THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESEARCH SYSTEMSRESEARCH AT THE INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS FARMING I - Analysis by the TAC FLeview Team of Farming Systems Research at CIAT, IIT.A, ICRISA,T and IRRI II - Proceedings of the Workshop on Farming Systems Research, Nairobi, May 29-31, 11378 September 1978 FACULTY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND ARMIDALE, N.S.W.2351. AUSTRALIA TELEPHONE: REP‘ ” PLEASE QUOTE TELEXNO: ARMDALE AREA &OS0 72 281, CODE OS, mF: JLD:sl 14th August, 1978. Dr. Ralph W. Cummings, Chairman, Technical Advisory Committee to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 812 Rosemont Avenue, 2’ 7607 NORTH CAROLINA. RALEIGH. U.S.A. Dear Dr. Cummings, I have pleasure in formally transmitting to you the report of the Farming Systems Research Review Team entitled "Analysis by the TAC Review Team of Farming Systems Research at CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and IRRI." Carrying out this first TAC "Stripe Review" of an IARC activity has been a most stimulating and informative task - not least because of the complex nature of Farming Systems Research and the vigour with which it is being developed in the Centers. In carrying out its worlk, the Review Team received every possible assistance and courtelsy from the Directors-General and staff of the four Centers whosse farming systems research programs I am roost grateful for the help and hospitality were reviewed. given to the Team. The Review Team was also greatly assisted in its final drafting of the report by the discussions of the Farming Systems Research Workshop spon:sored by TAC in Nairobi in June this Finally, I must year under the Chairmanship of Dr. A.T. Masher. acknowledge the unstinted work of my fellow team members - Professor D.L. Plucknett and Dr. G. Vallaeys - and of Mr. P.J. Mahler and Without their unflagging Dr. E.Z. Arlidge of the TAC Sescretariat. assistance and good humour, thee task would have been impossible. Yours sincerely, i John L. Dillon. AGD/TAC:IAR/78/15 Restricted THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT THE INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS I - Analysis Research by the at CIAT, TAC Review IITA, Team of Farming and IRRI Systems ICRISAT John L. Dillon, Team Leader Donald L. Plucknett Guy J. Vallaeys Team Secretariat: P.J. Mahler E.Z. Arlidge September 1978 THE CONSULTATIVE: GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT THE INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS I - Analysis Research by the at CIAT, TAC Review IITA, Team of Farming and IRRI Systems ICRISAT II - Proceedings Nairobi, of the May 29-31, Workshop 1978. on Farming Systems Research, September 1978 Note from the Secretariat - It will be noted that there is considerable overlap in these In particular, readers will find that much of the two reports. terminology and most of the conclusions and recommendations are the same in both reports. This is due to the following: 1) The Workshop generally endorsed the the TAC FSR Review Team and used it Workshop proceedings. draft report of as a basis for the 2) The Review Team in drafting the final version of their report, based a number of amendments and additions on the draft report of the Workshop proceedings. TAC Secretariat Agriculture Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the IJnited Via delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome 00100, Italy (Printed at the World Bank, Washington, D..C., Nations U.S.A.) 812 Rosemont Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina September 14, 1978 27607 Dr. Warren C. Baum, Chairman Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research The World Bank Washington, D. C. 20433 Dear Dr. Baum: I take pleasure in transmitting to you 'herewith the report of Farming Systems Research at the International Agricultural Research Centers. This includes under the one cover the report of the TAG Review Team on farming systems research (FSR) at CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT, and IRRI, and the report on the TAC Workshop on FSR held in Nairobi, May 29-31, 1978. The review of FSR at the above four centers carried out by a three-man consultant team under the leadership of Professor John Dillon, University of New England, Armidale, Australia, is the first of the acrosscenter reviews of particular topics (stripe analysis) recommended by the CGIAR analysis was carried out during Review Committee of 1976. This FSR stripe 1977, the visits of the TAC Review Team to two centers (CIAT and IITA) coinciding with the quinquennial reviews. The draft report of the FSR Review Team was first discussed by TAC at its 18th meeting in February of It was not intended at this juncture that TAG should examine this year. the report in depth but more to ascertain the extent to which it met the requirements in relation to the Review Team's terms of reference, and also provide constructive comments to the Team for the finalization of the report. TAG members agreed that the report formed a sound basis for the FSR Workshop. At this meeting, TAC approved a draft agenda for the FSR Workshop scheduled to be held in Nairobi in the week prior to the 19th TAC meeting. The Committee agreed that the Workshop should be +nalytical in character and oriented towards the articulation of features of general applicability. The Committee also agreed that the participants (up to some 35 in number) would be drawn from all IARC's either involved in, or interested in FSR, from TAC and its FSR Review Team, the CGIAR co-sponsors, and representatives of a number of national programs. The Workshop, under the chairmanship of Dr. A. T. Mosher, was a very successful meeting and achieved all that TAC expected of it. One aspect in particular which the Workshop had clearly shown was that across the IARC's and the national institutions, there were a number of workers researching many and varied topics but with a similar basic philosophy. The Workshop Dr. Warren C. Baum -2- September 14, 1978 endorsed, with only minor modifications, the conclusions and recommendations of the TAC FSR Review Team. (These modifications have been accepted by the Review Team and incorporated! into the text of their final report.) The final report of the FSR Review Team and the report of the FSR Workshop were discussed at the 19th meeting of TAC, held at ILRAD, Nairobi, June 6-13, 1978. The Committele commended the Review Team for the high quality of their report and generally (endorsed the conclusions and recommendations. Center Directors present at thle meeting strongly expressed their appreciation of the work done by the Review Team and the excellence of their report. The consensus of the meeting w.as that TAC's first stripe analysis of a topic common to a number of the IARC's had been a most useful exercise. In concluding its deliberations, the Committee reached a number of conclusions and brought forwarad some recommendations with respect to follow up actions and possible alternative mechanisms by which these may be carried out. Firstly, with respect to need to maintain a continual review of FSR terminology, TAC recommended that recurrent meetings of specialists be convened in which, among other things, the terminology would be updated with the view to compiling an international glossary of terms used in farming systems and research thereon. Secondly, as regards the important question of methodology in FSR, the Committee believed that the major areas for improvement appeared to be in (a) base data analysis, particularly in the delineation of agro-climatic zones and surveys for socio-economic data collection;' (b) procedures to insure the best selection of a limited number of farming systems for study; and, (c) design and analysis of multiple cropping experiments. On how best to meet the above requirements and organize a significant and sustained effort to further the rapid evolution and refinement of FSR the Committee concluded that three parallel actions appeared methodology, worthy of consideration: ;dr g (‘ i> a liaison officer on developments each IARC and regional/national FSR program concerned des,ignate from among their staff to collect and exchange information in FSR methodology; (ii) FAO be requested to organize the collection, collation, and dissemination of FSR information from international and bilateral organizations and agencies, particularly in base data analysis and multiple cropping; that one IARC could be designated for the purpose; and or alternatively, in rather at IARC's. (iii) seminars or workshops be organized to discuss FSR methodology These could be organized by FSR liaison officers specialized fields. if Dr. Warren C. Raum -3- September 14, 1978 the Committee underlined the need for In base data analysis, improved and increased cooperation between IARC's and other institutions. had a crucial role to play in this TAC recognized that FAO, in particular, field and recommended that FAO be invited to present its opinion on how The Committee international cooperation might be further improved and expanded. also suggested that consideration be given to the future organization of an international data bank serving FSR workers. Thirdly, as regards the organization of FSR at IARC level, the Committee agreed that flexibility should be maintained. TAC suggested IARC's might explore both possibilities of encouraging the development of national networks of relevant institutions, including universities, and cooperate with this network, and of developing regional networks of cooperating countries. The Committee felt that more use should be made of the research It suggested manpower resources in the universities in developing countries. that the usefulness of private organizations and firms engaged in national programs of FSR, particularly in base data analysis, should not be overlooked. As a result of this stripe analysis, better understanding and improved focus of the sentiment was also expressed by Center Directors I believe we have a much IARC's activities in FSR. at the TAC meeting. This TAC will maintain an interest in further developments in FSR in both the IARC's and the international agricultural research arena in general; and the Committee, will do whatever is necessary to through its Secretariat, assist in carrying out the recommendations of the two reports as well as those of TAC itself, which might be endorsed by the Consultative Group at its meeting in November. Sincerely yours, Ralph W. Cummings Chairman, TAC RWC:nj TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) II. Background The "Stripe" Review Approach The TAC Review of FSR Terms of Reference Conduct of the Review Nature of the Report 1 1 1 2 5 6 7 8 8 8 10 12 13 15 15 16 16 19 21 25 25 25 26 27 28 28 29 29 31 31 32 32 CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH (9 (ii) (iii) (iv) (VI III. What is FSR? Systems Terminology and Concepts Farming Systems Terminology Farming Systems Activities and the Farm System Dynamics Environment GOALS AND BENEFITS OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (VI FSR as an Activity for Role of FSR Opinions of the Review Where does FSR Fit? An Ideal FSR Program the IARCs Team on FSR IV. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (VI FSR, A Comparatively New Area of Study Holistic Approach Versus Reductionism in FSR The Need for FSR Methodology Methodology Used in Selected Regional or National FSR Programs (a) CATIE (Costa Rica) (b) 1SP.A (Senegal) Status of FSR Methodology and Special Needs (a) Base Data Analysis (1) Land Resources (2) Weather and Climate (3) Socio-economic Aspects (4) Special Methodology Needs for Base Data Analysis - ii - Page -(b) On-Farm Studies (1) The #Survey Approach to Existing Farming Systems (2) Testing New or Improved Systems (3) Monitoring Adoption and Impact Research Station Studies (1) Component Research (2) Evaluation of Research Station Studies (3) Particular Methodology Needs for Research Station Studies (4) Computer Modelling and Simulation 33 33 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 39 IARCs in FSR 39 39 41 42 43 43 46 and 47 48 48 48 50 50 51 51 51 52 52 513 5)4 5)5 (cl V. CONDUCT OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH (il (ii) (iii) The Comparative Advantages of Organization of FSR Strategy in FSR (a) On-Station Research (b) Off-Station Research National Programs Training Collaboration with International Developed Country Institutions (iv) (VI (vi) VI. Agencies OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT THE IARCs (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (VI General Potential Role of FSR Actual Role of FSR (a) Relative to General Program Strategy and Planning (b) Relative to Crop Improvement Programs (c) Relative to Understanding the Small Farmer (d) Relative to National Programs The FSR Program (a) Organization and Planning (b) Disciplinary Balance (c) Basic Activities (d) Benchmark Sites (e) Balance Between On-Station and Off-Station Work (f) Work with Non-Mandated Commodities (9) Training (h) Criteria for Assessment Cooperation between IARCs in FSR - iii - Page VII. SUMMARYOF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59 59 59 60 61 61 62 62 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (VI (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (xl (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) Terminology in FSR IARC Involvement in FSR Role of FSR in an IARC Limits of FSR in IARCs FSR in Relation to IARC Program Strategy and Planning IARCs in Relation to FSR,Methodology Organization of FSR Staffing Policy for FSR Disciplinary Balance in FSR Balance between On-and Off-Station Work in FSR Relations with National Programs Training Activities in the FSR Cooperation between IARCs in FSR FSR Work with Non-Mandated Commodities ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ANNEXES: No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. TABLE 1. ITINERARY AND SCHEDULE OF THE FSR REVIEW TEAM FARMING SYSTEMS F&SEARCH AT CIAT FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT IITA FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT ICRISAT FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT IRRI BIBLIOGRAPHY Expenditures on FSR at CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and IRRI. (And Tables) 66 3 I. INTRODUCTION (iI Background The activities supported by the Consultative Group on International 1. Agricultural Research (CGIAR) are intended to help alleviate the food problem in the less economically developed countries. This problem is severe and is likely to become more so with the continuing rapid population growth rates in most developing countries. The CGIAR and its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) clearly recognize 2. that an important element of the solution of this food problem lies in increasing the production of the many millions of small farmers in the developThe typical small farmer in these countries manages a complex ing countries. farming system which produces a number of commodities, often both crop and animal. Increased productivity may stem either from the use of improved crop varieties and animal breeds or from intensification of land use by better management of land and water resources and other more comprehensive improvements in the farming systems used. However, not until recently has much research been devoted nationally or internationally to intensification via system-wide consideration of the small farming system. The aim of most research to date has been to improve single crop or animal species considered in isolation. The farming system as a whole has not generally been emphasized despite the fact that farmers must operate in the context of their particular farming system and it is within this system that new technology must be implemented. The establishment of the CGIAR and the development of the International 3. Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) have led to a conscious effort to focus attention on improving farming systems. Both the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) have significant programs in farming systems research (FSR) comprising 37 and 18.5 percent of the total budget for their research activities in 1977, respectively. The recently established International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) plans to develop a strong program in FSR and the International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) has adopted a systems-oriented research program. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in 1977 devoted 21 percent of its research budget to its cropping systems program. Significant parts of the current research program of the Centro International de Aqricultura 'Tropical (CIAT) can be regarded as farming systems research activities. Table 1 gives estimates of the expenditures on FSR at these IARCs for the years 1975 to 1980. With the rapid growth of the CGIAR system and consequential expansion 4. of the research programs in the IARCs, there has been some concern expressed at the diversity in objectives, scope and content of their FSR and related cropping research programs. (ii) The "Stripe" Review Approach a discussion on its TAC at its 13th Meeting in May, 1976, following 5. revised Priorities Paper1 concluded that there was a need for a critical examination of the role of the IARCs in farming systems research and requested the TAC Secretariat to organize a Working Group to undertake this review. 1TAC Document DDD/TAC:IAR/76/2 Restricted; Revised 30.5.76. -2- Independently, the CGIAR Review Committee of 1976, in considering 6. the various mechanisms which TAC might employ to evaluate ongoing activities at the IARCs and maintain an overview of the activities of the CGIAR family-particularly with respect to future requirements--made the following recommendation in its final report.1 "We recommend continuation of the TAC quinquennial reviews for evaluation of scientific quality, scope, and balance of current and to evaluate future plans, including explicit review programs, of center proposals to continue projects of long standing. We also recommend that the TAC give greater emphasis to periodic, across center analysis of particular topics (stripe analysis)." 7. The TAC Quinquennial Review is an enquiry confined to an individual center and only relates to th e work of other centers insofar as it examines the cooperative arrangements between the center under review and the other In contrast the across-center review, or stripe analysis, is an enIARCs. quiry on one particular program component at a number of the IARCs and may where appropriate, to include an examination of related program be expanded, elements in national research institutions. By means of a series of stripe analyses of topics such as farming systems research, genetic resources,, training, etc., TAC and the CGIAR can obtain an overview of the CGIAR system and thereby identify new needs and would also provide a useful mechanism for and methodology of their proIARCS to compare the objectives, scope, content gram components. By this means one IARC may benefit from the experience of another. However, it is not intended that the results of a stripe analysis be used to encourage conformity. (iii) The TAC Review of FSR The TAC Secretariat's proposals2 for the review of FSR were discussed 8. It was agreed at this meeting at the 14th Meeting of TAC in October, 1976. that in view of the complexity of this field of research, TAC should take a TAC also concluded that because of the divergences in step-by-step approach. the concepts and programs of the IARCs involved in farming systems research, the review should be confined to IITA, ICRISAT and IRRI, which had on-going and CIAT which had recently discontinued its Small Farm Systems programs, TAC was of the consensus that the scope of the proposed FSR review Program. should not be broadened to include topics such as animal production, agroalthough recognized as having significant w:hic:h, forestry and aquaculture importance in many farming systems, were not covered in the programs of the TAC also recognized the reigning confusion in farming crop-oriented IARCs. systems terminology. 1Recommendation 15 in: January 1977, p-xi. 2TAC Document CGIAR, Report of the Review Committee, CGIAR, Washington, DD/TAC:IAR/76/18 Restricted. TABLE 1. Expenditures for on Farming Systems Research at CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and IRRI CGIAR Secretariat) (Costs in '000s IITA (Beef Program) US$) ICRISAT IRRI CIAT M/Y 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 2 2 2 3 3 3 2.i cost 173 199 232 317 325 329 Y M/Y 9.0 8.1 13.6 18.5 19.0 20.0 cost 910 949 1918 1940 2104 2297 M/Y -14 14.5 16.5 17.0 17.0 17.0 cost 1524 1820 2029 2217 2470 2652 4/ M/Y 4 4.5 7.5 8.5 8 8 cost 488 644 941 1045 1101 1124 I/ M/Y 6 5.5 7 7 7 7 cfxt 700 1270 1479 1582 1652 1755 L./ 21 2/ -4/ Y Figures for expenditures 1975 and 1976 are actual expenditures; and those for 1980 are projections. those for for these 1977-79 are the budgeted the beef, from 1978 In 1975, 2 M/Y in small farm systems; in 1976, 3 positions cassava and bean programs partially filled; positions in onwards. Costs Includes pro-rated farming on total systems M/Y costs under research programs. activities. economists in programs filled and economics Includes the cropping "Constraints on Rice from the agricultural have been included. systems program and that part of the economics programs entitled Yields" and " Consequences of New Technology." Three economists economics department and all staff in the cropping Systems program -4- In subsequent consultations between the Secretariat and the Chairman 9. during of TAC, it was proposed that the review of the four IARCs be undertaken 1977 and should be along the following lines:1 (1) A desk study by the TAC Secretariat in January with a progress report to the TAC meeting (in February 1977); the main purpose of the desk study being to compile and collate the documentation, attempt to clarify the apparent confusion in the terminology, and make a preliminary comparative analysis of the centers' programs in farming systems or cropping systems so as to identify the main issues for the purpose of providing a provisional list of questions which could be addressed to the IARCs concerned; visits to the IARCs for an on-the-spot review of consultants' their programs, the reviews of CIAT and IITA preferably in conjunction with the quinquennial reviews scheduled for April and October/November, 1977, respectively; in December 19'77 a workshop,.at some convenient location, of the IARCS representatives, review consultants and other invited consultants to further discuss the issues, draw conclusions and prepare a draf,t report for consideration of TAC at its meeting in February 1978." (2) (3) At its 15th Meeting in February 1977, TAC considered the report2 of 10. the preliminary desk study prepared by the Secretariat on the scope and objectives of FSR at CIAT, ICRISAT, IITA and IRRI. This study was seen as providing the basis for the briefing of the Review Team in its proposed visits to these IARCs later in the year. TAC agreed to the review as proposed and reiterated the conclusion of its 14th Meeting that the review should be confined to the above IARCs. TAC was agreeable, however, to the Review Team examining, where feasible, some of the FSR programs in national institutions where these might be seen as complementary to the programs of the IARCs. The composition of the FSR Review Team, its Terms of Reference, and 11. the proposed program of visits to the four IARCs and possibly also to Senegal and Costa Rica, were approved by TAC at its 16th Meeting in May-June 1977.3 This meeting decided to postpone the proposed FSR Workshop until June 1978 to allow more time for preparation of the Review Team's Report. 12. Annex Details 1. of the Review Team's Itinerary and Schedule are given in TAC Document DDD/TAC:IAR/77/7. 'Progress Report on FSR Review to 15th TAC Meeting. 2Annexed to Progress Report on FSR Review to 15th TAC Meeting; TAC Document DDD/TAC:IAR/77/7. 3Details are given in TAC Document DDD/TAC:IAR/77/14. -5- (iv) Terms of Reference "The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 13. (CGIAR) has charged its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with the conduct of periodic across-centre reviews of particular common elements in the programs of the International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs), to assist TAC and the CGIAR in maintaining an overview of the system and also to provide a useful mechanism for the IARCs to compare their different program components and It is, however, not intended that possibly profit from each other's experience. such reviews be used as a mechanism to encourage conformity. "It was agreed by TAC at its 14th Meeting, held in November 1976, to organize a mission to carry out an across-centre review of farming systems Institute for Tropical research at four IARCs, namely: the International Agriculture (IITA), the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and the Tropics (ICRISAT), Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), during 1977. "In pursuance of the main objectives stated above, the review mission is requested to visit the four IARCs, namely IITA, ICRISAT, IRRI and CIAT, and any other institutes as requested by TAC; the visits to CIAT and IITA will be made in conjunction with the TAC quinquennial reviews of these centres which will take place in 1977. aspects of "The mission the work of the "(1) shall give IARCs: particular attention to the following the objectives (or activities relation to: (a) (b) the and scope of farming systems research which may be considered as such) in of the IARCs; within the geographic mandate mandates national programmes of the IARCs; each other; (cl "(2) "(3) the the role of the farming systems research as related current overall strategy and the programmes of to the IARCs; the relative importance assessment activities, on the other: of surveys, data collection and on the one hand, and experimentation, "(4) the balance between on-campus and off-campus activities in farming systems research (or activities which may be considered as such); -6- "(5) the relative balance and interactions involved in farming systems research be considered as such). between the (or activities disciplines which may "The consultants shall present other consultants and representatives mid-1978 and report the findings of their report to a Workshop involving from the IARCs, to be convened in the Workshop to TAC." (VI Conduct of the Review -- with a Desk Study carried out by the TAC Secretariat The FSR Review started 14. in the third week of January 1977. The Secretariat was assisted by Dr. S. H. Lok, Senior Agricultural Production Economist, Agricultural Services Division, FAO, and Agroclimatologist, Consultant to the FAO Global Agro-ecological Dr. S. Sarraf, As mentioned earlier, Zones Land Use Project. the purpose of this desk study was to compile and collate the documentation which had been received from CIAT, IITA, to clarify FSR concepts and terminology; and make a ICRISAT and IRRI; attempt In the latter an preliminary comparative analysis of the IARCs' FSR programs. attempt was made to identify the main issues in the form of a list of questions which could be addressed to the IARCs by the FSR Review Team. 15. In the Review Team's visits to the IARCs, the opportunity was taken of arranging those to CIAT and IITA concurrently with the TAC Quinquennial Review of those centers held, respectively, in April and October 1977. Apart from cost it was seen that holding the quinquennial review and FsR stripe review savings, concurrently would minimize the time needed to be devoted by the IARCs' s,taffs to From the point of view of the FSR Review Team, this arrangement was reviews. found to be distinctly advant.ageous in that it enabled the Team to obtain both a broader and a deeper perspective of the overall research program of each of these IARCs and particularly of the relationship of FSR with other programs. 16. The FSR Review of CIAT, Cali, Colombia took place during the week of The Review 'Team spent most of this time at CIAT headquarters 18-22 April, 1977. in discussion with CIAT staff but took the opportunity of joining the Quinquennial Review Panel in visits to Carimagua, Santander de Quilichao, Popayan and Caicedonia, in Colombia, to see experiments and field trials in the beef, bean and cassava programs. In addition, the leader to the Review Team, who was also a EMBRAPA headquarters and the member of the Quinquennial Review Panel, visited Cerrado Region Research Center in Brasilia and the National Research Center for Rice and Beans at Goiania, Brazil. The FSR Review of IITA., Ibadan, Nigeria was undertaken as an integral 17. part of the IITA Quinquennial Review which was held between 17 October and 5 This included a survey of IITA's cooperative programs in Sierra November 1977.' Zaire and Nigeria. Leone, Liberia, was not a mlember of the Quinquennial 1Dr. G. Vallaeys IITA Headquarters only during the week 24-28 October. Review Panel and visited -7- In the week prior to the IITA review (l;L-13 October), the FSR Team visited 18. the Institut S&&galaise de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA), Dakar, Senegal to examine ISRA's farming systems network in the region of Kaolack as well as the work of the Centre Nationale de Recherches Agronomiques at Bambey. Immediately following the IITA review the Review Team visited first, 19. The visit India and then IRRI, Los Banos, the Philippines. ICRISAT, Hyderabad, to ICRISAT (7-10 November) included a visit to Shirapur benchmark village of the FSR/Economics programs and the Mahatma Phule Agricultural University Dry Farming Research Station at Sholapur. The FSR Review Team visited IRRI from 11 to 15 November. 20. the scheduled visit to Iloilo to examine on-farm cropping systems to be cancelled due to a typhoon. 21. Review Except for the Team as Secretary. (vi) Nature of visit the to IRRI, the TAC Executive Secretary Unfortunately, activities had accompanied the Report 22. Because of the complex nature of farming systems and FSR, and the apparent confusion as to what FSR is and what it should accomplish, the Review Team has found it necessary to devote a portion (Chapter II) of its report to concepts and terminology in FSR. Subsequent chapters provide a conceptual framework covering what the Team considers to be the goals and benefits of FSR (Chapter III), a broad methodology for FSR (Chapter IV), and discussion of how FSR might best be conducted in the IARC context (Chapter V). Chapter VII gives the Review Team's Conclusions and Recommendations. IV, and V frequent reference is made to the FSR 23. Throughout Chapters III, programs and activities in the visited IARCs so as to give an indication of the relevance of each center's FSR to the conceptual framework developed in these chapters. Annexes 2 to 5 respectively present an outline and commentary on FSR Throughout the report at CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and IRRI, i.e., the visited IARCs. the term IARCs always refers to at least the four centers that were visited. However, depending on the context, it may also refer to additional centers within the CGIAR system. -a- II. CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH A variety of terminology has developed around farming systems research 24. Between, within, and some from systems theory. (FSR), some of its agricultural is used in and outside the FSR programs at the IARCs, much of this terminology As a basis for discussion and understanding, different ways, often confusingly. and so as to enable appreciation of the potential role of FSR, it is necessary to specify how the Review Team (a) defines FSR, (b) uses its terminology, and (c) perceives some general implications about farming systems that may be drawn from a broad systems view of agriculture. (il 25. farming What is FSR? definition of what description: constitutes a There seems to be no end to attempted system. The Team suggests the following A farming system (or farm system or whole-farm system) is not simply a collection of cr0psn.d animals to which one can apply this input or that and expect immediate results. it is a complicated Rather, interwoven mesh of soils, plants, animals, implements, workers, other inputs and environmental influences with the strands held and manipulated by a person called the farmer who, given his preferences and aspirations, attempts to produce output from the inputs and technology available to him. It is the farmer's unique understanding of his immediate that results in his farming environment, both natural and socioeconomic, system. 26. (including In such terms, therefore, training) which: (1) the Review Team views FSR as research is conducted with a recognition of and focus towards the interdependencies and interrelationships that exist among elemen-ts of and the farm the farm system, and between these elements environment; anrd is aimed at enhancing the efficacy of farming systems through better focusing of agricultural research so as to facilitatle generation and testing of improved technology. the the (2) In the above definition of FSR, efficacy implies relevance to the objectives of the CGIAR, i.e., to research "benefitting the majority of farmers in low-income countries and on commodities representing important sources ,of food for the developing countries."l The major (a) ib) ic) (4 ie) activities involved in FSR are: The collection and analysis of base data; The study of existing farming systems; The design of new farming systems; Farm systems experimentation; and The evaluation and monitoring of new farming systems. 1 From condensed summary of CGIAR discussion of its Review Committee's Report, October 27-28, 1976 as presented in: CGIAR, Report of the Review Committee, CGIAR, The Team notes that this statement (and its Washington, January 1977, p-1. associated discussion by the CGIAR) gives no guidance to the acceptable level of trade-off between benefits to small farmers and nonfarm low-income consumers. -9- (ii) systems Terminology and Concepts Recent years have seen a burgeoning scientific interest in what has come 27. In a farming context, to be known as General Systems Theory and Systems Analysis.1 the Review Team interprets the concepts and terminology of this theory as detailed approaches and jargon of this generalized systems While the concepts, below. science are relevant to FSR, they are not essential in themselves to carrying out However, like all specialist FSR in the applied research context of the IARCs. they facilitate communication in research. scientific language, Conceptually,,a system is defined as any set of elements or components 28. Specification of a system that are interrelated and interact among themselves. Two systems may implies a boundary delimiting the system from its environment. and one system may be a subsystem of share a common component or environment, another. Systems analysis or the systems approach refers to the holistic approach 29. of studying the system as an entity made up of al:1 its components and their intertogether with relationships between the system and its environment. relationships, Such study may be undertaken by perturbing the real system itself (e.g., via studies of new technology) farmer-managed trials or by pre- versus post-adoption but more generally is carried out via models (e.g., experiments, researcher linear programming and other and/or farmer managed on-farm trials, unit farms, mathematical simulations) which to varying degree simulate the real system. The systems approach to research can be contrasted with and seen as an 30. improvement to the more traditional research approach involving a sequence of: (b) hypothesis development: (c) deductive prediction; and (a) observation; This traditional approach is generally disciplinary (d) hypothesis testing. focused and emphasizes a positive stance of "understanding what is" so as to solve problems. In contrast, the systems approach is more oriented to be conditionally normative. It involves specifying a target and assessing alternative ways of reaching it. This implies both an expansion of knowledge (how to reach the target) and problem solving. 31. The systems approach requires: (i) team effort across disciplines; (ii) clear delineation of the system of interest (e.g., the farm system); (iii) perception of objectives of the system itself (e.g., security of income) and of higher-level systems (e.g., social and economic objectives at national and regional levels); (iv) anticipation of technical and economic restrictions from within the system itself (e.g., labor supply) and from the system's environment (e.g., cultural or credit constraints to new technology); (v) -ex ante appraisal of alternative research strategies (e.g., genetic resistance versus pesticides); and (vi) -ex ante evaluation of possible gains from the research and their distribution (e.g., as would result from proposed new technology). 1 See, e.g., articles L. von Bertalanffy Knapp, R.W. (eds.), by R.K. Ackoff (~~-27-38) and (pp.9-26) in: Couger, J.D. and System Analysis Techniques, Wiley, N.Y., 1974. -lO- 32. cyclical) Systems stages, analysis is as follows: Specification of higher-level usually carried out in four sequential (and usually (1) (2) hof relevant systems, considering objectives systems in order to set operational targets. Description of system performance and environmental variables in order to assess the payoffs of alternative targets. Measurement of the relevant variables, synthesis. degree i.e., and form of relationship screening, experimentation among the and (3) (4) Use of simulation and testing or redesign system components so as to achieve the targeted in field trials) to arrange (e.g., (e.g. I new technological packages) performance for the system. research and functions information Each of the above stages involves the three mutually-dependent of conceptual (i.e. model) development, information collection synthesis. (iii) Farming Systems- Terminology Because the IARCs are concerned basically with agricultural production 33. research, their focus must necessarily be towards farm systems as distinct from, social systems, political systems or ecosystems. e.g., A farm is an organized decision-making unit in which crop and/or live34. stock production is carried out for the purpose of satisfying the farmer's goals. In doing so, the farm interacts with the uncertain physical, biological and socioeconomic environment in which it has to operate, and may change in structure may mean more than a single over time. In this definition, the term "farmer" it may involve a decision-making group. decision maker, i.e. Also it should be understood that the "farm" does not necessarily imply a distinct or fixed tract of land but may involve a nomadic form of organization. Thus, the farm system may be described in systems terminology as a purposive, multi-goal, open, stochastic (i.e., non-deterministic), dynamic system. A farm system may be specified in terms of subsystems in various ways. 35. is to view it as involving the following subsystems: A useful approach, for example, social (labor, family), biological (soils, plants, animals), technical (tools, machines, inputs) and managerial (knowledge, decision making). To varying degree, The farm system may these subsystems may overlap and interact with each other. soil organisms are a subsystem of also be viewed as a hierarchy of subsystems: the soil system which in turn is a subsystem of the cropping system which is again whichever way it is viewed, the farm Obviously, a subsystem of the farm system. system is an extremely complex one. Any particular farm system will have unique characteristics due to its 36. However, for purposes relative work force and management. particular location, it is useful to group farming to research, extension, marketing, welfare, etc., systems into classes of similar structure, e.g., grazing systems, shifting or at a finer level into subclasses, e.g., upland cultivation systems, etc.; The essence of such rice systems as distinct from irrigated rice systems. in t.he dimensions of interest, the variance between classifications is that, farm systems in the class be less than the variance between classes, and that the classification be useful. -ll- 37. ways) these Classification terms have also been feveloped (and used in different The Team's preferred use of for particular types of crop production. terms is as follows: system comprises all components recrop and the interrelationships components include all the necessary as technology, labor and management. in which only one crop is grown on A crop system or crop production quired for the production of a particular These between them and the environment. physical and biological factors, as well the A single crop system is a system same plot of land in one year. A multiple cropping on the same plot of systems are: system land in is grown cropping is a system in which more than one crop one year. Some of the main multiple la) Double (triple) cropping: (also refe rred to as sequential cropping) growing two (three) crops in sequence, seeding or transplanting one after the harvest of the other. Intercropping: (or associated cropping) growing two or more crops simultaneously in the same plot in different but proximate stands. In this system, one crop system is part of the other crop(s) environment. Row intercropping: same plot in distinct Mixed intercropping: intermingled in the growing rows. growing same plot two or more crops simultaneously in the (b) (cl (d) (e) two or more crops simultaneously with no distinct row arrangement. Relay intercropping or relay cropping: growing two or more crops in sequence, seeding or transplanting the succeeding one some weeks before the harvest of the preceding crop. Multi-storey involving (or multi-tiered)cropping: crops of significantly different an intercropping height. system strips alone replanting Some of in -- (f) several pure Strip cropping is rows with each strip Sole cropping is the growing of two or more crops in distinct capable of independent cultivation. the growing of one crop (cultivar or species) without crop. stands. Ratoon cropping, is the development of a new crop -from buds on the root system, stubble, or stems of the preceding ratoon crops may be included in multiple cropping systems. A crop rotation system implies a time sequence of crop systems, either sole or overlapped in phase, on the same area. While a crop rotation system implies a regular cyclical pattern over time (often involving a cycle of more than a year), this need not be so with multiple cropping. 1In the by the course Team. of the review, many and varied farming system terms were encountered -12The term cropping system refers to the set of crop systems making up "ha Trapping activities of a farm system. If the farm also has non-crop activities, then the cropping system is a subsystem of the farm system. Anato a farm's livestock system or, for example, its beef logously 3 we may refer system, 38. The term farming systems research is a generic term used to refer to any type of research which views the farm in a holistic manner. Thus it encompasses any research which might more specifically fall under the headings of research on crop systems, cropping systems, livestock systems or whole-farm systems. The Review Team recommends that, whenever possible, research on farm subsystems should be referred to specifically, e.g., as livestock or crop system research; and that FSR directed at the whole farm be termed whole-farm system research. since crop systems, cropping systems and livestock systems Further, can be regarded as components of whole-farm systems, research below the whole-farm level can be referred to as -systems component research or simply componenr research. Of course, this includes research on such system elements as machinery, irrigation, all research at IARCs -management practices, etc. Accordingly, regardless of its parent program -- could be viewed as systems component research. This, however, would be too broad a view. of the IARCs -Hence, in the context research program, it would be best not to regard research on individual components as systems research unless either (a) the research is focused on the interaction between the particular component and other system components, or (b) it is undertaken specifically with a systems focus in view. (iv) Farm System Activities and the Environment' 39. If farm systems are to be changed and improved, they must be understood Important to such -- not least because existing systems have a rational basis. understanding is an appreciation of system activities and their interrelations with one another and the environment -- both natural and social -- of the system. 40. The boundary separating the farm system from its environment by the span of managerial control exercised by the farmer. Within the activities are carried out which transform inputs into outputs. Major (b) livestock production, are those concerned with (a) crop production, processing and storage of crop and livestock products, (d) maintenance, and procurement of farm resources, and (e) marketing. is specified farm system, ac-tivities (c) development 41. Farm system activities; are related to one antoher by their demands on the farmer's managerial capacity. they are also related Just as importantly, inter-and intra-temporally through competition and complementarity in resource use, through intermediate product relationships such as livestock depende:nce on crop production, and through socioeconomic interdependence in satisfying such farm system goals as risk reductio:n and dietary foodmix preferences. 42, While the farmer pursued by the farm system resourcesl the environment effects of: 1For fuller Clarendon has a direct in the light of the farm role in choosing the activities to be of his preferences, goals and available system is also very influential through the discussion, see: Ruthenberg, R., Pressr Oxford, 2nd edn., 1976. Farming Systems in the Tropics, -13- - natural set of conditions (soils, feasible activities; legal, choice climate, diseases) which limit the institutional, affecting the and educational of activities and cultural influences and disposition of output; of input - economic parameters bearing on the fanner's choice of input use, and types of output. mix, intensity Variation in the environment such as weather fluctuations and changes 43. in prices, land tenure laws, religious custom, available technology, infrastructure or market institutions will lead to farm system response. The measured in terms of input demand and output supply, elasticity of this response, may vary greatly between farm systems; for example, irrigated farming systems are generally far more elastic than shifting cultivation systems. Moreover, insofar as elements of the environment are inherently variable (such as climate in some regions), the farmer may react not only to particular short-term changes but also by adopting strategies or mechanisms of a protective or aggressive nature which allow the system to accommodate the uncertain environmental variation which the farmer knows he must face over time. (v) Farm System Dynamics Farm systems face two powerful mechanisms for change through general 44. environmental influence. On the one hand, as man--made systems they have to overcome a continual tendency to revert to a low-output steady state as is usually typical of nature. On the other hand, pressure for change to a higheroutput dynamic state is continually generated by population pressure and socioeconomic-political-cultural changes in the environment leading to demands for greater and more efficient production aided by advances in knowledge and technology. An important characterization of the state of farm systems is in terms 45. of soil fertility and its maintenance. Farm systems in a steady state may involve a high level of soil fertility and output (as in floodplain rice farming) or, more frequently, a low level of soil fertility and output (as in some semi-arid rainfed farming). Most farm systems are, however, in a dynamic state which may be classified as being "balanced", "improving" or "depleting" over time with respect to soil fertility -- and by appropriate managerial action may be changed from one type to another. Just which type of such system a farmer might best depends on his preferences and aspirations together with the have, of course, environmental influences (climatic, economic and social) that he faces. 46. In the past in developing countries, the farming environment was relatively static except for climatic uncertainty. Available technology and product options, along with socio-cultural and political influence, changed little or slowly over time. Under such relatively static conditions, traditional systems of farming became established. By a process of trial and error over generations, such traditional systems were developed as optimal for their environments. Today, due largely to changing social, political and cultural influences, few farms in developing countries operate under a static environment. -14- Traditional systems are no longer likely to be optimal from 47. Changes, many of which still either the farmer's or a societal view. are needed to adjust the traditional systems to have to be determined, In general, these their changed and no longer static environment. changes are such as to make the farm system become more open, more proon purchased inputs, more vulnermore dynamic, more dependent ductive, able to changes in the environment and more integrated with the national economic system. It is well known that even when apparently desirable system 48. changes and adjustments have been developed and tested by researchers, such changes may not be feasible or acceptable to farmers because they lack knowledge and experience of the proposed changes, or because of the In this lies a major challenge risks the farmers believe to be involved. Unless their research leads to applicable technology that for the IARCs. is incorporated by the farmer in his farm system, research resources will that an appropriate have been wasted. To this end, it is essential methodology be adopted by the IARCs in FSR and that FSR be allied with activities facilitating the impact of FSR on farmers. These considerations form the focus of the following three chapters. -15111. GOALS AND BENEFITS OF FARMING .SYSTEMS RESEARCH FSR as an Activity for the IARCs or not (i-1 49. The basic question for consideration by this report is whether FSR is a valid and worthwhile activity of the IARCs relative to the overall objectives of the CG1AR.l Of special relevance are the CGIAR's first two objectives, viz. (with underline added): "(a) On the basis of a review of existing national, regional and international research activities, to examine the needs of developing countries for special effort in agricultural research at the international and regional levels in critical subject sectors unlikely otherwise to be adequately covered by existing research facilities, and to consider how these needs could be met. "(b) To attempt to ensure maximum complementarity of international and regional efforts with national efforts in financing and undertaking agricultural research in the future and to encourage full exchange of information among national, regional and international agricultural research centres." 