Mid-term external evaluation of the farming systems support project

Mid-term evaluation covers the period 1983-10/85 and is based on questionnaires to USAID's and project support entities (SE's), site visits, and interviews with project staff. Progress has been spotty, although improving in most areas. Response to Mission requests for TA has been quick and adequate, although the demand has been much less than expected. Other support activities have varied in quality; e.g., a task force to develop a methodology for FSR projects has been set up without effective A.I.D. involvement. Domestic workshops, while useful for networking A.I.D. and LDC personnel, have been of uneven quality and need to become more responsive to client and sponsor feedback. (The current intent of project management is to focus on three priority applications modules and de-emphasize introductory workshops.) Overseas workshops, which totaled 21, were administered very well in Latin America, but failed to address key issues in Africa. For the most part, these workshops seem to be a case of simply doing things rather than doing them well. The newsletter, bibliographies, and guidelines have generally been good to excellent, but represent a dispersion of staff effort and financial resources. The annotation and distribution service performed by AID/PPC/CDIE has been slow and technically weak. Efforts to network U.S. universities and private firms concerned with FSR&E have been outstanding, especially the annual symposium held at Kansas State University, a subcontractor. Overseas networking efforts have been exploratory, particularly in Africa, with current emphasis on commodity, animal, and university-based networks. It is still unresolved whether the project should primarily aimed at creating networks or complementing those that exist. Closer collaboration with A.I.D. and other SE's could have improved networking activities. State-of-the-art (SOTA) reports have been few and lacking in methodological rigor and comprehensiveness. In several vital areas - selection of SE's, selection of and participation in important task groups, determination of training and of SOTA priorities - the project's core management has often moved without the effective participation of A.I.D. and the SE's through the Technical Committee. This is in part due to the fact that the CA for this collaborative project is vague in structure and in strategy. Recent relations between the partners have been adversarial rather than collaborative - a condition which definitely needs improvement. Numerous recommendations are made.