• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 The rationale for ICTA
 The functions of ICTA
 Relationship of ICTA with other...
 Organizational structure of...
 Cost implications
 Effectiveness of ICTA in increased...
 Implications for the SRN
 Alternatives to an ICTA
 Recommendations
 Appendix 1: Annotated comments...
 Appendix 2: Persons contacted






Title: Autonomous agricultural science and technology institute for Honduras; report by Guy B. Baird to the USAID Mission, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, December 19
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054662/00001
 Material Information
Title: Autonomous agricultural science and technology institute for Honduras; report by Guy B. Baird to the USAID Mission, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, December 19
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Baird, Guy B.
Publisher: International Agricultural Development Service
 Subjects
Subject: Caribbean   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Caribbean
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054662
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
    The rationale for ICTA
        Page 2
    The functions of ICTA
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Relationship of ICTA with other public and private sector organizations
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Organizational structure of ICTA
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Cost implications
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Effectiveness of ICTA in increased agricultural productivity
        Page 17
    Implications for the SRN
        Page 18
    Alternatives to an ICTA
        Page 19
    Recommendations
        Page 20
    Appendix 1: Annotated comments on two documents dealing with reorganization of the agricultural sector
        Page A 1
        Page A 2
        Page A 3
        Page A 4
        Page A 5
        Page A 6
        Page A 7
        Page A 8
        Page A 9
        Page A 10
        Page A 11
        Page A 12
    Appendix 2: Persons contacted
        Page B
        Page B 1
        Page B 2
Full Text

4


AN AUTONOMOUS AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE FOR HONDURAS


Report by


GUY B. BAIRD


TO THE


SAID MISSION, TEGUCIGALPA, hONDURAS


DECEMBER 1981


1. ooS


This Report was prepared under IQC Work Order
with the International Agricultural Development Service.


'7












CONTENTS

Page


I. Introduction 1

II. The Rationale for ICTA 2

III. The Functions of ICTA 2

IV. Relationship of ICTA with other Public and 7
Prtivate Sector Organizations

V. Organizational Structure of ILTA 10

IV. Cost Implications 13

VII. Effectiveness of ICTA in Increasea Agricultural 17
Productivity

VIII. Implications for the SRN 18

IX. Alternatives to an ICTA 19

X. Recommendations 20


Appendix 1. Annotated Comments on Two Documents Dealing with
Reorganization of the Agricultural Sector

Appendix 2. Persons Contacted












AN AUTONOMOUS AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
INSTITUTE FOR HONDURAS

I. INTRODUCTION

Considerable attention is being given to a substantial reorganization of the
public agricultural sector. Two draft documents have been produced by a
working group which describe the rationale and plans, including draft
"proyectos de ley". The umbrella document is entitled "Exposicion de Motivos
y Proyecto de Ley ue la Secretaria de Recursos Humancs y del Sector Puulico
Agricola". This document includes provision for an autonomous agricultural
science and technology institute (called ICTA, for short). The second
document deals directly with ICTA and is entitled "Anteproyecto de Ley
Organica del Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola."

The umbrella document envisages giving the Minister of Natural Resources
greater authority to direct the overall development of the public agricultural
sector. Basically, this would be accomplished by: a) providing him with
greater control over the existing autonomous institution in tue sector.
(i.e., COHDEFOR, INA, BALADESA, IHiA and IHCAFE),-and b) creating three new
autonomous institutes (Instituto de Desarrollo ue-los kecursos Naturales
Renovables INDERENA, Corporacion honaurena ae Fomento Agropecuario -
COHFAGRO, and ICTA). COHFAGRO would be a broad base agricultural develoLpent
corporation, enveloping the existing COHBANA. The Minister would be the
President of the Board of Directors of each of these institutes. Further, the
Directorate of Sector Planning would be strongly reinforced so tuat it coula
provide the Minister with better data and guidelines for policy decisions and
resource allocation.

The document on ICTA is basically the proposed draft decree to establish this
institute. As described, ICTA could be essentially concerned with research,
extension and education. However, the intent seems to be to transfer all of
the current programs under the Direccion General de Operaciones Agrico.as
(DGOA) to ICTA, along with the Programa Nacional de Mecanizacion Agxopecuaria
(PROMECA).

The objective of this consultancy was to provide technical guidance to the
government of Honduras in the development of a law estaulishing an autonomous
ICTA.

The consultant, in gaining the information required for the report, reviewed
the two previously-mentioned documents, especially the one containing the
draft law for establishing ICTA. He also talked with relevant Government and
USAID officials about ICTA, particularly regarding:
a. Specific functions of ICTA;
b. Relationship of ICTA with other private and public sector
institutions;
c. ICTA's start-up and operating costs;
d. Organizational structure; and the
e. Effect of ICTA on increasing agricultural productivity,
particularly of small farmers.




I





-2-



Detailed annoted comments on the two draft documents are given in Annex 1.
The persons consulted about ICTA are listed in Annex 2.


II. THE RATIONALE FOR ICTA.

Most of the countries of Latin America, and perhaps most in Asia, have create
autonomous institutes for public sector agricultural research. Some of the
institutes also include extension and development services. The general
rationale is that autonomous institutes for these purposes function more
effectively than the corresponding government services. The greater
effectiveness sterm largely from budgetary and personnel issues.

Budgetary considerations relate more to authority and flexibility in
management, rather than to the amount per se. Creation of an autonomous
institute does not necessarily assure more money at least not initially -
but it should provide for greater efficiency in use of the funds that are
available. It enhances the probability that the budget can be used more
flexibly. It purports to simplify bureaucratic procedures typical of
government. It is reported, for example, that a request for expel.uiture of
funds under DGOA must cross 44 desks. This greater authority for and
flexibility in use of funds under and institute, in no way implies a lesser
degree of accountability.

Particularly in research, countries have grappled with the problem of
retaining personnel. Often low government salary scales, limited
opportunities for advancement, and frustration in not being able to do the job
because of bureaucratic bottle necks in personnel and budgetary actions, have
resulted in an alarming rate of turnover of personnel in government research
services. In principle, autonomous institutes offer a way to get around these
problems.

Honduras is one among the very few countries in Latin America where research
is still a line organization of government. Certainly its research, extension
and agricultural education services are seriously plagued by budgetary and
personnel problems. Thus the country is logically turning to the autonomous
institute as a means to improve the situation.

Ill. THE FUNCTIONS OF ICTA.

A. GENERAL

A basic decision in establishing ICA is what to include. Several countries
have pretty much restricted their autonomous institutes to research. To be
sure, in most cases, it is understood that research is defined to have an
active part in technology transfer, in order to facilitate interactions with
the farmer and with the extension service. This kind of institute is
exemplified by ICTA (Guatemala,, IDIAP (Panama), INIAP (Ecuador) and EMBRAPA
(Brasil).




I





-2-



Detailed annoted comments on the two draft documents are given in Annex 1.
The persons consulted about ICTA are listed in Annex 2.


II. THE RATIONALE FOR ICTA.

Most of the countries of Latin America, and perhaps most in Asia, have create
autonomous institutes for public sector agricultural research. Some of the
institutes also include extension and development services. The general
rationale is that autonomous institutes for these purposes function more
effectively than the corresponding government services. The greater
effectiveness sterm largely from budgetary and personnel issues.

Budgetary considerations relate more to authority and flexibility in
management, rather than to the amount per se. Creation of an autonomous
institute does not necessarily assure more money at least not initially -
but it should provide for greater efficiency in use of the funds that are
available. It enhances the probability that the budget can be used more
flexibly. It purports to simplify bureaucratic procedures typical of
government. It is reported, for example, that a request for expel.uiture of
funds under DGOA must cross 44 desks. This greater authority for and
flexibility in use of funds under and institute, in no way implies a lesser
degree of accountability.

