Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Annex A: A review of the agricultural...
 Annex B: A review of the agricultural...
 LAC/DR/RD Survey of LAC Mission...
 Annex D: Case studies of USAID...
 Survey questionnaire summary tables...
 Annex F: Summary description of...
 Annex G: TAC paper on relationships...

Title: A cross-cutting analysis of agricultural research, extension, and education (AG REE) in AID-assisted LAC countries
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055262/00002
 Material Information
Title: A cross-cutting analysis of agricultural research, extension, and education (AG REE) in AID-assisted LAC countries
Physical Description: v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Byrnes, Kerry J., 1945-
United States -- Agency for International Development. -- Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean. -- Rural Development Division
Agriculture and Rural Development Technical Services Project
Chemonics (Firm)
Publisher: LAC TECH, Agriculture and Rural Development Technical Services Project
Place of Publication: Washington D.C
Publication Date: [1992]
Subject: Agriculture -- Research -- Latin America   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Research -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Agricultural education -- Latin America   ( lcsh )
Agricultural education -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Latin America   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kerry J. Byrnes.
General Note: "February 1992."
General Note: "Submitted to U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, Office of Development Resources, Rural Development Division, LAC/DR/RD."
General Note: On cover: "LAC TECH Agriculture and Rural Development Technical Services Project, AID/LAC/DR/RD, Chemonics International, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture."
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055262
Volume ID: VID00002
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 28474625

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    Annex A: A review of the agricultural research, extension, and education components of LAC Mission Country Developement Strategy Statements
        Unnumbered ( 5 )
        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
            Page A 13
            Page A 14
        Dominican Republic
            Page A 15
            Page A 16
            Page A 17
            Page A 18
            Page A 19
            Page A 20
            Page A 21
            Page A 22
            Page A 23
            Page A 24
        Regional Development office for the Caribbean
            Page A 25
            Page A 26
            Page A 27
            Page A 28
        Costa Rica
            Page A 29
            Page A 30
        El Salvador
            Page A 31
            Page A 32
            Page A 33
            Page A 34
            Page A 35
            Page A 36
            Page A 37
            Page A 38
            Page A 39
            Page A 40
        Regional office for Central America and Panamá
            Page A 41
            Page A 42
            Page A 43
    Annex B: A review of the agricultural research, extension, and education components of USAID mission agriculture and rural development portfolios in the LAC Region
        Unnumbered ( 49 )
        Page B 1
        Andean Region
            Page B 2
        Caribbean Region
            Page B 3
        Central American Region
            Page B 4
        Andean Region
            Page B 5
                Page B 5
                Page B 6
                Page B 7
                    Page B 8
                    Page B 9
                Page B 10
                Page B 11
                Page B 12
                Page B 13
                    Page B 14
                Page B 15
                Page B 16
                Page B 17
                Page B 18
                Page B 19
        Caribbean Region
            Page B 20
            Page B 21
            Page B 22
            Page B 23
            Page B 24
                Page B 25
                Page B 26
                Page B 27
                Page B 28
        Regional development office for the Caribbean
            Page B 29
            Page B 30
            Page B 31
            Page B 32
            Page B 33
        Central American Region
            Page B 34
            Page B 35
                Page B 34
            Costa Rica
                Page B 36
            El Salvador
                Page B 37
                Page B 38
                Page B 39
                Page B 40
                Page B 41
                Page B 42
                Page B 43
                Page B 44
                Page B 45
                Page B 46
                Page B 47
                Page B 48
                Page B 49
                Page B 50
                Page B 51
                    Page B 52
                    Page B 53
    LAC/DR/RD Survey of LAC Mission Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Projects/Programs
        Unnumbered ( 103 )
        Page C 1
        Page C 2
        Page C 3
        Page C 4
        Arear A: Improving agriculture technology generation in public agricultural research organization
            Page C 5
        Area B: Improving agricultural technology transfer through public agricultural extension organizations
            Page C 6
        Area C: Improving agricultural education in agricultural education organizations
            Page C 7
        Area D: Improving agricultural technology generation and transfer through private organizations
            Page C 8
            Page C 9
            Page C 10
            Page C 11
            Page C 12
            Page C 13
            Page C 14
            Page C 15
            Page C 16
            Page C 17
    Annex D: Case studies of USAID mission responses to LAC/DR/RD survey of LAC mission agricultural research, extension, and education projects/programs
        Unnumbered ( 121 )
        Andean Region
            Page D 1
                Page D 1
                Page D 2
                Page D 3
                Page D 4
                Page D 5
            USAID/ Ecuador
                Page D 6
                Page D 7
                Page D 8
                Page D 9
                Page D 10
                Page D 11
            USAID/ Perú
                Page D 12
                Page D 13
                Page D 14
                Page D 15
            USAID/Dominican Republic
                Page D 16
            USAID/Dominican Republic
                Page D 16
                Page D 17
                Page D 18
                Page D 19
                Page D 20
            USAID/ Haiti
                Page D 21
                Page D 22
                Page D 23
                Page D 24
                Page D 25
            USAID/ Jamaica
                Page D 26
                Page D 27
                Page D 28
                Page D 29
                Page D 30
                Page D 31
                Page D 32
                Page D 33
                Page D 34
                Page D 35
                Page D 36
                Page D 37
                Page D 38
                Page D 39
                Page D 40
            RDO/ C
                Page D 41
                Page D 42
                Page D 43
                Page D 44
                Page D 45
                Page D 46
                Page D 47
                Page D 48
                Page D 49
                Page D 50
            USAID/ Costa Rica
                Page D 51
                Page D 52
                Page D 53
                Page D 54
            USAID/ El Salvador
                Page D 55
                Page D 56
                Page D 57
                Page D 58
            USAID/ Guatemala
                Page D 59
                Page D 60
                Page D 61
                Page D 62
            USAID/ Honduras
                Page D 63
                Page D 64
                Page D 65
                Page D 66
                Page D 67
                Page D 68
                Page D 69
                Page D 70
            USAID ROCAP
                Page D 71
                Page D 72
                Page D 73
                Page D 74
                Page D 75
                Page D 76
                Page D 77
                Page D 78
                Page D 79
                Page D 80
    Survey questionnaire summary tables of USAID mission assessments of status of agricultural REE
        Unnumbered ( 202 )
        Andean Region
            Page E 1
        Caribbean region
            Page E 1
        Central American Region
            Page E 2
            Page E 3
            Page E 4
            Page E 5
            Page E 6
            Page E 7
            Page E 8
            Page E 9
            Page E 10
            Page E 11
            Page E 12
            Page E 13
            Page E 14
            Page E 15
            Page E 16
            Page E 17
            Page E 18
            Page E 19
            Page E 20
            Page E 21
            Page E 22
            Page E 23
            Page E 24
    Annex F: Summary description of key agricultural REE organizations in aid-assisted LAC countries
        Unnumbered ( 227 )
        LAC regional organizations
            Page F 1
        LAC regional organizations
            Page F 1
            Page F 2
            Page F 3
        Andean Region
            Page F 4
                Page F 4
                Page F 4
                Page F 5
                Page F 6
        Caribbean Region
            Page F 7
            Caribbean regional institutions
                Page F 7
                Page F 8
                Page F 9
        Central American Region
            Page F 10
            Central American reigional institutions
                Page F 10
                Page F 11
                Page F 12
                Page F 13
                Page F 14
                Page F 15
                Page F 16
                Page F 17
                Page F 18
                Page F 19
                Page F 20
                Page F 21
                Page F 22
                Page F 23
    Annex G: TAC paper on relationships between CGIAR centres and national research systems: key points & questions
        Unnumbered ( 251 )
        Page G 1
        Page G 2
        Page G 3
Full Text







Kerry J. Byrnes

Submitted to:

U.S. Agency for International Development
Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean
Office of Development Resources
Rural Development Division

February 1992







Kerry J. Byrnes

Submitted to:

U.S. Agency for International Development
Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean
Office of Development Resources
Rural Development Division

February 1992

'The ideas expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) or Chemonics International. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the

2Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Advisor, Latin American and Caribbean Agriculture and
Rural Development Technical Services (LAC TECH) Project, Chemonics International, Washington, D.C.
LAC TECH is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.







A Review of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Components of LAC Mission Country Development
Strategy Statements (CDSSs)

A Review of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Components of USAID Mission Agriculture and Rural
Development Portfolios in the LAC Region

LAC/DR/RD Survey of LAC Mission Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Projects/Programs

Case Studies of USAID Mission Responses to LAC/DR/RD Survey
of LAC Mission Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Projects/Programs

Andean Region


Caribbean Region

USAID/Dominican Republic

Central American Region

USAID/Costa Rica
USAID/El Salvador


Survey Questionnaire Summary Tables of USAID Mission
Assessments of Status of Agricultural REE in AID-Assisted
LAC Countries












Summary Description of Key Agricultural REE Organizations
in AID-Assisted LAC Countries

TAC Paper on Relationships between CGIAR Centres and National
Research Systems: Key Points & Questions





This annex reviews Country Development Strategy Statements (CDSSs) from the late
1970s to the present, for each of 13 USAID Missions in the Latin America and the
Caribbean (LAC) region, except Nicaragua and Panami.1 For each Mission, the review
compiles material, drawn from the CDSSs prepared by that Mission, that describes the
Mission's development assistance strategy vis-k-vis agricultural research, extension, and/or
education. A review of this material for each Mission provides an indication of changes over
time in the degree to which agricultural research, extension, and/or education were identified
by a Mission as problematic and how the Mission proposed to respond to identified problems
in this area. The CDSS material is presented in the following order of regions and countries:

Andean Region

Caribbean Region
Dominican Republic

Central American Region
Costa Rica
El Salvador

'USAID did not provide support for development assistance in Nicaragua during much of the 1980s and
provided development assistance to Panama only through part of 1987. As of early 1990, AID was in the process
of reestablishing development assistance programs in both Nicaragua and Panama. Because of the discontinuity in
AID's assistance program for these two countries during the 1980s, the present annex does not summarize material
relating to the agricultural research, extension, and education components of the CDSSs for these two countries.
However, the CDSSs for these two countries are on file in the LAC TECH library and the relevant material in these
CDSSs may be added to this annex at a later date.



FY 81 (1/79)

This CDSS noted that Bolivia's "rapid economic growth during the period 1972-1977
[had] only marginal impact on improving the socio-economic condition" of the country's
poor." Further, the CDSS indicated that Bolivia's farmers have not adopted modern
production techniques; consequently, they have "the lowest agriculture productivity rates in
South America." This owed, in part, to the Government of Bolivia's (GOB)

extremely low research capability, and inappropriate technologies. The GOB's poorly
organized and inadequately supported agricultural efforts have resulted in the
organization of agricultural services as a complex and frequently overlapping set of
non-linked programs. Extension programs in particular suffer from lack of budgetary
and policy support, as well as trained personnel.

On this latter point, Bolivia's university system did not provide training in areas such as farm
management and social sciences; as a result, the country lacked a cadre of qualified
professional agricultural personnel to serve in technical, managerial, and planning positions.

USAID/Bolivia's sector goal for agriculture and rural development was "to increase
the per capital income and standard of living of the rural poor." The Mission's objectives
included: appropriate technologies (production, processing, marketing) identified in food and
vegetable crops and animal husbandry for small farm use; public sector extension service
strengthened through use of nation-wide radio and part-time local agricultural promoters;
personnel trained in various agricultural fields at various levels [40 M.S., 743 academic
short-term (93 international and 650 in-country), and 448 in-service].

The strategy was "to broaden productive employment" through improving "small
farmer access" to various inputs including "appropriate technology." Mission projects were
to be implemented via ministries, Departmental Development Corporations (DDCs), and/ or
PVOs. The Mission recognized that "a comprehensive assistance package including technical
experts, equipment, supplies, working capital and training opportunities" would be "a major
new activity" in the area of "public services relating to technological and extension
development." Indeed, the appropriate technology area was identified as one of the
Mission's "major new thrusts during the planning period."

This thrust was to entail assistance "to strengthen the capability of private and public
entities to identify, design, test and promote low cost technologies which can increase agri-
cultural production and productivity...." As a first phase, the Mission planned to support
applied research and development

by providing technical assistance, training, equipment, materials, research grants, and
pilot funding for feasibility studies, testing/demonstration activities, evaluation and
promotion of appropriate technologies. A second phase effort will provide assistance


to promote, purchase and install proven technologies in order to assure their rapid
dissemination and utilization.

In regard to this latter point, the Mission planned "a major thrust in agricultural extension
through the training and part-time employment of farmer/extension agents. Also, a program
to improve the university system will be proposed, possibly in collaboration with a Title XII

FY 82 (1/80)

The goal for the 1982-86 planning period was "to promote growth with equity in
order to achieve an improved standard of living for Bolivia's poor." A first objective was to
increase agricultural production through better small farmer access to inputs, including
improved technology and management of natural resources and "increased development of
the private sector." The Mission's strategy was based on

the premise that to achieve growth with equity..., Bolivia must have a social
framework which allows and encourages the participation of the poor.... Given the
centralized nature of the Bolivian government, the Mission believes that to encourage
increased target group participation, development efforts should be aimed at...regional
and local levels. The strategy, therefore, will be to design projects which require
local responsibility, develop local capacity, encourage upward articulation of local
solutions for development problems....

The strategy entailed: (1) decentralized operation through the Departmental
Development Corporations, regional offices of central ministries, municipalities, and private
sector organizations; and (2) use of private sector organizations, including PVOs where
effective and appropriate. The CDSS noted that this

decentralization is aimed at achieving a greater degree of local input and decreasing
the dependence on national level support. The Mission will search for local and
private sector alternatives to national public sector activities, based on the conclusion
that Bolivian government organizations cannot effectively implement the full array of
activities needed to achieve the Mission's goals. This decentralization implies a
somewhat reduced emphasis on institution building at the national level.

In the agriculture and rural development sector, the CDSS noted that local
paraprofessionals would be used in the Agricultural Extension and Technology Development
and Diffusion projects. These two projects were to improve small farmer access to produc-
tion inputs. The CDSS stated that agricultural

technology extension [would] be emphasized over research. The proposed extension
system will be used to transmit appropriate mechanical and conservation technologies
as well as tested agronomic practices; technology development and adaptation
activities will be included.

The Agricultural Extension project would include a component for adaptation and extension
of intermediate agricultural technologies such as tools, small threshers, and animal traction.

A narcotics strategy was introduced in the FY 82 CDSS. This strategy was to be
implemented through the Chapare Regional Development Project.

FY 83 (1/81)

The Mission's strategy for this planning period provided for a reduction of
counterpart and an increase in private sector involvement:

Given the critical financial and administrative situation of the GOB, projects will be
designed to minimize government commitment of funds, particularly new recurrent
expenditures.... In all sectors, we will seek to expand the use of private entities to
reach the target group. Experience with the private sector convinces us that more can
be done outside and around the institutional constraints which plague the GOB.

Rather than seek to strengthen GOB ministries, the strategy aimed at generating off-farm
employment in "market towns."

Sector objectives in agriculture and rural development were to be pursued "by
increasing local participation in decision-making through decentralization and strengthening
of rural organizations...." Four priority areas for small farmer development were to be
emphasized: (a) improvement in the delivery of agricultural inputs, technical assistance, and
credit; (b) expanded market accessibility and efficiency; (c) greater access to technology
adapted to local requirements; and (d) better management of natural resources. In (c), the
emphasis would be on "local adaptation and diffusion of technology" through the
establishment of "interactive processes of local adaptation and dissemination of farm
technologies, stressing local participation. The CDSS stated that the Mission was "fully
prepared to initiate a development project in the Chapare to provide alternatives to coca
production, assuming the GOB implements an effective narcotics program to control the
illegal processing and trafficking of coca and its derivatives."

FY 89-93 (4/88)

The Mission's goal for the 1989-93 period is "Basic Structural Reforms Leading to
Rapid and Sustained Economic Growth." The secondary goal is "Shared Benefits of
Growth." Central to the first goal is increasing non-traditional exports. Major obstacles to
increased exports were identified as lack of market information, credit, and infrastructure, as
well as inappropriate GOB policies. The Mission's strategy for the agriculture sector
includes policy dialogue and concentrating on marketing, infrastructure, and productivity, in
order to lower food costs, raise producer incomes, and increase selected exports. The
Mission's "Alternative Development program" would support narcotics control primarily
through social and economic assistance to farmers transitioning from coca production to other
crops. The CDSS also indicated that the Mission would "intensify its narcotics awareness

The Mission agreed with "the GOB's emphasis on export-led growth and [proposed]
to orient...its resources towards a non-traditional export bias." In this respect, the CDSS

Strengthening the private sector will continue to be at the heart of the Mission's
strategy. In addition to improving the financial, policy and institutional conditions
that currently constrain the private sector, the program will strengthen the
entrepreneurial spirit of businessmen, large and small, and develop and enhance their
institutional capacity to participate in the formulation of new, market-oriented
economic policies.

Based on the USAID-funded Agriculture Sector Assessment in 1987, the CDSS noted
that the Mission would focus on marketing, infrastructure (mostly market feeder roads and
storage facilities), and productivity. Assistance for product development, productivity
improvement, and quality control would be provided under the Export Promotion project.

The CDSS noted that the Mission, based on the Agricultural Sector Assessment, had

opted for a marketing-led, rather than a productivity-led agricultural development
strategy since this is the major factor determining the cost of food to consumers, as
well as the major constraint to improving incomes of producers and increasing
agricultural exports.... Bolivia's principal agricultural exports, e.g., lumber, wood
products, cattle and cattle products, and soybeans, are from the lowlands. Moreover,
the lowlands have the greatest potential for increased agricultural exports for the
foreseeable future.

The CDSS notes that Bolivia would continue to rely on the Altiplano and valley areas
for the production of much of the country's food needs, and that the Mission would primarily
focus on "increasing the efficiency of the domestic marketing system through the
improvement of market information channels, improved collection, storage, and processing
facilities, and improved farm to market transportation." The CDSS acknowledged that:

Increased productivity through higher yielding technologies and more sophisticated
agricultural inputs [would] be a secondary element of the Mission's strategy.

But there was recognition that "productivity gains and marketing efficiencies are...necessary
to generate the surpluses and the financing required to shift out of strictly domestic foodstuff
production and into a combination of production for internal consumption and export."
Potential highland and valley agricultural products with export potential were identified.
Finally, the CDSS indicated that the Mission's strategy would "include education and training
to provide the trained human resource base upon which sustained development depends."


FY 82 (1/80)

The process of renewing USAID development assistance to Ecuador started in mid
1978, following a United States Government decision to support Ecuador's return to a
democratic, constitutional government. In January 1980, after a seven-year phase-out
process, USAID/Ecuador's program was being renewed to support the socio-economic
objectives of the new democratic Government of Ecuador (GOE), which assumed power
August 10, 1979. The GOE identified four development priorities: the multiple problems of
the rural and urban poor; severe deforestation and environmental problems; the energy
shortages the country might face by the mid-1980s as oil consumption threatens to exceed
production; and the major constraints in the GOE's public administration system which
impede the development and implementation of its socio-economic policies and programs.

The CDSS noted that the focus of the Mission's development assistance strategy
would be on "integrated rural and urban development programs that benefit the poorer
segments of the Ecuadorean population, initially in carefully selected geographic areas and;
once these programs are tested, on a national basis with GOE and other donor funding."
This strategy was based on the GOE's 1980-84 Development Plan, the growth with equity
objectives of which closely paralleled USAID's policy of assisting programs that meet the
basic human needs of low- income families.

The emphasis on integrated rural development (IRD) is based on recognition that

most of the rural poor are not so much "small farmers" as they are multiple
jobholders whose opportunities lie not just in agriculture but also in other economic
activities. A focus on these other activities, and on their interrelationships with
agriculture, is essential for achieving the GOE's objective of providing a more
equitable geographic distribution of the benefits of economic growth.

The Mission's strategy was to support the GOE's objectives via

a package of activities designed to develop, test, and establish low-cost delivery
systems.... The ultimate goal of USAID support is to leave behind, upon termination
of AID assistance, an institutionalized capability--both in the GOE and at the
community level--to deal with rural poverty problems on a sustained and effective

The CDSS noted that agricultural research in Ecuador does not have

a small-farmer or poverty orientation, and there is little diffusion of research results.
The extension service is weak and its activities are not well coordinated with other
GOE services and policies. ...little attention has been given to developing more
appropriate technologies for dealing with problems of agrarian reform, small-farmer
marketing systems, more effective participation of women in production and


marketing processes, and alternative employment opportunities.... GOE services in
research, education,...marketing, and credit are limited in scope or directed mainly to
medium and large-size farmers.

The Mission's proposed response was: (1) institutional development activities
designed to develop and/or strengthen the links between national, regional, and local
organizations and the rural poor; and (2) area-specific action programs of a demonstration
nature designed to test innovative approaches to raising agricultural production and increasing
agricultural and non-agricultural incomes and employment. The Mission proposed,
beginning in 1980, to support a Title XII Technological Transfer System project, with the
following objectives:

1. To strengthen rural-sector institutions and their capacity to reach the rural poor
through (a) effective links among research, extension, and education institutions; and
(b) training and assistance to the proposed Rural Training Institute; and

2. To develop technologies appropriate to the needs of small farmers and the rural poor.

The IRD component of the Mission's strategy was to begin in FY 80 with an
Integrated Rural Development project that would support a range of services, including
development and dissemination of technological packages appropriate for small farmers, and
expanded extension services utilizing local paraprofessionals. The CDSS noted that:
"Agricultural production and employment activities are being emphasized first because these
are the most important for ensuring self-sustaining area development."

FY 83 (1/81)

As of January 1981, the FY 82-86 strategy approved in January 1980 remained
fundamentally unchanged. The strategy's focus on integrated rural development (IRD), the
CDSS noted,

builds on the experience of previous AID and GOE development efforts showing that
single-faceted projects-unrelated and dispersed throughout the country-have had
only a limited impact on improving the conditions of low income families. Integrated
approaches that concentrate limited resources and services in specific geographic areas
are believed to be more effective in addressing the country's critical poverty

Further, the CDSS noted that the GOE's IRD approach recognizes that

the multiple problems of the rural poor...cannot be attacked by any one GOE ministry
or agency. The GOE believes that they must be attacked on an area specific,
integrated basis by a number of different GOE entities (e.g., Ministries of
Agriculture, Health, Education), each working together in a coordinated manner.


However, an Integrated Rural Development Secretariat (SEDRI) was created and a fund
established in October, 1980, to finance IRD projects and facilitate the coordination and
implementation of IRD projects.

USAID support to the GOE IRD strategy was scheduled to be provided in three
stages. Stage 1 includes three projects: Integrated Rural Development (IRD), Rural
Technology Transfer (Title XII), and Rural Training Systems. The IRD project was to assist
the GOE to make operational its IRD mechanism in three area-specific IRD projects and
implement model small farmer delivery and production systems that could be replicated
nationwide. The Rural Technology Transfer project was to assist the GOE in mobilizing
technical expertise from U.S. land-grant universities to assist in improving Ecuadorean
agricultural research, education, and extension institutions working on small farmer problems
in the target IRD project areas.2

The Rural Training Systems project was to train campesinos to better identify and
implement local development activities. To the extent feasible, emphasis was to be placed on
agricultural commodities considered strategic by the GOE because of their importance in the
food basket of the poor or their export potential.3

Further, the GOE had recently established a new Science and Technology Council
(CONACYT) to begin upgrading Ecuador's scientific and technological resources and direct
them to the problems of the poor. The Mission proposed, under one or more of its projects,
to develop links between CONACYT and U.S. and Latin American sources of technology,
particularly in those areas that address the country's key poverty problems, and to provide
support for demonstration and dissemination activities implemented through Ecuador's
universities and research facilities.

The CDSS also noted the Mission's support for projects that were being implemented
by Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs). None of the identified PVOs and/or their
projects, however, were focusing specifically on the problem of developing agricultural
research, extension, and/or education. A PVO, Fundaci6n NATURA, was undertaking a
program to educate the Ecuadorean public on the country's environmental problems, and was
preparing an environmental profile that would provide the basis for designing projects to deal
with forestry, soil conservation, and natural resources. The CDSS concluded with the
observation that:

Serious institutional, technological and human resource constraints limit Ecuador's
ability to absorb resources and channel them to its most critical problem areas. The
modest AID program addresses these constraints. It contributes to filling the gap
between the GOE's strong growth-with-equity commitment and the weak institutional,

This project followed on a 1979 Title XII Study on Agricultural Research. Education and Extension in Ecuador.

'Stage 2 was to include a Rural Health. Nutrition, and Potable Water project, while Stage 3 was to include three
projects: Forestry and Soil Conservation, Small Rural Enterprises and Agroindustry, and Rural Education.


technological, and human resource capacity for dealing with the country's highest
priority development problems.

FY 85 (5/83)

This CDSS includes an analysis of the reasons for "weak technology development" in
Ecuador; generally, the CDSS pointed out, the country's institutional base for research,
extension, and education is weak. To make technology a more effective tool for Ecuador's
development, the Mission was assisting CONACYT to create a Rural Technology Transfer
System to encourage links between Ecuadorean entities involved in applied research and Title
XII universities. Also, the Mission, through the Campesino Training Institute (INCAA),
sought to strengthen extension programs by introducing the use of innovative non-formal
education techniques.

While Ecuador was facing a deteriorated economic situation at the time of this CDSS,
the CDSS noted that

USAID will continue its approach of using projects having a mix of technical
assistance, training, and research activities as means to upgrade Ecuadorian private
and public institutional capacity to develop and implement appropriate policies as well
as to develop, adapt, and utilize appropriate technologies.... By the end of the CDSS
period, USAID expects that projects...which it finances will have contributed
significantly towards bringing about a more efficient public sector and a more
dynamic private sector.

