This strategic plan² represents a comprehensive road map of national strategies for the agricultural³ research activities conducted by the State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) System, and in partnership with others. This document communicates the strategic targets and some related action items we will undertake for the benefit of the System's users (i.e., customers, consumers, stakeholders, agricultural leaders, and decision makers). We are looking for new ways to enhance the System's performance and to report on our research impacts. Our plan is a dynamic, working document. Periodic up dates will be issued as needed.

Through this plan the SAES System renews its commitments to the Land-Grant University's fundamental paradigm that integrates teaching, research and extension for maximum public benefit. This renewal will allow the System to provide more concerted efforts when responding to the publicly relevant issues, previously voiced in successive citizen engagement sessions.

The SAES System has comparative advantages that allow it to provide publically relevant knowledge and information. Paramount among these is our long-term collaborations within and among Land-Grant institutions, and our partnership with the federal government through the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This strategic plan builds on these relationships, and extends the partnership strategy in new ways, to serve the public better.

The System also plans to more broadly define its mission to better address publicly relevant issues, and to provide better research support for the extension and teaching missions of our paradigm partners. Additionally, the SAES System will use the five goals⁴ jointly derived with our  partners as a framework for planning national research activities, and for reporting research results through mechanisms such as those required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

The SAES System views itself as an entity greater than the sum of its parts, as a result of extensive coordinated research project planning and collaborations within the SAES network. The SAES System is seeking even greater enhanced performance as a "System." This outcome will be realized primarily as:

• Improved scientific quality of our research;
• Enhanced responsiveness to our stakeholders;
• More stakeholder relevance in our research activities;
• Better integration of our research with extension and teaching;
• Better transfer of new technologies to our intended U.S. users;
• A stronger partnership with the federal government;
• Budget requests linked to strategic priorities;
• More accountability; and
• Greater public confidence in the SAES System.

• Expanding its capacity to engage our customers, to better respond to their needs;
• Reorganizing its national research portfolio, to better address our customers' needs;
• Expanding its use of peer review, to enhance evaluations of scientific merit;
• Maintaining an inventory of national research capacity, to better manage its strengths;
• Refocusing its research, to better obtain societal, economic, and environmental benefits;
• Building new coalitions, to more fully accomplish its research objectives; and
• More vigorously communicating the System's accomplishments and successes.

• A more environmentally friendly and sustainable U.S. agriculture;
• Increased satisfaction with the harvested and processed products of U.S. agriculture;
• More nutritious and safer foods for healthier Americans;
• Improved quality of life for all American citizens; and
• Stronger families and communities.

• U.S. farmers, ranchers, and rural communities will benefit from increased productivity and profitability;
• The commerce of U.S. agriculture will become more diversified;
• Consumers will have a safer and more nutritious food supply;
• The managers of our nation's natural resources will be more informed;
• Global marketing of U.S. agricultural products will expand; and
• American jobs will be created.

Table of Contents

Strategic planning within the State Agricultural Experiment Station⁵ (SAES) System has, for nearly two decades, been primarily focused on describing a national "strategic agenda" of ranked agricultural research priorities. This process has recently given way to a more integrated approach that has brought together the Land-Grant University functions (i.e., teaching, extension and research) to identify common issues leading to action. This "Issues to Action"⁶ process involved a series of regional listening sessions followed by a synthesis of issues leading to a plan of action. The entire activity was premised on determined efforts to streamline collaborations among the Land-Grant Universities, and across functions. This most recent cross functional planning effort has set the stage for a new approach to strategic planning for the SAES System.

The SAES System is interested in receiving comments, endorsements, recommendations, criticisms, and points-of-concern in response to this plan as the SAES Directors organize the System's programs and allocate their resources for the next five years.

  Table of Contents

"(d) MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES- To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that federally supported and conducted agricultural research, extension, and education activities are accomplished in a manner that--

(1) integrates agricultural research, extension, and education functions to better link research to technology transfer and information dissemination activities;

(2) encourages regional and multistate programs to address relevant issues of common concern and to better leverage scarce resources; and

(3) achieves agricultural research, extension, and education objectives through multi-institutional and multifunctional approaches and by conducting research at facilities and institutions best equipped to achieve those objectives."