Particularly in research, countries have grappled with the problem of
retaining personnel. Often low government salary scales, limited
opportunities for advancement, and frustration in not being able to do the job
because of bureaucratic bottle necks in personnel and budgetary actions, have
resulted in an alarming rate of turnover of personnel in government research
services. In principle, autonomous institutes offer a way to get around these
problems.

Honduras is one among the very few countries in Latin America where research
is still a line organization of government. Certainly its research, extension
and agricultural education services are seriously plagued by budgetary and
personnel problems. Thus the country is logically turning to the autonomous
institute as a means to improve the situation.

Ill. THE FUNCTIONS OF ICTA.

A. GENERAL

A basic decision in establishing ICA is what to include. Several countries
have pretty much restricted their autonomous institutes to research. To be
sure, in most cases, it is understood that research is defined to have an
active part in technology transfer, in order to facilitate interactions with
the farmer and with the extension service. This kind of institute is
exemplified by ICTA (Guatemala,, IDIAP (Panama), INIAP (Ecuador) and EMBRAPA
(Brasil).










-3-



On the other hand, there are autonomous agricultural science and technology
institutes with a much more broader mandate. An example is ICA in Colombia.
ICA has responsibilities for research, extension, development activities,
monitoring of quality of inputs (fertilizers, plant protection, chemicals,
etc), plant anu animal health, piant and animal quarantine, and seed
production and certification. And, of course, there are ICTA's with
intermediate types of responsibilities, e.g. for only research and extension.

B. The Background Documents

The umbrella document on reorganization of the public agricultural sector
states "En Sirtesis, el Instituto de Ciencia y Tecuologia Agricola tendra la
finalidad de promover, coordinar y realizar la investigation la ensenanza y la
extension agricola" (p. 37). This is realistic ana should be the basic
guideline for the role of ICTA. Yet, the issue is clouded in tne same
document where it is stated that the intent is "... ae transformar la
Direccion de Operaciones Agricolas en un Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia
Agricola......" (p. 37). Further responsibility would Ue given to ICTA by
assigning PROMECA to it (p. 38). These same considerations appear in the
draft decreto to establish ICTA.

C. Direccion General de Operaciones Agricolas.

The present organization of the LGOA, shown in Fig. 1, contains 8 10 program
areas, all of which, presumably, are proposed to become part of ICTA. Not all
of these programs are research, extension or educational in nature. The
programs are discussed briefly in order to better establish a position as to
whether or not all should become integral parts of ICTA.













*r




-44-


Fig. 1 The Direccion General de Operaciones Agricolas Current Arrangement


Note: Programa de Mecanizacion Agricola (PROhECA) is alrectly under the
Mlinister/Vice Minister









-5-



1. Investigation y Extension

These -by definition, would constitute most of the core of ICTA. It is
important to remember, however, that the Programa Nacional de
Investigation Agropecuaria (PNIA) does not really include livestock
research, nor does the Programa Ndcional de Extension Agropecuaria (PNEA)
include extension in the area of livestock. As shown by the
organizational diagram, the Sub Directorates of Crops and Livestock both
have their separate research and extension program, albeit research in
livestock is very limited.

2. Recursos Humanos

The third general function of ICTA, as described in the documents, is
education. This is understood to mean the functions under Recursos
Humanos. This program has four activities: (a) The Escuela hacional ae
Agriculture (ENA), (b) scholarships, (c) in-service training, ana (d) the
three regional training centers.

ENA is a 3-year agricultural school, very much along the lines of the
Escuela Agricola Panamericana in Zamorano (LAP). It has a student body of
about 240, and a teaching staff of 21. It is located in Catacamas, near
one of the experiment stations of PNIA. It is designed primarily to
produce staff for the extension service, although graduates go to other
entities in SRN, as well as to the several autonomous institutions in the
public agricultural sector. PNIA ano PNEA staff are deputed to assist
with courses, seminars, etc.

The training centers are located at La Esperanza, Catacamas and choluteca,
and, as with ENA, are close to the respective PNIA research stations.
Each center has facilities to accommodate 50 trainees. The following
receive training: personnel of the SRN, personnel from other public
sectors, farmers, and rural youth and women. Each center has two
Ingenieros Agronomos and two professors. Training courses, depending on
the trainees ana nature of the course, vary from 1 6 weeks in duration.

The other activities, scholarships and in-service training, are
self-explanatory. An Inter-institutional Committee on Agricultural
In-Service Training (CICES) consists of members from CGHLEFOR, IHCAFE,
COHBANA, INFOP, D1FOCOOP, BANADESA, CONSUPLANE, IHMA, INA and SRN. A
corresponding committee (COBESA), with membership from the same
institutions plus the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras through
the Centro Universitario Regional del Litoral Atlantico (CURLAA, handles
scholarships.

3. Semillas

En general, improved seed is either produced by DGOA under its Seed
Program, or imported. There is virtually no private sector seed industry,
other than in the limited role of merchandizing. The Seed Program is









-6-




responsible for production, certification, processing, storage and
distribution of seed, primarily of the basic food grains (maize, rice,
sorghum and beans). Production is handed unaer contract with farmers,
making use of a revolving fund administered b) BANADESA. Breeders seed,
or basic seed stock of recommended varieties, is made available by PNlA,
which also has the responsibility for maintainance of breeders seed,
varieties and lines.

4. Sanidad Animal y Vegetal

These programs are concerned with quality control, both internal and
international. They are neither research nor extension oriented. They
basically deal with inspection, enforcement of regulations, and, to some
extent, provision of services, as in disease eradication programs.

5. Suelos

The Soils Program has both research and service functions. The latter
centers on the soils laboratory which receives some 5,000 samples per
year, largely from farmers or producer organizations. A nominal charge of
L. 1.00 is made for each service sample analyzed. Very few samples come
from PNIA; PNEA transmits many of the service samples, and helps with
recommendations. The laboratory is equipped to handle thle normal analyses
of soils water and plant materials. It analyzes water samples for
Recursos Hidricos.

Nominally the Soils Program has some field research in fertility which is
coordinated with PNIA. It also has responsibility for research ana
training in soil conservation, but again little is done in practice. The
Program has at least one persons in each of the regions.

This Program has no responsibility for research on water management at the
farm level. Presumably this woula be a concern of Recursos Hidricos,
although the understanding is that it simply is not done, either by
Recursos Hidricos, or by PNIA.

6. Producci6n Animal

This is an extension-support service activity, which, by comparison, is
much smaller than Sahidad Animal both in personnel and budget. As
mentioned earlier, the Sub Direccion Pecuaria, in essence, has its own
extension agents wh6 operate independently from, but in cooperation witn,
th6 PNEA agents. The latter are concerned primarily with crop production.

D. PIDMECA

This organization is set up to provide mechanization services to farmers,
especially those in the agrarian reform sector. It is not a
research-extension organization. It is headed by a Director General who
reports directly to the Minister/Vice Minister. A special decree provides
PROMECA with a greater flexibility in management of its budget than is now
possible with the programs under DGOA. It is proposed that PRORECA become
part of ICTA.








-7-




E. Conclusions

It is reasonable to consider seriously the creation of an autonomous Honduran
Institute'of Agricultural Sciences and Technology an ICTA'- that woulu be
concerned only with research, extension and education. This statement is made
with the understanding that there is a wide range of opinion within the DGOA
as to whether there should be an ICTA, and, if so, what should be included.

It would be a mistake to transfer all of the programs of DGGA to ILTA. Those,
or the components of those, dealing with research, extension and education
should be included; those dealing with quarantine, and enforcement of
government regulations concerning quality of inputs, agricultural commodities
and biologicals, should be excluded. Likewise, ICTA should net have
responsibility for such service functions as mechanization, or piotuction of
seed, or for disease eradication programs Its role in sucl areas should be
supportive, but not directly responsible.

Crop and livestock research need to be integrated, and there shouia be only
one extension service. The country cannot afford to continue the present
arrangement which results in unnecessary uupication of aamnListrative
services, and probably in confusion on the part .of those farmers who have botu
crops and livestock.

