Florida technical assistance team reacts
positively to logistically supporting an FSSP unit if that unit is
under the administrative supervision of the Chief of Party for the
work in Cameroon. This is compatible with and supports the UDC
administrative position. The bilateral contract and the UCD would
provide office space, logistical and fiscal support. IITA desires to
cooperate with FSSP both under present operating arrangements and if a
program office is established in Cameroon.

USAID/Cameroon is supportive of FSSP and desires caution in
considering establishment of a complete regional support program at
the UCD. Three considerations were raised: not to over tax the UCD
which is undergoing major institutional development changes at
present, to cooperate fully with IITA, and to integrate solidly with
the UF bilateral contract. Both Bill Litwiller and Bob Schmeding
emphasized the need for adequate financing for a complete program and
optimally a four year minimum time frame. An overall statement of

1985, 2nd Quarter

program purpose and basic requirements was prepared inclusive of
budget options within present FSSP budget constraints. (See COA
letter to Anson Bertrand May 28, 1985).


1. USAID Mission, Cameroon (Rural Development Office and Human
Resource Development Office)
2. IITA (National Cereals Research and Extension Program and the
Technical Liason Units)
3. The University of Florida TA Contract at UCD
4. University Center at Dschang (UCD)

Principle leaders involved in discussions were:
Dr. Rene Owona Director General, University Center at Dschang
Dr. Joseph Djoukam Deputy Director General, University Center at
Dr. Jean Ongla Director, ENSA (National School of Higher
Education) University Center at Dschang
Dr. Joe Busby Chief of Party USAID/UF/UCD Higher Education
Dr. Emanuel Atayi Chief of Party USAID/IITA/IRA National Cereals
Research to Extension Project
Dr. Herb Miller Acting Director, USAID Cameroon
Mr. Bob Schmeding HRDO/USAID Cameroon
Mr. Bill Litwiller ADO/USAID Cameroon

Potential Trainers:
No recommendations at present but I am confident several will
emerge following delivery of the FSR/E workshops requested.

Publication Potential:
Drs. Matheny and Marlow in particular should be encouraged with
the UF project as should be Dermot McHugh(IITA/TLU) along with their
respective counterparts.


Demands on FSSP:
Discussions were held concerning several concept and skill workshops
to be held in 1985 and 1986. Timing requires that these workshops be
held in 1986.

FSSP commitment-promised responses:
FSSP is committed to respond if timing and resource sharing can be

Materials collected: none

1985, 2nd Quarter

Poey/Senegal/05/03 to 05/12/85

Region: West Africa
Country: Senegal
Assignment: To participate in a workshop on research for small
Name: Federico Poey
Date of Activity: 05/03 to 05/12/85
Team: none
Home Institution: AGRIDEC
Address: 1414 Ferdinand St.
Coral Gables, FL 33134


To participate in a workshop on research for small farmers.

i. Gave a presentation on exploratory on-farm trials.
2. Carried on personal discussions with participants.

1. The approach (using structured, sophisticated research
methodologies) which tends to be top down, is slow, indirect and
does not take into consideration the more specific and localized
farmer's conditions and priorities in a given area or
recommendation domain.
2. The farming system team is conceived as a highly professional
interdisciplinary specialist group and lacks a localized FS team
with management and technical permanent presence in a more
decentralized fashion. Suggest alternative of less sophisticated
teams made up of junior staff and coordinated by another junior
staff with more field experience backed by station senior FS team.
3. Limited exposure to the country and language limitations did not
contribute to a full understanding of the panorama of the pressing
needs and problems.
4. More specific informal type surveys can be substituted for the
formal survey currently employed.
5. FS teams on location can better guide research to improve farmers


DSA CIRAD, Montpellier, France

Participants were research specialists from local experiment stations

1985, 2nd Quarter



Von Brandt

lan is an economist with good understanding of farmer's
in research.

potential: none noted


3SP: none noted
3nt-promised responses: none noted
as in French on file in SP office. For listing see main



F. Ganry
G. Pocthier
S. Diallo
A. Ndiaye
A. Ndoye
M. Gueye
F. Francillon

Walecka/The Gambia/05/20 to 05/25/85

Region: West Africa
Country: The Gambia
Assignment: To attend the FSSP/GARD On-Farm Experimentation Workshop in
order to monitor the use of the training units materials developed in
the February workshop and to evaluate the workshop.
Name: Lisette Walecka
Date of Activity: 20 May to 25 May, 1985
Team: John Caldwell, VPI (Workshop Coordinator)
Federico Poey, AGRIDEC
Dan Galt, FSSP
Susan Poats, FSSP
Lisette Walecka, FSSP

'Home Institution: FSSP
Address: FSSP
International Programs
3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611



1. To monitor the use of the training materials developed by FSSP to
get feedback for continued development.

2. To facilitate evaluation of the workshop.

3. To write a report documenting the workshop process.

Accomplishments: Accomplished the above objectives. Report entitled
WORKSHOP" was produced by FSSP and distributed to FSSP program
leaders, participants in the workshop and key personnel.

Needs/Problems: Generally, the workshop was successful. Specific
recommendations are detailed in the report. Concensus on the need
to expand the time for such a workshop was expressed.


Institutions: GARD Gambia Agriculture Research Diversification Project.


1985, 2nd Quarter


Bojang, Abjoulie
Bojang, Cherno
Bojang, Karamo Sidi

Boughton, Duncan

Ceesay, Bambo A. M.

Cole, Mohammed A.
Cox, Albert

Drammeh, Essa

Drammeh, Kebba M.

Drammeh, Sait

Gai, Babucar

Gaye, Fatou M.B.

Gaye, Gorgi Omar

Jabang, Sana M.

Jallow, Saidu M.

Jammeh, Abdoulai M.
Jammeh, Momodou D.S.

Jobe, Lamin M.S.

John, Samba

Joof, Alieu b.

Marong, Alphusain

Mballo, Amidou B.

Nyang, Momat

Sambou, Marie M.

Sambou, Momodou

1985, 2nd Quarter

Research Asst
Research Asst
Asst Livestock
Ag. Economist



Agric Asst

Research Asst



Asst Livestock

Training Official

Training Official

Agric Officer
R. Sociologist

Agric Asst

Senior Livestock

Range Management

Senior Research

Agric Asst

Agric Asst

Agric Asst

Dept of Agriculture, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture, The Gambia
Dept of Animal Health & Production
Abuko, The Gambia
c/o British High Commission
48 Atlantic Road
P.O. Box 507
Bakau, The Gambia
Mix Farming Project
Abuko, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture, The Gambia
Department of Agriculture
Cape St. Mary, The Gambia
Rice Agronomy Unit
Sapu, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture,
Yundun Unit, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture,
The Gambia
c/o Ministry of Agriculture
Banjul, The Gambia
3 Lancaster Street
Banjul, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Yundum research station
Yundum, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Cape St. Mary, The Gambia
Training Unit
Dept of Agriculture, The Gambia
Kerewan, N.B.D., The Gambia
C/O Ministry of Agriculture
Banjul, The Gambia
Forage Agronomy Unit
Dept of Agriculture, The Gambia
Dept of Animal Health & Production
Abuko, The Gambia
Animal Health and Production
Abuko, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Sapu Agric Station, MID
The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Cape St. Mary, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Sapu Agri Station, MID
The Gambia
Mixed Farming Project
Abuko, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture



Sanneh, Momodou

Senghore, Tom G.

Sima, Sheriff S.

Taal, Saihou D.

Trawally, Kemoring

Caldwell, John

Galt, Dan

.Poats, Susan V.

Poey, Federico

Walecka, Lisette

SAA (Rice Agron)


Extension Sup

Soil Scientist


Ag. Economist




Rice Agronomy Unit
Sapu Agric Station, MID
The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Sapu Agric Station, MID
The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Cape St. Mary, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
The Gambia
P.O. Box 485
Banjul, The Gambia


Virginia Polytechnic Institute
& State University
Dept of Horticulture
301 E. Saunders
Blacksburg, VA 24060
University of Florida
International Programs
Asst. Director, FSSP
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611
University of Florida
International Programs
Asst. Director, FSSP
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611
1414 Ferdinand Street
Coral Gables, FL 33134
University of Florida
International Programs
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL, 32611


Gilbert, Elon

Russo, Sandra

Senghore, Tom G.

Jabang, Sana M.

Boughton, Duncan

1985, 2nd Quarter

Ag. Economist
Forage Agronomist


Training Official

Ag. Economist

University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Mixed Farminig Project
Banjul, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Cape St. Mary, The Gambia
Dept of Agriculture
Cape St. Mary, The Gambia
c/o British High Commission

48 Atlantic Road
P.O. Box 507
Bakau, The Gambia-
Elias, Chris Sociologist GARD
Banjul, The Gambia

Potential Trainers: Tom Senghore, Dunken Boughton

Publication Potential: The report "Training Workshop Report: FSSP/GARD On-Farm
Experimentation Workshop" has been produced and is available from FSSP.


Demands on FSSP:

1. Follow-up on integration of feedback into training unit

2. Follow-up on possible location of regional course in The Gambia to
serve West Africa.

FSSP commitment-promised responses: None made.

Materials collected:

1985, 2nd Quarter

Franzel/Jamaica/06/18 to 06/27/85

Region: Caribbean
Country: Jamaica
Assignment: To conduct a Farming Systems Research and Extension workshop
emphasizing Diagnosis.
Name: Dr. Steve Franzel
Date of Activity: 06/18 to 06/27/85
Team: Steven Franzel, DAI, Lead trainer
Jim Dean, FSSP
Emanuel Acquah, University of Maryland, Eastern Shore
Donald Kass, CATIE

Home Institution: Development Alternatives, Inc.
Address: 624 Ninth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001



1. To provide orientation in FSR/E concepts and procedures to project
staff and associated staff of the Ministry of Agriculture.

