Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 47936 Report No. 5469-IN . INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II PROJECT FILE September 20, 1985 • ) General Agriculture II Division South Asia Projects Department This document has a restricted distribution and Play be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its ("ontents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. .~. .. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Table of Contents --------~----- g.~:!Ll ICAR/MOA/IBRD Review of Agricultural Research, Training and Extension: Main Findings, Issues and Recommendations H~~; Strategy for Irrigated Farming Research: Guidelines !ll!!!J Strategy for Agricultural Implements Research: Guidelines Hgm_~ Spillover of Subprojects Sanctioned under NARP 1l~!!!_2 Research Subproject: Central Vidarbha Zone, Yavatmal, Maharashtra !!.~p.ui Suplementary Research Subproject: North-Western Zone Paiyur, Tamil Nadu !ll!!!_l Research Subprojects: Brief Notes on Design and Planning of 'I Research Stations ll~_§' Administrative Subproject: Illustrative H~_2. Proforma for State Government and SAU Acceptance of NARP Grant H~-1Q. Proforma for Six-Monthly SAU Report to ICAR on Physical Progress !!.~~!.l Proforma for Six-Monthly and Annual ICAR Report to IDA on Physical Progress ll~-1; Research Subprojects: Development of Master Plan for Civil Works !!.~!!LU Research Subprojects: Architectural Brief and Room Data Sheet !~_l~ Preparation and Appraisal of Research SUbprojects: Guidelines This document has a restricted distrtbution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank: authorization. - /usrI2/aspab/cristine/ramak/iteml/1/24/85/Record -1- Project File Item: 1 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II ICAR/MOA/IBRD Review of Agricultural Research. Training & Extension MAIN FINDINGS, ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 A review of agricultural research and training and their support to extension in four states -- Andhra Pradesh (A.P.), Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) -- was undertaken by teams representing the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) the Central Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and the World Bank. Representatives of the concerned State Departments of Agriculture (DOA) and State Agricultural Universities (SAD) also participated. The terms of reference for the review encom- passed the determination of the present status and additional requirements with regard to: relevance of the research results generated, adequacy of systems-oriented research, technology adaptation, farmer/extension staff/researcher interaction in research priority setting, effectiveness of the technology transfer mechanism, formal extension education and professional extension training arrangements, SAU and ICAR support to agricultural extension, and in each case, the linkages between exten- sion-related activities of the various research institutions and DOA. 1.2 The review was undertaken during November-December, 1983. The teams visited each State for a period of 8-10 days. Visits were made to three or four districts in each State -- Warangal, Anantapur and West Godavari in AP; Rissar, Karnal and Mahendragarh in Haryana; Jaipur, Kota, Bhilwara and Bikaner in Rajasthan; and Faizabad, Kanpur and Nainital in U.P. Visits were made to Zonal Agricultural Research Stations (ZARS) and farmers' fields in each district and meetings were held with field exten- sion staff and farmers. The teams also visited SAU and State headquarters and had discussions with senior officers. Wrap up meetings were held at the conclusion of visits with State and SAU officials during which tenta- tive findings and suggestions were discussed. -2- Pro ject File - Item: 1 Pag,e 2 1.3 Agricultural research, extension and development have made great advances in several crops in many areas. To maintain the momentum and to extend impact to other crops and more farmers, pose monumental tasks to agricultural research and professional extension. The NARP concept of focussing agricultural research on the specific needs of recognized agroclimatic regions and socio-economic conditions on the one hand and the generation of a professional extension service with exclusive respon- sibility for the transfer of new agricultural technology on the other, are inextricably linked. One cannot be fully effective without the other. Although the need for such close linkages and interdependency was realized when the first phases of these projects were designed, inadequate provi- sion was made for their effective realization. 1.4 Much can be done by more efficiently using available resources and by ensuring working linkages between related programs and activities. However, additional staff, facilities and equipment will also be required to facilitate steadily and significantly increasing agricultural produc- tion.. These requirements should now be determined by the state research and extension services in preparation for follow up of NARP and to be included as subprojects under NAEP. MAIN FINDINGS 2.1 Technology Generation and Adaptation: Interdisciplinary Research 2.1.1 The responsibility for agricultural research in all four States rests with the SAU (exceptions are sugarcane and horticulture research in U.P.). ICAR--coordinated special projects play an important role. Impact on agricultural development over the past decade has been impressive. Development of new crop varieties -- some of which have been widely accepted by farmers -- remains one of the most significant research achievements. In AP, Haryana and Rajasthan, SAU are making good progress in implementing subprojects of NARP; however, the regionalization of agricultural research on an agroclimatic zonal basis is not fully achieved and the focus of research is yet to be adequately centered on the regional .' problems. Two reasons are apparent -- (i) SAU are slow in overcoming the initial problems of infrastructure development and staffing at the zonal agricultural research stations; and (ii) it takes time to abolish the long established tradition of main control with the central campuses -- where all program leaders are located. 2.1.2 In all states -- especially in U.P. -- the SAU do not have enough sites to locate research facilities that adequately represent the broad -3- Project File Item: 1 Page 3 agroclimatic zones identified. Although several SAU prepared 'Status Reports' of the agroclimatic zones, these often are insufficiently detailed in describing the different agricultural situations and tech- nological constraints to production and also in developing strategies to find solutions. For instance, the research needs of the command areas of major irrigation projects, problem soils and rainfed agriculture are not fully met. Also, there are several areas of research (e.g., water manage- ment, horticulture, farm implements, post-harvest technology and farming systems) that receive insufficient attention. 2.1.3 Although all SAU conduct technical program formulation discussions at state and zonal levels (e.g., through the Zonal Research Advisory Committee (ZRAC) meetings), participating DOA officers and farmers have little influence over the content of the research programs. Inadequate use is made of opportunities to focus ICAR-sponsored coordinated projects on local requirements to resolve urgent constraints. 2.1.4 Research programs therefore continue to be general rather than specific and are often aimed at broad objectives -- high yielding pest and ~. disease resistant varieties, chemical control of pests and diseases, agronomic trials under optimal management conditions -- rather than on the technological constraints for production, encountered in each of the agricultural resource situations of the identified'agroclimatic zones within the service area of an SAU. The long-established crop and dis- cipline oriented approach still persists -- with little emphasis on inter- disciplinary crop and farming systems research. 2.1.5 Field testing of technologies is almost entirely limited to varie- tal "minikits" and ICAR-coordinated activities such as Pilot Projects, Operational Research Projects, Lab to Land activities and "adopted" vil- lages. SAU have not yet established an organized program of testing technologies under the farmers' resource and risk conditions. 2.2 Research/Extension Interaction 2.2.1 All states claim to have good relationships between research and extension. However, "good" relationships do not necessarily mean effec- tive interaction and mutual reinforcement. Most mechanisms to forge research/extension linkages are built around committees and workshops of one or two days duration with a large number of participants. While these do provide an opportunity for senior and middle level functionaries to meet, research/extension interaction at the field level remains limited. Hardly any joint efforts are made to observe in depth the constraints in adoption of technology under farmers' conditions. There is little con- tribution of extension to problem identification, analysis, and the -4- Project File Item: I Page 4 - development of strategies and setting of research priorities. Research- ers' assistance to extension in their field activities (except for par- ticipation in monthly workshops) is limited. Nor is there coordination between SAU and DOA in training and information processing (except for the "Package of Practices"). 2.2.2 In the absence of effective linkages and interaction between research and extension, the desired feedback, unbiased evaluation, and technology impact orientation which is adapted to actual farmers' needs is inadequate. Research/extension linkages, thus, are not effective enough in actual practice. 2.2.3 Interaction is not encouraged by the present system of recognition and incentives for researchers which is based mostly on academic qualifications, length of service and published work; they do not place sufficient emphasis on contributions to problem identification, involve- ment in systems approaches and feed-back generated as a result of interac- tion of research, extensio? and farmers. 2.3 Transfer of Technology 2.3.1 Quality and impact of agricultural extension have greatly improved during the last few years. Three states -- AP, Haryana and Rajasthan -- are implementing the reorganized extension system based on regular train- ing and farm visits by YEW. UP is planning to implement this system in phases. The regularity and effectiveness of VEW visits to farmers varies from state to state and even district to district. In UP, the VLW are with the Department of Rural Development and have mUltiple respon- sibilities with little opportunity to devote adequate time to agriculture. Thus, there are major opportunities to increase extension's impact. 2.3.2 Packages of practices prepared seasonally, serve as the main instrument of information transfer from research to extension. SAU, DOA and local leAR institutes publish much extension-related information and prepare several programs for mass media (radio and TV); however, there is little coordination between these agencies. Instances are not rare when the recommendations of different agencies are at variance. 2.3.3 There are several extension-oriented activities supported by leAR and"carried out by the SAU (e.g., "minikits", ORP, Lab to Land, [GK, village adoption, etc.). All these came about before the introduction of NARP and professional extension. Most of these programs operate rather independently and, more seriously, several have lost sight of their basic objectives to serve as field laboratories, provide a training ground and as "first line" extension efforts to develop better extension methods. -5- Project File Item: I Page 5 Also, DOA and SAU, while implementing these programs hardly coordinate at the field level. 2.3.4 Three of the SAU - HAU, MLSU and GBPUAT - have university subject matter specialists located in some or all the districts. Before the introduction of professional extension, HAU developed an elaborate infrastructure in the form of KGK in each district with a large number of staff (10-12) at each of these. GBPUAT's and MLSU's extension arms are smaller. These institutions -- especially the KGK of Haryana -- appear to be functioning without much interaction with research and DOA exten- sion. Extension staff at both these SAU are more of less permanently assigned with little opportunity to interact with research or teaching. 2.4 SAU Training and Support to Extension 2.4.1 There are many different types of training activities relating to agriculture. Pre-service training to village level functionaries is provided by gram sevak training centers, extension training centers and agricultural training institutes of the State Government. While in some states these are under the control of DOA (e.g., Haryana), in others they are with the Department of Rural Development or Panchayat Raj (e.g., UP and AP). The trainers often have few opportunities to update themselves in subject matter knowledge or teaching methods. SAU contributions to the quality, effectiveness and relevance of instruction at these centers are negligible. 2.4.2 All states have several Farmers Training Centres (FTC). The training programs at these centres consist of a few institutional courses (of three days) and a large number of one day training camps (in vil- lages). Most FTC are located in rented buildings without farm facilities for practical and skill training. One or more Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK) sponsored and financed by ICAR and operated by SAU exist in all states. 1/ In addition, some SAU (e.g., HAU and GBPUAT)impart training to farmers through their Extension Directorates. The mUltiplicity of institutions operated independently and by different agencies -- sometimes results in duplication of efforts and inefficient use of resources. The SAU Direc- torates of Extension pay little attention to undergraduate teaching in aspects of reorganized professional extension. The Extension Education Institutes (in AP and Haryana) make a significant contribution to regional extension training but are inadequately equipped for the tasks. 11 The KVK in Haryana is operated by the National Dairy Research Institute. -6- Project File Item: 1 Page 6 2.4.3 All SAU -- expect in UP where there is no reorganized professional extension system -- participate in monthly workshops to train 5MB of DOA. The quality and effectiveness of these workshops need substantial improve- ment. Little use is made of audiovisual aids; skill teaching is minimal. Physical facilities are mostly inadequate. Insufficient effort goes into planning the monthly extension workshop. DOA officers at district level do not adequately coordinate with SAU scientists in planning and conduct of these workshops. 3. MAJOR ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Technology Development. On-Farm Testing and Interaction 3.1.1 Facilities to Serve Various Farming Situations: There is further need to identify the required facilities and resources based on the analysis made in the NARP ;Status Reports; of the agroclimatic zones (e.g., command areas, problem soils, horticultural crops, farming systems, watershed based soil and rainwater management research, etc.). When such situations occur in large areas -- say above 20,000 ha -- facilities have to be created either on an existing station (of e.g., SAU, DOA, CADA) or by establishing a new centre. If the area involved is small, adaptive trials on existing DOA farms or trials on farmers' fields may have to be laid out based on technology generated at other centres. Proposals should be incorporated in NARP II. 3.1.2 Research Focus on Area-Specific Production Constraints. This is of major importance in research program formulation for agroclimatic zones/farming situations. The problem is caused by: (i) inadequate or imperfect perception of constraints by researchers; (ii) ineffective feedback from extension and farmers; and (iii) lack of representative research facilities. While the latter problem can be resolved by the action proposed above, focussing research on relevant problems can be ensured only through more effective research/extension interaction and of both with farmers. 