The CDSS included a private sector strategy outlining a series of projects that would promote
and generate increased productivity, particularly in forestry and fisheries.

Further, the CDSS noted a number of factors, including the lack of improved
technologies to increase productivity and to reduce costs of production, as explaining the
depressed state of the country's agricultural sector. The CDSS also pointed to the
importance of Ecuadorian institutions that were weak and unable to coordinate

their policies and programs and to find innovative, effective solutions and tech-
nologies to cope with...sector problems. These institutions are hindered by a lack of
qualified personnel and funds, inappropriate information on which to base decisions,
inappropriate organizational structures, and inappropriate delivery systems.

The Mission's response was four projects: Rural Technology Transfer Systems (RTTS),
Integrated Rural Development (IRD), Campesino Training Institute, and Forestry
Development. Coordinated actions in farming systems research, farm extension specifically
oriented to the campesino's cultural background, and other support activities were being
brought together for the first time under the IRD and Campesino Training projects. "Even-
tually, the experience of these projects will be replicated by the GOE throughout the
seventeen programmed IRD areas...."


But the economic crisis in Ecuador at the time of this CDSS' preparation led the
Mission to highlight

the need to increase the emphasis on productive activities in the agricultural sector,
especially those leading to improved productivity, increased food production, the crea-
tion of jobs, and the generation of an exportable surplus. Accordingly, while
continuing to expand the market participation of small farmers in the present
geographic target areas, USAID proposes to increase its attention to reach the small to
medium size farmers already in the commercial sector and with an adequate resource
base. These farmers have the potential to increase significantly their production in
the short run, both for the domestic and the export market, as well as to absorb
additional labor.

Accordingly, the Mission proposed to increase its support to "key Ecuadorian institutions,
both public and private, which play a role in promoting agricultural production/productivity
and in related marketing systems." Specifically, the Mission proposed

to develop a series of projects to stimulate small and medium commercial farm
development which would result in increased staple food production and
diversification into high value and non-traditional crops.

One proposed project, Private Sector Agricultural Technology Transfer, would promote
private sector research on and transfer (delivery) of agricultural technologies to farmers
through producers' associations and farmer cooperatives or through agro-industrial and agro-
business enterprises. Another proposed project, On-farm Water and Soil Management,
would assist GOE institutions in developing programs to rationalize on-farm water usage and
promote soil conservation.

FY 86 (1/84)

This CDSS's Executive Summary noted a "changing emphasis to evolve in the
USAID portfolio before the end of the CDSS period," as follows (only those relating most
directly to agricultural research, extension, and/or education are listed):

1. Development of a private sector outreach capacity with new programs in non-
traditional export promotion and private sector human resource development.

2. New emphasis on the role of agri-businesses as private sector service structures for
agriculture and increased attention on collaborative research programs with the private

3. Completion and satisfactory accomplishment of existing programs focusing largely on
Sierra agriculture and public sector service delivery to subsistence farmers.

4. Greater emphasis on small-scale commercial farmers.


5. New efforts to overcome agricultural institutional deficiencies through improving the
agriculture education system.

This CDSS noted that, in agriculture, "the shortage of well trained staff for both
public and private sector entities is due to the inadequacies of the present agricultural
educational institutions. There are insufficient numbers of agricultural professors with
advanced training. This, in turn, reflects the absence of graduate programs in agricultural
science." Accordingly, the Mission planned to be involved in "strengthening the agricultural
education system."

Given the high cost of agricultural research, it is of interest to note the emphasis
which this CDSS places on "Doing More With Less." USAID/Ecuador's

relatively small program must continue to emphasize low cost approaches that
demonstrate affordable models. USAID is successfully using pilot or area specific
approaches funded by grants or grant/loan packages to test and develop model
activities in key sectors. These activities often have important institution building
components involving technical assistance, training, and learning-by-doing. Effective
implementation depends on the success of these institution building efforts which
require substantial monitoring and management by USAID staff, particularly during
the early stages of projects. Through modest initial investments, USAID promotes
cost-effective models that can be replicated on a national scale using domestic or other
donor resources, and creates institutions capable of absorbing and effectively utilizing
these resources.

The CDSS also indicated the increased role that PVOs would play.

Given that "agriculture has the potential to be one of the main engines of growth over
the next decade," the CDSS identified an "improved technology generation and transfer
system" as one of the requirements to achieve this potential. New activities would focus on
the coastal area, while the focus in the Sierra would be on completing the ongoing IRD
project. In terms of institution building and technology transfer objectives, the CDSS noted
that the RTTS project was establishing in CONACYT an improved capacity for setting
research priorities and coordinating research and disseminating results. Further, through the
IRD and the Campesino Training projects, the GOE was developing strengthened capacity to
promote development of interinstitutional links and coordination of field level support
programs. Finally, the Mission proposed a "program of support to strengthen university
agricultural education" to be carried out during the last half of the CDSS period.

In terms of private sector participation objectives, the CDSS noted that public sector
cooperation with private agribusiness was being promoted through the RTTS projects (e.g.,
financing research and demonstrations carried out by private groups). Further, the Mission's
private sector program included an agricultural component in terms of its support for devel-
opment of non-traditional agricultural exports. In terms of technology transfer objectives,
the CDSS noted the constraints as follows: "inadequate provision of services for assisting or


training exporters in the commercialization of non-traditional exports; and limited supply of
"export-quality" technology advice at the production stage."

Overall, this CDSS reflected a growing concern by the Mission, in each program
area, to address, when relevant, a mix of policy, institution building, technology transfer,
and private sector participation objectives.

FY 90 (1/89)

This CDSS noted that the basic constraints to more rapid and equitable growth of
agriculture still remained, including, among other factors, low productivity and high costs
due to dependence on traditional technologies, and ineffective institutions and inadequate
investment in human capital:

The agricultural science base, comprised of the set of scientists, technicians, and
associated institutions involved in accessing, adapting, generating and diffusing new
and improved technical practices for agriculture, is especially deficient, because of:
a) relatively low and ad hoc investments in research and technology transfer; b) loss
of most of the few senior agricultural scientists previously in the system; c) inade-
quate salaries and recognition to attract and hold top-notch people; d) inadequate link
up with international research and technology transfer centers; and e) woefully
inadequate investments in agricultural education. These deficiencies, in turn, have
contributed to: a) a naive reliance on imported "shelf" technologies; b) lack of focus
and priorities; c) discontinuity of effort and short-term focus; d) inadequate, unco-
ordinated, and largely ineffective technology transfer efforts; and e) almost no
linkages, coordination, or communication among research, education, and extension
institutions serving agriculture.

The CDSS notes the Mission's "major concern" about a number of areas, including low
resource levels and efficiency in the agricultural research and extension system, degradation
of natural resources and the environment, and major inadequacies and inefficiencies in the
agricultural education system. Also, appearing for the first time as a problem area in a
USAID/Ecuador CDSS is the area of the problems resulting from an information gap on
narcotics awareness.

The Mission's strategy for agriculture continues to be that set forth in the prior
CDSS. A major component of the strategy is "strengthening the science base for agriculture
through technology adaptation and transfer." The strengthening of the science base is to
continue through ongoing support to private sector producer associations and by fostering
stronger links between farmers and various public and private agencies, including the
National Agricultural Research Institute (INIAP) and the Foundation for Agricultural
Development (FUNDAGRO).



FY 81 (1/79)

This CDSS stated that USAID/Pern's strategy is to "stimulate and sustain progress
toward the elimination of absolute poverty until the Peruvian economy is able to assume this
task fully and independently." The strategy had three components: (1) sierra social pro-
grams; (2) sierra and high jungle economic growth; and (3) coastal urban basic human needs.
The strategy in the second of these components was to create an agricultural growth dynamic
in the Sierra and the adjacent High Jungle (selva). Mission resources were to be
concentrated in those sierra/selva sub-regions which demonstrate the greatest productive
capacity, and migration would be encouraged from the least-productive poverty regions of
the sierra to areas with greater economic potential in the sierra and high jungle. The
Mission's strategy was expected to have varying impacts on the target groups: (1) inde-
pendent, market-oriented farmers (sierra and high jungle); (2) agrarian reform beneficiaries;
(3) campesino communities and groups; (4) landless and near landless; and (5) urban poor.

During the preceding ten years, considerable deterioration had taken place in the
agricultural research, extension, and education system. Deterioration took place in the
capability of technical personnel, in the quality of program design and execution, and in
physical facilities/equipment. The CDSS reported that the Government of Perd (GOP) had
taken policy steps since 1977 to reverse this trend but lacked the resources to revitalize the
system. A Title XII comprehensive baseline study of the research, extension, and education
system was to be undertaken in 1979; this study would serve as a guide to Mission
programming. The CDSS noted that the Mission was "convinced that Peruvian agriculture
will continue to stagnate without an aggressive long-term commitment in this area."

FY 82 (1/80)

This USAID/Pern CDSS was the first to make mention of the role of narcotics in the
Mission's program. The high jungle of Huanuco is a major coca growing area

and the source of the raw material for much of the illicit narcotics trade. A major
U.S. objective is to reduce significantly the illicit excess coca crop, bearing in mind
that AID development projects in such areas can be important in reducing production
of narcotics and in promoting alternative development.

During 1979, a Title XII comprehensive baseline study of the research, extension, and
education system was completed; the CDSS noted that this study formed

the basis for a major program of assistance in five of Peri's most important food
crops. This loan/grant project will begin in FY 80. By FY 82 or 83 we will be
ready for the recommended second phase dealing with livestock, especially aimed at
sheep, llama and alpaca-the principal income source for the sierra farmer.


FY 83 (1/81)

Under the Mission's Sierra and High Jungle Economic Growth program, the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education project (AID loan/grant signed in August of
1980) was to assist the GOP in creating a new "Ag. REE system." USAID funds were to
finance training, equipment, salary support, and technical assistance in establishing national
production programs, research centers, and extension services.

FY 86 (1/84)

This CDSS proposed that USAID/Peri would "strengthen and expand private sector
institutions and development approaches" and put "greater emphasis on agriculture and
exports." The former would entail emphasis on "the use of private sector institutions to
deliver program services." The CDSS noted that: "In general, we would look for fewer but
simpler projects with the GOP and a greater number of projects with the private sector."

The CDSS also noted that the Mission was in the process of making three changes in
program approach: (1) a shift away from the prior geographical focus of the Mission's
strategy; (2) greater use of sector analytical techniques to sharpen the focus of policy
dialogue and simultaneously identify the highest priority project interventions; and (3) a shift
from largely project-oriented assistance to more program assistance in FY 84-86.

Improved agricultural technology development, adaptation, and transfer was identified
as a continuing area of concentration in the Mission's agriculture program.

While efforts to date have emphasized the public sector, the Mission will also
stimulate private sector involvement in this area through producer associations,
private firms and agribusinesses, especially for diversified crops.

Also planned was an expansion of professional manpower development efforts, with
emphasis on managerial and technical training in research, natural resources, and business
management, and in strengthening the capacity of local institutions, especially universities, to
undertake these efforts. This objective would include increased M.S. and Ph.D. training
programs in U.S. universities.

FY 89 (2/88)4

This CDSS reflected USAID/Peri's efforts to relate that the Mission's proposed
programs aimed to achieve "three of the Goals of the LAC Bureau." Of greatest direct
relevance to agriculture:

4This CDSS Update follows up on the CDSS of 1984 and the report "Options for USAID/Peru Program
Planning in FY 1986-1987 and Recommended Strategy" (January, 1986), which was submitted in lieu of a CDSS.
"This Update serves as the strategy document for the last half of a normal CDSS period. It...proposes a strategy
for the next three years" (FY 88-90).


To achieve the goal of basic structural reforms leading to sustained economic growth,
activities are proposed to support the private sector, promote exports, increase
agricultural production and manage and preserve natural resources.

The CDSS also related USAID/Perd's recommendation that an "Andean Regional Strategy"
be prepared to complement existing strategies for the Caribbean and Central America.

The CDSS notes that the earlier military government "allowed one of the best
agricultural education, research and extension complexes in Latin America to deteriorate and
shrink, severely limiting the development of and access to new technology." Were additional
non-earmarked funding available, the CDSS noted that:

Expanded agricultural initiatives would focus primarily on activities designed to:
increase agricultural exports; augment Mission programs dealing with natural resource
conservation and bio-diversity, and strengthen private institutional capacity to deliver
quality agricultural analysis and policy. An Agricultural Policy Institute would be the
centerpiece of this initiative.

With respect to the Mission's objective of increasing agricultural production, a
proposed performance indicator was: "Develop a private sector research and extension
network working separately from but in collaboration with the public sector."

Starting at the beginning of the decade, a major element of strategy has been to assist
the GOP to rebuild public sector agricultural education, research, and extension
organizations.... A new element now being added to the strategy is to encourage
producer associations, regional groups and other private sector agricultural
organizations to create their own field research and extension programs, following
successful pilot efforts. A more competitive research system using both private and
public sector institutions is also being encouraged.


FY 82 (2/80)

This CDSS identifies the USAID/Dominican Republic goal as being

to improve the living standards of the poor majority.... USAID/DR proposes a
continuation of its basic human needs approach to development....

(Note: The proposed strategy makes no reference to assistance for strengthening agricultural
research, extension, and/or education.


FY 83 (2/81)

Mission discussions with Government of the Dominican Republic (GODR) officials
led to the identification of five principal constraints to development of small farmer

1. Policies and practices which result in serious and growing depletion of the natural
resource base, particularly soil and water.

2. An increasing and critical shortage of vocational and professional agricultural
technicians and administrators in both the public and the private branches of the
agricultural sector.

3. A research and extension system inadequate to the needs of small farmers.

4. Growing inability among public sector agricultural institutions to coordinate policies
and programs, especially as they become more complex and multi-sectoral.

5. A pricing and marketing system which does not offer equity and incentives,
particularly to the small producer.

Regarding constraint (3), the CDSS noted that research centers and stations already
were in operation, some of which were started with USAID/DR assistance. But the CDSS
notes that "the system needs to stress adaptive research, research more applicable to small
farms and hillside farms in particular, and to improve and expand extension efforts for small
farmers...." The Mission proposed modest investment in this component, especially in
adaptive research, and some technical assistance. Also, research and extension activities
would continue to be upgraded as specific components of major loans.

FY 85 (1/83)

This CDSS described the Mission's strategy for increasing food production in terms
of six major areas of concern to AID/Washington, as follows:

1. Policy Dialogue: This area entailed support for the establishment of a new rural
management institute for graduate training of agricultural managers and policy

2. Private Sector: The Title XIII Strengthening Grant Program had assisted interested
U.S. universities to establish links with counterpart schools in the Dominican
Republic, which resulted in training and research opportunities for the D.R.

3. Technology Transfer: The Mission's objective on the 1960s and 1970s was to train
the minimum number of people and establish the institutional framework necessary to
carry out a sustained program of technology transfer. The Mission's current objective
of increasing food production is based on the transfer of improved technology to


farmers and decision-makers alike. Projects with a technology transfer component

a. Natural Resources Management (with components for farming systems
research and soil and water resource conservation)

b. Swine Repopulation (OPG)

c. Inland Fisheries (OPG)

d. Irrigation Water Management (to demonstrate modern technology for on-farm
water management, and to institutionalize research and extension capabilities in
this area)

e. Agricultural Sector Training (to focus on graduate training for technical
specialists who will be the future researchers of the D.R.)

4. Indigenous Institutions: In the agricultural sector, attention has been focused
primarily on educational institutions. Relevant projects include:

a. Rural Management Training (assisted the Superior Institute of Agriculture to
develop a university curriculum for developing the management skills of mid-
level managers in both the public and the private sector)

b. Agriculture Sector Training (to be used as a vehicle to continue strengthening
D.R. universities)

5. Development Training: To provide short- and long-term training in U.S. universities
and other international institutions, and to provide in-country training.

6. Food Aid: The CDSS noted that PL-480 Title I proceeds are jointly programmed to
support or initiate development activities for which funds are not available through the
normal budgeting process. Such activities include funding for research on small
animals; development of appropriate technology to increase agricultural productivity;
and financial support for research in agriculture being carried out at private
universities. The criteria applied to proposed projects required that PL-480 Title I-
funded projects relate directly to increasing food production, or indirectly impact
positively on increasing total food production.

FY 86 (1/84)

This CDSS noted that USAID/Dominican Republic "strategy involvement over the
planning period will draw its major impetus from the now-enacted Caribbean Basin Initiative
(CBI), with the major emphasis placed on strengthening the private sector's role in
development of the country's resources." Accordingly, the Mission's strategy for agriculture
would "focus on increasing incentives to private farmers, reform and reduction of a bloated


and inefficient public bureaucracy, and continued involvement in the protection of the natural
resource base so vital to this island's productivity."

To increase investments in agriculture and improve productivity, the CDSS called for
"an effective program of agricultural research and extension" for important crops. Despite
the GODR's significant investments to develop its research and extension capability, the
existing capability is "inadequate to support the needed increases in agricultural production.
The cause of this situation has been identified as the inability of the existing public sector
system to effectively manage, coordinate, and carry out the required research programs."

As a result, the Mission planned in FY 1985 to finance the Agriculture Research and
Extension project. The project's aim is to develop an interdisciplinary private sector
research capability in the D.R. "akin to the U.S. Land Grant University research/ extension
system." Also, an Agricultural Training Loan would provide funding to train the next
generation of agricultural scientists at the M.S. and Ph.D. levels. Further, the Agricultural
Research and Extension project would provide small commercial farmer with knowledge of
new crops and new techniques, some of which would result in increased exports. Also,
research and extension capabilities would be improved through participant training in projects
such as the Agricultural Training Program.


FY 82 (1/80)

USAID/Haiti's objective for the CDSS period was "to lessen or to eliminate
constraints which cause widespread poverty throughout rural Haiti." The Mission sought to
increase food production and provide greater access to food by the poor. Among the main
constraints identified in a sector assessment were inadequate agricultural research, absence of
improved technology, and poor agricultural extension services. It was proposed that the
recently redesigned Integrated Agricultural Development (IAD) project would focus research
in the Department of Agriculture (DARNDR) to improve the technology available for
production of food crops. The CDSS noted that the Small Farmer Production project had
provided a better understanding of small farmer agriculture and concluded that future efforts
should focus on small farmer multi-crop systems rather than exclusively on single crops.

In extension, the Mission proposed implementing small-scale programs requiring
limited investment.

Efforts to increase the quality of food produced will concentrate on extension and
nutrition education and training activities to encourage the cultivation of more
nutritious food crops, usually in kitchen garden-type arrangement for home
consumption, as well as tree crops and small livestock.

However, the DARNDR had shown little interest in this type of program; accordingly, the
bulk of the Mission's assistance in this area was to be in the form of small-scale programs by


PVOs to develop successful approaches to this type of extension and nutrition education

The CDSS noted that:

The language, cultural and political barriers to broader Haitian participation with the
predominantly English-speaking Caribbean are considerable. Without greater
initiatives on the part of regional organizations such as the Caribbean Development
Bank and CARICOM, Haiti is not likely to participate more actively in regional

FY 83 (1/81)

This CDSS noted that, with the poor performance of the GOH during the last year

on almost all of the commitment indicators...and the resulting poor macro-economic
picture and continued delays in project implementation, we cannot now support the
expanded performance program.... While we have not been remarkably successful at
encouraging major policy or macro-economic reforms with our assistance program in
the last year, we believe it is premature to write these efforts off and believe that
through continued discussions in these areas we may be able to influence the GOH in
positive directions. Therefore, we have concluded that the minimum program
alternative is not the correct approach at this time, either. Consequently, we propose
adoption of the selective performance program for the time being. This will permit
us to continue our relatively successful efforts in rural credit, malaria, family
planning and road construction and maintenance, to start new non-governmental
programs in agroforestry and labor intensive rural works, and to continue our efforts
to implement major programs with the GOH in agriculture (Integrated Agricultural
Development) and health (RHDS).

FY 84 (1/82)

This CDSS stated that "food self-reliance" in Haiti needed to be based, similar to
other economically successful, relatively small countries, on "a heavy but not exclusive
reliance on international trade." As the CDSS noted, Haiti

will never be able to produce, at any reasonable cost, a commodity like wheat in
sufficient volume to satisfy domestic demand. Conversely, Haiti's agricultural hinter-
land is capable of mobilizing its comparative advantage for the export of tropical
agricultural products to larger food markets, while expanding production of many
staples of local production through improved varieties of products such as cassava,
taro, beans and peas, hybrid corn and improved sorghum.

Therefore, agricultural production for both domestic consumption and export must be
pursued. Certainly, the production of the subsistence foods of the poor (corn,
sorghum, pulses and tubers) which are produced and consumed domestically must be


improved. Nevertheless, long-term food self-reliance requires a more effective
integration of tropical specialty lines and tree crop items for export with these
domestic food items if Haiti's farming systems are to be ecologically and
economically viable for the long term.

The CDSS added that the Ministry of Agriculture "has been building, with USAID
and other donor assistance, a cadre of technical personnel capable of improving farming
research and extension efforts that will permit the Haitian peasant and small plantation owner
to apply improved technology for sustained increases in production and income." But most
of this improved capacity was still concentrated at Damien; if the capacity is become a
delivery system, the essential next step would be decentralization to field stations.

The CDSS identified the research and extension component of the Integrated
Agricultural Development project (PDAI) as the most successful activity. As a follow-on to
PDAI, an expanded program of staple crop improvement would be developed as top priority.

This will include the expansion of an adaptive research and extension program using
on-farm trials, field verification and training to introduce improved varieties and
cultivation practices. The focus will be on improvement of yields of cereals, pulses
and root crops on small farmers. This would be designed as a "field project", with a
strengthening of the Ministry of Agriculture's capabilities in these areas resulting
from the actual execution of such a field project with the assistance of U.S. advisors.

Regarding agricultural education, the CDSS noted that the training components of the
major Mission projects in all sectors as well as several non-project training programs under
regional or central funding provided "substantial opportunities for the professional training of
Haitians involved in specific development-related disciplines." The major institution-
strengthening projects in the agriculture sector (PDAI, Rural Credit) had provided both short-
term and long-term training to Haitian counterparts, mostly in-country, in agricultural
research, resource management and planning, agricultural economics, agricultural
engineering, horticulture, rural credit, and financial management.

Note: In 1982, the U.S. Congress mandated that AID implement its projects in Haiti
"to the maximum extent possible" through PVOs. In 1985, a GAO team reviewed the PVO
strategy and concluded that, although it had some drawbacks, the approach was generally
successful. The GAO recommended that AID continue to examine projects "on a case-by-
case" basis to select the most appropriate organization (PVO or GOH) for implementation.

FY 86 (Supplement to FY 84 CDSS) (1/84)

This CDSS stated the Mission's objectives in agriculture and rural development as

(1) to increase the agricultural production of commodities that maximize Haiti's
comparative advantage and improve access of the poor to a reliable and adequate food


supply; and (2) to reduce and ultimately reverse the process of deforestation and soil

To achieve these objectives, the Mission's strategy provided for a number of elements,

1. Commodity Studies: Undertaking a series of studies to identify pricing, marketing,
taxing and other constraints to increased production of tree and other cash crops.

2. Upgrading Agricultural Personnel: Improving the Ministry of Agriculture's capability
to serve small farmers through applied food crop and farming systems, including both
on-the-job and formal training in research, extension, data gathering and analysis, and

3. Non-Government Organizations: Expanding the involvement of non-governmental
organizations (cooperatives, pre-coops, credit associations, PVOs and private
investors) in agricultural and livestock production, processing, marketing and
technology transfer to small farmers.

4. Tree Crops: Promoting both research and production of tree crops to meet income,
food, conservation and energy needs. Such crops include tropical fruits and nuts,
cacao, coffee, and a variety of fast-growing species suitable for lumber and fuel uses.

Revised Strategy Paper for FY 89/90 (not a CDSS; a full CDSS is planned for FY 91)

U.S. assistance to Haiti was suspended during most of "Papa Doc" Duvalier's reign,
then reestablished in 1973 during the "Baby Doc" period. However, in 1980, emphasis was
shifted to working primarily through PVO/NGO channels.

In agriculture, the Mission's strategy is aimed at promotion of sustainable production
systems on the hillsides based on integration of sound soil and water conservation systems
using perennial crops; and expansion of market opportunities and support to small farmers
for products with identified market demand.


FY 82 (1/80)

Despite substantial U.S. and other donor assistance since 1977, the Jamaican economy
was continuing to deteriorate at the outset of the 1980s. Recognizing that USAID/Jamaica
did not have the resources required to solve Jamaica's problems in the short run, the Mission
charted a course to provide assistance aimed at longer-range development, focusing on the
productive rather than the social sectors. "The aim will be to create or strengthen institutions
and establish conditions necessary for sustained development once the economy has turned
around." The Mission's objective in the agriculture sector was "to help increase food


production among small farmers and the quality of life of rural families." Aiming to
achieve sustained increases in production on farms of 1-10 acres in size, the Mission sought
to help the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) to:

(a) analyze and respond to changing problems of the small farmer; (b) ensure that
productivity gains are maintained; and (c) develop technological innovations and
policies in response to evolving conditions in the rural sector.... Currently, the key
constraints requiring attention in priority order are: administrative capability, soil
conservation, marketing, research, extension, and education.

Within the areas of research, extension, and education, the CDSS noted that the
GOJ's research capacity is inadequate

to deal with the agronomic problems of the island. What little research exists is
conducted by the MOA [Ministry of Agriculture] and the statutory boards. Research
has historically focused on export crops and livestock. The MOA has one hundred
professional and sub-professional positions in research of which only twelve are
devoted to agronomic problems. Little coordination exists in agriculture research and
there are few linkages between extension and research activities. The Jamaican
campus of the University of the West Indies does not have an agricultural college and
does a very limited amount of agricultural research. There is no research which
focuses directly or uniquely upon the problems or constraints of the target group.

