Emerging Perspectives in FSR Research at BAU: 
Looking into distant future

Farming Systems Research and Development (FSRDP) in Bangladesh has evolved a great deal since early eighties. The need for this approach was felt as early as 1974 but various limitations came in the way to fully incorporate the FSR approach in day to day work. To some extent confusion in the literature it self was responsible for such a state of affairs. The history  and evolution of the FSRDP is given in Hussain(1988). Planners and scientists in Bangladesh had articulated the need for FSR approach to development and diffusion of technology for long time( Badrudoja,   ; Aneesuzaman,   Rahman,   etc.;). What began as a cropping systems research years ago is slowly  growing into a FSRDP. Different components of a farming system may interact differently in various ecological regions and at the holdings of different classes of the farmers. However, the nature of interactions is not random across seasons, spaces, sectors and strata of society. Socio-Ecological paradigm ( Gupta, 1981, 1984) provides one perspective but one needs many more ways of looking at the complexity and dynamism of the farming systems in high risk environment. Theory building has to keep pace with empirical research if the FSRDP has to become self sustainable not only in the terms of physical and financial resources but also intellectual resources. If the conceptual insights emerging from the FSR research at BRRI, BARI, BAU, BLRI, FRI and other institutes are organically linked, a new model rooted in  and suited for Bangladesh realities may certainly emerge. BAU FSRDP seems to have reached  a stage when looking into the long future say fifteen or twenty years hence may be necessary. It may help in (a) identifying the areas of comparative advantage for BAU, (b) building a strong theoretical foundation for future self reliant, participatory and sustainable research programe, and (c) networking  with other institutions to stimulate and systematize ‘lateral learning’. 

Ford Foundation has provided a grant to BAU in 1989 to primarily strengthen FSRDP to achieve three purposes,(a) help the farmers and landless workers achieve higher levels of living through increased employment and enhanced nutrition , (b) improve the productivity of labour with particular emphasis on  women and children, and (c) incorporate FSR concepts into the teaching curriculum of undergraduate and graduate studies besides spawning post graduate research studies. It was provided in the grant proposal that an External Evaluation would be taken up by a committee appointed by the coordinator of the project at BAU. A Evaluation committee(henceforth, Committee ) Chaired by Professor Muazzem Husain and comprising Dr. Arangzeb and Prof. Anil K Gupta was setup to review the project, assess the performance and make recommendation for strengthening  the programme. It was also expected to decide whether further support from Ford Foundation and other agencies was necessary or not in the future. The terms 
of reference are given in annexure one and objective of the programme are given in a annexure two. The Committee after being briefed by Dr. Altaf Hossain about the overall thrust of BAU-FSRDP had detailed discussion with Dr. Doris Capistrano of Ford Foundation and developed a frame work for analysing the impact of the programme and the effectiveness on the grant. 

The Committee felt that sustainability of the programme would  depend upon among other factors the ability of the FSRDP team to draw right lessons from its work and continuously innovate in pursuing research through close collaboration with farmers. To asses whether the learning environment in the team has been adequately robust or not, the team evolved  a participatory approach. 

It had detailed discussions with the team members, identified the knowledge gaps and suggested supplementary tables and information to be compiled by the team. It visited both the FSR sites as well as the old CSR( cropping system research) site. The team met the farmers, landless workers, fishermen and women, officers of the Department of Agricultural Extension and members of the local Union  Council, local Upzilla Chairman and other local people. 

Committee had detailed discussions with the members of the national FSR network  drawn from various other institutes in the country. After developing the tentative recommendations for strengthening the program it met the faculty of BAU to ascertain their views about the programme. Reports of the various FSR sites in the country were reviewed to ascertain the relative weaknesses and strengths of the BAU FSRDP. 

Context of FSRDP at BAU 

BAU FSRDP team ( henceforth Team) had identified three goals, (a) food self sufficiency through better nutrition from more productive  diversified crop and other components of farming systems, (b) improvement in the level of living of poor with specific reference to women and children through rising labour productivity and (c) curriculum reform and post graduate research. 

The information about both the FSR sites and their endowment is given in Annexure-Three. 