3.1.3 Farmer participation in ZRAC inadequately serves the purpose of familiarizing researchers with farmer;s needs. Additional efforts to get feedback from farmers through periodic visits by individual key scientists to farmers; fields (and not by groups of scientists to villages) are required. The necessary transport and other facilities must therefore be provided to facilitate researchers; visits to farms in the company of local extension workers to observe the problems encountered in the field and the constraints in the adoption of recommended technologies. Special incentives to reward such work are also required. -7- Project File Item: 1 Page 7 3.1.4 The links between the regional research centres of SAU and the extension functionaries of the area need to be further strengthened and the agroclimatic zone should form the functional unit for such coordina- tion. Where possible, the areas of jurisdiction of DOA extension zonal workshops should be made co-terminus with those of ZRAC (agroclimatic zone). The functioning of the existing committees at different levels (State, zonal, district, etc.) should be reviewed and more effective mechanisms developed while formulating NARP II and future extension projects; the ZRAC role in developing packages of practices and extension recommendation formulation needs to be strengthened. 3.1.5 900d work is done by ZARS and ICAR-supported projects on the identification of local constraints to production and the design of approaches to solve these; however, much more is required. This concept must be incorporated into all projects of the ZARS and should be expanded to related research programs. Too little use is presently made of oppor- tunities to focus ICAR's projects on local requirements and to draw upon these in resolving priority constraints. Greater emphasis on continuously monitoring the quality and relevance of agricultural research is also needed. Attaining these goals would be facilitied by: (i) Ensuring that arl institutions and organizations involved in research and extension-related work in a zone participate and contribute to the ZRAC meetings. (ii) Making more effective use of monthly workshops to identify constraints to adoption of recommended practices. (iii) Encouraging joint field visits by research and extension officers to interact with extension field staff and farmers. (iv) Developing strong programs of farm trials. (v) Organizing small task forces for strategy planning before ZRAC meetings. (vi) Strengthening monitoring and evaluation. 3.1.6 Field Testing. The present arrangements to test research results from regional/substations under different farming situations and to fit them to the farmers' resource and risk situations are inadequate. On-farm testing should form part of the final stage of all technology generation and should be a joint responsibility of research and extension. The scope and objectives of the wide range of minikit trials needs to be urgently reviewed keeping in view available DOA manpower resources and overall utility. Considerable ambiguity exists regarding definitions of adaptive -8- Project File Item: 1 Page 8 - research, technology verification and field trials. The terms 'adaptive trials' and 'farm trials' are suggested to designate trials conducted at adaptive research centres and on farmers' fields, respectively. The requirements for adaptive research centres in each agroclimatic zone must be determined. Experience in the previous projects (e.g. Rajasthan) should be utilized to make these more effective. On-farm research needs to be conducted in a farming systems perspective and must be given an interdisciplinary character. There is need to clearly assign roles and responsibilities of research and extension to conduct adaptive trials and farm trials. These issues should be resolved while designing NARP II and future extension projects. 3.1.7 The economic analysis of newly developed agricultural technology needs to be greatly strengthened. Economists should play more important roles in constraint analysis, research program design, farming systems studies and in the delineation of the range of costs and benefits of new practices to refine production recommendation. 3.2 Agricultural Extension 3.2.1 Impact Orientation. Much improvement in the quality of field extension is needed. to play its role in relation to the ZARS effec- tively, professional extension needs to move rapidly beyond the stage of establishing the extension mechanism (of regular training and farm visits) to actual impact on agricultural productivity by means 6f knowledge and, more importantly, skill transfers to farmers. It is only then, that extension can fulfill its essential feedback role to guide research, based on farmers' reactions to research recommendations. All institutions involved in extension (including ICAR projects) should also work with the regular YEWs. 3.2.3 Single Line Responsibility. This is a prerequisite for an effi- cient agricultural extension service - but not fulfilled by some states (e.g., CADA staff in Rajasthan). Several states currently attempt to revive and strengthen the local government bodies. Professional exten- sion, while maintaining a single line of command, must find ways to for- malize its interaction and linkages with these local Panchayat organiza- tions because otherwise the required cooperation, support and coordination will not materialize. 3.3 Field Extension Support and Additional Requirements 3.3.1 SAU Training. Reorganization of extension preceeded SAU research reorganization. While formulating extension projects, adequate attention was not paid to define the role of SAU and the resources needed to effec- tively support field extension. Nor have these been adequately considered -9- Pro; ect File Item: 1 Page 9 while formulating NARP subprojects. The result is that most SAU find themselves inadequately equipped (e.g., in terms of classrooms and hostel facilities at workshops venues, teaching aids, transport for coordinating staff, etc.) to undertake training at monthly workshops and to interact with extension. These requirements of SAU should immediately be met from the funds available in the current extension projects and should form components in future extension projects. 3.3.2 The effectiveness of professional extension ultimately depends upon the quality and motivation of its field staff. Most VEW have been drawn from the ranks of the multipurpose VLW and are in urgent need of additional training. After determining the actual training needs of VEWs, training programs of the required scale need to be initiated by the states (if necessary by redeploying available facilities). 3.3.3 Subject matter training at agricultural universities is primarily degree and theory-oriented, meeting the needs of researchers and Univer- sity teachers. Extension specialists have additional requirements in terms of practical training oriented at skill transfer. feedback and training methodology. There is also a need to reorient the undergraduate extension curriculum to be in tune with the new research and extension systems being implemented with due emphasis on rese'arch/extension interac- tion at the zonal and field levels. The SAU should explore ways (and determine the resources required) to respond to the subject matter train- ing needs of reorganized professional extension. The ICAR may examine this aspect while considering the recommendations of the Deans' Committee. 3.3.4 The Extension Education Institutes needs to meet the in-service training requirements of extension staff from several States. To make this task feasible. EEl should be relieved from other training respon- sibilities. Proposals to strengthen EEl in terms of staff and facilities may be developed and should be considered as sub-project activities under NAEP. 3.4 Strengthening and Institutionalization of Research/Extension Linkages 3.4.1 Institutions involved in training and information processing. There is an urgent need to thoroughly re-examine the entire range of field research. training and extension-related activities carried out at the zonal level involving local research and extension staff. Examples are ND. ECF. Minikits, ORP, LLP, KVK, FTC, etc. With the introduction of NARP and professional extension, these programs should be refocus sed on their basic objectives of providing "first line" extension aimed at improved extension methodology and training. An attempt should be made to: -10- Project File Item: 1 Page 10 (i) Re-evaluate and adjust objectives. (ii) Adapt (or amalgamate) programs to make better use of staff, training facilities and other resources. (iii) Encourage joint reviews to facilitate feedback between programs and avoid duplication. 3.4.2 There is a similar need to review all information processing activities - folders, booklets, radio and TV scripts, etc., - of COl, DOA, SAD and ICAR to achieve a greater degree of coordination and to avoid contradictory recommendations. 3.4.3 Research/Extension Interaction. The biggest challenge in facilitating agricultural development is to interlink research and exten- sion" activities, which are the responsibilities of two different organiza- tions, to effectively serve a single beneficiary -- the farmer. The present linkages need much refinement and reinforcement to achieve more viable interaction. These linkages should permeate all aspects of plan- ning and implementation including field level problem identification, technical program formulation, testing, training, information processing, transmission of messages and identifying constraints in implementation of the recommendations. SAD and ICAR institutes' field activities should strengthen. the field extension workers' activities and not compete with the latter. Effective research/extension linkages should result in each influencing and reinforcing the performance of the other. The ZRAS and ZRAC should become the focal points of this interaction. 3.4.4 SAD and ICAR-Supported Extension-Related Activities. All SAD have Extension Directorates; in three states these are operating in the dis- tricts. Before professional extension was introduced it was necessary for ICAR and SAD to take the initiative and ensure the transfer of tech- nology to farmers. However, these activities have not been reviewed after the states reorganized extension and there is now a proliferation of extension-related activities resulting in some cases, in duplication of effort. The Extension Directorates could now more appropriately focus on extension training and on research aimed at developing more effective extension methods. There is need to re-examine the entire range of these activities in light of the changed circumstances and requirements. /usrl2/aspab/pachara/IND/narp/pjfile.II/item2/4-l0-85-/Revision -11- PROJECT FILE Item 2 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Strategy for Irrigated Farming Research Introduction The objective of irrigated farming research would be to develop recommendations, based partly on known practices, partly on technologies developed elsewhere and adapted to the area in question through "On Farm" research work, for use by DOA extension staff for advising farmers on methods of optimizing the use of irrigation water to increase crop produc- tion. It may be further refined and developed by a longer range multidis- ciplinary program. Proposals for irrigation research would be prepared and appraised as part of the priority agricultural research needs of the given agroecological zone. The existing programs, irrespective of the source of funding, should be incorporated into the research effort required for the zone. SAU would select one or two of the existing/proposed stations for "on station" work so that they perform the role of lead stations for the state and guide irrigated farming research at other stations. The rest of the work on 1rrigated farming research would be "on farm" oriented. Program Formulation When identifying research proposals, priority should be given to programs serving command areas of irrigation projects identified by the state government/SAU/ICAR and in need of additional investigation for max1mum utilization. The first step would be to collect data on irrigation related problems and identify constraints of farmers in the zone whether served by canal, schemes, tanks and groundwater. This would constitute a part of the Status Report. This report would include an extensive review of all previous research (agronomic, farming systems, on-farm water management) done and in progress and include a detailed analysis of farmers' con- straints to increased production and enhancing farm incomes. In all 1rrigated situations it would be necessary to evaluate water resources (including rainfall): In canal commands: the seasonal availability of water would be determined, constraints of the system assessed, and the current operational plan i.e., the seasonal opening and closing dates of canals including the past few years' records, would be collected; In tank commands: the pattern of Lnflow into tank and the methods used for water distribution would be studied; and In well irrigated areas: groundwater usage and potential would be studied. In all cases the quality of irriga- tion would be evaluated. PROJECT FILE ,·12- Item 2 Page 2 - A research program would then be formulated based on the above review and findings of the Status Report. For most crops reasonably adequate data are available as regards crop water requirements, critical stages of growth, etc. from "on station" research. Even though this work may not have been done in the zone, results of work done elsewhere (lead station) by SAU can be interpolated. Confirmation work may be required in some cases. But the bulk of the research work which is now required could be done on farmers' fields under normal operating conditions. Examples of typical project proposals are given below: Objectives: Objectives (examples) are indicated for three irriga- tion projects: (a) Periar-Vaigai Command - The command irrigates 18,000 ha of double crop rice and about 35,000 ha of single crop rice. An ORP is being conducted on a small area of the command in water use on rice. An expanded ORP is proposed (100 ha) to, (i) demonstrate water use practices to farmers; (ii) demonstrate to irrigation and agricultural staff the savings that can be made in improved water management practices, and how to use these savings in other areas of the command; and (iii) study the crop yields and economics involved 'under traditional and ~mproved water management practices. (b) The Upper Ganga Modernization Project. Project success depends heavily on reducing non-beneficial water losses by deep percolation for growing rice, the only feasible kharif crop at present, g~ven the water supply calendar. A corollary to the same problem is to prepare land (with animal power) after the rice in a manner that does not reduce the yield of wheat, the principal cash crop of the area. The farming system problem is to find an alternative, equally profitable, crop sequence, not involving rice, e.g., a short duration kharif crop, followed by rape (toria), followed by wheat or some other equally profitable rabi crop. (c) Maharshtra Composite Irrigation Project III. At present being processed, requires a determined effort to resolve field layout, land preparation, irrigation practices and planting methods suitable for high-value crops (cotton, groundnut, sunflower, etc.,) that must at least partly replace and be superimposed on much of the area's present staple crop - (kharif and rabi - sorghum) if the sunk and yet-to-be-incurred investments are to bring a reasonable return. Method of Achieving Objectives: A multidisciplinary team approach should be adopted. Indicated incremental staff would be three assistant professors of agronomy, economics, and agricultural engineering, with adequate technical support staff. The team would be backed up by staff of the regional research station. In all cases, relatively large and repre- sentative areas would be selected and compared with normal farmers' prac- tices. PROJECT FILE -13- Item 2 Page 3 Program of Work: A detailed teclinical program and annual work plan should be prepared by the zonal team in close consultation with irrigation and agricultural departments. Review: Progress will be reviewed by the zonal Associate Director of Research, Irrigation and DOA staff, at the end of each season, who will make any modifications to the program in achieving the objectives. /usr12/aspab/cristine/ramak/item3/2/5/85/Revision -14- PROJECT FILE Item 3 - Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Strategy for Agricultural Implements Research I. Introduction 1.1 Present Situation with Small Scale Implements. Visits to the Agricultural Universities at Pantnagar and Coimbatore, the Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (CIAE) and the All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture (ICRPDA) have clearly demon- strated the ability of engineers to develop and produce functional agricultural machines. In spite of this commendable expertise, there is little evidence to show that any of these implements are being adopted by small farmers « 2 ha). Notable exceptions include simple modifica- tions to indigenous animal-drawn ploughs for seeding and fertilizer ,"" application, the use of rotary puddlers and some uptake of improved seed drills. Mechanization amongst commercially developed medium scale farmers (2-5 ha) is more significant as they are using grain threshers in large numbers. In the smallholder section, it is estimated that not more than 1% of all implements designed or developed at these institutions are currently reaching farmers in significant numbers. 