50. Further, in reviewing its Review Committee's recommendation that the CGIAR focus primarily on increasing production in food-deficit countries, research the Group "noted the need to maintain the emphasis on problem-oriented that benefitted the majority of farmers in low-income countries and on coyodities representing important sources of food for the developing countries. 51. questions: Accordingly, assessment of FSR in the subject IARCs must not answer the Does it involve critical otherwise covered? Is it complementary oriented farmers? matter efforts likely to be research? to national in agricultural would for benefit the Is it small to problems whose resolution food Is it concerned with developing countries? important commodities in the context of any particular IARC, there is the As well, tion of how well that Center's activity in FSR relates to its mandate -the assumption that the mandate meets the objectives of the CGIAR. quesgiven In attempting to answer the above questions, distinction must be 52. As outlined in made between the actuality and potential of FSR in the IARCs. the Annexes devoted to specific centers and in Chapters IV, V and VI, the actuality is that what is called FSR varies greatly across the centers not only in terms of scientific approach. in terms of focus but also, more importantly, There is little doubt that FSR in the I:ARCs can satisfy the basic 53. FSR aims to deal with an important points raised in the questions posed above. topic which, given the status of national institutions in most developing countries, would not otherwise be likely to receive adequate attention. 1 The CGIAR's Washington, main objectives January 1977. are listed in: CGIAR, ---.... Report of the Review Committee, -16..! Lie’ . zti, some IhZCs led in initiating and stimulating research in FSR, and a number of national programs have been initiated as a result of this work. s,'his, in turn, notably through the established IRRI and ICRISAT programs, has led to meaningful collaboration with national programs, especially in efforts to determine methodology and factors having broad applicability (the IARC role) or location-specific characteristics (the national program role). 54. The third requirement --- importance to small farmers.-is a major objective of the FSR program at ICRISAT, IITA, and IRRI. In fact, because multiple cropping is a common feature of small farmer agriculture, IARC research in this area should naturally favor small farmers more than large farmers. An added advantage is that ICRISAT, IITA, IRRI and CIAT all work on major crops or resource problems within their areas of responsibility. 55. Further assessment of how well the FSR programs at IITA, ICRISAT and IRRI meet these four criteria is presented in Annexes 3, 4 and 5 which are, respectively, devoted to these institutes. CIAT's approach is discussed in Annex 2. (ii) Role of FSR 56. As was pointed out in Chapter II, there appears to be some confusion as to what FSR is and what it should accomplish. This is understandable since it is a relatively new field of endeavor, particularly with its holistic orientation and recognition of the need for a multidisciplinary team approach. In the past, perhaps the field which worked most with FSR was the farm management program in agricultural economics. FSR teams generally involve a mixed Today, however, group with such specialists as agronomists, soil scientists, economists, agroclimatologists, entomologists, agricultural engineers, sociologists, and even geographers or anthropologists. 57. including: Some basic questions have been raised concerning FSR in general, or Is farming systems a "new science"? If so, what is different distinctive about it? Or, is it just an approach to integration of research? Is it research? Or is it an area its of sicence which can be researched? and - What is FSR supposed to do? Is create new systems of production, What should be its major activities? basic purpose to innovate or to improve old ones? Its research stations of this approach? or should it Should FSR be done mostly done on farms? Why can't extension services on experimental take care be work? but these Many more questions like these could be or have been raised, are examples of some which the Review Team has encountered. -17(iii) Opinions of the Review Teamion FSR The Review Team considers FSR to bej very important in providing a scien58. tific approach to problem identification and technology development aimed at FSR is strongly oriented improving agricultural production systems. By its nature, The Team believes that FSR to the IARC target of producing applicable technology. should be an important integral and identifiable (though not necessarily formally constituted) part of the program of all IARCs. However, in order for FSR to achieve its potential, FSR concepts and principles must be understood by scientists working in the IARCs as well as those in the national research and development institutions who use its results. The goal of FSR is to contribute to the improvement of human welfare 59. through sustainable increased agricultural productivity. The characteristics of FSR transcend those of conventional disciplinary research in that FSR, through multidisciplinary effort, seeks to: (11 (29 understand better the problems and needs of the farmer. improve the efficiency of the agricultural research process by focusing research on these problems and needs of the farmer so as to develop improved technology. take into account both the interactions between technologies themselves and between technologies and the environment, and thereby improve the appropriateness and relevance of the generated technologies. ensure that maintenance capacity. facilitate systems assist which these technologies and enhancement of between contribute agricultural research, to the long-term productive extension, policies delivery and methods (3) (4) (5) the linkages and the farmer. in the address (6) formulation of development the problems of the farmer. Given the urgent need to increase agricultural production by enhancing the productivity of resources allocated to agriculture in developing countries, it is essential that their agricultural research have an FSR orientation for the following reasons: (al There is need to improve the understanding of most research workers of the skills, preferences, aspriations and existing management practices of the farmex, in particular of small farmers. the diversity of the natural conditions of production, in particular in the tropics, and often also the need to use available labour supplies by intensive land use, result in strong interactions among the elements of a farm system and this leads to very complex situations. (b) -18(c) most of the farmers in developing countries do not have the power nor the means to identify and communicate their needs to research agencies. the array of countries to made available their needs. agricultural services available in developing f.armers is limited; additionally, many technologies to them are not adapted to their conditions and Cd) (ei there is gener,ally a wide gap between the results achieved on research stations and those obtained by the farmer, and therefore a need to determine why certain practices shown to be highly productive in experimental stations are either not adopted or, if adopted, may not at times be equally productive in the farmer's field. of FSR could be many, but the major ones appear to be as 60. follows: Benefits (1) Although development agencies and other groups continuously express a particular interest in the small farmer and his problems, in reality they have little basis for understanding him, his production methods, or his needs. If carried out in the manner suggested in Section (v) of this chapter, FSR can greatly assist in providing the necessary information. Most agricultural research in developing countries in the past has been based on narrow disciplinary approaches, and integration and application of new information by the farmer has been difficult. FSR provides a structure within which researchers examine problems in a farm system context, and attempt to achieve solutions which will fit into that farm system given the farmer's capabilities and needs. FSR can provide a basis for developing improved technology and its transfer, because it recognizes the need to understand the farmer and his system, to categorize the natural resource :base on which the system operates, and to provide a basis for a focused research program on major factors limiting performance of a given system. FSR should also assist in understanding and testing location specificity of certain practices. synthesis and application FSR provides a basis for analysis, of a consistent set of practices pertinent to production of whether plant or animal, within a particular given commodity, Within this context, FSR can play an important farm system. role in facilitating the adoption of available technology. a (2) (3) (4) (5) By concentrating on crop or animal production systems, rather than discrete factors without regard to their interactions, FSR provides an opportunity to study various crop mixtures, natural resource management practices, or other important components on a larger-scale basis and under conditions which However, allow more complete technical and economic analysis. it should be pointed out that there are limitations in present methodology to accomplish some of the needed analysis (see Chapter IV). Furthermore, good FSR should lead to improved -19management assistance to the farmer. In most cases at present, farmers are offered diverse bits of information concerning new management opportunities without the benefit of even experimental trials on these practices at production field level. Although FSR brings 61. are a number of difficulties (a) (b) (cl (d) (e) FSR is relatively developed. FSR generally of disciplines considerable and oroblems benefit as indicated with FSR: methodologies are above, still there being new and its requires research teams which may be difficult involving a wide range to coordinate and manage. able and It may not be easy to find research inclined to work in multidisciplinary The collection, sets of data integration and information workers who are teams. and interpretation poses a number of very diverse of problems. FSR requires long-term programs, the results evaluate. commitments of resources to comprehensive and impact of which are difficult to (f) In particular, care must be taken (i) to avoid the pitfall of attempting to investigate too many systems at once and (ii) to ensure that available effort is concentrated on only the most important systems and locations. for their FSR programs to establish activities accordingly. clear priorities Thus it is essential and objectives and to focus (iv) Where Does FSR Fit? There have been questions as to when and where FSR should be conducted. 62. Some persons see FSR as a "downstream" link in the research chain, taking information gained from the experimental program and finding a place for it in the production system, i.e. at the farm level. Others see an "upstream" role for FSR. Within this concept, FSR is seen as a major asset in constraint problem identification and subsequent analysis, which in turn determination, can both assist research institutions to focus more clearly on key problems or likely to face, producers and assist policy makers in the currently facing, formulation of agricultural development policies. The Review Team considers FSR to be impo:rtant in both an upstream and 63. It lays stress on the importance of FSR in the recognition a downstream sense. of constraints and in problem identification and analysis, and recommends that IARCs' FSR programs be linked closely with their crop improvement programs. This could be done by ensuring that scientists in commodity or crop improvement programs who work at the crop system (or subsystems) level (e.g., agronomists, pest management specialists) cooperate closely with FSR staff who economists, Such collaboration, with work at the cropping system or farming system level. should ensure that component research for FSR its two-way information flow, In turn, these could begin early and be strengthened by commodity specialists. commodity specialists would be stimulated to follow the component research activity in the FSR program leading to adaption of the component for wider use -2o- or integration with other crop or farm systems. These collaborative efforts in providing required plant types for could be very important, for example, specific crop or commodity early adoption on the farm, or in integrating management requirements into a cropping system or farming system context.. As evidenced at some IARCs, similar benefits should result from close co:Llaborincluding agricultural engineering, ation between FSR and other groups, cooperative programs, etc. In such internatal collaboration with FSR, as described above, the 64. IARCs should aim at early testing and adoption of technology by the farmer, while avoiding narrow program interests which might hamper effective The Review Team wishes to point out that upstream activities cooperation. This would of FSR could assist IARC commodity programs in achieving impact. occur through an improved fo'aus on important problems and better identification of real-world situations whe.re new technology is applicable and acceptable. Downstream activities of FSR should prove to be very important. 65. It is here that research products can be fitted into experimental production systems and studied for adoption by farmers. This is an obvious use of FSR. However, another aspect which should be considered is that of monitoring the adoption of new technology and its shortand long-term aspects. These are areas which are too often neglected. FSR baseline studies on existing farms, which can be considered as upstream activities, can be used in evaluating the actual impact of new technology. Both upstream and downstream FSR activities of IARCs will differ from 66. Because of their nature, IARCs should, so far those of national FSR programs,. as possible, limit their concern to FSR activities yielding results (technologies and methodologies) which (a) can be generalized or extrapolated (and are therefore related more to principles and methods rather than location-specific (b) are oriented to specific commodity or resource mandates, and practices), (c) could have potential for wide impact. national FSR activities are obliged to deal more with In contrast, 67. location-specific problems (and are oriented therefore more toward management and are designed to have more direct practices or culture-specific needs), impact on pressing local problems. The Review Team recognizes that some FSR activities at IARCs must be 68. devoted to understanding the nature of location specificity, and to methods of zones to ensure broad application of aggregating information on agro-climatic IITA, ICRISAT and IRRI have all been involved in some IARC technology. activities of this type. IRRI has been especially successful in strengthening its activities through the Asian Cropping Systems Network,' which serves both an upstream and a downstream function for IRRI and its national collaborators. ICRISAT has worked out a close relationship with the All-India Coordinated Research Programs in Dryland Farming and jointly they have identified a number Such work fulfills of agro-climatic zones where dryland farming is practised. both an upstream function in providing a basis for planning and setting of 1 Carangal, V.R., Asian Cropl&ng Systems Network, IRRI, Los Banos, September 1976. -21- research priorities, where new technology necessary experience where (e.g., Africa), tool for its internal (VI and a potential downstream function in delineating areas may be applicable. In doing this, ICRISAT has gained which should prove valuable later for application elsewhile the local Indian program has gained a valuable needs. FSR Program An Ideal 69, The Review Team considers that it may be useful to outline its conception of the basic ingredients of a well-structured FSR program and to relate these to the role of the IARCs. such a program should aim In general, to meet the following interrelated objectives: (1) To understand the land (including climatic) resources and socioeconomic environment within which agricultural production takes place. Areas of concern on the resource side include land suitability, weather and its variation, delineation of agro-climatic (sometimes called agro-ecological) zones, and, where appropriate, identification of agro-climatic analogs which may yield information of value for a particular system It would seem and guide the selection of benchwork sites. fundamental to the success of an IARC's FSR program that accurate and reliable data on the land resources and particularly on factors of soil and climate, are made available and well understood. It is especially important in the selection of benchmark sites to have sufficient data to ensure that the benchmark site is truly representative of the larger area In addition the refinement of agro-climatic under study. mapping in an IARC's geographic mandate has an important bearing on the selection of desirable agronomic characteristics in On the socioeconomic side, necessary crop improvement programs. information will relate to population density, income levels, infrastructure provisions and broad food consumption patterns, cultural characteristics. To evaluate existing farming systems in specific physical and in particular the practice and socioeconomic environments, and to improve our understanding performance of these systems; These his skills, preferences and aspirations. of the farmer, studies can be considered as essential baseline studies within It is not expected that IARCs will benchmark situations. understand and address all the problems of all farming systems for them to However, it is important within their mandates. assess farm systems at selected benchmark sites which will yield information of importance to FSR or commodity program and to develop methodologies for evaluation of responsibilities, performance of existing farm systems. (2) -22- (3) To improve problem identification (target areas, bottlenecks, etc.) in existing farming systems and thereby to assist in focusing better the research activities and programmes of integrated rural development on specific key problems which Again, limit production or farm income. in the context of the IARC role, emphasis should be placed on developing methodology for study of existing systems and in the training of FSR specialists. To enhance the capacity of research organiiations tc conduct research on priority farming systems' problems so that they are better able to design new and/or improved production The role for IARCs here is,in developing research systems. methodology in problem solution, in design and testing of new or improved systems, and,in training. To conduct research on new or improved practices, principles, system components or subsystems within an FSR context, and to evaluate these for possible testing on farms. Again, the major IARC role is to develop methodology, evaluate possible limits of adaptability and site specificity, and training. To evaluate new or improved practices, or systems components, on farms in major production areas. Here the IARC role would be to develop methodology to conduct on-farm studies and to measure farmer reaction to new technology. of improved technology on farms where To -assess the benefits baseline studies have been conducted, in order to obtain information on the impact of technology, especially on small farms. Again, the main IARC role is to develop techniques and methodology to assess impact of IARC technology, and to identify second or third generation problems, thus providing the necessary feedback to research institutes and policy makers. The concepts of monitoring and continuing assessment of impact c,an be strengthened by FSR activities of IARCs at benchmark sites. (4) (5) (6) (7) .It should be pointed out that while the above seven objectives imply a not all these objectives would be likely to full range of FSR activities, Too, all seven obreceive full or equal attention in a given FSR progranune. jectives are interrelated and their attainment would automatically involve feedback and feedforward effects between them. In enumerating the above objectives, the Review Team wishes to 'emphasize 70. that the IARC role in conducting FSR will be strengthened and enhanced 1by collaboration with national programs and that FSR can provide an import,ant link to national programs through joint activities, training, and problem identificasuccess of FSR in the IARCs can only be susUltimately, tion (see Chapter V). tained if there is extensive linkages to national programs since these are the the ultimate client of FSR is the Of course, direct clients for such research. farmer himself. -23- The seven requirements listed above constitute a logical, methodical 71. could extend from an assessment of the natural basis for FSR which, if followed, resource base and an evaluation of representative farm systems, to implementation of a research program which focuses on problems faced, or likely to be faced, The steps can be surmnarized in three fairly distinct activity by the farmer. On-Farm studies and Research areas which may be referred to as Base Data Analysis, Station Studies. To some degree these three activities may be sequential and cyclical, but more generally will develop concurrently with joint interaction and feedback effects. This involves the collection, collation and Base Data Analysis. understanding of the many factors characterizing the environment Much such analysis will entail exercises in land of a region. resource mapping and evaluation, and in large part can be done at research stations or in head offices mostly relying on However, where such data are not available secondary data. or are considered to be inadequate or unreliable, there will be initially a relatively greater involvement by IARCs in data collection. In addition to the physical resources data there is also a need for socioeconomic data on population, farming systems practised, production and income levels, and various aspects of the infrastructure. The aim of Base :Data Analysis is to learn as much as possible about the land and water resources of a region and the variations in those soil and climatic factors which mainly influence agricultural production. The normal end-product is a series of maps depicting agro-cl.imatic zones, land/soil units and land use (farming/commodity systems). Such information can then be used to assist identification of potential target zones for on-site study and to determine the best locations for experimental stations or benchmark sites, as well as providing a basis for later studies on research impact. In general, Base Data Analysis will seldom involve detailed on-site investigations except where larger non-farm units (for example, villages) are the object of study. Studies on the farm can be aimed at both upstream On-Farm Studies. and downstream activities of FSR. The major factor in On-Farm Studies which distinguishes it from Base Data Analysis relates both to the location and purpose of the research. Thus surveys of existing farms ian upstream activity) would be considered as an and a major output of this work would be On-Farm Studies activity, studies However, village-level information for Base Data Analysis. aimed at understanding the socioeconomic framework of a given community rather than the farm itself would be considered as a Base Data Analysis activity. In addition to this type of survey activity, On-Farm Studies also involve experimentation (physical, biological Such research can be considered as or socioeconomic) on the farm. a downstream activity and may involve testing of new technology or practices at farm level. On-Farm Studies may involve differing modes and degrees of control and may include research under full -24- researcher control, joint On-Farm farmer control. of technology adoption, and assessment systems, Further, by their nature, necessarily involve (and cooperation with national researcher/farmer control, or full Studies will also include studies the monitoring of changes in farming of the impact of new technology. On-Farm Studies must often provide a fruitful opportunity for) institutions. Research Station Studies. These are seen to involve a focused research program to generate new technology, design components or modify existing systems. for new systems, Such research differs from conventional, on-going disciplinary research in that it is designed to fulfill a need in the context of a given Sometimes it may be convenient to distinguish farming system. different classes of Research Station Studies, for example: - exploratory, development problems. Once the problem solution may have a largely research aimed at solving specific is defined in an FSR context,. its disciplinary-oriented basis. - integrative studies, where component parts are assembled and tested in a holistic framework, i.e. the synthesis of research results into applicable systems and management practices. Subdivision of FSR into three activity areas as listed above can be 72. useful in helping persons to understand just where particular FSR programs or program activities are focused or oriented. For example, many studies of factors affecting multiple cropping, experimental tillage practices, soil and water or of principles aflEecting pest management practices, could be classed management, as Research Station Studies. However, these same practices or components, when could be evaluated in On-Farm Studies. improved, Indeed, it may be seen in the annexes to this report covering individual IARCs that many of the existing FSR programs are centered mostly on Research Station Studies, with much less resource being devoted to On-Farm Studies. One exception to this is IRRI which has initiated a comprehensive program in On-Farm Studies and some work in Base Data Analysis. IITA has done a great deal of work on land resource evaluation (Base Data Analysis) and systems design (Research Station Studies), but has done less work in On-Farm Studies. ICRISAT has worked on agro-climatic zones (Base Data village studies (Base Data Analysis and some On-Farm Studies), and Analysis), systems design (Research Station Studies). -25- IV. (i) ER, FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A Comparatively New Area of Study there has not FSR is relatively new, and in view of its complexity, 73. uniform methodologies to carry out the work. The been time to develop detailed, IARCS have developed or are developing methodologies which are suitable for some studies, but at no one IARC nor at any other institution does the FSR program In general there is a marked lack of methodology for the cover the whole field. farm-environment conditioned research. structuring and conduct of multidisciplinary, FSR methodology problems are not easy to resolve, for they entail much 74. more complexity than more conventional or classical disciplinary research. Added a number of different activity problems are presented by the fact that FSR implies categories or areas of concern (see Chapter III), eac:h with its own level of complexity and need for specificity. FSR activities of the IARCs are being 75. Except at IRRI, most existing carried out at the research center itself or its experiment stations. The scientific approach is usually that of the discipline(s) involved. Hence, the methodology used ranges from a conventional experimental plot approach on research stations to various forms of farm surveys. Few FSR programs have developed specific methodologies to meet the problems faced. Some researchers may not even feel the need to look for alternate research methods, but that does not obviate the methodology issue. Some existing IARC programs in FSR involve farmers directly in the ). zsearch; others deal mostly with bio-technical or socioeconomic opportunities which are related to one or two major commodities. Only recently have a few FSR programs attempted to understand (as distinct from, to catalog) systems being used by farmers in the region. (ii) Holistic Approach Versus Reductionism in FSR to point out that some of the nature of the 77. From a conceptual of the confusion concerning work itself. Scientific 78. attempt to understand factors at a time and Such research does not gained, leaving these In contrast, 79. stand how all significant with its environment. viewpoint, FSR stems it might be useful from a misunderstanding work has physical controlling usually aspects traditionally been based or biological processes other factors to the concern itself about use to someone else. on reductionism, i.e., an by studying only one or two greatest extent possible.1 or integration of knowledge FSR tends to be holistic in nature, attempting to underfactors relate and interrelate within the process and FSR attempts to integrate factors and information, and "The Emergence of Ecology as a New Integrative Discipline", lodum, E.P., "The Economics of Systems Research", 195: 1289-1293, 1977; Dillon, J.L., Xgricultural Systems 1:5-22, 1976. Science -26- Therefore, while reductionism aims at to bring these to bear on actual problems. precision and detail, holism tends to aim at less precise, even descriptive, measurements and observations which, if considered within a framework cf attempting to understand the way a system works so as to enable its purposive manipulation, Stated another way, it can be said that FSR is can be very valuable and useful. research which tends to be vertical. more horizontal in nature than ?raditional activity areas can involve both At the same time, FSR in its several 80. and unless one understands these principles and their reductionism and holism; methodologies and even philosophies of research approach may differ and roles, even conflict. Base Data Analysis and On-Farm Studies are basically holistic in nature, 81. relying upon a broad background of information and measurement. They attempt to classifications or evaluations and then to integrate make broad generalizations, the information gained through careful, but sometimes somewhat subjective, On the other hand, Research Station Studies aimed at understanding analyses. processes are more reductionist in nature, and therefore are more closely akin to At the same time, conventional disciplinary research. some Research Station those dealing with design of cropping patterns or new and improved Studies (e.g., and are therefore more difficult from a methodocropping systems) are holistic, logical point of view. The Review Team considers that there is need for increased work in, and understanding of, the holistic approach of FSR, Most agricultural. scientists are trained more in reductionist than holistic thinking, and it may be difficult to acquire staff who can work creatively in a holistic systems analysis and design program. (iii) The Need for - FSR Methodology rational approach for FSR are not new. As Calls for a more systematic, 82. be given an FAO conference in Africa 1 recommended that "high priority one example, economic and sociological conditions existing in . . . to the study of agronomic, farming systems in the Guinea Zone," and II. . . as a primary task of this study, experimentation and analysis of the terminology and methodology of investigation, farming systems should be standardized to permit comparability of results within seminar or workThe Conference also recommended "a training the Guinea Zone." shop to organize and to integrate investigations and methods of information dissemination concerning farming systems." A recent study by the U.S. National 83. one area of research on FSR which is needed is used to identify farming systems that are well socioeconomic environment." Academy of Science2 suggested that of methodologies the "improvement adapted to the local ecosystem and 'FAO, FAO Conference on Establishment of Cooperative Programmes Between Countries with Similar Ecological Guinea Zone, FAO, Rome, August 1971. 2National Research Council, Contribution of Research, Agricultural Conditions Research in Africa: The Potential World Food and Nutrition Study: -Washington 1977. National Academy of Sciences, -27- 84. Geographers have long been concerned about developing research methods for studying agricultural regions and farming systems. Review of relevant geographical literature emphasizes a major dilemma in farming systems research; that is, most work has been descriptive in nature, and it has been difficult to quantify or evaluate the dynamics of a system.1 85. Most early farming systems work was done by agricultural economists who specialized in farm management. Surveys were their major tool. Two major types of surveys, Case studies were case studies and sample surveys, were used. done in depth on one or a few farms; sample surveys were conducted -- but not in as much depth on each individual farm -- with the hope that an adequate sample was taken to obtain data over a region or district. 86. Biological and physical scientists in developed countries have seldom become involved in FSR. In part, this is due to the fact that farmers were expected to be the integrators of new information. Also, the emphasis on sole cropping and the tendency toward monoculture (implying relatively simpler farming systems) in many developed countries caused a rather telescopic viewpoint in looking at the farm. 87. Biological and physical scientists did become involved in activities approximating FSR in two major areas, land use (usually done by soil scientists), and range management. Probably range and pasture management scientists come closer to conducting systems research than most other biological or physical science disciplines concerned with agriculture in developed countries. Their methods -- in some cases borrowed or adapted from ecological research -- may be of significant value in the study of farming systems. (iv) Methodology Used in Selected National FSR Programs Regional or 88. There are several national or regional FSR programs which are noteworthy in their use or development of FSR methodology. In many cases the approaches used are appropriate only for national programs, in that they have been developed to deal with location-specific matters, but are illustrative of the possible nature of some national FSR concerns which the IARCs may need to service. However, some of the methodology used in these programs, if adapted to the needs of the IARCs, may prove useful in a broader context. Two programs, a regional program of the Centro Agron6mico Tropical de Investigaci& y Ensezanza (CATIE) in Central America and a national program in Senegal, are outlined below. Other national programs will be referred to, as applicable, under specific topics. &See , e.g.,Blaut, "Microgeographic J-M., Regional Agricultural Geography", Econ. Sampling: Geography- A Quantitative Approach 79-88, 1959. 35: to -28- (4 CATIE (Costa Rica) 89. CATIE began a small farm production systems program at Turrialba in 1973, involving cropping patterns utilizing the common bean, maize, cassava and sweet potato. Entitled Cropping Systems for Small Farmers, the project links experiment station research (Research Station Studies) with research on farmers" land using simple experiments on improved cropping system technology (On-Farm Studies). The project objective is "to study and quantify the interaction between crops presently cultivated by the small farmer (either as monocultures, polycultures or both) and the environment,"1 The research focus is the farm system. Active farmer participation is a key feature of the project, and a multidisciplinary team works closely together to achieve the major objectives, that of understanding and assisting the farmer. Two related CATIE programs provide assistance to the 90. cropping systems program. These are the Programa de Informaci& de1 Istmo Centroamericano (PIADIC) and a Tropical Soils Project. small farmer Agropecuaria 91. The PIADIC project focuses on gathering, interpreting, and utilizing agricultural information for Central America> from all sources available, in order to: "upgrade the quality of research results and to orient it to the needs of small farmers, and to create a region-wide system for more effective information management." Types of information gathered are scientific/technical, socioeconomic, market trends and trade. The project emphasizes building of national information capacity, training, national and regional coordination, and programmed outputs such as manuals, guides, methodologies, trained personnel, national and regional information centers, packages of technology, market news and crop forecasting, and information exchange. PIADIC provides a key element of Base Data Analysis for the CATIE program in Cropping Systems for Small Farmers. 92” The Tropical Soils Project gathers and analyzes results of past research on soil fertility and soil management. It aims to assemble this information into a framework of land capability zones based on a concept of "soil analogs" (using the U.S. Soil T,axonomy as the basic classification system). 93. The CATIE program has working arrangements America, and in some cases has staff members assigned institutions in those countries, (b) Probably the best-conceived 94. is in Senegal. The program is under de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA), 1 CATIE. The CATIE Small Farmer ISRA (Senegal) and most-developed the responsibility national FSR program of the Institut S&&galais with six countries in Central to appropriate national Cropping System Program, CATIE, Tuxrialba, undated, -29- The basic concept of the program is an integrated system of 95. within a regional frameresearch to create and diffuse production systems, The system provides a structure to gather information, work, in the country. assist in identifying agricultural zones or regions, analyze present production systems, evaluate technically possible new systems, study production and involve the farmer in the design and decision process. factors, The integrated ci::cLtion-diffusion process for new systems 96. distinctive in the Senegal program, for it links traditional research (Research Station Studies) with testing and evaluation of production at farm and local community level (On-Farm Studies) m is most groups systems The creation process involves research station scientists, 97. economists and sociologists to a great degree. It seeks to identify "technically possible systems" through a synthesis of new systems using research results and socioeconomic studies as basic information. These experimental systems are studied at research station, substation and PAPEMl (experimental sites located in production areas) level, but under researcher control. Promising systems from these studies are then proposed for evaluation in the diffusion process. The diffusion process begins to deal with "extendable systems" which 98. can be evaluated at farm level within appropriate regions. An important special feature for this type of work is the Unit& Expsrimentalel (EUs), which are defined areas (usually larger than a village and its surrounding farms; more likely a district cooperative and its geographical limits). The EUs provide a location and milieu within which experimental development activities on a farm scale can be carried out and evaluated by agents located in them. It is at EU level (but not only there, for other methods are also used) at which the farmer comes into the picture as a part of the design and decision process. The OnFarm Studies aspects of the Senegal program are vesy innovative. They provide an important approach to the improvement of existing systems, to introduce new systems, and to measure adoption and impact of new technology. The EU approach, however, is far more suited to and appropriate for national programs than for IARCs. (VI Status of FSR Methodology (a) and Special Needs Base Data Analysis 99. Work in this category normally should rely in large part on secondary data sources but if data are not available, measures should be taken so far as is possible to arrange their collection either directly by the IARC itself or via contractual arrangements with other relevant agencies or institutions, or on a cooperative basis. The aim of Base Data Analysis is to analyze existing information in such a way that it can be used, among other purposes, to delineate agro-climatic to assess present agro-ecosystems from a zones to evaluate resource potentials, resource base and land use point of view, to identify target areas for system 'Tourte, R., Experimental "Origin Units paper given at a Symposium on of the Experimental Units", organized by ISRA and GERDAT, Bambey, Senegal, 16-21 May 1977. -3o- studies, and to identify be:nchmark research sites. Capacity to conduct Base Data Analysis currently varies widely within 100. IITA has a strong program in soil and land evaluation in the humid the IriRCs. ICRISAT is develo:ping a strong program in analysis of weather data as tropics. a basis for planning farming systems component research, management of small and in defining agro-climatic zones. CIAT has indicated interest in watersheds, having a capacity to assess the physical resources of its geographical area, particularly with regard to the beef program. IRRI has cooperated with its Philippine colleagues in developing a rainfall-zones map for the country, has assisted in completing a study on rainfall for Bangladesh, and has stimulated work on agro-climatic zones in the Asian Cropping Systems Network. Secondary data of importance in Base Data 101. and climatic records, hydrological information, soil maps or analyses, regional economic maps, vegetation area or village studies, census records, etc. Analysis may include weather classification maps, land use surveys, local prcduction What is needed in Base Data Analysis are methods of research or analysis 102. that can yield information which can be used to ensure the purposive planning of the Research Station and On-Farm Studies of FSR. Especially, environmental classification needs to be conducted on the basis of an understanding of what aspects of the environment are critical to the adoption of technology and of the size of the changes in environmental conditions that need to be identified. The methods adopted should group important physical resource characteristics in such a way that zones with similar management needs or potential agricultural use can be delineated, i.e., "agro-climatic" or "agro-ecological" zones. The need to define such zones cannot be underestimated, for a successful FSR program must depend heavily upon: (a) a careful analysis of the land and climatic base; (b) an understanding of the extent and importance of major land systems or complexes; (c) an understanding of present land use patterns on given land systems; (d) an understanding of environment-technology interaction; (e) a basis for setting of priorities for FSR work, particularly in relation to the farm systems to be studied and resource use and management issues; and (f) a basis for transfer of technology from research to the farmer, especially where the natural resource base is a major determinant in management systems, In particular, the IARCs should benefit from a better understanding of agro-climatic zones and of the agricultural systems operatir in them. Beyond direct benefits to the FSR program, these benefits could include: a sharpened opportunities a better fiocus of commodity programs of the zone in question; of national for problem transfer, on problems and understanding framework and for problems and potentials; and setting and feedback. an analytical of priorities; a better basis identification validation technology -31- (1) Land Resources inventory and ciassifiSome well-founded systems of natural resource As a corollary, and these should be used as much as possible in FSR. cation exist, FSR workers should probably avoid attempts to develop new systems of classification, In general, it would appear unless established methods are plainly not suitable. that FSR results will prove to be more widely adaptable and useful if FSR is conducted and presented within an established uniform and internationally applicable Examples of this are the system of naturcL resource ana1::;i.s -31 classification, FAO Land Classification System ' ai.d the U.S. Soil Taxonomyr2 which were designed If deficiencies do exist in such international for wide applicability and utility. then it would appear more profitable to improve those systems than to systems, This is especially true for the IARCs, whcse attempt to develop new systems. It resources are limited and whose clients are the national resea:rch systems. would appear to be easier to link FSR results into national programs if the results are presented within a framework of a known natural resource classification system. Also, conducting the work and presenting the results within a known classification framework will help to resolve some of the major problems with site specificity, for good land or soil classification should assist in defining ,the limits of site specificity for a given region or agricultural production system. In the end, FSR will not succeed unless it helps to increase opportunity for technology transfer and improved prediction of performance of given production systems. 103. (2) Weather and Climate Dealing with factors of climate is not a simple task, but certainly it 104. is necessary for FSR workers to appreciate the weather patterns and possibilities and the climate of a given region. For much FSR work, daily, weekly or monthly weather information and its associated probability distributions may be of more value than long-range climatic studies, but neither topic should be overlooked. ICRISAT has initiated an impressive program of weather analysis for its geographical area of responsibility. It has attempted to specify rainfall patterns and probabilities in relation to crop growing seasons as a basis by which tox (a) delineate zones with similar agro-climatic characteristics; (b) predict the possibility and need for on-farm storage of runoff water; and (c) evaluate the potential cropping patterns, 105. as in the case of soils and land classification efforts, climatic Again, studies in FSR programs should attempt to use existing methods of analysis to the fullest extent possible. This will require close collaboration with internat.ional agencies and developed country institutions that have special competence or i.nterest in these fields, 'FAO, A Framework for Soil Land Evaluation, Taxonomy, (Soils Bulletin 32), FAO, Rome, 1976, Washington,, 1976, 2USDA, The U.S. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, -32- A climatic factor often overlooked in physical resource appraisal 106. In parts of the humid tropics the amount of is irradiance (sunlight). sunlight received during the rainy season may be relatively low and constitute a limiting factor in agricultural production. (3) Socioeconomic Aspects Broad appraisal of data on the economic and social characteristics of 107. relevant regions is also an important aspect of Base Data Analysis. Of particular concern will be information on current levels and likely change in: level of production population density (man/land ratios); crops grown, their and their disposition; income levels; market organization and facilities; infrastructure provision for transport, communication, education and health services; demographic structure; level of education; and8 if significant, social structure characteristics and tribal/religious/cultural divisions and boundaries. 108. Within Base Data Analysis, such characteristics as listed above can only be considered in broad aggregate terms, quantitatively where possibl'e but otherwise qualitatively. In addition, judgment must be exercised in deciding the relevance of those socioeconomic characteristics to the classification of With so many dimensions of possible characterization, zones from Base Data Analysis. The criterion of what is only the most important should be brought to account. and what is not important should be the degree of relevance to either the delineation of existing farming systems or to possible system changes, For example, while religion may not generally be relevant, it may sometimes be an important determinant for some livestock systems. (4) Special Methodology Needs for areas related Base Data Analysis where it may be necessary to Base Data Analysis: to develop special 109. There are several methodologies or approaches - Selection of benchmark sites and target zones for research, either for On-Farm Studies or Research Station Studies, Especially needed are guideline criteria for the selection of benchmark sites and for limiting targeted systems to a manageable priority set. Use of climatic, natural agro-climatic zones. resource and economic data in defining of FSR findings and rates of - Use of secondary information to and to measure rates of adoption change, assess the impact of new technology -33- (b) On-Farm Studies On-Farm Studies, for there past, most On-Farm Studies and biological or physcal Methodology concerns may be gre;test for 110. is limited past experience to rely upon. In the have been conducted using farm management surveys, scientists have seldom been involved. 