2. To assist participants to understand the importance and process of
interdisciplinary team building for conducting FSR/E.


Carried out the scheduled workshop as planned with changes
incorporated as needed. Agenda is included in original report.


1. Constraints on participant attendance.

a) Participants wishing to commute were constrained by a gas
station owners' strike.

b) Electricity, water and most public transportation was cut off
thru the end of the workshop.

2. Two weaknesses arose which impinged on workshop success:

a) Focus of FSSP farmers and materials on subsistence farmers.

b) Lack of handouts due to power failures.



1985, 2nd Quarter

O Individuals:

Participant List:

Renford Baker
Daphne Bennett (agronomist)
Roma Roach (agronomist)
Claudette Lewis (plant protection officer)
Elaine Smith
Jonice Louden (Sociologist/evaluation officer)
Raymond Ramdon (statistician)
Errol Lee (Sociologist)
Furtherman White (Executive Agricultural officer)
Cordell Ramsey (Extension)
Lennox Hemans (Extension)
Dennis Brown (Farm management specialist)
Reginal Budan (Farm management Specialist)
Patrick Virgo (Agronomist)
Oliver Downer (Marketing Specialist)
Raymond Coleman
Vivian Chin (Agricultural Research Specialist)
Hyacinth Campbell (Agronomist)
Charles Reid (Agronomist)
Janet Hobbins (Agronomist)
Zenia Martin (Agronomist)
Joseph Dehaney (Agronomist)
John Bouterse (Agronomist)

Addresses if needed can be found in the original trip report.

Potential Trainers:

Publication Potential: none noted.


Demands on FSSP: none
FSSP commitment-promised responses: none
Materials collected: The JFSRP is preparing a summary of the workshop which
will be submitted by Franzel to the FSSP when.he receives it.
"Evaluation report on Jamaica Farming Systems Research Workshop held from
June 18-27, 1985 at Tuickenhan Park Training Center, St. Catherine".
Prepared by J. A. Louden, Evaluation Branch, Data Bank and Evaluation
Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Hope, August, 1985.

1985, 2nd Quarter

Oxley/Ethopia/06/21 to 06/30/85

Region: North Africa
Country: Ethiopia
Assignment: To participate in a "Workshop on Livestock inmixed Farming
Systems: Research Methodologies and Priorities"
Name: Dr. James W. Oxley
Date of Activity: 21 June to 30 June, 1985
Team: James Oxley, CSU, Co-chairman
John McIntire, ILCA, Co-chairman
Steven Kearl, FSSP, Editor
Home Institution: Colorado State University
Address: Dean's Office
College of Agricultural Sciences
121 Shepardson Hall
Colorado State University
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523


Objectives: Workshop Objectives:

1. Present, discuss and evaluate research methods and design
techniques used in on-farm and on-station trials in terms of their
usefulness and application to FSR in crop/livestock farming

2. Identify major constraints in such mixed farming systems and place
priorities on them in accordance with their potentially economic
importance and amenability to research.

3. Develop guidelines and recommendations for conducting research on
livestock in farming systems that would be useful to project
planners, implementors and evalluators associated with national
research programs, universities, international agriculture research
centers and bilateral projects.


1. Successfully carried out program as planned (see report for
agenda), addressing on-station and on-farm research related to

2. Ten papers were presented and discussed.

3. Made field trip to an ILCA field station north of Addis Ababa.

4. Dr. Walter Harvey, Ohio State University, made a presentation on
Analysis and Interpretation of Data from farms including sampling
techniques, experimental design for on-farm research, and the use
of various analysis.

5. Developed a partial list of research priorities in Mixed Farm

1985, 2nd Quarter

Systems in Africa:
Animal Nutrition
Livestock/Crop Interactions
Better utilization of plant products for livestock feeds


1. The final sessions for reporting and discussion could have been
extended another half-day. More definitive recommendations and/or
guidelines might have come from extended discussions.



Individuals: A summary of the participants by country follows:


Syria (ICARDA)

Participants from:
3 7*

*FSSP paid per diem and travel

Ato Mulugetta Meduria, Inst. of Ag. Research
Ato Alemu Sida, Miniatry of Agriculture
W/T Haregewoin Chernet, Addis Ababa University
Ato Tesfay Ayalew, Alemaya University of Agriculture
Ato Tesfaye Dumsa, Inst. of Ag. Research
Ato Legesse Dadi, Inst. of Ag. Research

Dr. Adrian Martin Mukhebi, Winrock International
Dr. S. Simon Chiyenda, Lilongwe
Mr. Hamadi Dicko, Institut National de la Recherche,
Forestiere et Hydrobiologique


1985, 2nd Quarter


Mr. Baba Suleiman Kera, NAPRI
Mr. Ahmed Usman Hussen, NAPRI/ABU
Dr. Avdelfuttah Y. M. Nour, University of Gezira
Mr. Steven Kearl, Editor, FSSP
Dr. Howard Olson, SIU
Dr. L. R. McDowell, Univ. of Florida
Dr. Dennis Tulley, ICARDA, Syria
Dr. Paul William Bartholomew, ILCA, Mali
Dr. Maimouna Salah Dicko, ILCA, Niger
Mr. Ralph Von Kaufmann, ILCA, Nigeria
Dr. M. A. Mohammed SWaleem, ILCA, Nigeria
Dr. Leonard Reynolds, ILCA, Nigeria
Dr. Akwesi Atta-Krah, ILCA, Nigeria
Workshop Coordinators
Dr. James Oxley, CSU
Dr John McIntire, ILCA, Ethiopia

Mr. Stephen Sanford, ILCA, Ethiopia
Dr. Frank Anderson, ILCA, Ethiopia
Ato. Addis Anteneh, ILCA, Ethiopia
Dr. Daniel Bourzat, ILCA, Ethiopia
Ato. Getachew Asamenew, ILCA, Ethiopia

Potential Trainers:
Publication Potential:
Anticipated Outputs:

1. Workshop Proceedings to include formal papers and the major points
of discussion and recommendations coming from the final sessions of
the workshop.

2. Guidelines document to be developed as a separate publication to
include the recommendations nd experiences gained from the case
studies in terms of research methods and sampling and design

Also, plans include extracting the same type of information from the
Togo Animal Traction workshop held last February and the ICARDA
workshop held in Syria last March, incorporating this into the
guidelines document.


Demands on FSSP:

1. Follow-up work on Proceedings by Steve Kearl.

2. Recommend development of guidelines from a synthesis of papers from

1985, 2nd Quarter

this, the Togo and the Aleppo Workshop.

FSSP commitment-promised responses: As noted above.

Materials collected:

Program of "Workshop on Livestock in Mixed Farming Systems"
List of Participants and addresses.


1985, 2nd Quarter



AGENDA..................... ......................... ........ ........ 1


Accomplishments to June 1985..........................................
FSSP Evaluation Issues.......................... ...... .......
Publications, progress, and plans, 1985.............................6
Visitor's Program.. ........................... ...... ... ....... 9
Domestic Workshops................... ............................ 10
Evaluation Task Force Activity Statement, 1984-85..................12
Biodata Searches, Jan to June 1985.............................. 14
FSSP Training Program...........................................15
Program Development Statement, 1985.................................. 17
State of the Art.................................... ...............19
FSSP/Population Council FSR/E Case Studies Project..............21
Project Activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.............. 28
1985 Activity Calendar for Latin America and the Caribbean...........30
Asia Policy Development and Strategy Statement, 1984-85.............31
FSSP Africa Policy and 1985 Activities.......................... 34


Index of items for the FSSP Evaluation.............................37
Memo to Dr.Bertrand regarding FSSP West Africa Support...............39
Africa Budget............................................43
FSSP Budget ..................................... ..........44
Base Support Budget in Africa....................... ......45
FSSP Budget and Release............................... .....46

Agenda for the FSSP External Evaluation
June 26 to June 28, 1985

Evaluation Team:
Raymond Kitchell, Leader
Chuck Francis
Pat Fleuret
Ed Price
Don Winklemann

8:00 8:05

8:05 8:40

Project Managers:
Don Osburn
Wendell Morse

Wednesday June 26, 1985
Discuss agenda

Project Background Chris Andrew, Pete Hildebrand
1. Why FSR/E
2. Why FSSP
3. Organization and structure for FSSP delivery
4. Background, status and future

8:40 9:00 Discussion

9:00 10:00

Evaluation Issues & recommendations
Raymond Kitchell, Chris Andrew

for consideration-

10:00 10:15 BREAK

10:15 12:00 Presentations
10:15 10:25 1. Networking Susan Poats
a. Worldwide linkages
b. Domestic programs
10:25 10:30 Clarification

10:30 10:40 2. Technical Assistance- Dan Gait
a. Evaluation Task Force
b. Handbook
c. Biodata Lisette Walecka
10:40 10:45 Clarification

10:45 10:55 3.

10:55 11:00

11:00 11:10 4.
11:10 11:15

11:15 11:25 5.

Training- Jim Jones
a. Training for trainers
b. Training Unit Developmemt-
c. Delivery

Lisette Walecka

Program Development- Dan Galt

State of the Art- Dan Galt
a. Farming System Case Studies
1. For Training- Susan Poats

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

2. Other Uses- Dan Gait
b. Minimum Data Set
c. Contributions to Methodology- Pete Hildebrand

11:25 12:00 Discussion

12:00 1:15 LUNCH with K.R. Tefertiller, Vice President for Agricultural
Affairs, IFAS.