1.2 The primary reason for this low adoption rate is because research has not been designed to meet the specific needs of farmers, and implement development takes place without a quantitative understanding of the economic, technical, social, and management constraints within a given farming system. The identification of R&D requirements for agricultural implements can only be achieved reliably on a multidisciplinary basis. 1.3 The Role of Agricultural Engineers. In many agricultural develop- ment situations, the envisaged role for agriculture engineers is too limited because it is confined to mechanical engineering inputs for the design and development of equipment or the provision of mechanical serv- ices like ploughing, sowing, etc. Farm implements are tangible products of agricultural engineering but their design or development is not the inevitable role of agricultural engineers. The basic resources for crop production are climate, soil and available draught power. An agricultural engineer should, therefore, be primarily interested in the identification and possible amelioration of any climatic or soil constraints and the -15- PROJECT FILE Item 3 Page 2 reduction of energy inputs (e.g. draught power) into an agricultural operation or system, to enhance crop growth and agricultural processes. Economic aspects can play an important role in the consideration of what level of mechanization is appropriate to a given farming system. Too often agricultural economists have been primarily used for "con- straints analyses" that have been limited to postproject evaluations designed to establish why certain technologies have not been adopted. This is of limited value in the management of research and a new approach is needed so that economists can be used to identify and aid in the selec- tion of viable research topics at the outset. Once this broader approach to agricultural engineering with social science inputs is more fully understood, research managers will be able to achieve much more tangible results from the mechanization aspects of agricultural development. II. Strategy for the Development of Agricultural Implements 2.1 Goals to Implement Development. An overall strategy for the development of agricultural implements is simple in design but its execu- tion can be fraught with difficulties. The problems do not generally stem from a lack of engineering ability but rather with the identification and specification of a mechanization need within realistic limits. The objec- tives to implement development must be clearly defined and to be success- ful any new machine must fulfill the following criteria: (a) carry out an operation with greater speed, accuracy, ease or reliability and/or at less cost than previously possible with available equipment, and (b) be within the manufacturing capability of local artisans or manufacturers. As such, no agricultural implement development can be started without a working knowledge of the requirements of the crop production system. An Improved Approach 2.2 The primary reason for the low adoption rate of new implements in smallholder agriculture is because R&D objectives have not been adequately defined to meet farmers needs. To achieve this, the planning process needs to be systematically designed and followed on a multidis- ciplinary basis. The following steps are recommended for the implementa- tion of an effective R&D program for agricultural implements. -16- PROJECT FILE Item 3 -. Page 3 2.3 Farming Systems Analysis (FSA). Small multidisciplinary teams would be set up within the various agroeco10gic zones to conduct on-farm surveys so that the current farming systems can be described in terms of cash, labor, technical and time1ines constraints. The team would need the advice and support of the agricultural extension and research services but one of the teams' objectives would be to enhance research management capability at the regional level. This work would be conducted in four stages: (a) Study the production environment of farmers so that their main management problems can be understood; (b) Describe how farmers meet these problems i.e., what they do, how they do it and explain why they approach their priorities in the ways they do; (c) Identify the priority and secondary constraints that prevent farmers from achieving better or more reliable crop production; and (d) Provide the operational specifications for improved cultural practices that could be achieved with new or improved management or mechanization techniques. 2.4 Identification of Agricultural Engineering Needs. For this work, a FSA team is needed which would typically comprise an agronomist, agricultural engineer and agricultural economist. To be effective, all members must be committed to these studies which would have the following objectives: (a) Identify primary and secondary constraints to effective crop production; (b) Describe the mechanization (i.e. farm equipment) systems used by the farmers and explain how these are determined by climatic, soil, agronomic and economic factors; -17- PROJECT FILE Item 3 Page 4 (c) Where improved mechanization is thought to be appropriate, develop zero-option and suboptimal models 1/, in addition to optimal models 11 resulting from research station experience; this type of analysis will provide evidence for the selection of a relevant system and machinery designs; (d) Where an improved implement is required, provide cost ceiling for the viable implement and specifications for agronomic or soil requirements for optimum crop growth and effect of reducing these; and (e) Conduct a survey to establish whether the required equipment LS already available in another State. 2.5 The approach taken in these studies will depend upon whether the farming system is rainfed, based on residual soil moisture or irrigated. With dryland farming, where cultural practices are primarily determined by climate, soil type and available draught power, timeliness of operations is usually of overriding importance. For investigations into tillage and planting practices, a soil physicist would be included in the team and sometimes the services of a soil and water engineer would also be needed. In irrigated agricul~ure, due consideration must be given to water use management and mUltiple cropping aspects will warrant special attention to market analysis. In all this work, it must be stressed that the introduction of more efficient crop production systems is the primary goal and new farm implements should only be developed within this context. 11 zero option productivity of agricultural system without improved technology component. 11 optimal model potential productivity of improved system or technologies operating under ideal conditions (e.g. as often found on research stations). 11 suboptimal model = potential productivity of improved technology used under pre- and postoptimal conditions in addition to optimal (e.g. tillage cannot always be con- ducted when soil is friable since soil can be hard early in the season and more weedy later). These considerations on system capability are par- ticularly important for implements since they need to be used over sufficiently long periods to keep costlha low, i.e., on-farm conditions. -18- PROJECT FILE Item 3 Page 5 III. An Action Plan 3.1 Farming System Analysis Team. The Farming System Analysis (FSA) teams would be constituted at the Regional Agricultural Research Stations. To a large extent, field studies can be carried out along with Status Report preparation. The project will need to be ongoing to cover different seasons and crop regimes but a diagnostic approach to these studies would be developed to indicate trends early on in the studies for research management use. The team would have the following responsibilities: (a) The Agronomist would: (i) identify cropping systems of the major crops grown in the area and produce seasonal operational charts for each cropping pattern; (ii) quantify the effects of soil type, seed quality, timeliness of sowing, fertilizer use, weed control and pest control for major crops grown; (iii) highlight priority and secondary constraints to high crop yields; and (iv) for improved crop production suggest possible technical innovations, solutions from examples of what has been done elsewhere, and removal of constraints from a technical standpoint; (b) The Agricultural Engineer would: (i) catalogue the types of hand, animal-drawn and engine-driven agricultural equipment used in the area; (ii) indicate the quantity of each piece of equipment in the area and rank their importance; (iii) report on custom-hire basis availability (e.g. ploughing, irrigation and spraying equipment, threshers, etc.); (iv) produce charts showing seasonal use for each type of implement; (v) quantitatively describe the manufacturing and repair resources available locally for the above equipment and potentials for maintaining higher technology machinery; and (vi) develop and use, in conjunction with other team members, a questionnaire to establish if there are mechanization constraints to more efficient or reliable crop production; and (c) The Agricultural Economist would: (i) quantify and describe present and potential sources of farm income; (ii) study! record labor and financial inputs for the various cropping systems, highlighting peak requirements and constraints; (iii) investigate markets for the crops grown so that predictions can be made on the effect of timeliness of production and the value of alternative cropping patterns; (iv) describe sources for seed, fertilizer, machinery hire, etc; (v) identify institutional constraints like land tenure and credit; -19- PROJECT FILE Item 3 Page 6 (vi) develop with other team members models for potential income where certain agronomic or mechanization constraints are removed; and (vii) indicate cost limits for improved implements or husbandry inputs whose introduction could enhance agricultural production. 3.2 Agricultural Engineering Development (AED) Unit. Within iden- tified agroecologic zones, agricultural engineers would be provided with sufficient support staff (technicians, mechanics, typist, drivers, etc.) to evaluate currently available machinery, modify where necessary or design new equipment to fit the criteria provided by the Farming Systems Analysis Team. It would be adequate if two or more agroecological zones representing different soil types/irrigation/rainfall are identified and developed in each state to work on the agricultural engineering needs. 3.3 To do this work, workshops equipped for basic development work would be needed as well as technical support from agronomists, soil scien- tists and extension workers to implement the development and extension activities. Equipment manufacturers should also be consulted at an early stage on machine design and production costs. The implement must be finally tested on farmers' fields and performance should be monitored by the FSA Team. It must be recognized, however, that it is the farmer who is the final judge of a machine's suitability. 3.4 The Role of SAU Engineers and Economists. The agricultural engineers and economists at SAU headquarters would provide active techni- cal backup to farming systems and agricultural engineering development teams at the selected regional research stations. A small multidiscipli- nary group at SAU would be identified for this role. Frequent contacts with the SUbproject would be necessary and where appropriate, SAU staff should be seconded to the subproject as this would provide field experience that will benefit subsequent teaching/research programs. SAU would also modify their teaching programs to accommodate the improved approach to agricultural implement development by an integration of the various agricultural disciplines at SAU and some staff training in recent techniques of farming system analysis and equipment development. 3.5 The Role of the Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (CIAE) Bhopal. The Central Institute would play an important role by providing specialist support in the following areas: (a) Selection and provision of available equipment that is considered suited to the mechanization needs identified by the farming systems studies (FSA teams); -20- PROJECT FILE Item 3 Page 1 (b) Provision of engineering design expertise where a new or modified equipment is needed; (c) Facilitate on-farm farmer evaluation of agricultural implements; and (d) Training of SAU/FSA teams in implement design and field testing techniques. In addition to the above, CIAE would produce, in conjunction with manufac- turers, a specification/cost ratio manual. This would provide agricul- tural scientists with cost guidelines for a range of machinery specifica- tions, e.g., what would be the relative hardware and operational costs between shallow and deep tillage, 3-row and 6-row seed drills, etc. This information would help regional research stations and FSA teams to more accurately specify their implement requirements. 3.6 Certain mechanization problems would require the application of new technologies not currently practiced or available in India. In these circumstances, the approach to development would benefit from a broader worldwide experience and this can be achieved through ,the link that CIAE has with the British National Institute of Agricultural Engineering (NIAE) and other institutions. The CIAE/NIAE exchange program already includes design, equipment and training components that could be tailored to meet the agricultural engineering development needs of the project. 3.1 Training. The Multidisciplinary Farming System approach to agricultural engineering project identification and research management, would necessitate training to FSA teams by CIAE and in other countries who are working in similar fields. 3.8 Staff Motivation. The above approach would necessitate the appointment of high-calibre staff, and this could be better achieved by provision of a revised motivation system for scientists in agriculture and engineering. , -21- PROJECT FILE Item 3 Appendix 1 Page 1 Puniabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth: Akola Central Vidarbha Zone Regional Research Station, Yavatmal 1. The Status Report would be prepared by a multidisciplinary team which should include an agronomist, agricultural economist and agricul- tural engineer. Special attention would be given to quantifying the labor, financial and technical constraints to crop production. This information can be used to determine what aspects would benefit from small-scale mechanization inputs and within what cash limits agricultural implements should be made available. An agricultural engineer with mechanics and other support staff would be provided at Yavatmal to conduct this work. To be effective, the engineer would need a small workshop and implement building (about lOO/m2), transport and equipment 11 for on-farm equipment evaluation work. Only implements suitable to local conditions would be made available for this work. To be effective, the Farming Systems Analysis team at Yavatmal will work with other disciplines and will rely on the College of Agriculture Engineering at Akola for specialist support. 2. Where a need has been identified (by the Status Report) for a new or improved implement, further work would be done in collaboration with the Agricultural Engineering Faculty at Akola. The Research and Development (R&D) of any implement would receive technical support from CIAE and a combined program of off-station field evaluation would be prepared by Akola and Yavatmal staff. Areas requiring priority attention for agriculture engineering inputs at Yavatmal will include studies of tillage practices for dryland farming, double cropping on clay soils, and soil and water conservation. The development of improved cultural practices for Ver- tisols (montmorillonitic clays) and their management will require specialist inputs. 11 Workshop Tools: Portable drill and stand bench grinder: arc and gas welding equipment; pipe bending machine; some carpentry, blacksmith, and machine tools; and drawing equipment. -22- PROJECT FILE Item 3 - Appendix 1 Page 2 SAU Akola 3. SAU would provide technical support to the regional station's efforts by assigning a team comprising an agronomist, agricultural economist and agricultural engineer. PROJECT FILE -23- Item 3 Appendix 2 Page 1 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: Coimbatore A. Agricultural Engineering Facilities 1. Resources and Present Situation. The resources of staff, workshops and equipment at the College of Agricultural Engineering at Tamil Nadu Agriculture University (TNAU), Coimbatore are considerable. The departments include: Farm Machinery, Agricultural Processing, Agricultural Structures, and Soil and Water Conservation. Other activities on the campus concerned with Agricultural Engineering are the Zonal Research Center for Agricultural Implements, the Agro-Energy Center, the Water Technology Center and the IRRI Equipment Project funded by USAID. In addition to the Dean, there are about 25 positions at the Professor and Associate Professor level and nearly 60 Assistant Professor posts have been sanctioned with some 65% of these having been filled. Most of the teaching and research commitments of these professors entail no off-station activities. 