The GOJ extension field staff had approximately one agent per 500 farmers, with
agents having received their training primarily at the theoretically-oriented Jamaica School of
Agriculture (JSA). Most agents came from non-rural backgrounds which, given the lack of
applied training, limited their effectiveness to deal with agricultural problems. Yet the GOJ's
integrated rural development program was increasing the need for extension agents to be able
to move about in the rural areas.

With respect to agricultural education, the CDSS noted that the educational
curriculum for people trained for the agriculture sector needed to be revised. The JSA, at
the time of the CDSS, was under the Ministry of Education which saw JSA primarily as an
institution to train secondary level agricultural teachers. The CDSS noted that the GOJ's
Five Year Plan includes an emphasis on agricultural education and that studies are underway
to determine specific needs in agricultural education. The CDSS indicated that the Mission
expected that assistance to agricultural education would form part of future agriculture sector
lending. Already, through the Rural Education project,

a prototype secondary agricultural school [had been] constructed and [begun to
operate] in February 1979. Students were enrolled from all parts of Jamaica, and
through self-help efforts were able to clear land, initiate animal production, and plant
a variety of crops. In less than a year, the school was able to feed itself in poultry
and pigs and was selling chickens, eggs, peanuts and other produce.


At the time of the CDSS, the Mission was studying the problems of the agricultural
research, extension, and education system under a Title XII program. A recently completed
baseline study by the University of Kentucky recommended focusing upon the problems of
the JSA as the first step in addressing the long-run constraints on agricultural research,
extension, and education. The CDSS also noted that existing projects (e.g., Integrated Rural
Development) had components addressing research and extension constraints. The CDSS
indicated that the Mission planned to expand into agricultural research, extension, and edu-
cation, and especially the linkages among them, in 1981. The CDSS noted the Mission's
desire to expand the capacity of the GOJ in adaptive research, to expand already existing
regional training at the JSA, and to develop a regional center of expertise on solving the
problem of small hillside farmers in the Caribbean. The CDSS also noted the initiatives
underway to develop agricultural exports (traditional and non-traditional) and to address
problems relating to natural resources and the environment.

FY 83 (1/81)

This CDSS stated that for Jamaica, as for other small island economies,

there is no viable alternative to vibrant, outward looking, private-sector led growth.
The new Jamaican government has firmly committed itself to that path.... The most
important bottlenecks to economic recovery and growth are in the productive sectors
and in the area of public management and administration, not in the social or basic
human needs sectors.

In the agriculture sector, the CDSS noted that, over "the next few years," the Mission
would "concentrate on the key agricultural education, research, and extension services which
must be improved if agricultural growth is to be stimulated." The Mission proposed to start
with the JSA, the only institution in Jamaica that was graduating trained agricultural
personnel above the high school level. The CDSS noted that the Ministry of Education,
under the Rural Education Sector Loan, had established two secondary level agricultural
schools; and one school already was graduating students whose level of preparation and
motivation had impressed employers. However, the success of the secondary agricultural
schools had the effect of creating pressure to upgrade the JSA. As the CDSS noted, "unless
the calibre of education at JSA is raised substantially, the MOA will not be able to improve
its research and extension programs." The CDSS noted that the Mission planned, as a
complement to or a follow-on to project assistance to JSA, to provide assistance in the
research and extension areas.

Further, the CDSS noted the potential for Jamaica, with a wide variety of ecological
zones involved in agricultural production, "to benefit from and to participate in regional
initiatives to solve common Caribbean agricultural problems."

FY 84 (1/82)

Per AID/Washington guidance, the 1984 CDSS focused primarily on analyzing
Jamaica's short-term economic and structural adjustment problems and the strategy


USAID/Jamaica proposed for bringing AID resources to bear on these problems. The CDSS
noted that the revised FY 83 CDSS had been completed a little more than six months prior to
the present CDSS and that there was "little, if any significant change in AID program
beneficiaries, development problems and their causes, etc., since the last several CDSS
documents were written."

FY 85 (1/83)

This CDSS, in its discussion of Mission strategy and support for agriculture and rural
development, pointed to the role of the Agricultural Education project in enhancing Jamaica's
capacity to produce better trained agricultural personnel for the private and public sectors at
the post-secondary school. Further, the CDSS indicated that:

In the more distant future, a program will be developed to deal with the special
problems of hillside farmers...and how to improve their production capacity and
incomes in the context of watershed management.

FY 86 CDSS Update (1/84)

This CDSS reported that the USAID/Jamaica program strategy, explained in detail in
the FY 85 CDSS, "is still valid." However, the CDSS noted, "the GOJ has been reluctant to
allow free market forces to determine the allocation of resources within the private sector"
and, as a result, AID policy dialogue increasingly "must focus on influencing GOJ economic
policy actions prior to the provision of additional resources." In the area of agriculture, the
CDSS referred to the "development of a revised agricultural production strategy for hillside
farmers." While other donors have provided assistance in agricultural research (e.g., the
Inter-American Development Bank), the CDSS noted that "this area remains weak due to
inadequate political support."

FY 89 (3/88)

The Mission's proposed FY 1989 program in agriculture sought to increase
agricultural production. The proposed strategy emphasized (1) increasing exports (traditional
and non-traditional) and employment and (2) raising incomes of poor, principally hillside,
farmers, while conserving fragile lands. USAID/Jamaica's initiative focused on coffee and
cocoa producers as part of the Hillside Agriculture project. The primary reason for hillside
erosion is annual cropping; accordingly, Hillside Agriculture was designed to promote
conversion to tree cropping to increase incomes of poor hillside farmers and sustain the
ecology. As part of this initiative, the CDSS recognized the importance of developing
appropriate technologies.

The Hillside Agriculture Project addresses this need through extension, with adaptive
research performed by a variety of indigenous public and private organizations.
Similar interventions may be justified for lowland producers. The Mission is looking
at ways to improve public and private institutional capability to carry out this role,
and agricultural education initiatives will also support it.


The CDSS also noted that the Mission was supporting diversification of exports
through a number of initiatives (e.g., Agro 21, agricultural research activities, and several
farmer organizations). "The Mission will support non-traditional crop exports by helping
increase market share through support services to improve productivity and marketing

Regarding institutional support for traditional crops, the CDSS noted that the
restructuring of the marketing boards separates their "technology generation and transfer
functions from marketing, but those critical services may not be supported adequately. The
Mission plans to support technology development and transfer systems in the public sector
with a policy oriented project."


FY 82 (1/80)

This CDSS noted that the goal of USAID's Regional Development Office for the
Caribbean (RDO/C) is "viable, progressive, democratic societies in which the basic human
needs of all citizens are met." RDO/C's strategy is:

to encourage the formulation of complementary regional and national policies and
selectively to aid programs essential to achieving them, strengthen regional
development institutions, support appropriate common services for the mini-states of
the Eastern Caribbean, foster increased cooperation among all English-speaking
countries and promote collaboration over the longer term among the English and non
English-speaking countries of the region.

The strategy initially focused principally on the Commonwealth Caribbean with special
emphasis on the Eastern Caribbean, this reflecting that local initiatives in regional
cooperation are found predominantly among the English-speaking countries.

In agriculture, an "agricultural development strategy based upon the provision of
common technical services, shared pools of experts and investment capital through regional
institutions has been initiated to reduce the decline in agricultural production, employment,
rural incomes and at the same time alleviate the constraint to economic growth caused by
increasing food imports." Among the problem areas in agriculture to be addressed by the
Mission in a phased multi-year program were:

1. Research: An on-going RDO/C project assists the Caribbean Agricultural Research
and Development Institute (CARDI) to strengthen its applied research capacity
directed towards small farmers. CARDI has established country teams in the
countries of the region and begun adaptive on-farm research directed toward
increasing the productivity of multiple cropping systems. Additional research
initiatives were to be considered during the CDSS period (FY 82-86) to further
strengthen CARDI's work on small farm systems.


2. Extension: A FY 80 Title XII project involving MUCIA would assist the
development of national agricultural extension services as well as the regional
extension outreach capacity of the University of the West Indies (UWI). The project
is linked to the CARDI Multiple Cropping Systems Research project via national and
regional coordinating committees. For the FY 82-86 period, efforts were to be
concentrated on improved delivery systems for providing information on farm credit,
improved farming techniques, new crops, and marketing opportunities for small

3. Education: The CDSS notes that, throughout the Caribbean, the heritage of plantation
farming based on slavery still negatively affects the perceptions of today's youth
toward opportunities in agriculture. The Mission indicated that it would examine
ways to develop constructive agricultural education institutions and programs. In this
regard, the Mission planned to conduct an analysis and rationalization of agricultural
education at all levels of the education system, including the preparation of
agricultural teachers.

FY 83 (2/81)

This CDSS identifies the strategic objectives of RDO/C's agricultural program as
being "to increase the per capital output of food and other marketable commodities, and to
expand employment opportunities for rural families, thereby increasing farm family income."
The strategy to achieve these objectives involved two parallel areas: (1) increasing
traditional export commodities, and (2) promoting commercial agricultural diversification
both to achieve greater food production for regional requirements and to establish new
commodities aimed at extra-regional trade. This strategy is to be implemented through two
different methods:

The first method promotes incremental change in existing agricultural sub-systems.
For example, research, extension and credit-related projects are essentially designed
to improve ongoing activities. The second methods seeks to establish radical
innovations in existing sub-systems where bottlenecks exist. For example, the
establishment of regular inter-island sea transport services....

The CDSS noted the Mission's continued support for research and extension for the
FY 83-87 period; further, the CDSS noted that RDO/C would examine ways to assist
development of national agricultural education and training institutions and programs.
"Agricultural education, mentioned in last year's CDSS, will be addressed within the context
of existing programs and planned new initiatives." Examples cited were the St. Lucia Youth
Development Program for out-of-school youth, which includes training centers both for
agricultural production and agro-processing; the proposed extension to the senior level of the
UWI Primary Education Regional Project includes an introduction to agricultural training as
part of its pre-vocational activities; the USAID/CXC Secondary Education Project is
developing a course in Agricultural Science for students at the secondary level throughout the
English-speaking Caribbean region; and the UWI/USAID Faculty of Agriculture project
provides for the preparation and upgrading of agricultural extension staffs in the region.


Finally, a study of agricultural manpower supply and demand is being planned to determine
additional activities to be undertaken to rationalize and enhance agricultural education in the

FY 86 (9/84)

This CDSS identified the goals of RDO/C's agriculture and rural development
program as: (1) to increase rural family incomes by upgrading agricultural productivity
among commercial small farmers and (2) to increase food production and agricultural
exports. The Mission's strategy of increasing production of export commodities and
promoting commercial agricultural diversification seeks "to reduce the food import bill and to
establish new commodities aimed at export trade." In agricultural research and extension:

The twin programs of farming systems research by the Caribbean Agricultural
Research and Development Institute (CARDI) and extension through the Title XII
project with the Mid-West Universities Consortium in International Activities
(MUCIA) and the University of the West Indies (UWI) are expected to achieve
measurable results during the planning period that will show up in increasingly
diversified production profiles and reduced food imports particularly from extra-
regional sources.

Compared with previous CDSS documents, this CDSS did not address agricultural education,
although reference was made to human resource development being addressed under a
number of projects and programs, some of which include opportunities for degree training in

FY 85 (8/83)

Belize achieved its independence in 1981 and the USAID/ Belize Mission was
established in January 1983. This CDSS proposed, among other initiatives, a program to
diversify agricultural production and increase agricultural exports:

AID's principal assistance in diversifying the economy will be a specific program to
develop viable crop/livestock options that move the rural sector and the economy
away from the current degree of dependence on sugar. Programs in private sector
export and development, public sector planning and management, and other aspects of
rural development also will make important contributions to this component of the
overall strategy.
AID's assistance will be directed toward developing crop/ livestock production
options that compete with or displace sugar production. Vegetable oil seeds, bananas,
fresh or processed fruits and vegetables, pork production and processing and other
possibilities will be explored and incentive and support systems created to encourage
the best prospects to be pursued....


Assistance will be given directly to commercial and industrial firms to help them
identify and implement import substitution, economic diversification and new export
activities. Technical assistance, for example, will be given to existing or new
industries, or industry groups in the form of research and studies, training, brokering
of joint ventures, market development, etc....
In assisting the public sector, emphasis will be placed on two areas-1) policy and
planning, and 2) management development and training....
.... Efforts to expand small farmer output and productivity, including some diver-
sification (e.g., in soybeans), also will support the overall diversification effort.

No specific references are made in the CDSS to the existence of and/or Mission
strategy vis-a-vis agricultural research, extension, and/or education. An annex on the
agriculture sector notes that the Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute
(CARDI), a regional body which assists with the development of agricultural research in the
Caribbean countries, operates a small research station near Belmopan which has tested,
among other things, various varieties of soybeans, vegetables, and corn for adaptability in
Belize. However, this annex notes:
There are some constraints...to increasing...production. Although basic adaptive
research by CARDI has identified suitable cultivars...for Belize, there has been little
on-farm research to identify how such crops might best fit into the various farming
systems that exist. The extension system needs bolstering in both technical capacity
and credibility if widespread adoption of optimum production practices of new crops
is to be achieved.

The CDSS sectoral analysis of agriculture stated that the public sector

provides inadequate and sometimes inappropriate support to the agricultural sector.
Allocations of financial, physical, and personnel resources are often inadequately
planned and sometimes misdirected. Belize has not formulated a coherent agricultural
development strategy with well-focused and clearly defined priorities.

With respect to agricultural education, the CDSS noted that: "Rural agricultural...skills are
not given much attention."

One exception to this is the Rural Education and Agriculture Program (REAP) which
has now spread to 23 primary schools and aims at the early development of favorable
attitudes towards, and relevant skills in, agriculture.

FY 86 (4/84)

This CDSS identified USAID/Belize's strategy as focusing on economic stabilization
and long-term growth in agricultural production, export promotion, and human resources
development. The CDSS notes that a constraint to agricultural production is the


lack of an effective adaptive research program. While some research is being carried
out, there remains a need to intensify the effort and develop a much closer
relationship between research and extension.

The Mission proposed an Agricultural Production and Diversification project for the period

Phase I will focus on strengthening the Ministry of Natural Resources' capacity for
adaptive research coordinated with extension. Potential alternative crops domestic
consumption and export will be investigated.... Phase II, while continuing to support
adaptive research, will be more heavily focused on field trials and extension of crops
developed under Phase I.

Only one donor-financed activity-[the Caribbean Agricultural Research and
Development Institute]-has been involved in applied research by screening and
selecting crop varieties with potential in Belize. However, this activity needs to be
accelerated and institutionalized within GOB agricultural programs.... Research and
extension activities will have to be combined under one institution.

Further, under a proposed Farming Systems for Milpa Farmers project, the Mission
proposed establishing "a farming systems department within the new national research and
extension organization."


FY 81 (1/79)

This CDSS identified the objectives of USAID/Costa Rica's program as follows: (1)
increase poor people's access to the factors of production; (2) increase production and
productivity in a manner consistent with objectives 1 and 3; (3) reverse natural resources
degradation; and (4) decentralize development by promoting activities in lagging regions, in
accordance with objective 3. "The linchpin among these objectives is No. 2, because only
by concentrating on the productive sectors can Costa Rica's progress be made permanent."

The CDSS did not make specific reference to agricultural research, extension, and/or
education, although the "Proposed Assistance Planning Level" (PAPL) summary proposes
new projects in Agricultural Diversification and Science & Technology that would include
technology transfer and technical education.

FY 82-86 (1/80)

This CDSS modified sub-objective 4 of the previous CDSS so that it read:
"Decentralize development by promoting activities in lagging regions, when this is in accord
with the second objective, and by increasing community-level participation in development
planning and project execution."


With respect to sub-objective 3, the CDSS noted that the Mission's strategy "is to
help the [Government of Costa Rica (GOCR)] develop the capability to design and implement
appropriate and cost-effective, multi-disciplinary natural resource conservation programs and
to ensure that other development efforts are environmentally sound."

With respect to sub-objective 2, the Mission's strategy is to "support...the GOCR's
expansion of agro-industrial activity and...small farm technology research and extension to
diversify agriculture, to generate employment in both rural and urban areas and to reduce the
relative importance of low value-added, import-substituting industrialization."

The PAPL summary identified a "Small Farmer Research/ Extension" project (but no
additional information is provided).

FY 85 CDSS Supplement (n.d.)

This CDSS cast the Mission's strategy in terms of six strategy elements: policy
reform, private sector development, institutional development, research and technology
transfer, participant training, and food aid. In the area of research and technology transfer,
the CDSS stated that the Mission's strategy was "to promote the creation, transfer,
adaptation, dissemination, and utilization of more appropriate technologies and methodologies
largely through...institutional development mechanisms."

With respect to agricultural research and technology transfer, the Mission planned:

to undertake studies to identify the origin of agricultural production and productivity
constraints for specific crops including grains. These studies will permit the Mission
to assess whether the constraints arise from agronomic/climatological conditions, lack
of applicable research results, and/or deficiencies in the agricultural extension system
and to direct future assistance efforts accordingly.

The CDSS noted the possibility of a future loan in agricultural technology extension. Such a
loan would "support activities which link academic research findings with the producers
needing that information."

The CDSS also indicated that the Mission needed to evaluate carefully

requested and planned activities which are directed at improving the research and
technology transfer system such as: the use of innovative communications techniques
by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock's extension service under the Northern
Zone Infrastructure Development Project and the strengthening of private sector
controlled agricultural producers associations to serve as technology transfer
mechanisms to farmers in the case of non-traditional export crops. The success of
these analytical efforts may point the way in the outyears for an expanded
involvement in agricultural technology/extension activities.


FY 88-92 Strategy Update (3/88)

This CDSS further developed the Mission's Nontraditional Agricultural Export
(NTAE) strategy. The achievement of "sustainable growth in non-traditional exports," the
CDSS noted, will require (1) macroeconomic stability, especially in terms of the policy
environment; (2) increased investment, domestic and foreign; and (3) increased productivity
and marketing ability. "Helping to assure that these conditions are firmly established will
continue to involve the majority of Mission program and policy dialogue efforts, as well as
staff resources and management time."

In regard to "increased productivity," the CDSS stated that increasing the production
of nontraditional crops for export requires

expanding the production of nontraditional crops already being produced in country,
as well as introducing new crops and technology...this also means crop
diversification, which is essentially an investment decision. But before the farmer is
likely to diversify his crop, he will want to know that he can profit from the
shift-that there is a market for the product, and whether and how it can be best
grown in Costa Rica.... Currently there is not sufficient information on these topics.

In response, the Mission's NTAE strategy provided "for selection of two to four products per
year and provision of intensive technical assistance to selected groups of producers in all
areas of identified product constraints."

In the area of agricultural education, and looking to the longer-term technical human
resource needs of the agriculture sector throughout the region, the CDSS indicated that the
Mission would continue implementing the Regional Agricultural School for the Humid
Tropics (EARTH) component of ROCAP's Regional Agricultural Higher Education project.

The college, which will be located in Costa Rica, will develop professionals capable
of working in the private and public sectors at all levels of agriculture; from seed and
food production to marketing, storage, processing, export, and credit. The existence
of such a resource base is important to continued development and adaptation of tech-
nologies for increasing the productivity of agribusiness in the region. Further, by
teaching how to most effectively and efficiently maintain the natural resource base,
the project will contribute to...natural resources management objectives....


FY 82 (1/80)

During this CDSS period, the Mission's "primary effort will continue to be to help
the government provide employment and income." The Mission proposed to address the
objective of employment and income generation "through increased small enterprise creation
and support, labor intensive public sector projects and small farm production." The third of
these components entails assisting "on-farm enterprises to add value to their production


and/or supplement incomes with cottage, artisan or other productive work." The emphasis in
assistance was to be on promotion of exports. Within the area of small farm production, the
CDSS indicated that the Mission would "seek to refine conservation practices to site specific
circumstances and to introduce higher value crops, varieties and cropping systems." The
CDSS indicated that the Mission could not be more specific about implementation of this
strategy because of uncertainty about how the agrarian reform movement would develop.

FY 84 (1/82) (not available)

FY 90-94 (final-6/89)

This CDSS, in its discussion of constraints on the factors of production, stated: "After
almost eight years of uncertainty and restrained public and private investment, El Salvador's
technology stock has been depleted." The objective of the Mission's agricultural strategy is
"to increase, via enhanced productivity and production, the income of the rural poor and
increase the agricultural sector's foreign exchange contribution to the economy." The
Mission's strategy focuses on diversification via non-traditional agricultural export
development to assist

agribusinesses-processing and marketing firms-overcome technological constraints
and link these agribusinesses with small farmer and cooperative producers. Although
the target group for these activities will be small farmers, USAID will use
agribusiness investors as implementers of the strategy. These implementers will pass
on credit, technical assistance, plant materials and market information to small
farmers who, in addition to their basic grains will be able to plant off-season, high
value crops for sale and export. The benefits deriving from these agribusinesses are
expected to multiply quickly as growing export sales increase the demand for raw
product. This will generate employment in processing and expand opportunities for
small farmers to supply production.

This approach recognizes that agribusinesses are innovators and diffusers of
technology and that small producers of basic grains are constrained by the limited,
rainy season crops they have traditionally produced. It utilizes those who have vested
interests in assured quantities of "market quality" production to transfer technology
which will increase the intensity with which the small farmer uses his land and labor.
It will improve economic opportunities for farmers who have traditionally produced
for subsistence, entering the market only when a surplus resulted. With new markets
and technical assistance provided by the processors and marketers of non-traditional
agricultural export crops, subsistence farmers can fully utilize their land and family
labor resources and earn important new cash incomes. In this manner, agribusinesses
will provide income opportunities to those otherwise unable or less willing to invest in
risky ventures.

In traditional export crops, the CDSS noted that the Mission would continueand
expand support to the Salvadoran Coffee Research Institute (ISIC) to enhance production
through better plant material and improved disease control; once policy adjustments have


been made, the Mission also plans to improve production through a private sector coffee
producer group or cooperative federation.

Further, the Mission's small farmer program includes support for the development of
new varieties of basic grains, certified seed production, and research on fertilizer use and soil
erosion control. The Mission stated: "Our counterpart funding is also financing the
decentralization of the Ministry's extension services and the creation of community level
extension agencies to better serve the small farmer."

In non-traditional agricultural export (NTAE) crops, the Agricultural Diversification
Program (DIVAGRO) of the Mission-supported Salvadoran Foundation for Social and
Economic Development (FUSADES) is working with agribusinesses and farmers to develop
technology generation and transfer to support the production and marketing of NTAE crops.

In agricultural education, the Entrepreneurial Foundation for Educational Develop-
ment (FEPADE),. established with AID funding in 1986, will expand its educational credit
program for needy students enrolled in priority vocational/technical programs. It will also
help to upgrade the capabilities of vocational/technical schools through the provision of
teacher fellowships and grant resources to expand facilities. The Mission also will support
the efforts of other private organizations such as FUSADES to provide short and long term
training in professions related to priority sectors (e.g., irrigated agriculture).

While no mention is made in the CDSS to the National School of Agriculture (ENA),
the CDSS does mention the National Center for Agricultural Technology (CENTA) of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) in connection with the Mission's program of
support for natural resources management. The CDSS notes that the Generation of
Employment project provided support to CENTA to carry out wildlife management activities
and germplasm conservation; however, the project ended in FY 1986.

With respect to natural resources management, the CDSS notes that:

A shortage of well-trained staff is an impediment to the implementation of natural
resource management programs in El Salvador.... There is an urgent need to upgrade
professionals and technicians in a broad range of environmental and natural resources
fields, and to generate a critical mass of trained technicians in selected fields for
sustained action. USAID will provide technical assistance and training to strengthen
public and private institutional capabilities in natural resources management,
particularly in land-use planning, forestry, soil and water conservation, watershed
management, and management of wildlands and protected areas.

Further, the CDSS notes:

The task of reaching and teaching small landholders proper land use management
techniques is difficult. The weakness of government institutions in charge of
extension, such as CENTA,...make[s] the effort to change the behavior of small
landholders challenging. Yet the need for such efforts to promote proper land use


and agriculture practice is great. To work towards the above objective, USAID will
work through service cooperatives to provide training in simple farming systems and
resource management techniques of benefit to small landholders, i.e., soil and water
conservation techniques, pasture management, agroforestry, mixed cropping, and
integrated pest management.


FY 82 (1/80)

This CDSS stated that USAID/Guatemala's development assistance strategy is "to
assist the GOG [Government of Guatemala]...to increase the income and satisfy the basic
human needs of the AID target group."

The target group...reflects a further geographic concentration over last year's CDSS.
The Mission made a conscious decision several years ago that AID programs could
not reach all of the poor in Guatemala.... In 1976 we chose the poorest 206
municipios.... Because of the funding constraints foreseen for FY 1980 and 1981, we
have been forced to narrow the target group to the poor living in 140 municipios in
the Highlands and those who choose to migrate to colonization areas in the Northern
Transversal Strip and the Peten.... The reduction in geographic coverage also
accords with the Mission's integrated development approach by permitting greater
spatial concentration and complementarity of resource investments.

The Mission's goal, among others, was to: (1) increase the productive resource base
of the target group; (2) increase the efficiency of the target group in the use of its productive
resources; and (3) increase the access of the target group to relevant social services.