1:15 -2:15 Regional Presentations
1:15 1:25 1. Latin America Jim Jones
1:25 1:35 2. Asia/ Near East Dan Gait
1:35 1:55 3. Africa Susan Poats

1:55 2:15 General Discussion

2:15 3:00 TEAM BREAK

3:00 4:00 Individual meeting with Susan Poats

4:00 5:00 Individual meeting with Dan Gait

DINNER (no prearrangements made, left to discretion of team)

Thursday June 27, 1985

8:00 9:00 Individual meeting with Jim Jones

9:00 10:00 Individual meeting with Lisette Walecka

10:00 11:00 TEAM BREAK

11:00 12:00 Individual meeting with Chris Andrew

12:00 1:15 LUNCH with Hugh Poponoe, Director, International Programs,

1:15 2:15 UF Program Support meeting- Peter Hildebrand, Hunt Davis,
Director, Center for African Studies

2:15 2:45 UF Administrative Support meeting- Judy Meline

2:45 3:15 TEAM BREAK

3:15 5:00 Ccmmunication with SE's (here or on telephone)
Interact on-call with FSSP Core or Administrative staff

DINNER (no prearrangements made, left to discretion of team)

Friday June 28, 1985


S3:00 4:00 Summary Comments- Team and FSSP

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)




Countries Involved

AID Needs Tech.
Mission Assessment Assistance

a 18

Am 10

'NE 7





Net- Countries
work- benefited

2 7

:al 34 16





Participants in







Short Courses, Workshops and Exchances

Latin America
US/Dcmestic Workshops

US Training

Universities with FS Courses
rrent FS Minors at UF
aduated FS Minors at UF
FS assistantships UF
1985 Applicants for FS/UF Assist.

7 PhD 8 Masters
8 Masters 1 PhD

5SP Summary Memos (06/85)





Support Institutions

Support Entities

Collaborating Institutions



ional Centers

21 Universities 690 Program Assoc.
5 Firms

10 Universities




Other Collaborators:


Ford Foundation

Pop. Council

World Bank

East West Center





FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)









1. Program and Fiscal Planning -

Annual planning and implementation are hampered by
limited, divergent and delayed information from the
agency concerning funding and program emphasis.

2.' West Africa Base -

Emphasis on location of core in W. Africa calls for
decisions among priorities (Asia, Africa, Program
Development), short and long range program support, and
within region priorities.

3. Support Entity Involvements -

Concern with adjustments in the overall FSSP structure
generally but specifically .related to program
associates/bio data management, SE project
participation, the role of the Technical Committee and
concern for strengthening the university support base.

4. Short and Long Term FSSP Priorities -

Management calls for decisions relative to short term
demand/ workload/ organization and emphasis to be placed
in systematic activities such as domestic workshops,
visitors, bio data maintenance and management, bilateral
networks, newsletters, documentation center etc.

5. Backstop Support to FSSP through UF by the State of Florida -

FSSP stresses standard administrative and fiscal
procedures of any IP or state structure yet facilitative
support through adaptation of state regulations is

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

A current purge of these newsletters is underway. Margarita Rodriguez
holds a folder with returned renewal/discontinue forms. Comments from
readership are available for consideration in this folder. Response has
been especially positive.

4. 1985 Annual Report: It is intended that the various core staff
contributions for this document will be called for in an Action Memo to
place the report process in a time frame for delivery to AID/Washington by
December. In practice this has been found to be a workable approach to the
formulation of this document. Annual Reports have been solicited from
Support Entities and a collection of those submitted is on file with the

5. :brk Plan: It is anticipated that the 1986 Work Plan will be directly
affected by the recommendations of the 1985 Project Evaluation Report, as
well as by subsequent core and AID/Wahington management decisions and

It is also anticipated that the time frame for input of information
will delay a timely and expedient work plan. This may be an advantage in
the sense that it could provide an opportunity for the annual core staff
planning session (Cedar Key II), recommendations from support entities
through the 1985 annual meeting, and overall program considerations from
that meeting to provide definitive considerations for the project. An
important qualification to this observation is the fact that the 1985
Annual Work Plan was initially submitted to AID/Washington in mid-December
of 1984. However, after many revisions, the evolution of that document
never in fact became, or necessarily contributed to, the actual Work Plan
which was largely written (and subsequently accepted) by AID. Instead, the
final version submitted by the project was adopted by the project as a 1985
Implementation Plan for FSSP; it had to be, the project was four months
into the year.

6. Publications in Progress:

Book of Readings:
selections and copyright okayed except for 1 or 2
which may require substitutions
PEH intros done, final printout going on now
commercial printer mid-summer
Spanish translation of selections 2 more to do

initial issue in Vol 2 No 4 newsletter
ap .oximately 150 additions received
plan to publish as a separate document Fourth quarter
(IDRC mailing next month) hopefully for Kansas
Neil Carpenter/FAO interest no new progress

Minimum Data Set/Fieldbook:
no time frame

FSSP Summary M(Eos (06/85)

- Liberia Report: i
completed and initial distribution

- ILCA Livestock Workshop Proceedings and Research Plan
Guidelines in production in July

- Procedural Manual draft printed and distributed plan to
maintain feedback file for revisions

- Other internal items
Training Unit Development materials
Management Guidelines
Evaluation Task Force
Case Studies
Togo Workshop

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


Visitors, with interest in the Farming Systems approach to agricultural
development, began coming to the University of Florida in mid 1981 as
information regarding the North Florida FSR/E Project became known. This
predates the FSSP by more than one year. With the inception of the FSSP,
the visitor flow has constantly increased.

The maps which indicate these visitors show that, while visitors in
1983 were predominately from the United States, those in 1984 reflected the
growing interest in FSR among persons from other countries. The 1983
visitors were generally from the growing network of Support Entities (SE's)
of the FSSP. The 1984 visitors, on the other hand, came from a wide
spectrum of countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

As each visitor has a different agenda, the FSSP has endeavored to
tailor a program for each individual visitor or group. These programs have
varied from mere "appointment making" with University of Florida faculty to
intensive short courses in the Farming Systems methodology, as well as
field visits to Florida agri-business concerns, Agricultural Research
Centers and the North Florida FSR/E Project.

The character of the visitors also shows great variation. Visitors
have ranged from U. S. graduate students and faculty, to international
graduate students studying in the U.S., to FSR practitioners from both
International Research Centers and bi-lateral contracts as well as other
countries, to Directors and Ministers of Agriculture and Extension of their

As the FSSP Visitor's Program is demand driven, it is somewhat
difficult to plan specific activities in advance. The FSSP will endeavor
to provide the same services to visitors as have been available in the
past. Implementation will be carried out as required, according to
scheduling demands of other FSSP activities.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


Domestic Workshops, sponsored and supported by the FSSP, fall into two
distinct categories; (1). General Introduction to Farming Systems Research
Methodology, and (2). Specific Applications of the Methodology. The
latter represent a second, and higher level of curriculum. These include
Diagnosis in FSR/E, Agronomic Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials, and
Management of Research and Extension Projects.

Number 2 above represents the product of the 1985 Training Unit
Development Workshop, held in Gainesville, and are targeted to FSR
practitioners who desire specific information regarding the methodological
steps of the FSR process.

In 1983, the FSSP offered the General Introduction to FSR/E Workshop
twice in Gainesville and supported three other workshops at other
institutions in the U.S. These were held at Colorado State University,
Michigan State University and at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, all of
which are Support Entities (SE's) of the FSSP. 142 persons were trained
during this year.

In 1984, the General Introduction Workshop was given three SE's;
University of Minnesota, Virginia State University and the University of
Florida. These workshops, as those in 1983, were given primarily to
upgrade the FSR capabilities of the Support Entities, although a larger
number of international graduate students attended these workshops. 117
persons were trained in 1984.

To date, in 1985, one Introductory Workshop was given at the University
of Arizona. 48 persons attended this workshop.

As the demand for FSR training has shown some change in direction from
Introduction to FSR towards more specific information regarding
implementation of the Farming Systems approach, the FSSP has focused more
on the specific information required by FSR practitioners. Virginia State
University has agreed to became the permanent host for the Introduction to
Farming Systems Research and Development Workshop. VSU will host, at
least, one workshop per year for interested persons. It is anticipated
that more international graduate students will become involved as, their
home countries and bi-lateral contractors will be required to provide some
sort of Farming Systems Orientation. These workshops will be supported by
the FSSP, to a limited degree.

The strategy for the second level of workshops is still being
developed. The first steps have been implemented, however. The FSSi- has
presented the first "Management of Research and Extension Projects"
workshop. Participants were persons from SE's who have experience and/or
interest in this type of work. The group, which participated in
Gainesville, helped to polish the presentation of these materials. The
Management workshop will be presented, with FSSP support, at interested
U.S. institutions by the personnel who attended the first workshop in

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

At the same time, the "Design and Analysis" workshop was being
presented in the Gambia, using materials developed at the Training Unit
Development Workshop. This workshop will be presented, to U.S. Support
Entity personnel, in July, 1985. Again, the plan is to expose U.S.
personnel to the concepts of the Training Unit so that they will be able to
use the materials in their own institution and in bi-lateral training

It should be noted that the multiplier effect of domestic workshops is
quite large. By training U.S. personnel in Farming Systems methodology,
the resource base of all participating institutions is substantially

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)




The evaluation task force -- or ETF evolved from interest expres-
sed at a technical committee meeting in April, 1984, to the need for qual-
ity, replicable evaluations of FSR/E projects in the field. An On-Demand
advertisement for interested support entities went out from core, and from
the five interested submissions, a lead entity -- Winrock International -
was selected in September, 1984. Interested individuals from several
other support entities were also asked to participate on the ETF. The
composition of the ETF, including the lead entity and leader designate,
were announced to the FSSP support entity network shortly thereafter.

The leader-designate of the ETF subsequently accepted a position at
Michigan StateUniversity, and Winrock was not interested being lead en-
tity on this activity without the active participation of the leader-
designate. During the KSU FSR Symposium in October, three pre-organiza-
tional meetings were held with representatives of the support entities
involved in the ETF. It was decided that Washington State University
would replace Winrock as lead entity, and that the leader-designate of the
Washington group, James Henson, would act as leader of the ETF.