An ICTA will need to be much more involved in soil and water management at the
farm level, than is presently the case. The same applies to tue
socio-economic sciences.

IV. RELATIONSHIP OF ICTA WIIH OTHER PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS

The umbrella document on reorganization of the public agricultural sector, and
the proposed decree to establish ICTA, provide for a wide range of
relationships between ICTA and other public and private entities in the
agricultural sector. For convenience, these relationships are considered, in
turn, at the levels of the Minister/Vice Minister, of ICTA itself, and the
Regions. Consideration is also given to extra-uational relationships.

A. Minister/Vice-Minister

There would be a Sub-Secretary for Integration of Agricultural Levelopment
who will be Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Agricultural Sub-Sector
(CES). This Committee would consist of the Director Generals of INA,
BANADESA, IHMA, ICTA, COHFAGRO and 1HCAFE. The Director of Paniticaci6n
Sectorial would serve as Secretario Thcnico of CES. The CES is to meet
frequently, every two weeks.








-8-





As envisaged, CES would offer an opportunity for ICTA to develop good
working relationships with sector planning, agrarian reform, agricultural
credit, marketing, agricultural development and promotion, ana with the coffee
producers. It is important for ICTA to work in harmony with these public
sector entities to be in a position to influence their work, and to develop
ICTA programs supportive of theirs. CES would, of course, facilitate regular
and frequent contact between the Director General of ICTA and the SPR.

B. ICTA

As proposed, the Junta Directiva of ICTA would have a representative from
each of the following organizations: SRN (The Minister would be the Cthairman
of the JD), Secretaria de Economla, Secretaria ce Hacienda y Creaito PGblico,
CONSUPLANE, Federaci6n iacional de Agricuitores y Ganaderos de Honauras
(FENAGH), the asociaciones de campesinos, and the escuelas ae educacibn
agricola superiores.

The Junta Directiva provides for representation from the key government
entities, including the one responsible tor planning. It is also suitably
represented by farmer groups, and by higher agricultural education, consistent
with the intent to include the latter in ICTA. Private agribusiness is not
represented, nor even mentioned in either of the documents as an important
force in agricultural development.

C. Regions Agricolas

There would be a Comit6 Agricola Regional (CAR) in each region, to be
presided over by a representative of the SRN. Membership would consist
basically of representatives from the autonomous institutes under the
Sub-Secretariat for Integration of Agricultural Development. In essence, CAR
would be a regional counterpart of the CES. Correspondingly, ICTA woula be
able to interact frequently at the regional level with its sister autonomous
institutions under the SRN. And, as with CES, CAR would have a Secretario
Tecnico from Planificaci6n Sectorial.

ICTA, through its basic programs, would have extensive contact with
farmers and farmer groups in the regions. It should also be in frequent
contact, and work closely with agribusiness in the regions.

D. Extra-National

PIIA has effective relationships with a number of the international
agricultural research centers, particularly CIMMYT, CIAT, and CIP. The same
applice to the regional center at Turrialba-CATIE. It is anticipated that
these 'linkages would be continued and strengthened under ICTA.




W


-Y-



There are growing opporLunities for national organizations like ICTA to
link with one or more land grant universities in the U.S. through the Title
XII provisions. There are two basic avenues for linkages. One is through the
Coordinated Research Support Projects (CRSP) which focus on specific research
areas of broad interest in the developing world (e.g., small ruminants, bean
and cowpeas, and sorghum ana millet). The second involves broader-based
long-term arrangements between a university in the U.S. and an institution
like ICTA, which is concerned with research, extension, and education.

Also increasingly important is the need of institutions like ICIA to be
able to link with corresponding institutions in other countries of the
region. Probably such linkages are easier with an autonomous institution than
with a corresponding one that is an integral part of government.

E. Conclusions

The proposed restructuring of the SEN would provide a mechanism (CES)
under which ICTA could develop close working relationships with the SRN,
sector planning, and the other sector autonomous .institutes.

The proposed Junta Directiva of ICTA is rine as far as it goes. An
important omission is made in not including a representative from
agribusiness.

At the regional level, both the proposed CARS ana the integrated
research-extension-education program of ICTA should make it easier for the
Institute to have good relationships with the-various development agencies,
with agribusiness, and most importantly, with the farmer.

There does not seem to be any provision in either the umbrella or the ICTA
documents for any relationship between ICTA and COHDEFOR, or between ICTA and
INDERENA. Clearly ICTA would have overlapping interests with both. khile no
changes are being suggested in composition of committees, the importance of
these relationships should be reflected in the ICTA decree.

It is assumed that ICTA would have one or more technical committees,
consisting primarily of its own personnel. However, such committees offer
opportunities to develop stronger relationships with highly related
institutions such as the EAP at El Zamorano, and SIATSA at La Lima.

ICTA, as an autonomous body,. could have greater flexibility than PNIA in
strengthening links with international ana regional research institutes. It
could also work more effectively than its present government counterparts,
with research, extension and education institutions in other countries.

In making these statements about the relationship of ICTA with other
public and private sector institutions, the assumption is made that ICTA will
have strong, imagination Leauership, and strong government support.
Otherwise, there would be little reason to establish it.








-10-


V. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF ICTA

According to the proposed decree, ICTA would have a Junta Directiva, a Gerente
General, a Sub-Gerente, and an Auditoria. Perhaps these are their essential
elements to specify in the decree. Presumably the Director General, with the
knowledge/consent of the Junta Directiva, would determine the detailed
organizational pattern.

Regarding the proposed decree, it would be prudent to say "one or more
sub-Gerentes". To be sure, there may be only one, but, as discussed later,
there may be a good rationale for four. It is better to provide flexibility
in the decree from the outset to obviate possible organizational complications.

The organizational structure of ICTA will be determine by what is included in
it. If all program elements of DGOA and PROMECA are included, the
organization will be relatively complex. If only elements of research,
extension and education are involved, the structure will be relaLively simple.

As noted earlier, the position is taken in this report that, at most, ICTA
should be strictly a research, extension and education institution. This
means inclusion of only some of the programs, or elements of programs, of
DGOA, and exclusion of PRCMECA. With this simplified version, a possible
organizational structure is suggested (Fig. 2). It is only one of many
possible variations ana, at this stage, is presented as illustrative.

There are the basic elements, which would be common to most any organizational
structure for ICIA: Junta General, Gerencia General, Auditoria Fiscal, and
.Planificacibn.

In this organizational model, there are four subgerencias: Investigaci6n,
Extensi6n, Educaci6n/Capacitaci6n, and Administraci6n/Servicios de Apuyo. Of
course, there could be a Subgerente, with four "Directors", or such position
with other titles. Nevertheless, these secondary levels of administration
address the three primary functions of ICTA, plus a position of administrative
and other support services. At this stage, no reason is seen to differentiate
between the level of these four administrators.

A. Subgerencia de Investigaci6n

As'envisaged, all research would be included in the SI-crop, animal,
supporting (e.g., soil and water management) and socio-economic. Emphasis
would be given to the multidisciplinary team approach to research focused on
the farmer, with experiment stations as supporting facilities.













-11-


Fig. 2 Possible Orkuaizational Structure tor a Hoznuran
Institute of Agricultural Science ana Technology.


CIENCIAS
ANIMALS
rocuccion
-veterinaria


ADMINISTRATIVA
SEKVICIOS APOYO


CONSTRUCLIONES Y
1MANENIMIENTO


,,~.. ..

i"







-12-



Some researchers would work primarily at the stations, whereas most -
while possibly based at the stations would work with farmers and on farmers'
fields.

There would be national coordinated research programs for the major crops
- or groups of crops and for animals. The crop scientists and farm level
research personnel would be backstopped by a core group of specialists,
including the fields of entomology, pathology, soils and water.