BAU team used various methods and approaches to achieve these objectives such as: 

(a) Monitoring studies of the existing resource use pattern at the homesteads as well the farms or ponds or in open water fisheries; socio-economic aspects of consumption and nutrition, income and employment, savings, market conditions etc; 

(b) Use of participatory methods to identify the problems of the farming households and identify multiple options for their resolution; 

(c) Identification of the   dominant Farming Systems Models so as to assess the scope of technological interventions aimed at improving their viability and sustainability; 

(d) Design of the component technology trials in different sub-systems but assessed at the cropping and  farming systems level and some at the component level only; 

(e) Developmental interventions to improve the livelihood prospects of the poor households through generation of the income, employment, saving of energy, transformation of resources use, development of entrepreneurship among the farmers etc; 

(f) Whole farm and block monitoring to ascertain the dynamics of the cropping systems and associated economic and technological changes; 

(g) Joint trials and demonstrations with DAE to test the improved technology at farmers’ fields; 

(h) Joint action programme with BRAC, a leading national NGO to multiply seeds of the vegetables for eventual marketing among the farmers; 

In addition to the above, the BAU team also participates in various training programs which helps in diffusing the findings of research among various client groups. 

Highlights of BAU FSRDP: 

1. Problem Orientation:-  The team identifies farmers’ problems 
based on the surveys, village meetings, case studies, monitoring studies and suggests various alternative solutions. In consultation with the farmers, some of the alternatives are converted into research plan. The format of the problems and suggested solutions is given in Annexure-Four. Some of the suggested solutions require short term solution while others require either long term experiments or policy changes. 

2. Environmental Implications:- Any technological change is expected to have both desirable and some undesirable environmental implications. The FSRDP team has been taking note of some of these changes so that adequate remedial measures can be taken. For instance the decline of area under Jute at Kazishimla Site has led to the decline in the organic matter. Like wise the wave erosion of homesteads  at Noagaon has been accompanied with the decline in the diversity of plant species. This is an area which needs to be further developed so that a whole range of ecological indicators may be developed for ascertaining the associated changes in the technological and ecological environment. Some of these indicators may also act as early warming signals of the long term consequences of environmental changes. 

Some of the environmental aspects  sought to be studied in future are given in Annexure-Six. This is an important area which may feed into the under and post graduate curriculum as well. Generation of safe and sustainable technologies require that the environmental implications are monitored in other programmes as well. 

Conceptually the interaction among three dimensions of the sustainability i.e. biodiversity, market forces and institutional conditions can be seen in the Figure -One. The diversity may be high or low, market forces may also be high or low in a region. The  social institutional structure may be fair or unfair. In haor region we have low plant diversity but high fish resource diversity, weak market forces and very unequal institutional structure. The nature of social and technological interventions which may invoke participation of the poor and disadvantaged households in such regions may call for developing a distinctly different strategy than may be necessary in another region. 

3. Improvement in the level of Living of cooperating Households:-

This is an issue on which much more information would have been necessary to collect to assess the exact impact of the FSRDP interventions. However, the data available in Annexure-Five based on economic impact of FSRDP interventions does suggest that most interventions have made positive impact. The table also provides social indicators of improvement in the level of living of various households. Two years in any case is too short period to draw nay definite conclusions. It would be useful to have a long time series data on the subject. Resilience of the technological interventions in various systems used by household differently vulnerable to ecological and economic fluctuations can thus be appraised. The sensitivity analysis would also be necessary for the purpose. 

Another way of looking at this issue is to analyze the composition of research programme before two years and during last two years. The number of experiments aimed at assetless or near asset less households has increased by —— per cent. We will separately comment on the design of the experiment but the trend is unmistakable. Given the conditions of poverty in Bangladesh, similar estimates may be drawn for the entire national programme. 

4.  Dynamics of Cropping Systems:- Monitoring of cropping systems at the plots of the same farmers in the original CSR site village for last twelve years has revealed very rich insights. These findings have implications for the FSRDP at national and international level. The group has clearly shown that farmers do not repeat the same cropping pattern year after year in rainfed and irrigated regions( annexure 7.a and 7.b).  The weight of different patterns in the same village may change drastically over the years due to environmental, economic or policy changes. The scientists therefore have decided to take up development of component technology which is appraised at the systems level. This is believed to give more flexibility to the farmers for incorporation of new technology. 

