This document summarizes discussions from a workshop on farming systems research experiences overseas. Some key points included: - There was debate around the appropriate methodology for implementing farming systems research programs and whether the approach should be seen as a "panacea." - Different approaches were discussed, including new farming systems development and a basic needs approach. - The appropriate roles of international agricultural research centers versus national research programs using a farming systems research approach were also debated. - Challenges in training researchers and coordinating multidisciplinary teams for farming systems research programs were discussed.

1. Session Report
Some Farming Systems Research Experiences
Overseas
Rapporteur: J. Lindsay Falvey*
THE papers ofthe session introduced FSR as it is understood and practised in key
countries in Southeast Asia and South Asia and contrasted this with FSR programs
in other countries. The papers, presentation by discussants, and general discussion
focused on the appropriateness of the FSR approach, methodology of its
implementation, difficulties and the role of Australians and ACIAR in
collaborating with FSR programs in developing countries.
Two recurring themes in papers and discussion were (i) the difficulty of
implementing FSR programs where national goals are based on short-term
requirements and regional research programs on, at least, medium-term funding,
and (ii) the elevation ofFSR to an almost religious status. In this latter context the
meeting was told that some aspects of FSR are accepted 'as a matter offaith' and
that advocates of the approach have been 'proselytising' in developing countries.
From the perspective of developing countries, the only rewards offered to
Australians involved in FSR in developing countries were seen to be 'a challenge'
and 'a feeling of well being'.
The terminology used indieated the difficulty ofthe subject for open discussion,
which introduced concern over whether FSR could assist in alleviating food crises
in Africa to a greater extent than alternative approaches. This prompted comments
to the effect that droughts and political directives are obviously beyond the
influence of FSR programs and that FSR is no more a panacea than any other
research approach.
The FSR Approach
Discussion concerning the approach was unstructured although some consistent
arguments were presented. In particular, distinctions between an FSR approach to
current constraints to the development of alternative farming systems (,NFSD' in
the paper of Anderson and Dillon) were discussed, as were the relative roles of
international research centres and national research programs based on an FSR
approach.
Flinn presented additional information concerning the methodology of FSR
with particular respect to this as an area in which Australia can contribute. The
procedures ofFSR were analysed on the basis ofthe common technology divisions
utilised in disciplinary research programs with the additional perspective of
households (or other socioeconomic units) and agroindustry being included. In
order to facilitate discussion, four stages in the methodology were introduced,
namely diagnosis, design, evaluation and transfer. Diagnosis included constraints
and opportunities in the design phase. Evaluation appeared to address the
determinants of impact on the farming system in the short and long term and
included sane value judgement on social benefit. The critical phase of transfer
* Managing Director, MPW Rural Development Pty Ltd., 333 Punt Road, Richmond,
Victoria. 3121, Australia.
]5]