The socio-economic area of research is important, and could be placed in
a separate unit, as shown in Fig. 2, or integrated into crop and animal
science research. In any case, socio-economists woula work in close
collaboration with crop in animal scientists, both at the experiment station
and farm levels.

B. Subgerencia de Extensibn

All extension personnel would be located in the SE: those dealing with
crops as well as with livestock. At this point no attempt is mace to identify
appropriate subunits. Clearly, SE woula have regional units, which would also
be true for SI. ICTA would have, in effect, a person in charge at the
regional level to coordinate all of its functions and to participate in the
CARs.

C. Subgerencia de Educaci6n/Capacitaci6n

The SE/C would include ENA and the three regional training centers.
Publications have also arbitrarily been assigned to this subgerencia.

D. Subgerencia Adninistrativa/Servicios de Apoyo

This is basically a service unit and would include: personnel,
accounting, construction and maintenance of facilities, and central purchasing
and stores.

E. Other Issues

The assumption is that the Director General and Sub-Directors General
will be based at Tegucigalpa. Most of the staff, however, should be at the
regional level. Coordinators of crop research programs should be based where
their-crops are most important, but must be able to travel throughout the
country.

The question of the soils laboratory has not been addressed. Research
-needs a small soils laboratory, but ideally would not be responsible tor the
-large one that is predominately of a service nature. If the existing
laboratory is taken over by ICTA, and stated and operated as it should be, it
-will mean a substantial addition to the ICTA budget. Nevertheless, this may
be the best solution.









-13-




F. Conclusions

ICTA, as its basic functions have been described, should be concerned
only with research, extension and education. Its organizational structure
should reflect this arrangement. An organizational model has been presenter
which can help in designing the actual one.

Crop and animal research should be under one head of research. Soil ana
water management, and socio-economics suiould figure much more prominently in
ICTA than they now do in DGOA.

There are now separate extension efforts for crops and livestock wiiich,
in ICTA, should be merge into one integrated extension service.

ENA and the three regional training centers should become an integral
part of ICTA, and be nanalea by a head who would operate on an equal level
with the heads of research and extension.

VI. COST IMPLICATIONS

There are important cost implications if ICTA is' created and operated
effectively. Likewise, cost implications are affected by what is included in
ICTA.

If, as proposed in the draft documents, all of DGOA is transferred to a new
ICTA, the minimum operational budget would be about L 60.1 million the DGOA
budget for 1981 (see Table 1). This would be increased by the corresponding
budget for PROMECA, since that entity would also join ICTA.

If, as proposed in this report, ICTA only includes research, extension, and
education, the minimum initial budget would be less perhaps around L 45
million. This latter estimate assumes inclusion of most of the present DGOA
budget for DirecciSn de Goordinacibn Regional, all of Suelos and about 25% of
Producci6n y Sanidad Animal. It excludes all of Semillas and of Producci6n y
Sanidad Vegetal. It, of course, inc-udes all of PNIA, PhEA and Recursos
Humanos. It does not take into account start-up costs for ICTA.

While an ICTA can and should result in more effective use of personnel ana
financial resources, it will work no miracles. The present personnel (numbers
and qualifications) and'bucget (local currency) situation of the research,
extension and education components of DGGA is so serious, that a mere change
to an autonomous institute will not solve the basic problems. Thus, we are
taking about important budget implications. These relate both to local ana
external funds.




1%


-14-




A. Start-up Costs

A new ICTA would be faced early or with at least these needs most of
which are presently provided by SRN:

1. Appointment of a Gerente General and this receptionists/secretarial
staff

2. Internal audit

3. An office of Planning

4. Appointment of the second level of administration (subgerentes)

5. An office of personnel

6. Accounting Office

7. Central purchasing and supplies office

It is assumed that at least initially ICTA could use offices of SRN,
although this would have to be verified. Such should be looked upon as a
temporary arrangement at best. Soon ICTA would be faced with the need to
obtain space elsewhere, either rental, or its own building. The same
considerations apply to office furniture, equipment and supplies.

B. Strengthening Personnel

There would need to be some increase in numbers of technical personnel
and a widespread need to improve their qualifications. This would be handled
on a phased basis, but carefully programmed over a period of, say, five years.

As envisaged in this report, persons would have to be added in areas such
as soil and water management research, and in socio-economic studies.
Undoubtedly in some cases expatriotes should be recruited to the jobs and
remain in them until Hondurans can be trained to take over.

Iuch of the training needs for research, and most for extension, would be
met by ICTA through itw own academic and in-service training program.
However, there is a present and continuing need for training outside of the
country.! This involves both academic and non-academic programs. In the
former, the focus would be largely on a relatively small number working for
advanced degrees. A larger number would avail of non-degree training
opportunities at such places as the international agricultural research
centers and CATIE. To the extent practicable, greater advantage should be
taken of.higher agricultural education opportunities in countries of the
region, such as Mexico and Costa Rica.









-15-




C. Technical Assistance

As mentioned, expatriot experts will be needed by ICTA in several areas,
both on long-term and short-term assignments. The need is seen now, for
example, for assistance in soil and water management, soil analysis, soil
conservation, entomology, socio-economic sciences, animal sciences, and
training. Undoubtedly detailed planning for ICTA would reveal additional
requirements.

D. Buildings, Equipment and Supplies

As understood, the basic buildings and most of the essential equipment
are in place. Again, there would be a need for accommodations for headquarters
staff. The number of staff, and their requirements coula not realistically be
determined at this time, in view of the uncertainty as to how ICIA would be
constituted.

E. Transportation

ICTA, as conceived in this report, would need to be much more mobile that
are the staff of the concerned programs which are now unaer DGOA. To be
successful, ICTA research and extension staff would have to increase their
contact with farmers. Tnis not only means more vehicles, but improved
maintenance, and availability of fuels. Finally, it means more budget for
viaticos.

F. Conclusions

The financial implications in creating ICTA are important, both in terms
of start-up and recurring costs. The magnitude ot the costs will be
determined by what programs are included in ICTA, and the efficiency with
which it is expected to operate. Yearly costs will also be determined by the
rate of build-up of ICTA to a planned level of staff, both in terms of numbers
and qualifications.

In view of present uncertainties about ICTA, as well as lack of adequate
information to estimate detailed needs, even for research, extension and
education, no quantitative estimates are made of financial implications.


. r#




rf


TABLU 1. BUDGET OF THE blRECCION DE OPEUCXIONES CAGRILOLAS (98)-
TABLE 1. BUDGET OF THE DIRLCCION DE OPERACIONES AGRILOLAS (.x98)

m.*


PROGRAM


AhObiT (L)


Direccion y Coordinacion Regional

Investigation (PNIA)

Extension (PNEA)

Semillas

Suelos

Production y Sanidad Vegetal

Production y Sanidad Animal

Recursos Humanos


TOTAL


3,423,940

4,125,850

29,160,936

1,589,433

843,233

4,308,781

8,518,072

8,145,336



60,115,581


Source: DGOA, SRN








-17-


VII. EFFECTIVENESS OF.ICTA IN INCREASED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

The rationale for establishment of an autonomous institute for agricultuLal
research, extension and education is to improve the effectiveness of these
services, in comparison with such services that are directly unoer
government. Basically the autonomy permits an ICTA greater control over
personnel and budget enabling it to be more responsive to program goals.

Important assumptions are made in the creation of an ICTA that will function
effectively, namely that it will:

a) be given a high degree of autonomy regarding its budget and
personnel matters;
b) be protected from unreasonable political pressures;
c) be strongly supported by government, especially by the Ministries of
Agriculture and Finance; and
d) have strong and competent leadership.

With this in mind, ICTA can be much more effective than DGOA in the areas of
research, extension and education.

ICTA would have the rather unusual opportunity to carry out a program
following the basic principles which have been the hallmark of success of the
U.S. Land grant universities the integrated application of research,
extension ano education to the problems of the rural sector. Since all three
of these programs are already in SRN, the transformation could be simple.