Evaluation Task Force

SThe ETF consists of the following members and affiliates:

1. James Henson, ETF leader, Washington State University
2. Rick Bernsten, Michigan State University
3. Tom Cook, Research Triangle Institute
4. Dan Galt, FSSP, ex-officio advisor and liason to FSSP
5. Jan Noel, Washington State University
6. Mike Patton, University of Minnesota
7. Ken Swanberg, AID/S&T, ex-officio advisor.
8. Don Voth, University of Arkansas

In addition, the ETF is backstopped by a larger group. This backstop
group consists of the following individuals: (1) Gustavo Arcia, RTI, (2)
Robert Butler, WSU, (3) Merle Esmay, MSU, (4) Dale Harpstead, MSU/BIFAD,
(5) Marcus Ingle, UOM, (6) Don Isleib, MSU, (7) Ken McDermott, FSSP, (8)
Tom Trail, WSU, and (9) Kim Wilson, MSU. This group was put together to
respond to ETF output during implementation of the activity.

The ETF first met in November, 1984. At that time, a working defini-
tion of "FSR" was called for and subsequently developed. More important-
ly, Tom Cook presented an evaluative issues framework to the group, which
he was requested to expanded upon for a subsequent meeting. After some
inter-institutional negotiation period of about three months, this frame-
work was produced and circulated to the rest of the ETF members for com-
ments and reaction.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

After allowing sufficient time for members to comment and juggling
travel schedules, Jim Henson called for the second meeting of the ETF
during June, 1985. The following was accomplished at this meeting:

--The framework was expanded to contain these 4 basic sections:

a) Introduction

b) Mid-term evaluation framework for FSR/E projects

c) Adaptive instructions for other types of evaluations

d) Appendices

Sections a), b) and d) are of equally high priority. Section b) will
represent a restructuring of the framework produced by Tom Cook. It is
being revised to incorporate the FSR/E issues and items suggested by the
ETF group. It is also being reorganized around the five basic steps of
the FSR/E sequence. This latter reorganization, suggested by Mike Patton,
is to minimize the difference between the evaluation framework and the
FSR/E projects likely to be evaluated using this framework.

Tom Cook volunteered to expand the framework (section b). All others
from the group have contributed to section d), which consists of the
details to allow evaluators to use the evaluation framework in an evalu-
ation setting. Thus, actual details needed for understanding the evalu-
ation of FSR/E projects are being produced by the group for this section.
This organization allows the framework to remain a concise, highly compre-
hensible document of great utility to any level of evaluator: profes-
sional or novice, disciplinary specialist or generalist.

While the whole thrust of the ETF will be to develop a protocol to
evaluate projects mid-term, section c) eventually will provide instruc-
tions to users on how to adapt the framework to near-end and end of pro-
ject evaluations. The writing of section c) has been assigned lowest
priority by the ETF.

Goals for the Future of the EFT

The ETF has decided to merge the proposed "dry run" test of the
framework with a "training/orientation/briefing" session to be held for
the first evaluation team to use the draft framework. Possible projects
considered for the initial field test include CATIE, CARDI and Zambia.
Jim Henson will try to identify other projects in consultation with repre-
sentatives from the Africa Bureau. A field test could occur as early as
Late October or November, 1985. It not yet known if sufficient funds
remain in the sub-contract between WSU and the FSSP to allow the process
to proceed through the proposed field test.

The ETF is continuing to interest other AID bureaus in the draft
evaluation instrument. Mike Patton's visit to AID in July to consult with
Nina Vreeland's division is the next step in this legitimization process.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


BIODATA SEARCHES (Jan. to June 1985)

Total Requests = 27
(note: some requests include

Total Person Searches = 39

Requests by:

more than one person search)

DAI = 1
KSU = 1
IADS = 2
MSU = 1
UOF = 1
UOI = 1

FSSP = 1
SAID = 9
TOTAL = 10


Agronomy = 11
Ag. Economist = 7
Animal Sci/Lvstk = 1
Soil/Water Mngt = 1
Rural Soc/Anthro = 5
Research Admin = 2
Agroforestry = 2
Agric. Admin = 1
.Farming Sys. Dev = 1
Geographer = 1
Evaluator = 4
Education = 1
Public Health = 1
Environmentalist = 1

Spanish = 3
French = 15

Africa = 14
Asia = 6
Latin America/Car = 5
Near East = 0
Other(US or non-LDC)= 2


Jan =
Feb =
Mar =
Apr =
May =
Jun =

These figures show the activity of the biodata file for the six mont
period of 1985. The figure for the 1983-1984 period appear in the 1984
LsAnnual Report, Appendix 5. For the period from 1983 to mid year 1985, the
total number of requests has -een 73 (Support Entities = 24, Official
FSSP/AID = 26, Non-Affiliates = 23) for a total of 113 individuals.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



The first training materials developed by the FSSP, mostly during
1983, were a series of slide-tape modules. There were few good materials
available anywhere in farming systems research and extension(FSR/E). Our
modules were to reach a wide audience, both U.S. domestic and foreign, and
were designed mainly to sensitize people to the FSR approach. They were
heavily supplemented by other materials and techniques at the discretion of
trainers, especially when used overseas. Translated into Spanish and
French, the modules were widely used and were for the most part well
received, particularly by U.S. domestic audiences, where the demand for
them has been considerable, but also by audiences in Latin America. FSSP
thinking at the time involved the development of entire courses, more or
less in packaged form.

We realized after more than a year that there was a need for better
materials for overseas training, materials that would give trainers more
flexibility in course design and that would involve trainees to a greater
degree. This was one of the major conclusions of an FSSP workshop held at
Iowa State University in the summer of 1984 to develop FSR/E trainers. We
entered this workshop with the idea that FSR/E, because it was a novel
approach, somehow required novel training techniques. But we learned that
this was not so, that conventional training techniques were quite adequate.
We left Iowa State with a renewed appreciation for the value of good
trainers and a feeling that no materials could compensate for a lack in
this regard-- indeed, really good trainers could even design and deliver
effective courses with poor materials.

Following the workshop at Iowa State, the project launched a
concerted effort to develop the needed training materials. We began to
think, not of developing courses, but of developing units that trainers
could combine in any number of ways to design and deliver courses that
would respond to the needs of different training settings. Accordingly, we
held a training unit materials development workshop(a TUD workshop) in
Gainesville in February of 1985. Participants from several FSSP support
entities gathered for a week to develop units for the FSR areas of
diagnosis, agronomic design and data analysis, and project management.
Much headway was made during the week, and the effort continues.

The development of training unit materials is following a
three-stage process: initial development, testing and refinement, and
distribution. The week long collaborative effort resulted in the
first-stage development of the three units noted above. Since then, each
unit has been c;chnically editied by at least one member of the original
development group. Two of the units, Agronomic Experimental Design and
Analysis, and Management and Administration have been partially tested in
workshops in The Gambia and Gainesville. We plan to test the Diagnostic
unit at the soonest opportunity and hope to use it in Cameroon in the fall
of 1985. Completion of the work on content and revisions based on testing
are in process. We plan to have the first edition ready by December of
1985. All subsequent revisions will be incorporated into the second
edition planned for December of 1986.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

The development of these materials has cost the project to date
about $55,000, and to complete them as planned would cost another $35,000.
The total effort would have an estimated cost of between $90,000 and

The strategy for delivering training courses is a function of region
and will be dealt with there.

FSSP Sumnary Memos (06/85)



coordinator for program development was appointed in the Spring,
ie position of program development coordinator was created to
lhese coordination needs of the project:

) Verify that the functional areas of technical assistance,
and networking cover all priority areas so designated by the

) Assist in avoiding duplication of effort;

) Make sure that joint, or overlapping, areas of effort are
blended back together as activities proceed and/or are completed;

1) Verify that jointly-assigned activities proceed along acceptable
nd time frames;

3) Make sure FSSP policies are not implemented at cross purposes
3 another, especially in the three general areas of regional policy
za, Asia/Near East and Latin America/Caribbean.

5) rdinate state-of-the-art (SOTA) activities, suggest further
t es, and assist in the transition of completed tasks and ac-
s ~m SOTA into the appropriate functional areas of technical
nce, training, or networking.


To date, this new coordinating function has:

1) Suggested that each regional area coordinator consider forming a
Entity advisory committee -- similar to the Near East and Asia Ad-
Ccmnittee (NEAAC) to assist core in policy advice and delivery
Lvities. This mechanism will give support entities more of the res-
ility for regional FSSP policy and implementation, allowing more
entity input into project delivery. This mechanism is viewed as an
3nt way of transferring responsibility for overall project imple-
ion from core to the FSSP support network.

2) Begun the more formal process of integrating regional policies.
es so far include using the expertise of a support entity formerly
ed to Latin America -- AGRIDEC in West Africa in technical assis-
and training, and asking representatives of Southeast Asian univer-
to participate in a West African university networkshop activity
led for early 1986. Integration of regional policies will allow more
re Asian and Latin American FSR/E expertise to be focused on African
problems and needs.

1s for the Remainder of the Project

Summary Memos (06/85)

Based on the short experience of 1985, the following areas will be
considered for program development stress during the rest of the project:

1) Strengthen two accomplishments of 1985.

2) Provide integration between the case study activity, the
guideline handbook activity, and the evaluation task force. The relevant
outputs from these three activities should be focused mainly on
practitioners, projects and programs implementing FSR/E approaches.
Coordination and synthesis will be required. The diffusion mechanism may
be through a series of SOTA publications. Sets of SOTA publications may be
developed for the following FSR/E stakeholders:

a) Field practitioners (both project and host country

b) Chiefs of party;

c) Campus/private firms backstop personnel;

d) AID contracting and project officers, bureaus and missions;
e) Other host country governmental representatives, especially
those dealing with FSR/E at substantive and administrative

3) Work with the coordinator for African policy to integrate the
three major threads of Afican policy, including the policies of (a)
short-term, crop-based networking, (b) short-term, animal-based networking,
and (c) long-term, West African university-based networking.