111. On-Farm Studies become very complex because of the diversity and complexity of the data to be taken, as well as difficulty in analysis of the Also, criteria for choosing priority farming systems to information obtained. Specification of such criteria should receive attention have not been developed. receive immediate attention if FSR is to escape the pitfalls of (a) trying to (b) investigating systems of tackle too many systems and topics at once, and/or academic interest but of little real-world importance. 112. There (1) are three major aspects of On-Farms Studies that must be considered: studies to understand existing farming systems (baseline studies) which would be carried out at an early stage and often concurrently with any surveys for Base Data Ana.lysis; studies to compare or evaluate new or improved systems; and (2) (3) studies to monitor changes in existing systems or to monitor the Each of these rate of adoption and impact of new technology. objectives may require somewhat different methodology and therefore are discussed separately. 113. Of the international centers, IRRI has done most work with FSR On-Farm Studies, and their efforts have yielded important information on research possibilities on small Asian rice farms. As would be expected in a relatively new research area, IRRI's cropping systems methodology has evolved with time and has been modified through the Institute's consultative and collaborative work with the Asian Cropping Systems Network. (1) The Survey Approach to Existing Farming Systems 114. Farm surveys are an essential mechanism for the study of existing systems on an on-farm basis. Such surveys may be of various types, the major contrasts being between: first, in-depth study of a small sample versus less detailed study of a larger sample; second, single-visit surveys versus multiple-visit or continuous surveys of a.panel of farms; and third, surveys emphasizing only socioeconomic data versus an emphasis on biological and physical data. These are the extreme contrasts. In practice, these elements may be combined to varying degree or, as appropriate, different types of surveys may be used at different stages of On-Farm Studies. Too, there may frequently be fruitful opportunities for the survey of existing farming systems to be conducted on a contractual or cooperative basis with national or other relevant institutions. 115. survey 1 In general, specification activities of a broad rather of existing farming systems than detailed nature (i.e., will imply initial across rather than An example of one approach to On-Farm Studies can be found in: Hildebrand, P-E., "A Multidisciplinary Methodology for Developing New Cropping Systems Technology for Traditional Agriculture" Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas (ICTA) Guatemala City, undated. -34- with single visits to a large rather than small sample, and with within villages), an orientation to collecting both agronomic and economic data. As the On-Farm need will develop for more detailed information not only on the Studies progress, specifics of particular systems but also on the changes taking place in them. This could imply the use of multi-visit or continuous panel surveys, or detailed case studies of particular farms. Whatever survey procedures are used, there are likely 116. to be manpower and logistical problems which must be recognized. In particjlar, survey interviewers must be able to establish rapport with sample farmers if reliable data are to be obtained. Language can be a severe problem. 1 Further, interviewers must be suitably trained to understand the information they are collecting. This is particularly important for the collection of agronomic and other biological information which may involve actual field measurement (e.g., of yields, and disease and pest incidence). For continuous detailed surveys, the ideal is for the interviewer to live in the farm community being studied. 117. Whatever the type of survey, it should be purposive. collected without prior knowledge of why it is being collected. on-going activity, changes in data needs will develop over time. will best be satisfied from repeated visits to a benchmark site research activities develop, can be surveyed to gain pertinent to current hypotheses. In this regard, an excellent example is continuous survey of farmer samples in its six semi-arid Indian (which were selected after an exhaustive analysis involving the application of a set of 40 criteria). Data should not be Since FSR is an Most often these which, as the information relevant provided by ICRISAT's benchmark villages selection and 118. Data to be collected in surveys should be determined by the information needed for hypotheses to be tested in FSR and by the analytical techniques to be used. For economic-type analysis in FSR, relatively strong analytical techniques for handling attitudinal and multivariate data are available (e.g., utility analysis, linear programming and econometric techniques). For multivariate biological data on data analysis techniques are not yet well developed. farm systems, Perhaps ecological methods of multivariate analysis can be adapted to this ;nd, and better integration achieved between economic and biological data analyses. Implicit in the above discussion is the need for multi-disciplinary 119. participation in the design of farm system surveys. In the past, economists have played a major role in designi.ng and conducting such surveys in the IARCs. The Review Team sees nothing wrong in this so long as other disciplines participate adequately in survey design. for other However, it would often be advantageous with farmers, it has been 'The Team was informed that for some IITA contacts necessary to use a chain of four translators. 2National Research Council, Supporting Papers: World Food and Nutrition Study, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, 1977, Vol. II, pp.12-51. -35disciplinary scientists to be actively involved in the field survey work to some degree so that they thereby obtain (if not in other ways) active contact with real-world farmers and farming systems. (2) Testing New or Improved Systems The degree of control and management exercised by the farmer ar research 120. team are important considerations in choice of methodology in testing new or imb The number of options to be tested should be quite proved systems on the farm. since most of the variations would have been eliminated in limited at this point, Research Station Studies. For various reasons the FSR team may wish to study certain new or im121. proved practices or systems in the farm environment, butunder the control of the For some of this work conventional field plot techniques may be research team. However, for more and few methodology problems may be encountered. suitable, complex studies where packages of practices, intercropping, or mixed farming systems are involved, there may be serious limitations on the use of existing methodology (as noted relative to Research Station Studies, later in this Chapter). When the farmer is expected to manage the fields or plots, especially if 122. he is asked to handle two or more comparisons or a combination of practices, conventional field plot techniques will be limited in effectiveness, and adjustments in methodology may be necessary. These may include% use of larger fields, re(probably in most cases only one replication of a duction in number of replications treatment per farm is manageable), and use of a minimum number of treatments or comparisons. Another factor in methodology for farmer-managed studies is the degree and method of contact of researchers with the farmer. This will vary, depending on circumstances required by the research, (3) Monitoring Adoption and Impact The study of adoption and impact is analogous to the study of existing 123. systems and implies somewhat similar methodologies. Both are carried out on existing farms and under the management system of the farmer. Both require system measurements within a dynamic, real-world context, and conventional plot techniques are not applicable. Studies of indigenous systems yield baseline data and identify priority problems requiring research attention; while studies to monitor change or to assess impact provide measurements of the systems as they are affected by research results and economic factors, and comparisons with baseline information will be required in order to measure change, 124. Some of the methodology relevant to the study of this type to measure physical and biologic?1 resource/plant growth continuum. developed by ecologists would appear to be of farming system dynamics, for it is designed phenomena within a dynamic space/time/natural 'National Research Council, 11 A Methodology Supporting Papers: World Food and Nutrition 1977, vol. II, ~~-12-51. Washington, for Farming Systems Research", Study, National Academy of Sciences, -36- (c) Research Station Studies This is the research area with which research workers are most familiar 125. Research methods are more developed and conventional; the reand comfortable. environment for investigations; and search station provides a known, controlled However, there are limitations as to the data analysis is fairly standardized. methodologies for FSR which can or should be used, and these should be -- but often are not -- recognized. (1) Component Research Most research in Research Station Studies is primarily component research. 126. it does not usually deal with whole-farm or systemExcept for economic studies, wide problems though it should keep the FSR focus in view. Rather, emphasis is usually restricted to a few factors in the context of a particular problem of prothe resolution of which would be beneficial. duction, Examples of such research include plant breeding, evaluation of tillage 127. practices, pest biology and control, proper fertilizer use, potential new cropping and animal feed evalu.ation. Research Station Studies provide new patterns, ingredients for components of farming systems for given production zones. Some of this work resembles discipline-,oriented research, and may be less dependent on multidisciplinary methodologies than are Base Data Analysis and On-Farm Studies. For those areas where it is more allied to disciplinary research, it is less affected by methodological problems. However, as it begins to focus more on design or other multiple variable of alternative or improved systems, or inter-cropping, methodological problems become more difficult. topics, (2) Evaluation of Research Station Studies A particular concern with such research is the evaluation of its output 128. Such evaluation must (ex ante and ex post) in terms of farm system relevance. encompass (a) system interactions of a bio-technical and agronomic nature (e.g., maize bred without regard to climbing bean requirements may be of no use for maize/ bean systems), as well as (b) economic considerations in terms of resource availability (e.g., is it scale neutral?), expected profitability, income (food) security and external effects (e.g., weedicides could displace and disadvantage poor laborers), and (c) socio-cultural influences to the extent that they are relevant. Important in such evaluation is that there be active cooperation between 129. is. the the biological and social scientists involved in FSR. Of most relevance The Review Team believes that FSR must include a significant economists' role. In contrast, participation by other social scientists: economics component. (sociologists and anthropologists) might, at least in the initial period, best Otherwise the FSR program may run the danger of losing be on a consultative basis. its agricultural focus and becoming too "rural development" oriented. -3 7- For the economist's work of economic evaluation to be successful, 130. two ingredients appear necessary: (a) he must understand what the biological scientists are attempting and be able to communicate with them in the context of their language and traditions, so that they recognize (b) the need for the economist to participate in the design of their research. The latter is necessary since, just as with statistical principles, economic principles of analysis cannot be applied to experiments that are not appropriately designed. (3) 131. Station Particular There Studies: Methodology are two major Needs for needs in Research the area Station Studies for Research of methodology - Immediate attention must be given to criteria for the selection of research priorities in both farm subsystems and subsystem components. This is essential because of the multitudinous array of possible research topics. Only those which are important and solvable should be researched if scarce research resources are not to be wasted. - Improved research methods are needed for multiple cropping. This is especially so in the area of experimental design and analysis. Most conventional plot techniques were designed for monoculture. They are generally not suited for use in systems where two or more crops are grown together and where planting dates, growth patterns, harvest dates and other factors differ or are altered by complex interactions. Plot sizes are often too small, and to conduct experiments on a suitable scale and level of replication often leads to prohibitive costs. Further, since the cost and complexity of multiple cropping experiments is generally much greater than for single-crop experiments, attention needs also to be given to the extent to which single-crop research may give guides to a crop's performance under multiple cropping. 132. dological Other areas of Research Station attention include the conceptual Specifying environment-technology area linking Research Station and On-Farm Studies). Designing Testing new or improved alternative Studies requiring and integrative interaction Studies to both special aspects methoof: (a methodological Base Data Analysis - systems. systems. the biology and ecology systems, interactions pests, etc. Handling pest management factors, including of pests in various cropping or production of weeds, insects, diseases and vertebrate Modelling and Simulation (4) Computer 133. One methodological approach to the four topics listed above is computer modelling and simulation. This has been extremely popular in developed some such work has begun in countries in recent years and, to varying degree, such work has a definite place FSR at the IARCs. In the Review Team's opinion, in the centers, particularly in its linear programming and rainfall/water balance/ -38- crop growth simulation models which can be of real value in helping to define priorities for both Research Station and On-Farm Studies. However, more complicated and nonstandardized modelling should be undertaken cautiously with a full appreciation of its dangers. Stated in extreme terms, these 'dangers lie in the tendency for such models to become monstrously complex, understandable only to their creators, ,and inordinately demanding of research rescl:rces -while always giving the ,appearance that success is just around the corner. Further, as an element of methodclogy transferable to national programs, such complex models would seem to have limited potential given the shortage of computer skills and facilities in most developing countries. -39- v. CONDUCT OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH This chapter will deal 134. it than did Chapter IV, although methodology questions. (i) The Comparative more with organization probably cannot avoid and conduct some overlap of FSR with Advantages of IARCs in FSR The IARCs have some unique advantages in conducting FSR, including: 135. opportunity to travel internationally excellent support staff and facilities, and to become directly acquainted with the problems in their mandate areas; and participants in interested generally good access to potential cooperators considerable scientific prestige and respect; and international countries; compared to national institutions, give them a comparative mandates which, advantage in the study of environment-technology interactions. Some drawbacks of the IARCs in FSR include: 136. the problem of determining the limits of their FSR programs in relation to the areas of responsibility of national organizations; difficulty in working with individual farmers and farm systems except through national programs, some of which are weak and not very effective; a tendency, because of their close proximity, to concentrate on farming systems of the host country at the expense of farming systems elsewhere; and difficulty in maintaining their focus on critical issues of wide relevance rather than becoming too involved in more location-specific practices and problems. 137. Each IARC has been given a commodity and/or geographical mandate under which to work. In theory, FSR responsibilities for those same commodities or geographical regions would also apply to that center. It follows therefore that a given IARC could be responsible to undertake certain FSR activities (e.g., Base Data Analysis) for the commodity(ies) or area(s) within its mandate. Thus, IRRI could be responsible for mobilizing and using natural resource and economic information (Base Data Analysis) on rice-based systems. In addition, it could conduct On-Farm Studies and Research Station Studies on those systems. The same could be true of CIMMYT for wheat and maize; of CIAT for low elevation tropics and for cassava, beans and beef; and of IITA for the subhumid and humid tropics and for cowpea, yams, and sweet potato. However, it is neither likely nor advisable that a center develop an FSR program covering all its mandate's either commodity or geographical. Rather, it is more likely responsibilities, that FSR at a given center would concentrate on no more than a few major For example, the IRRI Cropping Systems Program has chosen to concentrate systems. on rainfed rice. IITA has concentrated mostly on the subhumid rather than the and has not restricted its work to its mandated crops. It has humid tropics, placed more emphasis on land management systems than on specific commodities, and uses special crops to exploit opportunities presented by the available land resources. (ii) 138. under quite Organization of FSR that in the IARCs visited, FSR was carried out ranging from a separate fanning structures, The Review Team found diverse organizational -4o- from systems program with direct budget cover and composed of individuals (which at ICRISAT did not include economics) and headed distinct disc iplines from and financed by an Assistant Director (IITA) I to a group of individuals by disciplinary Departmen-cs and conducting FSR under the leadership of a to I?SR activities being carried out within the structure program leader (IRRI), of commodity programs (CUT). In terms of organization, the Team agrees that there can be no one 139. Some essential ingredients appear to be that there be: perfect structure. an identifiable structure and that it be led in such a way as to facilitate (a) multidisciplinary research; (b) capacity for skilled disciplinary research within the multidisciplinary framework; (c) adequate recognition for scientists participating in the collaborative program; (d) opportuntiy for peer review, professional publication (outside of house media and conference proceedings) and career development advice from other center staff in the same discipline for those specialists assigned directly to FSR programs; and (e) flexibility in staffing so that current activity requirements tend to determine staffing rather than the reverse. Further, if there is a separate FSR program, linkages between this program and the crop improvement programs must be ensured (perhaps via joint appointments). Without such linkages, the crop programs may tend to use the existence of an FSR Program as an excuse to ignore the problems of small farmers. As in any research but more so in FSR with its broadranging and 140. multidisciplinary character, leadership is vital. The Review Team believes that it is mere pertinent to choose a team leader with scientific leadership capacity in the FSR context of wide disciplinary span than with specific disciplinary or other research background. Other things being equal, the Team would give preference in leadership to a farming systems agronomist. However, the main criteria for selection of a leader should be an ability to perceive problems in a holistic manner and to motivate persons from other disciplines. 141. There appear to be at least three different types of teams which can work in FSR programs. One is a group which does Base Data Analysis and which concentrates on land res,ources, climate and weather, and socioeconomic factors. Such an analytical group could also be helpful to the Director General of the Center as an intelligence unit collecting, analyzing and categorizing information which could :be useful in planning strategy and future programs for that Center. Assuming s,ucln responsibilities to the Director General were not too diffuse, or time-consuming, it would seem that this same group could work target areas for FSR together to delineate agro-climatic zones, to identify activities, or to point out new opportunities for commodity research. Although some members A second group could focus on On-Farm Studies. 142. scientists also involved in Base Data Analysis, of this group would include specialists such as entomologists, plant pathologists, economists, and crop physiologists could be &-awn, as needed, from the more specialized disciplines involved primarily in Research Station Studies. -41- A third group would be specialists 143. They should be leading scientists in their would be prepared and enthusiastic to work who work on Research respective disciplinary in a multidisciplinary Station fields team. Studies. who Beyond the designation of an identifiable structure and subgroup 144. activities, the Review Team sees an essential requirement for FSR to be programmed or flow-charted through time and across activities. Though this should not necessarily be in terms of precise deadlines, it should at least be in such a way as to recognize the time-phase dependencies between different This is particularly important in FSR which, by its nature, program elements. depends on coordination in the activities of team members. Unless activities are coordinated over time and sequential dependencies recognized, FSR programs are likely to flounder and generate poor morale. Concomitantly, it is important for individual scientists (who will generally have responsibilities across various activities within and outside the FSR program) to know what their responsibilities are, what these responsibilities imply in terms of time and how they relate to the responsibilities of others. allocation, All members of an FSR program should 145. in the sense of seeing their research approach, recognizing the need for consideration of their that of their own parent disciplines. (iii) Strategy in FSR be oriented towards the systems in a holistic framework and of research from viewpoints beyond 146. The team proposes the following guidelines as the basis of an IARC strategy for FSR, recognizing that the majority of such work will be concerned with farm subsystems (such as cropping systems, watershed systems, livestockfeed systems, etc.) : Make maximum use of existing secondary or historical using innovative integrating techniquues to delineate characterize agro-climatic zones (Base Data Analysis). data, by and to Study and evaluate existing farming systems delineated by agroclimatic zone, in order to assess performance; to identify pressing technological, policy or other problems implied by setting targets for systems performance; and to understand the farmer and the major farming systems of relevance. Use such On-Farm Studies as the basis for focusing research programs on real needs of the farm system. Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of existing farming system practices. Where possible, popularize and extend the use of successful farmer practices to similar agro-climatic zones, and if not successful, understand why. These, along with later farm testing of improved systems, are On-Farm Studies activities. -42- - synthesize and build up improved farming Postulate, investigate, Such work can have its systems via Research Station Studies. origin in Base Data Analysis or On-Farm Studies, or it can arise from ideas and innovations flowing from basic or applied research world-wide or from individual researchers in the IARCs. Once FSR is underway, priority should generally be given to problems identified or refined through On-Farm Studies but witho.ut denying opportunity for the consideration of "bold new designs." The purpose of the Research Station Studies activity is to disaggregate various systems or system components into researchable subtopics account of interaction effects, to build these and then, taking into solutions for integration into management systems. Thus, Research Station Studies will likely include detailed analysis of single-factor problems, synthesis and design of components of important cropping systemsY and modification of existing systems. The Research Station Studies team will also conduct operationalscale field studies of new or improved systems and, after both preliminary technical and economic evaluation, will recommend the most promising ones for trial in farmers' fields. The Research Station Studies group will interact closely with the Cm--Farm Studies group in conducting research on the farms. In Some cases these teams may consist of many of the same staff members, but OnFarm Studies should be led by a person experienced in on-farm research. Limit the number of farming systems to be considered. Unlike crop improvc=nt programs which are relatively tightly defined and can always be rather clearly specified, FSR has a diffuse ambit. Within the mandate of any IARC, a great diversity of farm systems exists due to the influence of agro-climatological, cultural, institutional and socioeconomic factors. But as is clearly recognized, no IARC could possibly handle all the farmi:?g systems it confronts. Positive action is still necessary, however, to ensure that FSR is restricted to a range of activities ,which can be adequately handled within the constraints of staff and budget limitations. To this end, careful selection of priority systems for study and benchmark situations is essential, as is emphasis on research and its associated methodologies which have general rather than only location-specific implications. genera11 question of FSR strategy is that of the balance This is now considered in more detail. and off-station work. - 147. between A further on-station (a) 148. which since On-Station Research the types and amounts of FSR Such questions are reasonable at farm level. Questions have been raised concerning might be carried out on a research station. the ultimate aim of FSR is to have impact -43- Using the Review Team"s concept of FSR involving three basic activity 149. and Research Station Studies are most appropriate for areas, Base Data Analysis which is essentially an effort to make Base Data Analysis, on-station work, well suited to on-station work, maximum use of secondardy data, is especially although, as noted earlier, this may to some extent necessitate off-station or check the reliability of, resource data. Also, surveys to either obtain, early efforts in Research Station Studies to synthesize and test new or improved systems or system components may be carried out most effectively under the However, as a system or controlled circumstances of the research station. system component approaches readiness for wider testing and evaluation, it should This should be done through a network of benchmark sites be moved off-station. (which may include both research stations as well as on-farm sites) I and either controlled by in cooperation with national programs, other IARCs, or on sites the IARC itself. (b) Off-Station Research 150. It is obvious that all On-Farm Studies, by definition, will be carried However, in addition to On-Farm Studies, there out at off-station locations. may be need for evaluation off-station, but still within a controlled or less visible location. Such testing might occur on experimental stations of the local government or special demonstration farms or unit farms (controlled by a national program or IARC) within given agro-climatic zones or subzones, Such off-station work feeds into and is transitional in nature between detailed Research Station Studies and On-Farm Studies; and may be especially important in cases where technology adjudged potentially useful needs evaluation in a certain agro-climatic situation, but is considered too preliminary or risky for evaluation in On-Farm Studies. So far as possible, of course, it is preferable that such off-station testing and evaluation be conducted at benchmark sites, (iv) National Programs -- 151, To be effective, IARCs must work with national programs, Indeed, national programs are the direct clients of the IARCs, The products of the IARCs are methodology, technology and training, In FSR, contact with national programs is of special importance since national or local organizations are needed to provide contact and interaction with farmers for the on-farm testing and evaluation of proposed systems changes, For this reason, when requested, IARCs should be willing to assist national institutions in the planning and organization of national FSR programs. Cooperation in FSR between IARCs and .national institutions should be 152. a two-way process aimed at ensuring the relevance of the work of IARCs to the This cooperation should problems faced by the majority of national programs. be based on full reciprocity taking into account the activities of IARCs and the stage of development of national programs, 153. following Cooperative areas: (a) (b) (cl activities with national programs would mainly cover the data collection and interpretation and information priority setting and planning of FSR; adaption and introduction of new technology within farming systems; exchange; existing -44- (d) (e) development training. and introduction of new farming systems; and By concentrating IARC FSR on problems of unlikely otherwise to be subject sectors such cooperation should achieve agencies, and national FSR international, regional, 154. lished logue general interest and critical covered adequately by national maximum complementarity of efforts. Cooperation in FSR with national institutions should be estabon an equal partnersh.ip basis and establish communication and diaso as to, for example: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) thresh out relevant concepts and terms; understand and criticize one another's programs in all their dimensions of research, training and cooperative activities; gain an appreciation of alternative forms of organization and planning; facilitate the joint development of methodoloqy; provide a professional forum for FSR oriented to small farm systems where the more burning questions such as benchmark site selection procedures, criteria for choosing representative systems, and ,multiple cropping research designs may be argued. 155. Within the cooperative framework, IARCs would be expected to contribute towards the establishment of general principles, basic knowledge and methodologies in FSR, and to develop technologies of wide applicability. It should be pointed out that there are considerable benefits to be gained from cooperative efforts between national programs and IARCs, and that their programs, respective roles in FSR can be complementary. For example, national in addition to meeting their own objectives, could play an important role in an "upstream" sense for the IARCs by identifying priority problems and by suggesting needed improvements in methodology or other outputs of FSR., In some cases national programs may also wish to involve IARCs in some "downstream" activities, especially in the areas of on-farm studies, methodology development, and location specific research. 150. In general, IARCs may not be able to meet all the demands of the many countries which may wis,h to cooperate with them in the field of FSR. While IARCs may assist a wide range of countries in such aspects as information exchange and training in the field of FSR, the complexity of FSR necessarily limits the scope of cooperation to selected countries. In many cases, however, even if it cannot assist {directly, a center may be able to identify and mobilize sources of funding and technical assistance which may contribute towards strengthening national research in this field. 157. Active cooperation with national programs in development of methodology is warranted in the first years of the establishment of FSR at an IARC, even program to offer to national institutions. though the center may havle no defined At this stage, it is the ¢er which is expected to benefit most from the cooperation with national programs in that such cooperation can help in setting research priorities for the IARC's FSR program. -45- 158. It should be kept in mind, however, that the scope of cooperation will very much depend on the stage of development of national FSR programs. Some national agricultural research organizations have FSR or other relevant programs of their own. Some of these programs are fairly well established {as in Brazil, Central America, Indonesia and Senegal) while others are just beginning. Close linkages of IARCs with existing or new programs will be important in providing outlets for new technology. 159. There may be some pitfalls ahead of IARCs in dealing with national programs. In particular, IARCs should be cautious in interacting with national programs on politically sensitive issues such as may sometimes arise when assisting in socioeconomic surveys and in contributing to national development programs. Secondly, where FSR programs do not exist in a country, linkages to farms may be limited, and unless some activity or at least appreciation of FSR builds up, adoption and effective use of IARC systems technology may be limited. Also, the specific commodity or natural resource mandates of different IARCs may present problems when more than one IARC works in one country, particularly when the FSR priorities of the national organization differs from that of the IARCs. a center should Accordingly, avoid engaging in cooperative activities in a country where another IARC is already working without prior consultation with this center so as to avoid confusion and competition. 160, The possible modes of cooperation between IARCs and national programs in FSR are necessarily varied. The simplest and often most effective mode of cooperation, as a first step before establishing formal agreements, is between individual scientists in IARCs and in national programs who are engaged in FSR in common areas of interest. Follow-up and backstopping of former trainees by IARC personnel would be another aspect of this type of cooperation. 161. Another mode of cooperation is for the IARC to outpost FSR scientists to work in national programs, share their problems, assist in the planning and implementation of FSR activities, and provide a link and feedback facility for the FSR program at the headquarters of the IARC. Such outposted staff can also play a useful role in identifying candidates for fellowships and training courses at the IARC, and providing in-service training by working with and within a national program. Most IARCs are involved in this type of cooperation. 162. Some IARCs, notably CIAT, ICRISAT, and ILCA, are developing their cooperation with national programs by establishing one or more relay stations at certain benchmark locations for tackling problems which are specific to certain groups of countries. A relay station may also serve as a focal point for establishing programs of cooperation between interested countries. 163. A similar formula is the development of regional programs which play the same role in stimulating cooperation between several countries and an IARC. In this case, however, there is no regional base or focal point (e.g., relay station) for this cooperation. Some of these regional programs are called "networks" when several countries agree to conduct jointly a series of investigations with common objectives and methodologies. -46- IRRI's Asian Cropping Systems Network is an excellent example of 164. mode of cooperation with national programs. This network operates on a emphasizing rice-based cropping systems. The program collaborative basis, is structured around regular joint planning and conduct of research, annual meetings for planning and evaluation purposes, and strong training linkages which are reinforced through the efforts of a Cropping Systems Network Coordinator. cooperation within a network will be limited by the 165. Of course, possible differences in the stages of development of national FSR proqrams and in the diversity of their problems as shown by IRRI, when common problems have been identified, networks in FSR can be a very effective means for developing methodologies. 166. In general, cooperation between an IARC and a national program in FSR will usually be with institutions designated by the government for such cooperation. IARCs may play an important role in facilitating the contributions of several national institutions to the national FSR program, in particular that of universities. However, contacts with other institutions such as development agencies, universities, etc., should be made by the IARC through the national institution designated as having official responsibility for agricultural research. 167. Where virtually no national capability in FSR exists, progress will be slower and the seminal role of IARCs, especially in training, could be of great importance. Where little national interest exists or in (cases where it cannot be stimulated, IARCs should not be held responsible for lack of progress. In such cases, progress will be necessarily slower, and access by that country to IARC technology may be gained only through specific commodity programs or initiatives. In such cases the crop or livestock system program of Research Station Studies and On-Farm Studies could become important as the vehicle for change. (v) Training a 168. The Review Team considers training to be one of the most important benefits of FSR work at the IARCs. Indeed, the Team considers training to be an integral part of the F,SR program, for FSR by its nature is most useful in the context of collaboration between national and international (including Training a cadre of experienced personnel in a IARCs) institutions. cooperating country sprea,ds the philosophy and methodology of FSR to and provides a basis for FSR networks neighboring or interested countries, IRRI, ICRISAT and IITA all have FSR training and cooperative activities. and each has a number of former trainees located in countries within programs, IRRI has been especially effective in selecting their areas of responsibility. identified positions in their home countries, trainees who return to specific, most of which are linked into the Asian Cropping Systems Network. -47- (vi) Collaboration Develoued with Country International Institutions Agencies and It is clearly recognized that IARCs should not take on the role of 169. development agencies or become directly involved in location-specific problems within their respective geographic mandates or in commodity-based It is therefore paramount that they must establish strong farming systems. cooperative links with national institutions within their constituencies, In addition, they will often need to foster cooperative activities or seek assistance from international development agencies or developed country institutions with specific skills or capabilities. In particular, such cooperation or assistance in national programs may be needed in Base Data Analysis and Research Station Studies programs. For example, help could be sought from FAO on definition of land and agro-climatic zones, from the USDA, CSIRO or FAO on land and soil classification, and from WMO on weather and climatic characterizations. -48- VI. (iI 170. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT THE IARCs General are four general little categories of IARC involvement (e.g., in FSR: CIP and ILRAD). There (1) (2) IARCs having or no FSR activity IARCs with FSR activities but no formal subgroup or program CIAT in its beef program in particular but also to a (e-g., degree in its bean and cassava programs, and CIMMYT in its adoption-survey activities). IARCs with formal FSR programs as well grams (e.g., ICRISAT, IITA, and IRRI). as Crop Improvement Pro- (3) (4) IARCs with a center-wide commitment to following a farming systems philosophy in all program activities (e.g., ILCA and ICARDA). Being a relatively new field of endeavor with all the contingent 171. difficulties of multidisciplinary involvement, it is not surprising that the degree of commitment to FSR and the concepts and approaches used vary widely across the IARCs (as shown by comparing the FSR programs of the four IARCs detailed in Annexes 2 to 5). Such variation is to be expected in the initial growth of a new research field. Further, each of the IARCs can be expected to adopt a somewhat different pattern and style in its approach to FSR according to the obligations of its mandate. For example, the approach to FSR of a center devoted to a specific commodity (e.g., rice) will differ considerably from an IARC where the mandate calls for a geographical focus (e.g., humid tropics). 172. However, there are signs that FSR at the IARCs is entering a stage of consolidation. Improved intra-center organization for FSR is developing, as is inter-center awareness and discussion of differences in approach. From their different starting points, the IARCs visited by the Review Team are all beginning to recognize their FSR deficiencies or needs in terms of the three basic activities of Base Data Analysis, On-Farm Studies or Research Station confidence in FSR is developing as Studies as the case may be. Concurrently, the effects of better organization and farm system understanding enable fruitful co-operation, liaison and complementarity between FSR programs and other center programs in both research and training, and in relation to national programs. (ii) Potential -Role of FSR 173. Crops are the principal output of the of germplasm collection, constraints from either national institutions. Many view the major interest of most of the IARCs. IARCs as improved cultivars generated via a process screening and crossing to meet or overcome relevant the supply or demand side, and dissemination via -4% the Review Team would argue that the major In such a context, 174. potential role of FSR in the IARCs is in better identification and appreciation of the system-wide interdependencies of the relevant constraints on which crop improvement should focus if it is to be acceptable Implicit in this major role would be messages to the IARCs to farmers. on their general program strategy and planning relative to both research (including training) and cooperative activities with national programs. less important role for FSR would be in guiding farming systems adaptions necessary if full advantage were to be taken of the improved cultivars. A 175. Given the limits to further increase in arable land and the the Review Team believes that as rising cost of key inputs (such as oil), the potential for crop genetic improvement diminishes, FSR will assume an increasingly major role in the IARCs, particularly in developing new farming as the centers systems mostly independent of seed improvement. Concurrently, necessarily become more concerned with second and third generation problems, This implies crop programs will increasingly need to consider crop systems. that IARCs will progressively have to take a broader approach to crop the approach might be the relatively passive production. At one extreme, More one of acting mainly as a liaison center between national programs. fruitfully, it could be the active one of FSR based on recognition that farmers use farming systems which are researchable and can be improved at the whole-farm, cropping or crop system levels in multifarious ways beyond seed improvement. it should be wa.rned that FSR is not likely At the same time, to be as startling in its successes as the early exploitations of genetic potential. Rather than "breakthroughs", FSR is :far more likely to be characterized by a steady stream of incremental gains arising from myriad system adjustments. This would be expected to be so even under the most efficacious arrangments for transfer, adaption, development and extension through national agencies. In reality, of course, potential will be lessened by the actuality of national programs being less than the ideal, coupled with the pervasive problem of location specificity for FSR at the IARCs. 176. As emphasized elsewhere in this Report,, no IARC could possibly conduct FSR directly relevant to all the systems or locations covered by its mandate. At best, all that is feasible is research on some few key systems at some few key locations. For the potential of IARC FSR to be achieved, it is essential that these systems and locations be chosen such that they are as significant as possible in terms of research output transferability, feasible adaption and impact through national agencies. However, because of the constraint of location specificity and the newness of FSR, the value of FSR in the IARCs -- at least in the early stages -- will mainly lie not in the direct research results obtained but in the development of FSR It is these national programs methodology for transfer to national programs. which must far more directly meet the problem of location specificity. The immediate need and potential for FSR within the IARCs, as 177. to both the mandate of a center and relative implied above, vary according Thus it would be poor science for either IITA to its crop responsibilities. to be tackling the problem of shifting cultivation or ICRISAT to be considerConversely, ing the semi-arid tropics without a farming systems orientation. IRRI's work in FSR appears to reflect an appreciation that rice breeding today CIAT, with its mixed geographical and crop needs the guidance of FSR. Likewise -5o- mandate, has taken a strong systems approach in its "new lands" (i.e. allic soil or beef) program for the llanos and cerrado, and within its bean and cassava programs is implicitiy using a small farmer systems focus to its research. In summary, therefore, 178. the Review Team sees FSR as being an essential complement to crop improvement and, when improvement possibilities are limited, the major avenue of agricultural research available and appropriate to the CGIAR system. This is particularly so in terms of the CGIAR requirements for IARC activities (as listed in paragraph 49) to involve subject matter (such as FSR methodology and development) not likely to be covered elsewhere, to be complementary to national programs, to benefit small farmers and to enhance production of important food commodities. Further, within this general IARC context, the Review Team considers FSR to be very important in giving a structured and coordinated approach to problem identification, analysis and solution under real-world as well as providing a way to develop appropriate techfarm conditions, nology for less-understood small farmers. (iii) Actual Relative -Role to of FSR Program Strategy and Planning - (a) General To work effectively in FSR and to ensure early impact, IARCs 179. must concentrate on critical problems and/or promising technologica:L opportunities. Either approach requires good intelligence about the production system(s) and the farmer himself, as well as the constraints under which the farmer has to operate. The required intelligence needs to take into account the existing situation , potential and actual changes in the system, and general future trends. Also, the IARCs need continuing, purposive linkages with national programs and activities. FSR, in the context of its three activity areas, can fulfill a necessary role in measuring and monitoring present farm problems and needs, and in assessing potential future impact and adoption of IARC technology. Also, FSR can provide a "grassroots early warning system" to call attention to necessary changes in IARC strateg'y or plans. As yet, it does not appear to be the case at any IARC that FSR 180. is playing its full potential role as an influence on general progriml influence appears mainly to have been in strategy and planning. Rather, the opposite direction. This is not surprising since none of the centers It would be through has yet a complete program of basic FSR activities. the interaction of these activities, when fully established, that major feedback for general center program strategy and planning would be expected. -51- (b) Relative to Crop Im,provement Programs The Review Team considers FSR to be potentially very important 181. This in helping to define breeding objectives for new crop cultivars. complementarity will necessarily strengthen as production increases are achieved more by way of incremental steps based on improved performance of the whole system than by the introduction of a superior cultivar. Thus, if FSR is closely linked to crop improvement programs, a more structured and holistic approach can be taken to breeding, field evaluation, adoption and farmer management of improved IARC cultivars. 