2. The workshop facilities at TNAU are extensive and the workshop components of the above departments and centers probably cover more than one hectare of land and most of this is roofed over by buildings. Many different types of agriculture implements and machines are available at these workshops and there must be about 200 examples of various prototypes which were either developed at TNAU or sent there for trial. A recent publication entitled: "Improved Farm Implements and Processing Machineries" by Manian and Kathirvel (1984) published by CAE/TNAU lists and describes some 71 items of equipment with which TNAU has been con- cerned. 3. The Agricultural Economics group at TNAU was constituted in 1979 and consists of the following: Center for Agricultural and Rural Develop- ment Studies (CARDS), Department of Agricultural Economics, and uepartment of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology. This group is primarily concerned with on campus teaching and research activities with one economist attached to the Agro-Energy Center and one to the Water Technol- ogy Center. There has been no involvement with the Department of Farm Machinery and apparently even the socioeconomic projects do not include anyon-farm activities. The Agricultural Economics Department is presently limiting its horizons to postproject impact measurement. -24- PROJECT FILE Item 3 Appendix 2 Page 2 4. Adoption of Agricultural Engineering Developments. Few if any of the implements developed have been adopted by local farmers. The reason for this is said to be related to problems of pUblicity (ref. Manian & Kathirvel, 1984) and the inability of manufacturers to produce a quality product at a low price. The economists at TNAU felt that a "constraints analysis" as to why the new equipment was no being used would provide the answers. This emphasis on postproject analysis clearly demonstrates that the concepts for the role of agricultural economists in project iden- tification for agricultural implement development were inappropriate. The development of appropriate machinery for farmer use will necessitate a multidisciplinary approach from the outset. On-farm studies are also essential and these should quantify the financial limits within which a new machine would remain viable to a given farming system. B. Regional Research Station, Paiyur 5. Resources and Present Situation. The Associate Director and his staff at Paiyur are developing a practical understanding of the problems faced by local farmers. The motivation of the team at Paiyur towards alleviating some of these problems is most encouraging and some guidance in a strategy for agriculture implements would yield tangible results. The production of a good Status Report has been instrumental' in building up the awareness of research staff in locally practiced farming systems. Agricultural engineering facilities at Paiyur are practically nonexistent at present as there is no agricultural mechanization engineer at the station and workshop facilities are limited to a 6-bay implement garage. 6. Farming Systems Analysis (FSA) Teams. Farming Systems Analysis teams need to be set up at Paiyur and Adudhurai to identify the agricul- tural engineering needs of farmers. The FSA team at Paiyur would con- centrate on the identification of production constraints under rainfed and dry land conditions. The FSA team at Adudhurai would study rice production and the possibilities within intensive irrigated agriculture. Each team would consist of an Agronomist, Agricultural Engineer and Agricultural Economist. Additionally, other diciplines like Soil Physics and Water Use Management expertise would need to be consulted in this work. The terms of reference for the FSA teams are outlined in the proposed Strategy (Item 3, para 3.1). FSA teams would form part of the multidisciplinary team at the regional station. -25- PROJECT FILE Item 3 Appendix 2 Page 3 7. Agricultural Engineering Development (AED) Units. These AED units (para 3.2 of Strategy) would be based at Paiyur and Adudhurai and would comprise an agricultural engineer, mechanic and some support staff. Adequate workshop facilities and equipment would be provided (Item 3, Appendix 1, para 1). 8. SAU support. The Agricultural Engineering Department would form its own multidisciplinary team (Agronomist, Agricultural Economist, Agricultural Engineer, and Soil Physicist) to function as specialist support and resource team to backstop work at regional stations, including designing and fabrication of new equipment based on identified needs. The Agricultural Engineering Faculty would have the role of a Central Faculty and Research Center to support all field research programs. , /usrl2/aspab/cristine/ramak/item4/l/2S/8S/Record -26- Project File Item 4 - INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Abbreviations Used to Indicate Names of SAUs APAU Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University AAU Assam Agricultural University BAU Birsa Agricultural University, Bihar RAU Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar GAU Gujarat Agricultural University HAU Haryana Agricultural University HPKVV Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya UAS University of Agricultural Sciences, Karnataka KAU Kerala Agricultural University JNKVV Jawaharlal.Nehru Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya, Madhya Pradesh MPKVV Mahatma Phule Krishi Viswa Viddyapeeth, Maharashtra PKV Punjabrao Krishi Vishwavidyapeeth, Maharashtra KKV Konkan Krishi Vishwavidyapeeth, Maharashtra MAU Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Maharashtra OUAT Orissa-University of Agriculture and Technology PAU Punjab Agricultural University . MLSU Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Rajasthan TNAU Tamil Nadu Agricultural Univeristy GBPUAT Gobind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Uttar Pradesh _ NDUAT Narendra Deo University of Agriculture and Technology, Uttar Pradesh CSAUT Chandra Sekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology BCKVV Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, West Bengal PROJ~£I FILE -27- Item 4 Page 1 Ilfl)IA NATIONA. AGRI£yLTU!6~ R!S~CK PIQJ!CI II S2illovI[ olPr2ilctl C_~ttl!l ~II 11m I R!A.areh §Sb-2IO i_cta (RI Million) !ata.ted Di.buUl!!en&! in Nm II Sanction COIIpletioll S4IIctioned Di.buru.. ent by Spillover 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 Oni vert i tIL SUD-2rO jee ta DI~e l!I~e COlt SeilS I 30. U§~ to KA.IlP II (Six !!e!!Sh!l g!Jl. 1. Haady41 1/11/80 31/10/85 6.108 5.824 0.884 0.884 2. Anak"palli 1/9/81 31/8/86 6.787 4.903 l.084 1.084 0.800 3. R.llore Kadr i 1/2/85 31/1/90 8.500 0.300 8.200 0.830 1.660 2.075 2.075 1.560 4. R... t"kunta Bavi 7/3/85 1/3/90 ~ ...J!.,.ill llL..UQ. ..LQ1Q. ~ ..l....ill ..l....ill hQiQ. lLill. 1Llli !Lll1 ~ ~ ...Llli. 4.590 3.650 ill 1. Dant:iwada 1/11/80 30/10/85 14.341 13.826 0.515 0.515 2- Nav.ari 1/1/82 31/12/86 6.737 5.024 0.713 0.700 1.013 3. Jua"garb 1/7/82 30/6/87 8.020 5.920 2.100 0.800 0.900 0.400 4. Anand 1/4/83 31/3/88 ..L..2ll ...l..J.21 ...J..!§.Q. ~ ...l...iQ! -WQl!. --- --- 36.060 27.872 ...!l....!.Q -Llli. ..J...ill. ~ --- --- l!&!. 1. Kar",,1 !Caul 1/6/82 31/5/87 11.071 7 .861 3.204 1.500 1.400 0.304 --- --- --- 2. Sire. 1/6/82 31/5/87 ...L..m -Lill ~ ...Q..ll!!. 0.300 ..lL.lQi ll..1ll! L.U! 4.110 -1...ll.Q.Q. -Ll.!l.9. 0.410 --- J!lKVV 1. 1ikamgarb 1/4/81 31/3/86 7.028 5.248 1.780 1.780 2. Morena 1/12/81 30/11/86 4.592 3.812 0.180 0.480 0.300 3. Ambikapur 1/12181 30/11/86 8.383 6.323 2.060 LIOO 0.960 4. Sehou- Sagar 1/9/83 31/8/11 10.351 2.350 8.001 1.501 3.000 3.000 0.500 5, Kymore Plateau 1/2185 31/1/90 ....i.Jll!Jl. .JL1lQ. ...Lll2. ..!.l!12. -L.l!l1. -L.ill. ...Lill. -l...&2ll. ll.:.lli. 111.083 ll...lli ...1.l.ll ...L.QQ2. ...i..:..ill. 2.675 ....hill UAS 1. Bratuhavar 1/4/81 31/3/86 11.130 7.630 3.500 3.500 2. Bidar-Raichut' 1/4/81 31/3/86 4.084 3.296 0.788 0.788 3. Hudigere 1/4/81 3113/86 6.874 4.832 2.042 2.042 4. HUD.ur Mav il. 1/12/81 30/11/86 4.860 2.888 1.972 1.072 0.900 5. Nagamangala 1/1/83 31/12/87 -4...ill lWll -L.W. 19...W. .L..ill. .!!L.i.U ~ -L.2U -l&Q.Q. ...L1Q2. ..J2..&Ql!. ~ --- --- --- --- -28- ,¢ P!2:1ECT FILE .ll.\I.!!!..i Page 2 I!.ti.... ud Ditbuli:!Elel1t8 ill. 1161\1' II sanction COIIpletioa Sanctioned Dilb'II.'._eat by Spillover 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 ydveraity/Sub-pro iest! D.u Oat. COlt Sept. 30. 1985 to IIID II (Silt !Ioathl) ~ 1. P.tt ....bi 1/9/81 31/8/86 8.41t6 6.222 2.224 1.200 1.024 l- Vellayani 1/9/81 3118/86 8.177 5.756 2.421 1.400 1.021 3. KUlllnakOll 1/9/81 31/8/86 11.390 7.499 3.891 2.091 1.800 4. Water !!aug ....ellt 1/4/83 3113/88 2.172 1.485 0.687 0.125 0.280 0.282 5. Ambal away al 1/9/83 31/8/88 ..1..rlll ..L.ill. ...LllI.2. ..1..!2it ..l!....§QQ. .J!...:1llQ. ~ -- MLSU .u..m. ll...ill. 11.123 ...Llli. ...i.1U 0.582 0.200 -- 1. lIn.gaoll 1/11/80 31/10/85 6.441 5.621 0.820 0.820 2. !)urg.pura 1/11/80 31/10/85 4.436 4.081 0.355 0.355 3. Fatehpur 19/12/83 30/11/88 10.906 1.076 9.830 2.030 3.500 3.000 1.300 4. Sr igangalllga r 1/2182 31/1/87 6.264 4.262 2.002 0.800 1.202 S. Ban.wara 1/4/83 31/3/88 ....!.dll 1.Z....Ul. ...L.W. ll....W. ..1..ill. 20,679 -L.ill. ..i.m. ...LMQ. ..1...1.Q1 ..l.&Q.Q. ~ 1.300 - --- mY. l. Aduthurai 1/3/81 2812/86 10.875 9.062 1.813 1.813 2. Paiyur 1/9/81 31/8/86 4.915 4.212 0.703 0.400 0.303 3. Vridhachala.. 1/1/82 31112/86 8.943 5.242 3.701 2.000 1.701 4. Pachipparai 1/11/82 31/10/87 4.329 2.713 1.616 0.700 0.600 0.316 5. Atuppukottai 1/6/82 3115/81 10.305 2.450 7.855 2.500 2.500 2.855 - --- --- 6. Thadiyanakudiui 1/11/82 31110/87 ..!.t..ill. 2.748 ...!...ill. ~ ~ .J!...:1llQ. &..ill.. 26.427 lLJ.U. ...LJl..!1 ....L.lli. ..J.....ill. -- lA1!. 1. bndi 1/3/81 28/2/86 7.181 6.252 0.929 0.929 2. Zaa.. II • III 1/6/82 31/5/87 -Llll ...h!il ..2...llll ~ ...!...ill. ...!...Q!1 --- -- 14.434 10.420 ...i..lli. ..Lill. ...!...ill. -L.Qll - -- !:N! 1. Goalpara 1/9/81 31/8/86 10.317 5.300 5.017 3.000 2.017 2. Lakhimpur 1/9/81 3118/86 10.726 5.630 5.096 3.096 2.000 3. Diphu 1/11/82 31/10/87' 5.724 4.337 1.387 0.587 0.400 0.400 4. 'l'itablr 1/12/84 30/11/89 7.000 0.500 6.500 0.650 1.300 1.625 1.625 1.300 5. Karimgaaj 2/3/85 1/3/90 ...Lm ~ ....Ll22. ....Q...ll2. ..5l...lQ!!. ..Lill. 0.875 ..5l...lQ!!. lZ..1li 1Llli .u...J22 ...L.W. -Lill ~ ...L122. ..l..J!.2!!. -29- PROJE~I FILE lU!!....i Page 3 lati_teli llj,.buro ....."t I in NMP n S&l1ctioo. COlilpletioll S&l1etiol1ed lli.b ..u ....l1t by Spillovu 1935/36 1986/87 1937/S8 1988/89 1989/90 Onive;. ity/Sub-pro j.ct. pate Det. Coat Sept. 30. 1985 to liMP !I (Six !!o"thal J!!!!! 1. lIdaigiri 1/11/82 30/11/87 7.502 2.700 4.802 1.800 2.000 1.002 2. IIhavanipatu 1/4/83 31/3/83 6.891 1.927 4.964 1.064 2.000 1.900 3. U.erkQte 1/4/33 31/ l/88 5.497 2.859 2.633 0.638 1.000 1.000 4. Ranita! 119/83 31/8/88 8.722 4.410 4.312 0.812 1.500 1.400 0.600 5. lIahiupat 117 /84 30/6/89 ...L.ill. -L1.2!l. ..!.t..lli. ~ ~ ..I....lli. ..I....lli. 0.916 2L.W. 1W.2.t llJ!.ll 4.744 ..L.1§..Q. ..LllL -LID. .JL.lli CSAOAT 1. aarari 1/6/83 31/5/38 8.917 6.976 1.941 0.541 0.800 0.300 0.300 2. lIadurikund 1/7/84 30/6/89 9.396 0.700 8.696 0.860 1.72.0 2.150 2.150 1.816 3. Central Plaina - llalipnagar 2/3/85 1/3/90 1Q...lQ.!!. ~ 10.000 ..L.2!!.Q. ~ ~ -W2.2. ..1.Jl.Q.Q. !LW. ..!L..lli. ~ -Lill 4.520 4.950 ...!i.J!1Q. ~ GBl'lIAT 1. hnich.uri 1/9/83 31/8/88 10.791 5.200 5.591 l.091 2.000 2.000 0.500 2- Daural. 1/9/83 31/8/88 9.673 3.382 6.291 1.291 2.500 2.000 0.500 3. Hill Zone - Majhera 1/12/84 30/11/89 3.000 0.500 2.500 0.250 0.500 0.625 0.625 0.500 4. Mid-W .. t Plain - Magina 1/12/S4 30/11/89 ..L!t.Q2. ~ ...L2!l.Q. ...lL..lli. .JW!Q. .JWll ...Q.....lli ~ 26.864 ....L.ill .u..m .b.lli. ...L.ill. ..1...ll2. --WlQ. ~ NDlIAT 1. Gograghat 1/7184 30/6/89 5.273 0.500 4.773. 0.470 0.940 Ll75 1.175 1.0D Ym 1. Bajau". 1/12/82 30111/87 12.003 7 .865 4.133 1.038 2.000 1.100 2. Dhaulakuan 1/9/83 31/8/88 12.329 4.997 7.332 1.532 2.500 2.500 0.800 l. lIuhobra 1/1/85 311.12/89 ll.:..QQQ. ..L.QQ2. 11.000 ...L.lQQ. ...1.:l.22. ..l...lQ2. .l...l.!£Q. -Ll.Q.Q. 1L.m. ll...ill. 22,470 ..2...ill ~ 6,300 ~ -Ll.Q.Q. !J.ll. 1. S.bour 1/9/83 31/8/88 8.676 7.297 1.379 0.279 0.500 0.400 0.200 2. N.II. Alluvial Plain 1/12184 30/11/89 ll..W! ~ !Q...W1. -L..Ql2. ~ ...L.lli ..b.lli ...1.:l.22. !L.ill. ...L1.ll !.Lill -L.lli. ...LM2. ....LiZ.l ...L1ll. .1...1.Q.ll -30- PIlQJECT FILE It ... ·4 Page 4 Enill&tee OiabuII.men~1 in NARP II Sanction C"",phtion Sanctionee Ohbuu ....nt by Spillover 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 Univer.ity/Sub-pro; 1St. Oau Oat. CotS Sept. 30, 1985 to KAIU' II (Six !lontb.) lIPlVV I. Sholapur /Tul Japur 19/12/83 30/11/88 6.036 3.150 2.886 0.386 0.900 0.900 0.700 2. Sub....ountain - lolhapur 2/3/85 1/3/90 11.000 0.250 10.750 1.070 2,140 2.675 2.675 2.190 3. Wutern Chat - Ig.atpur1 2/3/85 1/3/90 .1Lll! .....!..&QQ. !Jl..:.lli. .-l...Jl.!.Q. .-L.Q!Q. ..L.ill ..l.:..ill. ..1...lli lL..lli. ...i..!Q.2. ll..!U9. ..l.dil ...l..Q!Q. ....L.!Q! 2....i2.Q. 4.284 m 1. Vengurla 1/9/83 3118/88 7.675 3.180 4,495 0,895 1.600 1.600 0.40U 2, North lI:onkan 117/84 30/6/89 .l...ill. ....!l....ill ~ ..2..ill. ....!.....12Q. 1.625 1.625 ....L.ill. !.Lll1. ...!..lli. .l2...ill .J..:.m .bill. ...Llli ...Llli. 1.302 t!.M!. 1. Central A.. uree Rainfall 117/84 30/6/89 11,360 0.930 10.430 1.040 2.080 2,600 2.600 2.110 m I. Sinewahi 19/12/83 30/11/88 6.036 1.696 4.340 0.740 1.500 1.500 0.600 '!6.!I. 1. Chaoki 111/85 31/12/89 5.637 0.500 5.137 0.410 0.820 1.025 1.02' 1.857 2. 3. Dumka Dari •• i 1/1/85 1/1/85 31/12/89 31112/89 ~ 7.869 ....LID. 0.500 ~ ..Li£Il. 7,369 ...L1!!1. 1L.W. 0.730 ..Lll!!. -L.lli. 1.460 ....!....lli. ..!...ll!l.' 1.815 ..L..ill. ..i..ill 1.825 ...L.lll .i..ill 1.529 .J...,.lli 5.328 -- TOTAL 554.381 245,050 309.331 74.091 87.121 72.440 43,990 31.689 -31- PROJECt FILE Item 4 Pale 5 INDIA NAtIONAL AGRICOLIURAL RB5~CR PIOJECI II S]!illover of frQjeecs Commit,sg in KARP I 52eeia! Re.eareh and training Sub-erojeets 01111ion llo) tstiuted Disbur·eents in NARP II Date of Closing Sanetioned Dilburaeunt Spillover 1985/86 1986/81 1981/88 Total Oniveraity/lnatitution Sanlition Dlte Coat Sept. 30! 1985 of HARP II (aix months) S]!ecial leaearch !lAU haic Reaeareh 1/12181 30/11/86 1.298 1.014 0.284 0.070 0.100 0.110 Brasaiea 1/11/82 31/10/81 2.031 1.394 0.643 0.015 0.200 0.100 0.375 TNAU iIOlogiea1 Research 1/9/81 31/8186 2.897 2.400 0.497 0.100 0.100 0.200 PAU haic Research 1/6/82 31/5/87 4.152 3.540 0.612 0.075 0.300 0.075 0.450 SU Basic Research 1/9/81 31/8/81 3.808 .2..lli.. ~ 0.100 .J!....QlQ. - 0.170 14.192 11.611 ..bill 0.420 ~ 0.115 1.365 Training URI 14/9/82 3118/87 12.500 5.951 6.549 2.049 2.500 2.000 6.549 NAAB.M 24/11/82 31/8/87 9.002 5.862 .2..liQ. -L.2.M 1.140 0.500 3.140 2'l.So'2 11.813 9.689 3.549 3.640 2.500 9.689 , "" -3Z- PRO:lfi!-:r ~=J Amravat ................ -4- -- =f I __ andraplr ;gat\. _. . . ~ I .j::o- I-' Southern Konkan Coastal Zone C!:I3 I North Konkan Coastal Zone ~ Western Ghat Zone Sub Montane Zone - [ D] ill] Western Maharashtra Plain Zone Western Maharashtra Dry Zone o Central Maharashtra Plateau ~ Central Vidharbha Zone mm Eastern Vidharbha Zone IIIIII1 /usr12/aspab/cristine/ramak/itemSdixes/2/S/85/Revision PROJECT FILE -42- Item 5 Appendix 1 Page I - INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproiect: RRS Yavatmal and Substations A. Scientific Staff Requirements Associate Assistant Professor Professor Professor Regional Research Station, Yavatmal Associate Director I Agronomist I 2 Plant Breeder I 3 Entomologist I I Pathologist I I Soil Scientist . I Economist I Agricultural Engineer 1 Extensionist 1 Substation, Nagpur Agronomist 1 Plant Pathologist 1 Entomologist I Breeder I Substation, Tharsa Agronomist 1 I Soil Physicist 1 Soil & Water Cons-Engineer I Breeder I Pathologist 1 Entomologist 1 Economist 1 • -43- PROJECT FILE Item 5 Appendix 1 Page 2 Associate Assistant Professor Professor Professor Substation, Ekarjuna Agronomist 1 Breeder 1 Special Station, Kato1 Physiologist 1 Agronomist 1 Special Station, Nanded Soil Scientist 1 Agri-Economist 1 Extentionist 1 Agronomist 1 -1 Total 3 14 20 B. Technical Support Staff Requirements (Incremental) Yavatma1 Nagpur Tharsa Kato1 Total Sr. Research Assistants 4 4 Jr. Research Assistants 4 4 Field Assistants 3 3 1 1 8 Lab Assistants 4 2 2 2 10 C. Administrative and Maintenance Support (Incremental) Yavatmal Nagpur Tharsa Katol Nanded Total Admin. & Accounts Officer 1 1 2 Senior Clerk 1 1 2 Asst. Section Officer 1 1 Section Assistant 1 1 Store Keeper 1 1 1 1 4 Stenotypist 1 1 2 Clerk/Typist 2 2 1 5 Driver 3 1 1 1 1 7 Mechanic/Electrician 3 1 4 -44- PROJECT FILE Item 5 Appendix 1 Page 3 D. Schedule of Incremental Staff Costs 1/ A. Scientific Rs per Month Rs "'000 p.a. 3 Professors @ 3300 119 14 Associate Professors @ 3000 504 20 Assistant Professors @ 2300 552 1 1 175 B. Technical Support 5 Senior Research Assistants @ 2000 120 4 Junior Research Assistants @ 1500 72 10 Field Assistants @ 1200 144 10 Laboratory Assistants @ 800 96 432 C. Administrative & Maintenance Support 2 Admin. & Accounts Officers @ 2000 48 2 Senior Clerks @ 1250 30 1 Asst. Section Officer @ 1450 17 1 Section Assistant @ 1000 12 4 Store Keepers @ 1000 48 2 Stenotypists @ 1250 30 5 Clerk/Typists @ 1000 60 7 Drivers @ 1000 84 3 Mechanics/Electricians @ 1000 2§. 