PNIA and PNEA have one or two examples showing how research and extension can
work closely at the field level. Oiancho has been mentioned repeatedly as
such a case. Apparently the success there is due to a number of factors
including: encouragement by the Director Agricola Regional, good personal
relationships between tne regional heads of research and extension,
opportunities for joint training, and efforts to look upon research and
extension personnel as peers. There is good reason to believe that an ICTA
could foster this kind of relationship.

There is also good reason to believe, based on the experience of autonomous
institutes such as ICTA in Guatemala, that such an institution in Honduras
could institutionalize the farming systems approach to research and
extension. Basically this means giving much greater emphasis to research at
the farm level, with farmer participation. It .views the farmer, his family,
and the farming operation-as a unit. It, by design, focuses on the small to
medium farmers. PNIA has made a promising start in this approach to research;
it needs to be strengthened An ICTA could do this.

In relation to farming systems research, ICTA could also institutionalize an
integrated crop and livestock research and extension approach. This is highly
desirable since such a high percentage of small and medium farmers have both
crops and livestock.








-18-




An ICTA, through the composition of its Junta Directiva, would aiso provide
opportunities to interact directly and regularly with the becretarias of
Economic, Hacienda y Creaito Pfblico, and CONSUPLANE. These are vital links
for gaining'support for ICTA programs, and for "educating" important parts of
government about the relevance of ICIA programs to the uellbeing of small
farmers.

In the same vein, the Junta Directiva would provide ICTA with important
contacts with client farmer groups. This could be a means of developing gross
roots support for ICTA.

Finally, ICTA probably could be more effective than DGOA because it woulo
likely stimulate greater external financial and technical support. These
institutions tend to have skepticism about the ability of governments to
directly provide effective research and extension services.

VIII. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SRN

The principal implication in creating an ICTA is the prospect of a more
effective research, extension ana education entity. This, of course, is a
goal of the SRN, and thus the implication is highly positive.

At the same time the SRN would relinquish considerable control over budget,
personnel, and program despite the fact that an ICTA would be aascribed to the
SRN, and the Minister (or his designee) would serve as Chairman of the ICTA
Board of Directors. Since the rationale ior an ICTA is greater
autonomy-greater control over its budgets and personnel-this must be respected
by the SEN. Clearly we are not talking about absolutes in relinquishment and
control, but the principles must be adhered to for ICTA to succeed.

SRN will need to weigh carefully the decision about what to include in an
ICTA. ICTA can range from a simple institute responsible only tor
agricultural research, to one that includes all of the present programs of the
DGOA, plus PROMECA. The latter arrangement would add to research, extension
and education, responsibilities for quality and supply of inputs, plant and
animal quarantine, and various support services to farmers and as land
preparation. These additional responsibilities have been shown to seriously
divert the personnel and budgets of a basically research and extension
institute from these key roles. Further, responsibilities for enforcement of
government regulations coulo complicate ICTA's. relationships with farmers,
input supply and marketing organizations, ana other groups whose products
would be inspected by ICTA. Enforcement is a direct function of government
and should not be relegated to an ICTA.








-14-




IX. ALTERLaTIVES TO AN 1(TA

The institute conceived of in the umbrella and ICTA documents is rather
complex. One alternative is to make in simpler, as proposed in this report,
i.e., to really only include research, extension and education. It could be
simplified further by including only research, as is the case with ICTA in
Guatemala.

While an ICTA with only research would be simpler, it would also pose some
problems. The most serious likely would be a tendency to weaken relations
between research and extension, with the latter remaining with LGOA. Research
is already perceived by extension to be a relatively elite group. This image
is not restricted to Honduras. Generally research staff tend to have more
academic training and hence higher salaries than extension personnel. Thus
there is already a certain amount of built-in bias which is not easy to
overcome. Certainly an ICTA with only research would do nothing to help thi:
situation; it would aggravate it.

Further, an ICTA with only research would not necessarily include livestock
research. There seems to be considerable sentiment for a separate and equal
livestock research program. Definitely animal research deserves more
attention, but efforts should to be mace to integrate it into a single
research program.

Then, there is the option to leave research, extension ano education within
DGOA. Given this prospect, what can be cone to make them more effective? A
number of suggestions have been made.

One approach is to have a greater degree of centralization of program budget.
This would be particularly important for research, to enable development of a
coordinated national program. This involves, among other things, the neea to
move research personnel easily among regions especially crop coordinators.
This kind of thing can be frustrated when Regional Directors of Agriculture
have control of research funds allocated for use in their regions. It was
reported that gains have been made recently in budget centralization, and that
now PNIA has direct control over approximately 70% of its budget. Perhaps
still greater gain could be made by also establishing rotating funas.

Centralization of budgets, however, can have the adverse effect of alienating
the program with the Regional Director. Centralization of funds hits at the
authority of the DAR. His reaction could well be to ceny important logistic
and administrative support to the program whose funds are centralized. It is
taken for granted that regionaLization is good, and will continue to be
supported by the government. Thus, centralization of funds, while useful in
some cases, must be done discriminately.

In principle, there should be little problem resulting from allocation of
research, extension and education funds to the regions. This woula De true if








-20-


ear-marked funds were essentially inviolable, meaning that they could not be
transferred to other programs/projects without full concurrence of all parties
concerned. -Apparently, however, this is not the case, at least not in all
regions. Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to have a stronger heaa
of DGOA. A suggestion has been made that this Directorate Le under a Vice
Minister, the reasoning being that then the DARs would respect program
budgets. At present the DGOA lacks such control, with the DARs pretty much
circumventing DGOA and reporting directly to the Minister or Vice minister.

A step beyond centralizing funds of the program level, is to provide greater
flexibility in use of those funds. Such is the case with PRChECA which, unaer
a special decree, reports to the Minister, and does not have to follow normal
government procedures for spending and accounting tor its funds.

Thus, if ICTA is not created, there are administrative means to improve the
efficiency of some programs, notably research.

Nevertheless, neither centralization of funds, nor the kind of flexibility
given to PROMECA, resolve the problem of salary adjustments needed to retain
program staff. Apparently this can be done only by creation of an autonomous
institute. Since retention of good personnel is such a serious problem,
especially in research, added attention needs to be given to the prospect of
an ICTA.

X. RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the preceding parts of this report, the following
recommendations are made:

1. That an autonomous Honduran institute of agricultural sciences and
technology be established;

2. That this institute be limited in its functions to agricultural
research, extension and education;

3. That the proposed Junta Directiva also include a representative from
agribusiness; and

4. That under such institute, both crop and animal sciences research be
integrated under a single head, and that the same procedure obtain
regarding extension work in crops and livestock.











ANNEX I


HONDURAS ICTA

ANNOTATLD COMMENTS ON TWO DOCUMENTS DEALING WITH

REORGANIZATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR


A. Exposicion de Motivos y Proyecto de Ley de la Secretaria de Recursos
Naturales y del Sector Publico, Presentado al Honorable Congreso Nacional
por el Presidente de la Republica. Enero de 1982. Borrador para
Discusion.

This is the umbrella document which, among several other things, sets the
stage and provides for the creation of ICTA as an autonomous institute,
responsible for agricultural research, extension and education. Comments
on this document are made only as they have a bearing on the proposed
institute ICTA

1. p.14, CAPITULO I. De la Direccion y Coordinacion del Sector, bottom
of page and continuing to page 15

".....Claro que las funciones de regulation tiene que hacerlas un
organismo estatal, pero aun asi dictando la political, la regulation pueae
encomendarse a otros organismos especializados del sector, para que la
Secretaria no se quede atada a servicios de-vigilancia y con inspectors,
con los problems y sin los medios de accion."

Comments:
The government has the responsibility of directly enforcing its
regulations. It should not delegate this responsibility to autonomous
organizations created for other purposes. In the context of ICTA, this
provision would set the stage for having a research-extension organization
also be responsible for policing the rules of government concerning plant
and animal quarantine, quality of agricultural inputs (e.g. fertilizers,
plant protection chemicals and vaccines), etc. This sets up a situation
where a technology generation-transfer institution is also forced to be a
police entity. It sets the stage for confrontation with private
agricultural enterprises and agribusiness.