The experience of package approach has also shown that farmers seldom adopt the entire package and it might be more useful to develop decoupled technologies which farmers can combine in various combinations. A concept of‘tiers of technology’( Krishnamurti,1972) has also been used to illustrate the same idea. The BAU team deserves appreciation for recognising the merit of this approach and standing by it even when other FSR team world over and in Bangladesh have continued with the efforts aimed at developing cropping patterns. 

5. farming Systems Development:-  The Team has developed ten systems models at each site out of 28 (now 30) systems prevalent at Kazishimla and 16(now 13) at Noagaon site . Idea of taking this approach seems to be to study the entire farming system of a household. In fact in some of the cases the Team has also studied non-farm aspects of the system and in that sense the study really aims at understanding the rural systems rather than just the farming systems. Since the dominant systems have remained stable(Annexure 8.a and 8.b),it may be argued that interventions at systems level may also remain stable. However, in separate studies the Team has shown that various components have increased or decreased over years. There is a need to find out which components have remained more stable than others. Team plans to look at the ratio of different components, relative weights and the relationship of the technological intervention  with these parameters. The sequence of interventions in different components may vary among different systems depending upon the farmers response and the criticality of the intervention. For instance the intervention in poultry component apparently has received far better response from the farmers whose systems were dominated by the poultry. The better endowed households having more diversified system may draw very small proportion of their total household income form this component and thus may have limited incentive to improve its productivity. The client or class or target group orientation may be implicit in the small livestock oriented interventions. 

This research has implication  for evolving strategy for targeting technology also. The relative vulnerability of household using different farming systems is estimated in Annexure 9.a and 9.b. Several measures of vulnerability need to be taken into account such as extent of self provisioning or number of months for which food is available from own sources; nutritional deficit, extent of distress sale of assets; forced migration; borrowing at exorbitant rate of interest e.g.360 per cent per annum; land and homestead size etc. The team is making effort to inter-relate these dimensions of vulnerability. The list of stress foods such wild aroids, potato and sweet potato leaves and other food sources like a local fish viz: ragha(....) etc., is being compiled to make the classification of vulnerability more rigourous. Like wise stress fodders like water hyacinth, bamboo leaves and other plants are also  expected to be studied in future. 

6. Nutritional Monitoring at Systems level:-  Team has done admirable study of nutritional status of different household members as influenced by the gender, age,  selected farming systems(three systems at each site) , and location. A very rich data base has been generated which to the best of our knowledge has never been generated in a FSR programme before. The nature of stress during different parts of the year once understood generates very precise directions for research and action. The exact quantity of nutrition based on weighment of food material is available separately. In annexure 10.a and 10.b, a list of various sources and their importance under three main farming systems is given for both the sites. Depending upon the importance of a particular source, technology aimed at improving the efficiency of that source is can be appropriately targetted. Variability across two sited in only source i.e. leaves of trees and vegetables can be  seen from Annexure-11. Excessive emphasis in the homestead improvement programme on only a few vegetable may thus be misplaced. Some of the non conventional or less known leafy or other sources of food may nutritionally may even be superior to the vegetable being introduced. Perhaps leaves of setdrone(?),chilli, kakrol, fern etc.,  may have some properties hitherto less explored. This issue may be taken up in the next phase of the research. 

7. Technology Development and appraisal :- 

Four major technologies which have been developed and diffused across the country are shown in Figure two. Many of these technologies are being adapted at various FSR sites at present. The technology on poultry has had one of the most distinctive positive effects on the poor and disadvantaged groups.

It is well known that technology development is along drawn process and involves several stages.

Technologies which have matured and have been transferred to the extension system are given in annexure12.a and 12.b for both the sites. Some of these technologies existed at other sites in the country. The BAU team has adapted these. Some of these were developed anew. Many of the technologies are in the pipeline as shown in annexure 13.a and 13.b. These trials need further verification or modification though initial results are quite encouraging. the technologies which have promise but are still to be perfected are listed in annexure 16.a and 16.b

Farmers’ Modifications:- Many of the Technologies are not used in the same way as transferred for various reasons relating to ecological resources, farmers’ specific resource conditions and some times their creativity in improving the performance of the technology. If the rationale underlying these modifications is properly understood, then the process of farmers’ participation in evolution of technology would have become stronger. Much more work remains to be done in this regard. This is an useful direction of future research. Sulphur application on chillies was never tried by the scientists. It was an experiment by the farmers modifying the recommendation about sulphur treatment. 