In addition, the SAES System, in partnership with the USDA's Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area and its Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and with substantial customer input, have identified five strategic goals⁷. The five goals are:

• An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the global economy;
• A safe and secure food and fiber system;
• A healthy, well nourished population;
• An agricultural system which enhances natural resources and the environment; and
• Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans.

Table of Contents

In several recent national and regional listening sessions, and through continuing customer engagements, the SAES System has identified a number of customer-important needs and priorities. These have been assembled into a list of customer-identified issues, stated as the need to have:

• Technologies for reasonable farm and ranch productivity and profitability;
• Technologies that are integrated, and proven on a realistic scale;
• Methods of production that are sustainable, and environmentally friendly;
• Resolution of  public and scientific concerns for agriculture's over-reliance on pesticides and fertilizers;
• Informed management of our natural resources; including soils, water, air, and biota;
• A supply of nutritious and safe foods for all Americans;
• Answers for growing consumer demands for a reliable, secure, accessible and affordable food and fiber supply;
• Research emphasis on technologies that create jobs, and distribute benefits equitably;
• Technologies that will allow U.S. agriculture to remain internationally competitive in the emerging global market place;
• Management technologies that are more geographically precise;
• Technologies that add value to harvested products;
• Technologies that development and enhance the well being of all citizens, urban and rural; and
• Knowledge to help individual, family, and community development.

 Table of Contents

• Consumer demand for safe, high quality, accessible, and low cost foods and other biological products with a diversity of selections will continue to expand, both domestically and globally.
• Pressure for the uses of land other than agriculture will continue to increase.
• Citizen concerns for environmental problems will intensify, many of which may have links to agricultural practices.
• Science, in support of agriculture, will operationally continue to become more global.
• Concern for the continued vitality of our rural infrastructure will remain.
• New and better methods will be created for interstate and regional planning for research, extension, and teaching.
• New and better methods will be created for documenting and communicating research accomplishments.

• Federal base funding (a.k.a. Hatch Act funding) will continue to support SAES System activities, and to define the System's membership.
• The leveraging of federal base funds from other sources will continue to amplify our resources.
• The Federal-State Partnership will be expanded to additional federal agencies.
• New types of partnerships will be organized with the private sector.
• Stronger collaborations will be formed with the LGU extension and teaching functions.
• New and better methods will be created for listening to our customers, stakeholders, agricultural leaders, decision makers, and supporters.

Analyses of rates of return on agricultural research investments typically exceed 30% to 50 % annually. Few, if any, areas of research pay dividends that approach those of agriculture. The unique coupling of basic and applied research activities at the SAESs is said to account for these very high rates of return.

Considerable experience has been derived from developing the world-renowned Land-Grant Universities, including the SAES System. This experience has led to a number of guiding principles for developing a national agricultural research strategic plan for the SAES System. These principles are:

• The success of agricultural research is based on a distributed, pluralistic system.  Centralized facilities and programs for agricultural research are less effective because agricultural constraints and research opportunities are often site specific.

• A distributed system for the management of scientific research is essential for intellectual creativity.

• The Federal-State Partnership in agricultural research has evolved as a special and valuable working relationship.  Federal base funding is an essential component for the success of this partnership.  It allows the federal partner to participate in decision making at the regional, state, and local levels, while leveraging their investments with non-federal funds.

• Regional Research affords the SAES system great strategic advantage for tackling some of agriculture's most difficult social, economic and environmental issues.  These issues are frequently not limited by a State's political boundaries.

• The Land-Grant University's paradigm, which integrates teaching, research, and extension, is globally unique, well respected, and recognized worldwide as an institutional paradigm worthy of emulation.

• Configuring national and regional competitive grants, commodity support, industry grants, and special research grants, along with federal base and state funding, allows SAES Directors  to provide for the immediate needs of customers while investing in research for agriculture's future⁸.

• Each SAES conducts research relevant to state and regional priorities. Collectively, these individual state research programs comprise the national research portfolio.