182. Across the centers visited, no clear-cut picture emerged of the relationship between the crop improvement and FSR programs. Aspects clouding the picture were the relative difficulty of achieving FSR goals as compared to crop program goals (e.g., as at IITA and ICRISAT), the cautious "outside" attitudes to the new systems approach, the relatively unproven nature of FSR, and the difficulty of assessing its success. Yet it was apparent that fruitful cooperation between programs at the personal level existed at all four centers and that the way is now open and developments are proceeding for strong program interaction and cooperation on a two-way flow basis. (cl Relative to Understanding the Small Farmer 183. The CGIAR has stressed its desire for IARC work to reach and benefit the small farmer of developing countries. It was notable to the Review Team that at all the centers visited, the FSR Program or orientation provided a very significant and systematic approach to small farmer These benefits, moreover, went contact, understanding and appreciation. not only to FSR but to other center programs and activities as well. Relative 184. national farmer. to National Programs - For other obvious reasons as well as location specificity, programs constitute the link between FSR at the IARCs and the The importance of this linkage can hardly be overstressed. it should be relatively 185. Where on-going national programs exist, easy for IARCs to develop meaningful linkages and mutually agreeable identify candidates for training, test and arrangements for cooperation, adapt new methodology, provide a basis to iden-tify important national Of course, the problems of specific importance to IARC mandates, etc. nature and orientation of national programs may determine or influence the Where national type of interactive or cooperative activities undertaken. often find it difficult to programs do not exist or are weak, IARCs will operate effectively and to find avenues for cooperation and outlets for new technology. -52- National programs (are especially important in determining the 186. extent and characteristics of location specificity, a topic of special Th(e Review Team was particularly impressed with importance to the IARCs. the value to IRRI (and natio:nal programs also) of the Asian Cropping Systems which appeared to be a truly joint and fruitful mechanism for Network, cooperative planning and decision based on mutual respect and a recognition of partnership between the parties involved. Also significant is 1CRI:SAT's In the case of these two centers they cooperation with Indian Programs. with countries having relatively have been cooperating, for the most part, strong national research programs. Other IARCs are not as fortunate in The Team emphasizes the importance of training by IARCs as a this respect. means of assisting national program development. The real difficulty is where, despite the opportunity of training, no will exists for the establishment or development of national institutions and programs. IARC interest in such situations would appear futile and in the view of the Review Team would be better directed to more fruitful opportunities. 187. The Review Team recognizes the importance of the level of development and nature of national FSR programs. The Team visited only national FSR program, that in Senegal, and was most impressed with its methodology and approach. (iv) The FSR I?rogram one 188. Because of differences in mandates, approaches and structures across the IARCs, it is d.ifficult to give a coherent overall assessment of the FSR Program as found within the CGIAR system. Assessment and comment are easier on a center by center basis as given in Annexes 2 to 5. Nonetheless, FSR as currently conducted and the Review Team has no doubt that, overall, developing in the centers well meets the CGIAR requirements for an IARC activity as specified in paragraph 49. To date, most FSR in the centers visited by the Review Team has been concerned with the cropping subsystem rather than with the whole-farm system. So far as it has occurred, research on the whole-farm .system has largely been restricted to economic analysis. The Review Team expects that FSR in the IARCs will continue to emphasize subsystems rathcer than the whole-farm system. (a) Organization and Planning 189. The Review Team recognizes that there is no one perfect FSR program structure. However, there are some principles which the Team sees (1) that the FSR program be on a team as being particularly important: basis and organized in such a way that multidisciplinary research can be conducted with a systems focus: (2) that no one discipline should be considered to have priority in leadership; and (3) that team members should have adequate opportunity for professional development via peer contact, review and professional refereed publication. -53190. The latter principle is an aspect of staff relations. If -as sugges-ted below -- FSR implies flexibility in staffing, then for such work to be attractive i-t must offer the opportunity for professional development and recognition so as to ensure career prospects for the scientists involved. In large degree, this implies the need to publish in professionally refereed journals. The strong impression gainad by the Review Team was that FSR scientists have published too much in sundry conference proceedings and in-house media, and too little in reputable journals. Further, it was commonly implied by scientists that the IARC ambiente was such as to disfavor too big an interest in publication -rather one should get on with the research and push out the technology, leaving the "publish or perish" syndrome to academics. While this may be an appropriate view for plant breeders, it is not proper for FSR. If the situation is as implied, the Review Team sees it as a short-sighted and scientifically unsound policy. 191. the Review Team found the variation in degree Between centers, of formal organization and planning remarkable, particularly as it believes the need is obvious for FSR to be planned and flowcharted so that team members know what is expected of them and,when. In this respect the Review Team considered IRRI's program to be the best organized and planned. IITA, after extensive discussion within the program, has recently established an organizational framework and planning frame (which the Review Team approves), while ICRISAT (with its project-based research administration) had yet to fully consider such possibilities. 192. Closely related to organization and planning is the question of progress in developing methodology and procedures for FSR, e.g., the conduct of the three basic FSR activities (Base Data Analysis, On-Farm Studies, and Research Station Studies). Research has obvious implications for organization and planning. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the Review Team found much the same pattern across centers in the development and appraisal of methodology, and awareness of needs, as for the degree of organizational development and planning. Particular topics on which methodological emphasis is needed are multidisciplinary methods for the study of existing farming systems, methods of on-farm research (both under researcher and farmer control), multiple and selection procedures for priority cropping, benchmark site selection, systems to be studied. (b) Disciplinary Balance 193. The requirements of disciplinary balance in FSR are not fixed. They should vary depending upon the nature of the program (or center mandate) and its stage of development in terms of basic FSR activities and the amount of on-station and off-station work. What is sure is that a mix is required, that it should vary over time, and that it should generally involve agronomists and economists. At any point in time, guidance on the appropriate mix will be enhanced if the work is programmed and flowcharted so as to show tasks, time tables and responsibilities (with appropriate need, of course, for flexibility as opportunities are seen or dead ends are established). -54- The need for flexibility in balance has implications for staffing 194. policy which may be implemlented either via short-term appointments of say 3 months to 3 years or via movements (or adjustable joint responsibilities) Across the centers visited, best appreciabetween FSR and other programs. appeared to exist at IITA. tion of these possibilities So far as balancle overall in the FSR program is concerned, changes 195. from that currently existing can be expected as the various centers move Pointers to towards needed adjustments in the three basic FSR activities. such changes are indicated on an individual center basis in Annexes 2 to 5. 196. The Team wishes to emphasize that FSR requires a multidisciplinary team, including physical, biological and social scientists. Historically, the most difficult role to integrate has been that of the social scientists. economists are considered essential to FSR, while Of the social scientists, other social science disciplines may only need to play a consultative role depending on an IARC's particular requirements. Although the Team recognizes the important role that such 197. scientists as rural development economists, sociologists or anthropologists might play in FSR programs at IARCs, it suggests that these disciplinary areas should not be regarded as necessarily having an essential or a permanent status. 198. Economists assigned to FSR should have some background in, and a willingness to work with specialists belonging to, physical and biological sciences. A special partnership is required between agronomists and economists, and both should make special efforts to learn each other's research needs and research approaches in order to carry out meaningful collaborative research. In cases where, for some reason, economists a.re not formally assigned to FSR programs, arrangements should be such as to Overall, the Review Team was most pleased ensure their active participation. with the contribution of social scientists (largely production economists) to the centers' FSR work. Only at ICRISAT did it detect any hesitancy in the receptivity of some parts of the FSR Program to an economics ipput, and even this hesitancy appeared to be declining. (cl Basic Acti.vities As discussed in Chapter IV (v) I the Review Team sees Base Data 199. On-Farm Studies and Research Station Studies complemented by Analysis, as the basic areas of activity training and cooperation with national programs, across centers was necessary for successful FSR. In these terms the pattern IRRI coming closest to an adequate balance, CIAT being somewhat variable, and ICRISAT and IITA needing more development of short on Base Data Analysis, On-Farm Studies in their programs. -55- (d) Benchmark Sites FSR, more so than crop improvement, necessarily needs to be 200. land, population density, conducted within a specified framework of climate, which the production systems fit. As infrastructure, culture, etc., within methodology for delimiting these frames of reference is not well deyetI Pending better selection procedures, the agroclimatic veloped or tested. zone approach (along the lines developed at IRRI in particular but also to a degree at IITA and ICRISAT) appears fruitful as a basis for demarcating Within such regions, benchmark sites are regional areas for FSR purposes. needed as sample locations for research and testing. Again, just as for the methodology is needed for benchmark delimitation of regions or situations, site selection. Moreover, while only a few benchmark sites can be operated by a center, only a few of all possible system comparisons can be handled at Hence the selection of benchmark sites and the work to be any one site. undertaken on them is most important. Too, benchmark sites may be needed at both the macro (e.g., regional) and micro (e.g., district or village) levels. Micro requirements, however, are likely to vary more over time as particular needs have to be met. IRRI appears to have proceeded furthest in the 201. Across the centers, establishment of benchmark sites; while IRRI and ICRISAT seem best to have considered the problem of choice criteria. Overall, however, the question of benchmark site criteria and location is still very open and in need of attention - particularly since their establishment at the regional level may be relatively permanent and expensive, and choice may depend not just on FSR requirements but also on those of other programs (both center and national). (e) Balance between On-Station and Off-Station Work stations, off-station, 202. Much IARC work in FSR is carried i.e., Research Station Studies. There is especially in On-Farm Studies. out on the experimental currently much less work 203. The Review Team recognizes that the stage of development of an FSR program will largely determine how much and what type of research will be carried out on or off-station. Generally, surveys (either in Base Data Analysis or On-Farm Studies) and on-farm experiments will be the major types of activity carried out in the early stages of can FSR program. However, as the program develops and benchmark sites (macro or micro-level) are selected, these too will become important. The Team suggests that, while no clear guidelines can be given for balance between on-station and off-station activities, some general principles can be established; namely that (a) IARCs should be involved in both; and (b) IARCs should continually review the balance between these activities relative to the requirements of a changing FSR program. 204. One point which the Review Team wishes to make is that while training may be considered as an on-station activity, it will have significant off-station implications; e.g., in the establishment of networks and the conduct of collaborative research. The Team also emphasizes that the same can be said for onstation development of methodology. -56- Related to the question of on-and off-station activity is the 205. question of balance between surveys (an off-station activity) and experimentation (generally on-station). Both surveys and experimentation survey information on existing are important components of FSR. Without their environment and constraints, FSR will be poorly focused. systems, The balance between surveys and experimentation is mixed across 206. current programs in the four IARCs, particularly when it is recognized that surveys are pertinent to agronomic-type information as well as Overall, the Review Team judges that somewhat more survey economic data. work is required and that there should be a far more purposive orientation in this activity. The exception is ICRISAT where the current balance and purposeful nature of the village level studies appear excellent. At IRRI the balance appears adequate, but more purposeful data collection and analysis would seem to be necessary. Survey activity by IITA must be recognized as a very difficult undertaking due to problems of logistics and language. If these problems could be overcome, the ICRISAT model could be relevant. At the same time, it is a wonder that IITA has been able -:o do what it has in terms of survey activities. (f) Work with Non-Mandate Commodities 207. The Review Team recognizes that, in the course of FSR, an IARC will often encounter the need (or possibility) to work or deal with commodities outside of its mandate. Examples might be livestock or fibre crops in some areas, or of tree crops and vegetables in the humid and subhumid tropics. The Team believes that where such commodities are potentially important to farming systems in the area of interest to an IARC, then they should be considered within the center's FSR. However, IARCs should not conduct breeding programs on such crops (as distinct from merely screening existing cultivars if that should be appropriate). Current policy at the centers appears to be largely in line with 208. the above view. On a center basis, perhaps the most burning question is whether IITA should strongly emphasize tree crops as an element of multitiered cropping systems for the humid tropics. To the Review Team this wou Id seem a wise development (at least for the future if not immediately) given the substantial body of opinion suggesting that, without tree crops, the problem of shifting cultivation in the humid (as distinct from sub-humid) tropics is unsolvable. (g) Training The Review Team strongly believes that training must be considered 209. an integral part of FSR programs at the IARCs. Training fulfills functions both in development of individuals as well as in institutional development. FSR work will be strongly disadvantaged in its Without a training component, scope for cooperative activities with national programs and hence in the transfer of its research developments. -5-T- IRRI's training program appeared best Of the centers visited, 210. Perhaps bedeveloped and in balance with other FSR program activities. cause of the lack of permanent building facilities, ICRISAT's program seemed least developed in terms of training though, within India, this is probably somewhat compensated for through cooperative field research with national institutions. (h) Criteria for Assessment A question often raised with the Review Team was how should FSR 211. The difficulty is that unlike with genetic improvement, for be assessed. there are no direct measurements available to assess the impact example, does provide a basis for measuring the adoption of FSR. However, FSR itself or impact of new technology, provided baseline data are available. The outputs of FSR at the IARCs are new methodologies and 212. trained personnel and a approaches, new systems and system components, better basis for both cooperative activities and farmer extension by national agencies. FSR results usually are not specific to one IARC (except in cases 213. such as IE?RI when new rice technology is identified closely with the nor does it carry a name or designation from a particular IARC. Institute), FSR benefits will (and In fact, by using a cooperative program approach, should) accrue more to national institutions than IARCs. Therefore, adoption of new technology and methodology by national institutions is one logical criterion for assessment of IARC FSR programs. 214. factors Beyond this to be used in potential the Review Team suggests aspect, assessing FSR work at the IARCs: impact of developed of developed systerns; systems in their the following list of degree of adoption relevant context; impact of the FSR approach on national of their research organization, training number of persons trained made to and their science agencies in terms and planning; activities; by peer subsequent as recognized the contribution review processes. -58- (v) Cooperation between IARCs in FSR Unlike traditional disciplinary research as in genetic crop 215. FSR is both young in itself and in its IARC development. improvement, there is a need for better Inter-center Not surprisingly, thereforle, fora providing communication and dialogue in FSR so as to, for example: (1) (2) thresh out relevant concepts and terms; programs in all and cooperative forms of organization understand and criticize one another's training their dimensions of research, activities; gain an appreciation and planning; facilitate the joint of alternative (3) (4) (5) development of methodology; to small such as for choosing research provide ,a professional forum for FSR oriented farm systems where the more burning questions benchmark site selection procedures, criteria representative systems, and multiple cropping designs 'may be argued. As yet there seems to have been only limited opportunity for in part because FSR scientists must use some of their travel such fora, and conference opportunities to sustain their disciplinary capital. The Review Team sees joint development of methodology as a major 216. goal of cooperation between IARCs. The Team does not consider FSR as a Joint developfield in which serious overlap may result between IARCs. ment of methodology is especially important because of possible confusion which could result if two or more IARCs with different methodologies were to work in the same country on different commodities or problems, lout with the same institutions. -59- VII. SUMMARYOF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Only the Review Team's major conclusions and recommendations are 217. Many other conclusions are noted throughout summarized in this Chapter. Conclusions and recommendations about the prior chapters of this Report. FSR at the particular centers visited are given in Anneses 2 to 5. Terminology in FSR (i) The Review Team found that between, within, and outside the IARCs, 218. much of FSR terminology is used in different ways, often confusingly. In an attempt to improve this situation the Team, in Chapter II of this report, gives its preferred use of terminology in FSR, particularly in relation to The suggested terminology covers such terms as crop or livestock crops. system (or crop or livestock production system), muLtiple cropping system (of which there may be many specific types suGh as intercrop or associated cropping system, relay cropping system and sequential cropping system), crop system, all of w:hich can be regarded as subrotation system, and cropping systems of the whole-farm system of production used by the farmer. 219. The term farming systems research is a generic term used to refer to any type of research which views the farm in a holistic manner. Thus it encompasses any research concerned with farm subsystems or the whole-farm system. The Team recommends that, whenever po,ssible, research on farm subsystems should be referred to specifically, e.g., as crop system research G livestock system research. Further, since crop systems, cropping systems and livestock systems, and their component parts, can be regarded as components of whole-farm systems, research below the whole-farm level should be recognized as systems component research or simply component research.in the context of the IARCs' research programs, However, the Team believes, it would be best not to regard research on individual components as comprising FSR unless either (a) the research is focused on interaction between the particular component and other system components, or (b) it is undertaken specifically with a systems focus in view. (ii) IARC Involvement in FSR 220. The Review Team is convinced that FSR is both a valid and essential As per CGIAR requirements, FSR involves activity for the IARC system. critical subject matters not likely to be otherwise covered, is complementary and is concerned with both important food commodities to national activities, FSR will tend to become inand small farmers in developing countries. Concurrently, as this creasingly important as the basis of IARC research. crop and livestock improvement will depend increasingly on FSR both as occurs, a guide to desired genetic manipulation and as a necessary complement to achieving farmer adoption. -6O- A survey of the ongoing programs of the existing IARCs, of 221. reveals that IARC involvement in FSR falls into which there are nine, four categories: (1) (2) (3) IARCs having no apparent FSR activities but no formal (CIP and ILRAD). FSR program IARCs with FSR activities (CIAT and CIMMYT). IARCs with Improvement a formal FSR program as well as Crop Programs (ICRISAT, IITA, IRRI) + to following ILCA). a (4) IARCs with a center-wide commitment farming systems philosophy (ICARDA, 222, The Review Team Irecommends that all commodity/regionally oriented IARCs, i.e. all except ILW, should have a clearly recognized ._ FSR. Such work, however,‘ should emphasize program in, or orientation?o, -,he production aspects of farming systems in the sense of being primarily oriented to agricultural (including economic) research. The focus should not be broadened to include "rural development" defined in broad social welfare terms relative ts farm system improvement. To date most FSR in the IARCs has been concerned with the 223. The Review Team cropping subsystem rather than the whole-farm system. recommends that this emphasis should continue and that research on wholebe confined to (i) the analysis of existing farm systems should, in general, systems and (ii) the monitoring and economic evaluation of proposed new and/ or improved systems. (iii) Role of FSR in IARCs The Review Team blelieves that FSR has an important role both in 224. a downstream sense (link in the research chain taking information gained from the experimental progr.am and finding a place for it in the farmer's production system) and in tin upstream sense (for recognition of constraints The Team places particular and in problem identificati,on and analysis). importance on the latter role of FSR in the IARCs and recommends that crop and/or livestock improvement programs be linked closely with FSR activities in the IARCs. To ensure such li:nkages it is necessary to devise organizational 225. and work arrangements such that scientists in commodity or crop improvement programs who work at the crop system (or subsystems) level (e.g., agronomists, economists, pest management specialists) cooperate closely with FSR staff who One way of fostering work at the cropping systems or farming system level. wider inter-program cooperation would be for certain key scientists to have joint appointments across the FSR and other programs. -61- (iv) Limits of FSR in IARCs 226. Both upstream and downstream FSR activities of IARCs will differ from those of national FSR programs. The Review Team recommends that because of their nature IARCs should, so far as possible, limit their concern to FSR activities yielding results (technologies and methodologies) which: (a) can be generalized or extrapolated (and are therefore related more to principles and methods rather than to location-specific practices); (b) are oriented to specific commodity or resource mandates; and (c) have potential for wide impact. 227. In contrast, national FSR programs are obliged to deal more with location-specific problems (and are oriented therefore more toward management practices or culture-specific needs), and are designed to have more direct impact on pressing local problems. (v) FSR in Relation to IARC Program Strategy and Planning 228. The Review Team recommends that overall IARC program strategy recognize FSR as highly complementary to crop/livestock improvement, particularly in providing a research capability to guide the development and integration of new technology. It is recognized that implementation of this recommendation could take a somewhat different form in each of the IARCs depending on the center's mandate. if advances in genetic improveFurther, ment become more difficult to achieve, FSR must play an increasing role in guiding a center's research priorities and recognition of research opportunities. 229. should It is involve: (1) (2) (3) (4) recommended that the broad strateg y for FSR in the IARCs maximum use of existing secondary or historical farming systems data. delineated of to be study and evaluation of existing on a ourooseful basis. investigation postulation, synthesis, improved farming systems. purposeful researched pertinent and evaluation limitation of the number of farming systems since no center could consider all systems to its mandate. 230. In carrying out such a strategy, it is recommended that the three basic activities of Base Data Analysis, On-Farm Studies Station Studies as described in Chapters III and IV. FSR involve and Research -62- The current pattern across centers in terms of the three basic 231. on average there is a need for Overall, FSR activities is very mixed. somewhat more Base Data Analysis and On-Farm Studies. Though all FSR activities should contribute to IARC planning, 232. Base Data Analysis may have a particular role to play, either in itself secretariat activities", as a or if complemented by some other "policy source of planning intelligence for overall center management. (vi) IARCs in IRelation to FSR Methodology FSR, with its holistic, 233. multidisciplinary team approach derived from systems analysis, is a relatively new approach to agricultural research. Particularly in terms of small farmer systems (usually involving multiple cropping and of special concern to IARCs), there has not yet been developed a consistent body of methodology. The IARC system has the capacity to develop the required body of methodology. National programs, because of their direct involvement with and responsibilities to farmers in specific locations, have a very strong need for FSR methodology so as to facilitate their research and the evlentual acceptance by farmers of improved farming systems. For these reasons it is recommended that the development of FSR methodology be recognized as a major output of IARCs' programs. At the same time, of course, IARCs wo,uld also contribute directly to the generation of improved farming systems .through their research on certain key systems at benchmark locations. 234. Particular areas of FSR for which it is recommended that methodology needs to be further devel'oped relate to (i) the delineation of agroclimatic or other regions, (ii) th'e selection of benchmark sites, (iii) the choice of key systems for study, (iv) the d esign and conduct of multiple crop research and (v) the conduct of on-farm crop and livestock systems research. Especially important are methodologies for the choice of benchmark sites and key farming systems since no IARC could possibly consider all the farming systems relevant to its mandate. A particular aspect of FSR methodology is the possibility of using 235. computer modelling as a surrogate and complement for experimentation. This has many potential advantages. that it is However, the Review Team believes not appropriate at this stage for the IARCs to become heavily involved in research on computer modelling per se, rather they should tend to use adaptions the Review Team of standard-type models developed elsewhere. Accordingly, recommends that IARCs exercise caution in the type of computer modelling they use and their degree of czommitment to model development, particularly at the stage of development. IARCs' current (vii) Organization of FSR Whether as a separate program or as an overriding philosophy to a 236. center's total program, t:he Revi ew Team recommends that FSR be organized such (a) an identifiable staff and program structure managed and that there is: -63- led in such a way as to facilitate capacity for skilled disciplinary lb) adequate ciplinary framework; (c) in the collaborative program; (d) participating scientists; and (e) by program development. multidisciplinary team research within the recognition for scientists opportunity for career flexibility in staffing research; multidisparticipating development by as necessitated Other things being equal and recognizing that no particular 237. discipline should be considered as having priority in leadership, the Review Team believes a farming systems agronomist would have the best scientific background for FSR leadership. In any case, the main criteria for selection of a leader should be an ability to perceive problems in a holistic manner and to motivate persons from other disciplines. Within the FSR team, subgroups with overlapping membership might best be organized around the three basic activities of Base Data Analysis, On-Farm Studies, and Research Station Studies as discussed in Chapter V (ii). The Review Team recommends that FSR be programmed or flow-charted 238. through time and across activities, not necessarily in terms of precise deadlines but at least in such a way as to recognize the time-phase dependencies among different program elements and to indicate the interdependent responsibilities among team members. This is particularly important in FSR which, by its nature, depends on coordination in the activities of team members. Unless activities are coordinated over time and sequential dependencies recognized, FSR programs are likely to flounder and generate poor morale. 239. As a matter of organization and planning, the Review Team stresses that FSR at any IARC should be restricted to a range of activities which can be adequately handled within the constraints of staff and budget limitations. To this end, careful selection of priority systems for study and benchmark situations is essential, as is emphasis on research and associated methodologies which have general rather than only location-specific implications. (viii) Staffing Policy for FSR Because most agricultural scientists are trained more in reductionist 240. it may be difficult to acquire staff who can work than holistic thinking, creatively in the holistic systems analysis and design context of FSR. More probationary employment may so, therefore, than in crop improvement programs, as FSR programs develop with consequent shifts in Likewise, be necessary. emphasis between Base Data Analysis, On-Farm Studies, and Research Station in staffing will be Studies, and between on and off-station work, flexibility Accordingly, the Review Team recommends that staffing of FSR teams be needed. flexible in the sense of staff joining and leaving the team as dictated by program development and requirements. -64- (ix) Disciplinary Balance in FSR FSR must be multidisciplinary. 241. vary with the stage however, will balance between basic activities. recommendations beyond noting that agronomy and production economics The balance of disciplines, of program development and the conse,quent The Review Team can make no general it believes that contributions from are essential at all stages of FSR. (x) Balance between On and Off-Station Work in FSR Like the balance of disciplines, the relative need for on-and off242. station work will vary according to the stage of FSR development. In general, however, the Review Team found on-station work somewhat overemphaIt recommends that, as dictated by program needs, somewhat more sized. emphasis should be given to off-station work. This particularly so for field experimental research as distinct from field survey research, although somewhat enlarged and more purposive survey work is also required at some Too, just as with survey activities, the Review Team recommends centers. that particular care be taken to ensure that off-station experimentation is purposive relative to overall program needs. (xi) Relations with National Programs 243. National programs constitute the link between IARC work in F'SR and the farmer. Cooperation between IARCs and national programs is therefore crucial to IARC success in FSR. The Review Team recommends that cooperation with national programs should always be pursued on joint partnership terms rather than via a hierarchical-directed approach, and preferably with full integration in national research structures; further, within the relevant mandate context, cooperative activities should be organized so far as possible on a network basis rather than on the basis of a series of unrelated bilateral arrangements. The advantage of the network approach is that it gives better opportunity for mutual interaction and joint planning. Of course, a first step towards establishing a network will be to conclude bilateral arrangements between IARCs and national programs. 244. A particular difficulty is the absence or inadequacy of national institutions and programs in some countries. In such situations IARC training activities are a necessary prior step to developing possibilities for evidences cooperation. However, the Review Team recommends that if a country no will towards the development of a research capacity, IARC interest would be better directed to more fruitful opportunities. On the other hand, when requested, IARCs should be willing to assist national institutions in the planning and organization of national FSR programs. -65- 245. Relationships between the IARCs and developed country institutions and programs are also important in FSR. As the need there may often be opportunity for an IARC to use the services arises, of advanced institutions for specific studies, e.g., in the statistical design and analysis of multiple cropping experiments or in farm surveys. (xii) Training Activities in the FSR Program 246. The necessity for training as an integral element of an IARC's activities in FSR cannot be overstressed. Training is needed to assist in developing and orienting national programs as a basis for cooperative activities. It is a major channel for the transmission of FSR methodology and technology from the IARCs, and is also important as a source of feedback to the IARCs. It is particularly important as the initial step in developing fruitful FSR liaison with countries .that as yet have little or no research capacity. Too, because FSR is non-traditional in approach and more complex due to its holistic emphasis, training in FSR is more difficult and demands greater resources than normal disciplinary training. The Review Team believes that somewhat more emphasis is needed overall on training activities within FSR programs. It recommends the strengthening of FSR training activities and suggests IRRI's p&gram with its linked network and training activities be used as a guide. In addition, it is recommended that commodity training programs include consideration of farming system concepts. (xiii) Cooperation between IARCs in FSR - The Review Team does not see FSR as an activity in which serious 247. overlap may occur between IARCs. Because of FSR's relative newness, however, and the need to develop, systematize and improve methodology, the Review Team recommends that effort be devoted towards developing better inter-center communication and awareness of each other's FSR activities. (xiv) FSR Work with Non-Mandated Commodities 248. It is unavoidable that FSR at any particular center will confront either existing or potential farming systems which include commodities (e.g. I vegetables, tree crops, fibre crops, livestock, fish) not mentioned in the center's own mandate. The Review Team recommends that where such commodities are potentially important to the center's FSR, then the center should be entitled to include such commodities in its FSR. However, the center should not conduct breeding programs on such crops or animals (as distinct from merely screening existing cultivars, if appropriate). -66- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The FSR Review Team wishes to express its deep appreciation of the assistance and hos,pitality offered by the Director-Generals of CIAT, It also expresses respective staffs. IITA, ICRISAT, IRRI and ISRA and their its thanks to the many other persons with whom discussions were held in the countries visited. Special thanks are due to Messrs. P.J. Mahler and E.Z. Arlidge of the TAC Secretariat for their unstinted assistance at all stages of the Review Team's work. The Team also gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the CGIAR Secretariat,, particularly Mrs. Imogene Audifferen, during the preparation of this report. ANNEX 1 Page 1 STINERARY AND SCHEDULE OF THE FSR REVIEW TEAM1 Date (1977) Places 1. 1.1 12-13 April visited CIAT Visits to Brazil and Carimagua, Colombia (as part of TAC Quinquennial Review, J.L. - Visit - Visit State - Visit to EMBRAPA's Cerrado Station near Dillon) Brasilia. and Team members travelling 14 April 15 April 16 April 1.2 17-22 April 2. 9-10 October (a.m.) to EMBRAPA's Rice and Bean Resource Center and Research Farm, and a private farm at Goiania. to EMBRAPA's Tropical Pastures activities Station at at Manaus. - Visit to CIAT/ICA cooperative Carimagua, Colombia. CIAT Headquarters (Full Team with P.J. - CIAT Headquarters, Senegal (Full Team with - Team assembles P.J. Mahler, Cali, Mahler, Secretary) Colombia Secretary) Se,negal. and Institut S&-&galais and in Dakar, 11 October 11-12 - Contact with FAO Representative de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA). October - Visit to ISRA's Farming Systems Network substation "Unit;? Experimentale" project at Kaolack. - Visit to Bambey. Centre Nationale de Recherches Agronomiques, 13 October 14 October Discussion with ICRISAT's - Dakar. Cooperative Program Leader. West African 'Although not part of the TAC FSR review, one of the team (Dr. Plucknett) visited This was in connection with a CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica on March 15-18, 1977. review of the FSR program at CATIE and joint USAID/Central American Governments' to attend an FSR seminar. ANNEX 1 Page 2 3. IITA to IITA's Plucknett cooperative activities and G.J. Vallaeys) with staff in Zaire 3.1 Visit (D.L. 16 October 17 October - Kinshasa. National - Kinshasa. Ministry officers. - Visit Discussion Maniac). Discussion of Planning of PRONAM (Programme with representatives of the Zaire and with USAID Food and Agricultural Station, M'vuazi. (CEDECO), 18-19 October (p.m.) to PRONAM's team at INERA Research Centre de Developpement 19 October 20 October - Visit to Kimpese, - Visit 3.2 Visit (J.L. Communautaire to Vanga Cooperative to IITA's Dillon) cooperative Projects. activities in Nigeria and Moor 17 October 18 October 19-23 October - Discussions at Federal Forestry, Lagos. Ministry of Agriculture Institute, - Visit to National Cereals Plantation, Ibadan. Research - Visit to Nigerian Institute for Agricultural Research and the Faculty of Agriculture at University of Ahmadu Samaru. Also visit to Funta Agricultural Belle, Development Project. - Visit to Farm Service Centers of the Food Production Project in the Zaria 3.3 IITA Headquarters Secretary) and P.J. Secretary) level studies at Shirapur. Mahler) National Accelerated and Kano districts. 21 October 24-28 October - IITA Headquarters, Ibadan. (Full Team with P.J. Mahler, - IITA Headquarters, D.L. (J-L. Dillon, 4 ICRISAT (FullyTeam - Visit to with P.J. Ibadan. Plucknett Mahler, village 29 October 7 November (a.m.) (p.m. I ICRISAT's II 11 - Visit to All-India Research network Coordinated Dryland and Asriculture and ICRISAT proqrams at Sholapur. ANNEX 1 Page 3 8-10 November 5. - ICRISAT Headquarters, IRRI (~~11 Team) - IRRI 6. Headquarters, E.Z. for Hyderabad. 12-15 November Los Banos. Arlidge, North Secretary) America, Washington, D.C. Washington (Full Team with - FAO Liaison 12-19 December Office ANNEX 2. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT CIAT 1. 2. 3. CIAT's Mandate of CIAT's from the Mandate Viewpoint of FSR FSR Implications CIAT's 3.1 3.2 Strategy Historical Review Current Strategy of Activities and Disciplines Involved 4. Balance 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 General Considerations Programs Studies Unit and Training The Commodity The Special International Cooperation 5. Summary and Conclusions ANNEX 2 Page 1 ANNEX 2. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT CIAT' 1. CIAT's Mandate CIAT's By-Laws specify its mandate as being "to accelerate agricultural economic development and increase agricultural production and productivity of the tropics to improve the diets and welfare of the people of the world." specified In interpreting in 1977 by its CIAT's this broad goal, Director General are: overall objectives as "TO generate and deliver, in collaboration with national institutions, improved technology which will contribute to increased production, productivity and quality of specific basic food commodities in the tropics, principally countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, thereby enabling producers and consumers, especially those with limited resources to increase their purchasing power and improve !? their nutrition," This (i) (ii) statement CIAT's implies product is a number improved of important points: technology. Its beneficiaries are to be both producers and consumers, especially those with limited means, Thus CIAT's activities should emphasize commodities which are important to low income consumers; and the technology produced must be relevant to small farmers, are the national institutions activities is within the its tropics, region (iii)CIAT's clients of interest. (iv) The geographic scope of CIAT's chiefly of Latin America. To meet its objectives CIAT has chosen to concentrate the majority of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) and beef its work on three commodities--cassava, cattle, the latter with primary emphasis on the inFertile acid savanna regions CIAT also has modest programs in rice, maize (by CIMMYT of tropical America. All these commodities meet the criteria of staff assigned to CIAT) and swine, importance to producers and consumers with limited 'means, particularly within the American tropics. 1More extensive discussion but not necessarily identical views are to be found in TAC Farming Systems Research Stripe Review: Notes :from Visit to CIAT, April 18-22, 1977, a draft report presented to the TAC Secretariat. 2From CIAT's briefing document for its Quinquennial Review, ANNEX 2 Page 2 2. FSR Implications of CIAT"s - Mandate there are three major implications From a farming systems research view, to be drawn from CIAT's mandate. orientation to the vast and diverse region of the American First, tropics implies that it would be infeasible for CIAT to use a direct who:Lefarm systems approach as the basis of its research. Such an approach may be feasible for IARCs which have a mandate for a specific ecological zone or restricted set of commodities but that is not the case for CIAT. Within in agroCIAT's geographic scope, there is a very wide range of variation climatic conditions due to differences in rainfall, altitude, soils and latitude. In none of these agro-climatic zones is any one element the major constraining factor on agricultural productivity (as is, for example, moisture availability in ICRISAT's geographic focus). Furthermore, due to this variability no one crop dominates the food economics as does rice in Asia. given its geographic mandate, has been Thus CIAT's logical choice, to focus on a set of commodities important to food production in its reg:-on and on which little previous research had been done. Second, CIAT's mandate has evolved to a commodity focus emphasizing multidisciplinary team research within each commodity, particularly for its three major commodities: beans, beef and cassava. This corresponds to a systems analysis approach focused on (a) the bean and cassava crop systems and the beef production system, (b) associated cropping systems (for beans/ maize and cassava-based associations, and (c) system components, (for particular practices such as seed cleaning, planting methods, weed control, etc.). Third, as for any IARC, farmer use of improved technology generated by CIAT necessarily means the integration of this technology into the farmers' whole-farm systems via national institutions. Especially for CIAT with its wide geographical focus, this implies close interaction, cooperation and liaison with national institutions. Not only does CIAT require such contact to market its product, but also to gain feedback on the types of technology (i.e., wholefarm system components) which it might best produce. Thus, achievement of CIAT's goals will be enchanced: (a) the better the cooperative interface between national institutions and CIILT; and (b) the better the working interface between national institutions and the farmers they serve. Undoubtedly both these interfaces are being fruitfully enhanced by CIAT's training activities and its expanding program of international cooperation. 3. 3.1 its CIAT's Strategy from Review CIAT's current strategy it is worthwhile to briefly outline the Viewpoint of FSR Historical To appreciate evolution. CIAT was formally established in 1967 but did not really become operaits program objectives were specified by disciptional until 1968. Initially, linary headings within major program elements of animal science, plant science and a miscellaneous set of service disciplines (economics, engineering and biometrics), plus training and communication. ANNEX 2 Page 3 Since the early 1970's there has been a complete move away from a disciplinary-based program to a commodity-based multidisciplinary team The first commodity-based programs approach emphasizing production systems. swine and the Beef Production Systems to be recognized were those for rice, The Cassava Productions Systems Program was initiated in 1971 and Program. In 1977 these program names the Bean Production Systems Program in 1972/73. were shortened to Beef Program, Cassava Progam and Bean Program, By late 1972, concern had grown at CIAT that the Center would not achieve its goals unless efforts were intensified to organize some systems activities so as to be responsive to welfare issues in addition to production goals. This led in 1973 to the establishment of the Agricultural Systems with the primary goal of developing a process Program, which was constituted to identify and analyze farming systems so as to assist in the rapid adoption of improved technology. The title of this program was changed in 1974 to the Small Farm Systems Program so as to more accurately reflect the Program's orientation. The Small Farm Systems Program aimed at understanding the great diversity of farming systems in tropical Latin America and focused on family farms as integrated systems. It attempted to develop a process whereby limiting factors could be identified and research alternatives selected "to specify the requirements for the introduction of agricultural technology to help achieve farm family and public policy objectives."1 The scheme for the development of this process consisted of: Analysis prototype of family systems farming systems. were to be studied. In this phase, a number of Synthesis of prototype farming systems. from the analysis were to be tested both and a system basis. The insights derived on a component basis - Design of improved technology by specifying the cultural practices, the species mixes, the levels of inputs, etc., to be tested on experiment stations or on family farms, for potential introduction to the rural areas. Validation of the process by demonstrating that farm families in relevant areas achieved their objectives through use of the technology selected by the process, and that national agencies adopted the process as a tool to help them achieve their goals. Implementation with CIAT. of the process by national agencies for in collaboration the impact - - Evaluation via methodology to be deve:Loped of new technology on human welfare. Small Farm Systems assessing 'Franklin, D.L. and Scobie, G.M., CIAT, Cali, January 1974, p.12. Program: A Program Document. ANNEX 2 Page 4 The Small Farm Systems Program was discontinued in 1975. In the this became inevitable (with hindsight) because of Review Team's judgment, the combined effect of four factors: it was too ambitious in scope; it overemphasized both formal systems methodology and computer modelling; and its focus was more that of a rural development program than of farming systems. In such terms, the Rev&w Team sees CIAT's decision as correct. Moreover, CIAT's geographical area is so diverse in ecological, institutional, economic and social conditions as to make any widely relevant in-depth study of wholefarm systems on small farms impossible within the scope of reasonable budget limitations. For a center such as CIAT, the comparative advantage obviously lies with a commodity a,pproach aimed at the production of components to be integrated into whole-farm systems via local institutions. This gives the advantages of a multidisciplinary approach within the frame of a focus that is both relevant and achievable. Moreover, it places the concern for small farmer impact within the commodity teams. Associated with the discontinuance of the Small were a number of organizational changes aimed at ensuring concern with small farmers and the acceptability of its at the farm level. Farm Systems Program CIAT's continued component research The content of the commodity programs in cassava, beans, beef, rice and maize were respecified "to insure that new production technology developed in CIAT's commodity programs is appropriate under the various production systems used by farmers of all sizes, including those with limited resources, in the many ecological and socioeconomic conditions prevailing in the geographic area of CIAT's influence."' For e;ch common points: commodity program, the planned content embraces the following "Work with selected cropping associations involving CIAT commodities to insure that new technology developed at CIAT will be applicable in this common type of production system of special significance to small farmers. "On-farm surveys to determine the nature of production systems and factors limiting production of CIAT commodities in selected regions while developing methodology which can be used by local institutions in other areas. "Collaboration with national programs in on-farm testing promising new production technology to insure that it is valid under real farm conditions. General to the Executive Secretary of TAC, of - - 1Letter of CIAT's Director December 28, 1976. 