Contingency Treatments and technologies:- In high risk environment it is inevitable that initial assumption about an experiment may not hold good. It should thus be necessary to specify alternative treatments for most probable changes expected in the  environment. If these deviations occur often and if the alternative treatments stabilise through repeated trials, contingency technology would have been developed. 

Salvage treatments/ technologies:-In a high risk environment it is inevitable that various sub-systems may suffer shocks or disturbances. Some of these shocks cause significant losses to the farmers or homestead women managers. Dr Altaf and his colleagues deserve appreciation for having recognised the need for developing what we may call Salvage technologies,i.e. the technologies which help in obtaining some returns from a system which has otherwise collapsed or suffered major loss. The BAU Team noted some years ago the paddy crop suffered from sterility at Noagaon site. They thought of several alternatives and ultimately discovered that it was  due to cold temperature. They harvested the paddy and used it as a fodder and  ratooned the crop. The crop recovered 25 per cent to 75 per cent of its original yield in different varieties. salvage treatment can become a technology when it can be generalized for a specific stress. In  Bangladesh, this dimension should receive a serious attention particularly because some lead has already been taken in this regard. It may not be without significance to add that many of the conceptual,methodological and analytical contributions being made by BAU team and some other groups too provide a strategic opportunity to Bangladesh to develop its own approach to FSR for high risk environments. IRRI and CIMMYT, we must admit, have not been able to incorporate various dimensions of risk in their methodologies. Recent seminar at BARC on risk adjustment also somehow did not give adequate attention to contingency and salvage aspect of the technology development.

At another location, semi dried fish damaged by rain was used as poultry feed. It may have been tried elsewhere and so may not be a strong an example as the paddy sterility case given above. But we feel that these instances highlight an attitude on the part of the Team which is of empathy and commitment towards disadvantaged households. Once a team has such a concern, we feel that more insights of this nature will emerge and provide much sought resilience to Bangladesh.

We take this is an evidence of Team’s ability to try innovative approaches for improving livelihood prospects of poor farmers. 

Rejected Technology:- It is not very often that  any team of the scientists  would like to share their experience with the technologies which farmers rejected. But the Committee was very impressed with the fact that the Team has realised early enough that much can be learned from the farmers’ rejection also. They have used the knowledge about the rejection to redesign experiments and  change their research priorities by understanding the logic of farmers’ rejection. Much of this knowledge unfortunately had not been systematically documented. A list compiled by the Team for our Committee is enclosed in Annexure-16.

Appraisal of technological impact at the system level:- The Team has developed a very innovative way of presenting the contribution of resource flow from different components intothe consumption basket as well towards other components. For instance as shown in the figure-three, about 90 per cent of the livestock contribution has been  has been traced with 41 percent going to crop sub system ( in the form of manure,draft power etc), 13 % to household savings, 10% to food, 4% to clothing etc. The 41% of livestock to crop is 68% of the total input crop component received from other components in this particular farming system. 

This presentation can be improved by looking at the investment by the household into each of the component. Likewise, if some external income, say inward remittance is used for the same purpose,its impact should also be isolated. A proper cash and energy flow among consumption-production sub-systems would be a very useful next step to help in building system models for simulation purposes. It may become possible to then simulate the likely consequence of change in one component either because of policy or market changes or technological changes on the other sub-systems including consumption pattern in a given farming system. Such models would help link macro policy options with micro-level energy, commodity and cash flows directly or through indirect routes.

One can also simulate the impact on women and  children by relating the nature of control women  or children have over income from a particular enterprise and the type of use to which they put any surplus accruing from the same. In a very insightful study on rural savings pattern of women belonging to different income categories, the Team has brought out that saving of women did not vary much among various categories except one. the landless women also had as much saving as did small or marginal household women. Even though this counter intuitive finding may require further validation, it does imply that women oriented technological interventions may not have to be stratified on the basis of class distinctions. Further as is already well known, women based organizations may be more easy to forge due to above reason. In which case, the team may also like to explore the group and gender based approach to transfer of technology.

