AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SERVICES PROJECT
AID/LAC/DR/RD, CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
A CROSS-CUTTING ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION (AG REE) IN AID-ASSISTED LAC COUNTRIES VOLUME TWO: ANNEXES by
Kerry J. Byrnes
U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean Office of Development Resources Rural Development Division LACIDR/RD
A CROSS-CUTING ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION (AG REE) IN AID-ASSISTED LAC COUNTRIES
VOLUME TWO: ANNEXES'
Kerry J. Byrnes
U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean Office of Development Resources Rural Development Division LAC/DR/RD
'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 author.
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANNEX A A Review of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Components of LAC Mission Country Development
Strategy Statements (CDSSs) A-1
ANNEX B A Review of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Components of USAID Mission Agriculture and Rural
Development Portfolios in the LAC Region B-1
ANNEX C LAC/DR/RD Survey of LAC Mission Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Projects/Programs C-1
ANNEX D Case Studies of USAID Mission Responses to LAC/DR/RD Survey
of LAC Mission Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Projects/Programs D-1
USAID/Dominican Republic D-16
USAID RDO/C D-41
Central American Region
USAID/Costa Rica D-51
USAID/El Salvador D-55
USAID ROCAP D-71
ANNEX E Survey Questionnaire Summary Tables of USAID Mission
Assessments of Status of Agricultural REE in AID-Assisted
LAC Countries E-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANNEX F Summary Description of Key Agricultural REE Organizations
in AID-Assisted LAC Countries F-1
ANNEX G TAC Paper on Relationships between CGIAR Centres and National
Research Systems: Key Points & Questions G-1
A REVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION COMPONENTS OF LAC MISSION COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY STATEMENTS (CDSSs)
A REVIEW THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION,
AND EDUCATION COMPONENTS OF LAC MISSION
COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY STATEMENTS (CDSSS)
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 Panami1 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:
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 Panami 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 modem production techniques; consequently, they have "the lowest agriculture productivity rate& 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 capita 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 agricultural 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 initiative. "
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 production 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 efforts."
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 stated:
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
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
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,
2This 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 technologies 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 (RTrS), 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. "Eventually, 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 creation 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, US AID 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
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 agrobusiness 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 nontraditional 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
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 RT'S 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 development 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) inadequate 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, uncoordinated, 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/Peni'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 programs; (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) independent, 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 Peril (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/Peril 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 Peril'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/Perdi 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/Pert'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/Peni'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 agriculture:
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
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 USALD/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
c arry 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 modem technology for on-farm
water management, and to institutionalize research and extension capabilities in
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 midlevel managers in both the public and the private sector)
b. Agriculture Sector Training (to be used as a vehicle to continue strengthening
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 Ifunded 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 effort.
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 hinterland 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 institutionstrengthening projects in the agriculture sector (PDAI, Rural Credit) had provided both shortterm 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-bycase" 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 being
(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, including:
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) (11/89)
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 USAIID/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 (GQJ) 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 XII1 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 education, 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 efficiency."
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."
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE FOR THE CARIBBEAN (RDOIC)
FY 82 (1/80)
This CDSS noted that the goal of USAJD'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 Mulfiple Croping 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
FY 83 (2/81)
This CDSS identifies the strategic objectives of RDO/C's agricultural program as being "to increase the per capita 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 region.
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 extraregional 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 agriculture.
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
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-l) policy and
planning, and 2) management development and training....
...Efforts to expand small fanner output and productivity, including some diversification (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-k-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 1985-89.
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 technologies 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 (f'mal-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
In traditional export crops, the CDSS noted that the Mission would continue, and 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 Development (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.
51n 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-k-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 i ,s 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 technologies 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 technologies 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 capabilities 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
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 initiated 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 audiovisual materials for farmer use, increase farmer training courses, and provide increased support to the Ministry of Agriculture's 3,700 grassroots extension workers (representantes agropecuarios).