365 Total 1,972 ==:::== 1/ Calculated at around midpoint on SAU (UGC) scale, including all allowances. -45- PROJECT FILE Item 5 Appendix 2 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproject: RRS Yavatmal and Substations Civil Works Component Project Description 1.01 RRS Yavatmal will be located on the site of the existing small station established in 1920. Of the few existing buildings (seed stores, godowns, 4 staff residences and a bullock shed), most were constructed nearly 60 years ago and are in a state of disrepair and it is not economi- cal to invest funds to renovate them. The farm dr~ins, roads, culverts, wells and fencing, however, require major repairs or new works. 1.02 New construction would include research laboratories, administra- tive offices, workshops, farm structures, staff housing and a training hostel. A preliminary schedule of accommodation is included in Page 3-5. 1.03 The existing land would be developed further by shaping, laying roads, providing adequate drainage, digging two new wells and deepening existing wells. The fence line would be relaid where mending is not adequate. Implementation and Procurement 2.01 A detailed architectural brief would be assembled by the SAU architects and construction engineers in consultation with the research staff. Professional architect services would be retained from the private sector to prepare the master plan, detailed design drawings and contract documents. Appointment of Architect would be made after ICAR approval. Contractors would be pre-qualified under acceptable procedures and con- struction contracts would be awarded as per SAU procedures. The award would be subject to ICAR approval. 2.02 The SAU Engineering Department would administer the bidding procedures and award of contract. Resident engineers would provide site supervision during construction. Cost Estimates 3.01 The total cost of the civil works component would amount to Rs 7.13 million. A detailed cost analysis is provided at Page 4. -46- PROJECT FILE ~ Item 5 Appendix 2 Page 2 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproject: RRS Yavatmal and Substations Schedule of Accommodation Staff No. of Space Capacity Units Nos A. Yavatmal RRS Central Facilities Laboratories Agronomy 3 1 37 37 Plant Breeding 4 2 37 74 Entomology 2 1 37 37 Plant Pathology 2 2 5 37 Soil Science 1 2 5 37 Researchers/Officers 1 8 12 96 Seminar Room 30 1 36 36 Associate Diector 1 1 20 20 Administrative Offices 6 1 37 37 Storage 1 15 15 Toilets 2 15 ...d.Q. 456 Grossing 35% 160 616 Workshops Agricultural Engineering Workshops 100 Trainees Hostel-cum-Class Room 350 1.086 Farm Structures Rat Proof Godown 1 100 100 Cattle Shed 1 30 30 Vehicle Shed 1 40 40 Housing Farm Manager 1 112 112 1.348 -47- PROJECT FILE Item 5 Appendix 2 Page 3 B. Research Station. Nagpur Central Facilities Office Cum Laboratory 1 150 150 Training Hostel and Classroom 1 200 200 Farm Structures Rat Proof Godown 1 50 50 Shed for vehicle/imp1emnts 1 50 50 Housing Farm Manager 1 112 112 562 C. Research Sub-station. Tharsa Central Facilities Office Cum Laboratory 1 200 200 Farm Structures Rat Proof Godown 1 50 50 Shed for vehicle/implements 1 50 50 Housing Professor 1 196 196 Asst. Professor 3 112 336 832 D. Research Substation. Ekariuna Central Facilities Office Cum laboratory and Training Hall 1 60 60 Housing Assistance Professor 1 112 112 172 -48- PROJECT FILE Item 5 Appendix 2 Page 4 E. Fruit Research Station. Katol Central Facilities Additional Laboratories 2 30 60 Housing Associate Professor 1 173 173 Assistant Professor 1 112 ....!ll. 345 F. Cotton Research Station, Nanad Central Facilities Seminar cum Library Hall 1 100 100 Farm Structures Renovation Costs 1 (lump sum) Rs 100,000 Bullock Shed 1 65 65 Housing Farm Manager 1 112 112 ABSTRACT OF ~IVIL WORKS M Yavatmal Nagpur Tharsa Ekarjuna Katol Nanded Total Central Facilities 1,066 350 200 60 60 100 1,836 Farm Structures 170 100 100 65 435 Housing 112 112 532 112 285 112 1,265 3,536 PROJECT FILE -49- Item 5 Appendix 2 Page 5 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproject, RRS Yavatma1 and Substations Cost Estimate of Civil Works Rs'OOO 1. Construction Costs Central Facilities 1,836 M 2 2 @Rs 1,200 M2 2,203 Housing 2 1,265 MaRs 1,200 M 1,518 3,721 2. Design and Construction Contingency (4% on Central Facilities only) 88 3. Electrification Charges 5% on 1 186 4. Water Supply and Sanitary fittings 5% on 1 186 5. Fixtures, Furniture, etc. 5% on Central Faci1ties only 110 6. Experimental Farm Development 1I 1,625 1. Farm Structures 435 M2 @ Rs 100 M2 and Rs 100,000 lump sum for restoration of farm Stores as Nanded 405 6,321 8. Price Escalation 1 1/2 years @ 8.5% 806 Total 1,121 -====- 1/ Yavatma1 Rs 850,000; Nanded Rs 300,000; Nagpur Rs 125,000; Tharsa Rs 200,000; Ekarjuna Rs 50,000 and Kato1 Rs 100,000. PROJECT FILE -50- Item 5 Appendix 3 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproiect: RRS Yavatmal and Substations Equipment List 1. Office and Educational Equipment Equipment Yavatmal Nagpur Tharsa Ekajuna Katol Nanded Total Rs"'OOO Typewriter 2 1 1 1 5 20 Duplicator 1 1 15 Slide Projectors 1 1 1 24 Overhead Projector 1 1 1 1 4 24 Camera with accessories 1 1 ~ 91 2. Transport Jeep 1 1 1 1 1 5 600 Minibus 1 1 150 Motorcycle 1 1 1 1 4 48 798 3. Farm Equipment Tractor with accessories 1 1 150 Thessing Machine 1 1 15 Other Implements 125 11 290 4. Meteorological Equipment Class B Agromet Station 1 1 30 Other Meteorlogical equip. 11 lQ. 40 11 Rs 50,000 for Yavatmal and Rs 25,000 each for Nagpur and Tharsa and Rs 20,000 for Ekarjuna. 11 Rs 5,000 each for Nagpur and Tharsa. PROJECT FILE -51- Item 5 Appendix) Page 2 Yavatma1 Nagpur Tharsa Katol Total Rs'OOO 5. Laboratory Equipment Binocular microscope I 1 15 Compound microscope 1 1 1 1 4 24 B.O.D. incubator 1 1 2 20 Hot air oven 1 1 1 1 4 24 Metler balance 1 1 20 Monopan balance 1 1 1 ) 24 Refrigerator 1 1 1 1 4 24 Electronic calculator 1 1 15 Colorimeter 1 1 1 ) )0 Flame photometer 1 1 1 ) 45 Ph meter 1 1 1 ) 18 Soil analysis equipment 1 1 2 25 Generator 1 1 75 Muffle furnace 1 1 6 Spectrophetometer 1 1 25 Insect rearing equip. 1 1 2 20 Isolation chamber 1 1 1 1 4 24 Laboratory scale 1 1 15 .... Fruit processing/packing 1 set 1 set 20 equipment Deep freeze 1 1 2 12 Plant samples analysis 1 set 1 set 10 Hy-vac pump 1 1 1 ) 18 Autoclave 1 1 1 1 4 24 Centrifuge 1 1 1 ) 18 Distillation units 1 1 1 ) -li. 575 6. Ag. Implement Workshop Portable drill Bench grinder Arc welder Gas welder Pipe bending machine 1 set 1 set 50 Blacksmith tools Carpentry tools Mechanic tools Drawing Equipment -52- PROJECT FILE Item 5 Appendix 3 Page 3 Yavatmal Nagpur Tharsa ~ Total Rs'OOO 7. Library Facilities Books and Peridicals 50 25 25 25 125 125 1a 969 Add 20% for items (at 4.5&6) costing more than Rs 6,000 132 2,101 ====== PROJECT FILE Item 5 -53- Appendix 3 Page 4 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproject: RRS Yavatmal and Sub-Stations Operating and Maintenance Costs Research Operating Costs (including field testing and verification) @ Rs 12,000 per annum for incremental 444 11 Scientist (37 scientists) This amount includes: i) Inputs for experimental cultivation @Rs 1350/ha for rainfed and Rs 2250/ha for irrigated land Rs 207,000 '1J ii) Vehicle operating costs 5 jeeps, minibus and 4 motorcycles Rs 100,000 - (Rs 12,800 per jeep; Rs 10,000 minibus and Rs 4000/motorcycle iii) Other travel costs (Rs 1000/scientist) Rs 37,000 iv) Office and lab supplies Rs 100,000 1/ To be apportioned to different stations based on the number of incremental scientists. ~/ Rs 82,000 for Yavatmal, Rs 30,000 for Nagpur, Rs 50,000 for Tharsa, Rs 15,000 for Ekarjuna and Rs 30,000 for Nanded. -, /usr12/aspab/cristine/ramak/item6/2/5/85/Revision -54- PROJECT FILE Item 6 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Supplementary Research Subproject: Paiyur North-Western Zone, Tamil Nadu 1. Introduction 1.01 The State of Tamil Nadu has an area of 13.0 million ha and a popula- tion of about 50 million, 70% of which is rural. Of the surface area, 46% is cropped out of which 46% is irrigated by wells, canals and tanks. 1.02 The agricultural education 1/ and research needs of the state are met by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) with headquarters at Coimbatore. With the Agricultural College and Research Institute established in 1906, the state has a long tradition of research. A number of crop varieties and improved cultivation practices were developed through some quality research which has resulted in increased agricultural production. However, several agroecologica1 zones in the state were not adequately served. The most important crops are rice, sorghum, pearl millet, finger millet, groundnut, cotton, sugarcane and pulses. Besides, a variety of fruits, tubers, and vegetables are grown on considerable area. The state has good livestock wealth providing animal power, milk (0.23 million tonnes) and eggs (625 million). With a long coastline of over 900 kms, there is an annual fish catch of 0.4 million tonne, i.e., about 20% of the country's production. 1.03 Tamil Nadu has been divided into seven agroecologic zones, one of which is the North-Western zone, including most of Dharampuri and Salem districts and a small part of Tiruchirapalli district (MAP). The zone has a sown area of 0.90 million ha. 2. The North-Western Zone 2.01 The mean annual rainfall of the zone is 825 mm received in 47 rainy days about 44% of the rainfall during southwest monsoon (June-September) and 36% through the northeast monsoon (October-December). Winter is dry and summer showers are received during the end of the season. The area is predominantly rainfed with some of it being drought prone. About 25% of the 11 One of the agricultural four colleges in the State in maintained by the Annama1ai University. -55- PROJECT FILE - Item 6 Page 2 sown area receives irrigation, mostly through wells. Soils are generally shallow and the topography is undulating in large parts of the zone. The soils fall into three major groups: noncalcareous red soil, noncalcareous brown soil, and calcareous black soil. Nitrogen status is low. Soil alkalinity exists in some areas. 2.02 The important crops in the zone are finger millet, groundnut, sor- ghum, gingelly, horsegram, rice, tapioca and vegetables. The zone is predominantly kharif cropped and rainfed with most sowing done in June-July. Some of the rainfed area, which is facilitated by the northeast monsoon rains, is double cropped (e.g., gingelly or groundnut followed by horsegram). Rice is grown only under irrigation. Groundnut, finger millet, pearl millet and tapioca, which are usually rainfed, are also grown under irrigation, when available. A third of the mango and the bulk of grape area of Tamil Nadu is in this zone. 3. Research Problems of the Zone 3.01 Crop production under rainfed conditions is uncertain and yields are fluctuating. In sloppy and undulating topographies (which predominate in most of Dharmapuri district) rainfall intensity, run off, land and rain water management are closely related to crop husbandry problems. In canal command areas, saline-alkali soil conditions exist. 3.02 Yields of rainfed crops are low. There is need to develop/identify varieties of right duration (for instance in rice, sorghum and finger millet) with pest and disease resistance (tomato, tapioca and finger millet). Crop production practices (relating to seeding, tillage, spacing fertilizer applications, irrigation practices, etc.), require to be developed for the major crops. Sequence cropping and intercropping practices need improvement. Pest and disease control (e.g. insect pests of groundnut, nematodes and viruses of tomato, chlorosis of tapioca, blast of finger millet, etc.) prac- tices have to be evolved. 3.03 The zone has a high potential for the improvement of horticultural crops like mango, grapes, vegetables and flowers. Better orchard management techniques require to be developed for mango and grapes. Intercropping practices in mango to increase farmer income and improve soil fertility need attention. Cost effective plant protection measures are required for orchard crops. -56- PROJECT FILE Item 6 Page 3 4. Research Facilities in the Zone 4.01 The existing research facilities in the zone are detailed below: Center Research responsibilities Regional Research Station, Rainfed farming. Genetic improvement Paiyur and crop production practices of rice, finger millet, sorghum and pulses suitable for the zone. Agricultural Research Improvement of horticultural crops Station, Yercaud and practices suitable for the hill areas. Castor Research Center, Castor improvement. Pottaneri Sheep-Breeding Station, Breeding Sheep (for mutton) and Pottaneri forage improvement. Multicrop Experimental Cropping pattern and technology Substation, Kelamangalam verification. 4.02 There are five other ICAR sponsored projects operating at field level in the region. 5. Strengthening Provided under NARP I 5.01 The Regional Research Station (RRS), Paiyur was strengthened to increase its research capability with special emphasis on rainfed farming, reclamation of saline-alkali soils, and pulses and millet improvement. The functions of this station are to: (a) serve as a lead center for finger millet and horsegram and verification center for rice, sorghum, groundnut, and other crops grown in the zone; (b) generate technologies for rainfed farming and irrigation farming practiced in the zone; (c) maintain an inven- tory of soils and their characteristics indicating the problem areas; (d) survey the incidence of pests and diseases on major crops and generate appropriate control procedures; (e) develop profitable mango orchard manage- ment techniques; (f) conduct research on vegetables; (g) serve as a center for training of extension workers and farmers in millets and pulses produc- tion technology; (h) adopt a few villages in the service area for verifica- tion and refining of technology; and (i) publish and disseminate research findings and recommendations of the station. -57- PROJECT FILE - Item 6 Page 4 5.02 The total cost of the subproject is Rs 4.90 million and the sub- project was effective from September, 1981. The summary of subproject cost financed under NARP I is given below: Category of Expenditure Rs 000 Staff 962 Civil works 2,787 Equipment 846 Travelling allowance 60 Research operating costs 260 4,915 6. Progress of Implementation of NARP I 6.01 The progress of implementation of NARP I is encouraging. Civil works are almost complete. Equipment was purchased and most staff are in position. The Zonal Research Advisory Committee is meeting regularly. Research-extension interactions are very productive. Status Report of fairly good quality has been proposed. The identification and analysis of farming situations and the problems affecting crop production, however, require to be improved and refined. Currently, the station staff are engaged in this task, with assistance from ICAR and NDO, through field visits and interaction with DOA extension staff and farmers. 