 Table of Contents

External Factors:

• The Global Marketplace. In the post-Cold War era new incentives for science investments have emerged, with considerable emphasis on global market competitiveness. Today, many nations are acknowledging the need to invest in science in order to remain (or become) competitive in the global marketplace.

• Urban/Agricultural/Environmental Interface. Population growth and shifting demographics are impacting agricultural production systems. Significant land use, zoning, pest management, and resource management issues have result as from this shift of population.

• Consumer Demand for Quality and Safety of Food Supply.  Recent outbreaks of food poisoning from E. coil have brought heightened attention to food safety problems. In addition, concern over pesticide residues, possible implications from altering the quality of food supplies through biotechnology, and transmission of diseases from animals to humans combine to heighten the public's concern on food safety.

• Evolving Stakeholder Expectations. Commodity representatives, consumer advocacy organizations, environmental interest groups, non-governmental organizations, industry leaders, and elected representatives are today more directly expressing their needs and priorities to SAES scientists and directors. In the aggregate, expectations vastly exceed the Systems' available research capacity. Thus, informed management decisions are needed to best allocate available resources.

• Structural Changes in Agriculture. The merging of formerly separate industries in agriculture (e.g. seed and chemicals) and vertical integration are significant factors causing change in American agriculture. Structural changes in agriculture result in a multi-modal agriculture. Simplistic depictions of the structure of U.S. agriculture fail to show the complex nature of the various types of U.S. farming and ranching enterprises. Moreover, the diversity of agricultural enterprises is expanding, further complicating the SAES's system's strategies for meeting public expectations.

• Expansion of the Clientele-Base for LGU. Changing expectations of public institutions and the United State's demographic transformation from the predominant rural/farming economy of six decades ago to today's mixed economy has shifted responsibilities of the Land-Grant Universities. This change has caused a constant tension between providing research results for the needs of traditional production agriculture, and the added research responsibilities to address natural resource management, environmental topics, and consumer, family and community issues.

• Calls for Accountability.  Closer scrutiny of public sector investments in agricultural research is leading to calls from elected  representatives for greater program accountability and more documented justification for budget requests. Federally, this call is manifested in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) which requires federal agencies to use strategic planning-based impact assessments as a process for deciding future resource allocations. This requirement is directly impacting the management decisions of the Federal-State Partnership in agricultural research.

• Concerns for Global Food and Fiber Supply and Security. The long term sustainability of the nation's food and fiber supply is a standing concern. These concerns are linked to global population issues, and the need to respond responsibly to the growing worldwide demands for agricultural products. These demands are projected to increase in the next few decades.

• The Focus on Sustainability.  A major paradigm shift to sustainable agriculture has occurred in the past two decades. This shift in emphasis toward sustainability is noteworthy, and represents a significant challenge for the agricultural research community that cannot be ignored.

• Private Sector Research. A strong U.S. private sector agricultural research enterprise has emerged, which by some estimates now accounts for 60% of the annual national investment in agricultural research. This emergence is causing a shift in the demarcation of research responsibilities between the public and the private sectors. Much of this change is driven by reinterpretations of intellectual property rights laws that were intended to encourage private sector investment in the areas formerly the responsibility of the public sector.

• Public-Private Sector Partnerships. Partnerships between the public and private sectors are evolving to higher levels of collaboration, especially in the "pre-technology sciences" (sensu Huffman and Evenson). University partnerships with industry can also effectively transmit new technologies to the market place and are complementary to extension when properly organized.

• Declining Farm Representation. Agricultural technology successes in the past half century have contributed to a decline in the number of people directly engaged in farming. Related to this trend is the consequent reduction in the proportion of elected representatives who are farmers, or even know about farming. This outcome complicates the process of communicating agricultural research needs, opportunities, and achievements to our elected representatives.

• Policy Decisions. The consequences of federal, state, and local agricultural and environmental policy decisions will continue to complicate agricultural research choices for program managers.

• Multiple Claimants. A consequence of having multiple institutional claimants, each with an agenda, is the pressure to preserve existing patterns of expenditures. Often, such groups have the political clout to enforce their demands. Redirection of programs into new initiatives or emerging technologies, in the face of ever constrained resources, leads to challenges in research management at SAES's.