The Agriculture Sector Assessment identified the following USAID/Guatemala and
Regional Office for Central America and Panamd (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. However, these objectives are difficult to achieve when introducing subsistence farmers to nontraditional 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-4-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 (GON) 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 longrun 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 MFY 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
Small Farmer Technologies Expansion MY 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 (EY 79-This sector program will concentrate on the central strategy problems of human resources development, government improvement with
emphasis inter ia 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 MY 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 Ag-riculture 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 nontraditional 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.
REGIONAL OFFICE FOR CENTRAL AMERICA AND PANAMA (ROCAP)
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 nontraditional 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 Cro 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 midlevel 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 postharvest 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.
A REVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION COMPONENTS OF USAID MISSION
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIOS
IN THE LAC REGION
A REVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION COMPONENTS OF USAID MISSION
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIOS IN THE LAC REGION
This annex contains a list of AID-funded projects in the LAG 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 LAG 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 Xl 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.
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
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
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
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (517-xxxx)
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 1 81-88 0126 Natural Resources Management (subproject 2)
2 2 2 82-85 0162 Inland Fisheries II
1 1 1 83-90 0159 On-Farm Water Management
1 83-91 0160 Agricultural Sector Training
shelved 87-89 0180 Agricultural Research and Extension (?)
2 2 2 87-92 0214 Commercial Farming Systems
2 2 89-91 0243 Agribusiness Training
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 78-88 0092 Agricultural Development Support II
2 2 81-89 0122 Agroforestry Outreach
2 83-88 0169 NGO Support I
1/2 86-91 0191 Targeted Watershed Management
2 2 90-95 0217 Agroforestry Program (follow-on to -0122)
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 84-90 0082 Agricultural Education
2 86-93 0128 Jamaica Agricultural Research
1 85-89 0113 Hillside Assessment
1 1 87-94 0101 Hillside Agriculture
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 82-89 0068 Agricultural Extension II
1 1 1 83-89 0099 Farming Systems R&D
1 1 84-87 0101 St. Vincent Agricultural Development
1 1 1 86-87 0007 Food Crop Production (CARDI)
1 1 1 89-94 0164 Agricultural Research and Extension
CENTRAL AMERICAN REGION
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 1 83-92 0006 Livestock Development
2 84-88 0010 Special Development Activities Fund
2 85-90 0008 Commercialization of Alternative Crops
2 2 2 87-92 0016 Toledo Agricultural Marketing
COSTA RICA (515-xxxx)
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
2 2 2 87-92 0237 NTAE Technical Support
1 & 2 88-93 0235 Northern Zone Consolidation
90- 0243 Forest Resources for a Stable Environment
EL SALVADOR (519-xxxx)
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 1 83-88 0265 Agrarian Reform Sector Support 1/2 1 85-91 0303 Water Management
2 87-94 0327 Agribusiness Development
2 88-91 0364 Community Based Rural Development (OPG)
89-92 Sustainable Agriculture (LC90-94 0382 Technoserve Rural Enterprise Development
2 91-94 0362 Coffee Technology Enhancement
2 91-94 0351 Commercial Farming
2 91-96 0374 Sustainable Agricultural Production
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 1 81-89 0255 Small Farm Diversification Systems 1 1 1 83-93 0274 Highlands Agricultural Development
2 86-89 0351 Aquaculture Extension
2 2 86-89 0355 Guatemala Dairy Development
2 88-93 0384 Development Training and Support
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 1 79-89 0157 Rural Technologies
2 80-83 0170 Rural Pilot Schools Development
1/2 80-89 0168 Natural Resources Management
2 81-84 0189 S.O.S. Training of Migrant Youth
2 82-84 0223 Agricultural Education
84-89 0207 Export Promotion and Services
2 2 84-94 0249 Agricultural Research Foundation
2 2 2 89-89 0362 Pan American Agricultural School
1 1 89-93 0292 Land Use Productivity Enhancement
R X E FY-FY xxxx Project Title
1 1 1 81-90 0089 Fuelwood and Alternative Energy Sources
1 1 1 81-90 0090 Regional Coffee Pest Control
1 1 1 84-89 0110 Integrated Pest Management
1 1 1 85-91 0117 Tree Crop Production
2 85-91 0129 Regional Agricultural Higher Education
1 1 1 87-90 0127 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
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. Chipifiri 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 povertystricken 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 plantings.
