Central America evaluation of projects : small farm production systems and agricultural research and information systems

Special evaluation covers the period 4/79-11/80 and is based on site visits to four of six cooperating countries and interviews with PIADIC, CATIE, and A.I.D. personnel and with small farmers. CATIE has developed and tested workable crop, animal, and mixed farming production systems methodologies; provided training in methodology development; and involved extension workers in research so they are motivated to teach the new methods. CATIE is now recognized as a valuable contributor to small farm development in CA. However, it has made little progress on mixed farming methodologies and has not yet begun family farming systems research. PIADIC, which has been reorganized to focus on individual country rather than regional needs, has effectively stimulated interest in improved methods of data collection, analysis, and use. National advisory committees are functioning to varying degrees in all six countries and local participants have been provided high-quality TA and training in developing frame sampling and related survey techniques. On the other hand, TA has been insufficient to meet countries' needs and some countries have been slow to institutionalize PIADIC technology. Further, the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences (IIAC), which is to assume PIADIC TA and training functions at project end in 6/81, has not shown a strong commitment (e.g., 47 person-months of IIAC-financed professional positions are unfilled). It is recommended that CATIE: (1) strengthen efforts to garner staff and budgetary support from high-level officials and Missions in CA; (2) encourage mixed farming by having crop and animal researchers work as teams; (3) continue to help farmers supplement, not replace, their traditional corn/bean crop with higher value crops; (4) develop 2-3 rather than the six planned mixed farming technologies; (5) conduct a pilot family farming system study in 1981; (6) involve extensionists in evaluation and validation; (7) not use substantial resources to develop group farm methodologies; (8) negotiate realistic extrapolation methodology outputs; (9) evaluate technology transfer by measuring spread effects and adoption rates; (10) continue introductory training indefinitely, due to high personnel turnover; and (12) shift the acceptance date for annual plans from 11/80 to 2/81 to allow time for research evaluation.