21bid. ANNEX 2 Page 5 - "Ex ante analyses on new CIAT production technology to insure that it is economically viable for farmers of various sizes and under different input/output market situations. "Ex post studies on the adoption o:E new production determine the rate of adoption, the distribution such adoption and reasons for non-adoption. technology of benefits to of - - "Constant effort in all programs to minimize the need for inputs in the new production technology being developed." purchased A further change was the formulation of a Special Studies Unit (attached to the office of the Associate Director General for Research) with the aim of filling any "small farm" gaps remaining after discontinuance of the Small Farm Systems Program. Associated with the above reorganizations was the establishment of an Agricultural Production Systems Coordination Group made up of the Associate Directors General for Research and International Cooperation, an outreach production specialist from each commodity proqramy all of CIAT's economists and senior staff members in the Special Studies Unit. Functions of the group were specified as:1 "TO overview the commodity programs so as to insure that, so far as the technology they produce is relevant to small farmers, possible, adaptable and pertinent to the various ecological zones of interest to CIAT, and economically viable. "TO help identify additional activities not appropriate to the commodity programs which should be pursued by the Special Studies Unit. "TO coordinate inter-program to mixed cropping and mixed collaboration farming." on research pertaining - - As well as the above changes on the research side, there has been continuing development of CIAT's activities in the areas of training and information services and networking with national institutions in conferences, all of these being under terms of research, technical assistance and feedback, the aegis of the Associate Director General for International Cooperation. To summarize all the above changes from a farming systems view, it may be said that CIAT has now placed primary responsibility for the generation of component research) in each of the commodity research improved technology (i.e., in Special Studies and International Cooperation. teams, complemented by activities 1Memo of Director May 9, 1975. General to CIAT's Board of Trustees' Program Review Committee, ANNEX 2 Page 6 3.2 number of izations. America. Current Strategy CIAT has adopted the strategy of providing improved technology in a selected commodity areas to its primary clients, the national organA key element of this strategy is its geographical focus on Latin CIAT has also chosen the strategy of generating technology to bring new land into cultivation as well as to increase yields on existing lands. In the case of new lands, this implies that (1) components will be identified which may be new to the country and people in question; (2) successful adoption of components may be heavily dependent upon infrastructure and policy developments; (3) increased training will be required; and (4) the technology transfer process may become difficult and complex. On the other hand, it may allow for the introduction of new, improved and integrated farming systems which are allowed to develop in the absence of resistance due to tradition, land tenure or scale of operation. The beef program essentially is following the "new land" strategy, i.e., it is concentrating on the vast infertile acid soil savannas (the Llanos of Colombia and the Cerrado of Brazil) where few people live, but which receive good (though unevenly distributed) rainfall and have excellent topography and soil physical properties. The inherent low chemical fertility of the soil, its remote location and the extensive nature of beef production all point to the development of a low-input, extensive-type grazing system. Such extensive grazing systems--particularly in the Brazilian Cerrado--are likely to be associated with crop production, either as a first step in land development or as a continuing enterprise. Accompanied development of low-input crop production components (e.g., for cassava) could possibly lead to a more stable and diversified farming system for these infertile acid soils. If upland rice is adopted for more intensive it too would fit into the "new land" strategy. effort, The other general land-related strategy of CIAT is to increase production maize and rice programs have a major Here the bean, cassava, on existing lands. role. Except for rice (with its largely irrigated focus) and beans which -although grown mainly on small farms--are readily amenable to production on large farms, CIAT's programs automatically have the small farmer as a major focus. In consequence, the objectives of the research programs for beans, cassava and maize would appear to diverge somewhat from objectives for the medium to larger farms Also, the natural resource base likely to be re:Levant to the "new land" areas. of marginal or subof most of the small farmers of Latin America--consisting seem to imply a somewhat often steep and infertile lands --would marginal, different set of improved components for these lands than for the savanna land areas with better topography. In terms of experimentation and field testing, CIAT's location at Palmira in the very favorable envirorment of the Cauca Valley has obvious implications for CIAT scientists are well aware of this and have taken steps research strategy. aimed at ensuring that their component research can be (a) adapted to local (i.e., other) ecological and socia:L conditions on a technical basis and (b) integrated economically with local who:Le-farm systems. ANNEX 2 Paqe 7 Thus, because of the overriding importance of the locale specificity problem (in terms of soil type and climatic regime), all the field aspects of the beef program are being conducted in locations (such as Carimagua in the Colombian Llanos and Brasilia in the Brazilian Cerrado) typical of the infertile acid-soil savanna regions. Likewisw with CIAT's two other major commodity programs--beans and cassava--research at Palmira is largely on aspects of technology which are not especially site specific such as, for example, breeding for disease and insect resistance. At the same time, site specificity effects are checked at a variety of locations in Colombia (which offers an extensive variety of site types in terms of altitude, climate, soil and topography) and a number of other countries. On a crop system basis, problems of location specificity from an ecological and social view are also ameliorated through CIAT's willingness and desire to cooperate with national institutions in conducting field trials and to provide research guidance on problems of local adoption. Such cooperative work is developing strongly. An associated positive influence is the steadily increasing number of commodity specialists throughout CIAT's region who have graduated from CIAT's training program. The question of economic whole-farm systems is more difficult. IARCs, has neither the resources farm level. National institutions, and do have the responsibility to logical that CIAT's strategy for the national institutions as its integration of CIAT's technology into local CIAT, as it recognizes and as for other nor the authority to work at the individual moreover, are much closer to the farmer help him by direct contact. Hence, it is research and technology transfer recognizes clientele. On the other hand, the set of enterprises that best constitutes any farming system is sensitive to economic conditions via the prices of outputs and inputs. may vary greatly within and between Output prices, in particular, years. Without allowing its research to be dominated by short-term economic fluctuations, CIAT none the less has to take account of both price and yield risks associated with the technology it produces since these are important Such conaspects of the farmer's choice as to what crop systems he will use. siderations are already being investigated by CIAT's economists. Although CIAT technologies are mostly designed to be scale neutral, the impact of the Center could well continue to be greater on the larger and more advanced farmers (as occurred with rice) who are usually more capable of making technological changes. in many countries of Latin America, Certainly, the access of the small farmer to new technology will continue to be limited by factors on which CIAT has little influence, such as land tenure, credit and marketing facilities. ANNEX 2 Page 8 4. 4.1 Balance of Activities and Disciplines Involved General Considerations A major task before the Review Team was to examine in each relevant data collection and assessment importance of surveys, Center "the relative activities on the one hand and experimentation on the other" and "the relaSince CIAT tive balance and interactions between the disciplines involved." does not have a program dealing strictly with farming systems research, it was necessary to consider the whole program of the Center in this context. This includes in particular: (iI (ii) (iii) The commodity programs; special studies; and international cooperation activities. As to the range of disciplines concerned with farming systems research, their importance obviously varies when considering activities such (a) surveys and the identification of problems and priorities; (b) exas: perimentation and trials; and (c) the assessment of changes in farming systems due to improved technologies and other factors. At each stage, however, three groups of disciplines are involved at a varying depth: the natural sciences, the biological sciences and the socioeconomic sciences. In the case of CIAT, it can be noted in general that these three groups of disciplines are well integrated and satisfactorily balanced within each of the commodity programs whereas their involvement in special studies and in international cooperation remains necessarily limited to the needs and circumstances of the case at It is, however, hand. important to examine whether the balance of disciplines and activities so achieved by the Center enables it to meet its objectives, as related to farming systems and within the limits of its mandate. 4.2 The Commodity Programs Because of the nature of the commodity research team approach at CIAT, Interdisciplinary most of the work is centered on scientific experimentation. teams work together within each commodity program to resolve problems facing the commodity. The problem identification process, to be effective, should be based on an awareness of the natural and socioeconomic environments within which the of the related farming; systems commodity is grown, as well as an understanding Surveys are the usual method used by CIAT to obtain such or cropping patterns. information. Within each of the major commodity teams (beef, beans, cassava) there part of whose job is to evaluate technology is an agricultural economist, His techniques include surveys converned with both basetransfer and impact. line economic and technical data with follow-up on micro-economic evaluation of the effectiveness of CIAT technology so as to provide feedback for further component research. ANNEX 2 Page 9 Some of the commodity programs at CIAT have recognized a need to understand the aqro-climatic zones within which CIAT commodity systems component technologies must fit. To that end, the Beef Program has arranged an agro-geographical survey of the infertile acid soil savanna areas of and potential South America. Also, the Rice Program plans to survey existing rice land areas of Central America, and the Bean Program team will cooperate in similar studies in at least two countries. Since CIAT is embarking on an evaluation of production areas for several commodities, it would seem useful and desirable to avoid duplication. surveys of the infertile acid soil savannas should have For example, potential usefulness for the cassava and rice teams; surveys of bean producing areas would be of use for the cassava program, etc. Additionally, the Associate Director General for International Cooperation has also indicated his desire for more information on each of the cooperating countries, as a basis for technology transfer and regional cooperation. For example, selection of sites for regional trials could be expedited and focused more sharply if agro-climatic zones and environmental homoloques were delineated. From an FSR view, particular mention must be made of the Beef Program. In the opinion of the Review Team, this program as it is presently organized and planned appears to be fully congruent with the FSR approach. In part this is the case because, while the major commodity focus of the program is beef, it is delimited to the acid savanna soils in specific well-defined regions and necessarily has to take account of the potentially relevant soil/pasture/ beef and crop systems. Beyond this, however, the program is extremely well organized and planned with full recognition of interdependencies between its elements and a successfully working multidisciplinary team. 4.3 The Special Studies Unit This Unit was started in 1975, in part to provide a mechanism to ensure that certain activities of the former Small Farm Systems Program were not neglected. Its main activity is related to exploratory studies on new production systems involving new crops and crop combinations not covered by the major commodity groups. The Unit has initiated work on minimum tillage, cycling of nutrients from one crop to another in use of living mulches, and unconventional use of nitorgen-fixing trees or shrubs associated plantings, the Unit has been involved in perennial/annual crop associations. Generally, in exploring the possibilities of transfer to Latin America of selected While the Special Studies Unit technologies generated by other Centers. provides for a broadening of CIAT's fields of concern, the Review Team feels its role should remain exploratory rather than intensive. ANNEX 2 Page 10 4.4 International Cooperation and Training CIAT'S training an.d other cooperative activities with national programs should provide it with essential feedback from cooperating countries on the functionin. of farming systems which are relevant to the Center's commodity programs. Provision should be made to this effect in the agreements and projects which CIAT establishes with cooperating countries. the Associate Director General for International In addition, Cooperation also pointed to his need for more information on each of tl-,e cooperating countries, not only on the organization of agricultural research and development, but also on the general agricultural policies and socioeconomic conditions of the countries. The Review Team sees such information, if available, as a valuable complement to the knowledge of farming systems in each country of CIAT's region. The Review Team aqrees with CIAT's judqement that successful development and transfer of its component research output requires strong programs in international cooperation and training. Such programs are essential for CIAT's research output to be successfully integrated into local farming systems. 5. Summary and Conclusions carried out in a with a whole-farm emphasis is more on All CIAT's researc:h can be recognized as being systems framework. In beef, research is fully congruent system focus. For CIAT's other commodity programs, the crop systems and subsystems. The potential adoption of CIAT's research output will depend heavily upon the Center's ability to recognize problems, to mobilize and deploy existing information concerning relevant agro-climatic zones and farming systems, to focus its research program on pertinent components of farming systems, and to further strengthen its program of training and cooperation with national institutions. Currently CIAT appears less strong than it should be in the area of Base Data Analysis. Such capacity is needed to ensure a sharp focus on key farming systems problems and opportunities for commodities for which CIAT has responsibility. The Team believes that such a capacity would enhance both CIAT's research and international cooperation programs. ANNEX 3. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT IITA 1. 2. IITA's Mandate of IITA's Mandate FSR Implications 2.1 2.2 2.3 Geographic Cooperation Coverage with National of Programs Mandate The Implementation Approach Historical Objective of to FSR Review of FSP IITA's IITA's 3. IITA's 3.1 3.2 of FSP 4. Structure 4.1 4.2 4.3 FSR Program Staffing Program Specific Components Objectives Achievements Analysis Systems of FSR Project in FSR at IITA Areas 5. Significant 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Regional Cropping Pest Management Land Management Energy Management Land Utilization and Comments on FSR at IITA Structure 6. Overview 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Organizational Staff Balance Collaboration Research Identification Specific Priority with Crop Improvement Programs of Target Zones and Areas Comments and Recommendations 7. Conclusions ANNEX 3 Page 1 ANNEX 3. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT IITA 1. IITA's Board Mandate The mandate of IITA has evolved in 1977. The modified mandate "Within the IITA will: (a) system of cooperating overltime is: ' and was last with modified the by the IARCs associated CGIAR, Conduct studies of and research on farming systems in the humid and subhumid tropical zone in order to identify viable alternatives to shifting cultivation which will maintain the productivity of the land under continuous cultivation, with particular reference to food crops; Accept worldwide responsibility, for research directed to the and sweet potatoes; covering improvement all climatic zones, of cowpeas, yams (b) (cl Conduct studies and research, in the humid and subhumid regions of Africa, for the improvement of crops such as maize, rice, cassava, pigeon pea and soybean, for which other international institutes and organizations have special responsibility, cooperating in whatever ways may be apprc'priate with those institutes and organizations. Conduct research directed to the improvement of other crops which are, or may become, important in the farming systems of the humid and subhumid zones, such as lima bean, winged bean and other grain legumes, cocoyam, taro and other aroids, and plaintaic. and other forms of Musa 3 which contribute substantially to the diets of the people of the zones; To make available the results of studies and research carried out in accordance with paragraphs (a) to (d) above to nations and institutions which wish to use them through cooperation with regional and national programs; Review Mission, 23 October to (d) (e) 'IITA, Briefing Document for TAC Quinquennial 6 November 1977, IITA, Ibadan, 1977. %GIAR/TAC. Draft Report of the TAC Quinquennial Review Mission to the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), October 1977. This It will not be cited report was used a great deal in preparing this annex. 3Several vegetables such as tomato, the FSR program of IITA. peppers and Celosia were also included in again. ANNEX 3 Page 2 (f) Take responsibility in collaboration with the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources for the exploration, conservation, documentation and evaluation of collection, genetic materials of food legumes, root and tuber crops and rice in the humid and subhumid regions of Africa in order to make these materials available for use by plant breeders and scholars; Respond to requests from appropriate authorities for cooperation with regional and national programs in the humid and subhumid regions of Africa concerned with the improvement of farming competence; where appropriate with other interRespond, in association national institutes and organizations particularly those associated with the CGIAR, to requests from appropriate authorities for cooperation with regional programs, in countries other than Africa, concerned with the improvement of farming systems and of crops in :respect of which IITA has appropriate competence; Respond, insofar as it is competent to do so and in cooperation with other institutions where appropriate, to requests from governments in the humid and subhumid regions of Africa for cooperation in developing the agricultural knowledge systems of their countries, including their agricultural research capabilities; To provide or organize training, conferences and workshops on topics relevant to the tasks outlined in paragraphs (a) and (i) above with the particular purpose to increase the number of well qualified persons to carry out effective research and development on crops and farming systems; Conduct, on other with the national or take responsibility for, such research or studies crops or topics and for such activities concerned application of research to rural, agricultural and development as the Board o:E Trustees may approve." (9) (h) (i) Cj) (k) the Board of Trustees has been concerned with the Over the years, scope of this mandate in terms of geographical coverage, range of crops, and and the present mandate is therefore cooperative activities of the Institute, the result of a gradual evolution. ANNEX 3 Page 3 FSR Implications of IIT.A's Mandate 2. A number of the objectives of the IITA mandate are directly related In addition, (i) and to FSR. These are (a), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (j). (k) are indirectly related to FSR, depending upon specific interpretation of these objectives in given situations. It program. 2.1 is noteworthy that FSR is stated as a primary objective of the IITA Geographical Coverage The Institute initially concentrated its activities on its main site in trying to develop a sufficiently strong core of research and experience before engaging itself in cooperative work. The Board, however, soon found it necessary to widen the scope of the Institute's programs. The biogeographical scope of responsibilities of the Institute was defined in 1970: "as including those regions of the earth which lie between the with particular reference northern and southe.rn desert belts, to those parts whic:h are lower than 2,000 feet (600 meters) above sea level and in which preci itation exceeds evaporation for five or more months of the year." f Another reason for modification of the ecological orientation was the location of the Institute itself in the transitional area the low humid tropical forest and the Savannah. 2.2 Cooperation with National Programs of IITA between The mandate gives very broad scope to the possible cooperation of IITA This may include with national programs. the distribution of the genetic material collected or developed by IITA, cooperation "in the improvement of farming systems", and "the conduct or responsibility for such research or studies on other crops or topics and for such activities concerned with the application of results of research to rural, agricultural and national developments as the Board of Trustees may approve." The mandate of the Institute appears to be very broad and permits considerable flexibility in cooperating with national programs. 2.3 The Implementation of IITA's Mandate Research at IITA is considered as a means of finding solutions to problems in order to achieve the real objectives which is to contribute to "the improveboth as to quantity and quality," by testment of food crops in the tropics, The ing and encouraging the application of research results at the farm 1eve:L. small farmer in the humid and subhumid tropics is stated by IITA to be the main 'The exact geographical boundaries of the Institute activities are difficult to It must be noted that IITA delineate and vary with the activity considered. does not intend to engage in farming systems research activities in those regions which, according to ICRISAT's agro-ecological competence, it covers together with this Institute. ANNEX 3 Page 4 IITA considers it essential that it finds ways target of its research. and means through national programs and other collaborating agencies to reach the farmer so as to allow feedback from testing of its research results on farmers' fields. Because small farmers, particularly in Africa, have few resources an objective of IITA's research or little access to purchased inputs, programs is to try to increase productivity with low levels of cash inThis objective is particularly difficult to attain in the subhumid puts. and humid tropics where shifting cultivation forms a stable land use system which has relatively low productivity but which is in equilibrium with the environment at low human population density.l With population farmers are forced to reduce the length of the fallow growth, however, period which comprises an important element of the traditional farming In consequence, soil fertility and stability against erosion systems. decreases progressively. The challenge before IITA as outlined in its mandate is therefore to develop appropriate land use systems which reduce or avoid this fallow period while maintaining the productive capacity of the soil through appropriate land management practices and cropping systems. The overall strategy of the problems is twofold. On the one significant improvements in some On the other hand, ical regions. land and crop management systems of tropical farming systems. groups Institute in attempting to solve these hand, the Institute aims at introducing of the key staple food crops of the tropthe Institute is developing integrated which aim at increasing the productivity main team: The research programs of the Institute are organized in four of activities, each being carried out by ,a multi-disciplinary the the the the Farming Systems Program (FSP) Cereal Improvement Program (CIP) Grain Legume Improvement Program (GLIP) Tuber and Root Crop Improvement :Program (TRIP) IITA recognizes that its main site contains too limited a range of ecological conditions to provide the extensive basic knowledge of subhumid and humid environments which it needs to meet its program objectives. Surveys have been conducted in Nigeria and some other countries of Africa to identify the major problems for research. The need for more comprehensive data on these problems is recognized. 'Greenland, D.J., "Bringing the Green Revolution Science 190 (5217): 841-844, 1975. to the Shifting Cultivator," ANNEX 3 Page 5 A contrast exists between the conditions of crop production in the Since IITA was located near the subhumid tropics and the humid tropics. +-.ran~sition between these two zones (but definitely within the subhumid it was felt essential to establish a substation in the high tropics), rainfall tropical forest belt where the problems of shifting cultivation An 80 ha site was chosen in 1976 at Onne, in south ist are more complex. Nigeria and the development of the substation has begun. As a result of the complexity of its mandate, reflecting that of the problems and of the environments in which it works, the Institute has been so far cautious in developing its cooperative programs in FSR since it. was essential to develop a sufficient research strength and body of experi.ence at headquarters before sharing activities with national programs. 3. 3.1 1ITA"s Historical Approach to FSR of FSP Review The original concept of IITA was an Institute concerned with soil and, to a lesser degree, crop management to overcome the problem of shifting cultivation. Early staff arrivals in 1968/69 -- nematologist, pedologist, soil chemist, soil physicist and soil fertility specialist -- reflected this focus. Until a program approach was initiated in 1971, scientists were largely able to pursue what they regarded as relevant projects with a minimum of integration and direction from above. A proposal to create the three present crop improvement programs and FSP was accepted by the Board of Trustees in early 1972. While it was clear that the soil scientists, agronomists and agricultural economist should belong to FSP, other scientists who had responsibilities across programs (e.g. nematology, microbiology) were also placed in FSP on the basis that they had more identification with FSP than outside of it. A more purposeful focus within FSP was achieved in mid-1973 when attention was given to devising an FSP structure aimed at facilitating collaborative research within FSP and with other programs. Current concerns are still to develop furth.er a group structure conducive to collaborative research within FSP and with other programs, to ensure that FSP research is carefully programmed and well defined relative to the Program's objective, and real-world evaluation of FSP research results. In 1977, 3.2 Objective FSR was restructured of FSP of the FSP is to develop: to conduct work within project areas. The objective "methods of crop management and land use for the humid and subhumid tropics which will enable more efficient and sustained production of food crops to be technically While and economically feasible in these zones. recognizing the interactions between annual food crops, perennial crops and livestock, FSP concentrates on the food crop components of tropical farming systems." ANNEX 3 Page 6 Specific n (i) objectives of the FSP are to: will enable acceptable develop crop production systems which good yields on a sustained basis with input levels; develop methods enable intensive replace shifting feasible; dissemination agencies for (ii) of land management which which will systems of food crop production to cultivation where environmentally (iii) (iv) of food crop technologies to national adaptation to specific areas; provide training in farming systems for researchers and extension workers associat.ed with tropical foodcrop production."1 It is not expected that FSP research will yield location-specific blueprints for improved methods of crop and land management; rather the Program's concern is to develop and make available proven principles and practices for crop and land management. These methods are aimed to serve as foundations for modification by national programs. To this end, FSP research priorities are focused on major agricultural typologies within major agro-climatic zones. At present this typology is based on rainfall (humid; subhumid), soil characteristics (low base status soils; soils derived from basic rocks; high base status soils), soil catenary position (upland, hydromorphic), principal components of the cropping systems used, pressure on the land resource, and major constraints to production. 4. 4.1 Structure Staffing of IITA's FSR Program FSP FSP is the largest of IITA's programs. With 18 senior scientists, The disciplinary is led by a Program Leader (Assistant Director level). backgrounds of FSP scientists are shown in Table 1, together with a guide of their current time allocation between the six inter-disciplinary project Table 1 illustrates areas designated within FSP, and to other IITA programs. the multi-disciplinary team approach of FSP, with individual scientists having varying degrees of involvement in the six inter-disciplinary project areas within which FSP is organized. Since IITA's inception in 1969, staff time (excluding administration) by broad disciplinary area: 'IITA, Briefing Document for the approximate man-years of senior devoted to FSP to date has been as follows, TAC Quinquennial Review Mission, IITA, Ibadan, 1977. ANNEX 3 Page 7 Man-years Agricultural Agricultural economics engineering 11.2 5.5 23.7 10.0 13.7 46.1 86.5 Staff Between Project Areas Energy M'gmt Land Utilz. Other Progrs. Crop management cropping systems pest management - Land management and soils Total Table 1 Allocation of FSP Principal No. Regional Analysis Cropp. Systs. Discipline Pest M'gmt Land M'gmt Economist Agronomist Weed Scientist Entomologist Nematologist Climatologist Pedologist Soil Chemist Soil Fertility Microbiology Soil Physics Agr. Engineering Agr. Eng. Assoc. FAO Agr. Eng. Other Programs Ag- 2 2 1 4a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 lb M L S L M M M S L S M M M S L L Lc Ld S L S S S M S M M M M S L S M M L L M L M S M S S S S M M M M M M Le S S M = Major involvement L = Limited involvement S = Service function four a - On secondment from COPR; project to terminate in April 1978. is a visiting scientist. FAO African Rural Storage Center. bProject Leader, c - Breeders and physiologists from Crop Improvement Programs. from Crop Improvement Programs. d- Pathologists e - Agronomist from Crop Improvement Programs, One of the ANNEX 3 Page 8 4.2 Program Components specified, Analysis in relation to soils and so as to provide basic the project areas are: As presently (1) Regional The analysis of existing farming systems climates, economic and social conditions information for the other project areas. (2) Cropping Systems The development and testing of appropriate crop combinations and sequences using cultivators developed in the crop improvement programs, together with other crops-- such as plantain and vegetables-important in tropical farming systems. (3) Pest Management methods to overinsects and diseases. Development and testing of environment-conscious come economically the problems posed by weeds, (4) Land Management The development and testing of methods of land development and soil management to overcome economically the constraints to continuous use of fragile tropical soils. Energy Management which can to land (5) The development and testing of implements and machinery help to relieve labor constraints which exist in relation development, crop production and processing. (6) Land Utilization and Evaluation The integration and synthesis point of :FSR at IITA, in the development, evaluation and adaption of appropriate systems of crop management and drawing on the findings of the land use for different ecologies, Farming Systems and Crop Improvement Programs. The major multi-disciplinary work of FSP is in problem identification and technology evaluation, i.e., in Regional Analysis and in Land Utilization and Evaluation, the latter providing the point of integration and synthesis of FSR. The four problem-oriented areas of research -- Cropping Systems, Pest Management, Land Management and Energy Management - while supported by a wide multidisciplinary base, tend to have a major input from a narrower set of disciplines. 4.3 Specific (1) Objectives Analysis of FSR Project Areas Regional To analyze and develop inventories of resource use and of the biotechnical, physical and socioeconomic environments of farming systems in the humid and subhumid tropics. ANNEX 3 Page 9 Regional analysis wo.rks primarily in three major project areas: (b) Benchmark Soils Project, (c) (a) Agro-climatological Analysis, Studies of Farming System:s. Agro-climatological as a basis to characterize tropics. Studies involve agro-climatic collection and analysis of data zones of the humid and subhkmid The Benchmark Soils I?roject describes and classifies carefully chosen soils and then relates their agricultural capability to their morphological, chemical, and mineralogical. properties as a basis for technology transfer. The project collaborates with a number of overseas institutions and universities. Studies bio-technical system. (2) Cropping of Farming Systems in the tropics are carried out to understand and economic factors affecting the farmer and his management Systems To develop cropping practices which are productive, biologically stable, and economically viable; to identify systems of crop management adaptable to the conditions and needs of the smallholder in the humid and subhumid tropics. There a) b) are five major projects: combinations and sequences farming of staple food crops, developing and testing role for investigating the cultivars suitabl.e identifying developing of vegetables in improved systems, systems and identifying and and to recycling. cl and collecting high yielding plantain cultivars productive plantain-based cropping systems, role of grasses and legumes in soil improvement d) evaluating the conservation, e) evaluating the potential of planted species as an alternative natural bush regrowth to increase the efficiency of nutrient Management can be stated in three sub-project areas: (3) Pest Objectives a) weed management practices that Weed Science - to develop integrated are economical at low input levels and appropriate for the dominant and to study the impact of land and crop management cropping systems; on weed competition and persistence as a basis for minimizing weed infestation. ANNEX 3 Page 10 b) and stabilize crop yields using Nematology - to increase minimum farmer input methods such as nematode resistant nematode suppressing crop rotations (including live cultivars, mulches and intercropping) and modifying agronomic practices. and environmentally Pest Management - to develop economically sound pest management practices appropriate to systems of land and crop management being developed within FSP, with emphasis on maximizing cultural and biological control techniques and the minimum uses of agro-chemicals, and to conduct studies on the pest and associated flora and fauna of indigenous and modified systems to gain a better understanding of the pest regulatory mechanisms which operate in such systems and the background against which agricultural development will take place. c) From its inception FSP has had nematology and weed science positions, while entomology and pathology were located within the crop improvement programs. Recently a pest management group, consisting of three COPR entomologists, a residue analyst, the nematologi,st, and the weed scientist, was formed. (4) economically conserving Land Management To develop systems of land management which will yield long-term, and biologically productive, stable returns to the farmer while and maintaining desirable physical and chemical soil properties. Major a) projects are: between ambient climatic, soil and the performance of major food soil erosion and developing soil-conserving tillage systems, determining the interaction and hydrologic parameters crops. studies methods b) cl on factors influencing for its control through investigations on the maintenance of acceptable nutrient and organic matter levels and the efficient use of fertilizer in low-input cropping systems under different systems of soil and crop management, microbiological studies aimed primarily at making best use of Rhizobium in biological nitrogen fixation, and of mycorrhizal fungi in phosphate nutrition of major food crops. d) ANNEX 3 Page 11 (5) Energy Managemen,& inexpensive simple farm tools To develop low-energy demanding, which reduce hardship, increase human productivity and are within the economic and technical range of farmers in the humid tropics and complement the systems of land use being evolved by the Institute. (6) Land Utilization To provide systems of nology is experiment a framework to construct and evaluate appropriate foodcrop production and land use. Improved techevaluated in a simulated farm environment on selected stations before release to cooperating user agencies. in FSR at IITA 5. Significant Achievements The Review Team was impressed by the work of the FSP team at IITA.. It should be stated that these achievements have been mostly related to on-site research. 5.1 Regional Analysis Maps have been prepared which broadly define the start, end and duration of the cropping systems of West Africa. Also, a map is being prepared showing erosion-susceptible soils of the humid and subhumid regions of Africa. Chemical and mineralogical analyses of benchmark soils indicate that percent saturation of exchangeable calcium and magnesium, phosphorus retention capacity and active iron and aluminum oxide content are among the important chemical parameters for agricultural land capability classification in the humid tropics. Studies of indigenous farming systems have been carried out in Nigeria on low base status soils (root crops and oil palm) and high base status soils (cocoa-cereals and cereal-root crops). A number of important observations which have assisted the Institute in establishing research priorities, and designing and evaluating technology, have been derived from these studies. 1 5.2 Cropping Eight Systems efficient, two-year, intercropping and rotational potentially "Intercropping 'Okigbo, B.N. and Greenland D.J., American Agriculture", in Multiple Cropping, 1976. Madison, Wisconsin, Systems in Tropical Society of Agronomy, ANNEX 3 Page 12 sequences suitable for upland conditions on high Ibase status soils under a Cropping systems components bi-modal rainfall pattern have been devised. have been devised for integrated management of valley bottoms and associated Crop mixtures include staple crops involved in crop improveupland soils. ment programs and other foodstuffs important in tropical farming systems. The effect of mulches and covercrops, and their value in soil temperature modification and structure maintenance, erosion control and As mulching may be important in crop performance have been determined. a range of grasses and legumes as well as foodmanagement of upland soils, crop residues have been tested for use as --. in situ mulches; some have been Methods of crop management associated with established using zero tillage. appropriate land and water management technology are ready for off-site FSP seeks willing collaborators in this work, testing and adaption. Research on particularly national institutions or development projects. crop mixtures and sequences is often highly location specific; therefore in the future, greater emphasis will be placed on understanding the physiology of crops grown in mixtures and the agronomic principles underlying and on crop interactions and pest management indigenous cropping systems, Coupled with climatological and soil investigations, in intercropping. such studies should provide principles to define crop mixtures for specific locations. 5.3 Pest Management Nematology studies have contributed to integrated pest and disease management by identification of nematode resistant cultivars; identification of cover crops, crops, and crop sequences with nematode-suppressing potential; and by study of nematode incidence under varying cultural practices, especially in relation to minimum tillage and mulching. Weed control cropping systems Early information differences intercropping 5.4 research has provided and management in the basic information on weeds relating subhumid environment near 1ITA.l to pest management research efforts indicate that significant can be obtained through interdisciplinary teams, and that striking in pest incidence and spread exist between sole crops and various patterns. Land Management area has been very productive, and its work has helped of tropical soils and their management. to This project improve knowledge 'Moody, K., "Weeds and Shifting Cultivation," PANS 121 (2):188-194, Systems 1975. 2Nickel, J-L., "Pest Situation in Changing Agricultural Ento. Sot. Amer. Bul. 19(3):136-142, 1973. - A Review," ANNEX 3 Page 13 on major soils of West Africa have led to soil Pedological studies groupings of acidic Ultisoils and Oxisols, less leached Alfisols and hydromorphic soils' and of soils developed from basic 1'ocks. Inceptisols, grouped in toposequences, have been identified A number of typical soils, as being of major importance -- "benchmark soils" -- and much chemical, information has been assembled on t&;e. and mineralogical pedological, These studies form a framework within which soil fertility of major land of areas can be examined as well as adding much to the classification tropical soils. on several aspects of Soil physics research is broadly based, focusing The present zero tillage work at IITA has the soil physical environment. developed largely from studies on the erosion and infiltration behavior of 1,2. Much information has been obtained on the soils under cultivation and biological properties of soils under zero tillage. physical, chemical, Work is Such work is basic to extending zero tillage to farm practice. underway on root development and activity in relation to soil composition Soil temperatures under mulches and covers and their effects and structure. on germination, growth and root development have been determined. Chemical properties of a variety of West African soils have been studied3 and an understanding of the basic physical chemistry has been gained. Much work has been carried out on soil nutrient content and fertilizer response although mainly for soils near Ibadan.4 'Lal, R., Control, Alfisols 377-387, Soil Erosion Problems on an Alfisol in Western Nigeria and Their (IITA Monograph 11, IITA, Ibadan, 1976; Lal, R., "Soil Erosion on in Western Nigeria, I, II, III, IV, V," Geoderma 16:363-375,16: 16:389-401, 16:403-417, 16:419-431, 1976. 2Lal, R., " No-tillage on Soil Conditions and Corn (Zea mays) in Western Nigeria, Plant and Soil 40(2):321-331, 1974. Lal,R., "No-tillage Effects on Soil Properties and Crop under Different Crop Rotations in Western Nigeria," Soil Sci.Soc.Amer.Proc., 40:762-768, 1976. 3Juo, A.S.R. in Tropical and Maduakor H.O., Soils," -Soil Sci. "Hydrolysis Sot. Amer. and Availability of Phosphate Proc. 37(2):240-242, 1972. Nigerian Soils and Plant Analysis, Response of Maize 65:875-877, 1973. 4Juo, A.S.R. and Maduakor H.O., "Phosphate Sorption of Some and its Effects on Cation Exchange Capacity," Comm. Soils 5(6):479-493, 1974. Kang, B.T., Corey R.B. Osiname 0-A. and Schults E.E., "Zinc Grown on Sandy Inceptisols in Western Nigeria," Agron. J., Kang, B.T. and Okoro E.G., 'Response of Flooded Rice Grown on a Vertisol from Northern Nigeria to Zinc Sources and Methods of Application," Plant and Soil 44:15-25, 1976. ANNEX 3 Page 14 5.5 Energy Management The techniques of CDA (controlled droplet application) have been proven to show promise to reduce energy and logistic inputs for herbicide applications as required if zero tillage techniques are to be applicable for the Planters for seeding in zero til:Lage through mulches or cover small farmer. crops have also been developed to provide an integrated zero tillage system suitable for small farmers. 5.6 Land Utilization Zero and minimum tillage techniques have been adapted to minimize soil erosion and to maintain soil fertility in a simulated commercial farming situation. A six-season study on high base low activity soils in a subhumid area has demonstrated that these methods, with crop residues used as surface mulch, have proved effective in controlling erosion and maintaining maize yields, and werelmore profitable and managerial.ly superior to conventional tillage systems. Hydromorphic valley bottoms, have been shown to be very productive and with improved water and nutrient management are suitable for intensive rice and vegetable production. Five integrated syst,ems of land use, involving the synthesis of the component achievements in crop production and land management are being evaluated in 'model farm' situations. 6. Overview and Comments on FSR at IITA The Review Team has been impressed by the wide-based, multidisciplinary work of the FSP in this complex field, the considerable contribution to scientific knowledge which this has produced, and the development of farming system components which show promise of making an impact on the problem of shifting cultivation. The Team has noted with approval the present efforts to focus the work of the program more precisely on the collaborative development of new farming techniques. 6.1 Organizational Structure structure of FSP places on the Program Leader leadership to a multidisciplinary group of 18 should be given to ways of providing additional The present organizational the difficult task of providing senior scientists. Consideration leadership within the Program. 6.2 Staff Balance The balance between disciplines in the Program does not need any major The Review Team believes that increased capability in agronomy is needed change. 