4) Work with the coordinator and assistant of training to oversee
the final development, production and distribution of the FSSP training
units. General issues to consider include (a) revision policy and (b)
integration of training-tested and newly-created materials, activities,
caselettes, case studies and suggestions back into the units. A specific
issue to consider is the development and integration of the necessary
socio-economic materials into the diagnostic and agronomic experimental
design and analysis units.

5) Work with the African-based core staff member and whomever is
designated to backstop this staff person here in Gainesville, if a core
individual is transferred to Africa. Issues may include smoothing the
transition of core staff to Africa and maintaining communication between
the project and AID/W, Africa Bureau and the various West African missions.

6) Develop and implement a better method to facilitate information
flow between Gainesville and AID/W project management.

Most of these tentative program development goals are contingent
upon (a) core agreement, (b) consensus that they represent priority areas
for the program coordinator, and (c) level of project funding.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


iry Memos (06/85)


ts of documents made available for the evaluation is a
.e FSR/E Case Studies Project. These case studies for
being produced in a joint effort with the Population
ng from the Ford Foundation as well as FSSP. The
1 fulfill in part obligations from the cooperative
'raining and State of the Arts Research by providing a
ning materials based on actual on-going FSR/E projects,
ie offering a synthesis of activities and methodologies
:ectively used in the field.

3ses being developed were selected because they represent
jects which have reached a level of development through
three stages of FSR/E (1. diagnosis, 2. design, 3.
tion), and demonstrate a positive incorporation of either
usehold and gender analysis within their on-going
ases also include considerable project and institutional
ting. When completed, the cases should serve as useful
for teaching concepts and methods of FSR/E,
.old analysis, gender analysis, and institutional analysis
i administration.

This memo is a list of the members of the Advisory
FS Pop. Council project, a summary of the proposals
it ) submitted for case study consideration, and a
Lg elected case studies. The following chronology of
project activity to date. Further details are available
xned file.

Poats and J. Bruce, Population Council, meet in
he idea for a case studies series is first developed.

Population Council and Ford Foundation agree to fund the
initial three cases, and the potential to develop others
rest generated.

ary Feldstein is hired by the Pop. Council as managing
itions for a project advisory ccmnittee are begun.

List of 50 potential advisory caumittee members is
contacted, 17 were willing/able to serve. With input from
Feldstein, Bruce and Poats met in NY to select the
lately 10 persons were selected.

.e advisory committee meets in NY and drafts the guidelines
.y project, the outline for the case study format, and a
:ssions of Interest in writing a case study. Following the
:ouncements and EOI forms are mailed out via FSSP, Pop.
F. mailing lists.

3;.ts and Hilary Feldstein complete the draft of the

Ds (06/85)

case study format.

March 31, 1985. By this cut-off date, 72 expressions of interest have been
received. These were reviewed and catalogued as potential, maybe or
rejects and reviewed by the advisory committee.

April 1985. Two presentations on the case study project are made at AWID
and further input is received on the format and a developing analytical
framework for the series. The advisory committee meets in NY and selects
the 6 best case proposals. The Ford F., impressed with the quantity and
quality of the submissions, invites the project to request further funding
to expand the original 3 cases to a total of 8. An additional 5 cases are
identified as potential and two are selected to make the total of 8.

June 1985. The case writers and advisory committee reps. attend a
casewriters' workshop to develop the outlines, pedagogical objectives and
teaching notes for each case. Cases are thoroughly reviewed for agronomic,
FSR/E, socio-economic content. A case study specialist from HIID leads
several sessions on how to write effective cases.

July-December 1985. Each case writer has developed a plan of work for
delivery of drafts. Anticipate completion of all cases by March 1986.

February 1986. Completed cases will be tested at the Univ. Florida
conference on Gender Issues and FSR/E.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

Advisory Committee for Population Council/FSSP Case Studies Project

0 r. Harry (Skip) Bittenbender
Department of Horticulture
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
(617) 353-5473

Ms. Kate Cloud
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Illinois
Champaign, Illinois 61821
(217) 333-5832

Dr. Frank Conklin
Office.of International Agriculture
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
(503) 754-2304

Ms. Nadine Horenstein
Room 3725 NS
Washington, DC 20523
(202) 632-3992

S. Kate McKee
W. ord Foundation
320 East 43rd Street
New York, New York 10017
(212) 573-5345

Dr. Rosalie Norem
Department of Family Environment
Iowa State University
LeBaron Hall, Room 173
Ames, Iowa 50011
(515) 294-8608

Dr. David Nygaard
Agricultural Development Council
725 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10021
(212) 517-9700

Dr. F/ederico Poey
1414 Ferdinand Street
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(305) 271-5694

Dr. Mary Rojas
105 Patton Hall
VirginiaPolytechnic Institute
& State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24601
(703) 961-4651

Ms. Hilary S. Feldstein
Managing Editor
Population Council/FSSP
Case Studies Project
RFD 1, Box 821
Hancock, New Hampshire 03449
(603) 525-3772

Ms. Judith Bruce, ex officio
Program Associate
Population Council
1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
New York, New York 10017
(212) 644-1777

Dr. Susan Poats, ex officio
Associate Director
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904) 392-2309

Dr. Cornelia Butler-Flora, ex officio
Chairman, Technical Committee FSSP
Department of Sociology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
(913) 532-6865

Dr. Pauline Peters
Harvard Institute for
International Development
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-3785



1. 72 proposals received

2. Geographic distribution
West Africa 24
East Africa 6
Southern Africa 5
N.Africa/MidEast 4
Asia 20
Latin America/Mexico 8
Caribbean 2
Europe (Netherlands) 2
U.S. 1

:3. Disciplines and Gender
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Sciences
Agric/Vocational Education
Very mixed or unknown

(Burkina Faso 6)

(Philippines 7)

Total Female
22 5
24 16
11 1
9 5
8 3
3 (projects)
74 30

4. Of 74 proposal writers, 36 were nationals of developing countries.

Nok. :

fleorj) ?o p'ps~r /0 e,.p-


Synopsis of Projected Case Studies 6/13/85

SBotswana, ATIP, Doyle Baker
This is perhaps the most difficult case, as some of the issues raised by
ATIP as a result of the IHH (read female headed household) research could have
negative policy consequences for those households. The context is unusual for
Africa in that remittances enter every household providing a near minimum of
subsistence and the government has resources from other diamonds, etc. such that
it has substantially subsidized agricultural inputs and health care. During the
three years of the project, there has been a severe drought making a number of
desirable trials impractical. The case leads the reader through a process of
parallel activities, continuous leveraged trials of tillage/planting and a
comprehensive set of socio-economic surveys in which data is disaggregated by
household types and/or by gender. The theme of the project has been the
difficulty of getting any successful results from the leveraged trials; the
increased understanding of factors that differentiate between farmers ability
and willingness to undertake arable agriculture (access and control of draft
animals; availability of other sources of income including remittances). One
agronomic outcome is to put in place non-leveraged trials for post-establishment
conditions for households with draft constraints, usually female headed.
Another outcome has been to move further into the policy arena, suggesting that
policy recognize the different possibilities of different recommendation
domains, i.e. resources to better off and more interested farmers can contribute
to national production; resources to less well off households (of which the
majority are female headed and without access to draft) will help household
incomes, but not necessarily be contribution to national production goals. The
theme of the case as stated in the last iteration is to emphasize the importance
of socio-economic research which includes IHtH to defining agronomic and policy
issues. The resource people feel there may be more data and possibilities
inherent in the data than the project has considered, but are waiting on the
completed analysis of the more recent surveys (which will be 'done for the first

Burkina Faso, SAFGRAD, Joe Nagy
This case will go carefully through.a straight FSR/E process as applied to
3 sample villages in Burkina Faso. The first section will cover background and
the information from the initial diagnostic survey leaving to students the task
of playing that data against the framework and making their own analysis of the
situation. Section II gives project analysis which was to go with trials on
tie-ridging as low cost and using available on-farm resources including labor.
This section will include the trials with tie-ridging and fertilizer use showing
positive agronomic results, but lack of interest by various members of farm
households because of labor constraint; labor for tie ridging was provided
principally by women and children. Section III ;ll go into new trials with a
mechanical tie ridger, requiring capital resources available to a minority of
households and students will evaluate the implications of this strategy. There
may also be material on differences between men ard women's plots, but Joe needs
to dig that out.


CARDI, St. Lucia, Greg Robin and Visantha Chase
The CARDI case builds on the use of an Area Focused Survey, i.e. a
diagnostic survey with considerable socio-economic data including IHH variables,
to look at a single valley. In addition to economic and agronomic
stratification, the survey showed serious nutritional deficiencies and that a
high proportion of the households (38%) were female headed. The decision was
made, recently, to transfer a self-sustaining home gardening system being
instituted in a nearby island, Domenica, to Mabouya Valley. The case will
illustrate the use of the Area Focused Study approach; allow consideration of
home gardens as part of a farming system and the importance of female inputs in
such a system; and will examine the implications of transferring a successful
system from one location to another. Federico's work on this case was
particularly helpful in channeling at least the case, and perhaps the upcoming
extension of technology in Mabouya, into a more experimental direction
concerning the improvement of varieties and practices used in home gardening.

Colombia, CIAT, Jacqueline Ashby
This case will show why IHH variables were important to the testing and
evaluation of a production technology, beans, and how they were recognized.
Specifically this relates to recognizing the importance of identifying desirable
consumption characteristics of different users: the urban market and the
subsistence consumer. The importance of understanding desirable consumption
characteristics has economic implications in that women cook for hired labor and
their cooking task and time is affected by the kinds of beans used. The case
will also illustrate a methodology for including participation by multiple
members of the household in testing and evaluation.