The preceding does not mean that autonomous organizations should refrain
from helping government to frame regulations and controls. They should,
by providing data and the expertise of their staffs. But they should not
have the job of enforcing the regulations.






-2-


2. P.25. CAPITULO IV. DE LA ORGA;ILACIUN DE LA SECRETAKIA LE RECURSOS
NATURALES, middle of page.

"La Secretaria podra delegar en los organismos del sector adscrito al
mismo el curplimiento ue las normas regulatorias sobre sanidaa animal y
vegetal, normalizacion y control de calidades de los proauctos, insumos y
otros elements agricolas, lo mismo que lo referente a la uistribucion,
empaque, procesamiento y almacenaje de los proauctos agricolas para que
pueda determinar la political de importacion de proauctus agricolas aesae
el punto de vista de sanidad y preservation de las species, lo mismo que
la political de importacion de drogas para uso oe veterinario, proauctos
biologicos, fungicidas, insecticides, abonos, semillas y otros insumos y
para que pueda acordar la reglamentacion sobre utilizacion de agua,
bosques, suelos, faunas, flora y cuencas nidrograficas. Esta division de
la Oficialia Mayor contara tambien cou un nucleo reaucido ae personal muy
calificado ya que la elaboracion de ios reglamentos se hara con la
participation airecta de los organismos del sector agricola adscritos a la
Secretaria, que tendran la responsabiliaad de vigilar su cumplimiento".

Comments:
Muci of this paragraph would directly affect ICTA, and in a very averse
manner, for the reasons mentioned under the preceding comment. ICTA
should assist the SRh'to formulate rules and regulations, but should not
be responsible for enforcing them. Colombia made this mistake with ICA,
and is now confronted with the problem of how to undo it. Honduras should
not fall into the same trap.

3. p. 30. first full paragrapn. COMITE DE CONbULTA CON EL SECTOR
PRIVADO AGRICOLA.

"El Comite de Consulta del Sector Publico Agricola con el sector privado
agricola, estara iutegrado por representantes de asociaciones agricolas,
de agricultores y campesinos debidamente autorizados".

Comments:
This is a good idea, but may ignore private agribusiness. It focuses on
the farmer, which is 6ood. But if the government recognizes an important
role for agribusiness, then agribusiness should be represented in the
Comite. This does not bear directly on ICTA, but does philosophically,
and may influence the idea of having a representative of agribusiness on
the Junta Directiva of ICTA.

4. p.35. CAPITULO VI. De la Creacion y Transformacion de Dependencias y
Entidades Estatales Adscritas a la Secretaria ce Kecursos Naturales, para.
2.

"Tomando en consideration algunas experiencias positivas logradas en
paises vecinos y como resultado de los aiagnosticus realizados
recientemente en el sector agricola, se ha llegado a la conclusion de que
es convenient y necesario algunas transformaciones ue instituciones ael
sector, asi: descentralizar dos aependencias que actualmente funcionan
bajo la Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, la Direccion General de
Operaciones Agricolas y Direccion de Recursos Naturales Renovables."











Comments:
The problem here is the intent to transfer en toao the functions ot the
Direccion de Operaciones Agricolas to ICIA. DGOA contains research anu
extension which should be transferred; it also contains Saniaad Animal,
Sanidad-Vegetal, and Semilla, which should not be transterrea. There
should'be no over-riding reason for the government to try to shuck off
DGOA as a unit. Some parts logically would form part of ICTA; others
should remain with SRN, or be assigned elsewhere.

5. p. 37. Institute de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola (ICTA), 2na. para.

"Esta condition llevo la conclusion de transformar la Direccion de
Operaciones Agricolas en un Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola, el
cual contara con su propia Junta Directiva, presidida por el Ministro de
Recursos Naturales". ...

Comments:
As stated previously, only part of DGOA should be transferred to ICTA.
This seems to be intended, based on the next paragraph uncer ICTA, on page
36: "...En sintesis, el Insituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola tendra
la finalidad de promover, coorainar y realizar la investigation, la
ensenanza y la extension agricola". There should be discrimination in
what is transferred from DGOA to ICTA only elements of research,
extension and education; not of regulation, control and supply of inputs
or other tangible services (e.g. land preparation, etc.).

The last paragraph under the section on ICTA (p.38) is still more explicit
about adding unsuitable components and functions "Aaemas ae estas
actividades, el Instituto tendra a su cargo la ejecucion de aquellas ae
character regulador de la production agricola como ser los servicios de
sanidad agropecuaria. Otros servicios de apoyo en el aesarrollo agricola
estaran igualmente concentrados en esta entidad como son los de
mecanizacion agropecuaria". This proposal arrangement would condemn ICTA
from the outset.

6. p.39. Corporacion Hondurena de Fomento Agropecuario (CCHFAGRO)

Comments:
As described, COHFAGRO could logically assume responsibility for the seed
that must now oe handled by DGOA. Until COHFAGRO is created, ICTA should
not be responsible for production of commercial seed; that function should
remain with SRN, or be assigned to some entity charged with responsibility
for production of inputs. COHFAGRO would also be a logical plan for
PROMECA

7. p.44. Modelo Deseable de Direccion y Coordinacion del Sector Publico
Agricola de Honduras.

'Comments:
This diagram clearly shows the proposed reorganization, and seems
reasonable consistent with the narrative. However, the question is







-4-




raised about tie nature ot the "Direccion de kecursos Naturaleb."
Currently Recursos Humanos is under the Sub-Director kAdministration) of
DGOA. It includes responsibility for the Escuela Nacionai Agropecuaria.
ENA primarily produces graduates for extension. Is it intended that ENA
stay with SRN, or become part of ICTA? A strong argument can be raue for
the latter.

Which organization is to have responsibility for research on soil and
water management at the farm level, and on aquaculture? Presumably,
INDERENA will be responsible for conservation and proper utilization of
soil, water, fish and wild life. ICTA certainly should be responsible
for research and extension on soil and water management as related to crop
and livestock production. This issue calls for clarification.

8. p.49-50, Articulo 50.

Comments:

ICTA is assigned responsibility "en investigation, education y extension
agricola". This is logical. The important thing is to limit its function
to these three. There is much inconsistency in the overall document about
the role of ICTA.

While COHFAGRO is to have the role of Fomento Agropecuario,
parenthetically it is assigned Saniaad Vegetal and Animal. These later
should not be in COHFAGRO for basically the same reasons they should not
be in ICTA.

9. p.70. Articulo 15, a)

"a) Los servicios de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola que opera la
Secretariat de Recursos Naturales, a traves de la Direccion General ae
Operaciones Agricolas (Investigacion, Eaucacion y Extension Agricola) y el
Program de Mecanizacion Agropecuaria, se integran bajo una nueva entidad
autonoma denominada Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola (ICTA), que
se regira por su propia Ley".

Comments:
This calls for major revision to really establish an institute Just for
research, extension and education.

10. p. 74. Articulo 19o.

Comments:
The Article seems to contemplate only an office of the Direccion ae
Pladificacion Sectorial of the SRN at the regional level. The regional
representative of the Minister of SRN should be concerned with more than
planning, and should be based regionally. He would also have direct
responsibilities for Sanidad Vegetal y Animal, and other-control and
regulatory functions of SRN.







-5-


B. Ante Proyecto de Ley Organica del Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia
Agricola. Octubre de 1961.

1. Articulo 1.

This article provides for the creation of ICTA as an autonomous
institution.

Comments:
Presumably, "Agricola" is intended to cover both crop and animal
sciences. In the narrower sense, this word refers to crops; the word
"agropecuaria" unequivocally refers to crops and livestock. Since both
words are used in the Decreto seemingly sometimes interchangeably, while
others not, there should be clarity of intent. Certainly, ICTA should
include both animal and crop sciences.