With respect to the second goal, an important determinant of efficiency is application
of appropriate production technology. Accordingly, the Mission's strategy "places heavy
emphasis on research and development of technologies appropriate to farm and non-farm
production." Given the potentially higher returns to labor of fruits, vegetables, and certain
livestock enterprises, the Mission programmed assistance to support GOG research and
development of production and farm management technologies for these crops. Also, to
develop the human resources in the target area, the Mission programmed assistance to
support a broad range of non-formal education and extension programs.5 Further, the
Mission planned to assist the GOG in improving the capacity and effectiveness of the
Ministry of Agriculture to disseminate information on improved farm production and
management technologies, particularly for diversified crop production.

'In 1973, the LAC Bureau initiated a successful pilot Basic Village Education program which was followed by
an expanded program in non-formal education underway at the time of this CDSS.


FY 84 (5/82)

This CDSS articulated the same strategy vis-h-vis increasing agricultural productivity
as presented in the FY 82 CDSS. With respect to assistance in building institutional
capacity, this CDSS indicated that:

New projects to be implemented over this planning period will develop the ability of
host country institutions to carry out research and disseminate information on
appropriate technologies on diversification of small farm production, tropical
agriculture, environmental protection, small-scale energy (principally of renewable
source), and enhancing the role of women in the development process.

Further, the CDSS noted that the Mission would "attempt to improve the process of
implementation through recommending appropriate administrative changes necessary for host
country institutions to increase their effectiveness."

FY 86 (4/84)

This CDSS stated that increasing "rural incomes and productivity, principally through
higher agricultural productivity," would be the "the major focus of U.S. assistance efforts
over this planning period." Of the major agricultural zones in Guatemala, the most
important for the USAID/Guatemala strategy is the Western Highlands (or Altiplano). This
is an area well suited to

the profitable production of temperate fruits and vegetables. As such, it is clearly not
meeting its productive potential. The Strategy will attempt to introduce new tech-
nologies and cash crops together with other appropriate market mechanisms to raise
productivity and incomes. USAID will emphasize...small commercial and potentially
commercial farmers and will work on both technological innovation and infrastructure
and marketing improvements necessary to raise productivity and incomes.

Further, the strategy "will include applied research and development of technologies
appropriate to...production..., especially those that are related to farming alternatives which
offer greater opportunities for more intensive use of labor and higher returns per unit of land
employed." To support this program, the "GOG will be expected to place greater emphasis
on agricultural research and the development and application of technology utilizing both
public and private sectors." For example, the CDSS noted that

the extension services of DIGESA will be important in the dissemination of tech-
nologies developed and adapted by ICTA, the agricultural research institute. The
Strategy recognizes the need to strengthen institutions of this nature and calls for
USAID projects which will improve the planning, management and evaluation capa-
bilities of public sector organizations with emphasis on development of the necessary
linkages among farmers, extension service and research institute. Therefore,
institution building will be an integral part of all activities undertaken over this
planning period.


The CDSS also defined a role for PVOs: "Increasing agricultural productivity will be
a key area of U.S. assistance to PVOs over this planning period. The focus will be on small
commercial or potentially commercial farmers."

USAID/Guatemala Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (FY 1988-1992) (2/88)

This strategy document identifies "technology development and dissemination" as well
as "agricultural education and training" as two of the five institutional constraints to more
rapid agricultural development. The document defines sector goals and strategy for
agriculture (subsistence and commercial). At the time of this strategy statement,
USAID/Guatemala had one project (Small Farmer Diversification) in the area of agricultural
research and extension. But agricultural research and extension activities were to be
expanded under the broadened Highlands Agricultural Development (HAD) project,
providing additional support to ICTA and helping to establish a private research foundation
for diversified crop technology development, with an emphasis on integrated pest
management. Further, a new Technification of Traditional Export Crops project, to be initi-
ated with the private sector in FY 89, was to develop and disseminate improved production
and processing technologies for permanent export crops for small producers. DIGESA and
DIGESEPE were to continue to receive support under the expanded HAD project in the
transfer of appropriate crop and livestock technologies.

The strategy also recognized the need for "institutional strengthening and
reorganization." Agricultural research and extension are identified as areas which are strong
candidates for budgetary support by priority areas and institutions. ICTA needs greater
budgetary allocations to hire and retain more qualified research technicians, carry out more
extensive high-priority crop variety trials, and increase integrated pest management research.
Increased budgetary resources would enable DIGESA and DIGESEPE to increase audio-
visual materials for farmer use, increase farmer training courses, and provide increased
support to the Ministry of Agriculture's 3,700 grassroots extension workers (representantes

The Agriculture Sector Assessment identified the following USAID/Guatemala and
Regional Office for Central America and Panama (ROCAP) projects as addressing constraints
in agricultural research and extension in Guatemala:

ROCAP (0083) Small Farm Production Systems (CATIE)
ROCAP (0089) Fuelwood and Alternative Energy Sources (CATIE)
ROCAP (0090) Regional Coffee Pest Control (IICA)
ROCAP (0116) Technical Support to Food Assistance (INCAP)
ROCAP (0127) Regional Alternative Technology Network (CATIE, IICA)
USAID (0272) Integrated Rural Development (HOPE)
USAID (0255) Small Farmer Diversification Systems
USAID (0381) Technification of Traditional Export Crops
IDB (473/OC) Technology Development, Transfer and Seed Multiplication


Projects addressing education/training constraints were:

ROCAP (0129) Regional Agricultural Higher Education (CATIE)
ROCAP (0130) Central American Peace Scholarships (CAPS)
USAID (0281) Non-Formal Education
USAID (0304) Altiplano Higher Education
USAID (0362) Central American Peace Scholarships (CAPS)

FY 90-94 CDSS Update (12/88)

This CDSS basically reviewed the February 1988 USAID/ Guatemala Agriculture
Sector Strategy document approved in Washington in mid-1988. The CDSS noted that
agricultural technology development and transfer services provided through the private sector
are concentrated on a few specific crops and directed toward the larger commercial
producers. On the other hand, the vast majority of small farm owners/ operators are
dependent upon government agencies and resources for research and extension. Resources
have been limited and historically have been channeled into the area of basic grains, to
virtual neglect of the rest of the sector. The effectiveness of the Agricultural Science and
Technology Institute (ICTA) has been constrained by a limited budget, slowness to adjust to
non-traditional crop research needs, and reduced outreach capability. Private traditional crop
producer associations have been unable or unwilling to finance and undertake for themselves
the research needed to stay competitive in world markets. Given the diversity of the farm
sector, the dissemination of research results and the application of improved management
techniques are especially difficult. The extension services-DIGESA (Agricultural Extension
Service) and DIGESEPE (Livestock Extension Service), with resource and personnel
constraints, have been able to make only a very limited impact on improving productivity.

With respect to agricultural education, training and education programs can introduce
new technology, change cropping patterns, improve the communication and dissemination of
information, and generate greater efficiency in program and project implementation. How-
ever, these objectives are difficult to achieve when introducing subsistence farmers to non-
traditional crops requiring higher levels of technology and the appropriate inputs and credit.

The Mission's objective is to "eliminate policy, institutional and infrastructural
obstacles to realization of the [agricultural] sector's substantial untapped potential." To tap
this potential, the Mission is developing initiatives vis-a-vis land, capital, labor, institutional
strengthening, market participation, and food aid integration. With respect to institutional
strengthening, the CDSS states that a principal focus of the policy dialogue is:

to provide technical assistance to improve institutional capabilities. Technology
transfer, credit delivery, research and extension, and training will all become better
contributors to the sector as the result of plans by USAID and other donors to
strengthen both public and private sector organizations working in agriculture.



Development Assistance Program (DAP) FY 78 (5/78)

This DAP characterized the state of technology generation and transfer in Honduras
as follows:

Highly productive, low-cost technologies applicable to small farms and agrarian
reform farms are virtually non-existent. Present delivery systems are qualitatively
inadequate and reach only perhaps 10 and at most 20 percent of small farmers and
agrarian reform farms. There is still considerable shortage of trained manpower
particularly in specialized areas and the quality of training at the lower levels is

The DAP noted that the Government of Honduras (GOH) had recently decided to
restructure and strengthen the national agricultural research system (PNIA). In connection
with this decision, the GOH procured the services of the International Agricultural
Development Service (IADS) to study and make recommendations concerning the totality of
the research program. The study group's draft report proposed research priorities which:

1) focus primarily on small to medium farmers (both independent and agrarian
reform); and 2) places continued emphasis on basic food grains with medium to long-
run emphasis on vegetables, oil seed crops and livestock.... It then recommends a
research strategy, i.e., farmer-oriented, interdisciplinary research; strengthening the
national research station network; a strong manpower development program; and
exploitation of opportunities to link with other research and development institutions
engaged in activities complementary to those of PNIA.

The IADS report was being reviewed at the time this DAP was completed.

The DAP stated that the Mission's strategy is

to help the Government to greatly expand the capacity of agriculture sector institutions
to plan, program and manage their activities; to increase the numbers of adequately
trained human resources for the sector at all levels; to extend significantly the
coverage and improve the effectiveness of agriculture sector delivery systems
including the creation of new systems; to provide agriculture sector delivery systems
with more productive, low-cost technologies with emphasis on light capital
technologies; and to create off-farm employment opportunities in rural areas.

Further, the Mission noted that it also would "advocate the use of non-governmental
organizations." Also, the Mission indicated that an effort needed to be made

to deal effectively with the vast numbers of small farmers who operate plots of from
1-35 hectares and who generally have received no services from the Government. To
service this group, low-cost delivery systems must be devised. These systems would


involve the use of para-professionals/volunteers and demonstrations eventually
covering large areas of the country.

Also, for the sub-group of the smallest-scale farms, the Mission would encourage the GOH
to explore "the prospects for hillside agricultural techniques involving minimal terracing and
some crop diversification, including tree crops."

With respect to agricultural education, the DAP stated:

As the resource flow to the sector increases and problems of the sector become more
complex, the present urgent need for trained manpower at all levels will increase still
more. Accordingly, AID programs will continue to finance considerable training
abroad in specialized skills and to support training in national institutions. We will
explore prospects for assisting in the further development of the national agricultural
professional training capacity and be prepared to assist as necessary in increasing the
effectiveness of campesino training.

With respect to agricultural research, the DAP stated:

AID will assist the Government to develop its agronomic research capacity and a
research strategy compatible with production objectives and marketing prospects. ..

And we will encourage the development of low-cost mechanical technologies
in conjunction with the improvement of agronomic research and practices.

The following projects were identified for support during FY 78 and FY 79:

Agricultural Research (FY 78)-This will be a grant project to help the Government
to...strengthen its agronomic research capacity and coordinate and develop a research
strategy in support of production objectives compatible with marketing prospects.
The project will be designed to... place priority on development of technological
packages for new and expanding delivery systems for small farmers and agrarian
reform farms.

Small Farmer Technologies Expansion (FY 79)-This grant activity will expand the
present AID-financed appropriate technologies research and development activity to
effect...usage of new on-farm, light capital technologies in selected areas throughout
the country. The approach will be one of product development, pre-testing, testing
and demonstration on a rather large scale closely related to agronomic research

Agriculture Sector II (FY 79)-This sector program will concentrate on the central
strategy problems of human resources development, government improvement with
emphasis inter alia on decentralization, and delivery system expansion. One potential
area for assistance would be improving the quality of instruction at the School of


Agriculture of the University of Honduras (CURLA) and the Catacamas Agricultural

Water Resources Management (FY 79)

FY 82 (1/80)

This CDSS stated that: "The main development problems facing Honduras are how
to make the agriculture sector more productive and to get rural incomes up over the poverty
line." USAID/Honduras' strategy for the agriculture sector is based on a Sector Assessment
done in 1978. The CDSS noted that the "centerpiece" of the Mission's strategy was
Agriculture Sector II which provided funds, among various activities, for human resource
development (participant and in-service training) and strengthening of agricultural higher
education. Further, complementary activities were supporting improvements in the GOH's
agricultural research and extension efforts. The emphasis with respect to agricultural
research was to refocus the Honduran research system toward farm-based, appropriate
technology activities. The CDSS noted that in the 1982-86 period:

A higher level of assistance probably will be needed for agricultural research and
extension work. As new ecological zones open up and as results of research at
international research centers become available, the need for expanded efforts in
applied research and information dissemination will grow.

FY 83 (Update of FY 82 CDSS) (1/81)

This CDSS noted that for the FY 83-87 period, a "higher level of assistance [for
institutional development] will be need for agricultural research and extension. As new
ecological zones open up and as results of research at international research centers become
available, the need for expanded efforts in applied research and information dissemination
will grow."

FY 86 (5/84)

The Mission's agricultural strategy is identified in this CDSS as being that of helping
"the commercially oriented farmers move progressively into higher value crops for domestic
and export markets and processors. This should increase labor demand for the landless and
create expanded market opportunities for traditional farmers who produce basic grain."
Further, the CDSS notes:

The Mission's experience indicates that these constraints [technology, marketing, and
production assistance] are best addressed on a product-specific basis, and that efforts
are most successful when a private producers' association plays the major role in
providing assistance to producers. During the CDSS period we plan to expand
the product-specific, private sector led approach and apply it to export of non-
traditional agricultural products. The effort will be carried out through private
producers' associations and a private agricultural research institute whose principal


focus will be on non-traditional commodities. AID assistance will be provided
through the Export Development and Services Project...and an Agricultural Research

...we will continue to help small farmers who produce mainly for the domestic
market. Appropriate production technologies, improved farming practices, and land
conservation techniques are now being introduced to small farmers through the Rural
Technologies...and Natural Resources Management...Projects.... The research
institute mentioned above will carry out some research on basic grains and an
improved technology transfer system will be developed to further enhance the
effectiveness of both of the above projects.


FY 82 (2/80)

ROCAP's strategy is to support regional institutional efforts to assist cooperating
national institutions to improve their services to the target populations. In agriculture, the
principal regional institutions receiving ROCAP support for projects involving agricultural
research, extension, and/or education are the Tropical Agricultural Research and Training
Center (CATIE) and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).

FY 84 (1/82)

This CDSS noted that the "central theme" of ROCAP's strategy over the CDSS
period would be to support, at the regional level, a number of activities, including
development of improved, appropriate technology for use by public and private national
institutions; and development of human resources. In terms of the former,

ROCAP's strategy has been, and continues to be, to address the existing technology
constraints by assisting in the development and transfer to national entities of relevant
technology. The on-going ROCAP projects in fuelwood, small farm production
systems and coffee pest control are designed to achieve this objective. ...by working
closely with national institutions and personnel on individual farms at the country
level, these activities are strengthening the national capacity to conduct, adapt and
extend field level research.

The CDSS also noted that formal and informal training, to strengthen the human
resource base of the regional and national institutions, are integral activities in all of
ROCAP's projects. But the CDSS stated that ROCAP sees a "need for a revitalized effort in
training at all levels if the region is to mobilize its limited resources effectively and be
capable of sustaining development efforts."


FY 85 (1/83)

This CDSS noted that the goals of the agricultural sector, established jointly by the
Ministers of Agriculture of all five Central American countries in a February 1983 meeting,
and with which ROCAP concurred, are: (1) to expand exports from the region of non-
traditional agricultural commodities and processed agricultural goods; and (2) to promote
regional self-sufficiency in basic food crops.

FY 86 (4/84)

This CDSS indicated that ROCAP would propose grant assistance for research on
non-traditional crops and transfer of technologies to the national level through both public
and private sector efforts. ROCAP would continue to use regional institutions, particularly
CATIE, to address research and technical assistance requirements. The Mission planned to
continue work with CATIE on small farming systems to increase non-traditional exports and
the production of domestic food crops. Key projects in support of this strategy would be
Small Farmer Production Systems and Export Crop Diversification. A limited role was seen
for PVOs working in conjunction with national counterparts in the dissemination of
information and technologies developed by the regional projects.

FY 89 (12/87)

With respect to the objective of increasing agricultural production, this CDSS stated
that ROCAP's strategy is

to support national public and private institutions and USAID Missions in CA/P in the
generation, transfer and use of information needed for improved agricultural
production and for the management of the natural resources to sustain that production.

In support of this strategy, ROCAP proposed a number of steps, including training Central
Americans by improving the capability of CA/P institutions to provide professional level
degree and technical training related to agricultural production, adapting technologies by
supporting experiments in techniques for improved agricultural production, and transferring
technologies by supporting the transfer of existing information and that generated by research
to the potential users in the public and private institutions and producer groups in the
countries of the region.

In the area of training, project activities were to focus on providing scholarships for
graduate level (M.S.) study at CATIE in integrated pest management of food crops; tree crop
production for wood and forage; on-farm soil and water conservation/irrigation; and mid-
level study leading to a forestry degree. In addition, training will involve curriculum design
and funding support for short-term professional and mid-level non-degree training for
researchers, educators, technicians and extensionists in: integrated pest management and post-
harvest handling and storage for food crops; tree crop production; on-farm soil and water
conservation; and support for a regional training capacity in post-harvest handling and
storage of food crops. Also, the Mission proposed seeking means to establish perpetual


scholarship endowments in these and other areas, with the scholarships being supported by
private and public donors.

In the area of technology adaptation, the Mission proposed creating and implementing
technology (research) networks in food crops through IICA, CATIE, and the International
Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs); extending knowledge of food processing; validating
integrated pest management technologies for food crops through CATIE, the Honduran
Agricultural Research Foundation (FHIA), the Pan American Agricultural School (EAP), and
other collaborating institutions; and validating irrigation technologies for food crops and tree
crop production technologies. Also, the proposed program would include support for
expansion of genetic resource collections of economically important food crops, and for
carrying out research in integrated pest management, tree crop production, on-farm soil and
water conservation, and selected disciplines related to food crop production.

The Mission also proposed that a major thrust would be

to accelerate the pace, broaden the channels, and improve the quality of technology
transfer. This will include efforts to identify the most effective technology transfer
methods, support the development and consolidation of extension materials, and help
countries design programs for massive dissemination of technologies in integrated pest
management, tree crop production, on-farm soil and water conservation, food crop
production, and post-harvest handling and storage. This thrust will also seek means
to share reference information needed for the implementation of the above
technologies through the creation and operation of regionally accessible documentation
centers, libraries and data bases; and through establishing and operating regional PVO
coordination mechanisms to improve the channeling of bilateral funding to national
PVO and other groups to disseminate these technologies.





This annex contains a list of AID-funded projects in the LAC region that contain
agricultural research, extension, and/or education components. To develop this list,
LACTECH requested AID's Center for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE) to
list all AID-funded projects in the LAC region in the 1980s that could be identified, through
a key word search, as containing research, extension, and/or education components.

The projects are listed regionally: Andean, Caribbean, and Central American.
Within each region, the projects are listed alphabetically by country. In each country,
projects generally are listed chronologically, with project number (last four digits) and
project title. For each project, CDIE provided a printout that provided information on the
project's logical framework. Based on the information provided on the project in the
printout, each project was assigned a set of codes to identify which projects contained
research, extension, and/or education components. The coding scheme used follows:


LOCUS Research Extension Education

Public Sector R1 X1 El

Private Sector R2 X2 E2

This provides a summary overview of the activities (agricultural research, extension,
and/or education) included in each project and the locus of implementation responsibility
(public vs. private) for each activity. The project activities that provided the basis for the
classification are then listed on the following pages, providing the reader with a more
detailed background on the research, extension, and/or education components of each project.


BOLIVIA (511-xxxx)

R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 1 83-90 0543 Chapare Regional Development
1 1 1 85-93 0586 Agricultural Marketing/Productivity
2 86-90 0589 Private Agricultural Producer Organizations

ECUADOR (518-xxxx)

R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 80-87 0012 Integrated Rural Development
1 1 80-90 0032 Rural Technology Transfer System
1 1 1 82-90 0023 Forestry Sector Development
2 84-89 0019 Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports
2 85-91 0062 Agricultural Education OPG
2 2 2 88-93 0068 Agr. Research, Extension & Education
R X E 89-92 0069 Natural Resources Management

PERU (527-xxx)

R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 1 80-89 0192 Agr. Research, Extension & Education
1 1 1 81-91 0244 Upper Huallaga Agricultural Development
1 1 1 87-89 0282 Agricultural Technology Transformation
1 1 1 82-88 0240 Central Selva Resource Management
1 1 88-90 0321 Central Selva Resource Management II



1 81-88
2 82-85
1 83-90
1 83-91
2 87-92
2 89-91


Project Title
Natural Resources Management (subproject 2)
Inland Fisheries II
On-Farm Water Management
Agricultural Sector Training
Agricultural Research and Extension (?)
Commercial Farming Systems
Agribusiness Training

HAITI (521-xxxx)




FY-FY xxxx
78-88 0092
81-89 0122
83-88 0169
90-95 0217

JAMAICA (532-xxxx)

1 84-90
2 86-93
1 85-89
1 1 87-94

RDO/C (538-xxxx)

1 1




Project Title
Agricultural Development Support II
Agroforestry Outreach
NGO Support I
Targeted Watershed Management
Agroforestry Program (follow-on to -0122)

Project Title
Agricultural Education
Jamaica Agricultural Research
Hillside Assessment
Hillside Agriculture

Project Title
Agricultural Extension II
Farming Systems R&D
St. Vincent Agricultural Development
Food Crop Production (CARDI)
Agricultural Research and Extension

2 2



BELIZE (505-xxxx)



Project Title
Livestock Development
Special Development Activities Fund
Commercialization of Alternative Crops
Toledo Agricultural Marketing

COSTA RICA (515-xxxx)



Project Title
NTAE Technical Support
Northern Zone Consolidation
Forest Resources for a Stable Environment

EL SALVADOR (519-xxxx)

FY-FY xxxx
83-88 0265
87-94 0327
88-91 0364



Project Title
Agrarian Reform Sector Support
Water Management
Agribusiness Development
Community Based Rural Development (OPG)
Sustainable Agriculture (LC-
Technoserve Rural Enterprise Development
Coffee Technology Enhancement
Commercial Farming
Sustainable Agricultural Production

1 81-89
1 83-93
1 86-89


Project Title
Small Farm Diversification Systems
Highlands Agricultural Development
Aquaculture Extension
Guatemala Dairy Development
Development Training and Support

2 2



1/2 1

GUATEMALA (520-xxxx)

2 2

HONDURAS (522-xxxx)

1 1 1 79-89
2 80-83
1/2 80-89
2 81-84
2 82-84
2 2 84-94
2 2 2 89-89
1 1 89-93

ROCAP (596-xxxx)

1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1




Project Title
Rural Technologies
Rural Pilot Schools Development
Natural Resources Management
S.O.S. Training of Migrant Youth
Agricultural Education
Export Promotion and Services
Agricultural Research Foundation
Pan American Agricultural School
Land Use Productivity Enhancement

Project Title
Fuelwood and Alternative Energy Sources
Regional Coffee Pest Control
Integrated Pest Management
Tree Crop Production
Regional Agricultural Higher Education
Regional Agricultural Technology Networks



The Chapare Regional Development (CRD) (511-0543) project, being implemented by
IBTA (Bolivian Institute of Agricultural Technology) and private sector organizations, was
designed to run from 1983 to 1990. CRD aims to provide alternative income opportunities
for coca growers by upgrading small farm agricultural and forestry production in Bolivia's
Chapare region of Bolivia. A Secretariat for the Development of the Bolivian Tropics
(SDBT) was to be established in the Ministry of Coordination and Planning, under guidance
of an interministerial committee, to coordinate project activities in consultation with the
Chapare District Consultative Council. The project design provided for the following
research, extension, and education components:

Research: Coordination by IBTA of research on agricultural and forestry technology
packages for Chapare's nine micro-environments;

Extension: Creation of demonstration farms in each micro-environment, with
promotion of technology packages via field days and radio, with feedback provided
via farmer community councils. Community nurseries staffed by IBTA, with
technical assistance from the National Forestry Department.

HONDURAS (522-xxxx)

1 1 1 79-89
2 80-83
1/2 80-89
2 81-84
2 82-84
2 2 84-94
2 2 2 89-89
1 1 89-93

ROCAP (596-xxxx)

1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1




Project Title
Rural Technologies
Rural Pilot Schools Development
Natural Resources Management
S.O.S. Training of Migrant Youth
Agricultural Education
Export Promotion and Services
Agricultural Research Foundation
Pan American Agricultural School
Land Use Productivity Enhancement

Project Title
Fuelwood and Alternative Energy Sources
Regional Coffee Pest Control
Integrated Pest Management
Tree Crop Production
Regional Agricultural Higher Education
Regional Agricultural Technology Networks



The Chapare Regional Development (CRD) (511-0543) project, being implemented by
IBTA (Bolivian Institute of Agricultural Technology) and private sector organizations, was
designed to run from 1983 to 1990. CRD aims to provide alternative income opportunities
for coca growers by upgrading small farm agricultural and forestry production in Bolivia's
Chapare region of Bolivia. A Secretariat for the Development of the Bolivian Tropics
(SDBT) was to be established in the Ministry of Coordination and Planning, under guidance
of an interministerial committee, to coordinate project activities in consultation with the
Chapare District Consultative Council. The project design provided for the following
research, extension, and education components:

Research: Coordination by IBTA of research on agricultural and forestry technology
packages for Chapare's nine micro-environments;

Extension: Creation of demonstration farms in each micro-environment, with
promotion of technology packages via field days and radio, with feedback provided
via farmer community councils. Community nurseries staffed by IBTA, with
technical assistance from the National Forestry Department.

Education: Funding of M.S. training of 10 IBTA staff and short-term training for
SDBT staff.

The 9/86 project evaluation found that lack of coca control had made it impossible to
implement some project components and that project objectives had not been clearly
conceptualized and

translated into an aggressive course of action...cropping systems improvements have
been neglected, even though Chapare farmers typically practice multiple cropping;
more attention to annual perennial intercropping is needed.... Livestock activities
should be eliminated; the region is not suited to cattle production, nor have farmers
shown interest. Chipiriri research station is located in an area ill-suited for
agricultural production and atypical of most of Chapare; research on citrus and field
crops should be transferred. Recruitment and training of promoters has proceeded
well but deserves even greater attention since there is no assurance that research and
extension will continue after project completion....