Indonesia, Sitiung, TROPSOILS, Vicki Sigman and Carol Colfer
The strongest element of the TROPSOILS case is the use of the entire,
multi-disciplinary research team to undertake a time allocation study of the
activities of household members in this transmigration site. This study has led
to a decision to have trials on forage as forage-gathering was a prime labor
constraint, and undertaken principally by women and children. Home gardening
also emerges as important in terms of both men and women's time and a nutrition
survey done during the same time period suggests the value of its improvement.
Because Vicki herself has not yet been to the field, but is going soon to work
with Carol, we left the case with a series of questions about how the'different
pieces have fit together in time and in effect on each other.

Philippines, Lake Balinsasayao, Lini Wollenberg
The Lake Balinsasayao project is intended to provide the government with
assistance in promoting forest conservation on government lands in the face of
increasing migration to the area and in insuring an equitable distribution of
benefits. There were two diagnoses undertaken resulting in a large body of
agroclimatic and socio-economic data, as well as statements concerning farmer
preferences, which students can compare as to methodology and results. A second
set of more focused studies--production & consumption, cropping systems,
fishing, nutrition, and land use decision making--followed. Each used different
methodologies for getting at questions of time allocation and again this will be
an exercise for comparing the approaches as to resource costs and benefits. One
issue will be the degree to which resource constraints affect the definition of
research domains. The relationship of a parallel set of field activities--
continuing community organization, literacy programs, demonstration plots, etc.-
-to the research is also explored. The third section reports the results of the

field interventions and plans for further interventions and ends with the tasks
of reviewing the interaction between research and field activities and of
looking at what has already been done in view of reorganizing as an FSR/E

Zambia, ARPT, Charles Chabala and Robert Nguiru
This case is a classic. The first section will give the country
background, including the institutionalization of FSR/E in Zambia, and the
original diagnosis of the area leaving to students the task of identifying
research priorities. One element of that information is the heavy labor of
women in their (separate) bean fields. The second section details actual trials
undertaken by the project as a result of the original diagnosis: one on
intercropping beans with maize to take advantage of the traction being used on
family (male headed) maize fields and thereby reduce women's labor as well as
the fertilizer that was already being applied to the maize. A second set of
trials was on maize for increased yields. Though both trials showed the
experiments to be successful in agronomic terms, neither was acceptable to the
farmers. In the case of beans, the integration of mens and women fields
resulted in losses to women of the income they got from the sale of small
surpluses and women objected. In the case of both beans and corn, the
consumption and processing characteristics were not taken into account and
therefore the varieties were rejected. The third section covers a Labor Survey
designed to get more information on time allocation and men's and women's
resources and benefits with respect to particular crops. An interesting aspect
of the survey is the methods used to get women's views in light of cultural-
constraints (and institutional difficulties). The results of that survey are
the subject of a final set of tasks to determine what research to tackle next.

It should be noted that these synopses are tentative, based on current drafts
and the emphases in any might shift as further work is done and the writers get
further into their data.

Tod AJAAd Ni -5

,Ak, S, ^V^ Po+ S r&,-
& V. top,_>r^- 0 Ic- kv t1 C-ets)



According to the Cooperative Agreement, the FSSP was to allocate no
more than twenty-five percent of its funds to Latin America. Yet, there
has been more demand for project services, especially in the early months,
from Latin America than from the other regions. We soon realized that the
demand would draw excessively on project resources and began operating on a
cost-sharing and buy-in basis with USAID missions in the region. Over the
last several months, as funds were withdrawn from our project and as USAID
began to give ever more emphasis to Africa, we began requiring USAID
missions in Latin America to finance all FSSP services that they requested.
That policy is in effect today.

A list of FSSP activities by country for 1983 and 1984 appears in
our annual reports; a summary for this year is appended to this memorandum.
The project has been especially active in Paraguay and Honduras. We
collaborated with INTSORMIL, the sorghum-millet CRSP, as well as with
ICRISAT and CIMMYT in the development and delivery of a workshop at CIMMYT
for sorghum and millet researchers from several Latin American countries.
We also financed the participation of several of those researchers. We
have worked with CIMMYT elsewhere, including in Paraguay when the project
first entered that country. And CIMMYT sent two researcher-trainers to
help us develop training materials during the workshop this year in

The FSSP worked with PRECODEPA in the design and delivery of an FSR
training workshop in Guatemala for potato researchers in Central America
and the Caribbean. PRECODEPA is a regional potato research cooperative
managed by CIP, who helped with the workshop. We also financed the
participation of some of the workshop participants.

The FSSP assisted CATIE this year in the design of a one-week
seminar to analyze six FSR/E cases in Latin America. And again, we covered
the participation costs of several seminar participants. At the request of
ROCAP, the project is now assembling a team to conduct a final evaluation
of the CATIE-ROCAP farming systems project. I just returned after a month
in Central America, where I gathered information in five countries that
will be used in this evaluation. The prospects for further collaboration
with CATIE and ROCAP are good.

An FSSP training team is now in Jamaica delivering an introductory
FSR workshop to researchers in that country.

Our training activities in the region have reached about 350
persons. We have sought to use native speakers of Spanish in our training
work in Spanish America, since the farming systems approach is a radical
departure from the traditional organization of research and extension and
communication is especially critical. For technical assistance, we have
been less concerned about language skills, although we still consider them

Other countries of the region have expressed an interest in using

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

the FSSP. USAID/Peru has indicated that it might soon need assistance in
reorienting research and extension in that country. Both Honduras and El
Salvador have expressed an interest, though it might prove difficult for
the FSSP to find people, at least from the universities, willing to work in
El Salvdor. And Paraguay has just bought into the FSSP at the level of
$80,000 for services to be rendered mostly over the next year.
Haiti approached us about three months ago regarding advisory support for
farming systems work there. It is very likely that the Dominican Republic
ask us to conduct further training, since an FSSP person recently went
there to help them devise a training plan.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza(CATIE)

April 22-26: Helped sponsor and plan seminar for
presentation of six FSR cases from Latin America.

July-August: FSSP to field evaluation team for ROCAP, to evaluate
CATIE-ROCAP farming systems project.

Dominican Republic

March 3-7: One person sent to help Ministry of Agriculture
develop training program to introduce FSR/E
approach to Dominican setting.


Feb. 1-15: Training team sent to conduct two-week course
on FSR/E approach for Programa de Tecnologia
Rural(PTR). Course addressed to PTR field
teams from the six regions of Honduras.

March 4-19: Conducted evaluation of FSR/E approach being
used by PTR. Helped them plan for 1985.
Identified problems in application of FSR/E
approach and suggested solutions.

March 20-22: Workshop in which PTR regional teams
presented their work plans.

April 20-May 7 Provided technical assistance on use of
microcomputers in analysis of on-farm
agronomic trial data.


June 18-27: Two-week course to introduce Jamaican
researchers to FSR/E.


USAID/Gov. of Paraguay buy-in at level of $80,000 for

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)




By project definition, the regions of the Near East and Asia are
considered together for regional policy development. Being the last two
regions to be considered for formal policy, Asia and Near East policy
development profitted from the experiences gained in implementing FSSP
policies in both Latin America and Africa. In addition, the FSSP acknow-
leges that (1) core staff has the least amount of experience working in
Asia and the Near East and (2) Asia has a longer continuous experience in
cropping systems research than any other region of the world.

Given this setting, Asia and Near East policy development began in
the Spring of 1984 with the creation of a committee composed of faculty
from several support entities interested in continuing their work in Asia.
This caomittee, known as NEAAC (Near East and Asia Adivsory Committee),
consists of 11 members representing 9 support entities. Its purpose is to
provide a cadre of members with both interest in, and expertise fran having
worked in, Asia and/or the Near East. The committee provides advice to the
core regarding Asia and Near East policy and implementation strategy. The
NEAAC committee met 3 times during the 1984 FSR Symposium at KSU last Octo-
ber. The co-coordinator for Asia and the Near East keeps the ccmnittee
abreast of the demands on the FSSP from these regions, as well as delivery
by FSSP core and NEAAC members. Composition of the NEAAC is provided by
the attachment to this report.


Since the cable announcing the beginning of an Asian policy and
creation of the NEAAC went to missions in July, 1984, the FSSP has been
involved in the following activities:

1) Technical assistance was supplied on request to an FSR/E workshop
in Sri Lanka. African and Asian expertise was used.

2) Core has made exporatory visits on request to missions and host
country representatives of the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Nepal.
A NEAAC member accompanied the core representative during the exploratory
visit to Thailand.

3) Follow-up visits to the Philippines and Thailand have taken
place. In the first instance, two NEAAC members carried out a training
needs assessment, while in the latter, technical assistance was provided
for an impending project evaluation and for host country field
implementation of FSR/E.

4) Dialogue/collaboration with AVRDC, IRRI, ICRISAT, and CIMMYT out-
reach has begun. Representatives from AVRDC, IRRI and ICRISAT have visited
the project in Gainesville. Core visits have been made to IRRI (two) and
ik to CIMMYT outreach staff. A NEAAC member has visited AVRDC.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

5) Through an IRRI-FSSP initiative, an African-Asian linkage has
b onsoring three representatives of the newly-formed West African
oased FSR network to attend a forthcoming AFSN crop-livestock
rinJ tour in Asia in August.

6) Another Asia-Africa linkage has been started by requesting repre-
ives of the SUAN (Southeast Asian University Agroecosystems Network)
n to attend a forthcoming networkshop in Africa for West African
rsities interested in FSR/E. This activity should take place in early

7) IRRI and the FSSP have interacted in development and refinement
'R/E training materials.

8) Technical assistance was provided to the Jordan mission via the
.rsity of Arizona in a FSR/E project design activity.

Goals for the Remainder of the Project

NEAAC has proven highly successful during its first year. Recently,
.C membership was asked to form a subcommittee with the objective of
ming more directly involved in Asia and Near East policy. This sub-
littee will address itself to the continuing evolution and implementa-
i of FSSP policy in the region, and will account for the majority of the
,very of FSSP activities in the region during the rest of 1985 and
'-ughout the rest of the life of the project. This subcommittee curren-
co ists of NEAAC members, and is included in the NEAAC membership
t_ tached to this report.