1 Lal, IITA R., Soil Erosion Problems on an Alfisol Monograph 1, IITA, Ibadan, 1976. in Western Nigeria and Their Control, ANNEX 3 --Page 15 and suggests that an agronomist with broad crop experience should some direct responsibility within the Land Utilization area. 6.3 Collaboration with Crop Improvement Programs have Programs Closer collaboration is needed between the Crop Improvement work is done in the crop programs but this and FSP. Some inter-cropping Also the resource eva1uatio.n should be jointly planned and monitored. and cropping systems analysis capacities of FSP should be useful to the Crop Improvement Programs in identifying breeding objectives, locating off-station regional trial,, etc. Since 1976, the Cereal Improvement Program has redirected its objectives around the concept of ecosystem balance achieved through the integration of breeding for wide adaptability with pest and crop management approaches. The Team believes that this e:xpansion to ecosystems involving soil problems and cropping practices calls for greatest integration with FSP. The Team strongly encourages the expansion of agronomic and physiological investigations on cowpea into intercropping systems with the FSP and recommends also close cooperation along the same lines in legume microbiology with the FSP group. Work on the Rhizobium symbiosis with cowpea and soybean should be developed on -the basis of an agreed joint program between the FSP and the Grain Legume Improvement Program. 6.4 Research Priority and opportunities These include: face FSP, and decisions on A number of possibilities them will be required soon. - the opportunity f,or off-site research methods and results FSP has had most experience; testing and evaluation of for subhumid areas where opportunities soils, for and areas. -- - decisions as to which technological or research zero tillage, soil toposequences, hydromorphic example -- should be tested off-site; relative balance humid areas; the pace, direction and scope of activities and location in - subhumid in humid of research ANNEX 3 Page 16 It is suggested that priority should be given to off-site testing of while exploratory studies on certain soil and subhumid research results, climatic factors and simple cropping systems are pursued in humid areas. for FSP to collaborate with national agencies Also, it might be possible which would not require substantial IITA investment, in the humid tropics, It is probable but would increase the Institute's experience in this zone. that much of the technology development for the subhumid zone will not be transferable to the humid zone. The work done but within the humid believes Team considers that the pursuit and consolidation of the valuable within the subhumid climatic zone should have the first priority It notes that the problems in well-defined ecological zones. zone are likely to require somewhat different solutions and that work within this zone should be developed gradually. The balance between survey work in economics, climatology, and soil science and more experimentally-oriented work should be kept continually in review. The Team recommends that the work on regional analysis ensure that all relevant existing data pertaining to a region are collected, assessed and utilized. 6.5 Identification of Target Zones and Areas Through its inter-disciplinary FSP team, IITA has a well-developed capacity to evaluate and assess the natural resources and major farming systems of an area. In doing this, it is understood that field surveys and direct experimental work on-station or in production areas may be required and a balance must be reached between these types of studies. To be effective the Regional Analysis project area should identify target zones present cropping systems, giving weight to factors such as land resources, population, etc. What is needed is a systematic way of guiding selection of target or opportunity zones. It would appear that the same capacity could be used to select sites for off-station testing. Criteria for offstation site selection could include: ecological suitability, technological availability of a strong national program, and a commitment for opportunity, collaboration. The extent and method of control by FSP over off-station research should be carefully considered. Of the many non-mandated crops within IITA's geographic concern, However, vegetables can have an important place in many cropping systems. the Review Team is of the opinion that breeding of vegetables is not essential to FSR at IITA. Questions have also been raised as to whether IITA's FSP should include plantain, agroforestry and small animals in its work. Since these commodities would tend to diffuse and dilute the program, the Review Team suggests that caution be exercised and these commodities only included if they are judged crucial to farming system development. ANNEX 3 Page 17 6.6 Specific Comments and Recommendations to Socioeconomic Studies (1) Relative The Review Team commends the substantial contribution to FSP made by IITA's economists and agrees that they should focus their activities on the on-farm aspects of farming systems. It also agrees that survey activities, purposefully integrated with other FSP research, are an essential aspect of The move away from broad multi-visit surveys to limited--visit this work. surveys aimed at specifi.c information on particular problems is viewed with approval, and it is hoped that the opportunity will be taken to investigate hypotheses relevant to farmers' choice of crop and land-use systems. Such studies, for example, would include the testing of hypotheses about farmers' motivations and preferences, their conception of risk and attitude towards it, their decision making behavior, and the influence of farm/household/ community relationship on their choice of technology. The Team approves the initiatives taken by FSP in cooperating national and other agencies in the conduct of field surveys. (2) Relative to L,and Management and Land Utilization with Extensive and thorough studies have been made on the soil environment and on integration of soil management information into land utilization systems which may form viable and dependable alternatives to shifting cultivation under specified soil and climatic conditions. Likewise, valuable work has been done in defining and characterizing important soils in West Africa. The amount of such pedological work should now be assessed. The Review Team recommends no pedology work in addition to this should be undertaken. In addition the benchmark FSP should decide realistically in terms of cropping capability. soils program needs how many benchmark to be assessed and the sites can be investigated More effort seems now to be directed to soils outside IITA, and the main thrust of this work should be towards the areas receiving high rainfall, bearing in mind lcgistic and other constraints. The Review Team commends the work on zero tillage up to the present, and supports such further testing on the IITA headquarters site as may be necessary The Team suggests that the to establish the long-term value of the technique. work should now concentrate upon off-station sites, selected to cover various At the same time ecological zones, and in accordance with a systematic plan. the research effort should not ignore possible options other than zero tillage. The Team supports mulches in association the continuation of the past work with the Cropping Systems Studies. on cover crops and ANNEX 3 Page 18 Present studies on crop water requirements, and light requirements and gas exchange in crop canopies are useful, particularly in relation to the However, there should salso be a significant study of intercropping. agroclimatological focus towards the delineation and characterization of FSP target areas and agroclimatic zones. (3) Relative to Cropping Systems It of the exploratory work on believes that the time has The team has been impressed by the extent possible crop associations and combinations. now come for: (a) testing the most promising systems and crop management practices, together with proven ILand management techniques, within the ecologica:L area of which IITA's site at Ibadan is representative: concentrating on more in-depth studies preferably on a limited number of well chosen characteristic crop combinations or sequences. These studies will necessarily require close inter-disciplinery cooperation, involving not only FSP scientists but also the specialists of the Crop Improvement Programs, in order to ensure that the breeding materials developed are adapted to intercropping. investigations should be extended by multi-location conditions. The time has come to gather information to the proposed systems and practices. (b) These thorough testing under controlled reactions about farmers' (4) The on these improved monitor (5) Relative to Weeds, Pests, and Diseases (Pest Management) work on nematology and weed science has provided basic information pest problems in various cropping patterns and under traditional and management systems. The formation of a pest management group to and overcome pest problems in priority cropping systems is commended. Relative to Agricultural Engineering Work in agricultural ment of a limited number (such as the jab planter, volume sprayer). The Team of implements machines suited of IITA in this ideas in most, should be left engineering should focus on the design and developof implements and machines of direct interest to FSP the hand-pushed sowing machine and the ultra-low manufacturers implements and that the task of sketches and development noted the close cooperation between IITA and the and machines in the development of new or adapted It believes for small and medium-sized farms. cooperation should be limited to the provision cases and that the final design and if not all, to the manufacturers. ANNEX 3 Page 19 7. Conclusions The Institute has assembled a strong body of knowledge and experience in the humid and subin the very complex field of farming systems research The team commends the comprehensive, integrated and humid tropics. purposeful approaches followed by the Institute in this regard and its emphasis on the improvement of the conditions of the small farmers in Promising techniques of land management and cropping systems are Africa. It is being tested and demonst:rated on the main site of the Institute. noted that the FSR team will now develop its research and testing methods and practices on other sites while continuing the study on the long--term effects of its proposed farming practices and technologies. IITA's Farming Systems Program should now give priority to the validation and off-site evaluation of systems presently being develo;?ed at IITA for the subhumid zone. It should proceed with research in the :numid zone, where feasible, in collaboration with national and regional institutes but limit work at Onne, ,for the time being, to system components rather than full system analysis. The Program also should only consider work on vegetables, Musa :spp., or tree crops if there is evidence that they are absolutely essential to the viability of the farming systems research of IITA in particular ecological zones. The Review Team recommends that research on animals should be avoided and agro-forestry activities limited to the present project. The Team also recommends that the discipline strengthened within the Farming Systems Program cooperation with the Crop Improvement Programs. of agronomy should order to facilitate be in ANNEX 4. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT ICRISAT 1. 2. 3. ICRISAT's Mandate of ICRISAT's to FSR Objectives Activities or Principles Constraint and Research Interpretation Mandate FSR Implications ICRISAT's 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Approach FSR Program FSR Program Water Farming of -' The Major System Definition 4. Structure 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 ICRISAT's FSR Program Staffing Program Specific Components Objectives of FSR Sub-programs Utilization Research ICRISAT Watershed-based Research Village Resource in 5. Socioeconomic 5.1 Benchmark relation Studies to FSR at Level 6. 7. Significant Overview Achievements in FSR at ICRISAT and Comments on FSR at ICRISAl! ANNEX 4 Page 1 ANNEX 4. ____----. _ FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT ICRISATl 1. ICRISAT's Four Mandate are specified by ICRISAT's mandate, viz: objectives farming systems which will help to increase " (1) To develop and stabilize agricultural production through better use of natural, human and capital resources in the seasonally dry, semi-arid tropics. (2) To serve potential sorghum, as a world center to improve the genetic for grain yield and nutritional quality of pearl millet, pigeonpea, chickpea and groundnut. socio-economic and other constraints to (3) To identify agricultural development in the semi-arid tropics and to evaluate alternative means of alleviating them through technological and infrastructural changes. national and regional research programs through (4) To assist cooperation and support and contributing further by sponsoring con.ferences, operating international training programs and assisting extension activities." Objective 1 is of s,pecific concern to the Farming Systems Research objective 2 relates directly to the Crop Improvement Programs; Program; and objectives 3 and 4 are of concern to the Farming Systems, Crop Improvement and Economic Programs. These major research programs are In each proseen by ICRISAT as intimately related and interdependent. rra better disciplines cooperate to attain one common goal: gram, several ICRISAT's Board Further, life for the people of the semi-arid tropics." has accepted its mission as being too small (non-irrigated) farmers of limited means without access to large-scale irrigation. 1The basic document outlining ICRISAT's current FSR program is Krantz, The Farming Systems Research Program (Document Prepared B.A. -et al., ICRISAT, Begumpet, October 1977. the TAC Stripe Review Team), Unless otherwise noted, quotations are from this source. for ANNEX 4 -Page 2 Since its commencement in mid-1972, ICRISAT has made much indeed surprisingly so given that its permanent buildings will progress, Strong activity is underway relative to not be available until 1978. To date, ICRISAT's overall all four major objectives of the mandate. program emphasis has been to semi-arid areas of the Indian sub-continent in semi-arid Africa. but a significant effort is now developing 2. FSR Implications of ICRISAT's Mandate Five major implications for her FSR are seen in ICRISAT's mandate. First, the carrying out of FSR is decreed by the mandate. Second, this FSR is to relate to the semi-arid tropics and, third, is "to increase and stabilize agricultural production." Both these requirements portend difficulty. The semi-arid tropics encompass significant parts of the Indian sub-continent, Africa and South America. As for other centers with a significant geographical element to their mandate, ICRISAT can hardly undertake FSR encompassing all the diversity to be found across the semiarid tropics. While this diversity -- due to the effect of water constraints -- may be less in terms of the number of crops and their combinations used than the diversity faced by CIAT and IITA, it would seem to be greater in terms of the institutional and cultural settings involved. Contrast, for example, the institutional and cultural settings to be found in Northeast Brazil, Mali and India. Such influences are probably more difficult to handle in an agricultural research context than agronomic diversity. The difficulty with "to increase and stabilize" production under the risky rainfall conditions of semi-arid regions is that increased production may often only be achieved at the expense of stability. As an aim for FSR, the phrasing of the mandate may be satisfactory; but as a criterion for judging FSR results it can hardly be strictly ap:plied. A fourth implication of the mandate is that through its objective of developing better farming systems, ICRISAT could logically involve itself significantly in the consideration (if not the improvement) of crops and livestock not otherwise mentioned in the mandate. For example, FSR for Northeast Brazil would necessarily involve cotton and beef. Lastly, through its specification identification and national cooperative FSR, the mandate implicitly recognizes sion from crop improvement to overall 3. 3.1 ICRISAT's Approach to FSR of crop improvement, constraint program objectives in addition to FSR as a key element in the progresagricultural development. FSR Program Objectives is "resource are: centered" and The Farming Systems Research Program Its major objectives "development oriented." ANNEX 4 Page 3 "(a) to generate economically technology for improving the same time conserving, of natural resources. viable, labor-intensive and utilizing, while at the productive potential (b) to develop technology for improving land and water management systems which can be implemented and maintained during the extended dry seasons, thus providing additional employment to people and better utilization of available animal power. to contribute to raising the economic status and the quality of life for the people in the semiarid tropics by developing farming systems which increase and stabilize agricultural output." (c) To these ends, farming systems scientists at ICRISAT are studying the characteristics of the semi-arid tropics (SAT) so as to develcp technology emphasizing improved resource management, conservation and It is envisa.ged that farming systems research, in close coutilization. operation with. programs aimed at the improvement of the genetic potential of specific crops, will result in the rapid development of substantially more productive and economically viable farming systems. The need for a multi-disciplinary systems. approach to solve agricultural development problems is recognized. However, the scope and limits of ICRISAT's farming systems research (and its definitions and concepts) are still being delineated. 3.2 FSR Program Activities or Principles Based on consideration of research productivity and the prob'lems of focusing research and location specificity, together with appraisal of the role of international multilocation cooperative trials, ICRISAT's FSR and Economics Programs have designated a set of seven activities to be encompassed by the Institute's work in FSR.l These activities reflect a philosophy and constitute a broad methodology or set of principles for they also imply that the Institute's work ICRISAT's work. in FSR. Overall, should complement and not duplicate the research of national agencies. as (1) to sequential. the With intervening discussion, Overall, the activities (7) below. required activities are concurrent are rather listed than 'Ibid. and Binswanger, H.P., Krantz, ICRISAT in Farming Systems Research, B.A. and Virmani, S-M., The Role ICRISAT, Begumpet, August 1976. of ANNEX 4 Page 4 purposeful Aimed at assisting the focusing and efficient, the first three "(1) of research activities so that are: it is The assembly and interpretation of existing base line data in the areas of climatology, soil science, water management, plant protection and economics. The communication of basic relating to farming in the cooperators. and applied research SAT to (and from) results (2) (3) The performance of simulation or systems-analytic studies based on climate, soil and cropping systems information so as to predict the potentials of new crops, cropping systems, and soil, water and crop management practices." This involves computer modelling aimed to identify gaps in knowledge and to provide -ex ante evaluation of research possibilities. From base line data analysis guided by research needs, a number of benchmark locations are to be chosen in cooperation with National Programs to represent distinctly different climatic, soil and topographic aimed at covering the wide spectrum of SAT environments withconditions, It is planned to develop research at the benchmark a minimum of locations. locations in cooperation with national institutions so as to develop, test and evaluate information for the area involved. essential As well as research that the Institute "(4) at benchmark undertake: locations, it is seen as The organization of international cooperative trials to rapidly gain information about the performance of a practice, technique or approach over time at the same location and/or across locations." "given the management variability An assumption of this multilocation trial activity is that climatic variations which are characteristic of the SAT, resource research can be speeded up significantly by making use of spatial in climate." cooperative research in farming systems has been conducted To date, only in India and mainly via the All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture which involves 23 regional Dryland Research Centers. However, it is hoped that initial contacts in, e.g., Upper Volta, Mali, will lead to a strong cooperative network with national Tanzania and Brazil, programs by 1982. It is envisaged that such co-o:perative research will involve not only research station testing but also real-world on-farm testing of alternative farming systems. Such a proposal is presently being developed for selected village locations in India by the FS:R and Economic Programs in In such cooperative activities, cooperation with relevant National Programs. ICRISAT recognizes that extension and rural action programs are the responsibility of national agencies. ANNEX 4 Page 5 Recognizing that the new, the training of researchers program activity via: ti (5) concepts and approaches for national agencies of FSR are is seen as a The provision of support and expertise ICRISAT training programs involved in of farming systems research." responsibility of the for those all facets is seen as The research being: FSR Program ” (6) The conduct of basic and supportive research in agroclimatology, hydrology, environmental physics, soil fertility and chemistry, farm power and equipment, land and water management, cropping systems, agronomy and weed science." This research, recognizing the problem of location specificity, is to "be concentrated on the development of principles, concepts and methodologies with wide application." orientation and a relevant in supportive focus in research, training, so as to ensure a real-world Finally, a basis for testing and evaluation, a necessary activity is seen to be: "(7) The performance of interdisciplinary resource management, crop production conservation at the ICRISAT center locations" aimed at the development systems for benchmark locations. - The Major Constraint research on and resource and selected benchmark of applicable farming 3.3 Water In ICRISAT's approach to FSR for the SAT, water is seen as the Alleviation of the effects of this barrier is the ultimajor constraint. mate aim of the FSR Program and has been the focal point of activities to Better usage of precipitation is emphasized so as to overcome the date. low effective rainfall and low water use efficiency erratic rainfall, is seen to depend characteristic of agriculture in the SAT. Accomplishment on (i) proper management of the soil and of all the precipitation that falls on the land and (ii) better utilization of the improved environment In many areas, the collection, through more productive cropping systems. storage and efficient utilization of runoff water and the use of gro:mdto support and stabilize agriculture will also on a watershed basis, water, Thus the primary unit in ICRISAT's FSR work is the local be required. watershed and such watershed-based resource utilization is taken as implying that for any given watershed the annual precipitation (used directly or as supplemental water from runoff storage or ground water recovery) is the only source of soil moisture for crop production. ANNEX 4 Page 6 This local watershed approach involving the use of small quantities of runoff or percolated water to back-stop rainfed agriis distinctly different from conventional irrigated agriculture, culture which primarily depends on the transfer of "imported" water from distant catchments or on water lifted by tube wells from deep aquifers. As presently viewed, such irrigated agriculture is outside the focus of ICRISAT's FSR Program. 3.4 orientation added): Farming System Definition and Research Interpretation To encompass its resource management and watershed based to FSR, ICRISAT has defined a farming system as (underlining "The entire complex of resource preparations, allocations, decisions and activities which, within an operational farm unit or a combination of such units, results in agricultural production. The harvesting, drying and processing of the products are also directly related to the system that produces them." In this context, the FSR Program "deals with all components which in combination represent the production process on farms. These include soil and water management technology, cropping systems and methods of planting, power-equipment packages for land development and tillage, plant protection, plant nutrient application, harvesting, threshing, drying and processing" -- and, given the underlined part of the above definition, the inter-farm watershed-based dependencies and arrangements (or lack of) between farms. Increasingly, the FSR Program is being oriented to study of the biological and physical processes involved in farming systems rather than the study of actual practices since information. on these basic processes is seen as less location specific. ICRISAT's Farming Systems Program is not limited to considering only the crops mentioned in its mandate (sorghum, millet, pigeonpea, chickpea and groundnut) as components of cropping systems. It includes a search horticultural or silvicultural) for any additional crops (agricultural, which have potential in the SAT. It is also seen as requiring research on forage production and the controlled use of livestock, where relevant, as a In the cooperative research phase with component of farming systems. the availability of external inputs, the marketing of National Programs, socioeconomic constraints and farmers' cooperation agricultural produce, and organizations are also to be considered. ANNEX 4 Page 7 The FSR Program recognizes that the final tailoring of farming systems to local conditions and socioeconomic constraints can only be undertaken by national research organizations. However, because of the dearth of agricultural research information in the SAT, ICRISAT sees a greater need for broad-based basic research on principles, concepts and methodologies for the solution of development problems than in most Thus, the strategy is to concentrate on develother agroclimatic zones. oping principles of soil and water management, resource conservation and crop technology which will have general application over much of the SAT, and to develop methodologies and approaches which can be used by national organizations to adapt these principles and develop the most effective practices for their locations. 4. Structure of ICRISAT's - FSR Program with the Economic around obvious ICRISAT's FSR Program is structured around interdisciplinary activities within the program itself and cooperative activities center's Crop Improvement I?rograms and, most importantly, the Program, plus cooperative work with national agencies. Until 1977, the FSR Program was seemingly loosely organized sub-program areas with no :Eormally designated leader or outwardly organizational linkages or structure within the research program. 4.1 Staffing The program's senior istaff consists of six (soon to be seven) International (or Principa:L) Scientists spanning the program areas 1is':ed below, plus 19 highly trained senior scientists able to conduct research projects with full responsibility. from the FSR Program, but Distinct closely involved in cooperative activities, is the Economics Program which, all told, has an establishment of three International Scientists, one postdoctoral scientist, one senior scientist and four junior scientists. Compared to most other IARCs, ICRISAT is able to recruit excellent local support staff. 4.2 Program Currently Research Operational Cooperative Training Extension Components the in Farming Systems Program consists of five components: sub-program scale, research areas. resource utilization research. watershed-based with national and regional organizations. programs in farming systems. through national programs. and implementation ANNEX 4 Page 8 All five of these components are interrelated via focus and and success is seen as dependent on continuous dissemination staffing, The last three components, and feedback between each of the components. The first component, i.e. research in are self-explanatory. as listed, involves basic or supportive research aimed at sub-program areas, specific objectives in the following disciplinary area: Agroclimatology Hydrology Environmental Physics Soil Fertility and Chemistry Farm Power and Equipment Land and Water Management Cropping Systems Agronomy and Weed Science. Much of the research in the various sub-programs or in cooperation with disciplinary specialists from the Crop Improvement and Economics Programs is carried out on a wide spectrum of activities or experiments within the particular disciplines involved. These range from basic investigations to applied studies which may be included in cooperative adaptive projects at an early stage. The second component, i.e. watershed-based resource utilization research, is conducted on watershed units on both. Alfisols and Vertisols It is the operational testing ground for principles and leads at ICRISAT. developed in the various sub-programs where water, power and labor use efficiency, production potential, resource conservation, and economics of alternative farming systems are investigated on an operational scale. Thus, all sub-programs in the Farming Systems Research Program as well as cooperating economists, plant breeders, physiologists, entomologists, pathologists and microbiologists from other ICRISAT programs are involved in some facet of the systems research in the watersheds. 4.3 Specific Objectives of FSR Sub-programs While ICRISAT has five major research programs (FSR, Economics, Cereals, Pulses, Groundnuts), these titles are largely for administrative and overview purposes. The allocation of research resource is carried out via the Deputy Director (Research) on a research project basis within the programs, each specific research project having a designated team and leader, and usually running for two or three years. Within the FSR Program, such projects are aimed to help achieve the objectives specified for the sub-program areas (which were established in mid-1977), as listed below-l 1From Krantz, B. A. et al., op. cit. ANNEX 4 Page 9 Agroclimatology (1) To classify through tation (2) the SAT into major climatic zones the collection, analysis and interpreof available climatic data. To quantify the moisture environment for crop growth in important regions of the SAT through the application of simulation techniques to available rainfall, evapotranspiration and soils data to de.lineate priority research areas and to determine the probable transferability of agricultural production techniques between similar areas. crop weather interactions to (3) To investigate specify crop production relationships and to distinguish production differences due to technology from those due to environmental conditions in order to identify the key variables. (4) Investigations of microclimatic elements and influencing the production potential of intercropping and relay cropping systems. Hydrology to the quantification of runoff proba(1) To contribute bilities, groundwater hydrology and erosion behavior under alternative management treatments in agricultural watersheds for various agroclimatic zones. (2) To assist in the development and simulation programs for extrapolat.ion of hydrologic major agroclimatic zones. methodology of hydrologic models the interpretation and research findings to for hydrologic (3) To develop research. Environment Physics and equipment to (from 3 m above ground 3 m below) throughout the zone of rooting, the (1) To characterize, physical properties, (bulk density, moisture characteristic curves, saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity) for major soil groups of the SAT. (2) To evaluate alternative ment of soil moisture functions. methods for -in situ measureand moisture desorption ANNEX 4 Page 10 (3) To determine detailed seasonal-profile balances and to quantify the direction magnitude of moisture flux at various and times for Alfisols and Vertisols. water and depth (4) To derive quantitative relationships between ET/E0 and the soil and plant water potentials, dry matter production, L-A-1. and plant height for rainy season and post-rainy season crops. and Chemistry Soil Fertility (1) in cooperation To determine, biologically and economically management and fertilization cropping systems, especially various areas of the SAT. with National Programs, optimum soil fertility programs for important intercropping, in (2) To investigate seasonal changes in nutrient status under different management systems and to determine and quantify the processes involved in nutrient transformation and losses so as to develop improved management techniques which will effectively recycle and conserve nutrients. To compile the chemical properties groups of various regions of the of the SAT. major soil (3) Farm Power and Equipment (1) To gain an understanding of farmers' motivation and constraints in adopting new equipment and to use this information as feedback into machinery development To monitor equipment utilization in Watershedresearch. based Resource Utilization Research, to study the energy inputs required for alternative management levels and to use modelling as a technique to arrive at optimum machinery systems. fertilizer placement and To arrive at improved tillage, planting techniques through precise identification of critical physical characteristics for each operation. To select or develop simple and ine:xpensive instrumentation to quantitatively determine the conditions under which adequate performance is attained. To solve the problems of early and quick harvesting rainy season crops related to intercropping, relay of (2) (3) ANNEX 4 Page 11 cropping and sequential cropping those of post-rainy season crops tillage. (4) systems and also to facilitate early To improve the utilization of animal and/or mechanical power and energy for field operations and to investigate the applied aspects of other energy forms such as solar heat (crop drying) and wind power (water lifting and electricity generation). To design modifications and to construct prototypes based on a selection of alternative materials and components as well as to provide drawings, specifications and cost estimates for equipment production. Management To develop land management which results in reduced while increasing infiltration of runoff and erosion, rainfall without causing drainage problems. To develop surface drainage techniques which result in a better growth environment for plants and improved workability of the soil during the rainy season without resulting in excessive runoff. To develop design criteria safely convey excess water interference for agricultural for waterway systems which from the land with minimum operations. (5) Land and Water (1) (2) (3) (4) To develop alternative technologies for the use of available ground and surface water on rainfed crops, resulting in increased benefits through stabilizing rainfed agriculture and by lengthening the growing season. To develop reutilization to increase basis. superior systems for runoff collection and as well as for the use of ground-water the available water resources on a watershed (5) Cropping Systems The basic research philosophy of this sub-program is that the is still a community of intercropping situation, despite its complexity, Conplants, or "crop", which uses growth resources to produce yield. sequently, the research objectives are similar to those of a crop improvement program but relate to intercropping: ANNEX 4 Page 12 (1) To achieve a fundamental understanding of growth and resource use as a means of identifying possible ways of improvement. To characterize the their interactions. To produce improved agronomic genotypes. protection of problems and their relationships and (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Agronomy To identify plant means of control. To examine To examine the the role legumes. of yields. stability and Weed Science (1) (2) (3) (4) To derive initial new pre-release To investigate ecology. guidelines on the agronomy of varieties of ICRISAT's five crops. principles residues of weed management and forage and To evaluate crop of animal feed. as sources of To study the individual and combined effects several "steps in technology" on crop yields. Resource Utilization Research 4.4 Watershed-based In line with the FSR Program's view of water as the major constraint and the local watershed as the focal key to improving farming systems in the SAT, a number of local watersheds have been delineated on ICRISAT. Watershed-based resource utilization research is conducted on these station watersheds. This research is aimed at determining "the optimum utilization of the catchment precipitation through improved water, soil and crop management for the improvement and stabilization of agriculture on the watershed." A number of land and water management techniques are simulated on the ICRISAT watersheds. Alternative cropping systems are superimposed on these treatments, and distinction is made between improved and traditional "levels of management" (i.e. technologies). Thus the station watersheds are operational-scale "pilot plants" where the integrated effect of alternative farming systems can be monitored. All FSR sub-programs cooperate in this research. ANNEX 4 Page 13 Utilization The specific objectives Research are: of this Watershed-based Resource (1) To facilitate the nologies for land water conservation development of appropriate techand water development, soil and and resource utilization. (2) To integrate new information, developed in FSR subinto viable systems of farming and to programs, rigorously test the improved systems on an operational scale. To investigate the water balances of alternative farming systems and to specifically determine the raLnfal1 use efficiencies and yield stability to generate data for testing hydrologic obtained; simulation programs. To derive the economics characterizing different farming systems which are prevalent in the Hyderabad region or which seem to have potential for this area; to extrapolate economic results to other areas for identification of priority research areas. To provide training to those involved in hydrologic research and natural resource development in differen-t regions of the SAT; to demonstrate a methodology to arrive at viable farming systems for the SAT. Research in Relation to FSR at ICRISAT which area. (3) (4) (51 5. Socioeconomic It is noteworthy th.at the FSR Program's sub-program areas, are largely disciplinary based, do not include the socioeconomics Such work is the responsibility of the Economics Program. The overall objective of the Economics Program is to help identify constraints to increased food production and agricultural development in the semi-arid tropics, and to evaluate alternative means of alleviating these constraints by technological and/or policy changes-l This general philosophy is expressed through the various research projects undertaken in the Program's two major areas of Production virtually all of the research in the Economics and Marketing Economics. Production Economics Sub-program relates either directly or indirectly to These projects have been defined and implemented with the the FSR Program. and are all designed to be highly collaboration of FSR Program Scientists, Farming Systems Research in the Economics lRyan, J-G., sion Paper 2, ICRISAT, Begumpet, November 1977. Program, EP Discus- ANNEX 4 Page 14 Work in the Marketing Economics Subrelevant to FSR Program needs. while of direct relevance to the Crop Improvement Programs, progr~, In both a sub-program is largely only of indirect relevance to FSR. to general areas of the Economics Program, work is done of relevance agricultural policy which again has indirect relevance to FSR, Economics projects which relate directly to FSR have as their primary purpose the provision of information and analyses to the Institute's management and to the FSR Program so as: (i) to assist in setting research priorities and strategies; (ii) to help design and implement appropriate experiments; and (iii) to contribute to the testing and evaluation of proposed system changes. Thus, overall, a major function of the Economics Program is to provide data that will help evaluate and ensure that the farming systems being developed are relevant to the actual constraint situations facing SAT farmers and that the potential for payoff is high. Studies relate to: - benchmark - risk villages. SAT. animal and mechanical technologies experiments. for power the sources in the underway or completed of direct relevance to FSR in the - economics SAT. - economics - "steps of human, of prospective SAT. in technology" - rainfall-runoff - history modelling. of existing tank irrigation for the in India. and economics - group action and organization requirements tion of watershed-based technologies. - social organization of tractors Village Level in Indian in the Studies SAT villages. South implementa- - economics 5.1 Benchmark .Asian SAT. Because they appear to be the most purposefully designed and fruitful of the sampling studies of existing farming systems reviewed by outlining the Economics Program's village the Review Team, it is worthwhile level studies project. ANNEX 4 Page 15 Aims of the project are traditional farming systems, in the production and development at the basis for off-station and on-farm with the FSR Program and national to gain a thorough understanding of SAT, to identify constraints to food micro-level, and to provide a potential testing and evaluation in cooperatiork agencies. To date studies have been initiated in India with four villages These benchmark villages were selected on Vertisol and two on Alfisols. with the advice of other Programs and Indian agencies, choice being based on purposeful selection taking into account 40 characteristics (covering climate, soil, location, etc.) judged relevant from a benchmark view. So as to ensure purposeful data collection from the start, a set of eight prior hypotheses about traditional farming practices and farmer behavior 1 were formulated for testing. An investigator has been living in each of the selected villages following an initial period of intencontinuously for the past 2.5 years, sive training. Each has an M-SC. in Agricultural Economics, comes from a rural village background in the same region, and speaks the local language. In each village various information schedules have been completed with a stratified random sample of 10 landless laborer and 30 cultivator households (divided equally into small, medium and large family groups) on a regular basis every 15 to 20 days. Data collected cover all farm and nonfarm activities, including input-output data, labor utilization and employprices, kinship relations, etc. In addiment, transactions, inventories, a large number of agrobiological observation to this socioeconomic data, tions and measurements have been made in collaboration with scientists from other ICRISAT Programs. More complete information on the data collected is shown in Tables 1 and 2. Hypotheses and Priorities for the Village Level 'Binswanger, H.P. et. al. Studies in the SATof%d&, ICRISAT, Begumpet, December 1974; Binswanger, Approach and Hypotheses for the Village Level Studies of H.P. et. al., ICRISZ, e Occasional Pa,per 15, ICRISAT, Begumpet, May 1977. ANNEX 4 Page 16 TABLE Details = ~~~ ~~;~ =~ ~- 1 agro-economic studies data in of the -~~ schedules ICRISAT's Year and frequency used for collecting benchmark village Schedules complete&/ 1820 Type of schedule census Remarks For all resident households; demographic, occupational, landholding and livestock possession detail. More details of above type for sample households; details about each member. Records physical and ownership status of farm plots; use status (fallow, cropped, double cropped, crop rotation during different seasons). Records position assets. sample households' in terms of fixed Household May, 1975; once Household schedule member July, July, 1975 1976 480 Plot and crop rotation schedule July, 1975, July, 1976; updated during each crop season July, July, 1975 1976 380 Animal inventory 480) Farm implement inventory Farm building inventory Cultivation schedule Labor, draft animal and machinery utilization schedule Since 1975; 15-20 1 1 1 -do-doJuly every days 480) 1 1 480) over 4600 Records details season. plotwise input-output for each crop for each -do- over 6900 Records actual utilization of these resources on the day preceding the interview; number of wage employment days, days of involuntary unemployment (for family labor and bullocks) during the period since last interview. Records type and value of every transaction involving inflow and outflow of cash, goods and services for sample households. (Cont'd) Household transactions schedule -do- over 6900 ANNEX 4 Page 17 Table 1 - Cont'd. schedule Year and frequency July 1975 to June 1976; once a month Schedules complete&/ 200 Remarks Records wage rates for labor and and price details of bullocks, major items transacted ivy villagers in their village or outside for every month. Records grains, savings, position inventory of stocks of food fodder, consumer durables, deposits, debt and credit of sample households. Type of 10. PI-+-~ and Wage schedule 11. Stock inventory credit and debt schedule Kinship and social exchange schedule Risk tion investigaschedules Jail* 1976 and July 1976; once a year Since every days Dec. '76. 15-20 480 12. 2400 Records details on the social networ behind exchange for sample householc (Incorporated with household transactions schedule.) Records farmers' preferences with respect to suggested decision alternatives with varying degrees o. gain and uncertainty of prospects; actual decision and actions about farming; adjustment devices to meet consequences of drought, etc., for sample households. Records resulting in 'risk purpose. farmers' actual choices from their participation game' designed! for the pattern of activitie of households of a constant observation each of the seasonal 13. August 1976 to April 1977 320 14. Risk attitude experimentation schedule Time-allocation studies schedule April-May 1977 295 15. Since 1977; every son Jan. once sea- 144 (winter and summer seasons only) 480 Records actual by all members sub-sample by for one day in rounds. 16. Diet Survey schedule -do- Records through actual measurement and observation the items consumed by each member of the sample households. (Cont'd) ANNEX 4 Page 18 'able 1 - concluded Type of schedule Year and frequency Since 1977; every Jan. once season Schedules completed 3036a/ (for ali members of sample households All sample households f/ Remarks Records nutritional deficiencies, disease symptoms and other issues related to health status using methods suggested by health and nutrition experts. Data to determine age-specific fertility of women and t.o indicate normal completed family sizes. 7. Health status schedule 8. Demographic schedule Ott .-Dec. 1977 Completed as of May, 1977. / This excludes the schedules of all similar details were collected. / school-going chi:Ldren in the villages for whom ANNEX 4 Page 19 TABLE 2 Details of village agro-biological level studies and related data collected through ICRISAT's during the crop years 1975-76 and 1976-77 Crop Sorghum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Pigeonpea Chickpea Pearl Millet Groundnut All major:/ crops of the area Description Shootfly incidence Stem borer count Midqefly and preharvest assessment Grain mound counts Striqa assessment Leaf disease incidence Wilt & sterility mosaic Pod borer counts Nodule counting Crop rotation (with pigeonpea) Wilt incidence Pod borer counts Germination/crop stand Nodule counting Incidence of downy mildew Incidence of ergot Incidence of smut Incidence of rust Nodule counting Weed counts Cropping patterns and crop rotations Crop cutting Direction of crop planting Post-harvest farming practices Rainfall induced delays in farm operations Effects of contour bunding on crop yields Measurement of inflows/ outflows into traditional paddy tanks Minimum No. of plots covered (with 3-5 replicates in each) durinq each year 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 10 5 3ob/ 510 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (per 3ob/ 183ob/ 3ob/ 3021 Frequency of observations each year 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 crop11 1 1 1 1 1 3 daily Crop years covered Both yrs Information user- a/ Entomologists II 1975-76 1976-77 Both yrs Both yrs 1976-77 1975-76 Both yrs Both yrs 1976-77 II ,I 11 91 II 11 1, ,I II Cereal Pathologists Sorghum breeders Cereal Pathologists Pulse Pathologists Entomologists Microbiologists Farming Systems Pulse Pathologists Entomologists Pulse Physiologist Microbiologists Cereal PatholoqistII II II Microbiologists Farming Systems I, Economics Pulse Physiologist: Farming Systems ant Economics Farming Systems anr Economics Farming Systems Farming Systems 1975-76 1976-77 a/ b/ c/ Instructions and -pro forms for collecting observations were supplied by the respective scientists who are potential users of these data. They also trained the investigators making the observations and measurements. Number of households, not plots. Besides the said observations, measurement of plots and sub-plots, weighing of fodder bundles, cart loads of manure, etc., was done on a sample basis. for ANNEX 4 Page 20 Since the establishment of the benchmark village studies, they have been found to have increasing potential as a basis for information and hypothesis testing as these needs arise in the Institute's Programs. Thus, for example, they have been highly relevant to FSR Program study of the effects of bunding on crop yields and of traditional paddy tank inflows and outflows. The village studies base for the study of farmers' have also served as an important "full information" risk attitudes and the potential labor-displacement effects of herbicides. Further, they are providing a base for the study of the influence of caste and other socio-anthropological factors on the rate of adoption of improved technology. Most importantly, given the local watershed focus of the FSR Program, the benchmark villages are serving as real-world test sites for testing new watershed-based as well as for studying the approaches technologies, to group action needed for successful implementation of new watershed-based technology. It is planned to continue the village sites at the same level of intensity for another at the other two sites but at reduced intensity. will commence in the SAT of West Africa in 1978, proposed for study in India. 