2. includes building the process into institutions, establishment of market linkages
and addressing of processing requirements of the raw products.
The methodology described applies particularly to international agricultural
research centres (IARCs) and reflects the relationship of those centres to national
programs in their regions. An important constraint to the methodology is the
ability of the international centre and, particularly, the national programs to
manage the more complex research approach implied in FSR. Implications
extended to training in an FSR approach and institutional issues.
Discussant Chamala presented perceptions of linkages between research and
extension-based personnel within the FSR approach. The skills referred to in the
early stages ofan FSR program exist to some extent in extension officials who are,
for example, commonly engaged in baseline data analysis. They are similarly
involved in assessing the primary constraints offarmers although they might not
be authorised to work toward removing non-agricultural constraints. After the
problem-formulation phase, linkages between research and extension in the public
and private sectors are examined and this information employed for the design and
planning of the program. Questions arising in the subsequent stage of testing and
extension relate to the training ofstaffin the approach, the monitoring process and
the continuing problem ofrewarding field workers in accordance with their success
in the program.
Management ofa complex approach such as FSR requires wider skills than those
common to r,!search program coordination in Australia. Integration ofsociologists,
economists, biological scientists and planners requires an understanding of the
approach and the system being examined. It was presented that Australia is able
to respond to FSR needs in Southeast Asia, South Asia and probably elsewhere
through the research skills of organisations such as CSIRO, departments of
agriculture, and universities, but that coordination, design and monitoring ofsuch
programs should involve the institutional development and management skills
resident in the private consulting sector.
New Farming Systems Development(NFSD)
NFSD was introduced in the formal presentation as the development of an
alternative to present farming systems. Group discussion determined that the
original definition put forward by Simmonds (who documented the subject on
behalf of the World Bank and to whom various workshop authors have referred)
was based on the need to develop new systems for marginal lands forced into
agricultural production where no established farming system previously existed.
This is clearly different from the development of alternative systems for areas
farmed traditionally.
The FSR approach pays homage to the involvement of social scientists in
research program design and implementation. To suggest that an alternative
farming system be developed in isolation from the farmer and, once perfected,
introduced to the farmer, offends the role of social awareness implied in the FSR
approach. However, despite the apparent misinterpretation ofNFSD by part ofthe
meeting, the need was seen to design research programs to meet prospective future
problems separate from farmers. Arguments supporting this approach were based
on the problem that farmers, while intimately familiar with their day to day
problems, are not able to focus on alternatives or longer range problems. Thus a
dual approach to research was implied; one developmental (NFSD) and one
applied (OFR/FSP).
In practical terms, persons involved in development projects and research felt
that farming systems cannot be developed independently from farmers and then
152

3. introduced successfully. This belief was based on the need for farmer knowledge
on interaction in the system in social, economic and environmental terms and the
resistance almost universally exhibited by farmers to large changes in their life and
production systems. It was further expressed that agricultural scientists should be
and are usually aware of how their discipline relates to other aspects of the
production system and that such scientists are most useful where they employ their
skills to assist farmers to remove identified constraints. An approach of defining
the environment and then testing possible crops for the area before discussing the
concept with farmers was advocated as a means of integrating farmer experience
with theoretical technical knowledge.
Basic Needs Approach
The differences in opinion about initial steps in the FSR methodology can be
attributed to the perspectives of the researchers. In attempting to make ongoing
research more relevant, involvement with farmers may become a means of
selecting part ofthe ongoing program as more relevant than other parts; this is not
regarded as determining means of removing constraints from the farmer. The
.alternative approach is one of returning to first principles and determining the
relative status of the basic needs of food. energy, shelter, raw materials for home
industry, cash and community integration and then seeking to address primary
constraints. In circumstances where basic needs are unrelated to agriculture then
FSR may still be appropriate (if not of interest to the ACIAR brief). The role of
sociologists and economists is implicit in this approach.
Relative Roles ofIARCs and National Programs
The role of IARCs was considered to be a general one that covered problems
common to a region. The NFSD approach (as interpreted in the Anderson and
Dillon paper) was seen as a responsibility of IARCs; such programs would be
modified regularly after redefinition of problems through farmer surveys. The less
disputed definition of FSR, i.e. OFR/FSP was seen as the primary responsibility
of national programs where site specificity was a major determinant ofsuccessful
research.
The question oftraining ofFarming Systems Researchers comes into perspective
when the above division is discussed. Researchers in developing countries are
commonly trained in western systems ofdisciplinary research. Hence, adoption of
an FSR approach requires additional training and an increased commitment to
following the approach through over a long period of time. The interim solution
of forming multidisciplinary teams is being followed in most of the countries
discussed in the workshop, and the constraint to wider use ofthe approach appears
to be the shortage of coordinators with the breadth of perception and leadership
ability to maintain an FSR approach in the group.
Utilisation ofthe farm knowledge ofnationals who have graduated in a relevant
subject area is used as a means ofassisting understanding ofexpatriate researchers
and offocusing the team on the farm perspective. However, this approach is quite
limited and appears to be aimed primarily at correcting the biases of expatriate
researchers; it may therefore be more suited to IARCs than to national programs
(conducted by nationals).
Concluding Comment
The fact that the discussions failed to concentrate on national programs ean be
seen as a natural bias toward those areas with which Australians are more familiar,
the IARCs. Nevertheless, ACIAR has a responsibility to assist agricultural research
153