2. Articulo 2.

This article defines the basic role of ICTA research, extension and
education.
Comments:
hany countries have created autonomous institutes which deal essentially
with agricultural research they have not included extension. Perhaps
the major reason is that the extension service tends to be much more
politicized- or subject to political pressures than research. It can be
more difficult to maintain autonomy where extension is included. Thus
this problem should be realized Ly government, ana every effort made to
minimize political pressure on ICTA.

Having voiced a cautionary note, there are over-riding reasons to include
extension in ICTA: the continuum ot the research-extension functions; the
smallness of the country and corresponding smallness or a
research-extension entity; opportunities to avoid duplication in
administrative services; and opportunities to more effectively utilize
facilities, transportation and materials.

Education, formal and informal, constitutes an integral part.of, and
support for, research and extension. Training of personnel of both
services, as well as training of farmers, is a continuing process and much
of it must be handled by the services themselves. Thus
education/training should be a rational and neccesary component of ICTA.
The question is what to include. At the center of this issue is the
Escuela Nacional Agropecuaria (LNA).

ENA, located in Catacamas, Olancho, is very near of the major agricultural
research stations. It averages around 240 students in a 3-year program,
similar to the one of the Escuela Agricola Panamericana at 1I Zamorano -
emphasis on a "hands on" approach. It is under the Sub-director,
Administration, of DGOA. Host of its graduates go to extension, with
others to COHDEFOR, IHCAFE, COHBANA, IFOP, DIFOCOOP, BANADESA, CONSUPLANE,
IHMA, INA and other elements of SRN.








-6-




Probably ENA could function much more effectively under ICTA, than, as at
present, under SRN.

Certainly the Centros de Capacitacion of DGOA should become an integral
part of ICTA. There are 3 (La Esperanza, Catacamas and Choluteca), each
near a research station. They are used to train farmers, rural women and
youth, and professionals in the agricultural sector (extension, INA, etc).
Each center has a set of buildings while can accommodate 50 trainees at one
time.

3. Articulo 5o.

a)" Promover, coordinar y realizar directamente o en colaboracion con
otras entidades, investigaciones biologicas y fisicas, y studios
socio-economicos....."
Comments:
The word "quimicos" should be inserted after "biologicos".

b)" Promover y desarroiar programs ae ensenanza y servicios agricolas que
tiendan a la aplicacion de los resultados obtenidos en la investigation."

Comments:
The question is what is meant by "servicios agricolas". If they mean
extension and training, fine. But is they include quarantine, control and
mechanization, no.


4. Articulo 6.

a)" ......... las ciencias agricolas"

Comments:
The question again arises as to whether the intent is to include ciencias
pecuarias.


b)" Promover, aplicar y difundir ........"

Comments:
"Aplicar" seems unnecessary, and to attribute a function of actually
applying improved technology, such as performing land preparation for
farmers. Care should be taken to distinguish between the core educational
phase of ICTA (extension and training) and actual performance of services
such as land preparation, artificial insemination, and vaccination ot
cattle, etc.


c)" Realizar............, la instalacion de obras y otros elements de
apoyo para el desarrollo de ia production."









-7-




Comments:
This appears to be a questionable function for ICTA. Either it should be
eliminated, or elucidated so as to be sure that ICTA is not to be
assigned inappropriate responsibilities.


d)" Promover y conducir ....... todas aquellas actividades que garanticen
el advance tecnico y productive del sector agricola."

Comments:
The word "conducir" should be eliminated. ICTA should not be directly
responsible for credit, marketing, supply or inputs, control of diseases,
etc. It should, however, work closely with those agencies responsible tor
these functions.


f)" Producir, distribuir, certificar, regular, y portar, transformar,
reptoducir, alquilar, vender, y dcnar equipos, maquinarias o insumos y en
general realizar todo tipo de acto u operation necesario....."

Comments:
This is meaningless in the context of ICTA and should be delete.


g)" Aplicar, desarrollar y controlar a traves de sus servicios de defense
agricola, el cumplimiento de las normas que expida el Ministerio ue
Agricultura:....."

Comments:
ICTA should not have responsibilities for enforcement of government
regulations, nor for campaigns to control diseases, except in the
training-education role. This section should be deleted.


h)" Promover la utilizacion de semilla certificada y producirlas cuando
sea necesario."

Comments:
ICTA should promote the use of certified seed, but should not be
responsible for production. Assumption of such a role siphons time and
funds from the core activities of research, extension and training.
Certainly ICTA is responsible for producing-identifying new
varieties/hybrids, for providing breeders seed to the organizations
responsible for production of commercial seeds, and for maintaining
breeders seed-lines, varieties, hybrids.

It is not an appropriate role for ICTA to certify seed, but that is much
better than producing and certifying, as is uone presently by DGOA.









-8-


i)" Promover la utilizacion de las tecnicas ae incubacion e inseminacion
artificial animal y prestar los servicios necesarios en esta discipline."

Comments:
If research/extension have shown incubation and artificial insemination to
be. appropriate technologies, ICTA should promote them. ICTA shouia not be
responsible for actually performing the services, except as demonstration
or training exercises.

1)" Promover cursos de actualizacion, prestar servicios de asesoria y
realizar otras actividades en material agricola en beneficio de
profesionales, tecnicos, agricultores y ganaderos."

Comments:
To "..... realizar otras actividades" is unnecessarily obstruse. It
would be better to say ...other training, educational, aemunstratiouai
activities", in line with the primary thrusts of ICTA.


m)" Organizar a los productores del sector aropecuario en torno a
programs a nivel national y regional en coordinacion con el Instituto
Nacional Agrario."

Comments:
ICTA should encourage farmers to organize when such facilitates adoption
of technology, availability of credit and inputs, and marketing. ICTA
should not organize them.


n)" Promover y desarrollar la production de farmacos biologicos
destinados a la poblacion animal."

Comments:
ICTA should not be in the business of. producing pharmaceuticals on a
commercial scale. It would be responsible to test these pharmaceuticals,
and to recommend and promote them accordingly. This is one of the several
situations where ICTA is proposed to be set up with a built-in conflict of
interest to produce and certify its own products. Experience has shown
this to be unsatisfactory.


o)" Establecer los controls que se estime convenientes para garantizar
la calidad de los proauctos que se utilicen en la alimentacion animal."

Comments:
ICTA should carry out the research needed by SRN for it to be able to
establish the regulations, based on its experience, but should not be
responsible for enforcement.













q)" Cuidar de la conservation de los suelos agricolas, pastizadas y
bosques, estudiando sus problems para aefinir y aplicar las tecnicas y
procedimientos adequados."

Comments:
It is appropriate for ICTA to do research on soils and to extend the
resulting improved technology to farmers, directly and through other
organizations with responsibility in the area. It is not appropriate for
ICTA to be a soil conservation service with responsibility for making
terraces, grassed water ways, carrying out afforestation for control of
erosion, etc.

r)" Ofrecer al productor national, diversos servicios de apoyo que
tiendan al mejoramiento integral de las explotaciones pecuarias."

Comments:
Unless there can be more specificity regarding the research-extension
training role of ICTA, this selection should be oeletea.


s)" Brindar servicios de mecanizacion para la agriculture y otras
actividades ligadas al aesarrollo agricola del pais."

Comments:
Presumably this means to incorporate PROMECA with ICTA. As understood,
PROMECA does not have a good record, as with most government attempts to
into provide tractor services to farmers. ICTA should not be saddle with
this problem area; it is entirely inappropriate.


t)" Colaborar con la Oficina que corresponda en la regulation de precious
para la determination de los precious de los insumos, maquinaria y equipo
agropecuario y sus repuestos, asi como tomar las medidas para asegurar la
disponibilidad de pieza de repuestos."