The evaluation proposed that starting development assistance efforts in poverty-
stricken areas outside the Chapare, such as the high valley regions of Cochabamba, could
reduce the incentive for residents of such areas to migrate to the Chapare.

The 11/87 project amendment extended the project into the high valley regions of
Cochabamba. Under this amendment, project assistance was to be provided for reforestation;
soil and water management structures; flood control; improvements in potato seed, cereal,
and vegetable production; and pest control, with transportation, marketing, and infrastructure
inputs to come later. Further, the amendment provided that, in the Chapare, infrastructural
and agricultural credit assistance were to be limited to communities and farmers who have
eradicated 70% of their coca-growing area.

A subsequent amendment (3/89) added two new conditions. First, credit would be
available only to farmers who have eradicated 10% of their coca plantings and agreed in
writing to a time-phased total and final eradication. (IBTA would have the responsibility of
developing individual farm investment plans to determine credit needs. Other assistance
such as farm inputs, training, and technical assistance, and access to agro-processing
investments would be provided unconditionally.) Second, the amendment provided that
communities would receive 1, 2, and 3 social infrastructure facilities/projects after
eradicating, respectively, 30%, 70%, and begun eradicating the final 30% of their coca

In the Chapare region, USAID/Bolivia is fully funding IBTA's implementation of the
Chapare project. In the Associated High Valleys component, project funding is supporting a
mix of public (IBTA) and private (PVO) participants. No project component is aimed at
institution building per e but rather at strengthening the capability of the participating
organizations to carry out their responsibility to implement a project for which the primary
motivating factor on the part of the donor country (i.e., the U.S.) is not to strengthen
Bolivia's technology generation and transfer capacity pr se but rather the desire to address


the supply side of the U.S. drug problem by trying to encourage Bolivian coca growers to
produce crops other than coca.

In this context, a training needs assessment (Bymes, 1990b) for the project identified
the need to strengthen the capacity of the implementing agencies to carry out on-farm
adaptive research in the project's two regions (Chapare and the Associated High Valleys).
As of mid-1990, a Scope of Work was being developed for the evaluation of the Chapare
Regional Development Project.

The Private Agricultural Producer Organizations (PAO) (511-0589) project,
programmed for 1986-1990, is being implemented by a technical assistance team, with
support from private Bolivian firms, under general oversight by the Ministry of Planning and
Coordination. PAO aims to reactivate the private agricultural sector in Bolivia after state
controls on production and prices were removed, by strengthening and expanding the
capacity of PAOs to provide members with private-sector services (e.g., inputs such as seed
and agricultural machinery, credit, technical assistance, storage, transport, and marketing).
The project seeks to develop such services by providing technical assistance, equipment,
training, and financial loans.

While not designed as an agricultural research, extension, and/or education project
per se, the project does include short-term training for PAO leaders, members, and
administrative and technical personnel. The training includes technical on-farm
demonstrations, classroom workshops and seminars, and field visits to Bolivian, neighboring
country, or U.S. sites. The project also included environmental education for PAO

The 4/90 evaluation found only one PAO, the oil and wheat producers association
(ANAPO), where a production check-off collected by processor firms or marketing agencies
had been a viable financing scheme for supporting agricultural research and extension. In
the check-off scheme, farmers sell their produce to a processor or marketer who deducts a
small fee for services from the producer's payment. ANAPO collects 1% of the value of all
produce marketed from processors and exporters, with the funds being shared among
ANAPO (70%), the regional agricultural chamber (15%), and the Tropical Agricultural
Research Center (CIAT/Bolivia) (15%). At present, only ANAPO has implemented a system
like this. Further, the technical assistance provided by ANAPO is tied to the association's
credit program. A farmer's loan is paid out in stages during the production cycle and only
on the recommendation of ANAPO's field technicians. The association has five full-time
agronomists to carry out this work; also the ANAPO hires another 15 newly qualified
agronomists from the university to assist in this work during the harvest.

Besides crop oversight, the field agronomists help farmers with production problems
as these arise. Where an agronomist is not familiar with a problem, he will call upon a
CIAT/Bolivia specialist to accompany him to study the problem. Also, in collaboration with
CIAT, ANAPO sponsors annually about ten varietal trials on farmers fields and holds at least
two field days for producers.


The PAO project evaluation emphasized the importance of technology transfer to
PAOs, noting that technology transfer is a major concern of all producer associations and
recommending that technology transfer be given priority in project activities.

Improving yields and production, especially for export, will require effective
agricultural extension for producers. Producer associations can provide such
assistance for particular commodities as services to their members. These services,
which can be financed from marketing feeds, would add greatly to member
confidence in their associations. The need now is to try different designs for the
private-sector delivery of agricultural extension (Appleby and Eason, 1990: iii).

On the other hand, the evaluation cautioned that agricultural commodities with a very
generalized production and distribution pattern may not be amenable to the check-off system:

the necessity is that the commodity undergo some processing before it is brought to
market. Whenever such a marketing bottleneck occurs or can be created, the
processing firm will be able to levy the small service fee for participating associations
or organizations (Appleby and Eason, 1990:18).

The Agricultural Marketing/Productivity (511-0586) project, originally programmed
for 1985-93, did not have a PID (Project Identification Document) until 1/89. The project's
objective, as conceived in the PID, is to improve agricultural productivity/marketing,
especially export marketing, strengthen the GOB's policy analysis capacity, and provide
agricultural training at technical through M.S. levels. The project includes the following
research, extension, and education components:

Research: Under the marketing/productivity component, development of a market
information system and improved postharvest facilities and technologies. Under the
policy component, establishment of a small policy analysis unit in the Ministry of
Rural Affairs and Agriculture (MACA) to develop and assess agricultural policies,
especially in regard to the private sector, the delivery of agricultural services (e.g.,
credit), and economic incentives for production increases and marketing

Extension: Provision of technical assistance in marketing to farmer organizations.

Education: Training of agricultural technicians at two secondary schools,
establishment of a scholarship program for practical training at the Pan American
Agricultural School (in Honduras), and provision of short-term and U.S. Masters-
level training.


The USAID/Bolivia portfolio during the 1980s placed little to no emphasis on
institution building for the strengthening of agricultural research, extension, and education.
The portfolio was influenced by two overriding objectives: (1) to find alternative crops and


technologies to substitute for the production of coca; and (2) to reactivate the private
agricultural sector by strengthening and expanding the capacity of PAOs to provide members
with private-sector services (e.g., inputs such as seed and agricultural machinery, credit,
technical assistance, storage, transport, and marketing).

In terms of the former objective, a recent training needs assessment of the Chapare
project identified a need to strengthen the capability of both public and private sector
organizations to carry out adaptive on-farm research as essential for successfully generating
and transferring crops and technologies that can serve as income alternatives to the
production of coca. Thus, in both of the project's target sub-regions (Chapare and
Associated High Valleys), technology generation and transfer is being counted on as a key
element in the Mission's program to substitute alternate crops and technologies for the
production of coca. Yet, during the 1980s, none of the USAID/Bolivia projects, except the
Chapare project, has placed any emphasis on strengthening the capacity of public or private
organizations to conduct agricultural research and extension. In terms of the latter objective,
while the PAO project has had some success in strengthening the capability of producer
associations to provide various services to members, the project's emphasis on "private-
sector services" neglects that the farmer's demand for such services depends, to a large
extent, on the farmer's demand for and the available supply of agricultural technology. Yet
none of the PAO project's inputs are directed at improving the ability of private or public
organizations to generate and supply technologies that farmers will demand. Only one PAO
was found to be providing, through a check-off system, funding for agricultural research; and
this PAO is reaching only a relatively elite group of farmers in the Santa Cruz region.

Thus, while the success of the projects in the USAID/Bolivia portfolio ultimately
depends on or at least will be influenced by the capability of Bolivian organizations to
generate and transfer productivity- and income-increasing technologies, the portfolio lacks
any systematic long-term program to strengthen the research and extension capability of the
public and private organizations on which the Mission is relying for project implementation.
At the same time, a recently conducted International Service for National Agricultural
Research study (ISNAR, 1989) identified the need to rebuild and strengthen Bolivia's
agricultural research and technology transfer system.

IBTA, as the ISNAR study reported, must confront a series of difficult conditions
such as the size of Bolivia, the country's diverse agroecological situations, the varying social
conditions and production abilities of farmers, and the relatively low priority that Bolivia
traditionally has assigned to agricultural development. Further, the study found that IBTA's
resources have deteriorated because of the loss of qualified staff, degradation of priority-
setting and programming systems, and the incapability of extension services to attend
efficiently to the needs of the rural population and, in particular, farmers.

The study proposed restructuring IBTA by creating: (1) a "central normative unit;"
"regional services for research and transfer of agricultural technology;" "national programs
for research and transfer of agricultural technology;" and departmental "technological linkage
units" (to coordinate with other organizations involved with technology transfer in the public
and private sectors). While the regional services initially would be funded by the GOB and


departments, there would be a strategy for gradual development and consolidation of the
system, whereby the regional services would progressively receive increasing local support
from development corporations, regional agricultural chambers, etc. Once local support
provided the majority of the funding for the regional services, these services would become
autonomous entities, adopting a status similar to that actually held by CIAT/Bolivia in the
department of Santa Cruz.

The study recommended a phased action plan of steps to implement the proposed
system. Further, the study identified the role that donors could play in supporting a global
project to provide all of the components needed for an institutional strengthening program.
This program could be structured in terms of the following international cooperation projects:

Project for strengthening the central unit of a national agricultural research and
technology transfer system.

Project for strengthening and consolidating national agricultural research and
technology transfer programs.

Project for the establishment and consolidation of the technological linkage units.

Project for supporting the regional services of the agricultural research and technology
transfer system.

While the study's proposed action plan for implementing the agricultural research and
technology transfer system recognizes the need for training the personnel required to operate
the system, neither the study nor the action plan identified the problems or needs of Bolivia's
agricultural education system.


USAID/Ecuador, during the early 1980s, provided project support for strengthening
public sector capability to carry out agricultural technology generation and transfer. From
1980 to 1987, the Integrated Rural Development (IRD) (518-0012) project specifically
focused on technology transfer. IRD was designed to be implemented by the Government of
Ecuador (GOE) Secretariat for Integrated Rural Development (SEDRI), with SEDRI's
primary role being to coordinate the project's various implementing agencies. IRD was to
provide support for extension services and a training unit to train project technicians to train
local contact agents and campesinos. But the 4/86 Audit Report reported that SEDRI was
ineffective in planning, coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating project activities. As a
result of various implementation problems (e.g., frequent personnel turnover), SEDRI failed
to meet specified schedules in executing agreements with several of the agencies
implementing the project, and to satisfy certain conditions precedent. While over 15 other
donor-financed IRD projects were designed during IRD's life, the project was not able to
institutionalize IRD to the degree planned and SEDRI was dismantled in 1986.


From 1980 to 1990, USAID/Ecuador also supported a multi-component Rural
Technology Transfer System (RTTS) (518-0032) project. RTTS was initially implemented
by SEDRI, then by the National Science and Technology Council (CONACYT), and then by
the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). RTTS's subproject 1 was to establish a rural technology
transfer system for strengthening and coordinating the country's research, extension, and
education institutions. The system was to-provide a staff of three project specialists (in
research, extension, and education) to assist the implementing agencies in developing,
implementing, and evaluating project activities. Subproject 2 was to help the GOE develop
and disseminate technologies appropriate to small farmer needs (e.g., develop soil and water
conservation management systems for small farmers and conduct adaptive research on
selected crops). Also, this component was to improve links among research, extension, and
education institutions (e.g., to restructure the Catholic University of Guayaquil's curriculum).
But when problems were encountered trying to implement projects (i.e., IRD and RTTS)
through SEDRI, implementation responsibility was transferred to CONACYT.

A 7/84 evaluation of the project concluded that, while the project's basic objective
continued to be sound, the project's design "was overly ambitious, unrealistic, and at times
almost self-destructive." Also, the evaluation found that project

administration and financing have been most ineffective. CONACYT...was
established after project approval and did not participate in the project's design; as its
operations got underway, CONACYT found the requirements for [technical assistance
(TA)] and training too stringent and inflexible, and felt that it did not have the
necessary flexibility to adapt [sub-projects] to...priority needs.... As a result,
CONACYT has virtually ceased to approve any...TA or training for the past year and
a half, and has prevented the [TA contractor] from performing its function. In
addition, the project plan to establish informal collaborative [links] among rural
institutions required an implementing agency with strong administrative, planning, and
technical capacity; it was unrealistic to expect CONACYT, a new institution, to have
these capacities, or the [GOE] to be able to provide sufficient counterpart funds.

Further, while the evaluation found TA in the sub-projects to be effective at the technician
level, TA was less effective at the level of top management and administration. The lack of
management training at CONACYT limited the quality of training in the sub-projects.
Finally, at the time of the evaluation, funds for private sector research had not yet been used.

The evaluation recommended a major redesign that included a focus on technical
training (in-country and U.S. short-term and degree training). Further, the evaluation
recommended selecting a new lead institution, specifying a limited number of institutions for
investment, and identifying research priorities to be addressed by the redesigned project.
Subsequently, the 10/85 project amendment revised the RTTS project strategy to emphasize
(1) training of researchers, technicians, and farmers; (2) use of private producer associations
to implement commodity-specific project activities; and (3) shifting of project implementation
responsibility from CONACYT to the MOA. The emphasis on training was further
supported, during 1985-1991, by the Mission's Agricultural Education (519-0062) project
which provided an Operations Program Grant (OPG) to the Wilson Popenoe Foundation to


support its program of scholarships for Ecuadorean undergraduate students to Honduras' Pan
American Agricultural School (EAP).

Even as USAID/Ecuador struggled in the 1980s to strengthen the capability of public
sector agencies to carry out technology generation and transfer on food commodities
produced by small- to medium-sized farmers, the Mission began in the mid-1980s to focus on
non-traditional agricultural exports. Between 1984 and 1989, the Federation of Ecuadorean
Exporters (FEDEXPOR) and the Ecuador National Association of Businessmen (ANDE)
implemented the Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports (NTAE) (518-0019) project. NTAE
was designed to provide financing of preinvestment studies and technical assistance to small-
to-medium firms seeking to develop new products and markets.

Subsequently, the 5/88 project evaluation concluded that the NTAE project design

incomplete and faulty; measures of achievement were overestimated and inappropriate
and the timeframe was insufficient; the budget was too small; the time required to
develop and change the attitudes of participants or potential participants was not taken
into consideration; [Mission] management was inadequate; there was not continuity of
TA; the investment credit facility did not perform as expected and there were too
many delays; and the agreement between [the Mission] and the Central Bank was
confusing and caused delays in implementation.

A Phase II was recommended that "should be developmental and...build on the basic
institutional structure...now in place. It should stress TA and the development of a
production and marketing base from which to launch a full-scale export marketing program.
A systems approach is recommended." Support for NTAE continues under a 7/20/89
Cooperative Agreement with ANDE.

By the late 1980s, the Mission's emphasis on working through the private sector, an
emphasis already evidenced in RTTS's work with private producer associations and NTAE's
work with FEDEXPOR and ANDE, was given further impetus by the Agricultural Research.
Extension & Education (AREE) (518-0068) project (1988-93). This project seeks to improve
the public-private system of agricultural research, extension, and education (REE) for
selected commodities. AREE is being implemented by the private Foundation for
Agricultural Development (FUNDAGRO), established with USAID assistance. An
endowment, initially capitalized with the equivalent of $3.3 million in P.L.480-generated
local currency, was established to provide independence and flexibility for FUNDAGRO.
AREE is to strengthen FUNDAGRO institutionally, support its role in creating a REE system
for three priority commodity programs (PCPs), and support related special programs. Under
the project, FUNDAGRO was to hire professional, technical, and support staff, and to create
a coastal programs office. It was expected that FUNDAGRO would seek additional
resources from local donations and bilateral donors and would develop over time income
from managing programs and projects financed by donors and the private sector.


As AREE's central activity, FUNDAGRO was to bring together public and private
REE institutions, including INIAP (National Institute for Agricultural Research), the Inter-
American Development Bank's PROTECA project, producer co-ops and agricultural faculties
in PCPs for coffee, yucca, and milk. Activities in each PCP were to include providing
complementary research resources to INIAP, forming research-extension linkage units
(RELUs), representing producers and public REE institutions, supporting public and private
sector extension services, forming links with educational institutions, and funding M.S. and
Ph.D. candidates.

The RELUs were to be responsible for identifying farmers' needs, testing
technologies on farmers' lands, and training extensionists to transfer technologies. Also,
RELUs were to provide guidance to agricultural training institutions, especially regarding
curricula for extensionists. Participation of private firms and farmer associations in the PCPs
was to be actively sought, along with linkages with international research centers and U.S.
and third-country universities and agricultural institutions. This component also was to be
linked to Peace Corps activities and to AID/Washington-funded nutrition programs.

The project design also included a component to support programs to transfer
technologies, successfully used elsewhere, to Ecuador to fill specific niches in domestic and
export markets. FUNDAGRO's role was to link a potential market with producers who are
willing to underwrite some trials. Also, FUNDAGRO was to conduct an inventory of
existing resources to support the market linkage program, and to sponsor state-of-the-art
seminars on innovative technologies.

In the natural resources area, USAID/Ecuador initiated, in 1982, a Forestry Sector
Development (FSD) (518-0023) project that is scheduled to run through 1990. Implemented
by GOE's National Forestry Program (PNF), with participation by public and private
institutions responsible for conducting and partially funding project activities, 70% of project
funding is directed to forest research and extension (field demonstrations). Commercial scale
demonstrations of plantation forestry, natural regeneration, and agroforestry are to be
conducted (10,000 ha in the high Sierra, humid tropical lowlands, and arid coast). Species
trials in each region were to be conducted each year. Extension was to include technical
assistance and in-service "learning-by-doing." Training for PNF staff (central and district,
technical and professional) was to strengthen PNF's ability to identify and plan projects,
conduct macro-level planning, coordinate research and demonstrations, disseminate research
findings and other information, and offer outreach and assistance at its district offices. The
12/85 project amendment increased the project's emphasis on agroforestry, including
demonstration projects in Napo Province, where some 25 communities or co-ops were to be
provided technical assistance and other inputs. Project assistance also provided for selected
highland and coastal areas.

For 1989-92, the Mission is implementing a Natural Resources Management (NRM)
(518-0069) project that is aimed at fostering technologies and policies that contribute to the
sustainable use of Ecuador's renewable natural resources. NRM contains a mix of research,
extension, and education components, as follows:


Research: Activities are to focus on problems identified in field demonstrations, and
evaluate the results of the demonstrations. Policy studies and discussions are to
clearly define the existing relationships between the use of natural resources and
overall government policies for agriculture, tourism, colonization, and other relevant

Extension: Field demonstrations of appropriate technologies are to be designed and
implemented in selected ecological zones and social settings for the sustained,
economically productive use of natural resources. Examples of potential demonstra-
tions are: irrigation on steep slopes combined with soil conservation techniques, crop
diversification, and wind breaks; production of wood and seafood from mangrove
forests; combined tree-livestock-agricultural crop systems; and animal production in
the high Andean grasslands.

Education: Public education is to lay a base for wider appreciation and support of the
sustainable use of natural resources. The results of the field demonstrations, policy,
and research components are to provide material for this educational activity. (CP
1989, Annex II, p. 321)


During the early 1980s, USAID/Ecuador's efforts to strengthen agricultural research,
extension, and education focused on assisting public sector agencies. IRD provided
assistance to strengthen SEDRI's capability to coordinate extension by various implementing
agencies. But, by 1986, integrated rural development had not been institutionalized and
SEDRI was dismantled. During this same period, USAID/Ecuador's RTTS project sought
to assist public agencies, initially SEDRI, and subsequently CONACYT and the MOA,
respectively, in strengthening technology transfer. But RTTS's approach to technology
transfer was more systematic in that project assistance was aimed at strengthening the
capability of public sector agencies to assist the implementing agencies in developing,
implementing, and evaluating project activities, and in improving links among research,
extension, and education institutions.

However, USAID/Ecuador's efforts to develop the capability of public sector agencies
to coordinate agricultural technology generation and transfer were repeatedly frustrated
during the early 1980s. Thus, a mid-1984 evaluation recommended a major redesign that
marked a shift away from these projects' initial emphasis on extension and toward an
emphasis on providing technical (in-country and U.S. short-term and degree) training. While
the 10/85 project amendment revised RTTS' strategy to emphasize training of researchers,
technicians, and farmers, the lead institution continued to be a public agency (MOA). But
the amendment provided for increased participation by private producer associations in
implementing commodity-specific project activities. The emphasis on training was reinforced
by the Mission's support of the Agricultural Education project that funded scholarships for
Ecuadoreans to study at the EAP in Honduras.


But even as the Mission continued in the mid-1980s to struggle with the task of
strengthening public sector capability to carry out technology generation and transfer on food
commodities, the Mission began, under the Non-Traditional Agricultural Export project to
focus on NTAE crops; also, this project's strategy of providing technical assistance to private
groups such as FEDEXPOR and ANDE accelerated an increasing emphasis by the Mission
on providing development assistance through private organizations. Yet a mid-1988
evaluation of the NTAE project basically concluded that more time and resources would be
needed to develop private sector ability to achieve the objectives of the project. The
evaluation recommended a Phase I which "should be developmental and should build on the
basic institutional structure that is now in place. It should stress TA and the development of
a production and marketing base from which to launch a full-scale export marketing
program. A systems approach is recommended."

In effect, turning to the private sector had not provided a "magic bullet" for solving
the institutional development problems previously encountered in trying to work through
public agencies. Yet, the launching of the Agricultural Research. Extension, and Education
(AREE) project in 1988 provided further evidence of USAID/Ecuador's continuing and
growing emphasis on working with and through the private sector. While AREE seeks to
improve the public-private system of agricultural research, extension, and education (REE)
for selected commodities, the project is being implemented by a private Foundation for
Agricultural Development (FUNDAGRO), established and largely funded by USAID.

Even as USAID has provided significant funding for FUNDAGRO, a series of
Agricultural Sector Assessment seminars, sponsored by USAID/Ecuador as part of the
Mission's Policy Dialogue with the GOE, have stressed a need for increased public support
for agricultural research and the science base. Indeed, the recently completed
USAID/Ecuador Agricultural Sector Assessment identified the country's inadequate science
base as one of the two major constraints to greater progress in agriculture, the other being
discriminatory macroeconomic policies. The Minister of Agriculture, as a result of these
seminars, has requested technical assistance to help implement a plan to create an
autonomous National Research Service (INIAP). A former USAID staff person, under
FUNDAGRO sponsorship, accepted responsibility to draft the needed legislation and to work
closely with the Congress and the Administration to create an administratively autonomous
and adequately funded INIAP.


While USAID/Ecuador's Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education project did
not start until near the end of the 1980s, USAID/Peni's Agricultural Research. Extension.
and Education (AREE) (527-0192) project began at the decade's outset (1980) and ran
through 1989. AREE was implemented by a project-supported National Research,
Extension, and Education (REE) Management Division of the newly-created public sector
National Agrarian Research and Promotion Institute (INIPA), Ministry of Agriculture and
Food (MAF). The REE Management Division, composed of key agricultural institutions and
universities, was to plan, coordinate, and implement REE activities aimed at strengthening
the capability of Peri's agricultural technology generation and transfer system to deliver


productivity-increasing technologies (for priority crops) to small farmers in the Sierra. The
following REE activities were supported by AREE project:

Research: Five regional research centers (RRCs) were to be formed to conduct
applied research on soil, water, pest, and disease conditions, while five national
production programs (NPPs) were to be formed to develop improved production
packages for delivery to 100,000 farmers by extensionists. A research support unit
was to be created to provide technical assistance to the NPPs, disseminate research
results, and conduct advanced research.

Extension: Five existing research sites were to be used to demonstrate technology
packages and to produce improved seed and genetic stock. Extensionists were to
provide farmer feedback for updating technology packages. Six regional service
laboratories (RSLs) were to be formed to supply soil, water, and plant/animal tissue
analysis to farmers.

Education: NPP personnel were to receive short-term training in extension/research
and 500 extensionists were to be trained. One researcher and one extensionist from
each NPP were to receive post-graduate training (e.g., in soil fertility and genetics).
For each RSL, six individuals were to receive short-term training in analysis
interpretation, equipment operation, and other areas. For each RRC, non-degree
training for updating research capability and two-year M.S. training were to be pro-
vided, respectively, to two researchers, while five researchers were to receive foreign
training at the M.S./Ph.D. levels. In-country training was to be given at the National
Agrarian University (NAU) at La Molina, five of whose graduate faculty were to
receive overseas Ph.D. training. NAU was to provide specialized short-term training
for 20 researchers from regional agricultural universities.

The 3/84 project evaluation concluded that the project's technical assistance had been
diverted "to help [a] newly-created INIPA combine AID, BID, and IBRD projects into a
nationwide Integral REE Program (IREEP)." In support of IREEP, the project organized 18
Centers for Agricultural Research and Extension (CIPAs), five Regional Research Centers
(RRCs), and five National Production Programs (NPPs), the latter having made "especially
good progress in developing improved corn, rice, and potato technologies and extending
them to farmers." At the time of the evaluation, the project was in the process of developing
five regional and three central service laboratories (RSLs) for crop extension/research and
three systems-focused National Programs, while links with International Agricultural
Research Centers (IARCs) and the Collaborative Research Support Projects (CRSPs) had
been established.