8.Targeting of Technology : Framework for diffusing technology:-  While identifying the extrapolation area of a site it is assumed that all technologies would receive similarly favorable environment at the site. However if we look at the existing pattern of the diffusion of technologies by mapping plot wise varieties of crop or tree and shrubs on each homesteads, we would notice very definite niches of various technological combinations. The implication is that location of a trial should generally be in the most favoured environment for that technology. If it can compete with the local best, it can certainly diffuse widely. The term ‘local best’ here implies that region or sub region where farmers have concentrated production of that enterprise and have higher yields that neighbouring regions. 

When the Team scientists mapped the diffusion of different technologies over last several years( Figure 4 and 5 along with legends), the point being made here became quite clear. Different technologies tried at the site have diffused indifferent upzillas and village depending upon availability of eco-sociological conditions favoring diffusion of that technologies. Some of these technologies were never adopted by the site farmers or if adopted, it was limited to very few farmers. 

The quality of technology diffusion maps can certainly be improved and legends can be replaced by density dots and only a few related technologies may be shown on each map. A similar method of ecological mapping ( Gupta, 1986,1987 in Chambers,Thrup and Pacey, 1988)) is likely to be used by BRRI scientists for micro-ecological zoning drawing upon their insights gathered perhaps independently of the work done elsewhere. 

In any case BRRI was one of the first south Asian institution to have developed density dot maps of different rice growing niches. Same concept is being extended to other crops and varieties. 

The conceptual point is that if a variety of say rainfed rice is closely correlated with the micro-ecological and climatic environment than by mapping the niche of that variety, we have mapped the respective micro-environment. Using empirical and intuitive insights the scientists and the extension workers can then decide niches where a particular technology may find better chances of expression. In 1985-86, some of BARI sites had made these maps for different upzillas but for some reasons, never continued with them. Mapping also helps in identifying the unfilled niches for which a site team may have no programme but which may be inhabited by vulnerable groups of the people. When Ishurdi team of OFRD mapped the endowments of their site, they discovered a low lying niche in their extrapolation area which on the basis of land type classification had not become so apparent ( Islam, 1986). 

BARC guidelines on FSR may have to be modified in this regard. The work done by BAU makes the case for such modification quite strong. Just to pick up a few examples, rice-fish culture was introduced at Trishal site but it diffused much more in Bhaluka, Fulbaria and Gaffargaon because of suitable niche and efforts of the officers of the department of Agriculture officials. Within Trishal it diffused in southern region.

Likewise, pineapple technology was introduced at Kazishimala but it diffused in south Trishal and neighbouring region of Bhaluka up zilla. At Noagaon site, technology of rice-shrimp culture diffused more in neighbouring villages like Shaguli, Chamta, Neyamot pur and Khagsree.  

By superimposing the maps of different enterprises, system boundaries can also be identified. For instance if one were to superimpose the cattle density and Khesari density maps of Serajganj, one would notice considerable overlap. Likewise, BAU team may extend its homestead and household modelling to higher level ( upzilla or district) modelling. Viability of certain system may require the analysis to be extended to higher level of aggregation.

Targetting of technologies can become more scientific and results can be enhanced reducing   the cost and time lag both. The BAU team has shown interest in this subject because the local District Agricultural Officer and Joint Director Agriculture in a meeting provided many more examples where such a phenomenon had been in evidence. They have already been working closely with BAU team and this issue would perhaps bring them even more closer as it would improve respective effectiveness.

These insights may also be useful for modifying the curriculum of agronomy, extension and agro-ecology related courses. 

9. Farmers’ Experimentation and innovations:- This is not a new issue for Bangladesh. It goes without saying that farmers in this region could not have survived had they not kept pace with the environmental changes and challenges by experimenting and innovating. Large number of local varieties, management practices, botanicals, fish traps etc., are just a small example of the range of Bangladeshi farmers’ innovative ethic. It is rather unfortunate that many times while writing about these innovations scientists did not give due credit to the concerned farmers or groups there of by name. We came across only two citations by name one in BAU report about a very innovative farmer namely Munshi and another Kuttu cited in a Trip Report No3, April, 1991 of BRRI( karim et al). Kuttu had tried successfully a graft of water melon on bottle gourd. Since water melon may suffer due to excessive rain and bottle gourd was tolerant, this combination was tried. Kuttu of Kamalganj had read about it in an Indian magazine. Munshi at Kajishimala site had tried many experiments, some successful but many failure. And while he was called a mad person( Halim. 1986) by some in lighter vein, he did not stop at any innovation. He tried grafting in lemon, cinnamon, lichi, etc., besides cultivating flowers which were never cultivated at the site. He also grew nursery of different trees and sold them. Some of his technologies were considered quite advanced by the scientists( more examples......? by name if possible.) Nur Mohammad at Kazishimala tried spraying saw dust on banana to control attack of banana beetle. BRRI has reported work on botanicals some of which have been found highly effective against specific paddy pests. 