6.02 There are however, some areas which require to be further strengthened. These are horticulture (mango, grapes and tomato) and tapioca. Many problems of these crops are currently inadequately addressed and there is need to generate technologies to improve production of these crops (para 3.03). Animal drawn implements for better tillage, fertilizer placement, seeding, and interculture presently used by farmers require to be improved. The allocations under NARP I were inadequate to meet these needs of the zone. 7. Subproiect Obiectives 7.01 The existing facilities at Paiyur and Pottaneri would be augmented. Facilities for research on tapioca would be provided at Namakkal, where an Agricultural College of the SAU is proposed to be established. The addi- tional facilities would enable these centers to address the problems related to horticultural crops and agricultural implements more effectively and together with the strengthening provided under NARP I, would enable the RRS and its substation to address the farming constraints and opportunities that exist in the different microecological situations in the zone and provide effective support to DOA extension. -58- PROJECT FILE Item 6 Page 5 8. Proposed Supplementary Research Activities 8.01 Tomato Research Substation. Pottaneri: The substation would be located at the existing Sheep Breeding Station, Pottaneri. It would closely collaborate with the Faculty of Horticulture at Coimbatore and work under the control of RRS, Paiyur. The functions of the substation are: (a) development and identification of tomato varieties for rainfed and irrigated conditions in the zone -- pest and disease resistance would be one of the primary objectives; improved cultural practices, especially for rainfed tomato, would be developed and (b) provide resource persons from among the staff of the substation to conduct monthly workshops and be available to make joint field visits, along with DOA extension staff, to observe the con- straints in adoption of technologies for two days in a month. 8.02 Tapioca Research Substation. Namakkal. Working closely with the Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI) of ICAR at Trivandrum and the Tapioca Research Station, Department of Horticulture at Mullavadi, the sub- station would identify varieties of tapioca suitable for different soil types under irrigated and rainfed conditions. Disease resistance besides yield and suitability for different cropping systems, would receive primary attention. Cultural practices, especially time and amount of fertilizer application under different cultural conditions would be developed. 8.03 Agricultural Implements Research. Paiyur. A range of animal drawn implements are in use by the farmers in the region (simple country plow to complex locally made seed drills). The range is however narrow and possibly some of the implements can be improved while new ones could be developed. The agricultural implements research would address these problems. TNAU has well developed agricultural engineering facilities at Coimbatore. RRS Paiyur, which would be strengthened for conducting research on agricultural implements, would work in close collaboration with the TNAU Agricultural Engineering Faculty and would draw heavily from this knowledge and expertise. It is, therefore, envisaged that this Center would primarily concentrate on identification of constraints relevant to agricultural implements under rainfed conditions of the region and testing/modifying equipment developed at Coimbatore. Even where a new implement is required to be developed, this function would rest with Coimbatore. A strategy for agricultural implements research is given in Project File, item 3. 8.04 Intensification of Research on Horticultural Crops at Paiyur. Research on mango, grapes and vegetables would be intensified. The Station would conduct research on mango and grapes to develop improved orchard management practices. It would also provide support to the substations at Pottaneri and Namakkal (proposed site for tapioca research). -59- PROJECT FILE Item 6 - Page 6 9. Summary of Project Costs (Rs '000) JJ Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total Staff 11 (Appendix 1) 113 346 448 458 l,425 Civil Works 1.1 (Appendix 2) 82 248 330 Equipment (Appendix 3) 431 431 Research Operating Cost 11 (Appendix 4) 44 ..n. 104 121 352 136 671 552 519 2,544 11 Phasing 40%; 80%; 100%; 100%; 21 Phasing 25%; 15%. II Price Contingencies @ 8.5% each year applied cummulatively. -60- PROJECT FILE Item 6 INDIA Map 1 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Agroecological Zones in Tamil Nadu NOfIl~cgT \ .... ··· i I 1 I ~ •• J ••• ~ ••• 1,' ...... J .l ..••..., ... , ...., .. _,...... I. North-Eastern Zone II. North-Western Zone III. Western Zone IV. Cauvery Delta Zone V. Southern Zone VI. High Rainfall Zone m VII. High Altitude and Hilly Zone - -61- PROJECT FILE Item 6 Appendix 1 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproject - Strengthening RRS Paiyur and Substations A. Staff Requirements Description Paiyur Pottaneri Namakkal Total A. Scientific Staff Agricultural Engineer 1 1 (Associate Professor) Entomologist 1 1 (Asst. Professor) Horticulturist 2 1 1 4 (Asst. Professor) Plant Pathologist 1 1 (Asst. Professor) B. Technica 1 Staff Agricultural 2 1 2 5 Assistant C. Otter Staff Mechanics 2 2 Driver 1 1 -62- PROJECT FILE Item 6 Appendix 1 Page 2 B. Scheudle of Incremental Staff Costs Description Number Rs per month Rs '000 per Annum Associate professor 1 3,000 each 36.0 Associate professors 6 2,300 each 165.6 Agricultural Assistants 5 2,000 each 120.0 Mechanics 2 1,000 each 24.0 Drivers 1 1,000 each 12.0 357.6 ===== /usr12/aspab/cristine/ramak/item6dix2/2/5/85/Revision -63- PROJECT FILE Item 6 Appendix 2 • INDIA National Agricultural Research Project II Research Subproject: Strengthening of RaS Paiyur and Substations Civil Works Component 1. Project Description 1.01 RSS Paiyur was strengthened under NARP I and there would be adequate laboratory and office accomodation for the proposed incremental staff. Addi- tional facilities would be provided for an implement workshop and a training hall. 1.02 The existing facilities of Pottaneri are adequate to accommodate the additional staff. 1.03 The Tapioca Research Station, Namakkal would be part of the College of Agriculture to be established by TNAU at Namakkal. As such no civil works are provided. 1.04 The Engineering Department of TNAU would administer the building procedures, award of contract and site supervision during construction. 1.05 The cost of civil works at Paiyur would be Rs 330,000 as per details given below: Schedule of Accommodation Description Agricultural Engineering Workshops Training Hall with store and toilet Cost Estimates Description Costs Rs "'000 Agricultural Engi~eering W~rkshop @ Rs 1100 per M x 100 M 100.00 Training Hall 2 2 @ Rs 1200 per M x 120 M 144.00 244.00 Design and Construction (4%) 10.00 Electrification (5%) 12.00 Fixtures, Furniture, etc. (5%) 12.00 Furniture for Training Hall (lump sum) 15.00 Price Escalation 1 1/2 year @ 8.5% = 12.75% 34.00 330.00 /usr12/aspab/cristine/ramak/item6dix3/2/S/85/Revision Project File -64- Item 6 Appendix 3 .Illi! NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproject - Strengthening RRS Paiyur and Substations Equipment Costs Description Paiyur Pottaneri Namakkal Total Cost "'000 Rs' Transport Jeep 1 1 120 Motorcyle 1 1 2 24 Farm Equipment Seed Drier 1 1 2 JQ. Laboratory Equipment Microscope 1 1 1 2 10 Oven 1 1 6 Autoclave 1 1 6 Plant-Protection 1 1 1 3 30 Horticulture 1 1 1 3 JQ. ."" 82 Audio Visual Aids Slide Projector Overhead Projector 1 set 1 JQ. Public Address System Agricultural Engineering Workshop Portable Drill J Bench Grinder ] Arc Welder ] Gas Welder ] 1 set 1 set 50 Pipe Bender ] Blacksmith Tools ] Carpentry Tools ] Drawing Equipment ] 336 Add 20% for items costing less than Rs 6,000 ...fl. Total 403 === -65- PROJECT FILE Item 6 Appendix 4 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproject - Strengthening RRS Paiyur and Substations Operating and Maintenance Costs Rs . . 000 Research Operating Costs (including field test and verification) @Rs 12,000 per annum 84 JJ for incremental scientists - 7 scientists This amount includes: (a) Inputs for experimental cultivation Rs 46,200 (b) Vehicle Operation @ Rs 12,800 for jeep Rs 20,800 and Rs 4,000 per motorcycle (c) Other travel costs @ Rs 1,000 per scientist Rs 7,000 (d) Laboratory Supplies Rs 10,000 11 To be apportional to different stations based on number of incremental scientists. PROJECT FILE -66- Item 7 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproiect: Brief Notes on Design and Planning of Research Stations 1.00 OBJECTIVES OF NARP SUBPROJECTS The objective is to provide research stations to investigate loca- tion specific agricultural problems on a multidisciplinary basis, and, no less important, to disseminate the research findings to local farmers through the extension workers and the staff of the Department of Agriculture. The buildings must, therefore, be laid out in such a manner that easy contact and interrelationship can be readily established between the research scien- tists and between the scientists and the director. Again, no less important, is accessibility and facilities for extension workers. 2.00 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Agricultural research of this nature is essentially a dynamic process, the nature of the problem, the armamentarium of the researcher, the size of the research work force changes within the span of a few years. It is essential, therefore, that buildings be designed and disposed on the site to allow for each growth and change without major disruptions. Directions of growth should be plotted and appropriate allowances made both for growth and for the addition of new research facilities. Allowance should be made for the following scale of change and growth: (1) Internal room changes of furniture, benches, lighting and services; (2) Internal departmental change requiring the above, plus changes in internal partitions; (3) Expansion of existing departments (accommodated by open ended planning), or displacing an adjacent department. The advantage of repetitive modular planning of structures and services is apparent here; (4) Addition of major new elements which will require close pedestrian and mechanical services connection to the existing buildings. 2.01 Laboratories and An~illiaris These should be laid out in an open ended manner to permit easy expansion. Single story buildings would strengthen this potential. The easy availability of utility services and the potential for alteration and change are important criteria in laboratory design. Main service lines should be contained in an accessible central spine with subsidiary lines serving each laboratory; there should also be open ended to permit each growth and change. PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 2 -67- Laboratories should be grouped by discipline, e.g. breeding, rather than subject commodity. A Central Analytical Laboratory should be considered. A laboratory of this type could undertake all the analysis of samples and specimens required by other departments. This arrangement would avoid duplication and lead to optimal use of costly equipment. It is also likely to save space, and possibly staff, in other laboratories. 2.02 Researchers Offices Consideration should be given to a recent trend to group research- ers' offices together rather than disperse them in individual labs. The informal contact generated by grouping offices tends to strengthen the multi- disciplinary approach to specific problems. With the dispersed arrangement, the natural tendencies of the researcher cause him to concentrate on the more esoteric problems of his discipline, whereas with the group arrangement the researcher becomes the manager of research rather than undertaking bench work personally. The seminar room should be included in this group for more formal meetings. Also in close proximity shou~d be the library and the directors offices. 2.03 Lecture Room, Display Area, Documentation Center In addition to scientific meetings, the lecture room and this group of facilities will be used extensively by extension workers and visitors. For this reason they should be located so that they are easily accessible to visitors. Noise and occasionally heavy traffic will be generated, therefore, a location somewhat detached from the laboratories and research offices would be preferable. 2.04 Administration This will accommodate the purchasing, personnel and accountancy/ paying offices. It should be easily accessible both to staff and the public. 2.05 Housing Rather than building a cantonment on the site, consideration should be given to integrating new housing into the existing nearby town or village, or, indeed, renting existing houses if available. In addition to conservating the land at the research station for experimental fields, the families would be in closer contact with the social infrastructure of shops, schools, physicians, health facilities, etc. and socially there would be less friction with the indigenous community. , PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 3 -68- If, however, an onsite location is selected, the houses should be located near the research facilities to achieve economies in road construc- tion, mains water, electrical and sewerage lines. In this context, financial considerations should be weighted. It could be advantageous for the university to provide a sufficient rental allowance rather than investing in house construction with recurrent main- tenance costs. 2.06 Hostel This will be used mainly by extension workers and visitors. It should be located within easy walking distance of the research center. 2.07 Field Facilities These will house the crop work areas and the field sample receiving and preparation facilities. Noise and dust will be generated and, for this reason, these buildings should be located at some distance from the above-mentioned groups. The location of the pesticide/herbicide formulation and storage building and fertilizer store should be carefully considered to avoid toxic chemical dust drifting into the research area. 2.08 Landscaping Shade trees and grassy areas in addition to being visually attrac- tive will help to control the environmental problems generated by tempera- ture, wind, dust. direct sky glare and reflected ground glare. Advantage should be taken of existing growth and new planting considered. The use of ornamental pools would produce micro-cl~mates with locally lower tempera- tures. 2.09 Parking Provision must be made for parking needs which will increase sig- nificantly during the next decade. 2.10 Utilities The demand for water and electricity and requirements for sewerage disposal and storm water drainage must be determined at an early date. Provision must be made for water towers, pumping stations, septic tanks, generators and transformers. The location of these elements should not impede potential growth of the research station. PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 4 -69- 2.11 Roads Roads and parking areas in the vicinity of the research station should be paved to reduce dust, but farm roads should be compacted gravel. 3.00 DESIGN AND PLANNING GUIDELINES The Preliminary Schedules of Accommodation in the subproject illustrations (See Project File, Items 5 and 6) indicate broadly the space needs for each department. Minor adjustments are to be expected as the development of the detailed architectural brief proceeds, but the overall magnitude should not be increased. 3.01 Researchers Offices For Professors and Associate Professors about 140-150 sq. ft. net (13-14 m2 net, carpet area) should be allowed. A small side bench for micro- scope work may be desirable, but sinks requiring water supply and d~ainage should be avoided. For Assistant Professors, about 80 sq. ft. (7 m ) in communal offices should be allowed. 3.02 Laboratories Actual space prOV1S10n may vary somewhat according to discipline and extent of apparatus needs, but to permit each change and expansion the laboratories should be planned within the strict framework of a repetitive planning module. Utility services and drainage should be available for approximately every 100 sq. ft. Directions of potential growth should not be inhibited by rooms with fixed plumbing such as toilets. Many agricultural research institutes favor a peninsular arrange- ment of benches. This permits some privacy in the work area compared with island arrangement where the scientist is always working in a circulation area. Furthermore, this arrangement permits the main service and drainage lines to be located on the perimeter walls with direct 'T' connections to each bench. With the peninsular arrangement the service lines can be above floor level and hence easily accessible for repairs and change. 11 The linear dimension of the peninsular bench is generally about 15'0" (4.5 m) including an end sink, while the width of the double bench is about 4'9". As there is little traffic, 4'3" is allowed between benches. The resultant planning module is 9'0" in the lateral direction. 