The evaluation concluded that several unplanned effects (some due to the creation of
INIPA and IREEP) and weaknesses hampered or altered the project, including: adoption of
the ineffective training and visit extension system; integration of the NPPs, RRCs, and RSLs
within the CIPAs; reduced emphasis on education and on the role of the National Agrarian
University (UNA); failure to implement the planned national research and management units


(the latter adding to INIPA's management difficulties); 1983 floods and drought; and
inadequate Government of Peri (GOP) support.

The 9/85 project amendment provided funding support for: (1) the five NPPs; (2)
integrated research/extension programs of INIPA in the Sierra and Selva regions; (3)
programs in agroeconomics, laboratory services, and foundation seed to support INIPA
extension; (4) national programs in integrated pest management and genetic resources to
support INIPA research; (5) an expanded INIPA human resources/education program; and
(6) new INIPA offices in quantitative methods and international cooperation and assistance to
improve INIPA's management of physical and financial resources. A 1/87 Grant provided
funding to the International Potato Center (CIP) to provide technical/administrative leadership

Between 1987 and 1989, USAID/Peni provided funding support for the Agricultural
Technology Transformation (ATT) (527-0282) project. Responsibility for project
implementation was assigned to the National Institute for Agricultural and Agro-Industrial
Research (INIAA), formerly called the National Agrarian Research and Promotion Institute
(INIPA). ATT was designed to develop and disseminate appropriate agricultural
technologies by upgrading of INIAA's capabilities to carry out research and by strengthening
the National Agrarian University La Molina (UNA). The ATT project design included
components in each of the REE components:

Research: Assistance was to be provided to help INIAA to consolidate and upgrade
its nine commodity-based National Research programs and its six National Research
Support programs. Other activities were to: (1) strengthen INIAA's personnel and
research management capabilities; (2) help develop a plan to stimulate private sector
involvement in agricultural research; (3) establish a planning and design service for
regional and provincial agricultural research activities at INIAA headquarters; (4)
provide competitive research grants to university and private sector personnel; and (5)
increase UNA's research capacity in areas that complement INIAA's, especially
through collaboration between U.S. and Peruvian graduate students.

Extension: Technology transfer was to be improved by establishing within INIAA a
regionally-based corps of technology transfer specialists to link researchers and
public/private extension and technology transfer institutions. Also, the specialists
were to promote technology transfer through the private sector (e.g., producer
associations, agribusinesses, and consulting firms). Other activities were to develop
up to 10 private sector model technology transfer enterprises (e.g., consulting firms,
farm records services), and to help develop an improved seed production and
distribution system.

Education: This component was to: (1) strengthen UNA by improving planning
skills in the Office of the Rector, revising curricula, creating a system to reward
faculty excellence, and expanding faculty understanding of Peruvian agriculture
through conferences; (2) support the National Agricultural Library and produce
scientific and extension publications; and (3) provide competitive graduate fellowships


for Ministry of Agriculture, INIAA, UNA, regional university and the private sector,
including M.S. study (mostly at UNA) for 200 persons and external Ph.D. or
comparable programs for 35-40 persons. Long-term technical assistance was to be
provided to INIAA by U.S. Title XII universities.

(Note: As explained in Chapter Im, the design of A'IT was reoriented to implement
the project through the private sector.)

The Upper Huallaga Agricultural Development (UHAD) (527-0244) project,
programmed to run from 1981 to 1991, also involved agricultural technology generation and
transfer but in a defined area (the Upper Huallaga). UHAD, implemented by INIPA and the
National Agrarian University of the Jungle (UNAS), was designed to promote agricultural
development in the high jungle of the Upper Huallaga region, and minimize the negative
social impacts of GOP coca eradication efforts. Under UHAD, INIPA and UNAS were to
develop coordinated agricultural research, extension, and training programs, including the
following components:

Research: Development and on-farm testing of 15-20 production packages.

Extension: Expansion of extension to encourage farmers to grow new crops, and to
develop a livestock program.

Education: Provision of M.S. training to 15 researchers, Ph.D.'s to 3, and short
courses to others; and M.S. training to 20 extensionists, B.S.'s to 10, and short-term
training for 26. UNAS was to hire and provide short-term training to 25 new faculty,
16 of these earning M.S.'s and three earning U.S. Ph.D.'s. Also, the project was to
support 35 agronomy and animal science students per year at UNAS and to upgrade
its library and laboratories. (The 6/86 project amendment provided for creation of a
community extension training center.)

In June 1988, the project was evaluated; the evaluation concluded that:

The project has made little progress toward its goals due to poor coordination among
implementing agencies and violent opposition by the local population. Despite
eradication efforts by the U.S./GOP-funded Rural Police Force (UMOPAR) and Coca
Eradication Agency (CORAH), coca production still offers enormous economic
advantages over [legitimate agriculture]. In most cases, farmers whose coca plantings
have been eradicated...simply moved to other areas and continued the practice....
Agricultural research is being carried out, but needs to be focused on developing new
higher yielding, disease resistant crops to increase the economic viability of
[legitimate agriculture]. An agricultural extension service has been established but its
impact has been limited by a lack of interest in [legitimate agriculture]. .
Conditions have changed so dramatically in UH since 1981 that many...project design
assumptions-especially that coca eradication would proceed smoothly and farmers
would seek out project assistance-have not come to pass."


A second area-focused project, Central Selva Resource Management (CSRM) (527-
0240), was designed to develop, in Peru's Palcazu Valley, a model for long-term
development of Perd's high jungle. The project, which ran from 1982 to 1988, was imple-
mented by a special project unit called PEPP (Pichis Palcazu Special Project) within the
GOP. CSRM included the following agricultural research, extension, and education

Research: This component was to include an adaptive, on-farm research program to
determine cropping and livestock systems adaptable to the high jungle, with
consideration of the capacity of farmers to absorb new technologies and management
practices. Research and extension in livestock development were to focus on pasture
development and management linked with cattle and swine production and agricul-
tural, forestry, and animal health activities.

Extension: This component was to include activities in extension, marketing, and
local crop processing.

Education: This component was to include a training program stressing materials to
help extensionists gather local crop and marketing information; commodity-specific
short courses; and having leading producers work with extensionists and commodity
experts rotate between research and extension.

Central Selva Resource Management I (CSRM II) (527-0321), designed to run from
1988 to 1990, was a follow-on to CSRM (527-0240). The project was implemented by the
National Institute for Development's Pichis Palcazu Special Project (PEPP) and the Regional
Development Policy Support Unit (APODESA). With a goal of testing and demonstrating
improved technologies for tropical forest and agricultural production/use systems in the
Palcazu Valley, CSRM II contained the following agricultural research and extension

Research: Introduction and on-farm testing of new forages, animal species, and tree
and other crops.

Extension: An extension service utilizing village promoters.

From 1983 to 1990, USAID/Pern provided project funding to assist the Ministry of
Agriculture's Agricultural Sector Planning Office (OSPA) in implementing the Agricultural
Planning & Institutional Development (APID) (527-0238) project. APID's purpose was to
increase the GOP's capacity to formulate agricultural sector policies and to manage
implementation of these policies. One APID component was directed at strengthening INIPA
in various areas (financial policy/management, internal control systems, and organizational
structure). To institutionalize personnel development in the MAF, a Technical Training
Division, staffed and managed by the UNA, was to be established.

The project also was to finance U.S. training of 4 Ph.D.'s and 11 M.S.s and in-
country graduate (including 70 M.S.'s) and technical training for over 550 professionals; and


to strengthen UNA via fellowships to graduate students and faculty. APID was to finance 15
M.S.'s to assist in establishing an Agricultural Policy Analysis (APA) unit in the University
of the Pacific. The 8/87 project evaluation found that several APID components had been
successful, including training, and that the project was restoring UNA's former preeminence
as a graduate institution.


By comparison with USAID support for agricultural research, extension, and
education in Bolivia and Ecuador, USAID/Peni has provided longer continuous support,
dating from at least 1980. Support was provided through the AREE (1980-89) and ATT
(1987-89) projects and was directed primarily at strengthening Ecuador's public sector
agricultural research and extension organization, first called INIPA and subsequently INIAA,
although assistance also was directed at agricultural education institutions such as UNA and
UNAS. Both projects provided assistance to strengthen all three functions--research,
extension, and education; thus, the program did not, as was the case with USAID/Ecuador's
program or earlier had been the case with USAID's program in Colombia, go through a
sequential evolution of initially focusing only on one function (e.g., extension) and
subsequently on the others (e.g., education or research). Initially program support was
directed at strengthening a lead public sector agency (INIPA subsequently renamed INIAA),
although the ATT project, after its initial design, was redirected in 1988 toward
implementation by the private sector Foundation of Agricultural Development
(FUNDEAGRO) as explained in Chapter III.

While these two projects served to strengthen the national agricultural REE system,
area-specific assistance for strengthening agricultural REE capacity also was provided
through the Upper Huallaga Agricultural Development and the Central Selva Resource
Management (and CSRM II) projects. However, in the case of the former project, the
motivating factor was, as in the case of the Chapare Regional Development Project in
Bolivia, the desire to find income alternatives to coca production. A key motivating factor in
the latter project was, at least initially, the desire to address, as has been the case with the
Associated High Valleys component of USAID/Bolivia's Chapare Regional Development
project, poverty problems in Peni's high jungle region, while a more recent motivating factor
may have been increasing emphasis on the need and desirability of addressing natural
resource problems. APID also contributed to development of Peri's agricultural REE system
by providing support for strengthening INIPA as an institution. The project continued
funding, initiated as early as 1980 under the AREE project, for Peruvians to earn advanced
degrees either in-country or in the U.S.



The first USAID/Dominican Republic project initiated during the 1980s that included
an agricultural research, extension, or education component was the Natural Resources
Management (NRM) (517-0126) project. NRM was implemented between 1981 and 1988 by


the Government of the Dominican Republic's (GODR) Subsecretariat of Natural Resources
(SURENA). NRM had two sub-projects: SPO1--Natural Resources Planning and
Development; and SP02--Soil and Water Conservation. The research, extension, and/or
education components of these sub-projects are summarized below.

SPO1--Natural Resources Planning and Development

Research: This component was to develop a cartographic base of the DR's natural
resources, including aerial photography, first of two target watershed areas, later of
the entire nation; also, the project was to develop comprehensive national and
watershed-level natural resources development plans. Other studies to be conducted
included establishment of 12 erosion and 12 water quality monitoring plots in two SP
watersheds; an agricultural zoning study to determine priority farming areas and
profitability of selected plant species; 12 marketing studies of major agricultural pro-
ducts; and studies of small farmer groups and associations.

Extension: This component was to introduce soil and water conservation into all
GODR road construction plans.

Education: This component was to provide long-term training to 3 Directorate
General of Forests (DGF) and 3 SURENA technicians; also, a cadre of DGF field
agents was to be trained in conservation forestry. Plans for comprehensive environ-
mental education (via mass media, social/religious groups, public agencies,
schools/universities) were to be developed. Environmental short courses for 1,500
school teachers and local leaders and 5,000 farmers also were to be conducted.

SP02--Soil and Water Conservation

Research: This component was to develop a hillside farming systems research (FSR)
program that included area characterization, watershed-level and farm register studies,
agroecosystem experiments, design and evaluation of production package alternatives,
and technology transfer. In each watershed, a farming system and erosion monitoring
station and 10 permanent model farms were to be established, with implementation by
research teams (three at first) composed of a soil and water specialist, a general
agronomist, and an extension agent.
Extension: This component was to support implementation of pilot soil and water
conservation programs in two watershed areas, with farmers assisted on a one-to-one
basis by 20 conservation paratechnicians and 6 extension agents.

Education: This component was to conduct 16 semiannual short courses to train
paratechnicians, and 8 conservation workshops for middle-level field technicians.

A second project with a natural resources focus was Inland Fisheries II (517-0162).
This project was implemented from 1982 to 1985 by the Servicio Social de Iglesias
Dominicanas (SSID). The project included a research component (economic research on


farmer characteristics and fish production costs), an extension component (fish pond
demonstrations), and an education component (short-term training for project personnel).

From 1983 to 1989, the Mission supported the On-Farm Water Management
(OFWM) (517-0259) project implemented by the National Hydraulic Resources Institute
(INDRHI). The project included the following research, extension, and education

Research: Conduct of field studies.

Extension: Demonstration of water management practices.

Education: Provision of short-term, in country training for 500 GODR professionals
and 75 technicians; classroom and farm-level training for 25 extensionists; water
management training for 1,001 farmers; U.S. Master's degree training for 26 profes-
sionals; and short-term training for 31 other persons.

An Agricultural Research and Extension (517-0180) project was designed for the
1987-89 period but never implemented. The project had been designed to assist the GODR
with the creation of an autonomous institute to strengthen the capability of private and public
institutions to conduct interdisciplinary agricultural research and extension. This objective
apparently was pursued through the Commercial Farming Systems project described below.

Commercial Farming Systems (517-0214) started in 1987 and runs to 1992. An
Agricultural Technology Development sub-project (03) is developing a private sector-led,
non-profit Agricultural Development Foundation (ADF) to guide and finance the generation
and transfer of improved agricultural production technologies. The project was to fund the
ADF's operating and research support expenses for 18 months. An endowment fund, to be
capitalized by contributions from the Government of the Dominican Republic and the private
sector, was to be established to ensure ADF's future financial viability. This sub-project's
research, extension, and education components are now summarized.

Research: Under this component, ADF was to establish a research program to
support the development of improved production technologies for nontraditional
crops. Research contracts were to be awarded by ADF to public and private sector
research institutions and/or agribusinesses. The project is to emphasize collaborative
on-farm research involving agribusinesses and their outgrowers.

Extension: Under this component, an Information Center was to collect and
disseminate appropriate technology information and publish/disseminate ADF-
sponsored research results. Also, the Center was to sponsor an annual
seminar/workshop as well as informal field days at selected sites.

Education: This component was to conduct two technical courses for 60 cooperating


Two USAID/Dominican Republic projects in the 1980s provided support for
agricultural education. The first, Agricultural Sector Training (517-0160), from 1983-1991,
is being implemented by the National Planning Office, Department of International Technical
Cooperation (ONAPLAN/DITC). This project is providing advanced training for public
sector and university personnel, and is establishing ongoing systems for assessing training
needs and financing training (participant training for 80 M.S. and 15 Ph.D. degrees).
University participants, upon completion of studies, are to return to the DR and help
establish new graduate programs in agricultural science. Also, a Fund for Advanced
Education was to be established to finance 35 M.S. scholarships and in-country thesis
research at domestic universities.

A second education-related project, Agribusiness Training (517-0243), is being
implemented between 1989 and 1991, by the private Superior Institute of Agriculture's (ISA)
Center for Rural Development Administration (CADER). Also, the project is providing
opportunities for private sector research and short-cycle training for agribusiness owners and


USAID/DR support for agricultural research, extension, and education during the
1980s initially focused on the NRM project. The Natural Resources Planning and
Development sub-project emphasized development of basic information and environmental
education training plans. The extension focused on introducing soil and water conservation
in GODR road construction plans and conducting environmental short courses for farmers.
The Soil and Water Conservation sub-project focused on agricultural technology generation
and transfer, including a hillside FSR program, pilot extension programs emphasizing soil
and water conservation, and short courses for paratechnicians.

While NRM emphasized the soil, water, and forest components of the DR's natural
resources, Inland Fisheries focused on the potential to produce fish in ponds. However,
whereas NRM was implemented by public agencies, Inland Fisheries was implemented by a
NGO. A second water-related project, OFWM, focused on the potential of irrigated
agriculture and included research, extension (water management demonstrations), and
education components. As in the NRM project, OFWM was implemented by a public

While an Agricultural Research and Extension (517-0180) project was designed by
USAID/DR during the mid-1980s, this project apparently was shelved. The intent of this
project's design was to create an autonomous institute to strengthen the capability of private
and public institutions to conduct interdisciplinary agricultural research and extension.
Apparently the Mission decided not to pursue this objective through a public sector
organization but rather by creating a private Agricultural Development Foundation (ADF).
The ADF is being implemented under the Commercial Farming Systems project's
Agricultural Technology Development sub-project that emphasizes a private sector-led
institution to guide and finance agricultural technology generation and transfer, with an
emphasis on collaborative on-farm research.


While the Agricultural Technology Development sub-project of the Commercial
Farming Systems project does not include a strong education component (support was limited
to two technical courses for cooperating researchers), support for agricultural education is
being provided under Agricultural Sector Training (1983-1991) and Agribusiness Training
(1989-1991). The former project, while offering opportunities for advanced training, is
notable in that the project's design provides support for the establishment of ongoing systems
for assessing training needs as well as for the financing of overseas M.S. and Ph.D. training,
with the objective of having participants, upon completion of their degrees, return to the DR
to help establish new graduate programs in agricultural science. Also, the project design
provides for the establishment of a Fund for Advanced Education to finance M.S.
scholarships and in-country thesis research at domestic universities. The latter project,
Agribusiness Training, is of note in that it supports development of short-cycle training by
the Superior Institute of Agriculture (ISA), a private agricultural education organization.
Further, while providing short-cycle training for agribusiness owners and managers, the
project also is developing opportunities for private sector research.

It should be noted that USAID/DR provided project support during the 1970s to
strengthen the Superior Institute of Agriculture (ISA). In 1962, a group of community
leaders sought to remedy the DR's lack of trained agricultural manpower by creating ISA as
an agricultural high school. Later ISA was expanded to include, through a local university,
an undergraduate degree program; also, a specialized non-degree program in rural develop-
ment was added. Subsequently the school gained status as an autonomous university.

A special evaluation of ISA (Hansen, et al., 1988) found that the school's impacts
have been numerous and important. The school's training is generally regarded as excellent.
Former as well as current faculty are involved in national decisionmaking regarding
agriculture and rural development, either indirectly (via research) or directly (via government
employment or consultation). The evaluation found that ISA faculty had conducted
innovative commodity research leading to foreign exchange savings and had influenced
government policy on critical issues such as agrarian reform and reforestation.

Factors identified as contributing to ISA's vitality were: continuous, strong
leadership from the school's founding group; early institution-building inputs by Texas A&M
University (made available through USAID/DR project support); responsiveness to societal
needs; innovative training and other programs funded by the GODR's Secretariat of
Agriculture, USAID, and other donors; and ISA's own commitment to quality education.
Constraining factors identified included: an overly theoretical curriculum; insufficient links
with research and outreach activities; and pressures on ISA to turn to the private sector in the
face of dwindling government and donor support and to reduce or terminate the school's
technical/vocational program. Giving in to the former pressure would divert ISA's attention
from the small-farm sector, while giving in to the latter would make even worse the present
shortage of lower- and mid-level agricultural technicians.



From 1978 to 1988, USAID/Haiti funded the Agricultural Development Support II
(ADS) (521-0092) project that was implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Rural Development (MOA). ADS sought to strengthen the capability of the
MOA to develop "packages" of technological recommendations for farming systems, maize,
sorghum, legumes, vegetables, coffee, sugar cane and forestry. Research-derived
recommendations were to be distributed to small farmers through the national extension
service. The Ministry's agricultural research division, SERA, was to refine the packages on
a regular basis. Under ADS, SERA was to be reorganized and a coordinated research
program established in maize, sorghum grain, legumes, tropical horticulture, sugar cane, soil
conservation, forestry, vegetables, livestock, and forestry management.

The 5/86 mid-term evaluation of ADS found that the project's farming systems
research and extension had focused

exclusively on-farm, agronomic testing and...lacked input from project
socioeconomists (who were placed in a separate unit). As a result, the project [had]
not fully characterized farming systems within zones nor identified farmer problems
and constraints. Further, extension efforts [had] not yet studied rural institutions and
their effect on technology adoption.

The project evaluation summary concluded:

Due to project implementors' focus on crop testing rather than on farmer adoption of
new technology, quantitative measures of production and farm income increases are
lacking; such increases depend, in any case, on the still future adequate extension
service. The latter, in turn, will be effective to the extent that it adopts the FSR
approach rather than traditional 'vulgarization,' 'model farms,' or 'integrated
development' approaches which have left so many sad reminders all over the Haitian

From 1983 to 1988, Agricultural Cooperative Development International (ACDI),
held a Cooperative Agreement with USAID/ Haiti, under NGO Support I (521-0169), for
conducting feasibility studies and pilot tests of producing winter vegetables for export and for
developing an agricultural station as a center to service production of such vegetables by
small- to medium-sized farmers. A pilot farm was to be established to carry out variety,
density fertilization, and other trials to test feasibility with minimum export quantities. This
project, in effect, was an initial foray into non-traditional agricultural export (NTAE) crops.

Another area in which USAID/Haiti has provided support for agricultural research
and extension has been agroforestry. From 1981 to 1989, the Mission supported the
Agroforestry Research (521-0122) project that was implemented through three PVOs--the Pan
American Development Foundation (PADF), CARE, and Operation Double Harvest (ODH).
This project included research and extension components, as follows:


Research: This component provided for ODH to conduct forestry research. The
12/14/84 project amendment extended the project from 9/85 to 12/86 in order to
contract a Title XII university to conduct an independent agroforestry research
program. The 11/6/86 project amendment extended the PACD three years through
12/89. The Project Evaluation Summary of the end-of-project evaluation noted that:
"The use of the University of Maine (UM) rather than [PVOs] to conduct problem
solving research was sound, although there is need for a comprehensive plan to
address outstanding research issues and to clarify the functions of the UM team and
its relation to the PVO research units."

Extension: This component provided for the establishment of demonstration tree
farms by ODH in diverse ecological zones and demonstration of appropriate soil
conservation measures. The PVOs were to work with animators of HACHO, a quasi-
governmental Haitian development organization, to make local contacts through 800-
900 village meetings. CARE/HACHO was to conduct demonstration tree plantings,
while the PADF was to establish an Agroforestry Resource Center and three
regionally-oriented extension teams to provide agroforestry training to interested
PVOs and local councils and groups.

In the mid-1980s, USAID/Haiti initiated the Target Watershed Management (521-
0191) project. The project, which is scheduled to run from 1986 to 1991, is being
implemented by the MOA. Under the project, the MOA is conducting research on model
experimentation and demonstration plots to test land-use sequences for improving crop yields
and farmer income and preventing erosion. The research results are to be used to develop
locally-validated technical packages (most of which are to include alley cropping) for transfer
to watershed farmers. As the experiments will take years to assess, the project is currently
involving farmers in mini-experiments comparing traditional to improved technologies on
their own farms. Activities with farmer are to be implemented through PVOs.

Agroforestry Program (521-0217), the follow-on project to Agroforestry Research
(521-0122), is scheduled to run from 1990 to 1995. The project is being implemented by
two outreach grantees and a Title XII contractor. The project has research and extension
components, as follows:

Research: This component supports an operations research program to develop
sustainable, small-farm agroforestry production systems by integrating trees, forages,
and other soil-conserving and fertility-enhancing perennial crops with traditional
annual food crops.

Extension: This component provides for extension and training in rural communities.


Three areas of emphasis appeared in the USAID/Haiti agricultural portfolio during the
1980s. At the decade's outset, the Mission's ADS project being implemented by the public
sector MOA already was supporting and continued to support through 1988 the farming


systems research and extension (FSR/E_ approach to developing "packages" of technological
recommendations, primarily for subsistence food crops (e.g., maize) but also for export
crops (e.g., coffee and sugar cane). The project also provided for a FSR/E approach to
forestry. The mid-term evaluation of the ADS project noted a number of problems with
implementing FSR/E that also have been encountered in other countries that have sought to
implement FSR/E as a model for agricultural technology generation and transfer (Byrnes,

During the middle part of the decade, the Mission began, under NGO Support I to
place greater emphasis on non-traditional agricultural export crops, specifically, winter
vegetables. This project, by comparison to ADS, placed greater emphasis on working
directly with the private sector, with the project's technical assistance being provided by
ACDI. The third area emphasized in the Mission's agricultural portfolio during the 1980s
was that of forestry, first with Agroforestry Research (1981-89), implemented by the MOA,
then Target Watershed Management (1986-91), implemented by PVOs.

While the MOA's agricultural research division, SERA, was to have been reorganized
under the ADS project, the agricultural projects in the Mission's portfolio placed little to no
emphasis on building public or private institutions to carry out agricultural research,
extension or education. Indeed, none of the projects in the portfolio placed any emphasis on
agricultural education. Generally, the projects in the portfolio emphasized providing the
inputs needed for implementation of a project, albeit the implementing agency a public or
private organization. This identified lack of emphasis on institution building also was
evidenced in the Mission's reliance on ACDI for implementing the NTAE initiative and the
University of Maine to conduct an independent agroforestry research program. Generally,
the Mission placed increasing emphasis over time on working with PVOs rather than with the


The first USAID/Jamaica project involving an agricultural research, extension, and/or
education component during the 1980s was Agricultural Education (532-0082), scheduled to
run from 1984 to 1990. Implemented by the Government of Jamaica's (GOJ) Ministries of
Education and Agriculture, this project included education and extension components, as

Education: This component provided support for upgrading (facilities construction,
faculty strengthening, and curriculum development) the College of Agriculture and
feeder secondary school, Knockalva Agricultural School. An objective was to
increase the college's enrollment from 150 to 450, with 100 A.Sc. graduates annually.

Extension: This component provided support for a College of Agriculture Applied
Research Center that was to extend new technologies (developed in conjunction with
the MOA and Agro 21, a GOJ agricultural project) to farmers.


The 1/89 Project Evaluation Summary of the project's mid-term evaluation noted that
this project had experienced "a lag in...applied research. Extension/outreach activities and
curriculum development have proceeded at a faster pace...."