6. Significant Achievements in FSR at ICRISAT aspects of ICRISAT's work in FSR which studies in four of the six year; the study will continue Plans are that anologous studies and a further four villages are particularly Mention is made here of those impressed the Review Team: the fact that a significant body of work has been completed, or First, is in progress after only five years and without permanent buildings, and during which time there appeared to have been only a modicum of formal program structure or flow charting compared to the other IARCs visited. Second, the recognition that the problem of location specificity has to be met by concentrating IARC work in FSR on methodologies and principles adaptable by national agencies to local situations, complemented by IARC training activities. village planning Third, the use of Base Data Analysis in both the selection sites and -- especially from a methodological. point of view--in 1 of research on farming systems. of benchmark the Fourth, allied with both and Base Data Analysis, the progress the emphasis on transferable methodologies being made in adapting available computerized 1 Specific reference is made to: Virmani, S.M. The Agricultural Climate of the Hyderabad Region in Relation to Crop Planning (A Sample Analysis), FSR Program, ICRISAT, Begumpet, 1975, ANNEX 4 Page 21 simulation models FSR Program needs which the fashion. Fifth, selection such as CSIRO's water balance/crop growth via strong multidisciplinary cooperation. the multidisciplinary of ICRI!;AT benchmark model (Watbal) to center-wide committee frameworyk via sites is proceeding in a very -thorough the Sixth, and training that have All India Coordinated Agricultural Research strong fruitful cooperative activities in both research been developed with Indian institutions, particularly the Program or Dry Land Agriculture, the Indian Council of and a number of universities. Seventh, the enthusiastic approach to the local watershed as the basic key to improvement of farming systems in the SAT and the multidisciplinary use of the watersheds on ICRISAT for operational testing of system changes. involving Eighth, within and across particular sub-programs the Economics Program, work related to: (a) (b) and often also the measurement and meeting of risk in climate and yields; wheeled and cultivation moisture the development of tool carrier suited practices; an animal-drawn multipurpose to a variety of implements it to give no substantial (cl contour bunding, showing conservation benefits; Cdl the development and assessment their directioning within the manipulation) which has shown promise for Vertisols of up to the assessment of "steps "package" approach; in of broad bed cultivation (and local watershed for run-off broad beds to have quite significanimoderate slope; as distinct from the (e) technology" (f) the --ex ante appraisal of herbicide use in SAT India1 taking account of both technical and socioeconomic effects which showed that despite technical advantages, herbicide use would be unprofitable at current and likely wage rates and would adversely affect the income of female laborers who are already one of the leading to emphasis on most disadvantaged rural groups -- thereby non-herbicide weed control in the FSR Program. Economic Paper 13, Aspects of Weed Control in Semi-Aric ~~__ ~ ~~ ICRISAT, Begumpet, March 1977. H.P. and Shetty, S.V.R., 'Binswanger, Tropical Areas of India, Occasional ANNEX 4 Page 22 (g) lastly, but certainly not least, the outstanding conceptualization and focusing of the cropping systems work, particularly in intercropping, on a small set of representative systems and the significant development of field methodology for multiple cropping research. Ninth, the very significant contribution made by the Economics Program, both cooperatively with the FSR Program in research and to the center's management in the determination of priorities as, e-g,, with tractor mechanixationl and herbicide research. Mention has already been made of the village level studies (Section 5.1) B the methodology of their selection and use, and their fruitful contribution, Most impressive also is the recent study of farmer attitudes to risk in the Indian SAT2 which, in terms of its methodology., is an outstanding contribution. The results of this study, matched with cooperative studies of risks facing farmers in the SAT environment, should be most helpful in guiding and assessing farming system changes, Likewise, the study in progress on approaches to. group action for the successful implementation of watershed-wide systems of farming involving multiples of farms is an excellent example of foresight in the recognition of system-wide interdependencies as is essential for the successful conduct of FSR. 7. Overview and Comments on FSR at ICRISAT FSR at ICRISAT is obviously being conducted with enthusiasm and dedication, and in the five years since establishment of the center a quite substantial output of significant results has been generated, These results include not only SAT system components per se, but also methodologies and guidelines of significance to the conduct of FSR in general and at IARCs in particular. The more important of these have been noted above (particularly in Section 6) and are covered in more detail by the cited references, Suffice to say that the center's work in FSR appears fruitful and to well meet the directions appropriate to an IARC. Given its favorable FSR, the Review Team offers the and further program development, overall following impression comments of the center's as a basis for work in discussion ICRISATts FSR Program is strong in Base Data Analysis and Research (1) village level studies, Station Studies but, except for the Economics Program's is not yet as involved in On-Farm Studies as would be desirable, However# active steps are being taken to increase activity in this areaThe Economics of I_-Tractors 1 Binswanger, H.P. ICRISAT, Begumpet, October, 1977. 2 Binswanger, H-P., Risk Attitudes ICRISAT. Begumpet, 1977, India, in the Indiana-Subcontinent, in Semi-Arid Tropical of Rural Households (preliminary draft). ANNEX 4 Page 23 Though there were signs of progress, as evidence by the 1977 (2) specification of program "activities","components", "sub-program areas" the Review Team was disappointed to find that except for the and a leader, broadest of outlines, there appeared to be no clearcut organizational frameLikewise, and no doubt relatedly, there appeared work to the FSR Program. to be no Program-wide programming or flowcharting of activities showing team responsibilities and time dependencies. The Team appreciates, however, that ICRISAT is the youngest of the four IARCs reviewed and has had less time to develop the most appropriate organizational structure for its FSR program. The Team suggests that the problem would be better exposed if there was a program-wide system of programming. In the belief that systems analysis by its multidisciplinary team nature requires more explicit organization and programming than traditional disciplinary research, the Review Team suggests that the FSR Program further consider the question of organizational structure and programming, and how these relate to the project system of research administration employed by the center. Related to the question of FSR organization is the location of (3) economics. So far as the Review Team can judge, the Economics Program at ICRISAT has been very successful and its existence as a separate program has not hindered its contribution to FSR. In the ICRISAT context, therefore, the Review Team would not recommend upsetting the current organizational structure so as to locate economists within the FSR Program. Currently, the local watershed rather than the individual farm is (4) seen as the focal key to implementation of ICRISAT's FSR output by national agencies. Whilst the importance of water and lcoal watershed management in the SAT is indisputable, there would seem to be some difficulties with putting too much emphasis on the local watershed rather than the farm unit. Specifically, full implementation on a watershed basis involving a number of farms must overcome the problems of group action arising from questions of tenure, kinship relations, multiple parcels of land, existing structures, loss of independence, hereditary feuds, social c.aste, etc. The Review Team is pessimistic about such group action difficulties being overcome on any large scale. Accordingly it believes ICRISAT should be careful not to put all its eggs in the watershed basket. As well as ensuring that its watershed technology is divisible across farms in the watershed, additional focus should be given to the farm unit -per se. Thus the Review Team would prefer a more even balance between the watershed and farm foci in the FSR Program. Amongst the objectives of the FSR sub-program areas, simulation (5) modelling is often mentioned as a research procedure. While the Review Team sees the advantages and necessity in some areas for modelling, it believes this should largely be based on the adaption of models developed elsewhere. It recommends that the construction of complex computer simulation models should not be undertaken de novo within the FSR Program. -- ANNEX 4 Page 24 As already noted, the FSR sub-programs are a mixture of (6) The Review Team believes this set of disciplinary and systems areas. sub-programs should be assessed for possible respecification. In the Review Team gained the impression that the research particular, being undertaken in the Environmental Physics sub-program, whilst good, was somewhat more akin to what might normally be done in a University or and that it was not as fully integrated other national research institution, to the FSR Program as might be possible. As yet, ICRISAT has no direct FSR work. outside of the Indian (7) sub-continent though some is planned for Africa in 1978. Within India, the modus operandi of cooperating with national agencies and developing methodologies and principles for their adaption of representative systems is progressing very well. of the FSR Program to However, extension other SAT regions will doubtless raise problems of principle as well as logistics. Nonetheless, the Review Team believes that ICRISAT should now begin to extend its FSR Progarm to West Africa and later Brazil. It approves the steps being taken to select benchmark sites in West Africa, probably one on Ustipsammet and one on Oxisol. It hopes, however, that such extension will not be at the expense of developing On-Farm Research in India so as to capitalize on and assess the progress already made in Research Station Studies. So far as the question of balance between disciplines and (8) activities in the program is concerned, the Review Team has no comment beyond those made above regarding the watershed approach, environmental physics, computer modelling, On-Farm Studies and international expansion. (9) (draught legumes) The Review Team approves ICRISAT's app.roach of considering animals stock to date) and non-mandate crops (such as sunflower and various in its FSR Program so long as they are relevant system activities. ANNEX 5. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT IRRI 1. 2. 3. 4. Objectives History IRRI's Structure 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 of of the IRRI's Cropping Systems Systems Program Program Cropping to FSR Approach of IRRI's Cropping Systems Program Staffing Program Components of Cropping Asian Cropping Systems Systems Program Network Specific Objectives Areas and Activities Objectives Methodology Crop:ping of the in the Cropping Network in Systems Program 5. 6. 7. The Asian Significant Overview Systems Achievements FSR at IRRI and Comments on FSR at IRRI ANNEX 5 Page 1 ANNEX 5. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT IRRI 1. Objectives of IRRI's Cropping Systems Program1 Research on cropping systems constitutes one of IRRI"s major second only to "Genetic Evaluation and Utilization" programs, (GEU) , and absorbing more than one-fifth of the Institute's budget, The focus of the Cropping Systems Program (CSP) is on the "development of a cropping systems technology to increase cropping intensity on Asia's rice farms, making more efficient use of the available farm resources." The overall objective of the CSP is: "TO increase food production in South and Southeast Asia through the identification of more productive ricebased cropping systems that are acceptable to typical rice farmers,"2 Its specific objectives are: systems co- "to develop research methodology in cropping involving rice and to extend that methodology to operative programs; to develop technology for and assemble IRRI's target specific climatic multiple zones: cropping and to feedback appropriate developmental research to information on basic concerned agencies.; at the national level, to encourage and assist national production programs in the target agro-climatic zones t.o achieve increased farm production through increased cropping intensity,"' Given the limited scope to further increase land area under crops and for major yield advances beyond those now attainable with high inputs, mare intensive cropping systems offer the main route to increased food production and the more efficient use of land, labor and capital resources, It is this consideration tha$ has led to the rapid build-up of the cropping systems program at IRRI, 1'IF31 does not refer to its program as !'Farming Systems Program," to call it the Cropping Systems Program, Earlie.r? it was called Multiple Cropping Program, 2From briefing papers prepared for the TAC Review Team by the but the prefers CSP staff, ANNEX 5 Page 2 2. History of the Cropping Systems Program The program was begun at IRRI many years ago by Professor R. Bradfield, who developed techniques for fitting a variety of legumes with the primary objectives of and other crops between rice plantings, Bradfield's improved human nutrition and soil fertility maintenance. innovative experiments revealed the opportunities available for more intensive and diverse cropping. After Dr. Bradfield's retirement, emphasis shifted somewhat from determining productivity of new or improved multiple cropping patterns to study of intensive cropping patterns on existing farms where rice was the basic crop. An economist was added to undertake economic studies of existing and improved cropping patterns. In 1974 the program was enlarged to provide a multidisciplinary team, and the Asian Cropping Systems Network began to be organized. The CSP was the fiirst FSR program at an IARC. It has pioneered in developing methodology and in many aspects of FSR, and has been a leader concepts for multidisciplinary research, notably in On-Farm Studies. 3. IRRI's Approach to FSR The basic approach of the CSP is to develop improved, intensified cropping patterns on small Asian rice farms. The CSP concentrates on the rainfed lowland and upland rice areas of South and Southeast Asia, where there is potential for increasing the cropping intensity. In this regard, priority is given to areas where it may be possible to increase production during the crop season and increase the cropping intensity from one to two, or from two to three crops. CSP concentrates on resource utilization on small rice farms It focuses on crop enterprises of typical rice farmers, and considers physical, and economic factors at farm level, and community factors as biological, they influence the performance of cropping systems. The program depends upon description of the re:sources available for agriculture and their current use of existing cropping patterns and of economic factors. Efforts are placed both on generation tof component technology for cropping patterns, and Technology generation, to a on farmer management of improved technology. involves both the commodity and disciplinary research programs large extent, relying on the FSP to provide the appropriate feedback. In a large part of the presently single-crop rainfed rice areas, which constitute about half of all the rice grown, the wet season is probably Commonly, however, a single crop long enough to support two crops of rice. is transplanted rather late, and traditional long duration varieties are Research at IRRI has shown that it harvested at the end of the rainy season. is possible to harvest at least two crops of rice in these areas, particularly if the first is sown early in the season by direct seeding, and the second is often after zero tillage but transplanted after the first crop is harvested, ANNEX 5 Page 3 some herbicide treatment. To do this successfully has required some ingenious agronomic research, as well as availability of shorter duration varieties. So convincing are the demonstrations of the major increases in output already obtained in farmers' field by the adoption of these that the practice is rapidly spreading and the Philippine techniques, Department of Agriculture is expanding it on a considerable scale. Many aspects of these techniques require further study, however. Rice-rice may be the most suitable cropping system on some heavy textured paddy soils, in some cases followed by a legume crop such as mung-bean. On lighter soils and in areas with a shorter wet season, the rice crop may be preceded or more commonly followed by maize, peanuts, cassava, and other crops. Apart from their nutritional advantages, such multiple crop systems are probably also beneficial in terms of fertility maintenance and control of weeds, pests and diseases. Much cropping systems research must be site or environment specific. It requires detailed examination of the variations in soil and land levels over a farm, and of local climate and local socioeconomic considerations. It also includes a biological description to determine appropriate pest control measures. The extent to which such research can be generalized into the development of principles is one of the concerns of the CSP. The research strategy of the CSP takes into account the fact that there is much to be learned from an analysis of the reasons for many traditional practices, and that the introduction of new crops, varieties, agronomic techniques and new equipment into an individual farm operation req-uires careful farm observations and testing. The importance of collaboration at the national level is therefore emphasized. The cropping systems research methodology developed by IRRI in cooperation with national programs advocates the use of site-related research. This, however, takes a different form in the Philippines, because of the close proximity to IRRI, than in the other cooperating countries. Sri Lanka and Thailand, for example, the research In Indonesia, process starts with site description followed by cropping pattern design All experimental work is conducted on farmers' and cropping pattern testing. The research teams at the sites fields and most of it is managed by farmers, analysis and interpretation by are supported in aspects of research design, experienced cropping systems researchers of national research institutions+ The cooperation between the research team at the site and local extension particularly for the baseline survey, the workers is of great importance, selection of farmer cooperators, and the testing of cropping patterns. It should be stressed that the research team does not establish demonstrations, it seeks to involve farmers at an early stage in the generation of Rather, production methods for the area, the sites are operated in On the other hand, in the Philippines cooperation with the Bureau of Plant Industry and the research teams are As a result the site research contains directly supported by IRRI staff, several aspects of methodology development that are not envisaged in the research sites operated by national programs in other countries. ANNEX 5 Page 4 4. 4.1 Structure of the IRRI Cropping Systems Program Staffing The Program is organized as a research team comprising: (1) a group of three scientists constituted as the Cropping Systems Group within the Multiple Cropping Department; these three staff are respectively in charge of: leadership agronomy, outreach coordination a visiting assigned climatic work. of the activities of the Program in the Asian and research Philippines, Cropping Systems Network, work in post-doctoral scientist, temporarily .to this group, who is carrying out agrostudies and environmental classification (2) Three scientists belonging respectively to the Agronomy (Weed science), Economics and Entomology Departments, are assigned to the CSP on a full-time basis. A crop production specialist, in charge of the Rice Production Training and Applied Research Program, is practically fully attached to the CSP. In addition, some other IRRI scientists (in agronomy and microbiology, for example) contribute a measurable part of their activities to CSP. While noticeable, the contributions of the Statistics Department and the Machinery Development Department are not reflected in the budget. About forty Associate Scientists and Research Assistants work within the CSP. About twenty graduate students are attached to this program. Three IRRI staff cropping systems Components is composed are listed of the in parenwork on cooperative special outside the Philippines. projects in (3) (4) (5) (61 4.2 Program The Cropping Systems Program research activity following six program areas (responsible departments thesisl). 1 C.S. = Cropping Systems. ANNEX 5 Page 5 - Environmental - Soil and crop classification management (Multiple (Multiple Cropping). Cropping). - Weed management - Insect - Cropping (C. S. Agronomy). management economics (C. S. Entomology). and disease systems (C. S. Economics). Production and - Pre-production testing Training Program). (C. S. Rice Each of the above program areas contribute to the research steps of site description, cropping pattern design and cropping systems testing. which constrain cropping Also, each program area works on bottlenecks Such problem solution work also contributes to systems performance. generation of new component technology. bility There are five of the CSP, viz: basic program activities which are the responsi- (1) (2) Environmental classification economic factors). Cropping Cropping Evaluation systems. Network pattern pattern of design. testing. alternative (mainly physical and (3) (4) (5) 4.3 cropping patterns and management and Training. of Cropping classification Systems Program Areas and Activities Specific (1) Objectives Environmental "to identify more accurately -the relation of physical and socioeconomic environmental variables to cropping pattern performance and to use this information in further development This objective is pursued by of multiple cropping technology. At times the monitoring of the environment and cropping patterns. environmental conditions of particular interest may be induced." ANNEX 5 Page 6 (21 Cropping pattern design - "to develop techniques for pre-testing evaluation of alte,rnative cropping patterns and management systems. These systems will be evaluated using simulation models that employ results from research on environmental classification and cropping pattern design, as well as by field simulation through actual field trials." (3) Technology generation - "to intensify the research on identified management problems associated with basic cropping patterns that have a wide area of adaptation, such as rice-ricerice-rice (upland crop), rice-upland crop (-upland rice; crop) and upland rice patterns. (4) Cropping pattern testing - "to perfect the on-farm research methodology and extend this m,ethodology to include applied research so that cropping systems researchers can provide planners and extension programs with the three essential components of agricultural production technology: (5) Network the the technology domain itself; of this technology; of this of adaptation the institutional technology." and training - requirements "to continue the support of cropping systems research in national organizations in South and Southeast Asia. Through the Asian Cropping Systems Network, IRRI provides methodologies, and varietal testing support." training, information sharing, 4.4 Objectives of the Asian Cropping Systems Network The site-related cropping systems research methodology is now applied on about twenty-five locations in seven countries of South and These locations form the Asian Cropping Systems Network. Southeast Asia. Its objectives are: ANNEX 5 Page 7 - to provide interview and IRRI; a mechanism for joint program planning and between the national programs of the region - to provide a series of data points on the climatic grid for determining the cropping potential in major zones of the region; to develop cropping rice growing regions systems technology in Asia; for Asian agrosystems the major and techof national - to enable IRRI to extend relevant nology into national programs; to provide efforts. a mechanism for long-term methodology upgrading The test sites should represent major agroclimatic zones of the rice growing areas of Asia. At least one test site will be selected from each major rice growing country. 4.5 Methodology (1) in the Cropping classification Systems Program Activities Environmental "The relation between physical and socioeconomic environmental variables and cropping pattern performance needs to be understood to enable better extrapolation of research results. This research involves the analysis of the cropping pattern performance as a function of environmental factors. The program is increasingly capable of identifying environmental complexes within which cropping pattern performance is essentially the same. This ability forms the basis for a more rapid extrapolation of research results obtained in any one of the sites of the network. Therefore, a continued substantial input in research that arrives at a classification for climatic, land, and socioeconomic factors that influence This classificacropping pattern performance is foreseen. tion must satisfy the following: (a) The measure of an environmental factor used must relate by identified mechanism in a quantifiable way to cropping pattern performance. The measures used must, existing information. The classification should of generality or scale. if at all recognize possible, several use levels (b) (c) ANNEX 5 -~ Page 8 (d) The classification of the information should allow easy retrieval from maps or indexed tables. at this classification will include the The method to arrive following activities: (i) Identification of important determinants of cropping pattern performance from field tests under different natural (farmer's field) or induced (research station) environments. Quantification as a function :Erom surveys of pattern performance of environmental factors and experiments. (ii) (iii) Tabulation and mapping of environmental factors in a manner that enables easy assessment of cropping pattern performante. :Large scale mapping (1:2 million) and the elaboration of diagnostic keys for the identification of cropping pattern adaptation." design (iv) (2) Cropping pattern "The cropping systems program at IRRI has over time incorp0rate.d more and more concepts from systems analysis The number of in the design and execution of its program. environmental complexes in which cropping patterns are being studied, the number of crops and the disciplines involved in their study make it imperative to continuously evaluate the role of each of the research activities and their interactions, The establishment of a systematic framework for this research has already formalized decisions made in the areas of cropping system design and in the identification of research priorities. The program intends to continue with a more formal systems analysis of the research program itself viewing it as a unit responsible for the design and testing of cropping systems in relation to physical and socioeconomic environmental factors. ANNEX 6 Page This analysis will lead to more productive partitioning of research tasks among program staff within a generally agreed upon program structure. It will also provide better understanding of the best sequence of research activities and the times at which results of program components need to be reThe analysis will also become the basis for a combined. simulation program for cropping systems design which will generate the input of a second simulation program used to evaluate cropping systems performance. The latter simulation routine is already operational in an initial form. Further refinement of this routine requires definition of many of the technological coefficients related to crop performance. Given these coefficients, the routine will adequately evaluate the economic performance of the pattern under different weather and soil conditions. Both simulation programs will relate cropping systems design and performance to environmental factors. During their development, they will play an important role in identifying research needs and encouraging a multidisciplinary focus on a single problem area." Technology generation "This research seeks alternative methods of land preparation (including the bunding and puddling of fields), water management at the field level, crop establishment, fertilization, weed and pest control and time and method of harvesting. The alternatives will be designed to solve clearly described "problem components" of important cropping patterns. The specifications to be satisfied by the alternative management practice is obtained from on-farm field measurements of the performance of the particular pattern under study and is tested in relation to well identified environmental complexes. Alternatives will be evaluated by small plot trials, field simulation trials, and survey methods. Particular attention is given to crop establishment of the first crop in the monsoon season and of rice and upland crops after rice during and towards the end of the monsoon season The daily decision about water management at the respectively. field level, moving water from paddy to paddy or holding it at certain points along a paddy sequence can strongly affect possibilities and most appropriate methods for subsequent cropping. This subject is to be studied in depth at IF?RI, where a simulated toposequence -- from upland fields to rainfed paddy on the side slope to hydromorphic paddy in the lowest part of the in 1976. sequence -- was completed ANNEX 5 Page 10 Already identified management bottlenecks include methods for establishing direct seeded rice (wet-and drywith particular concentration on problems of weed seeded), management and untimely water accumulation on the paddies. The importance of identifying suitable methods of weed control in upland rice is being borne out by the labor (450 man/days/ha) presently channeled into that task. In addition to this, residual moisture utilization after paddy rice and its relation to tillage and seeding method requires further study. Methods of reducing turn-about times need to be studied, These include the reduction of harvesting and processing times (machinery); methods of rapid establishment of the second rice crop that require and for rice-upland crop patterns, upland little tillage; crop establishment under wet conditions (by shifting labor and cash used for land preparation into moisture conserving Continuing and weed controlling activities, e.g., mulching). identification of insect control techniques is required to enable the introduction of certain crops (particularly legumes) in the predator-rare lowland paddy environment just With the right techniques present after rice cultivation. rates of rainfall utilization (1.5 kg small grain/mm in most of the region) can be increased to 4 or 5 kg small grain/mm at the farm level. Continued efforts on the identification of varieties suited to these methods of crop establishment and to production during a rapidly tapering monsoon are required to increase resource utilization in the dryer agroTo do this the program will be moving climatic regions. towards closer monitoring of the environment and towards relating crop environment more closely to crop performance if need be by using crop performance simulation models." Cropping pattern testing (41 "An effective research methodology has been developed through interaction of the Asian Cropping Systems Working The methodology will, Group members among each other. require strengthening in the following areas: however, (a) A method should be developed to describe environmental complexses in the field and use these subdivisions as a basis of experimental design and the interpretation of research results. The described environments for which a series of cropping patterns is designed should also form the basis for the applied research phase. ANNEX 5 Page 11 b) More efficient statistical designs for on-farm cropping pattern testing should be evaluated to better accommodate variations encountered in farmers' fields. Data collection should be further streamlined so that baseline surveys, farm records and records for cropping pattern performance are designed in relation to the information required for clearly established criteria of cropping pattern and cropping systems performance. This will provide a closer link between data collection and the analytical and decision-making processes that follow. Efficient methods for data handling should be designed. Particular attention needs to be given to the analysis of the research results by personnel at the site responsible for data collection and for the execution of future research. In addition, the scientific information coming from experiments at the site needs to be cumulatively recorded, organized and displayed in a manner that allows the planning of future research. The field research methods should be adjusted to handle the measurement of impact of machinery introduction and changes in community level water management on cropping systems potentials. Methods need to be designed for a more effective involvement of site personnel in program design. (c) (d) (e) (f) The cropping systems program expects to give stronger emphasis to the definition of research methodologies. This will continue to be done with active participation of the working group members. Once agreed upon, the research methods will be published as a special report of the working group. The first such report was discussed in the September 1976 working group meeting and dealt with the measurement, analysis, and utilization of socioeconomic data in cropping systems research." ANNEX 5 Page 12 (5) Support of the Asian Cropping Systems Network "IRRI's support of the network may gradually change its present form in response to the rapidly changing requirements of national programs active IRRI's cropping in cropping systems research. systems program seeks to structure its support of the network in such a way that, in the near future, staff from national programs will increase their participation in network support activities. These activities are: (a) The identification of research approaches and Methodologies developed at IRRI methodo:Logies. or anywhere else in the network continue to be discussed and evaluated by the network working group sessions. Where suitable, these new methodo:Logies will be applied in various research programs. systems program will Training - the IRRI cropping continue to be the major source for training of cropping systems researchers and trainers. At the this training will be done in postgraduate level, coordination with the UPLB' program. Short-course training will continue to support national programs in the network, but the training of trainers will undergo certain changes to improve its efficiency and relevance to the home environment of the trainers. Cooperative research between researchers from the network organizational and IRRI staff. The IRRI program will provide facilities for network researchers to complete specific studies related to their own research programs. Much of the strength of the cropping systems network depends on its ability to efficiently share and pool the information obtained at different sites in the region. IRRI'S cropping systems program will continue to encourage greater uniformity in data collection This will be and data analysis at the network sites. accomplished through the establishment of guidelines for these tasks by the cropping systems network group. (b) (c) fd) 1 University of the Philippines, Los Ba6os. ANNEX 5 Page 13 The working group will participate in project which research results for each of the sites (e) also be encouraged to monito:ring meetings at and research programming will be discussed in detail. The support of the network in the area of varietal testing has been based on a close cooperative effort between UPLB and IRRI. The varietal screening program at UPLB will hopefully expand in close cooperation with institutions that provide the basic genetic material, such as ICRISAT, IITA, AVRDC,l national programs in the regions and others. Because verietal screening in the Philippines in many cases does not satisfy the needs for regions in which cold temperature and daylight differences become important determinants of crop performance, a screening and distribution program similar to that established in the Los Banos may need to be considered in the future at a site north of the 170 latitude." Systems Network (ACSN) 5. The Asian Cropping The ACSN is an important part of the CSP, for it provides a structure for cooperative efforts in design and testing of cropping systems production technology throughout the Asian Region. Three basic types of rice cropping patterns have been studied; these are: - lowland irrigated Bangladesh); rice area (Indonesia, Thailand area and and - lowland rainfed and partially irrigated rice (Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand Sri Lanka); - upland rice area (Philippines and Indonesia). Most common A number of crops have been included in the .research. are corn, sorghum, soybean, peanut, sweet potato, mungbean, cowpea, and cassava. these Methods used are those developed at IRRI or in the network are modified as necessary to meet the local conditions. Vegetable Research and Development Center, Taiwan. itself; Research in 1Asian ANNEX 5 Page 14 the network is conducted mostly in farmers' fields and the farmers contribute to development of technology. Test sites are usually The number of farmer cooperators composed of two or more villages. per site varies according to the environment. do There are two types of farmer cooperators, "economic" and Economic cooperators are involved in farm record keeping, "agronomic". while agronomic cooperators are involved in biological research, mainly cropping pattern trials. Research on component technology factors such as weed control, village practices, fertilizers and pest management ILS carried out in the farmer's fields, either under the control of the farmer or by research workers from IRRI or national institutions. A research team at each site is headed by a site coordinator. The research team is usually composed of an agronomist and an economist. The team lives near the site in order to supervise the research program on the farms. formulation One important factor in the success of the ACSN has been the of a working group which has the following objectives: to develop general research plans, data from the test to be to review sites, and evaluate research to design research approaches used in the network, to develop to assist st,andardized IRRI in methods and methodologies and measurements, research developing its program. The members of the working group are the program leaders from coordinator from IRRI, and collaborating countries and IRRI:, the network selected scientists from outside the region. To date they have reviewed research data and plans for the following crop seasons, and the research methodologies to be used. In addition, they have developed: a conceptual development a varietal plans for framework for cropping which has been adopted testing workshops for scheme, and a symposium, cropping pattern trials. systems research and by national programs. a format monitoring ANNEX 5 Page 15 The ACSN provides from cooperating countries network programs. a basis for programmed training of scientists who are or will be assigned to positions in Another important benefit of the ACSN is sharing of research information. The ACSN office at IRRI handles the multiplication and dissemination chores for sharing of relevant information. 6. Significant Achievements in FSR at IRRI IRRI has been a pioneer in the multidisciplinary approach of FSR, and its contributions have been significant and numerous, too numerous to be recorded here in detail. especially The Review Team would like to point out noteworthy accomplishments of IRRI's some of what CSP. it feels are The CSP has played a major role in stimulating interest in, and (i) pointing out the importance of, multiple cropping and intercropping. There can be little doubt that the IRRI Program has helped to make research in intercropping and multiple cropping respectable and, in some cases, a major research activity. to (ii) The CSP has developed assist small farmers. a sound basis for multidisciplinary research FSR (iii) IRRI has pioneered on small farms, both under in developing farmer control methodologies and research for conducting control. The CSP has led in developing methods and approaches to use of (iv) climatic and physical environment data in defining agro-climatic zones. Especially noteworthy are the rainfall pattern map of the Philippines1 In the opinion of the and the book on agro-climatic zones of Bangladesh.2 Review Team, the formation of the Asian Cropping Systems Network has been the most significant development in cooperative programs between an IARC and its constituent countries. The collegial, collaborative mode of the development of methodology ACSN -- especially as regards program planning, and program evaluation -- is a key factor in the success of the network. It should be pointed out that IRRI played the leading role in establishment of the network. CSP has developed important (VI development of component technology improved cropping systems. lIRR1, "Rainfall Patterns of the new approaches and methodologies to the and to the development and testing of Philippines", IRRI, Los BGos, Bangladesh undated. Rice Res. 'Monala, E-B., Agro-Climatic Inst. and IRRI, undated. Survey of Bangladesh I ANNEX 5 Page 16 (vi) IRRI has developed and hosted workshops and symposia in cropping systems technology. These meetings and the CSP itself have generated significant information on cropping systems research and technology. (vii) The IRRI training program has developed a core of cropping systems specialists in a number of Asian countries. These specialists are now engaged in conducting location-specific research in their own countries, and their results are being used to feed back into the IRRI program. (viii) off-site. 7. IRRI now carries out about 80 percent of its This is the highest percentage of off-site and Comments on FSR at IRRI activities FSR of in FSR any IARC. Overview FSR at IRRI is conducted with imagination and committed leadership. The program, a pioneering effort, has led in defining new concepts ._._-~ based on the discus-^^'.,,-+.. * to which the Review Team report sions by the Foi~ks~,~~ L, 'zya.z'.e:-;:<.;>A:l> ._i: -Fb would be appended, :$o:-.IL 12~ '; -I::::.%-:?5 ?o TAC at its meeting in the following 7 the two reports It 'gas e:c~~Jl~c ; , I- ..^,. ., _.^ .,. -;?;2.n fop,r.*,rd with its week. ZGyz-2 fc:.: irs meeting in November i978. comments to j-he r.-~p~s~~.~~ta-;L:-:: The Chai_;qan d intr-$.sr:i~~y ‘ c>lc discussion on the Workshop agenda, pointed 10. to the wide range of ac-.~i:.:i-;j.~.s ill. FsR carried out by the IhRCs. He be:Lieved that apart fro!? i-he crq -'..Y:~Y.: :'-'-:=: '.-: T;_':$-rammes z FSR activities at the IARCs could be classt fies ~-s~-~c>;.~ - Lye-.2,.--j ,?.:y w.:-y~z Ly.z.jQy headings : (a) characterisation and delineation c"i a~-y.~,~~---‘ '-v-C‘ -* i - zel?es p Ib,! resource yi _.. i.AU management research, and (c) enterprise ~cor&~,-.a%:.~~s l:e:earc.:: = In the former could be included base data collecticp, a~,< Z;TT;Y -.;c: z -.?- ?:?lped Z.ARCs in Flanning .,,.r-,,r. ._-! i-._2 -~b their research, and in fa&litatz-;.s c;.;s.j .*-' _ z‘ ;' z:- 5 .I eke :~e:c techi~clogies they develop. The second aimed at fGzclrlr.3 .WL_ -,= _ -Y.K: :rys ,oZ managing soil, water and other resources to increase and sustain agricultural production, while the latter embraced such aspects as multiple cropping and also included livestock enterprises at the farm level. Within this framework different types of FSR activities could be listed, some of which involved on-station research and on-farm trials. These could be considered as ~.-":rci:-sic~.lly serving the purpose of FSR. Others were _ _^, - -.. ..ic_ .._.. I_. ^-r. i ..,. ^__. _rC seer, as havir.q 5. ::2:rz .-.k . -_ ._..- W^ i / related not only to FSR but also to ,. 7, flS .z; y 3.':,y-->?:.e ,s, crop improvement Although ,appreci~?:.:: 3 t?.e ~C~.c_.Lrman ' s attempt to provide a practicable 11. ; I F-z.i.. .? *-- cf categorising -._ ."_ _.,-.,. _ -1 I:"-il~, :? ..i b, ._ c;.,._,;.,I I._ --, - ;..,_L.,,LLy the activities agenda, the 'gm-*-<;e,.'L-. .I, -c 1 -;.;; -...i ?.. A 2pr: .LaF. of the IARC i-i-?:.:-. ? %. i: .-r-1L3 ?- -~ ;... ---2.-L. . It was decided however, to address -this z,.-n>-r;n-~c--r --. __. i -,-. - II -'-T- r.i---.>rsz z:, -:he Workshop under the relevant C.".- -... L, .-._ items of the a~e~~3.a. -3- In order to 13. these agenda items, taneous sessions. committees: (1) to the goals, objectives and recommendations. to the Workshop in maximise participation by all present in the discussion of the Workshop split up into three groups which held simulIn addition, the Workshop appointed three special ad hoc -examine the detailed terminology in FSR; (2) to determine and benefits of FSR; and (3) to draft the conclusions These groups and committees subsequently reported its plenary sessions. -4- II. TERMINOLOGY IN FSR after considering the report of the --ad hoc Committee on The Workshop, 14. E'SR terminology, found th.at it was in geiiera; aqrcznent with the v.;Le~s expressed, and the definitions proposed by the TAC FSR Review Team in its report (paragraphs 25 to 381, 15. analysis farming Workshop, report. as final The concepts and definitions given below relate to systems, systems and systems approach, a farm, a farm (or farming) system, and systems research.. In addition, a list of terms agreed on by the in relation to crop production systems is given in Annex 2 of this The Workshop recommended that this terminology should not be considered but kept continually under review. The Workshop recognised that there were a great many other definitions 16. relating to the various types of agricultural production systems which differed both in scale and in the combination of activities and elements involved. (i-1 Systems Terminology and Concepts 17. Conceptually, a -system is defined as any set of elements or components that are interrelated and interact among themselves. Specification of a system implies a boundary delimiting the system from the environment with which it interacts. Two systems may share a common component or environment, and one system may be a subsystem of another. Systems analysis 18. or the systems approach refers to the holistic approach of studying the system as an entity made up of all its components and their interrelationships, together with relationships between the system and its environment. Such study may be undertaken by studying changes to the real system itself (e.g., via farmer-managed trials or by pre- versus post- adoption studies of new technoloqy) but more generally is carried out via models experiments, researcherand/or farmermanaged on-farm trials, unit (e.g., farms, linear programming and other mathematical simulations) which to varying degree simulate the real system. 19. The systems approach to research may be seen as complementary to the more traditional research approach involving a sequence of: (a) observation; (b) hypothesis development; (c) deductive prediction; and (d) hypothesis testing. This traditic'nal approach is generally disciplinary focused and emphasises a positive s,tance of "understanding what is" so as to solve problems In contrast, the systems approach is more oriented to the conditionally normatiIt involves specifying a target and assessing alternative ways of reaching it. This implies both an expansion of knowledge (how to reach the target) and problem solving. (Reference is invited to paragraphs 31 and 32 of the TAC FSR Review Team's report for more details of the systems approach and analysis.) As noted by the TAC FSR Review Team, while the above concepts, 20. approaches and jargon drawn from generalised systems science are not essential in themselves to carrying out FSR in the applied research field, like all specialist scientific ILanguage they facilitate communication in research. -5- (ii) Farming Systems Terminology agricultural production systems as distinct from, Because the IARCs are concerned basically with 21. their focus must necessarily be towards farm research, e.g., social systems, political systems or ecosystems. 