In summary, the core will continue to turn policy development and
very over to the NEAAC subcommittee, which in turn will continue to
*k closely with the core co-coordinator for Asia and the Near East. Two
)licit goals for the project in these regions are:

1) Continuing integration with IRRI, CIMMYT and ICRISAT in defining
a roles of each entity in FSR/E activities in the regions, including the
3ues of which entity should lead the activity, which entities should
ovide support, and how such support should be paid for and delivered;

2) Continuing the search for activities which can for the basis for
bboning between the regions of Africa and Asia/Near East in addressing
R/E problems and needs.

Finally, activities begun in 1984 between the FSSP and SUAN will
-ntinue into and beyond 1985. Two such activities are the joint meeting
SFSR/E practitioners and agroecosystems practitioners, hosted by the
;st-West Center (with Ford Foundation funding) in August, 1985, and FSSP
participation in the SUAN meetings in Chaing Mai, Thailand, November, 1986.
*e FSSP views the former as a state-of-the-art activity which may lead to
se of agroecosystems methods in FSR/E activities, and use of FSR rapid
:ral appraisal techniques in agroecosystems research.

'SSP Summary Memos (06/85)


accent provides the NEAAC (Near East and Asia Advisory
ership. Those members starred with an asterisk (*) have
on the NEAAC policy development and delivery subcommittee:

University Affiliation Interest

Cornell Southeast Asia

ten Michigan State Southeast Asia

?nder Michigan State Southeast Asia

Virginia Polytechnic Institute Southeast Asia

Illinois Southeast Asia

Kentucky Southeast Asia

ur Hawaii Southeast Asia

Arizona Near East

Southern Illinois East Asia

W Minnesota Southeast Asia

i Cornell Southeast Asia

Memos (06/85)



The Cooperative Agreements for the FSSP state that at least fifty
percent of project activities during the life of the project will support
mission programs in the Africa Bureau. This memo will provide: 1) a brief
summary of regional activities to date, based on reports in the files
compiled for the evaluation; 2) a description of activities completed in
1985; 3) a calender of activities planned (both confirmed and tentative)
for the remainder of 1985; 4) and an optimal plan of action for the
remainder of the project.

(1) The first year of FSSP, 1983, focused on needs assessment, technical
assistance and the development of a one-week overview workshop on FSR/E
concepts and methods. During 1984, we focused attention on the training
area with refinement of the overview workshop and initiation of training
materials development geared to the needs of the region, including case
studies, training units, diagnostic survey guidelines for West Africa, and
an exploration of the francophone and anglophone approaches to FSR in West
Africa and the implications for training. Attention was also placed on
preparation of trainers for Africa with the Training for Trainers Workshop
at Iowa State University. FSSP supported two MSTAT workshops (Malawi and
Mali). Task force activity (household, evaluation, livestock, extension)
also focused attention on key problem areas of FSR in Africa. Work was
also begun on the synthesis of field experiences and task force
recommendations into FSR/E guidelines.

(2) Activities completed in Africa in 1985.
(Core staff member associated with activity in parenthesis)

January: Briefing for Gambia Ag. Research and Development Design team (DG)
FSSP FSR/E specialist on Gambia GARD design team (SP)
MSTAT course in Senegal (CA)

February: Preparations in Togo for Networkshop (SP)
World Bank Seminar in Ivory Coast Res-Ext Linkage (CA)
Zambia FSR project evaluation (E. MARTINEZ)

March: Networkshop on Animal Traction in a Farming Systems Perspective,
held in Togo (SP, J. OXLEY, S. RUSSO, P. STARKEY, V.
SAFGRAD/FSU/PURDUE Workshop on Technologies Appropriate for
Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa (DG + 11 West African
participants sponsored by FSSP)
ICAP4r workshop on on-farm research with animals; Head of FSSP
Livestock Task Force attends (J.OXLEY)
Planning of June ILCA/FSSP workshop on On-Farm Research
Methodologies for Livestock (J. OXLEY)

April: Cameroon Technical Assistance Seminar FSSP sent FSR specialist
to give 2 plenary lectures (S. FRANZEL)
Completion of Africa FSR Bibliography (KSU LIBRARIES)

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

May: Africa Bureau/S&T Seminar on Results of Togo Networkshop (SP)
Senegal workshop on agronomic trials, FSSP facilitator
participated (F. POEY)
Gambia Workshop on Design and Analysis of On-Farm Trials; all
trainers and materials supplied by FSSP (SP, DG, LW, J.
Senegal networking visit with MSU/ISRA team concerning joint
training, networking and publication activities (SP)
FSSP/Pop. Council FSR/E Casewriters Workshop in Boston;
casewriters for Botswana, Zambia, Burkina Faso attend (SP,

June: African Title XII Bilateral Contractors Network meeting in
Chicago as part of initiation of Crop-based networking
activities in W. Africa (SP, DG)
West African Animal Systems Networking: Exchange visits between
animal traction teams in Togo and Sierra Leone (SP,
ILCA/FSSP Workshop on On-Farm Livestock Research Methodologies
CIMMYT East Africa Program, ICRAF, ICIPE networking visits (SK)

(3) Activities planned for the remainder of 1985

July: Networking/Training trip to CIMMYT/Nairobi, Rwanda and Burundi
Planning of Egerton College, Kenya, East/West Africa FSR
Workshop; FSSP will support 10 W. African Participants (SP)

August: Egerton College East/West Africa FSR Workshop (SP)
Animal Systems Networking Steering Committee Representatives to
join Asian FSR Network Livestock Monitoring Tour (SP, P.

Sept.: WAFSRN Symposium in Dakar; FSSP will co-sponsor together with
Ivory Coast/IDESSA FSR workshop (Proposed; solicited FSSP
support) (SP)

October: KSU FSR/E Symposium and FSSP annual meeting: African members of
Technical Committee will meet (DG, SP)

November: ADO/RDO meeting in Togo: FSSP asked to assist in developing pre-
or post workshop activity on FSR/E and animal traction.
Networkshop for COP's of FSR/E or related projects in Africa
(tentative) (SP, DG)
Rwanda FSR/E overview workshop with CIMMYT (SP)
Zambia workshop on research-extension linkages in
institutionalization: CIMMYT/FSSP/INTERPAKS (CA)

December: West African FSR/E Practitioners networkshop, co-sponsored
Cameron FSR/E Overview workshop; to be co-sponsored with AID
mission/IITA/UF Dschang Proj./FSSP (SP)

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

:y for the remainder of the project.

a n asked to develop a plan for placement of a regional
ce nd staff member in West Africa. A long range plan and
such an office to be placed in Cameroon was developed by C.
memo May 28, 1985 to Anson Bertrand). While FSSP strongly
.h the development of a West African base from which to continue
%rt activities, this will not be possible without additional
supportt from USAID. FSSP does, however, see that a series of
ialf time positions within bilateral contracts could build
a development of such a base in the future. FSSP has been
Ln the PP of the Gambia ARD Project to share a trainer position
ars. This would provide FSSP with two opportunities: 1) to
series of training short courses in English with hands-on
within an on-going FSR/E project for both Gambian and other
caking practitioners from the region, and 2) to develop a model
tegration of an FSR/E training within an African National Ag.
nd extension program. Both experiences could build into a
-upport base, such as the one proposed for Cameroon. Linking'the
-ainer position into other regional training and networking
Should further strengthen the development of a regional base. A
hired position with the Univ. Florida Cameroon University Project
) be considered as another step towards a regional base. Such a
-ould build upon Gambian training activities and incorporate them
diversity level training program. Other shared positions with
1teral contracts now being bid upon (Mali, Sierra Leone) could
tre then linkages upon which to build a support base. FSSP could
tinds the development of such a base for the remainder of the
nd se implementation of the base into 1987, provided funding is

her the activities described above are funded or not, the FSSP
inue with proactive FSR/E support to Africa, primarily in the West
-al Regions. Major attention will be placed on networking and
While maintaining a response and facilitation mode to mission
for technical assistance. Networking activities will center
ipport for 3 interrelated networks: animal-based farming systems
iated with the Togo networkshop), crop-based farming systems
3d with the bilateral contractor network) and a third dealing with
the African University context (which will be linked to the SUAN
in Asia). Linkages of these activities with IITA, SAFGRAD, INSAH,
RD F., WORLD BANK, and WAFSRN are being discussed and planned.
will focus on delivery of courses using the TUD and case study
s, and adaptation of these to French.