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 p 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 I 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 (Byrnes, 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 members.
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 PA~s, 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. Masterslevel 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 "privatesector 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 prioritysetting 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 pro grams 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 RITS 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 smallto-medium firms seeking to develop new products and markets.
Subsequently, the 5/88 project evaluation concluded that the NTAE project design was
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 InterAmerican 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 ard 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 demonstrations 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 RTS'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 H 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/Perd'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 Perd'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 provided, 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 Pert (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 to INIPA.
Between 1987 and 1989, USAID/Peri provided funding support for the Agricultural Technology Transformation (ATM) (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
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 III, the design of ATI1 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) (5270240), was designed to develop, in Peru's Palcazu Valley, a model for long-term development of Peni's high jungle. The project, which ran from 1982 to 1988, was implemented by a special project unit called PEPP (Pichis Palcazu Special Project) within the GOP. CSRM included the following agricultural research, extension, and education components:
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 agricultural, 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 II (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 components:
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/Perd 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 incountry 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/Peri has provided longer continuous support, dating from at least 1980. Support was provided through the AREE (1980-89) and ATr (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 Perti'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: SP01--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.
SP01--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 products; 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 environmental 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 11 (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 components:
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 professionals; 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 ADFsponsored 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 managers.
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 agency.
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 (1983-199 1) and Agribusiness Training (1989-199 1). 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 fnancing 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 development 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 decisionmaldng 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 quasigovernmental Haitian development organization, to make local contacts through 800900 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 (5210191) 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, 1990a).
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 MOA.
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 follows:
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 Im, 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 incomeproducing 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.
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE FOR THE CARIBBEAN (RDO/C)
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 11 (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 1983.
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
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 participating 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 impact.
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. Projectsupported 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) institutionalization 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 technology validation. Private sector groups will participate by attending workshops,
visiting experimental stations, etc.
Education: Training of extensionists--postgraduate degrees at UWI, training of midlevel 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 onfarm.
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-ll). 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.
CENTRAL AMERICAN REGION
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 Crp (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
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 Sp2ecial Development Activities Fund (505-0010) project that was implemented by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Peace lCorps, Roman Catholic Church, and two District communities.
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 productionoriented 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 USAIDfunded 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 shortterm 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 (5190303), 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 nontraditional 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 (5190374) 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/El 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 components:
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 miniriego 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 (IIADS) (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 1I), 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 follows:
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
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 nontraditional 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
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 CDL 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 shellers, 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 economically.
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 management.
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 Us Productivity Enhancement (LUPE) (522-0292) project implemented by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and PVOs. The project includes the following extension and education components:
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,
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 (5220170) 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 Nilios 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* 0223) 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
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-watersheds 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 Panamd (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 amendment placed increased emphasis on pest control training for researchers and nationallevel 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 incountry 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.
Also, 18 Central Americans were to be trained to the M.Sc.-level, nine at CATIE and
nine in the U.S.
The 7/86 Final Report for the project noted: "...field demonstrations, and training of national staff should continue, and more emphasis should be placed on extension of existing and new technical packages to agents and farmers."
Between 1985 and 1991, ROCAP is providing support for the Tree Crop Production (596-0117) project being implemented by CATIE. This project, a follow-on to 596-0089 (Fuelwood and Alternative Energy Sources), includes research, extension, and education components, as follows:
Research: Under this component, research is to take place on small privately-owned
holdings and include study of multi-use trees in short rotation forestry. The project is
to standardize trial establishment and data collection methodologies; expand the
network of research sites, quantify guidelines for predicting yields, and develop high
quality germplasm. Applied socioeconomic research is to help influence farmers to
plant tree crops by gathering data on and evaluating demand for wood products,
market and non-market benefits, production costs, wood lot trade operations, and
Extension: Under this component, CATIE is to establish demonstration sites, grouped in clusters, to show the uses and income potential of integrating tree crop technologies
onto small and medium farms; organize visits to the clusters; and provide assistance to extension agencies. CATIE is to organize short orientation sessions and visits to
demonstration sites for top and mid-level officials; sponsor at least one conference per
country; and develop simple, practical instructional guidelines, educational materials,
and audiovisual presentations (on silvacultural and socioeconomic aspects of tree
crops) for extension agents. The project is to expand tree crop library collections at
CATIE and other institutions; develop field manuals, technical publications, and a
management information system; and provide specialized technical assistance to
Education: Under this component, the project is to develop a critical mass of
technical field personnel with specialization in tree crop applications; train
professionals in tree crop research methods; and fully train and utilize forestry
extension agents. CATIE is to increase the number of graduate students and courses in its programs, provide financial support for at least 22 students (for thesis research
and M.Sc. degrees), and provide on-the- job training and short courses. At least
three other institutions in the region are to be selected for faculty upgrading (to
gradually transfer the training focus to national institutions), and specialized training
materials are to be developed.
From 1984 to 1989, ROCAP provided support for the Integrated Pest Management (596-0110) project that was implemented by CATIE. The project included research, extension, and education components, as follows:
Research: Under this component, CATIE was to conduct small farm-related IPM
research. Both fundamental and applied research were to be carried out on-farm (100
tests) and at experimental stations. On-farm research was to begin with small-scale
testing of unproven IPM systems and proceed to large-scale testing of those that show
promise. Research was to include a comprehensive evaluation of the crop pest complex for biological, socioeconomic, and environmental variables, as well as
special efforts to incorporate chemical pesticides into IPM programs. Socioeconomic
research was to be conducted to measure the acceptability of project-tested IPM
techniques. A workshop in the project's fourth year was to study research results.
Research was to be strengthened via linkages with national institutions in the region.
Extension: Under this component, GATE was to develop capacity to provide technical services. Establishment of a capacity within CATIE to provide IPM services to public and private institutions and individuals was to include: (1) a
regional pest diagnostic service center, along with similar centers in each project
country; and (2) a regional IPM Information Service Center to develop a
computerized IPM information base, provide information search and referral and lowcost photocopy services and library loans, publish and distribute a quarterly IPM
newsletter, and offer related training and technical assistance.
Education: Under this component, CATIE was to provide IPM training that would
include: a special seminar on recent IPM developments for project personnel and 13
short-term seminars and 29 workshops, for 140 and 750 persons, respectively; final country seminars, each attended by 200; U.S. Ph.D. and nondegree training, for 4
and 15 respectively; M.S. training at CATIE for 15 and study tours for 11 technicians. Some 25 training modules on IPM principles, methodology, and practices,
were to be developed.
From 1985 to 1991, ROCAP is providing support for the Regional Agricultural Higher Education (596-0129) project. This project is providing funding support for the development of programs at the Agricultural School for the Rural Humid Tropics (EARTH) and at Tropical Agricultural Research and Education Center (CATIE).
EARTH is patterned after the "learning-by-doing" approach of the Pan American
Agricultural School (EAP) in Honduras. EARTH was established in Costa Rica as a 4-year, undergraduate school with primary focus on practical training in lowland humid agriculture. The school is developing a B.Sc. curriculum providing equal time for classroom instruction and practical applications. EARTH was expected to open in 1/87 and to train 400 undergraduates and grant 100 B.Sc. degrees annually. However, the school did not open until March 1990.
Faculty and administrative personnel (including a fundraiser) for EARTH were to be recruited by a U.S. university. Also, the U.S. university is to provide special training for faculty upgrading. Construction of the school's physical facilities--an administrative building, classrooms and laboratories, animal and crop production units, faculty and student