In 1986, USAID/Haiti launched the Jamaica Agricultural Research (532-0128)
project. This project, scheduled to run to 1993, is being implemented by the private
Jamaican Agricultural Development Foundation (JADF). The project is promoting adaptive
commodity research by establishing, under the aegis of JADF, a Research Advisory Council
(RAC) to determine research priorities and plans, fund/coordinate research efforts, promote
scientific links, and fund short-term training of Jamaican researchers. Composed of
representatives of farmers, exporters, financiers, agribusiness, agricultural education, the
Ministry of Education (MOA), and others, the RAC is responsible for developing priority
criteria for commodity research and using project funds to make grants to public and private
individuals and organizations, national and international institutions, commodity boards, and
other agencies to conduct specific, applied research and on-farm trails. The focus of
contracted research, which is to be conducted mostly in farmers' field, on key commodities
such as root crops, legumes, and cereals.

From 1985 to 1989, the Hillside Assessment (532-0113) study was conducted to
identify economically viable hillside agricultural production systems. Phase I studies and
reviews were to be used during Phase II to identify a follow-on hillside agricultural project to
be funded by USAID/Jamaica. During Phase III, technical, economic, social, and
institutional analyses for the follow-on project were to be prepared.

The Hillside Agriculture (532-0101) project was designed to be implemented from
1987 to 1994. The project, which is being implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture,
includes research and extension components, as follows:

Research: This component is to test and promote perennial cropping systems and
improved tree crop practices in two ecologically important watersheds in a manner
consistent with soil conservation principles.

Extension: This component, which is to educate farmers as to the complexities of
changing domestic and export markets, is to utilize lead farmers in extension efforts.

The 3/29/90 Project Evaluation Summary of an interim evaluation of the his project
reported that Hillside Agriculture has been successful in promoting the production of income-
producing perennial tree crops and merits continued support. The evaluation recommended
that greater attention be paid to the management of information generated by sub-projects and
that soil conservation principles be integrated into ongoing sub-projects. But the evaluation
expressed concern that may sub-projects are susceptible to a tendency that haunts rural
development projects: those individuals with more and better organized resources benefit
most from development assistance.



During the 1980s, USAID/Jamaica support for strengthening Jamaica's agricultural
technology generation and transfer system initially focused on implementation of a project,
Agricultural Education, that was aimed at upgrading the College of Agriculture and its feeder
secondary school, Knockalva Agricultural School. While this project included extension, the
project evaluation found that "a lag in...applied research" was a constraint on implementing
the project's extension component. However, the need for a greater emphasis on agricultural
research was recognized even earlier in the decade, when the Mission launched the Jamaica
Agricultural Research project. This project, which is being implemented by the private
JADF, is providing support for adaptive commodity research carried out in farmers' fields.
Also, this project's commodity focus includes research on crops that are currently being
exported and/or have the potential for export.

The second project involving research, extension, and/or education, in the
USAID/Jamaica portfolio has been the Hillside Agriculture project. This project,
implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, focuses testing and promoting perennial
cropping systems and improved tree crop practices appropriate to fragile hillside ecology of
Jamaica's watersheds.


The primary target group of countries of AID's Regional Development Office for the
Caribbean (RDO/C) is the countries of the Eastern Caribbean. RDO/C support for
agricultural research, extension, and education in the Eastern Caribbean primarily is directed
through regional organizations such as the University of the West Indies (UWI) and the
Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI).

From 1982 to 1989, RDO/C continued its project support for development of
agricultural extension in the Eastern Caribbean by supporting Caribbean Agricultural
Extension Phase II (538-0068) (CAEP). Implemented by the UWI, CARDI, and national
MOAs, this project sought to upgrade agricultural extension systems in the six Eastern
Caribbean states (Antigua, Dominica, Montserrat, St. Kitts/Nevis, St. Lucia, and St.
Vincent) and Belize. Links with agricultural research were to be developed through a
Technical Joint Action Committee composed of representatives from CAEP, UWI, and two
regional organizations--CARDI and CARDATS (Caribbean Rural Development and Advisory
Training Service). The process of developing these links was to be facilitated via a Regional
Agricultural Extension Coordinating Committee that included representatives from countries,
regional research organizations, commodity associations, farmers, and donors. CAEP was to
establish agricultural extension communication and information units within each country and
a Regional Extension Communications Unit within UWI's Department of Agricultural
Extension. Private sector agricultural extension institutions were to participate widely in the
project's activities. CAEP also contained an education component that provided support for
degree, inservice, and graduate (or postgraduate) training as well as for workshops.


The 10/84 External Evaluation of the project found that CAEP had made

progress toward most goals, being especially effective in motivating ministry attention
to, and administrative restructuring of, [agricultural extension]. National agricultural
planning committees have been formed, job descriptions formulated, and
communication lines, management procedures, and concrete work plans (the latter for
national, district, and extension agent...levels) developed in most countries.
[Extension agent] supervision has been strengthened through supervisor training, and
performance and reporting standards. The establishment of a regional program to
recognize outstanding [extension agents] has helped increased professionalism and

CAEP demonstrated potential for impacts on farmers in such areas as crop diversification
and quality, and fertilizer and pesticide use. In 1984, farmer contacts increased by 50% over

On the other hand, the evaluation also found that extension continued to be hindered
by lack of materials, transportation, and housing and by limited formal training of extension
agents. While the project had increased in-country and regional training opportunities, two
key programs (Diploma in Agriculture and in Extension) had fallen short of expectations, the
former plagued by lack of qualified candidates, the latter being too theory-oriented. Key
needs identified included improved linkage of extension with research, private associations,
education institutions, and marketing. Other identified needs were to strengthen the efforts
of regional agricultural extension, improve working relationships with CARDI, and provide
more vehicles for extension agents and attention to training and recruitment. Also, there was
a need to use marketing information in planning.

Subsequently, the 6/30/89 Project Assistance Completion Report (PACR) reported
that CAEP had significantly strengthened the effectiveness of national extension services
through better organization, the development of more clearly defined goals, and enhanced
staff skills. Frontline extension officers had acquired a greater knowledge of appropriate
agricultural practices and the ability to apply them to improve farm production. Further,
national communication units were formed or strengthened in all project countries, and had
become especially effective in the areas of work program planning, training, and the
production of communications materials for publications. A regional extension
communications unit at UWI was established, UWI outreach positions in the Windward and
Leeward Islands institutionalized, a regional agricultural extension coordinating committee
created, and regional links strengthened. As a result of the project, target families increased
enterprise receipts, farm and family earnings, and net worth; adopted several new production
and management practices; gained greater knowledge of production and marketing; and
demonstrated improved attitudes toward farming and extension.

From 1983 to 1989, RDO/C supported the Farming Systems Research and
Development (FSRD) (538-0099) project. FSRD was a follow-on to the Small Farms
Multiple Cropping Systems Research project (538-0015) which ran from 1978 to 1982. The


objective of FSRD was to develop a farming systems R&D program in CARDI. The project
included research, extension, and education components, as follows:

Research: This component included support to strengthen CARDI institutionally to
carry out FSR. Specifically, the project was to provide assistance in establishing a
Research Advisory Board to guide long-term research and promote staff
professionalism; financial, planning, reporting, and evaluation procedures; and
project-related administration and management systems.

Extension: The component provided support for CARDI to work with public and
private extension organizations, especially the Caribbean Agricultural Extension
Project (CAEP) and MOA personnel, to develop a systematic approach to transfer
improved technologies via the FSR method. Extensionists were to work with CARDI
teams at the technology generation phase and to assume a supervisory role at the
applicability testing phase; at least five such tests per island were to be conducted by
the project's final year. Extensionists were to conduct mass campaigns to transfer
successful technologies.

Education: This component provided support for CARDI to conduct FSR training,
including workshops and on-the-job training, for at least 25% and 50% of partici-
pating extensionists and MOA research personnel, respectively. Also, support was
provided for seminars (and some short-term U.S. technical training) for at least 75%
of its staff.

The 9/87 Project Evaluation Summary reports that FSRD's problems were intrinsic to

a project design that was too ambitious and unrealistic, especially with regard to time
frame, the availability of host government counterparts and financial support, and
project sustainability. Also, the 'bottom-up' style of FSR/E has proven very slow in
an environment used to a 'top-down' style. Finally, the amount of development effort
(as distinct form pure research) needed to test and validate the technologies was
underestimated. The research staff has a very limited capacity to respond to such
developmental demands on which the success of research ultimately hinges.

On the other hand, the 3/89 Final Report noted that FSRD was successful in developing
"several improved technologies which were adopted at the farm level.... As a result of the
project, CARDI developed and implemented a structured annual planning, budgeting, and
reporting process; a microcomputer-based management system and strategic plan; a
performance appraisal system; and a planning and evaluation unit."

From 1984 to 1987, RDO/C supported the St. Vincent Agricultural Development
(538-0101) project that was implemented by the Ministry of Trade and Agriculture, CARDI,
and a PVO (Organization for Rural Development). The project included both research and
extension components, as follows:


Research: Screening by CARDI of high-yielding varieties of carrots, sweet potatoes,
peanuts, and onions, using a FSR approach to identify economically optimum
fertilizer levels and other practices.

Extension: Dissemination by the Ministry's Extension Unit of research results to

However, the 9/87 Project Evaluation Summary reports that the project "did not
achieve the hoped-for level of success, and it failed to institutionalize its activities."

a cumbersome strategy inhibited research activities such that adoption rates did not
produce the expected doubling of output, and little progress was made in upgrading
[MOA] research facilities and equipment.

Also, the 12/87 Final Report noted that "there was little success in research or training
activities," that research facilities and were not upgraded, and that varietal trials had little

During 1986-87, RDO/C supported the Food Crop Production (538-0007) project
that was implemented by CARDI. The project sought to provide regional service, with
emphasis on LDCs, for research, extension (demonstration), and training. Under project
funding, CARDI was to establish an outreach program of applied research,
demonstration/extension, and training in a selected,number of food crops, in order to develop
small farmer food cropping systems. The project was to be conducted in three pilot
territories (in Belize, St. Kitts, and St. Lucia) through establishing three pilot
operation/demonstration centers that would conduct adaptive research and promotional,
extension, and training activities.

For the period 1989-94, RDO/C is supporting the Agricultural Research and
Extension project (AREP) (538-0164). The project is being implemented by CARDI, UWI,
and collaborating host country MOAs. The project involves research, extension, and
education components, as follows:

Research: Generation of improved technologies by CARDI-coordinated multi-country
collaborative research networks. A farming systems methodology, developed jointly
by CARDI, UWI, and MOA staff, is to be used to identify country-level problems
and develop alternative technologies and production systems for specified target
groups of farmers. These technologies are to be tested in CARDI's crop and animal
programs and at selected experimental stations, and validated on-farm. Project-
supported research is to address crop production, livestock production, and technology
adaptation and transfer, with an emphasis on farm productivity and socioeconomic

Extension: Upgrading of national extension services by UWI through (1) institu-
tionalization of a farm/home management approach which analyzes farm enterprises
as an economic unit and stresses recordkeeping and decisionmaking techniques; (2)


development of communications support systems (with emphasis on radio and video
programming) via strengthening (a) the capability of the UWI Regional Extension
Communications Unit to produce instructional materials, and (b) strengthening
national communications units; (3) provision of awards for excellence in extension;
and (4) promotion of research/extension links via farmer meetings at the district level
and workshops/conferences on gender-related issues. The project is to ensure
research/extension links through: (1) CARDI-UWI-MOAT Extension Service
committees in host countries; (2) policy reviews by project management; (3) creation
of joint CARDI-UWI offices; (4) participation of UWI and CARDI personnel in each
other's planning; and (5) researcher/ extensionist collaboration in sondeos and tech-
nology validation. Private sector groups will participate by attending workshops,
visiting experimental stations, etc.

Education: Training of extensionists--postgraduate degrees at UWI, training of mid-
level extension managers, and regional and national short courses, seminars, and


RDO/C has been providing long-term support for the development of agricultural
research, extension, and education in the Eastern Caribbean. This support has been directed
at strengthening regional institutions such as CARDI and the UWI. Since the late 1970s the
Mission supported the CAEP (Phase I, 1978-81 and Phase II, 1982-1989) as a regional
mechanism for strengthening national extension systems and promoting the participation of
private sector agricultural extension institutions. The project encouraged linkages with
research organizations (CARDI and the UWI) and provided funding support for degree,
inservice, and graduate (or postgraduate) training as well as for workshops.

RDO/C similarly supported since the late 1970s projects to strengthen agricultural
research in the Eastern Caribbean. The Mission provided support for the Small Farms
Multiple Cropping Systems Research project from 1978 to 1982, and for the follow-on FSRD
project from 1983 to 1989, the latter project directed at developing a farming systems R&D
program in CARDI. Also, FSRD included extension and education components. However,
the evaluation of the project concludes that the project's design had been "too ambitious and
unrealistic," especially in regard to time frame, availability of host government counterparts
and financial support, and project sustainability. Also, the amount of development effort (as
distinct form pure research) needed to test and validate the technologies was underestimated.

In short, the problems identified in the evaluations of the FSRD project and of the St.
Vincent Agricultural Development project parallel those identified in a recent review of AID
experience with FSR/E projects (Byrnes, 1990a). Yet the Final Report on FSRD found that
the project had developed improved technologies which were adopted by farmers. As a
further result of the project, CARDI had been institutionally strengthened to support FSR/E
through implementation of an annual planning, budgeting, and reporting process; a
microcomputer-based management system and strategic plan; a performance appraisal
system; and a planning and evaluation unit.


As experience was gained, CARDI sought to provide regional service for research,
extension, and training. This was the strategy of CARDI's Food Crop Production project
during the late 1980s. This project sought to establish an outreach program of applied
research, demonstrations, and training in a selected food crops, in order to develop small
farmer food cropping systems in three pilot territories (Belize, St. Kitts, and St. Lucia).

This regional approach continues to be emphasized in the current (1989-94)
Agricultural Research and Extension (AREP) project that is being implemented by CARDI,
UWI, and national MOAs. This approach emphasizes CARDI's role in:

1. coordinating multi-country collaborative research networks;

2. participating in development of FSR methodology to identify country-level problems
and generate alternative technologies and production systems for specified target
farmer groups; and

3. testing these technologies at experimental stations, and validating the technologies on-

Further, the project provides continued support for strengthening UWI's extension and
education capabilities.

In the past, RDO/C support for agricultural research and extension were split between
at least two projects (in the 1970s between the Small Farm Multiple Cropping Systems
Research and the Caribbean Agricultural Extension Project (CAEP), in the 1980s between
Farming Systems Research and Development and CAEP-II). Currently, however, RDO/C
support for agricultural research and extension is channelled through one project providing
support for CARDI (for research) and UWI (for extension and education). Further, this
project is providing regional support aimed at strengthening the capability of national-level
extension systems to transfer technologies generated and validated through CARDI's ongoing
farming systems research program.



From 1983 to 1992, USAID/Belize is providing support for the Livestock
Development (505-0006) project being implemented by the Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR); the project includes the following extension and education components:

Extension: Teaching of improved pig production to 850 farmers; also, provision of
technical assistance to help farmers and extensionists develop model pasture programs
for dairy and beef cattle production.

Education: Provision of swine improvement training to MNR staff at the Central
Farm (agricultural research station) and to extensionists, improvement of extension


training at the Belize School of Agriculture (BSA), and development of forage and
pasture curricula for BSA. Training under the project is to include an M.A. in
agricultural economics, a Ph.D. in quantitative methods, 3 B.S.'s (in swine, forage,
and dairy production), and short-term regional training for two MNR staff.

Mission support for projects development of non-traditional agricultural export
(NTAE) crops began with the Commercialization of Alternative Crops (505-0008) project in
1985. This project, scheduled to run through 1990, is being implemented by the Belize
Agri-Business Company (BABCO) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). The project,
designed to increase production of non-traditional crops for export and import substitution,
includes research, extension, and education components, as follows:

Research: Subcontracting of U.S. packers/shippers with established markets to
identify non-traditional export crops and producers as well as the need for additional
information or services (e.g., field trials, soil analyses, assistance with pest and weed
control). For import substitution crops, determination of the feasibility of producing
and processing soybean and sesame varieties, and arranging field testing (probably
through CARDI). Also, the technical assistance contractor is to work with CARDI
and the MNR to develop a research program to increase yields of staples for local
markets and to ensure that pesticide use associated with the project is in accordance
with AID regulations.

Extension: Provision of a management consultant to help the MNR define its role in
promoting nontraditional crops and develop a specific plan for MNR strengthening.

Education: Provision of on-the-job training to execute the MNR strengthening plan.
Between 1987 and 1992, the Toledo Agricultural Marketing (505-0016) project, being
implemented by the private sector with technical assistance from a U.S. PVO, is
developing agricultural research, extension, and education activities, as follows:

Research: Support for adaptive research and extension of improved postharvesting
technologies for rice (potential export crop) and staple crops.

Extension: Introduction of new cash crops (specifically coca) and helping farmers'
organizations to manage cocoa processing and marketing. Farmers are to be assisted
during the critical first 12 months of cocoa tree growth by demonstrations and farm
visits. Also, the project may help some farmers establish on-farm cocoa
fermenting/drying units.

Education: Training of farmer organization personnel in pest management and
chemical handling. Also, provision of agricultural training (technical through M.S.
levels) to selected Toledo residents.

From 1984 to 1988, USAID/Belize provided support for the Special Development
Activities Fund (505-0010) project that was implemented by the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR), the Peace Corps, Roman Catholic Church, and two District communities.


As experience was gained, CARDI sought to provide regional service for research,
extension, and training. This was the strategy of CARDI's Food Crop Production project
during the late 1980s. This project sought to establish an outreach program of applied
research, demonstrations, and training in a selected food crops, in order to develop small
farmer food cropping systems in three pilot territories (Belize, St. Kitts, and St. Lucia).

This regional approach continues to be emphasized in the current (1989-94)
Agricultural Research and Extension (AREP) project that is being implemented by CARDI,
UWI, and national MOAs. This approach emphasizes CARDI's role in:

1. coordinating multi-country collaborative research networks;

2. participating in development of FSR methodology to identify country-level problems
and generate alternative technologies and production systems for specified target
farmer groups; and

3. testing these technologies at experimental stations, and validating the technologies on-

Further, the project provides continued support for strengthening UWI's extension and
education capabilities.

In the past, RDO/C support for agricultural research and extension were split between
at least two projects (in the 1970s between the Small Farm Multiple Cropping Systems
Research and the Caribbean Agricultural Extension Project (CAEP), in the 1980s between
Farming Systems Research and Development and CAEP-II). Currently, however, RDO/C
support for agricultural research and extension is channelled through one project providing
support for CARDI (for research) and UWI (for extension and education). Further, this
project is providing regional support aimed at strengthening the capability of national-level
extension systems to transfer technologies generated and validated through CARDI's ongoing
farming systems research program.



From 1983 to 1992, USAID/Belize is providing support for the Livestock
Development (505-0006) project being implemented by the Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR); the project includes the following extension and education components:

Extension: Teaching of improved pig production to 850 farmers; also, provision of
technical assistance to help farmers and extensionists develop model pasture programs
for dairy and beef cattle production.

Education: Provision of swine improvement training to MNR staff at the Central
Farm (agricultural research station) and to extensionists, improvement of extension


The project focused on education, with the objective of establishing the Belize Junior School
of Agriculture to provide a two-year course in agricultural education, especially to non-high-
school-bound primary school leavers aged 14-16. Students completing the course and
establishing their own agricultural enterprises were eligible to receive non- or low-interest
loans from a revolving fund and technical assistance from school staff.


USAID/Belize support for agricultural research, extension, and education primarily
has been directed to providing inputs to support implementation of specific production-
oriented projects by public and/or private organizations. Some projects provided funds to
support degree-level training; however, the principal emphasis has been on extension or
technology transfer to support improved production. Excepting Livestock Development,
which provides support for improvement of extension training at the BSA and development
of the school's forage and pasture curricula, the Mission's projects generally have not been
aimed at strengthening public or private research/extension/education organizations. While
located in predominantly Spanish-speaking Central America, Belize as an English-speaking
country tends to look to CARDI for technical support on food (staple) crops, In the area of
NTAE crops, increasing emphasis has been placed in recent years on working with the
private sector. Livestock Development is one of the few livestock projects in the USAID-
funded LAC portfolio.


USAID/Costa Rica's portfolio had only two projects during the 1980s that contained
agricultural research, extension, and/or education components. The first project, NTAE
Technical Support (515-0237), being implemented from 1987 to 1991 by the Costa Rican
Coalition of Development Initiatives [CINDE (Coalici6n Costarricense de Iniciativas de
Desarrollo)]/Private Agribusiness and Agroindustrial Council (CAAP). The project includes
the following research, extension, and education components:

Research: This component is to finance special studies to identify opportunities for
non-traditional agricultural export crops (NTAEs). Areas for possible study include
commodity reporting for major NTAE crops, business climate, etc. Studies to
determine which crops to support under the production/marketing component were
also to be financed.

Extension: This component provides technical assistance for production, marketing,
and design and dissemination of an investment package. Provision of short-term
technical assistance directly to NTAE producers and exporters in such areas as
cultural practices, pest/disease control, soil and water management, use of market
information, export procedures, and marketing of products that do not meet fresh
export grades. Includes 12 months of in-country training.

The second project, Northern Zones Consolidation (515-0235), that reportedly
contains research and extension components, had not information available in AID's Center


for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE). USAID/Costa Rica is now developing
a new project called Forest Resources for a Stable Environment (FORESTA) (515-0243).
Scheduled to start in late 1990, FORESTA will promote forestry and agroforestry in buffer
zones around several national parks and support management of the parks. As a component
of the project, farmers will be encouraged to establish forest plantations on marginal
agricultural land.


Funding for agricultural research, extension, and education by USAID/Costa Rica has
been limited to meeting the specific TA objectives (special studies, adaptive research,
technology transfer, or training) that need to be met to develop specific NTAE opportunities.
Some of the adaptive research involved is being carried out under contract with the
University of Costa Rica. In other words, Mission support to CINDE/CAAP, recently
reorganized as CINDE/Divisi6n Agricola (DIVAGRI), has not been for creating or
strengthening CINDE/DIVAGRI as a research, extension, and/or education organization.
But several USAID/ ROCAP projects provide support for projects that are being
implemented by organizations (e.g., CATIE, EARTH) located in Costa Rica.


The Agrarian Reform Sector Support (ARSS) (515-0265) project, implemented by
Government of El Salvador agencies [e.g., the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)] between
1983 and 1988, included the following research, extension, and education components:

Research: Support of MOA programs in crop research for Agrarian reform

Extension: Support of MOA extension programs for Agrarian Reform beneficiaries,
including formation of farmer "grupos solidarios" and commodity associations and
communications programs (especially daily radio broadcasts).

Education: Support for the MOA's Center for Training (CENCAP) to offer short-
term training to government agency personnel, cooperative personnel, and some
10,000 farmer leaders. Overseas training was to be provided to CENCAP personnel.
Support also was to be provided for the National School of Agriculture (ENA) to
improve its farm management, extension, and small farms curricula, renovate
facilities, and arrange faculty training.

In January 1985, a grant was made under the ARSS project to the Salvadoran
Foundation for Economic and Social Development (FUSADES) for an agricultural
diversification program (ADP) that is known in Spanish as DIVAGRO. The grant was to
assist FUSADES in (1) organizing the ADP; (2) establishing a data base on agribusiness and
agricultural diversification opportunities and resources; (3) disseminating this information;
and (4) administering a fund to finance pre-investment feasibility studies and short-term
technical assistance to producers of NTAE products.


It was also in 1985 that USAID/El Salvador initiated the Water Management (519-
0303), implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and FUSADES. Scheduled to
run through 1991, this project is aimed at promoting the production of non-traditional
agricultural export (NTAE) crops through irrigation development. The project includes
extension and education components, as follows:

Extension: Provision of training in irrigation and export-oriented agriculture to public
sector extensionists from the Agricultural Technology Center (CENTA), private sector
extensionists, CENTA researchers, and innovative farmers.

Education: Development of a B.S. curriculum in irrigated agriculture at the National
School of Agriculture (ENA) and provision of M.S. training opportunities for four
ENA professors. Training of planners, technicians, and policymakers from the
Directorate of Irrigation and Drainage (DGRD), the Agricultural Sector Planning
Office (OSPA), and the Office of Water (OA) in program planning and evaluation,
and in research on irrigation policy.

Beginning in 1987, additional support for FUSADES/DIVAGRO has been provided
under the Agribusiness Development (519-0327) project, which is scheduled to run through
1994. The project, being implemented by FUSADES, includes an extension component that
is providing technical assistance to private enterprises that produce and/or export non-
traditional agricultural products. Technical assistance is provided to private domestic
companies, including those engaging in joint ventures with eligible foreign investors, and to
private sector producer and agrarian reform co-ops. These enterprises may be new or
expanded, large or small, producers, processors/packers of products grown by others, or
export brokers. All crops are eligible except coffee, cotton, sugar, and crops whose export
would notably affect U.S. exports. The project is financing additional DIVAGRO staff
needed to implement the project and continuation of DIVAGRO's operations that originally
were funded under the ARSS project (which ended 7/88).

The Community Based Integrated Rural Development (519-0364) project, which
began in 1989 and runs to 1994, is being implemented by the Save the Children Federation
(SCF). The project, designed to strengthen community capacities in the agricultural,
education, health/nutrition, and small enterprise sectors, is providing assistance to two impact
areas in La Union, and is reinforcing community development activities in four impact areas
assisted under predecessor projects. The project includes an extension (technical assistance)
component for 3,500 farmers in such areas as grain production, animal husbandry, crop
storage and marketing, natural resource conservation, irrigation, crop diversification, and
small enterprise development.]