,mary Memos (06/85)



A-i Project Paper
A-2 UF Response to the Project Paper
A-3 Cooperative Agreement and Logical Framework
A-4 Procedural Manual



Work Plan (See Appendix
Work Plan
Work Plan Ccnmittments
Work Plan
Implementation plan for

1 of the 1983 Annual Report)

the 1985 Work Plan








D-1 1983 Annual Report
D-2 1984 Annual Report
D-2.1 1984, Summary of FSSP Annual Meetings
D-2.2 Summary of Interests, Capabilities, and Experience of SE's
D-2.3 Biodata Search Summaries (included in the 1985 Annual Report)


E-1 Liberia Report
E-2 Honduras Evaluation Report
E-3 Livestock Report

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



or ( in progress)
Iti k (not included)
y k (not included)
itry Book (not included)
;hop report (not included)

3 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

id F. Poey. On Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming
and Extension.
Project- FSSP/Population Council

cal Overview of FSR/E
auction to Farming Systems Research/ Development
auction to the Economic Characteristics...
:ic Characteristics fo Small Scale....Farms...
all Scale Family Farm as a System
'enure in Upper Volta
ng Recommendation Domains
i; Characterization: The Rapid survey or SONDEO.
ling Alternative Solutions- Jutiapa, Guatemala
lingAlternative Solutions- Zapotitan, El Salvador
li ternative Solutions- North Florida FSR/E
anBrssava Production in Zaire
highlands Animal Traction- Ethiopia
i and Analysis of On-Farm Trials
ind Grant System and the University of Florida
ing Unit: Agronomic Experimental Design and Anal.
ing Unit: Management and Administration in FSR/E
ing Unit: Diagnosis-Getting Started in FSR/E
bed Readings for FSR Methods (Hildebrand)

script available)

SI, Nos. 1,2,3; Vol. II, Nos. 1,2,3,4; Vol.III,
thru 21

DATE: May 28, 1985


TO: Dr. Anson Bertrand

THROUGH: Don Osburn & Wendell Morse

FROM: Chris O. Andrew

RE: FSSP West Africa Support

The following presents results of the recent meetings held in Cameroon
concerning possible location of an FSSP regional support office and staff
in Cameroon. Budget estimates are included to indicate necessary
supplemental support to the core FSSP budget if such action is to be

Based upon our last communication at the FSSP Advisory Council meeting,
we have directed our assessment to establishment of a complete regional
support program based in Cameroon. We believe that this should be the
position taken. Limited support, however, will not achieve better results
than the present mode of operation. A field assistant position (an ex PCV
type) might be appropriate as an extension of the present mode to
facilitate training and network activities if a complete regional support
program is not possible. We do not recommend the limited support

Meetings in Cameroon confirm the position taken by you and the Advisory
Council that a complete support package should be considered. Those
meetings were held with the following leaders and numerous of their support

Dr. Rene Owona Director General, University Center at Dschang
Dr. Joseph Djoukam Deputy Director General, University Center at
Dr. Jean Ongla Director,ENSA (National School of Higher Education)
University Center at Dschang
Dr. Joe Busby Chief of Party USAID/UF/UCD Higher Education Contract
Dr. Emanuel Atayi Chief of Party USAID/IITA/IRA National Cereals
Research to Extension Project
Dr. Herb Miller Acting Director, USAID Cameroon
Mr. Bob Schmeding HRDO/USAID Cameroon
Mr. Bill Litwiller ADO/USAID Cameroon

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

In summary the UCD administration would like to have the FSSP locate
with the University in Dschang assuming that support would be given to the
establishment of a farming systems course in the university curriculum,
that the FSSP would work closely with the two bilateral contracts (UF and
IITA), and that assistance would be given as the UCD jointly establishes
on-farm research with the National Cereals Research and Extension (NCRE)
program. The farming systems arm of the NCRE is the Technical Liaison Unit

The University of Florida technical assistance team reacts positively
to logistically supporting an FSSP unit if that unit is under the
administrative supervision of the Chief of Party for the work in Cameroon.
This is compatible with and supports the UDC administrative position.
Thus, the bilateral contract and the UCD would provide office space,
administrative support (accounting, money transfer capability, etc) and
facilitate establishment of the standard contractor package allowable to
but not exceeding that available to the UF bilateral contract team. In
return the UF expects that FSSP will respond to the desires expressed by
the UCD administrators.

IITA desires to cooperate with FSSP both under present operating
arrangements and if a program office is established in Cameroon. FSSP
might locate with the National Research Institute (IRA) near Yaounde
instead of at Dschang with the UCD. This was suggested by Herb Miller but
not supported generally by others. IITA and the NCRE would probably be
receptive to such collaboration but they agree that cooperative work at UCD
would be most desirable. Two NCRE technical assistance people are located
at the IRA research station in Dschang adjacent to the UCD. One of the
TLUs is near Dschang also so the integration of research and extension
presses for the UCD location. We see full collaboration possible with IITA
under all alternatives. Note that IITA/Ibadan recommended to Hugh Popenoe
in his recent visit to Nigeria that Cameroon would be the place to locate
an FSSP unit. Thus, we have discussed the IITA linkage at all levels and
are very pleased to report that we see excellent potential for a successful
working relationship. It could become a model for not only FSSP/IARC work
but for facilitating and strengthening the IARC/National Research Institute

USAID/Cameroon is supportive of FSSP and desires caution in considering
establishment of a complete regional support program at the UCD. Three
considerations were raised by Herb Miller: not to over tax the UCD which
is undergoing major institutional development changes at present, to
cooperate fully with IITA, and to integrate solidly with the UF bilateral
contract. Discussions with administrators of those entities suggest that
these considerations are very reasonable and that they can be accomodated
for effective programming. Both Bill Litwiller and Bob Schmeding
emphasized the need for adequate financing for a complete program and
optimally a four year minimum time frame. Schmeding was very enthusiastic
about the regional program concept of linking bilateral contractors
together in West Africa for collaborative support and networking. Jay
Johnson is to become Mission Director on June 20, 1985. Jay visited
Gainesville for two days to become familiar with the university and we

FSSP Sunmary Memos (06/85)

spent an hour discussing the FSSP. Before I reached the point of proposing
Cameroon as the location for an FSSP program Jay volunteered that he
invited us to consider Cameroon. He was very supportive and will be
excellent for UF and FSSP to work with.

The Program in Cameroon might then assume the following scope:

A. Purpose

1. Establish base for regional training programs in FSR/E.
2. Establish an institutional tie (University Center at Dschang) for
long term educational programming:
a. Short courses linked with viable FSR/E and OFR work.
b. Degree course in the UCD curriculum with viable FSR/E and
OFR work.
3. Establish a network support base to:

a. Facilitate national linkages through bilateral
contractors and national institutions in West Africa.
b. Augment problem (commodity cropping systems, constraints
etc) oriented networks of West African researchers and
educators with agricultural research, training and
extension responsibilities.

B. Basic Requirements

1. Location with a national institution preferably including a
research, teaching and extension mandate.
2. Potential ties with an ongoing FS and OFR program.
3. Full regional complement multi country with bilateral contract
4. A support commitment by USAID S&T, Africa Bureau and Missions:

a. With a minimum 4 year time frame
b. With an adequate budget as specified below see budget

The summary budget for Africa (primarily W. Africa) would call for
$2.377m for the FY period 1986 through 1989 (see attached budget). Four
years of programming would include the Cameroon base at about 25% of the
total budget, a regional budget for linking with bilteral USAID contracts
at about 15% of total budget and a training technical assistance and
networking activity budget at 60% of the budget.

Mission match would influence the overall program but regional training
and network activities can not be supported exclusively with mission
buy-ins. The budget would support up to six major networkshops or training
activities and some training unit development support work.

The Cameroon base budget is attached. Computations- cover the 21 month
period from January 1, 1986 through September 30, 1987. Projections to

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

cover FY 1988 & 1989.

The regional linkage budget anticipated salary only to call forth
designated team members from bilateral contracts for a portion of time
to be spent in regional and national FSR/E training and networking. At
capacity ('87, '88, '89) this could be four people at quarter time or three
people at third time etc.

A consideration of the FSSP budget is necessary as we anticipate the
Africa situation. A summary of the FSSP budget through completion of the
present Cooperative Agreement in September 1987 is attached. It includes
the basis for phasing into an African regional program but does not
anticipate total FSSP costs, should the project be extended.

A summary of projected costs through FY 1987 with and without the W.
Africa strategy coupled with full funding as called for in the Cooperative
Agreement and reduced funding as presently suggested by S&T, is attached.
Generally the data speak to the situation.

The overall budget shows an extremely low input into LA and Asia/NE
without the TUD funding shown in parenthesis for 86 & 87. There can be no
W. Africa program without supplemental funding for the final two years (FY
88 & 89). If all funding in the Cooperative Agreement were available
$100,900 could be carried into the next funding or project period. Even
then there will be a short fall of $468,100 in FY 86 unless the funding is
evened out (moved from 87 to 86). If there is no new program in W. Africa
the FY 86 short fall will be $277,800 and $967,100 in FY 87. To sustain
this reduction Africa delivery could be reduced primarily to Mission
buy-ins, core staffing could be reduced and/or the program development
effort reduced. Probably each would need to be cut where possible
depending upon overall program priorities. The first phase of the FSSP
might be forced to terminate prior to Sept 30 1987 if funding level II is

Hopefully this gives you a reasonably complete picture of where we
might go with the FSSP in Africa relative to the overall funding situation.
In conclusion, our efforts in W. Africa are going very well, contrary to
what many might have expected. Farming systems work in W. Africa has
become in many places an accepted way to address research and extension
needs. FSR/E programs, however, are only in initial stages of evolution.
It will be unfortunate if we reduce activity as we are most needed.

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)


(1000s) FY 86 87 88* 89* Total

Cameroon base ** 151.1 145.1 152.3 159.9 608.4

linkages 39.2 96.6 101.4 106.4 343.6

Training, TA &
Networking 300.0 350.0 375.0 400.0 1425.0

TOTAL 490.3 591.7 628.7 666.3 2377.0

* Projected from base
** See Africa Budget

(base support)

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)



87 88

Ind. Cost

.: Sal.
Ind. Cost



166.1 174.4
21.3 20.8
88.0 91.7
275.4 286.9
264.7 278.1
96.8 103.3
170.0 179.6
531.5 561.0
806.9 847.9

e: Cameroon
tal Africa

100.0* 300.0*
100.0 490.3



666.3 2377.0

gram Dev.& World Net
3 +D'B handbook
F C (Travel)
S.E.An Meeting travel



Program dev


739.5 1531.6 1531.0

_SP Summary Memos (06/85)






In present budget
Desired for training program development not included in totals.



86 87
(9 months) (12 months)

(21 months)

Fringe (23%)


Long term


30,000 42,000
6,900 9,660
7,500 10,500
44,400 62,160








250 250

Ind. @ 32


Office Equip.
Fuel & Rep.
Ind @ 32

19,744 25,251
81,444 104,161


151,074 145,081

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)
























W/O Af. Based Core


W/Af. Based Core


* 85 Fiscal released April 85
** Preliminary S&T/Ag request

FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

Apr 1-
Oct 1




















FSSP Summary Memos (06/85)

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

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