• Financial constraints. SAES's financial constraints, mostly resulting from budget cuts in many states and static federal funding, have forced tough management decisions at many Stations. Consequently:

Due to these financial constraints, it is difficult for the System to engage in new initiatives or to begin significant investments in emerging technologies. However, significant redirection of effort have occurred during the past decade.

• Extension's Agenda Shift. The SAES's national research agenda may need to include some research topics that have previously been excluded. This need is most evident in the SAES relationship to extension, wherein several major extension activities are not now well supported by research activities (e.g. Managing Change in Agriculture, Youth at Risk). Not all extension needs for research based information can be met by SAES's, however.

• Public and Private Sector Responsibilities. The traditional division of responsibilities between the public and private sectors is undergoing rapid change, much of which is driven by new technologies and markets for goods and services formally provided by the public sector. There remains, however, a strong need for public institutions to provide public goods not otherwise provided by the private sector. Sorting out these responsibilities is a major challenge to both the private and public sectors.

• Multi-disciplinary Research. Increased demand and expanded opportunity for multi-disciplinary research teams have caused a shift in the expectations for collaboration and research management support. This represents a major challenge to the SAES system.

• Systems Science Approach to Research Problems. There is an increasing expectation from research faculty for support of Systems Science research by management. Systems Science is a more holistic approach to the inter-relationships of component parts, and differs significantly from the more traditional reductionist approaches to problem solving.

• Emerging Technologies.   New technologies are emerging that offer exciting opportunities for agricultural research. Among these topics are: plant and animal genomic mapping; genetic engineering; precision agriculture; value-added technologies for harvested products; and applications of computing and electronic communications in agriculture. These topics reflect the high cost of many contemporary agricultural research activities. Currently, the SAES System is underinvested in these and other topic areas, vis-a-vis needed initiatives and emerging technologies.

• Paradigm Stress. The current funding stress faced by LGU's is threatening the fundamental paradigm of the institution, and its SAES component. Institutional downsizing has created programmatic gaps on many campuses that cannot be easily filled by reassignments or reorganization. The System's capacity is threatened by these changes. Survival of many LGU Colleges of Agriculture and their SAES is a serious concern.

• Intellectual Property Rights.  The management of intellectual  property rights and the associated earned royalties, has on many campuses, become a serious concern. How these resources can better contribute to the mission of the institution and the collective SAES system is in need of attention.

• Institutional Changes.  The evolution of the Land Grant Universities is bringing significant changes to the structure, organization and focus of research and education. This shifting pattern of institutional make-up needs to be recognized in any national strategic planning effort.

The SAES System has important comparative advantages that contribute to its strength and uniqueness. The SAES System is:

• Nationally Distributed, with multiple sites within each state. This distributed System offers a network of research stations which provide diverse environments and conditions for research. Having a System of research stations also permits the early detection and monitoring of agricultural problems and environmental conditions in ways that support the collective agricultural research network.

• A Land-Grant University Participant, in the tripartite mission. The synergism derived from the institutional integration of teaching, research, and extension has substantial and well recognized social, environmental, and economic benefits.

• A Component of the Federal-State Partnership, in agricultural research. The System's agricultural partnership with the federal government provides the basis and definition of the System's membership along with significant resources for programmatic activities.

• A Convener for Regional Research Projects. One fourth of the System's federal funding is set aside for Regional Research Projects. Significant effort is also devoted to regional coordination projects, many of which are jointly sponsored with extension.

• Comprehensive in its Coverage, of the scientific disciplines related to agriculture, when broadly defined. In addition to the biological and physical sciences, agriculture research on virtually all campuses has the capacity to conduct social and behavioral science research, and farm and business research. This comparative advantage is significant for the System, when partnering with federal research agencies, where discipline divisions are often separated as agency boundaries.

• Linked to the International Scientific Community, through many points-of-contact, including graduate education. Former students and post doctoral scientists now working in the international community represent a network of collaborators of considerable comparative advantage.