BAU Team has provided a list of Innovations developed by the farmers( men and women) at both the sites( Annexure 17.a and 17.b). Many of these deserve to be studied further to find their actual effectiveness, limitations and science underlying them. BARI reports also include examples of farmers’ innovations but individual citations were not found in the annual report. Perhaps these were available in some other documents. issue is that if the third world scientists would not honour their own experimenting scientists, should we expect others to protect their intellectual property rights? A newsletter may be started like Honeybee( started at CMA, IIM, Ahmedabad) with a local identity and in local language but with an English version so that global networking can take place. This is another fruitful area for active inter-institutional collaboration among themselves but also with farmers’ organizations, NGOs, schools and colleges, Banks etc.
10. Sustainability of On farm research and Development :- This is one of the most important issue in the entire programme. We asked this question in all the villages we visited as to what next was expected to be done after a technology had been developed and proved. The classical subsidy based approach has reached its dead end. The increasing budget deficit and heavy reliance on donor support is unlikely to take any developing society very far. when budget deficit increases, poor suffer most through inflation and cutback in the relief and other developmental expenditure. The BAU team has attempted a pioneering approach which has not been tried in the country so far. They have tried to recover in cash or kind the cost of livestock enterprises given to the poor people. This has been tried only during the last two years with the help of FF grant. Even though grant proposal did not either envisage it or even require it, the Team in its wisdom decided to try that so that larger number of people could be covered as a developmental function. They intend to try this with agri-inputs also in future.
hat models need to be developed for generating revolving fund among women for poultry, duck and goat and among men for say nursery, fingerlings, seeds etc. Various combination of gender and class could be tried. The Team has identified the need for supporting the private entrepreneurs also in case of hatcheries, pond fisheries, agro-horticulture seedlings etc. We met some of the entrepreneurs who have started buying vegetable seeds and selling seedlings at competitive prices. The emerging need for market research and entrepreneurial development as a part of FSRDP was recognised by the Team in its future directions and we strongly endorse it.

11. Curriculum Reform and post graduate research:-  This is an area where despite only two year grant, some progress has been already made. We realize that designing a course and getting it cleared through courses committee at the university level takes time. However, enclosed course outline( Annexure 18 attach......)indicates that the process has begun. At the same time it became obvious in the seminar discussions our team had with BAU faculty that much more remained to be done about the issue of incorporating FSRDP insights in various disciplinary courses. A list of post graduate theses ( MSc and Ph.D. ) supported by the project is given in Annexure 19. It is extremely encouraging M.Sc. thesis research has been taken up in some cases to develop technologies based on farmers’ innovations.= ( for instance on paddy cultivation through tiller separation or what Dr. Richaria called clonal propagation ). Students from several faculty are working at FSR sites and using data generated in the project. There is still more scope to sponsor post graduate research in different faculties to get FSRDP research backed up by 
greater analytical rigour. 

Recommendations:-

The Committee has no hesitation in recommending extension of support by Ford Foundation albeit at scaled up level so as to enable BAU FSRDP to address emerging questions adequately. It is obvious that in any research programme there always are areas of improvement. Some times there develops a lag in learning if opportunities for self critical assessment are not available. However, after going through the draft proceedings of the annual workshops to review the Ford Supported FSRDP at BAU, we feel that a process of constructive criticism has begun on a very sound footing. Feedback has been collected on various aspects of the reports presented by the BAU scientists from participating scientists from other institutions. Once it is disseminated among all those who attended the workshops and those who are concerned with FSRDP in the country, a process of critical peer scrutiny would have begun. It is not very often that scientists comment so frankly on each others’ programme. The Team should not have delayed the circulation of the proceedings so long. In our view, prompt circulation would have triggered similar thinking among other teams too. For quality improvement, such a review process is most essential. we suggest that it be strengthened by implementing many recommendations that the delegates made in this regard. For instance a suggestion was made that participation of scientists from other faculties of BAU in FSRDP at the university need to increase. We got the same message at the seminar we presented on the subject at BAU. It only confirm that there are several areas of programme improvement for which a felt need exists. Our report in that sense merely helps in articulating these needs. We trust that concerned authorities in BAU will take steps to build upon the considerable good will that exists for the FSRDP in the university and outside. 