22. - A farm is an organised decision making unit in which crop stock production is carried out for the purpose of satisfying the goals. In doing so, the farm interacts with the physical, biological economic environment in which it has to operate, and may change in time. in systems terminology Thus, the farm system may be described purposive. multi-goal. onen. stochastic, (i.e. non-deterministic). system. * . L. . , and/or livefarmer's and sociostructure over as a dvnamic A 23. maker, understood In this that is, that but 24. may involve -I definition, the term "farmer" may mean more than it may involve a decision-making group. Also it the "farm" does not necessarily imply a distinct a nomadic form of organisation. one decision should be tract of land system (commonly referred to as a farming of crops and animals to which one can apply Rather, it is a complicated this input or that and expect immediate results. interwoven mesh of soils, plants, animals, implements, workers, other inputs and environmental influences with the strands held and manipulated by a person called the farmer who, given his preferences and aspirations, attempts to It is the produce output from the inputs and technology available to him. farmer's awareness of his immediate environment, both natural and socioeconomic, that results in his farm system. systeml) 25. For purposes of description it is usefuL to group farming systems into classes of similar structure, e.g., crop production systems, grazing systems, etc. There are also a number of distinctive terms which are widely used to classify various types of crop production systems. The full list of terms and definitions agreed on by the Workshop is given in Annex 2 of this report. A farm system or whole-farm is not simply a collection (iii) Farming Systems Research Terminology 26. The term farming systems research is a generic term used to refer to any Thus it encompasses type of research which views the farm in a holistic manner. any research which might more specifically fall under the headings of research cropping systems, livestock systems or whole-farm systems. on crop systems, Farming systems research can be defined as research which: (1) is conducted with a recognition of a focus towards the interdependencies and interrelationships that exist among elements of the farm system, and between these elements and the farm environment; is aimed at enhancing the efficiency of farming systems; (2) 1 The term "farming system" narrowly used, specifies a class of farms, for example, bush fallow farm systems, maize - beef systems, etc. It is, however, often used in the broader sense and this usage should be adopted. -6- (3) (4) (5) focuses facilitates on enhancing the the relevancy of of agricultural and, for their research; generation testing are of further innovations; facilitates the to the farm. which as: innovations elaborated applicability III, FSR For these above purposes, utilises such activities (a) (b) base data the the farm the study design systems in Chapter collection of existing of farming and analysis; farming systems; and, systems. systems; (cl (d) (e) experimentation; of farming monitoring The Workshop agreed with the recommendation of the Review Team that 27. research on farm subsystems should be referred to more specifically, e.g., as livestock or crop system rmesearch. The term farming systems research 'could then be reserved to research on whole-farm systems. Further, as suggested by the Review Team, since cr0.p systems, cropping systems and livestock systems can be regarded as components of whole-farm systems, research below the wholefarm level can be referred to as systems component research or simply component research. Of course, this includes research on such system elements as machinery, irrigation, management practices, etc. Accordingly, much of the research at an IARC - regardless of its parent programme - could be viewed as systems component research. This, however, would be too broad a view. Hence, in the context of an IARC's research programme, the Workshop supported the Review Team in the belief that it would be best not to regard research on individual components as systems research unless either (a) the research is focused on the interaction between the particular component and the other system components, or (b) it is undertaken specifically with a systems focus in view. -7- III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS OF FSR (i) Rationale and Overall Objectives 28. The Workshop clearly recognized that the general goal of FSR is to generate technology on the management of limited resources that will improve farm the socio-economic well-being of the farmer. The productivity and, thereby, characteristics of FSR transcend those of conventional disciplinary research in that FSR, through multidisciplinary effort, seeks to: (1) (2) understand better the problems and needs of the farmer; improve the efficiency of the agricultural research process by focusing research on these problems and needs of the farmer so as to develop improved technology; take into account both the interactions between technologies themselves and between technologies and the environment and thereby improve the appropriateness and relevance of the generated technologies; ensure that maintenance facilitate systems assist which these technologies contribute and enhancement of agricultural between research, to the long-term productive capacity; extension, policies delivery and methods (3) (4) (5) (6) the linkages and the farmer; in the address formulation of development the problems of the farmer. While developed countries research, it is essential countries for the following (4 devote relatively minor resources to farming systems that FSR assumes a particular role in developing reasons: There is an urgent need to increase agricultural production by enhancing the productivity of resources allocated to agriculture in developing countries. There is need to improve the understanding of most research workers of the skills, preferences, aspirations and existing management practices of the farmer, in particular of small farmers. The diversity of the natural conditions of production, particularly in the tropics, and often also the need to use available labour supplies by intensive land use, result in strong interactions among the elements of a farm The farm system and this leads to very complex situations. system approach greatly facilitates decision making under such circumstances. Most of the farmers in developing countries do not have the power nor the means to identify and communicate their needs to research systems. (b) (c) (d) -8The array of agricultural is limited. Additionally, to them are not adapted services available many technologies to their conditions trained in the to the farmers made available and their needs. concepts and (e) (f) There is a lack of personnel methodologies of FSR. (9) There is generally a wide gap between the results demonstrated at the research stations and those obtained by the farmer, and therefore a need to determine why certain practices shown to be highly productive in experimental stations are either not adopted or, if adopted, may not at times be equally productive in the farmer's field. Specific Ob:jectives, an FSR programme objectives: may include which any one or a (ii) The Workshop recognised that 29. combination of the following specific (1) to understand agricultural the resource context within production takes place; (2) to evaluate existing farming systems operated by the farmers in specific physical and socio-economic environments, in particular the practice and performance of these systems, and to improve our understanding of the farmer, his skills, preferences and aspirations. These studies can be considered as essentia.1 baseline studies within benchmark situaticns. However, it is not expected that FSR programmes will understand and address all the problems related to all farming systems within their mandates; to improve problem identification (target areas, bottlenecks, etc.) in existing farming systems and thereby to assist in focusing better the research activities and programmes of integrated rural development on specific key problems which limit production or farm income; to enhance the capacity of research organisations to conduct research on priority farming systems problems so that they are better able to design new and/or improved production systems; to conduct research on new or improved systems components or subsystems within to evaluate these for possible testing to evaluate new or improved on farms in major production practices, principles, an FSR context, and on farms; components, (3) (4) (5) (6) practices, or system areas; and, (7) to assess the benefits of improved technology where baseline in order to obtain information studies have been conducted, especially on small farms, and on the impact of technology, identifying second or third generation problems by monitoring thus providing the necessary feedback and continuing assessment, to research institutes and policy makers. -9- In a given FSR programme, not all of FSR would be likely to receive (iii) 30. many, Benefits the above attention. objectives which imply a full range but The Workshop realized the major ones would (1) that the benefits expected appear to be as follows: from FSR could be FSR can greatly assist in providing necessary information on the farmer and his problems, and provide a basis for understanding him, his production methods, or his needs. FSR provides a structure within which researchers examine farm problems at a whole-farm level, and attempt to achieve solutions,which will fit into that farm system and farmer's capabilities and needs. Most research in the past has been based on narrow disciplinary approaches, and integration and application of new information by the farmer on his farm have been difficult. FSR provides a basis for analysis, synthesis and application of a consistent set of practices pertinent to production of a given commodity whether plant or animal, within a particular farm system. FSR can provide a basis for developing improved technology and its transfer, because it recognises the need to understand the farmer and his system, to categorise the natural resource base on which the system operates, and to provide a basis for a research programme focused on major factors limiting performance of a given system. FSR should also assist in understanding and testing location specificity of certain practices. (2) (3) (4) Thus, by concentrating on crop and/or animal production systems, rather than discrete factors without regard to their interactions, FSR can be seen as providing an opportunity to study various crop mixtures, natural resource management practices, or other important components on a larger-scale basis and under conditions which allow more complete technical and economic analysis. (iv) 31. Although indicated above, (1) (2) Difficulties and Problems benefit as and problems: still being it was seen that FSR could bring considerable there are a number of intrinsic difficulties FSR is relatively developed. FSR generally of disciplines new and methodologies are requires large teams involving a wide range which are difficult to coordinate and manage. and (3) It is not easy to find research workers who are able inclined to work in multi-disciplinary teams. -lO- (4) The collection, sets of data FSR requires programmes, evaluate, integration and information long-term the results and interpretation pose a number of very of problems. di.verse (5) commitments and impact of resources to comprehensive of which are difficult to to In the light of these the establish clear priorities accordingly. Workshop stressed the need for FSR prograrrmes and objectives and to focus their activities -li- IV. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The Workshop generally agreed with the conclusions and recommendations 32. of the TAC Review Team with respect to FSR methodology as given in their draft for the elaboration report. However, the Workshop made a number of suggestions and clarification of several points and recommended some amendments and addiReference is invited tions, A summary of the conclusions is presented below. to the Review Team's report for more details on the subject of FSR methodology (Chapter IV). (i) A Methodological Framework for FSR 33. The Workshop concluded that FSR, whether carried out by IARCs, or national programmes, regional centres, be recognized as comprising three major types of activity areas which are generally conducted concurrently with joint interaction and feed-back efforts: (1) involving the collection, compilation, Base Data Analysis: -and understanding of information related to the physical factors and natural resources, the biological and socioand inventory of present land use. economic environment, The analysis of data should be conducted in a selective and purposeful manner to assist in the identification of potential target zones, selection of benchmark sites, and suitable locations for Research Station Studies and On-Farm Studies. Base Data Analysis provides a basis for identifying potentials, and problems including those which require key constraints, research or application of existing technologies. It should also provide a framework for later studies on monitoring and assessing the impact of new technologies. Research Station Studies: These involve problem-oriented research to modify existing systems, design system components, and generate new technology. Besides conventional crop which should benefit from an overall improvement programmes, farming system approach, Research Station Studies in the field of farming system research may include two major interrelated categories of investigation: natural resources management research, and enterprise combinations research. On Farm Studies: These involve (a) initially the study of -existing farming systems as managed by the farmer which adds to the overall data collection and analysis referred to in evaluation of improved systems at the (11 above, and (b) later farm level with varying degrees of supervision by research workers. Follow-up survey and studies of farming systems and monitoring of ongoing development projects involving new packages of technology should be conducted on a continuing basis since these provide effective feedback for determining research effectiveness and priorities. The above studies should, whenever possible, be conducted in full cooperation with extension personnel so that the necessary dialogue between researchers and extension workers can take place. (2) (3) -12- The Workshop, while recognising the general value of the above 34. methodological framework for FSR both at international and national level, stressed that methodologies in FSR were far from being firmly established and would require further improvement in the three activity areas listed above. More exchange of information was required on methodological advances between IARCs and national programmes. It was felt, however, that the IARCs should not concentrate their efforts on the development of methoiologl>s onlqr, L: rather continue to develop appropriate technologies which may have significant impact in improving existing farming systems. Nevertheless, the Workshop was strongly of the opinion that the IARCs seek ways and means of publishing and disseminating information on their methodologies to a wider audience. IARCs also should continue to enlist the assistance of universities and visiting scientists to bring solutions to some specific methodological problems, such as the design of experiments in multiple cropping and the interpretation of data from these. The Workshop appreciated the fact that the relative importance of the 35. three categories of activities noted above was expected to change with time. Some activities were of a more permanent nature while others could be considered as temporary. For example, within Base Data Analysis, the identification of major climatic zones and soil areas was essentially a one-time operation, require<: when an FSR programme was being established. On the contrary, socio-economic data at both macro and micro levels would require continual updating. Similarly some basic Research Station Studies assessing the major 36. constraints of farming systems in a given region, as for example, the maintenance of soil fertility in the tropics, would be considered as almost permanent and continuing undertakings, whereas some technological improvements in resource management practices might only need to be studied for a more limited time. On-Farm Studies were considered as a most important facet of FSR. 37. It was recognised that while most national programmes had established Research the On-Farm Studies were often neglected for lack of methodology Station Studies, IARCS contribution in thes'e fields and lack of adequately trained. personnel. was considered essential. The Workshop generally recognised the inadequacy of data available on 38. farming systems. the physicai and socio-economic environments and on the existing It acknowledged that a considerable amount of data was available at national and international level on soils, climate, production factors, etc., although records The major problem was due to the fact that data had not were often incomplete. been collected to serve the objectives and requirements of FSR, and that methodologies to use existing data to assist FSR have not been developed and refined. There was therefore a need for additional surveys specially conducted for the purposes of FSR. Reference was made also to the possibility of IARCs contracting out 39. some of the survey work and base data collection required for their programmes. The role of other international institutions was stressed in this context., and the need was recognised to reduce overlaps and to achieve maximum complementarity programmes and international institutions in the ongoing works of .IARCs, national in Base Data Analysis and surveys of existing farming systems. -13- V. RELATIONS BETWEEN IARCs AND NATIONAL PROGRAMMES The Workshop generally agreed with the views expressed in the Review 40. Team's report on the cooperation between IARCs and national programmes in the to address this important field of FSR. It was felt necessary, however, subject in more detail, in particular by stressing the role of national programmes. After discussions in working groups, the Workshop reached the following conclusions: (i.1 Scope of Cooperation The cooperation between IARCs and national programmes was seen as a 41. two-way process aimed at ensuring the relevance of the FSR work of IARCs to the problems faced by the majority of national programmes. The Workshop recognised that any cooperation should be based on full reciprocity taking into account the activities of IARCs and the stage of development of national programmes. Cooperative activities would collection setting mainly cover the following areas: exchange; (a) (b) data priority and interpretation, and planning information of FSR; (cl (a) (e) adaptation existing development training. and introduction farming systems; and introduction of new technology of new farming within systems; and, 42. Concentrating FSR at international and regional levels on problems of general interest and critical subject sectors unlikely otherwise to be covered adequately by national research facilities, should lead to maximum complementarity of international, regional, and national efforts. The cooperation should be established on an equal partnership basis and establish communication and dialogue so as to, for example: (11 (2) thresh out relevant concepts and -terms; programmes in all and cooperative understand and criticise one another's their dimensions of research, training activities; gain an appreciation and planning; facilitate the joint of alternative development (3) (4) (5) forms of organisation and, to small such as for cropping of methodology; provide a professional forum for FSR oriented farm systems where the more burning questions benchmark site selection procedures, criteria choosing representative systems, and multiple research designs may be argued. -14- 43. The Workshop agreed that within the cooperative framework, IARCs would be expected to contribute towards the establishment of general principles, basic knowledge and methodologies in FSR and to develop technologies of wide applicabIt was recognised that there were considerable benefits to be gained from ility. cooperative efforts between national programmes and IARCs, and that their For example, national programmes, respective roles in FSR couLd be complementary. could play an important role in an in addition to meeting their own objectives, "upstream" sense for the IARCs by identifying priority problems and by suggesting needed improvements in methodology or other outputs of FSR. In some cases national programmes might aILso wish to involve IARCs in some "downstream" development of methodology, and in especially in on-farm studies, activities, location-specific research. it was clearly seen that IARCs would 44. In general, all the demands of the many countries which might wish to the field of FSR. While 1A:RCs could assist a wide range aspects as information exch,ange and training in the field of this type of research necessarily limited the scope of would at countries. In many cases, Ihowever, the centres and mobilize sources of funding and technical assistance towards strengthening national research in this field. not be able to meet cooperate with them in of countries in such of FSR, the complexity cooperation to selected least be able -to identify which could co:ntribute The Workshop held the view that active cooperation in development of 45. methodology was warranted in the first years of the establishment of FSR at an IARC, even though the centre might have no defined programme to offer national institutions. it was the IARC which could benefit most from the At this stage, cooperation with national programmes, particularly insofar as helping set the research priorities of an IARC's FSR programme. that cooperation 46. In general, it was considered village level studies, as well as in related training considered as a suitable starting point for cooperation programmes and an IARC in the field of FSR. in on-farm surveys and activities, might be between national 47. As early as possible in the cooperation, national programmes should take major responsibilities in data collection and on-farm trials. In addition as national FSR programmes strengthened and yielded results, training should increasingly be conducted by national institutions. The Workshop clearly recognised, however, that the scope of cooperation 48. would very much depend on the stage of development of the national FSR programme. Whereas some countries might well be ahead of IARCs in this field, others had no FSR as yet. In some areas of interaction with national programmes, IARCs would need to exercise prudence, especially on politically sensitive issues which might arise when assisting in socio-economic surveys and in monitoring national development programmes. (ii) Modes of Cooperation cooperation between IARCs The simplest and varied. step before establishing in IARCs and in national The Workshop acknowledged that the modes of 49. and national programmes in this field were necessarily often most effective mode of cooperation, as a first formal agreements, was between individual scientists -15- programmes, whowere engaged and back-stopping of former of this type of cooperation. in common areas of interest trainees by IARC personnel of FSR. The follow-up was one important aspect 50. Another mode of cooperation was for the IARC to outpost FSR scientists assist in the planning and to work in national programmes, share their problems, and provide a link and feedback facility for implementation of FSR activities, staff would the PSR programme at the headquarters of the IARC.. These outposted also play a useful role in identifying candidates for fellowships and training courses at the IARC, and providing in-service training themselves by working with and within a national programme. 51. Several IARCs were developing their cooperation with national programmes by establishing relay stations at certain benchmark locations for tackling problems whichwerespecific to certain groups of countries. Such relay stations might also serve as focal points for establishing programmes of cooperation between interested countries. 52. Another formula was the development of regional programmes which played a similar role in stimulating cooperation but in this case between several countries and the IARC. there was no regional base or focal Usually, however, point (e.g. relay station) for this cooperation. Such regional programmes were called "networks" when several countries agree to conduct jointly, a series of investigations with common objectives and methodologies. Of course, cooperation within a network would be limited by the possible differences in the stages of development of national FSR programmes and in the diversity of their problems. When common problems had been identified, networks in FSR could be an effective means of developing methodologies. 53. It was agreed that some extent, a limitation to tion in this field, and most bilateral arrangements with the location specificity of most FSR would be to the possibilities of establishing regional cooperanational programmes would prefer to establish each IARC for specific purposes and needs. 54. The Workshop concluded that, in general, cooperation between an IARC and a national programme in FSR would usually be with institutions designated by the government for such cooperation. IARCs might play an important role in facilitating the contributions of several institutions to the national FSR programme, in particular the contribution of universities to agricultural research. However, contacts with other institutions, development agencies, universities, etc .,should be made by the IARC through the national agricultural research institution. (iin) Inter-IARC Cooperation Relative to National Prograaunes 55. Several examples were given during the Wo.rkshop of the procedures whereby several IARCs might work together with a national programme. IARCs had established joint offices in some countries. Some on-farm surveys and on-farm studies had been conducted by a national programme jointly with two or more centres. Several centres might, for example, establish common research protocols, level could involve or survey questionnaires and training programmes alt national personnel from several centres. All these arrangements were aimed at avoiding duplication or conflict of objectives in the cooperation of IARCs with a national programme. -16- The responsibility for requesting and coordinating contributions of 56. several IARCs to a national programme obviously would lie with the government Some countries institution responsible for agricultural research in the country. had established a focal point unit to deal with the cooperation with IARCs and, with their participation in several cooperative networks. in particular, the Workshop believed that inter-IARC In addition to these arrangements, 57. cooperation should be fostered by consultations between the senior staff of the IARCs and agreements between their Directors General. Considerable flexibility should be maintained in this regard. an IARC should However, in principle, avoid engaging in cooperative activities in a country where another was already working without prior consultation so as to avoid confusion and competition. It was suggested that the annual Centre Directors' meetings could provide opportunities for these consultations. 58. Further to the above, the Workshop recommended that cooperative agreements and arrangements should also be developed between IARCs and other international and regional institutions which were involved in FSR, and rural development in general,at national level, such as for example FAO, World Bank and CATIE. I. -17- VI. ORGANISATION OF FSR AT THE IARCS The Workshop recognised that FSR at the IARCs was organised in quite 59. diverse structures which reflected both differences in the mandates and in the historical development of the centres. The Workshop supported the views of the Review Team in that there was no perfect structure of FSR. It also agreed that, several essential ingredients were necessary for proper organisation in general, and functioning of FSR such as: (a) an identifiable staff a way as to facilitate capacity for multidisciplinary skilled and programme multidisciplinary structure operated research; within the in such lb) disciplinary framework; scientists research (cl (4 adequate recognition for collaborative programme; participating in the opportunity for peer review, professional publication (outside of house media and conference proceedings) and career development advice from other centre staff in the same discipline for those specialists assigned directly to FSR programmes; and flexibility in staffing so that current activity ments tended to determine staffing rather than requirethe reverse. (e) generally with the conceptual methodological The Workshop, while agreeing framework proposed by the review team, stressed that this framework should not be meant as suggesting a common structure and organisation for all FSR at the The major categories of substantive activities presented in the introIARCs. duction also would not lend themselves to providing a common organisation or These classifications were seen rather programmatic framework for all IARCs. as a means of referring ongoing programmes and existing structures to a wider matrix which encompassed a whole range of FSR activities which might not necessarily be undertaken and organised by all IARCs in the same way. 60. The difficulty of organising and managing FSR programmes was generally recognised. Capacity of leadership and the goodwill of research personnel to work in interdisciplinary teams, and to contribute to several research projects concurrently, were seen as more important than the organisational structures themselves in achieving the objectives of FSR. The multiple objectives and avenues of FSR in increasing productivity would make it more difficult for an IARC to organise FSR than it would to organise crop improvement programmes which were focusing on the basic objective of producing improved seed material. A minimum requirement for staffing an FSR programme was to establish 61. resource management and agricultural a team with capability in base data analysis, for coordination, production. Understanding of interdisciplinary work, capacity and leadership, were considered important criteria in selecting the leader of an FSR programme. -18- Participants in the Workshop generally agreed that IARCs should further 62. exchange experience in the organisation and conduct of FSR programmes. While there might be advantages for CGIAR and TAC members to have the FSR programmes it was stressed that it would be of the centres presented with similar formats, to the commonly accepted need for most impractical and perhaps detrimental the diversity of the organisation and diversity in IARCs' endeavours. In fact, programme structures reflected the differences in the problems addressed by the centres. It was expected, however, that the progress made at this Workshop in 63. developing a common understanding in terminology and methodology would assist CGIAR members and TAC in having an overview of the total effort of IARCs in this field and facilitate communication between them and the centres, and among as indicated in the objectives set for stripe analysis. centres themselves, Mention was also made of the experience gained in national programmes in this respect and it was suggested that this be also taken into account in furthering the organisation and structure of FSR at the IARCs. Reference is invited to the recommendation of the Workshop 64. (Chapter VIII, paragraph 83:) with regard to organisation of FSR. This agreement with that made by the TAC FSR Review Team. is in -19- VII. TRAINING The Workshop generally agreed with the views expressed by the Review 65. Team stressing the growing importance which training should take in FSR at the IARCs. Several representatives of national programmes emphasised the magnitude of their country needs in the field of training personnel in FSR. FSR being a relatively new field of activity at the IARCs, it was clear 66. that centres were still developing their training strategies and progranunes in this area. Several centres were actually only starting their FSR training programmes and concentrating their main effort on training their own personnel. Such programmes would have the benefit of inculcating an appreciation and awareness of the importance of the FSR approach. 67. But it was not clear as yet how training in FSR could be best achieved, i.e. whether at national level or at the IARCs. In fact, most of the training provided by the IARCs in FSR was concentrating on systems component research, There was a and on training of research personnel as future collaborators. broader demand for training national FSR workers in aspects which may go beyond the most immediate requirements of the cooperative programmes of the IARCs, and several centres were attempting to meet this broader demand in countries where there was no established structure and programme for FSR to make use of, and employ personnel trained in this field. as for other fields of research, Moreover, the present policies of the IARCs of concentrating their training efforts in areas where they have a comparative advantage were considered as basically sound. 68. There was general agreement programmes in FSR which accommodated research advances, but that it would a training programme concurrently. that IARCs be requested to develop training both the three basic activity areas and be difficult to develop all aspects of such 69. The Workshop recognised that other categories of personnel (decision extension workers) would benefit from an makers, project development managers, exposure to FSR, and some centres were devoting attention to this demand by organising seminars, workshops and study tours for these categories of national personnel, so as to give them a better understanding of farming system approaches and research methodologies. 70. Participants described the different types and categories of training in FSR, ranging from training of field personnel involved in data collection, to the training of research workers in selecting priorities, designing and organising FSR programmes, and interpreting research results. 71. The Workshop concluded that IARCs should concentrate on training highly qualified personnel who could conduct training in their own countries, although recognising there was also a need for IARCs to assist in the training of personnel not so 'highly qualified. -2o- VIII. ~)NCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS the Workshop endorsed the concluExcept for some minor modifications, 72. of the TAC FSR sions and recommendations as set out in Chapter VII of the report are incorporated into the recommendations of Review Team. These modifications Other recommendations of the Review Team not referred the Workshop as given below.. to below were also endorsed by the Workshop. The Workshop 73. made freely available (i.1 hoped that the body of the Review Team's report to all those involved or interested in FSR. in FSR would be Terminology Reference is invited to the definitions of single and multiple cropping 74. to workers in FSR to the use of this in Annex 2. The Workshop draws attention terminology in cropping systems. However, it recommends that this terminology should not be considered as final but be kept continually under review. The Workshop further recommends that a document containing this basic terminology be provided to all users and updated as necessary, particularly to include definitions of livestock production and other systems. (ii) IARC Involvement in FSR The Workshop is convinced that FSR is both a valid and essential 75. activity for the IARC system. In line with established policies, FSR at the IARCs involves critical subject matters not likely to be otherwise covered, is complementary to national activities, and is concerned with both important food commodities and small farmers in developing countries. FSR will tend to become increasingly important as the basis of IARC research. Concurrently, as this occurs, crop improvement will depend increasingly on FSR both as a guide to desired genetic manipulation and as a necessary complement in achieving farmer adoption. 76. The Workshop recommends that all commodity/regionally oriented IARCs, that is all except ILRAD, should have a clearly recognised orientation to, and/or programme in FSR. Such work, however, should emphasise the on-farm aspects of farming systems in the sense of being primarily oriented to agricultural (including economic) research. The focus should not be broadened to include rural development activities. (iii) Role of FSR in IARCs The Workshop believes that FSR has an important role both in a downstream 77. sense (link in the research chain taking information gained from the experimental programme and finding a place for it in the farmer's production system) and in an upstream sense (for recognition of constraints and in problem identification and analysis). The Workshop 78. programmes be closely recommends that IARCs crop -linked with FSR activities. and/or livestock improvement -21- (iv) Limits of FSR in IARCs that because of their nature IARCs should, concern to FSR activities yielding results which: The Workshop recommends 79. limit their so far as possible, (technologies and methodologies) (a) can be generalised or extrapolated (and are therefore related more to principles and methods rather than to location-specific practices); are oriented and, have potential FSR in Relation to specific for to wide commodity impact. Strategy and Planning or resource mandates; (b) (cl (VI IARC Programme The Workshop recommends that overall IARC programme strategy recognise 80. FSR as a highly complementary activity to crop/livestock improvement, particularly in providing a research capability to guide the development and integration of Implementation of this recommendation can take a somewhat new technology. different form in each of the IARCs depending on the centre's mandate. Further, if advances in genetic improvement become more difficult to achieve, FSR can play an increasing role in guiding a centre's research priorities and recognition of research opportunities. It also recommends that the broad strategy for FSR in the IARCs should involve: (a) (b) (cl (d) maximum use of existing secondary or historical farming systems data; delineated of study and evaluation of existing on a purposeful basis; postulation, synthesis, investigation and evaluation improved farming systems and components; purposeful limitation of the number be researched since no centre could pertinent to its mandate. of farming systems to consider all systems In the carrying out of such a strategy, the Workshop further recommends that FSR involve the basic activities of base data collection and analysis, on-farm on-farm evaluation and feedback. studies, on-station research, (vi) IARCs in Relation to FSR Methodology FSR, with its holistic, multidisciplinary team approach derived from 81. is a relatively new approach to agricultural research. systems analysis, Particularly in terms of small farmer systems (usually involving multiple cropping and of special concern to IARCs), there has not yet been developed a The IARC system has the capacity to develop the consistent body of methodology. required body of methodology. National progranunes, because of their direct involvement with and responsibilities to farmers in specific locations, have a very strong need for FSR methodology so as to facilitate their research and the eventual acceptance by farmers of improved fa.rming systems. -22- recommends that the The Workshop, therefore, 82. methodology be recognised as having major importance It also recommends that the IARCs exercise caution in modelling they use and their degree of commitment to particularly in the early stages. (vii) Organisation of FSR development of FSR in an IARC's FSR programme. the type of computer model development, The Workshop recommends that FSR, whether as a separate programme or 83. as an overriding philosophy toan IARC's total programme, be organised so that there will be: (4 (b) an identifiable staff a way as to facilitate capacity for interdisciplinary skilled and programme multidisciplinary structure operated team research; research within an in the in such disciplinary framework; scientists development (cl (d) (e) adequate recognition for collaborative programme; opportunity scientists; flexibility development. Staffing for in career staffing participating by participating as necessitated by programme (viii) Pol:icy for FSR the staffing of FSR teams be flexib1.e the team as dictated by programme in FSR in 84. The Workshop recommends that the sense of staff joining andleaving development and requirements. (ix) Disciplinary Balance 85. FSR must be multidisciplinary. The balance of disciplines, however, will vary with the stage of programme development and the consequent balance between basic activities. The Workshop recommends that in FSR relevant to crop production, agronomy and production, economics are essential at all stages. (xl Balance between - On and Off-Station Work in FSR 86. Like the balance of disciplines, the relative need for on- and offThe Workshop station work will vary according to the stage of FSR development. as dictated by programme needs, more emphasis be given to recommends that, off-station work. It further recommends that in off-station experimentation 87. care be taken to ensure that-the research is purposive relative FSR programme needs. particular to overall -23- (xi) Relations with National Programmes National programmes constitute the link between IARC work in FSR and the 88. Cooperation between IARCs and national programmes is therefore crucial farmer. with national to IARC success in FSR. The Workshop recommends that cooperation programmes should always be pursued on joint partnership terms within the relevant first, a sc-ries of bilateral The mode of cooperation may include, mandate context. of activities arranged on a network basis, as arrangements and, second, a series deemed appropriate. (xii) Training The Workshop recommends that training programmes at the IARCs contain 89. recommends that the commodity training a strong element of FSR. It further programmes include consideration of farming system concepts. (xiii) Cooperation with Other International/Regional Institutions cooperative international development, arrangeand in general, The Workshop recommends that, whenever appropriate, 90. ments and agreements be developed between IARCs and other regional institutions which are involved in FSR and rural at the national level. -24ANNEX 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Dr. H.O. Ademehin Research Fellow Institute of Agricultural University of Ife P.M.B. 5029 Negeria Ibadan, Research and Training Dr. D.R. Bhumbla Deputy Director General Indian Council of Agricultural Research Ministry of Agriculture & Irrigation Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi, India Dr. A. Blumenschein' Executive Director Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria Palacio do Desencolvimento go Andar Brasilia-DF 70 COO, Brasil Dr. N.C. Brady Director General International Rice P-0. Box 933 Philippines Manila, Research Institute (IRRI) Dr. Ahmed Burhan Director GeneraIL Agricultural Research Wad Medani, Sudan Corporation Dr. V.R. Carangal Croppings SysterE Network Coordinator International Rice Research Institute P-0. Box 933 Manila, Philippines Dr. M.P. Collinson Economist International Maize P.O. Box 25171 Nairobi, Kenya 1 (IRRI) and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) Dr. Blumenschein as a replaceme:nt attended for Dr. the last day of Palma Valderrama. the Workshop -25- Dr. J.K. Coulter Scientific Adviser CGIAR Secretariat The World Bank 1818 -1 Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Dr. R.W. Cummings North Carolina State P.O. Box 5428 Raleigh, N.C. 27607 U.S.A. (Chairman, University TAC) Dr. H.S. Darling Director General International Centre for Agricultural in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) P.O. Box 114/5055 Lebanon Beirut, Dr. C. de Haan Senior Animal Husbandman International Livestock Centre P-0. Box 5689 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Professor Department University Armidale, Australia John L. Dillon of Agricultural of New England N.S.W. 2351 Research for Africa (ILCA) (FSR Review Team Leader) Economics and Business Management Dr. D. Franklin Leader, CIAT Biometrics Group c/o Box 5368 North Carolina State University Raleigh, N.C. 27607 U.S.A. Dr. J.C. Flinn Economist Leader Farming Systems Programme International Institute of Tropical Oyo Road P.O. Box 5320 Ibadan, Nigeria Agriculture (IITA) Dr. Astolfo Fumagalli Deputy General Manager Instituto de Ciencia y Technologia Agricolas 5a, Av. 12-31, Zona 9 "El Cortex", Edificio 20 y 3er Niveles Guatemala City, Guatemala (ICTA) -26- Dr. D. Gibbon International Centre for Agricultural in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) P.O. Box 5466 Aleppo, Syria Dr. Arturo Gomez Philippine Council for Agricultural Resources Research (PCARR) Los Banos, Laguna College, Philippines Dr. B. Gora C.N.R.A. de Bambey Senegal, W. Africa Dr. H. Hanson Director General The International Maize Centre (CIMMYT) P-0. Box 25171 Nairobi, Kenya Research and and What Improvement (TAC member) Dr. A.B. Joshi Vice-Chancellor Mahatma Phule Agricultural University Rahuri-413 722, Dist. Ahmednagar Mahrashtra State, India Dr. J.S. Kanwar Associate Director International Crops Research Tropics (IcRISAT) l-11-256, Begumpet Hyderabad 16, India Dr. Raul Moreno Centro Agronomic0 Tropical y Ensenanza (CATIE) Turrialba Costa Rica Institute for the Semi-Arid de Investigation Dr. A.T. Mosher (Workshop Chairman) Interim President Agricultural Development Council Inc. 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 USA (A/D/C) -27- Dr. Hector Munoz Centro Agronomic0 Tropical y Ensenanza (CATIE) Turrialba Costa Rica Mr. S.N. Muturi Science Secretary National Council P.O. Box 30623 Nairobi, Kenya de Investigation for Science and Technology Dr. J.L. Nickel Director General International Centre Apartado Aereo 67-13 Cali, Valle Colombia for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) Dr. B.N. Okigbo Deputy Director General International Institute Oyo Road P-0. Box 5320 Ibadan, Nigeria Professor Department College of University 3190 Maile Honolulu, of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (FSR Review Donald L. Plucknett of Agronomy and Soil Science Tropical Agriculture of Hawaii Way Hawaii 96822 Team) Dr. R. Rowe Head, Breeding and Genetic Department International Potato Centre (CIP) Apartado 5969 Lima, Peru Dr. H. Ruthenberg FSR Consultant c/o ILCA P-0. Box 47098 Nairobi, Kenya Dr. J.C. Ryan Economist Economics Program International Crops Semi-Arid Tropics 1-11-256 Begumpet Hyderabad, India Research Institute (ICRISAT) for the -28- Dr. S.V.S. Shastry Director of Research International Institute Oyo Road P-0. Box 5320 Ibadan, Nigeria of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Dr. C.C. Thomsen (TAC member) Professor in Agricultural Policy Royal Veterinary and Agricultural Thorvaldsenvej 40 DK-1871 Copenhagen V, Denmark Dr. Guy Vallaeys (FSR Review Team) Deputy Director General Institut de Recherches Agronomi+es Tropicales et Icultures vivrieres 110, rue de l'universite 75340 Paris, France Dr. S-M, Virmani Agroclimatologist International Crops Semi-Arid Tropics 1-11-256 Begumpet Hyderabad 16, India University Research Institute (ICRISAT) for the Dr. H.G. Zandstra Agronomist Multiple Cropping Systems Programme International Rice Research Institute P-0. Box 933 Manila, Philippines (IRRI) ‘ r -29- Observers Dr. Floyd Williams Associate Director Research Office of Agriculture Bureau for Technical Assistance Agency for International Development Washington, D.C. Mr. N.R. Carpenter Chief, Farm Management Unit Agricultural Services Division FAO Rome, Italy Ir. H. Toxopeus Seer, Farming Systems Group "de Haaf" S.V.P. Wageningen, The Netherlands Secretariat Mr. P.J. Executive FAO Rome Mahler Secretary, TAC (AGS) - Dr. E.Z. Arlidge Assistant Secretary, FAO Washington TAC -3o- ANNEX 2 -CLASSIFICATION TERMS -- IN FSR RELATING TO CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEMS required between physical A crop system or -crop production system1 comprises all components for the production of a particular crop and the inter-relationships them and the environment. These components include all the necessary and biological factors, as well as technology, labour and management. Single cropping: growing only one crop on a plot of land within one year. A multiple cropping system is a system in which more than one crop is There are various multiple cropping grown on the same plot of land on one year. Some of the more important are: possibilities in time and spac'e. (a) growing double cropping: or transplanting one after Similarly triple 'cropping in sequence one after the two crops in sequence, seeding the harvest of the other. is the growing of three crops other in one year. (b) (cl (d) (e) g:rowing two or more crops simultaneously intercropping: in the same plot in different but proximate stands. row intercropping: in the same plccin mixed intercropping: intermingled in the growing distinct growing same plot two or more crops rows. simultaneously r,- two or more crops simultaneously with no distinct row arrangement. relay intercropping or relay cropping: growing two or more -seeding or transplanting the succeeding crops in sequence, one some weeks before the harvest of the preceding crop. strips of several rows with stands, Strip cropping: growing two or more crops in distinct each strip capable o:f independent cultivation. Sole cropping: growing either as a single crop one crop (variety or as a sequence or species) alone in pure of single crops within the year. A crop rotation system implies a time sequence of crop systems, either While a crop rotation system sole or overlapped in phase,-& the same area. implies a regular cyclical pattern over time (often involving a cycle of more than a year) this need not be so with multiple cropping. cropping then the 1 The term activities cropping cropping system refers to the set of crop systems making up the of a farm system. If the farm also has non-crop activities, system is a subsystem of the farm system. $ livestock system, or livestock production Analogously, system, for -we may refer to a farm's example its beef system.