11 See also attached sketch. PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 5 -70- Assuming a bench at writing height for microscope work along the long wall, the longitudinal dimension would be: Peninsula bench 15'0" + general circulation space 5'Otl + writing bench 2'0" = total 22'0". The lateral dimension for a two-station lab (2 modules) would be side bench 2'4" + work space 4'3" + side bench 2'4" = 18'0" total. The total area would be about 200 sq. ft. (18 m2 ) (net usable area) For a 3-station lab (3 modules) the arrangement would be: Side bench 2'4" + work space 4'3" + peninsula bench 4'9" + work space 4'3" + side bench for equipment 2'4" = 27'0" total. Total area would be about 400 sq. ft. (36 m2 ). Similarly, a 4-5 station lab would ~equire about 600 sq. ft (55 m2 ) and a 6-7 station lab about 800 sq. ft. (70 m ). Bench and equipment layout is subject to change every five years or so. For this reason, under bench cabinet work should be designed on a modular basis consistent with the planning module. Under bench units should be interchangeable and independent of the bench structure. Benches should be supported on a stable framework, preferably steel. The appropriate sitting and standing height and other ergonometric data should be decided by the local architect. Bench tops should be teak, asbestos cement composition, thermoplastic, or locally available chemi- ca11y-re~istant material. A white, easily cleaned material is-required when examination of plants is undertaken. The areas for preparation rooms, instrument and balance rooms, chemical and glassware store, will vary with the size of the lab to be sup- ported. The actual space requirements will be determined when the agricul- tural brief is assembled. 3.03 Administration This should include a waiting and reception area for the public, a suite for the associate director (3~0 sq. ft. of 33 m2 ), separate offices for administrators (120 ~q. ft. or 11 m ) and shared offices for clerical staff (70 sq. ft. or 6-7 m per station). Space for secretarial staff, current filing, photocopying and stationery should also be provided. PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 6 -71- 3.04 Lecture Room This room should have the flexibility to accommodate different types of meetings from formal lectures to working session with tables. For this reason there should be no fixed seating or fixed platform. Stackable chairs and tables should be provided. Sloping floors should also be avoided. A back projection room is favored which would allow slides to be shown without complete blackout. A folding rear wall should be investigated; this would enable the foyer/exhibition area to be used for additional seating for large capacity meetings. The room should be sized on the basis of 15 sq. ft. per place to include the projection room and moveable dais. Acoustical control will be necessary in this room together with light dimming controls. 3.05 Exhibition Area Transmission of research findings to extension workers will be an important function of the research station. This can be achieved by displays of graphic material, yield samples, and small pieces of equipment. The foyer of the lecture room could be used for this purpose. At most sites an open .~ area would suffice, requiring only a room without exte~nal walls. An area of 300-400 sq. ft. should be adequate. 3.06 Documentation Center This will be resource facility rather than a library in the academic sense. It will be a repository of research material and will also display recent publications and research findings for the benefit of the extension workers. It is anticipated that researchers will withdraw material and work in their own offices. The library will, therefore, be limited to stack space; a small room for display of recent publications and journals, to include table and chairs for four; a librarian's office; work room, and photocopying machine. Stack space should be determined on the basis of 60 sq. ft. per 1,000 volumes, including aisle space. 3.07 Art and Photographic Studios At the larger research stations, production of printed material and illustrations to disseminate research findings may also be an important part of the research station's role in extension. An art studio for the produc- tion of graphic material together with a photographic studio and darkroom could be included. The art studio would also be used for preparing maps for the research workers. In the absence· of a printing press in the neighboring town, a small multilith printing machine should be included also. , PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 7 -72- 3.08 Housing Housing will be provided for the following staff who need to reside on the station: Associate Director (1) Farm Manager 0) Essential Subordinate Staff (5) Watchman and Cook (2) Additional housing for staff would be provided after analysis by the univer- sity of the existing housing stock. Factors in determining need are availability of housing in the nearby town, distance, cost, available tran- sport, and percentage of present faculty provided with housing. At certain locations when the existing housing stock is limited, ICAR may be requested to support staff housing on such a scale that the investment in housing may be several times that of the investment in research facilities. On this account, a closer scrutiny of the current housing stand- ards-is justified. The housing standards adapted by ICAR and the universities for professional staff in connection with the State Agricultural Universities are high compared with those incorporated in recent IDA projects. ICAR allowances range from 190 to 276 square meters gross compared with 100 to 170 square meters gross for recent IDA projects. Housing standards and design are dependent on local life styles, social mores and climatic problems. The design should be guided by the University Grants Commission's recommended standards or those specified by the state concerned, whichever are most appropriate. 3.09 Hostel This will be used mainly by extension workers attending short courses. Accommodation for about 20 staff in single rooms of about 140 sq. ft. will be required, though the precise number must be determined by the frequency and size of the courses. Lounge, dining and kitchen facilities will be required. 3.10 Farm Buildings To permit easy expansion and change of function a simple repetitive structural system should be used with spans and eaves height of standard dimensions. PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 8 -73- 4.00 SERVICES 4.01 Environmental Control The degree of air conditioning must be determined by the charac- teristics of the local climate and whether the university can support the high operating costs. Building design and orientation together with roof insulation, window and wall shading and small window openings can considerably ameliorate the environmental problem. However, sensitive scientific equipment would have a longer life and maintain calibration in an environment which is relatively dust free and has temperature and humidity control. And, as is well known, people function more effectively where humidity is controlled and temperature does not exceed 70oF. Rather than full air conditioning, a partial solution might be appropriate in which the following areas should be included: Instrument and balance rooms - to preserve instruments. Library - to preserve books and publications. Lecture rom - to provide ventilation when black-out for slide showing excludes natural sources. The seed storage facility must, of course, have temperature and humidity control at all times. Central air conditioning plant is to be preferred to individual room units as life expectancy is greater, maintenance costs lower, dust filtration is possible and humidity can be controlled more precisely. Where exhaust fans are used for fume hoods, etc., fresh air inlets must be provided to avoid overloading the air conditioning system. 4.02 Bench Top Services Basic services will be cold water, 220 v AC, butane gas, and drainage. Acid resisting wastes will be required in laboratories. Addi- tional services required at the onset will be indicated in the architectural brief; however, provision must be made in the main ducts and-plant area for additional central services which may be required during the life of the building: for example, compressed air, suction, nitrogen, acetelyne, elec- tricity at other voltages. PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 9 -74- Voltage regulators will be required in most areas, and possibly an emergency generator where controlled temperature work is being done. 4.03 Site Services These would include prov1s1on for telephone service, main electri- cal distribution, fire hydrants, and waste disposal both from houses and laboratories. An analysis of gas usage in the laboratories will determine whether a central storage tank and distribution system is preferable to under bench containers. 4.04 Illumination Levels No doubt illumination levels have been established at most univer- sities, but, for information, current UK recommendations ar~ recorded below. Space Level in Lux. Measured at Laboratories 400 bench top Documentation Center" 400 reading desk Offices 300 desk Lecture/Seminar Room 300 writing table Stores/Library Stacks 150 shelf labels Circulation 100 floor 5.00 CONSTRUCTION 5.01 Materials and Finishes In general, finishes requiring minimal "maintenance should be selected, however, all construction materials and finishes should be sub- jected to life cycle costing analyses. Often a somewhat higher initial investment in materials can considerably reduce annual maintenance costs and in turn lead to lower total investment during the expected life span of the building. 5.02 Frame Construction The potential for easy growth and change would be enhanced by the use of frame rather than load-bearing wall construction. PROJECT FILE Item 7 Page 10 -75- 5.03 Verandah Access In many areas access from covered verandahs would achieve double advantage of reducing internal circulation areas and shading the external wall surfaces. -- -76- EXAMPLES OF LASORATORY LAYOUTS .. .. -r-=. . I I~··" --- -- _.... - ...·3·' I I I I t I I 1-1 I .rf r IlQUININT I I I % 1 2 3 ~ I I t I I I I :! I I I I I I .. , .. ;. I I I I I I 0 'Dt ~~? 0: I!:d l!, ,1 .l 0 \ 0 SITTING HIIGHT 2 STATION \.AIL 2IlO sa. fIT. 3 STATION \.AIL _sa. fIT. ________ L ____ ______ _ IoIAIN SIl'IVtCl I.INII OISTlllIIUTION UNI' % 1 o ------- -------- ------ - - -- , .....,: I I I -, I .. , I I I ..-, I I I % 3 • m .; I ....I I I =,~. CJ LJ 0 O! --- ( !Q~_NT 0 . 0 0 l 1_7 STATION !.AI. _sa. fIT. , - /usrl2/aspab/cristine/ramak/item8/2/S/8S/Revision PROJECT FILE -77- Item 8 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPROJECT - ILLUSTRATIVE Planning and Monitoring Cell (a) To assist the Director of Research in the preparation of status reports and subprojects, development of seasonal research programs at the regional station, monitoring the progress of implementation of subprojects and promoting research extension linkages, a three-member cell including one associate director, an agricultural economist and a technical assistant is proposed to be established. The cell would also assist in publishing an annual report of research done in the SAU. (b) SAU would organize the following workshops as a start up to the project: (i) A state-level workshop on NARP objectives and tasks with the participation of senior SAU and DOA staff, and (ii) Zonal workshops (at the RRS in each ecological zone) to orient resftarch and extension workers on NARP objectives, tasks and procedures; (c) SAU would organize the following meetings, workshops annually to intensify the exchange of experience between the research and DOA extension staff: (i) Seasonal Zonal Research Advisory Meetings at each RRS, and (ii) Seasonal Workshops for DOA extension staff on specific crop/disciplines to update them on the latest developments, e.g., rice, wheat, rainfed farming etc.; and (d) To promote staff development, the SAU would send staff annually to work in,advanced centers of research in India, for about one crop season (4 to 6 months) each. , -78- PROJECT FILE __ Item 8 Page 2 2. Incremental Costs on Full Development Staff (including all allowances) 11 Rs. OOOs 1 Associate Director (Professor) Rs3,300 p/m 40 pIa 1 Agricultural Economist (Professor) Rs3,306 p/m 40 pIa 1 Technical Officer (Assistant Professor) Rs2,250 p/m 27 pIa 1 Administrative Officer Rs2,250 p/m 27 pIa 1 Assistant Accounts Officer Rs1,500 plm 18 pIa 2 Stenographers Rs1,250 p/m 15 pIa 1 Drivers Rs1,000 p/m ...ll. pIa 179 pIa === Operating Costs Vehicle operating 12,000 Other travel 2,000 x 3 6,000 23 pIa Office materials 5,000 Workshops Rs 1,500 x 20 30 pIa Training Rs 2,000 x 6 12 pIa Equipment Car 85,500 Office (Furniture, typewriters, copier,etc.) 100,000 185 11 At midpoint of pay scale. -79- PROJECT FILE Item 8 Page 3 3. Summary of Project Costs (Rs '000) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Staff 11 78 200 212 238 251 979 Operating costs 2J 18 27 29 32 35 141 Equipment 200 200 Workshops 32 35 38 42 45 192 Training ...ll -.!! -.li -11. J.§. 77 Total 341 276 294 329 349 1,589 === === "'== === === ===== 11 Phasing: 40% in first year and 100% in remaining years. 11 Phasing: 75% in first year and 100% in remaining years. 11 Contingencies: 8.5% each year. -80- PROJECT FILE Item 9 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Proforma for State Government and SAU Acceptance of HARP Grant On the basis of the submission from the _________________________ Agricultural University date concerning the __________~--~~subproject, the NARP Project Funding Committee on ______ approved the following maximum grant allocation to ________________________ Agricultural University for the period to __________________ Incremental Staff Rs. Incremental Operating Funds Rs. Equipment Rs. Civil Works Rs. Training/Workshops Rs. Total Rs. subject to the agreement of the Government of ~~____~______~~~~~~ and the Agricultural University to the following conditions: 1. The University/State Government meeting the costs of existing staff and associated operating costs and the cost of the following items in accordance with agreed implementation schedule. Acquisition of ha of land, estimated at Rs. Normal cultivation costs of the research farm Rs. Station overheads (maintenance, utilities, etc.) Rs. Total Rs. 2. The University/State Government undertaking to meet the costs of incremental staff and associated operating costs, maintenance and replacement of equipment (10% of replacement cost) and maintenance of buildings (1 1/2% of replacement cost) from the end of the subproject period. 3. The NARP grant not replacing any State Government commitment (exist- ing or planned) for agricultural research. 4. The University/State Government abiding by para 6-9 of the attached "Terms and Conditions for Administration of NARP.1f 1/ 11 See Annex I, Staff Project Appraisal Report. PROJECT FILE Item 9 Page 2 -81- 5. University/State Government implementation of the conditions for SAU eligibility resulting from PFC review of the University Background Paper, the recommendations from the overall research review and/or rCAR supervision of previous subproject. The above conditions for the HARP grant accepted. Date: Date: Name: Name: Registrar/Comptroller Secretary of Agriculture/ Agricultural Production Com- missioner - ___________ Agricultural University Government of Date: Name: rCAR PROJECT FILE -82- ItE!lll 10 Page 1 YJU.! NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Proforma for Six Monthly SAU Report to ICAR on Physical Progress Date of Report: Period Covered: University: Subproject: --Exp. to Date -- Total Cost Appraisal Actual Forecast Advances Appraisal Estimate ~ This Period This Period Requested I. DISBURSEMENTS (Rs) A. NARP 1. Incremental staff 2. Operating funds Running costs vehicles Travel expenses Lab & office supplies Field experiments Subtotal 3. Equipment Farm Laboratory Office Subtotal 4. Civil works Farm Laboratory/Office Housing Subtotal Total NARP II. RECRUITMENT OF SCIENTISTS AND KEY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Year Ace. to Date Position Filled Appraisal Present Action or Expected filled Position: -83- PROJECT FILE Item 10 Page 2 III. PROCUREMENT OF CIVIL WORKS Land to be acquired ____ ba (according to appraisal) Land acquired to date ha. Next atepa: Actual or expected data land acquiaition completed Actual or expected data architectural brief (laboratoriea) prepared Actual or expected data master plan approved Expected Size -------------------------.Actual or Expected Date of ----------------------- (as.) Nomination Tender Prequalified with excluding of Documents Contractors Start of Completion of Cogtract housing hopaing Arshitect Issped Identified Construction Construction IV. PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT - --------- Remarks --------- Tender (Award to other than lowest Expected Size Documents bidder; prudent shopping, Contra'ct RI. Iuued Delivery !ltc. ) V. IMPLEMEN'tATION Date latest seasonal report on research results: Date latest field testing extension feedback summary: Date latest regional, seasonal workshops: Date minutes from latest regional, seasonal workshops: C~rses for extension staff during six-month period: Type: Length: ____ No. of participants: _____ Number of observation trials conducted: Days worked on behalf of DOA: Number of villages for operational research: Progress of construction. PRonCT FILE -84- Item 11 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Proforma for Six Monthly leAR Report to IDA on Physical Progress Date of Report: Period Covered: -This Period- Appraisal Appraisal Revised Annual Estimate Estimate Estimate Actual Work Forecast Total To date To da&1 To date Program Actual Next Period I. NARp ADMINISTRATION Subpro j ects submitted to pFC approved by pFC rejected by pFC conditional approval by PFC returned by PFC 11 Research Reviews submitted to pFC approved by pFC rejected by PFC conditional approval by pFC returned by pFC 11 University Supervision Reports submitted to PFC Six-monthly Scientific Reports received Six-monthly Physical Progress reports received Subprojects visited Budget allocation received Rs. II. DISBURSEMENTS RESEARCH SUBPROJECTS PART A. ----------------Expenditure To Date------------------------- ---Appraisal Cost Estimates--- ---Expected at Appraisal----- ----------Actual------------- Total Act. Oper. Civil Oper. Civil Oper. Civil as % of University Subproj. Staff Funds Equip. Works Total Staff Funds Equip. Works Total Staff Funds Equip. Works Total Total Ext. PART B. -----Expenditures this period----- Oper. Civil University Subproj. Staff Funds Equip. Works Total j Will need to be resubmit ted to PFC. -85- I'!IOJBCT YILt I t . II Pa,o 2 III.. omp. DISWRSpmS {tCA.l-.daiai.tr.tive .ubprojecu; LAlt " Stltf Colbge} - - - - Appr.i.al Co.t E.tiaate.