• Continuous in its Scientific Research Capacity, from fundamental and applied. Research supports our future knowledge needs. The continuum of applied and fundamental research in the System's portfolio helps to maintain the System's capacity to respond to current and future needs.

• Resource leveraged. By virtue of System membership, and as a result of a willingness to work in collaboration with other institutions, the research outputs and derived public benefits from the System's activities are significantly leveraged.

• Committed to Listening to our Customers. Through direct engagements and through extension feedback mechanisms the SAES System remains in touch with the broad constituency it serves.

• Fundamental to Graduate Education. Research supported by the SAES System provides the base research program that supports graduate education in the agricultural and social sciences. These graduate programs provide a well trained workforce to sustain a productive and innovative food and fiber system for the future.

• Well supported, politically. The SAES System receives strong support from both the U.S. agricultural community, and from the general public. This decades-long support reflects the tremendous social, economic and environmental benefits that are derived from investing public funds in agricultural research.

A set of 8 Strategic Targets, with 32 associated Action Items, will be pursued by the SAES system over the next five years to address the Federal-State Partnership's five strategic goals. These Strategic Targets and Action Items are:

Strategic Target 1.  Place greater emphasis on identifying and serving the needs of stakeholders and clientele.

Action Item:   Expand consultation, participatory planning and stakeholder involvement in program implementation.

Action Item:   Emphasize the development of science-based information, technologies, and knowledge through a diverse portfolio of priority research activities.

Action Item:   Provide knowledge and services equitably for all citizens, including the historically underserved and small-scale farming enterprises, for a broad base of service and appreciation.

Strategic Target 2.  Improve the effectiveness of agricultural research management.

Action Item:  Share research management approaches and successful leadership experiences through professional development programs, seminars, workshops, and in other ways.

Action Item:  Develop improved performance and accountability measures to better assure scientific quality and research relevance.

Action Item:  Develop, maintain, and share methods for documenting the impacts of research.

Action Item:  Maintain an inventory of SAES System's capacity (human, fiscal, and physical resources) to better plan and direct activities for solving relevant problems.

Action Item:  Verify the quality of scientific research, utilizing peer review where appropriate, to ensure that research investments are effectively allocated.

 

Strategic Target 3.  Expand the research capability of the SAES's to respond to stakeholder needs.

Action Item: Involve faculty-colleagues from non-traditional disciplines in the conduct of SAES research.

Action Item:  Maintain and expand a diversified portfolio of funding sources for research, including the development of non-traditional sources of funding.

 

Strategic Target 4.  Expand and reinvigorate our strategic partnerships.

Action Item:   Strengthen our partnership with CSREES.

Action Item: Jointly plan and conduct research activities with traditional (e.g., ARS, ERS, FS) and new partners (e.g., private labs, research-based companies, commodity  groups, non-governmental organizations).

Action Item: Develop stronger collaborative relationships with additional federal agencies (e.g., NASA, EPA).

Action Item:  Develop and enhance appropriate collaborative arrangements with the private sector.

Action Item:  Develop and enhance partnerships among states.

Action Item:  Provide leadership for expanded international partnerships.

• Strategic Target 5.  Foster improved integration of research, extension and academic programs.

 
Action Item: Expand cross-functional collaborations within and among institutions.

Action Item: Encourage more participation by extension specialists in Regional Research Projects and in Regional Coordinating Committees.

Strategic Target 6.  Be more accountable to stakeholders.

Action Item:   Improve the effectiveness of our communications with stakeholders, including legislators and the public.

Action Item:   Directly contribute to the reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

Action Item:   Support the SAES System's growing commitments to Image Enhancement, jointly with the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP).

• Strategic Target 7. Couple the processes of national strategic planning with federal budget development and advocacy.

 
Action Item:   Create a process for consensus building on a limited set of strategically important national priorities.

Action Item:   Provide a process for identifying national initiatives, suitable for concerted promotion.

Action Item:   Join with ECOP to plan and promote common priorities and initiatives.

Action Item:   Work with CSREES in the "outyears" to identify joint budget priorities.