Institution Building Perspective:

We strongly feel that a strong sustainable programe can be built only when a long term perspective is taken. Institution Building perspective requires that while building capacity with in FSRDP, it is necessary that simultaneously strong linkages with other supporting organizations and interest groups are also built. To do that, it will be necessary to build stakes of other constituents of FSRDP in BAU’s programme. These stakes have to be built not only horizontally i.e. among scientists, NGOs, other developments agencies including extension departments and private entrepreneurs but also vertically among policy makers on the one hand and people’s organizations on the other.

Another dimension of Institution building is to develop mutuality among sister institutions engaged in FSR and disciplinary departments. This is likely to happen only when one builds upon each others’s work. This is a step that has to be taken by BAU FSRDP in a long term perspective so that colleagues in the profession realize that FSRDP at BAU engaged in teaching as it is has to really integrate the collective wisdom at the student level.  Another way is to weave together the analytical framework as shown in Figure-four ( add some description). This builds upon key contributions from BRRI, BAU, BARI, BLRI, FRI etc. 

How will integration of interests that students, scientists, farmers, landless workers, fishermen and women, entrepreneurs, private market forces, NGOs, public systems like DAE etc, represent. It is obvious that donor agencies also while supporting various programmes get to acquire certain interests. These could reinforce the long term urges of the host institutions. But donors could also fragment  and disperse the energy by not insisting on building up of right professional values, accountability towards disadvantaged groups, culture of self criticism and above all a long term perspective. We are happy that creativity and freedom of the Team has been preserved without any attempt to impose a particular way of pursuing FSRDP. While there may have been some weaknesses acquired in the process but the process of discovering them internally has also built confidence and motivation among the team members.

The team spirit that BAU FSRDP has built in fact insulates itself from many of the disruptive influences. The Committee wishes to put on record its appreciation for the informal culture, high degree of motivation and mutual respect among the team members. At no stage did we find any member to be defensive on any issue. We were also impressed with the frankness with which the team members shared their weaknesses and strengths with us. 

We present the long term goals first followed by the specific areas which need to be strengthened.

Long term perspective:

a: To  aim at development of short and long term courses in Systems analysis to equip in- service professionals of various FSR staff from research organizations, NGOs, banks, public systems and other support agencies. The course should draw upon existing insights from the empirical experience of FSRDP but also bring in following perspectives:

i) Systems modelling, sub-system interactions( biological, socio-economic and managerial);

ii) Management/social science perspective to bring in the proficiency in organizational aspect of system management, market research, institution development, social mobilization and building sustainable people’ organization;

iii) Ecological sciences, ethno-ecology i.e. study of indigenous ecological knowledge systems, cultural and other institutions for managing natural resources governed by different property right arrangements; management of in-situ biodiversity;

iv) interdisciplinary perspective to generate appreciation of related disciplines but proficiency in analysis of at least all major interactions of one sub system;

v) On farm research methodology, data analysis, interpretation, report writing for specialized and lay audience etc.,

b) Establishment of Centre For Framing Systems and Environmental Studies at BAU to provide scope for building linkages with various related systems and deepen theoretical foundation of FSRDP in the country. It would also support and commission research on various priority issues, for instance, management of technology transfer to groups or entrepreneurs as against individuals, study of fit between channel, technology, location, client group, scale etc.; it would provide opportunities for experts within and outside the countries to spend sabbatical and help in consolidation of received knowledge, identify new frontiers of knowledge related to FSRDP and systems analysis; Centre would particularly back stop the national network on FSRDP so that synthesis of research on various subjects does take place from time to time. It would breed strong peer culture with strong quality commitment and joint responsibility of stake holders, It would be in a way a common property( at least intellectually) of the national network and would not compete with any institution or group; Detailed proposal needs to be built on the subject under the leadership of BAU FSRDP coordinator.

c) Action Research to help people in haor region to form their own organization so as to receive, adapt, improve, and evolve sustainable technologies and supporting marketing and management structures, 

d) To strengthen market research component of FSRDP;

e) To identify innovative ways of achieving financial autonomy,building revolving funds for managing programme through reduced and in the long term zero dependence on the donors by having strong linkages with agri-business, small scale entrepreneurs, people’s own organizations etc.

Specific Recommendations:-

1.  Characterization of Site and upgradation of the knowledge:

1.1 while bench mark studies  have been done, more systematic studies of the extrapolation area through ecological mapping and other methods being used by BRRI and other institutes;

1,2 Location of trials so that niche specificity is achieved, As discussed earlier, technology introduced at one place may diffuse at another thus providing a need for improving targetting systems for technology, 

1.3  Re-prioritization of the future focus for instance towards Haor and consequent estimation of resources and skills ( powered boat, stay facility for the scientists at Chamaraghat, special allowance for the scientists who make nigh halt in Haor region etc.) 

2.0  Improvement in Methodology

2.1. design of Experiment

2.2 layout: are straight lines, square shape plots always better and more efficient and scientific, can we not accommodate irregular shape plots if conditions so demand by take measurement through chain and square frame approach as done in the crop cutting experiments

2.3 proper definition of control in various types of experiment taking into account sampling error on account of unequal ‘n’ of control and treatment

2.4 Collection of data: 

encourage measurement by scientists themselves so that it is easier for them to interpret,

systematic format for presentation of results: genesis, justification, objective, method and material, results of previous years and other locations if experiment done at other suites, review of literature, results and discussions, explanation of the failed replications, farmers’ reactions, limitations of study, conclusions, future directions, risks and chances etc

analysis and interpretation *:

cross location referencing while reviewing results and preparing next years research programme

Variability over space and time to be analyzed

4.o post Harvest

storage, seed, transportation, saving, marketing, processing studies particularly in vegetable and fish, fruits

analysis consumed, sold, exchanged, saved

terms of exchange in barter economy, informal credit market so as to study market assessment of technology

Environmental implications

stress foods,

stress fodders,

stress fuels

impact on health  

5. Contingency  treatment and technology
salvage technologies

6. Framers; participation  greater mutuality of control: farmers do not have to hide their reason for not linking a technology as n case of tree seedling ( example of cartoonist)

Explore possibility of group appraisal of experiments by the farmers ( men and women groups ) to ascertain their reaction to the result and their interpretations ‘

7. Risk and sensitivity analysis 

8. Monitoring trials

more systematic analysis on the basis of vulnerability ( deficit in budget, borrowing at very high rate interest , out migration under compulsion, child labour participation , re interpret nutrition data on this basis in addition to the systems

9.  reinterpret block and whole farm trial to see the effect of maximising ecological and managerial variability in respective cases

10. homestead

complete enumeration already started also to be attempted for insect, plant, disease etc fro selected sited to monitor changes in biodiversity

11. system analysis

new pi to be added

variance within and between system componenetas 

direct and indirect contribution of differebnt componenets

12. Institutional analyssi

tenure
proprerty rights

co-management of open access lake

13. Social organization

IPM

Group based management opf water , drainage, pest ciontrol., drainage, marketing

14.economic anal;ysis

involve other teanm members while analysisng economic analyssy

improve tools and depth

15. framers knowl;edge

sink-source 

inventoru farmer modufivation
xperiments

Citation to farmers

farmer trainer 

15. in situ bio diversity conservation

16. mapping and monitorong of biodiversity, homested analaysis

17. ecological indiactotswater stress, perst attack, changes in temperature, humiodirt

soil mineral prperty

18 .Botanical;s

19. adoption analysis

distinguish those who tried and sdiscintinued from those who never tried a technology

20

HRD

fund for subsciption/books
]soecuial allownave for night haly in the villages
one week every season for library consultation

in county visists to different sites

travelin seminar

logistics ( boat, motorbylkes )

newsletter on innovation may require photicopying facilitu

special fund for library prsent sindition not satifactyory

18. 

E:\Conf.Papers Of Akg\Baufsnew.Rtf