----- - - - !:&pee-tali .t Appr.ital - - - - - Total Act. op... Civil T"",. Oper.. Civil Tn,. Oper. Civu trnS. I I % of Ia&eitutioD ~. St.!! rupde §quip. Work. !jo"., Total Stiff ruad. Equip. Work. ConI: Tot.l Staff rUlld. 19yip. Work. Coe ... Iot.l~. PAIlr B. Oper. Civil r"",. tBIS itu tion ~ "S"'U"'... f '_'"u,.,u"'g"'.--:t"."'u... ia"'.'-.::.\lo"'r ...I!. ...'-c"'o ..n 1 ...........,T"'."'t...... IV. Il!PLEIf!l'lTATI05 Coaetr,. TREND Exee-utioa Lillitase. Procur.... of Overall I-IMI'I\OVING Ile.e.rcb to "11t Civil A .....- 2-STATIONAllY U"iv,r.itY Subproject ~I Eloteo,lL ~ lruWl.. Work.V !W!.L.- 3-DETEltI 01Ul!ION 11 tvalultioa on o&.i. of .ix-montnly. scieatific, .ltd pbY'icel prosr ••• report • • Dd 11111ual .up.ni_iotl; aiuioa. 1 • problea free or .inor probl_i 2: • mod_ute problema; 3- •• jor probla•• - -86- PROJECT FILE Item 12 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Research Subproiects: Development of Master Plan for Civil Works The topics to be covered should include, inter alia, (a) Topographical survey, and hydrological survey if appropriate. (b) Detailed architectural briefs, room data sheets indicating service requirements for major equip- ment, and sketch layouts for critical areas such as for laboratories. (c) Analysis of demand and supply potential for utility services such as potable water,.electricity, sewerage disposal, telephone and also irrigation water. (d) Site development plan for both experimental fields, roads and physical facilities. The magnitude and direction of potential growth should be plotted. (e) Cost estimates covering farm development, civil works and furnishings. (f) Comprehensive implementation schedule indicating anticipated progress in each interrelated major activity, such as construction, farm development, staff recruitment and equipment delivery etc. -87- PROJECT FILE Item 13 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Architectural Brief and Room Data Sheet A. Typical Room Data Sheet Indonesia Research Labs: Room Data Sheet, proforma Type I - Laboratories & Similar Spaces Ref. No. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS (Hypothetical example) Use of space Analytical Chemistry Lab. (XYZ Center) Functional relationship to Preparation, Instrument Rm., glass wash other spaces & store Number of work stations 4 stations Supporting facilities & 1# x 96" fume hood, 2# x 4S" fume hoods _ Group I Equipment Freezer (4S"), Centrifuge (4S"), 2# ovens ClS") Storage requirements Central storage ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL PARAMETERS Temperature 76 oF. Thermostat setting required Humidity 50% relative humidity Air changes /hr • 10-15 changes per hour Hours of operation 1/2 hour before start of work to close Lighting levels: working surface 125 foot candles ambient space 75 foot candles Acoustical control Acoustical ceiling panels PROJECT FILE -88- Item 13 Page 2 MECHANICAL SERVICES REQUIREMENTS (Hypothetical example) Services at bench top (per station): 1 hot & cold mixing faucet, 2 cold water taps, 1 cold water aspirator. Outlets for: dis- tilled water (1),60 lb. compo air double (1), nitrogen (1), l10V race- way, 220V outlets (2) General room services None, all at bench top Services for supporting Fume hoods require: Integral light, 21 facilities & Group I l10V outlets, 2 cold water aspirators Equipment w/cup sink, 2 x 60 lb. compo air out- lets, 1 nitrogen outlet, required air velocity at hood face 75 fpm. Freezer centrifuge, ovens required 110V outlets Requirements for: Central trough & end sink for each bench sinks, floor drains, acid No floor drains. All traps & pipes to be resisting wastes acid resisting emergency eye bath & deluge One unit required w/auto shut-off shower fire protection Hose unit & extinguisher no. and location of phones/ intercoms No intercom, 1 wall telephone waste disposal Under bench waste containers, central disposal FIXED FURNITURE REQUIREMENTS (per station): Standing height bench with reagent shelf (4.5m including sink) Writing bench (2m) Oversink pegboards/carboy shelf LOOSE FURNITURE REQUIREMENTS (per station): 1 stool, 1 chair, 1 reading lamp, 81 x 48" wall mounted shelf units w/glass sliding doors SPECIAL FINISHES Room: walls ) No special finishes here, except floors ) easily cleaned surfaces ceiling) acoustical control desirable -89- PROJECT FILE Item 13 Page 3 Furniture: bench tops Teak or plastic laminated w/chemically resistant finish SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS e.g. Vibration free mounting for Yes, for microscopes & balances special equipment Structual requirements for No heavy equipment Electrical shielding No requirements Need for isolation transformers No Group I equipment is 'built in', generally with an energy connection. Group II equipment is 'loose', with a life expectancy of more than five years. PROJECT FILE Item 13 -90- Page 4 B. Extract from Typical Detailed Architectural Brief Cum Total 585.0 1.B.3 Crop Protection 1.B.3.1 Input Room: direct access to outside and to .2 & .5, and also if possible to .13; this room will occasionally receive large samples from the field (tree roots etc.) and requires small external paved area, slop sink, work bench and sink, floor drain electricity. 15.0 3.2 Plant Pathology: Sterilization Room: will have sterilizers, autoclaves, etc. along one wall, bench along others, walking passage in between; access from .5 and/or .2; note that heat from sterilizers is high and extract system and some non air conditioning should be considered, should be sited on external wall. 15.0 3.3 Sterile Room with U/V: access from .5; windows not necessary; services required electricity. 6.0 3.4 Sterile Room with U/V: access from .5; windows not necessary; services required electricity, gas. 9.0 3.5 Laboratory: Plant Pathology: access to corridor and to .1, .4 and .5; services required electricity, gas, water, drainage. 45.0 3.6 Office for Technicians: three staff; access to corridor; glass partition to .5; three desks and chairs, 3 visitors chairs, bookcases, pin board, three small working tables, filing cabinets. 20.0 3.7 Researchers Office 15.0 3.8 Researchers Office 15.0 PROJECT FILE -91- Item 13 Page 5 Cum Total 585.0 3.9 Researchers Office 15.0 3.10 Laboratory: Entomology: access to corridor and to .11; provisions made for bench mounted spray chamber, with exhaust fan to exterior, services re- quired electricity, water, drainage 20.0 3.11 Breeding Room: access to corridor and to .11; not airconditioned; well ven- tilated; services required electricity, water, drainage. 15.0 180.0 • 1.B.3.12 Office: Technicians: two staff: access to corridor; glass partition to .10 and .13 if possible; two desks and chair~, bookshelves; filing cabinets, pin board. 15.0 3.13 Laboratory: Weeds: access from corridor; services required electricity, water, drainage. 20.0 3.14 Instrument Room: to serve .5 and .10; direct access to .5 and if possible also should be rectangular in plan with benching on two long walls and passage way between; preferred room width 2.6m to 3.5m. Direct sunlight should be excluded, R.H. con- trolled at 40% to 60%, services required electricity, water, drainage. 20.0 3.15 Researchers Office 15.00 250.0 1.B.4 Common Analytical Facilities 1.B.4.1 Laboratory: Soil Science; access direct from corridor or through .2; services re- quired electricity, gas, water, drainage: access to .6, .7, .8 and .11. 60.0 PROJECT FILE -92- Item 13 Page 6 Cum Area m2 Total 835.0 4.2 Preparation Room: access from .1 and corridor. 10m partitioned off to form drying area which will have drying ovens etc. and will not be airconditioned but will have extract fans to exterior. ser- vices required electricity, water, drainage. 25.0 4.3 Laboratory: Physical: access to corridor and to .1. services required electricity, water, drainage; access, if possible, also to .6. 30.0 4.4 Laboratory: Plant: access direct from corridor or through .5 and .6; a~cess also to .7, .8 and .11. services required elec- tricity, gas, water, drainage. 40.0 4.5 Preparation Room: access from .4 and/or corridor; services required electricity, water, drainage. 25.0 4.6 Instrument Room: corridor to .1 and .4 and access from .1 and .4; will have some benching and some freestanding equipment. Direct sunlight should be excluded rela- tive humidity controlled at 55% to 65%, air filtered to 5 microns, temp 180 C to 220 C; services required electricity, gas water, drainage, oxygen, acetylene, per- haps nitrous oxide, extract of hot gases to exterior. 30.0 4.7 Fume Cupboard Room: common to .1 and .4 and access from .1 and .4; Room will have three fume cupboards along one wall and work bench along other long wall, passage way between, preferred room width 2.8m to 3.0m. Fume cupboards from specialist sup- pliers; services required electricity, 210.0 835.0 PROJECT FILE -93- Item 13 Page 7 Cum Total 835.0 water, drainage; not airconditioned; more details are given in special notes on laboratories. 15.0 4.8 Balance Room: common to .1 and .4 and access from .1 and .4. This room will have vibration free bench along one wall (bench foundations separated from build- ing structure); bench top along other long wall, passage way between; preferred room width 2.8m to 3.0m; direct sunlight excluded; relative humidity controlled at 55% to 65%, air filtered to 5 microns, temp 180 C to 22 0 C, draught free; services required electricity. 50.0 4.9 Wash-up Room: serving.l and .4 wi~h, if possible, direct access from .1 and .4 and, if possible, also from .3; benching, sinks, along one wall; preferred width 2.8m to 3.5m; services required electricity, water drainage. 20.0 4.10 Office for Technicians: three staff: attached to soils lab and access from this if possible, if not, then from corridor; three desks/chairs, chairs for three visitors, bookshelves, pin-up board, filing cabinets, glass viewing panel to soils lab, if possible. 20.0 4.11 Office for Technicians: as .10 but attached to Piant Laboratory. 20.0 4.12 Central Records Office: three clerks; access from corridor; three desks/chairs, work table, filing cabinets. 20.0 4.13 Researchers Office (Chemist) 15.0 4.14 Researchers Office (Biochemist) 15.0 350.0 835.0 /usr12/aspab/cristine/ramak/item14/ramak/2/5/85/Revision PROJECT FILE -94- Item 14 Page 1 INDIA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION AND APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH SUBPROJECTS A. PREPARATION 1. Project preparation would be the responsibility of SAU. The report would incorporate, besides a brief background of the state, a detailed description of the ~ including the following: (a) A general description including area covered, districts and special agroecological features (attach a map of the state showing the location of the zone and locate on it the district boundaries, research institutions and communication facilities) ; (b) Climate: Average monthly mean and maximum temperatures, and average weekly rainfall data from as many centers as are available; (c) Topography: Various sub-regions· and the distiicts and area covered by each; land capability classification and the extent of different classes; (d) Soils: A brief description indicating the approximate extent under different types (enclose Map); (e) Irrigation facilities and irrigated area under different sources; (f) Land use data, area under different crops, yields under rainfed and irrigated conditions; (g) Socio-economic data including population, number of farm families, land tenure, and size of holdings; (h) Agroecological sub-zones within the zone based on soils, topography, irrigation crops, etc., and farming constraints in each sub-zone; and (i) Existing research and extension support indicating: (i) SAU/ICAR/other research facilities (ii) All India Coordinated , -95- PROJECT FILE - Item 14 Page 2 Projects; and (iii) Extension Organizations of state, ~Lab-to~tand, IVK and National Demonstrations; and (iv) exist- . ing research... extension· linkages. 2. On the basis of the above and field visits to interact with farmers and extension,st-aff, .the main project proposals would be prepared and include;; (a) Present yields and yield variations; extent of technology adoption by farmers and reasons for non-adoption; : (b) Detail~c;l description of farmers'" constraints and research gaps; (c) Proposed research program, priorities and brief technical details; (d) Proposed linkage~ with programs identified at para l(i) above; and (e) Investment support including justification for strengthening -research stations ,- facilities available in terms of staff, buiidi:dgs: equipmeri:f and" r~search expending costs, and details ~f cinsrement,al needs a~d ,.costs. 3. > j. The eri.su~e the prep~ration of subproject proposals of good • qu~lit,y ~ ICARwould pr.ov.ide (where ne,cessary) consultant support to SAU. B. APPRAISAL 4.. ,Project Unit Responsibilities. Appraisal of the research sub- project 8utitDitted by 'SAU would be the responsibility of the Project Unit with the objective to assess the research needs of the zone to generate required technology for increasing production and farmers'" income, and to det'ermin'e the need for and the scale of staff and other infrastructure. 5. To achieve 'thEi above objectives, leAR should: "(a) Maint~1n and periodically update a panel of competent and experienced consultants which would comprise a blend of per- sons with different background such as crop specialists, agronomists, agricultural engineers, research administrators, experienced Associate Directors of regional research stations, etc. ; -96- PROJECT FILE Item 14 Page 3 (b) Ensure the preparation by SAU of subproject proposals of acceptable quality and wherever necessary provide PU/consultant support; (c) Constitute appraisal ·teams with a minimum of four-members with experience/specialization relevant to the needs of the zone. One of the team members should be nominated as Chairman and the PU representative as Convenor; (d) Provide background material to the appraisal team -- Research Review Report, Status Report, Preparation Report, etc. (e) Prepare in consultation with the Chairman a detailed Terms of Reference for the team well in advance of the appraisal date; the Terms of Reference should specifically highlight the objectives of the appraisal based on the needs of the zone; and (f) Assign a minimum of seven days for appraisal. 6. Appraisal Team Responsibil-ities •. The appraisal team would: .' ~ ~ _, rl (a) Make extensive field visits for 4-5&ays in the zone (by splitting in two groups to ensure adequate coverage); (b) Visit and review existing research faciliti'es (SAU/reAR) l.n the zone; (c) Assess the agroclimatic variations within the zone and the technological constraints for production; 'Cd) Determine the need for strengthening the existing rese,arch centers and establishing new cent'ers; ". (e) Assess the staffing, civil works, equipment, and oper~tion needs (keeping in mind the facilities already created/available), and prepare cost estimates; (f) Define the function of each center and its broad research strategy and procedures for developing seasonal technical programs; (g) Suggest appropriate administrative, organizational, and coor- dination arrangements including integration of ongoing research and extension related activities; -97- PROJECT FILE Item 14 Page 4 (h) If a research subproject is already approved for the zone, appraisal should review progress, identify problems and make suggestions for improvement; and (i) Produce an Appraisal Report incorporating the above details and recommendations of the Team.