Two projects are to begin in 1991. First, USAID/El Salvador will provide support
for a three-year Coffee Technology Enhancement (519-0362) project which will seek to
improve the level and quality of coffee production of small-scale producers. This project, to
be implemented by the private El Salvador Coffee Cooperatives Union (UCAFES), will
provide an extension component that includes training for a cadre of agronomists working
through UCAFES to provide technical assistance.


A second three-year project, Commercial Farming (515-0351), also to be
implemented by private sector organizations (PVOs and cooperatives), will help 60-70 of the
best cooperatives to produce NTAE crops and to develop links with agribusinesses processing
such products for export. An extension component will provide technical assistance in
management and agronomic techniques.

Finally, beginning in 1992, the five-year Sustainable Agricultural Production (519-
0374) project will seek to improve the sustainable agricultural production and productivity of
small farmers and to improve the natural resources framework within the country. The
sustainable agricultural production component will focus on improving and diversifying small
farmer production through the introduction of various cropping systems and conservation
techniques. This component will explore other activities (e.g, reforestation and introduction
of integrated pest management practices in agricultural production).


USAID/E1 Salvador support for agricultural research, extension, and education in the
1980s initially was directed to the Agrarian Reform Sector Support (ARSS) project, with
assistance primarily aimed at agrarian reform beneficiaries, although the project also assisted
in strengthening ENA (National School of Agriculture) and provided funding to
FUSADES/DIVAGRO to develop non-traditional agricultural export (NTAE) crops. The
focus on NTAE crops was given further impetus under Agribusiness Development which
provides funding for FUSADES/DIVAGRO to work directly with the private sector to
develop NTAE crops. The emphasis on working through the private sector was continued
under the Water Management and will continue to be emphasized in the Coffee Technology
Enhancement, Commercial Farming, and Sustainable Agricultural Production projects.

None of the projects throughout the 1980s was aimed at strengthening the public
sector Agricultural Technology Center (CENTA), the country's public sector agricultural
research and extension organization. However, in recent years, the Mission has expressed
concern over the performance of CENTA. While a PID for a project to create a private
sector Agricultural Development Foundation was prepared in late 1988 (Hertford, Brown,
and Moscardi, 1988), a decision was not made to prepare a PP for such a project. More
recently, the Mission has begun to explore the possibility of assisting the MOA and the
private Fundaci6n Empresarial para el Desarrollo Educativo (FEPADE) with conducting a
series of pre-design assessments and studies that would provide the basis for developing a
strategy to privatize ENA (Byrnes, 1990c).


From 1981 to 1989, USAID/Guatemala supported the Small Farm Diversification
Systems (SFDS) (520-0255) project. The project was implemented by government agencies,
including the Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology (ICTA), the Directorate
General for Agricultural Services (DIGESA), the Directorate General for Livestock Services
(DIGESEPE). SFDS contained the following research, extension, and education


Research: This component provided for ICTA and DIGESA to initiate a farm
management survey to provide data to develop interdisciplinary farm models for small
farm testing of the suitability of diversified crops (apples, peaches, cole crops,
carrots, garlic, onions and potatoes) and livestock (sheep and dairy cows).

Extension: This component provided for training progressive farmers as "guias"
(guides) and promoting diversified agriculture among future farmers through a 4-S
Club Fund. A mix of extensionists, promoters, and "guias" were to be assigned to 10
pilot diversification districts of 480 farmers each; also, soil conservation and mini-
riego teams (two each) were to operate in the region.

Education: Under this component, DIGESA and the Directorate General for
Livestock Services (DIGESEPE) were to develop extension services at ICTA's Labor
Ovalle station, where a Demonstration and Training Center, with a laboratory for
plant and soil analysis, a crop data bank, and training classrooms were to be built.
One hundred DIGESA (80) and cooperative (20) extensionists were to be trained at
the center and in the field in such areas as crop management, disease/pest control,
conservation, and crop handling/ storage. Eight ICTA and DIGESA/DIGESEPE
personnel were to receive M.S.-level training in extension system management and
agricultural research, and in-service training curriculum and materials were to be
developed for ICTA, DIGESA, and DIGESEPE staff.

The 3/86 Project Evaluation Summary noted that the project evaluation had found that
progress in applied research and technology adaptation had been slow.

The project design assumed that ICTA...possessed enough technological information
to initiate diversified farm programs involving vegetables, deciduous fruits, and
livestock. In fact, ICTA has had little experience in this area and has been reluctant
to provide production recommendations. Research also needs to be refocused from
on-station to model farms. Training is on target, but curriculum packages have not
yet been developed.

The 8/28/89 Project Evaluation Summary of the 10/30/87 final evaluation of the
SFDS project reported that research units for livestock, vegetables, and fruits were
established in ICTA, that DIGESA had increased its extension activities in fruit and vegetable
production; and that DIGESEPE's veterinary program had been expanded to include animal
production and reoriented toward livestock farm management. Project achievements were
attained despite many design and implementation problems. Major design flaws included:
lack of a marketing component; an emphasis on production targets before the necessary
institutional capacity was created and research results were available for extension; the
development of a new, complex approach to farming systems research/extension rather than
employment of ICTA's established and well-known approach; conflicting sets of roles and
responsibilities between the coordinating unit and the regional implementing agencies; and
inadequately funded technology validation and testing activities.


Beginning in 1983, USAID/Guatemala launched the 10-year (1983-93) Highlands
Agricultural Development (HADS) (520-0274) project, that is being implemented by four
government agencies--DIGESA, the National Forestry Institute (INAFOR), the National
Agricultural Development Bank (BANDESA), and the Department of Rural Roads (DCR).
The project includes research, extension, and education components, as follows:

Research: Under the 8/88 amendment (phase II), research and extension components
were added, with new outputs: research laboratories and data banks to support crop

Extension: DIGESA extensionists were to help farmers build small irrigation systems
on 750 ha (thereby encouraging crop diversification) and complementary soil
conservation structures--mainly bench terraces--on 5,000 ha.

Education: Under this component, training is to be provided to community
reforestation committees and INAFOR and DIGESA technicians. Under the 8/85
amendment, 4,400 farmers were to be trained in soil conservation and construction.
Under the 8/88 amendment (phase II), extensive training and technical assistance were
to be funded.

The 12/87 Project Evaluation Summary noted that the evaluation had found that
extension agents had not been properly trained to educate farmers in construction and
maintenance of the irrigation systems and had not provided sufficient follow-up extension
activities. Further, the evaluation noted that a major lesson had been learned, namely, that a
marketing component should be built into any production-oriented project, especially

one which involves a heavy individual debt, such as mini-irrigation. Ideally, planning
should start from the market linkages and work backward, in order to decide what
crops to plant, when to plant, and in what quantity. Other lessons are: (1) there
should be only one USAID project manager for any given project; and (2) the
executing host country agency should have the capacity to, or be trained to, establish
priorities, conduct (or contract for) baseline studies, and evaluate activities.

From 1986 to 1989, USAID/Guatemala provided support for the Aquaculture
Extension (520-0351) project that was implemented by a PVO (CARE). The project
included an education component that entailed CARE providing training in aquaculture and
small animal production to 12 DIGESEPE extensionists, as well as to 34 aquaculture
promoters and 34 small animal production promoters chosen from participating communities.
These personnel, aided by PCVs, were to train some 650 farmers. Also, CARE was to form
community producer associations as a vehicle for providing farmers with more effective
training and other group benefits.

During the same period (1986-89), the Mission supported the Guatemala Dairy
Development (520-0355) project implemented by the National Cooperative Business
Association and Land O'Lakes. This project included research and extension components, as


Research: Assessment of the dairy industry,including analysis of milk production,
collection, processing, and marketing in the context of competition from imports of
non-fat dry milk. Project was to determine potential demand for donated dairy
commodities to be sold to finance other dairy assistance such as extension services
and credit.

Extension: Provision of technical assistance and training to small farmers in dairy
livestock management, nutrition and milk production, and to processors in milk
handling, transportation, processing, and marketing.

From 1988 to 1991, the Mission is funding the Development Training and Support
(520-0384) project, implemented by a PVO. The project includes an education component
based on a three-tiered training methodology. In-country training is provided in a given
subject area. The most successful during this phase are to receive U.S. or third-country
training; on their return home, they are to become in-country trainers. Components included
are: management and technical training, public sector policy and program analysis training,
and a Merit Scholarship Program (5-year scholarships for 100 persons to a Guatemalan
university). The Zamorano Scholarship Program provides partial (70%) scholarships to the
Pan American Agricultural School in Honduras to 70 disadvantaged rural youth. The project
also funds 24 M.A.'s and 10 Ph.D's for university faculty members.


During the 1980s, USAID/Guatemala support for strengthening agricultural research,
extension, and education in Guatemala was primarily directed at public institutions such as
ICTA, DIGESA, and DIGESEPE. This support, initially provided in the Small Farm
Diversification Systems project, was on the diversification of small farmer cropping systems.
This initiative was supported by a mix of research, extension, and education activities. But
the evaluation of SFDS found that progress in applied research and technology adaptation had
been slow because the project design mistakenly assumed that ICTA possessed sufficient
technological information to undertake a crop diversification program. But ICTA had little
experience in this area and was reluctant to provide production recommendations.

A second major initiative during the 1980s was the Highlands Agricultural
Development (HADS) project. This project, which also had a mix of research, extension,
and education activities, was implemented by a mix of public sector agencies. However, the
project's evaluation found that, once farmers had been provided assistance for the building of
irrigation systems, extension agents did not provide adequate follow-up extension. Further,
the evaluation found that HADS lacked an adequate marketing component.

Two projects having primarily extension and, in some cases, research components,
and which were implemented by PVOs, were Aquaculture Extension (CARE) and Guatemala
Dairy Development, implemented by the National Cooperative Business Association and
Land O'Lakes, respectively. One project implemented by a PVO but which focused on
agricultural education was Development Training and Support which was implemented by
Partners in International Education and Training. This project also included support for (1)


the Zamorano Scholarship Program that provides partial (70%) scholarships for
approximately 70 disadvantage rural youth to attend the Pan American Agricultural School in
Honduras, and (2) for M.A. and Ph.d. training for university faculty members.

USAID/Guatemala interest in working with and through private organizations such as
PVOs appears to be continuing. Indeed, by the late 1980s, the Mission had begun to explore
the possibility of establishing a private sector foundation to provide leadership and funding
support for the development of agricultural research and technology transfer on non-
traditional agricultural export crops. This foundation, referred to in working documents,
might be called "The Research and Technology Transfer Foundation" or the "Agricultural
Research Foundation."


From 1979 to 1989, USAID/Honduras provided support for the Rural Technologies
(522-0157) project implemented by the Center for Industrial Development (CDI) of the
Ministry of Economy. This project absorbed and expanded to a national scale activities
begun under the Small Farmer Technology Project (522-0123). The project was designed to
develop systems for testing and delivery of technologies to small farmers, entrepreneurs, and
rural families. Based on input from these target groups, problems were to be identified and
analyzed, followed by delivery of appropriate assistance or implements, relying to the
maximum extent possible on existing Honduran businesses and organizations. The project
included research, extension, and education components, as follows:

Research: This component provided for field testing of farm technologies in small
farmer systems.

Extension: Under this component, technologies found to be promising in the field
tests were to be produced for large-scale demonstration through a program worked out
between the Ministry of Economy (MOE) and the CDI. Evaluations of all
technologies were to follow on-farm demonstrations. The 7/84 project amendment
increased emphasis on promoting adoption of proven technologies.

Education: The results of evaluation were to be incorporated into training programs
and information pamphlets for distribution to all small farmer information
dissemination networks; further, the project was to provide training for farmers and

The 12/88 Final Evaluation of the project found that the most successful technologies
were veterinary services, domestic stoves, soil and water conservation techniques, metal
silos, corn sellers, and innovations in cropping systems and cultivars. Also, the evaluation
noted that much of the project's impact from 1986 forward could be attributed to the project
having adopted the farming systems approach in 1984.

From 1980 to 1989, USAID/Honduras supported the Natural Resources Management
(NRM) (522-0168) project implemented by various government agencies. NRM included an


extension component comprised of an action program implemented in five sub-watersheds of
the Choluteca watershed. Appropriate technologies were provided to area farmers,
particularly traditional small subsistence farmers, to improve their socio-economic condition,
protect the soil, and increase production. The project included activities in soil conservation
and intensive agricultural practices; agro-forestry and fuelwood production; reforestation;
range management and pasture improvement; and community nursery establishment.

The 6/86 Project Evaluation Summary reported that the project's efforts in
conservation had been

extremely successful. Half of the targeted 7,000 farm families are using improved
hillside practices, increasing their grain yields by 100-400%. Income increases from
diversification and agroforestry have also been significant. About 7,000 of a planned
18,000 ha have been protected through soil and water conservation structures,
improved pastures, reforestation, and/or agroforestry activities.

Key lessons learned included: (1) neither land reform nor credit programs are needed in soil
conservation efforts, if farmers can be shown the tangible benefits of improved practices; and
(2) use of paratechnicians can broaden the reach of an extension program quickly and

One of the Natural Resources Management project's sub-projects (01: Integrated
Rural Development), initiated 8/86, provided support for implementation of an IRD program
by the Partners of the Alliance (PAL), an indigenous NGO, in the Sabanagrande area of
south central Honduras. This project provided support for upgrading extension by refining
the core curriculum; training 30 new field technicians; providing supplemental training and
technical assistance to project staff and participants; and field testing farm practices and crop
varieties. Also, the project was to train 3,000 farmers in human resource motivation, soil
building techniques, alternative crops, animal husbandry, and land use planning; expose
2,500 others to agricultural techniques introduced by the project; and expand integrated pest

Under agroforestry, the sub-project was to help participants evaluate and improve
land use, demonstrate the multiple uses of trees, introduce fast-growing and disease-resistant
tree varieties, and promote multi-purpose legumes, promote soil stabilization and water
conservation practices (e.g., windbreaks, live barriers, shade trees, and use of selective
reforestation), stimulate small agroforestry businesses by promoting the sale of fruit products
and the use of ecologically sound commercial wood production and by improving pine
refining techniques, and solve water catchment and distribution problems by evaluating water
entrapment options, identifying the land characteristics most favorable for constructing hand
dug wells, and promoting construction of higher well walls and well covers to protect water
sources form animal contamination and evaporation.

From 1989 to 1993, USAID/Honduras is providing support for the Land Use
Productivity Enhancement (LUPE) (522-0292) project implemented by the Ministry of

Natural Resources and PVOs. The project includes the following extension and education

Extension: LUPE is being implemented through an extension framework based on 32
field units (developed under 518-0069). The project is to field 10 additional units a
year and to help PVOs to form another 10 units. These Units are to introduce
integrated pest control, crop diversification, mulching, and minimum tillage among
30,000 marginal farmers and 20,000 small commercial farmers, including 12,500
women farmers in environmentally-threatened hillsides in five key watershed areas of
Honduras (Francisco Morazan, Choluteca, Valle, Yoro, Comayagua, Olancho, and El
Paraiso Departments). The project includes community and on-farm nurseries (fruit
trees and multipurpose trees), community gardens, hillside improvements
(soil/water/forest management), animal husbandry (e.g., animal containment, cut and
carry feeding, rotational grazing, health programs), groundcover improvements on
pasture and rangeland, return of overgrazed land to farm/forest production,
postharvest interventions (on-farm grain storage and sun drying of fruits and
vegetables), and marketing (produce collection centers and improved sorting, packing,
etc. technologies).

Education: This component is to train extensionists, paratechnicians, and contact
farmers as well as provide funding for long-term U.S. and Honduran training of
technical specialists and extension supervisors.

USAID/Honduras supported a number of projects having a focus on agricultural
education. The first, from 1980 to 1983, was the Rural Pilot Schools Development (522-
0170) project implemented by CARE and the Peace Corps in collaboration with the Ministry
of Education. This project sought to provide agricultural assistance and an appropriate
education to about 18,000 children in 25 pilot primary schools in rural Honduras. A project
objective was to establish 150 self-sustaining production projects at the schools and ensure
that 160 classes a day were conducted in agriculture. The 12/82 evaluation of the project
noted: "Signs of the project's impact are emerging--children in 70% of the pilot schools are
transferring knowledge to their homes, 67% of the schools have increased community contact
in the form of labor and commodity project contributions, and 85% have received requests
for community extension."

From 1981 to 1984, the Mission supported the S.O.S. Training of Migrant Youth
(522-0189) project implemented by a PVO. This project assisted the Sociedad Amigos de
Los Nifos Aldeas S.O.S. Farm Village to expand and improve its educational, vocational,
and agricultural training for abandoned and orphaned children in Honduras. Assistance was
provided for expansion and improvement of training center facilities.

From 1982 to 1984, USAID/Honduras supported the Agricultural Education (522-
S0223) project implemented by the private University of San Pedro Sula (USPS). This project
sought to strengthen the USPS Agricultural School and establish extension teaching and
training programs. A University Extension Center was to meet demands for short courses on


alternative time schedules through a Friday/Saturday 2-year program; also, surveys were to
assess the need for short-term seminars and workshops/

In 1989, the Mission provided a grant to the Pan American Agricultural School
[Escuela Agricola Panamericana (EAP)] (522-0362). The grant was made to provide
publication funding, as well as bridge financing, to EAP's Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) program. The grant was to fund research to combat a variety of maize, bean,
cabbage, and sorghum pests. Additional research, training, and publication activities were to
be supported in entomology, plant pathology, and weed science. Funds were to be used to
help construct the EAP Biological Control Center, and to aid research and information
dissemination at the school's Pesticide Use and Efficacy Center. Also, EAP's Diagnostic
Center and Agroecological Inventory Center were to receive monies to develop biological
field sample processing and a computerized database of organisms in the Honduran
ecosystem. Thus, the project included research, extension, and education components.

By the mid-1980s, USAID/Honduras began to emphasize non-traditional agricultural
export (NTAE) crops. As part of this NTAE initiative, the Mission provided a grant for the
Agricultural Research Foundation (522-0249) project implemented by the private Honduran
Agricultural Research Foundation (FHIA). This project, to be implemented, between 1984
and 1994, includes research and extension components, as follows:

Research: FHIA is to conduct on-farm/on-station research to develop appropriate
technologies to address productivity-limiting constraints on nontraditional (e.g., citrus,
cocoa, and winter vegetables), traditional export crops (e.g., banana and plantain),
and basic food crops.

Extension: FHIA's Communications Unit is to improve technology dissemination by
establishing links to national and international agricultural research centers and
educational institutions; producers; processing, trade, and other private sector entities;
the National Extension Service (and, to a limited extent, with farmers). The
Communications Unit and the Ministry of Natural Resources are to co-establish a
National Agricultural Communications Network to produce materials in various
media; improve training of FHIA (mid- and lower-level), MNR, and private
extensionists; and turn FHIA's library into a computerized research data and
information service.

The 11/87 mid-term evaluation reported that FHIA

lacks the resources to carry out research in crops of national (cacao, etc.) and
international (banana, etc.) importance and at the same time investigate potential
export crops (e.g., mango, black pepper, etc.). Original project funding and staffing
levels were totally inadequate for the scope of effort required. It is estimated that
another 10 years will be required to lay the groundwork for FHIA to sustain an
impact on Honduras' agricultural economy.


Subsequently, the 6/88 Project Evaluation Summary reported that

FHIA's original mandate was not only too broad, but also ill-suited for FHIA's
evolving role and potential clientele, ....FHIA should redefine its mandate...to
emphasize research on export crops, and develop a way to prioritize ongoing research
and add or reassign positions to add depth to understaffed departments.


During the 1980s, USAID/Honduras' projects having research, extension, and/or
education components in the Mission's agriculture portfolio' tended to focus on (1)
technology generation and transfer for small farm agriculture; (2) NTAE crop development;
and (3) agricultural education.

In technology generation and transfer for small farm agriculture, Rural Technologies,
implemented by the Center for Industrial Development, focused on technology generation and
transfer for a mix of agricultural and rural problems. The final evaluation concluded that the
project's success was due to having adopted a farming systems approach. The Natural
Resources Management project, implemented by various government agencies, focused on
transferring appropriate technologies to traditional small subsistence farmers in sub-water-
sheds of the Choluteca watershed. One of the project's sub-projects (Integrated Rural
Development), implemented by an indigenous NGO (Partners of the Alliance), had an
agroforestry component.

In NTAE crop development, support was provided through the creation of a private
agricultural research organization, the Honduran Agricultural Research Foundation (FHIA).
FHIA will continue receiving support under the Agricultural Research Foundation project
until 1994; however, the Mission is currently working with FHIA to establish an endowment
that would provide funding to support FHIA after the current project ends.

In agricultural education, the Mission provided support for agricultural education at
several levels. The Rural Pilot Schools Development project, implemented by CARE, Peace
Corps, and the Ministry of Education, focused on providing classes in agriculture in primary
schools. Another PVO-implemented project, S.O.S. Training of Migrant Youth, assisted the
Sociedad Amigos de Los Nifios Aldeas S.O.S. Farm.Village to expand and improve its
educational, vocational, and agricultural training for abandoned and orphaned children. The
Agricultural Education project, implemented by the private USPS, sought to strengthen that
university's Agricultural School. In the late 1980s, the Mission's Pan American Agricultural
School project provided funding for the school's IPM program. Generally, in projects
involving public implementing agencies, funding has been aimed at supporting project
implementation, not achieving institution building objectives. By comparison, the
Agricultural Research Foundation project, implemented by FHIA, is an institution building
project to develop FHIA as a self-sustaining technology generation and-transfer organization.



From 1981 to 1990, ROCAP provided support for the Regional Coffee Pest Control
(596-0090) project that was implemented by the Programa Cooperativa para la Protecci6n y
Modernizaci6n de la Caficultura en Mexico, Centroam6rica y Panama (PROMECAFE),
funded through the Interamerican Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA). The
project included research, extension, and education components, as follows:

Research: Under this component, PROMECAFE and the Organismo Internacional
Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (OIRSA) were to study the epidemiology of rust
and the efficacy of fungicides under greenhouse and field conditions. OIRSA was to
study biological and chemical means to control broca, using research data to develop
training manuals for national-level personnel; also, OIRSA was to develop a system
for analyzing pesticide residues and establishing standards for registering pesticides.
CATIE (Tropical Agricultural Research and Training Center, Turrialba, Costa Rica)
was to identify and reproduce new rust-resistant, high-yield, good quality varieties.
On the basis of data generated by these research activities, appropriate technology
packages were to be developed and tested in various countries.

Extension: Under this component, national- and regional-level project data were to be
stored on IICA's computerized data base and used to develop regional information
sets. The data base were also to be expanded to include other regional and global
coffee research data for dissemination to national and regional personnel. The 8/87
amendment placed increased emphasis on region-wide dissemination of research
results through radio education, group training, and publications for small coffee

Education: Under this component, training manuals and short courses were to be
developed for national-level technicians. Seminars were to be provided to national
groups concerning the standardization of regulations and registration of pesticides.
During the course of the project, 12 national and regional technicians were to be
trained in resistance evaluation, and regional specialists were to provide on-the-job
training to 50 national technicians and conduct 15 short courses. The 8/87 amend-
ment placed increased emphasis on pest control training for researchers and national-
level extension agents.

From 1987 to 1990, ROCAP provided support for the Regional Agricultural
Technology Networks (596-0127) project implemented by the Inter-American Institute for
Agricultural Cooperation (IICA) in cooperation with CATIE and the Honduran Foundation
for Agricultural Research (FHIA). The project included research, extension, and education
components, as follows:

Research: Under this component, the project was to increase the production of cacao
in Central America and Panama by establishing a regional cacao technology
development and transfer network. A network management component was to
provide a mechanism for communication and effective regional collaboration on


research and extension through joint programming of research and training activities,
meetings and conferences, exchange of information, site visits, and interinstitutional
coordination. This effort was to be under the direction of the IICA; also, there was
to be an Executive Committee composed of representatives of CATIE, FHIA
(Honduran Agricultural Research Foundation, La Lima), ROCAP, and national
research and extension institutions and an Advisory Committee that also would
include private sector processing companies and other organizations in the cacao

Research was to focus on three general areas: (1) the epidemiology and control of
three major cacao diseases (Monilia Pod Rot, Blackpod, and Mal de Machete); (2)
production and testing of high-yield, disease-tolerant varieties (outputs include, inter
alia, at least 30 crosses with potential resistance to two major diseases and the annual
production of 200,000 hybrid seeds by national clonal gardens for sale to farmers;
and (3) improved cultural practices, e.g., through research on planting configurations,
shade and plant nutrition relationships, the effect of ecology on cacao yields,
replanting, and interplanting. The first two activities were to be principally carried
out by CATIE and the third by FHIA.

Extension: Under this component, a technology transfer and training component was
to design and field test in Honduras a prototype technology transfer strategy and
communication package for and in concert with cacao farmers.

Education: Under this component, the technology transfer and training component
also was to improve the capacity of national research and extension personnel through
classroom training and field work at CATIE, FHIA, and other area institutions, with
emphasis on short courses for researchers, extensionists, and cacao producers.

From 1981 to 1990, ROCAP provided support for the Fuelwood and Alternative
Energy Sources (596-0089) project. Subproject 01, Improved Means of Fuelwood
Production, was implemented by CATIE and national counterpart agencies. The project
included research, extension, and education components.

Research: Under this component, CATIE and national counterpart agencies were to
identify fast-growing tree species. The 15 most suitable species were to be subjected
to various management practices to determine which of the latter will maximize
production. CATIE was to hold five research seminars.

Extension: Under this component, CATIE was to publicize this information annually,
in addition to recommendations and technical reports. CATIE was to set up in-
country demonstration plots in varying ecological situations.

Education: Under this component, CATIE was to provide five, two-week intensive
training courses at CATIE for 75 national counterpart officials; and to conduct five
in-country training sessions for 100 individuals in all phases of fuelwood production.


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