Action Item:    Identify areas of emphasis to be targeted with additional formula appropriations from congress

Action Item:   Work with other federal agencies in support of their budget requests, when those requests are congruent with the priorities of the SAES System.

Strategic Target 8. Organize the national research portfolio into a set of discrete programs.

Action Item:   Give the SAES System's diversity of disciplines a voice in the creation of a consensus ordering the research portfolio's programs.

Action Item:   Reorganize the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy's (ESCOP) Technical Committees for greater cost efficiency and effectiveness.

Action Item:  Partner with the professional society activities (e.g., FAIR 2002, CROPS 99) for planning national program activities.

Action Item:   Liaison with commodity groups to establish agreed programmatic priorities, for mutual support.

Action Item:  Charge the identified program areas with responsibility for: monitoring and projecting needed capacity; planning research activities; and reporting accomplishments.

Organization of the national research portfolio into a set of national programs will be done under ESCOP's leadership with attention to maintaining a balance between desired representation and the costs of participation. Each program will be charged with responsibility for:
 

• maintaining an inventory of programmatic capacities;
• planning for program activities; and
• for reporting program accomplishments.

• Program planning activities to resource needs;
• Resource needs to budget requirements (and thus to SAES advocacy efforts); and,
• Program investments to research outcomes and benefits (for GPRA reporting and Image Enhancement).

• Improved scientific quality of our research, through greater employment of peer review methods;
• Enhanced responsiveness to our stakeholders, through better processes for listening to our stakeholders;
• More stakeholder relevance in our research activities, by improved priority setting methods;
• Better integration of our research with extension and teaching, through more joint planning and implementation;
• Better transfer of new technologies to our intended U.S. users, thorough stronger research support for extension;
• A stronger partnership with the federal government, through expanded communication and support;
• More accountability, through GPRA reporting and the ESCOP/ECOP Image Enhancement activities; and
• Greater public confidence in the SAES System, through better communication with the public.

• Work jointly with partners to find ways of being flexible and adaptive in response to change.
• Work with our functional partners on the development of a longer-term strategic plan.
• Develop an advocacy plan for the SAES System.
• Participate in the national and regional plan for communicating with the public.
• Base our future SAES System annual budget requests on programmatically-based priorities and plans.

Footnotes:

1. The membership of the SAES System includes the State Agricultural Experiment Stations affiliated with the 1862 Land-Grant Universities and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at New Haven; and the agricultural research programs at the 1890 Land-Grant Universities and Tuskegee University.

2. The process used for developing the consensus positions represented in this document started with a series of national and regional listening sessions supplemented by other information resources. From these sources the ESCOP Subcommittee on Strategic Planning, which has representation from SAESs, extension, teaching, and USDA/CSREES (i.e., the federal partner-agency), identified a set of issues which were coalesced into a draft strategic plan. Subsequent cycles of review and revision have contributed to a national consensus on these proposed strategies.

3. Agriculture, as used herein, is defined broadly to include all aspects of food, fiber, ornamental, and forest production, processing and consumption. The term agriculture is also used herein to relate to broad public responsibilities for preserving natural resources and protecting the environment, and serving the needs of all of the customers of agriculture; as individuals, families, and communities.

4. The five goals are: An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the global economy; A safe and secure food and fiber system; A healthy, well nourished population; An agricultural system which enhances natural resources and the environment; and Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans.

5. The membership of the SAES System includes the State Agricultural Experiment Stations affiliated with the 1862 Land-Grant Universities and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at New Haven; and the agricultural research programs at the 1890 Land-Grant Universities and Tuskegee University.

6. See Issues to Action: A Plan for Action on Agricultural and Natural Resources for the Land-Grant Universities. The Board on Agriculture, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1996.

7. Actually, the REE plan calls for a sixth outcome that relates entirely to human capacity development within the REE mission area, and thus it is not directly relevant to this research planning exercise.

8. For an analysis of these relationships see W. E. Huffman and R.E. Just, "Funding, Structure, and Management of Public Agricultural Research in the United States," Journal of Agricultural Economics, November 1994.
Table of Contents

end of document