Comments:
This is a mixed bag: collaborate in price policy, and be responsible for
spare parts. Certainly ICTA should provide data and express opinions that
could be useful to IHMA (and others) in price control matters. It is hard
to imagine any significant role for ICTA in the availability of spare
parts.


u)" Formular y proponer programs academics para la formacion de
personal cientifico en el campo de las Ciencias Agricolas. -

Comments:
It is not clear as to what is meant here. Does it reter.to ENA, Leiich is
under'DGOA? Or, does it also mean that ICTA should play a role regarding
the academic programs of the three faculties of agriculture, which come
under the purview of the universities /Ministry of Eaucation? The role of
ICTA in the two situations would be quite different.








-10-



5. Articulo 7o.

a)" BANCO NATIONAL DE DESARROLLO AGRICOLA (BANADESA), y el Institute
Hondureno de Mercadeo Agricola (IHMA). Dar su apoyo y colaboracion al
desarrollo de los programs de investigation, ensenanza, promocion y
production que ejecuta el Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola."

Comments:
Delete the word productionn". The same comment applied to "e)"


6. Articulo 8o.

"El ICTA estara formado por:
a) La Junta Directiva
b) El Gerente General
c) El Sub-gerente
d) Auditoria Interna."

Comments:
Perhaps these are the essential elements to specify in the decree, but it
should be made clear that the Board and the Administrative of ICTA would
determine its internal structure.


7. Articulo 90.

This deals with the composition of the Junta Directiva.

Comments:
Assuming private agribusiness now plays, or is expected to play, an
important role in agricultural development, there should be a
representative from that private sector area. Farmers do not represent
agribusiness.

Clearly ICTA will need to coordinate effectively with COHFAGRO, INA,
INDERENA, IHMA, BANADESA, and COHDEFOR. What is the mechanism to insure
interaction? Presumably it would be the Comite Ejecutivo del Subsector
Agropecuario (pp. 32-34 of agricultural sector reorganization document).
There would be a corresponding interaction at the regional level.
Parenthetically, the CES is recommended to meet at least every two weeks,
and the Junta Directiva of ICTA is to meet at least once a month. The IG
of ICTA will be kept busy preparing for and participating in meetings.
They are too frequent, as proposed. This could be remedied by having an
Executive Committee made up of 3-4 members.

Finally, the DG of ICTA should be an ex-oficio member of the Junta
Directiva, but without vote, except in the case of ties.








-11-




8. Articulo 18

"El Gerente General y el Subgerente deberan ser hondurenos de nacimiento,
mayores de 25 anos, y de reconocida honorabiliaad y competencia."

Comments:

Twenty five years is entirely too young for either of these top leadership
positions.


9. Articulo 22

"El patrimonio inicial del ICTA lo constituyen todos los activos y pasivos
que a la fecha de entrada en vigencia de la present Ley, tenga la
Direccion General de Operaciones Agricolas y el Programa de hecanizacion
Agropecuaria que han venido funkienao como dependencias de la Secretaria
de Estado en el Despacho de Recursos Naturales.

Comments:
This supposes ICTA should include seed production, plant and animal
quarantine, quality control of inputs, and mechanization. Since this
should not be the case, this article needs to be revised.


10. Articulo 23.

This deals with how ICTA can increase in initial assets. By:

g)" Los recursos que obtenga por la venta de products provenientes de
sus operaciones y por venta de servicios."

Comments:
What services would ICTA sell? Presumably it would contract for research
with both public and private entities and charge for costs. Its research
results would be public and thus without charge. Would it sell
publications? Consulting services?


11. Articulo 27.

" Al entrar en funcionamiento el Instituto de Ciencias y Tecnologia
Agricola, la Secretaria de Recursos Naturales efectuara la liquidation
total de la Direccion de Operaciones Agricolas y el Programa de
Mecanizacion Agropecuaria conforme la Ley."








-12-




Comments:
This assumes ICTA would be much more than a research-extension-training
institute. Some functions now in DGOA should be retained, or assigned to
some entity(ies) other than ICTA. Mechanization should remain with
PROMECA, dropped or assigned to COHFAGLO. Certainly, it should not be
assigned to ICTA.


12. Articulos 29 y 30.

The same reasoning applies as for article 27. Not all of DGOA, nor
PROMECA, should be included in ICTA.












ANNEX 2


PERSONS CONTACTED


A. SAID

1. Stephen C. Wingert, Office Director for Food and Agricultural
Development
2. Brian Rudert, Agricultural Lesearca Advisor
3. Charles Oberbeck, Agricultural Ecouomist

B. Secretaria de Recurscs Naturales


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

C. IICA


Rodrigo Castillo Aguilar, Ministro de Recursos Naturales
Miguel Angel Bonilla, Viceministro de Recursos Naturaies
Jose Montenegro, Asesor del Ministro
Roberto Villeda Toledo, Asesor cel Ministro
Manuel Valladares, Director General de Operaciones
Francisco Martinez, Subdirector, DGOA (Aaministracion)
Norberto Urbina, Subdirector, DGOA (Agricola)
Celio Osorio, SuDdirector, DGOA (Pecuaria)
Antonio Silva, DGOA, Jete ael PN1A
Gerardo Robleda, DGOA, Jefe del PNEA
Raul Paz A., DGOA, Jefe de Recursos Humanos
Jose Ernesto Tabora, DGOA, Recursos Humanos
Rafael Ivan Murillo, DGOA, Recursos Humanos
Otoniel E. Viera Andrade, DGOA, Semillas (Asesor)
Carlos Crisostomo, DGOA, PNIA
Humberto Lopez, PROMECA
Feliciano Paz, DGOA, Jefe, Programa de Suelos
Jorge Ramsay Arce, DGOA, Asesor PNEA


Alberto Franco, Representante
Edgar L. Ibarra
Marcial Jara Almonte
Carlos E. Reiche C., SRN-IICA
Felix Quevedo I.,
Rafael Ledesma, "


D. FAO

1. Renzo Scavazzon, Representative


E. PROMECA


1. Ovidio Roque Rivera, Subgerente


Cony. IDA-628-No
n r i
M M









-11-


8. Articulo 18

"El Gerente General y el Subgerente deberan ser hondurenos de nacimiento,
mayores de 25 anos, y de reconocida honorabiliaad y competencia."

Comments:

Twenty five years is entirely too young for either of these top leadership
positions.


9. Articulo 22

"El patrimonio inicial del ICTA lo constituyen todos los activos y pasivos
que a la fecha de entrada en vigencia de la present Ley, tenga la
Direccion General de Operaciones Agricolas y el Programa de becanizacion
Agropecuaria que han venido funjiendo como dependencias de la Secretaria
de Estado en el Despacho de Recursos Naturales.

Comments:
This supposes ICTA should include seed production, plant and animal
quarantine, quality control of inputs, and mechanization. Since this
should not be the case, this article needs to be revised.


10. Articulo 23.

This deals with how ICTA can increase in initial assets. By:

g)" Los recursos que obtenga por la venta de products provenientes de
sus operaciones y por venta de servicios."

Comments:
What services would ICTA sell? Presumably it would contract for research
with both public and private entities and charge for costs. Its research
results would be public and thus without charge. Would it sell
publications? Consulting services?


11. Articulo 27.

" Al entrar en funcionamiento el Instituto de Ciencias y Tecnologia
Agricola, la Secretaria de Recursos Naturales efectuara la liquidacion
total de la Direccion de Operaciones Agricolas y el Programa de
Mecanizacion Agropecuaria conforme la Ley."








-12-



Comments:
This assumes ICTA would be much more than a research-extension-training
institute. Some functions now in DGOA should be retained, or assigned to
some entity(ies) other than ICTA. Mechanization should remain with
PROMECA, dropped or assigned to CORFAGkO. Certainly, it should not be
assigned to ICTA.


12. Articulos 29 y 30.

The same reasoning applies as for article 27. Not all of DGOA, nor
PROMECA, should be included in ICTA.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs