A RE1POTIT OF '1111" SASAIMA SIN INAR ON RURAL h1VEIOINEN'f
During the first week of May, 1974, the agricultural program staffs of the. Foundation's Offices for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Middle East and Africa met in Ibadan, Nigeria,. to review questions of professional and program relevance. A number of the participants from the Latin American staff were dissatisfied with discussions of that seminar which dealt directly with rural development on the grounds that they failed to delineate the subject area and indicate the kinds of Foundation programs which might fit into it. Also, important differences were evidenced in definitions, assumptions, language, and mosies of analysis which seemed to prevent the sort of interpersonal communication around the rural development theme that the Foundation's Latin American agricultural program staff enjoys in other subject areas, particularly in agricultural economics.
A second seminar was agreed to for the purpose of trying to overcome some
of these differences and to move toward a greater consensus concerning the meaning of rural development and its possible implications for Foundation programs. The seminar was ultimately held in Sasaima, Colombia, for two days in mid-July. A list of participants is appended to this report. Nine members of the Foundation's staff attended, along with seven Colombians (primarily from the Colombian Agricultural Institute, ICA); a Peruvian; and cne staff member from the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of California (Berkeley), the
*This report suffered from being written three months after the- seminar but benefited from very excellent notes taken of the proceedings by Norman Collins,
Alain de Janvry, Jim Ilimes, and Ismael Kochin.
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), and the. International. Development Research Center (IDRC). Alsolattached is a copy of the program for. the two days of meetings.
The first day was devoted to discussions of available socioeconomic data on three rural development projects in Latin America with which the Foundation is involved: the Puebla Project in Mexico, the Garcia Rovira Project in Colombia, and the Cajamarca Project in Peru. In examining this information, the following kinds of questions were addressed by papers prepared by Santiago Friedmann (Puebla), Ismael Rochin (Garcia Rovira), and Efrain Franco (Cajamarca). Who are smallholders? What is thle organiza ion of their farms and families? What objectives and constraints operate within that organization? What have smallholders' responses been to change agents operating through the rural development projects? What have those change agents been? How effective have they been, and how have they been organized?
After assessing existing strategies, current needs in thile rural development field were discussed on the second day. In the last hours of the seminar, an attempt was made to identify those needs which might be addressed by the Foundation, given its comparative advantages in assisting .with problem definition and
supporting research and training activities.
This report, like the seminar, is divided into t.i .principal parts. The one which follows draws on the papers by Franco, Friedmann, and Rochin and attempts to highlight major impressions ("observations" or "conclusions" would apply as well in some cases) about the three rural development projects. Since participants in the main were critical of these projects, the impressions listed are.themselves rather negative and critical.. The last section of the report relates to discussions of the second day--namely, those dealing with program implications.
As available socioeconomic data on.,;each of the three rural development
projects were presented, similarities emerged which either strongly supported or rejected available literature and data on small farmers and processes of rural development. It is these similarities, confirming or contrasting with current wisdom, which are recorded here as "major impressions."
Low Rates of Adoption.--Data presented by Friedmann on the Puebla Project and by Franco on Cajamarca--similar data being available on Garcia Rovira-point toward low rates of adoption of "improved technologies." Friedmann reported that, after four years, only 11 percent of all farmers had adopted the Puebla Project recommendations (these-included recommendations with respect to seeding densities and the rate and timing of chemical fertilizer applications for corn in four project subregions). The comparable figure reported by Franco for Cajamatca was 0.16 percent after two years of project operations (recommendations related to seed type and to levels of chemical fertilizer application for corn, wheat, and barley).
Are small farmers reluctant adopters?I/ Or do low rates of adoption reflect the fact that the "improved" practices recommended by the rural development projects are not particularly profitable?-/ Or are practices profitable and farmers willing adopters, but are the complementary resources (e.g., credit) and new inputs unavailable by reason of institutional and/or other nonagroeconomic constraints? None of the three.projects currently has replies to these questions.
-- -- ---------------------------- ---- -- -- -- -- -1/ For an excellent discussion of this view, see F. Cancian, "Stratification and Risk-Taking: A Theory Tested on Agricultural Innovations," American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, No. 6 (December, 1967), pp. 912-927.
2/ One of the original studies of the profitability hypothesis was done by Zvi Griliches, "Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change," Econometrica, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Qctober, 1957), pp. 501-523.
Agriculture's Un importance to Small Farmers.--Strategies of the rural
development projects focus on improving technology on a limited set of crops. While the crops chosen are important components of the value of crop production in each project area, incomes derived from crops--and from agriculture generally--appear to be a much smaller proportion of total income of small \ 1/
farmers than would have been expected on the basis of available literature.-l
In the case of Cajamarca, the value of crop production represents only
14 percent of gross farm income from all sources for farms in the smallest size class (3.5 hectares or less) .-2 The most important single source of income for these farms is wages and salaries, the largest part of which (62 percent) is earned outside agriculture. Total income derived from agriculture (including crop and livestock production, agricultural labor incomes, and transfers within the agricultural sector) is only 38 percent of income reported from all sources 3/
by small farms. As the size of farms increases in Cajamarca,-- two things happen to this figure: (1) it increases to a level of 67-84 percent, and (2) its composition changes with the share represented by livestock production increasing.
Data available on Puebla indicate that total crop production represented 4/ Teedt r o
only 35.5 percent of all farm family incomes in 1970.- These data are not currently available by farm size class;'income derived from agriculture as a
1/ See, for example, Bruce F. Johnston, "Agriculture and Structural Transformation in Developing Countries: A Survey of Research," Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 8, No. 2 (June, 1970), pp. 369-398.
2/ Proyecto Piloto Cajamarca-La Libertad, "Estudio de Diagnostico Socioeconomico del Area de Influencia del Proyecto Piloto Cajamarca-La Libertad" (first draft, August, 1974, Table 3).
3/ The Cajamarca diagnostic excluded farms in the area with 100 or more hectares.
4/ Puebla Project, "The Puebla Project: Seven Years of Experience, 1967-73"
(unpublished manuscript, 1974.), Table 10.1.
proportion of gross farm income is likewise unavailable; and it may-be that the
35.5 percent figure cited is not strictly comparable with the data on Cajamarca.Still, there is the inference that crop production is surprisingly unimportant to small farmers in Puebla in terms of its contribution to their total income. Rochin reported, in the case of Garcia Rovira, that "there are no precise figures 12/
on how much income is earned from each economic activity.2/ however, he did note that 86 percent of all heads of families in the area claimed to be employed primarily on their own lands. This information, of course, would be consistent with agriculture's relative unimportance as a source of income were on-farm returns lower than those earned off the farm. And, if that were the case, there might be the additional inference that on-farm employment is only a marginal or residual use of labor time of small farmers.3/
Much more data and analysis are needed, however, on (1) incomes by source and (2).employment and labor productivity by activity before such inferences can be verified.
Low rates of adoption of project-recommended.technologies and the apparent unimportance of crop production to small farmers suggest that the direct effects of the rural development projects on incomes may have been small. These effects need to be quantified in each case, however, and compared with costs, carefully
1/ Substantially more attention and resources appear to have been devoted to estimates of farm income in the case of Cajamarca. The Puebla data on income are not fully defined In the source cited.
2/ R. Rochin, "InsF:ights Into the Socio-economic Basis for Rural Development: The Case of Garcia Rovira, Colombia," Paper prepared for the Ford Found.ation Agricultural Advisors Serhinar on Rural Development, Sasaima, Colombia, July 19 and 20, 1974, p. 10.
3/ A number of interesting hypotheses flow from this proposition. One, for example, would be that a rural development project could have an important effect on wages and/or salaries of small farmers even if they do not adopt the recommended technologies.
accounted for. It might be shown, for example, that Puebla, Cajamarca, and Garcia Rovira are cost effective, even "though their impact. on farm incomes has been small.l/
Large Indirect Project Effects.--Whatever the direct income effects of the projects may be, it appears that some nonincome, indirect effects have been large. Puebla can now claim success in sponsoring.similar projects throughout Latin America--perhaps even within Mexico itself where rural development projects are now operating with Puebla-like models- in the states of Mexico and Tlaxcala, and others are on the drawing boards in 17 different regions--and in contributing to a "conscientization" with respect to- small subsistence farmers. In Colombia the 6 initial pilot projects, of which Garcia Rovira was one, have led to 24 more rural development projects and a complete reallocationi of resources within ICA which is responsible for public programs of agricultural
research, extension, and education. They may have also contributed to the creation of a graduate program in rural development at the ICA/National University Graduate School. In the case of Peru, nonincome, indirect effects of Cajamarca appear to have been rather more modest, although the Project was
instrumental in the decision to open two new rural. development projects and to establish, within the Cajamarca area, an experiment station.
Isolation.--The background papers and literature cited on Cajamarca, Garcia Rovira, and Puebla make each of the three rural development projects vulnerable
to criticisms of intellectual isolation.
1/ Two cost-bonefit analyses are, in fact, available for the P'uebla Project including one contained in Chapter 14 of the 1974 manuscript cited earlier, Puebla Project, op. cit., and one authored by Delbert Myren and Jairo Cano, "Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Puebla Project," in Strategies for Increasing Aricultural Production on Small Holdinfs (Mexico: CIMMYT, 1969). These analyses could be refined, however, and then extended to others of' the rural development projects for which cost-benefit analyses are yet unavailable. More is said about this at a later point in this report.
One such criticism is that the projects do not appear to have benefited from the accumulated wisdom, lessons, aild experiences of others with similar kinds of objectives. Nowhere, for example, in the seven-year.review document on Puebla is a reference made to Mexico's long history of experience with land reform, colonization, and irrigation projects and the fact that Puebla's value might be measured in terms of its contribution over and above that which would have obtained had, say, an irrigation project been put in the Puebla area.
Another criticism is .that the projects are isolated one from the other.
This seems to be true, for example, within Colombia and as between projects in Colombia, Peru, and Mexico. Mechanisms like ALADER and the Ford-Rockefeller grants to the University of California at Berkeley may help reduce this isolation at a regional level. The creation within ICA last year of a submanager for rural development and a couple ofdivisions concerned with evaluating and coordinating efforts among individual Colombian rural development projects may be beneficial at the national level; COCOSA should have similar effects in the case of Mexico. Still', there is an impression that interproject relations. are not .strong.
Finally, there is the criticism made by de Janvry that the projects have isolated themselves from the dynamics of development in the project areas, in other sectors of agriculture, in other economic activities, and in the world economic system. The proposition was.stated in his paper in the following way:
"Thile induced influx of technologies from the Green Revolution through small farmer projects has been looked at as permitting a break with the low-level equilibrium trap and shifting, subsistence peasants to the blessed status of commercial farmers.
Focussing rural poverty in this context is, in my view, an historical inconsistency. . On-the contrary, it needs to be
done in the context of the economic destruction of traditional
societies after the first industrial revolution in England; of the barriers to industrialization, especially after the second
industrial revolution in the 20th century; of unequal commercial
exchange between imperialist and dependent nations and the consequent need for low wages in the periphery; of the exhaustion of import substitution policies to promote industrialization and the transformation of industry into an economic and social enclave in
the 1960's; and of the resulting reinforcement of structural dualism and marginalization of large sections of society . Rural poverty should be analyzed in the framework of marginality instead
of traditional culture. "1/
The Cajamarca "diagnostic" has been criticized in these terms for providing only a snapshot, of the current state of poverty in the region and neglecting to consider the historical conditions which produced that poverty over time. This criticism would applywithgreaterforce, however, to research on Garcia Rovira and Puebla.
"Pilot" Projects--A Mi.snomer.--Observed problems with the continuity of project staffs; with the. design of experiments (socioeconomic and agronomic); with overall project organization, coordination, and planning; with intellecttal isolation of some of the projects; and with therformidable and still unresolved problems 'encountered in socioeconomic data collection 'and analysis-all suggest that some of the pilot programs (as'most of the rural development projects have been termed) have not been assigned resources of the quality and quantity necessary to ensure that learning through systematic experimentation is maximized.Several hypotheses can be entertained to explain why this has been so.
One would be that there were ways of making the projects truly pilot endeavors but not the will to do so. Under this hypothesis, the major objective of the
1/ Alain de Janvry, "The Political Economy of Rural l)evelopment-Projects in Latin America" (unpublished manuscript, July, 1974, pp. 1 and 2).
2/ The problems are identified and-discussed in the last 12 pages of the Cajamarca diagnostic; in the case of Garcia Rovira, they are highlighted by Rochin, "Integrated .Rural Development: Lessons from the Colombian Experience," Paper presented at the Ford Foundation Seminar of Program Advisors in Agricult.ure (Ibadan: IITA, 1974); and, in the case of Puebla, Friedman focused on these problems during his oral presentation.
rural development projects is seen to be one of proving that available, new biochemical technologies, supplemented by institutional credit, will be adopted by small farmers and lead to increases in incomes and improved conditions of life. Another hypothesis would be that there was the will but not the way to make the projects effective pilot endeavors because the human and financial resources required to sustain .a truly experimental effort were found to be utinavailable. Stress is laid in this regard on the availability of qualitatively relevant human resources--trained in and capable of handling problems of rural
poverty.-/ A final hypothesis would be that there was a will and a way.but that the problems evidenced by the rural development projects were symptoms of poorly articulated project objectives; that objectives were poorly- articulated because there was little appreciation for what is really needed for small farmers to develop; and-that there was little appreciation for what is needed because there was an incomplete understanding of how poor farmers got to be poor. Without a theory to explain and help understand the dynamics of poverty, project activities were bound to flounder and become less purposeful and effective.
Other Impressions.--Below are listed three impressions derived from discussions which did not occupy, perhaps, as much:time at the seminar--and, hence, are presented here apart from the rest "and rather summarily--but which were judged to have been of importance nonetheless.
1/ The first of these two hypotheses appears to be most relevant to the
case of Puebla, Garcia Rovira, and the other five ICA rural development pilot projects, while, the second hypothesis may be most relevant to Cajamarca. In the seminar there was also some discussion as to whether the :rural development projects were really mechanisms for social control or "incorporation."
1. Criteria scem to be lacking currently which would provide the
basis for judging when a project has been successful, when
its mission has been completed, and when its activities
should be terminated.
2. Not unrelated to the preceding point is the fact that criteria
used in choosing among alternative rural development sites have not been made explicit. If the reasons for making interventions
in a particular geographic area were more explicit., so, too,
undoubtedly would be the conditions for withdrawal.
3. The rural development projects have extremely high profiles
within the community of international assistance agencies--an
impression which really only extends an earlier one that certain
indirect effects of the projects have been large.
A number of research needs of the rural development projects are suggested directly by the preceding section, and they might be divided into four or five
major areas.One would be analyses of adoption rates of recommended practices by smallholders which sought to explain specifically the low rates of acceptance of recommendations made by the rural development projects. Attention would be given in these studies to the effects on adoption of the characteristics of the technology recommended; on-farm determinants of the responses.of farmers to new
1/ These reflect more the views of the author of this report than those of
the participants in the Sasaima seminar. The agenda did not call for a discussion of "research priorities" and little discussion, except for some extraseminar sessions, related directly to them.
produce Lction opportunities ; and intervening institutional, cultural, and sociopolitical factors--those nonagrocconomia elements referred to in a previous
section of this report.
Another set of studies is needed which would carefully quantify incomes of smallholders and.their family members by principal source and estimate employment rates and labor productivity by major farm and off-farmi activity. The essential purposes of these studies would be to provide a better understanding of when and why crops become unimportant to small farmers as a source of income and how a change in crop technology would affect the small farm family, its income, and the allocation of its available labor time. Since searching for, obtaining, and then using a new production technology are timeconsuming activities, which may result in some loss of income, the suggested research on the determinants of adoption might be related in important ways to studies 'of income and employment. For this reason, plus the fact that comparability of income and employment data should be maintained as between projects, it would seem essential that there existed opportunities for-cross-study and cross-project discussions and dialogue in both the adoption and the income and employment work.
A third area of research would include benefit-cost analyses of existing and planned rural development projects. These would be done less for the purpose of calculating social investment yields per se than for purposes of checking the sensitivity of expected project outcomes to particular assumptions, identifying areas for profitable in-depth socioeconomic research, and sharpening the specification of project plans and priorities. Because there is not available at present a model or theory of rural development and poverty, it is extremely difficult for project personnel to organize complex and interrelated
observations on sma.llholders for purposes of fixing goals and plans of work. Something needs to be done about this and well before a theory of poverty finishes cooking. One way of attacking the problem is with the benefit-cost methodology. In the hands of an experienced practitioner and knowledgable "applied welfare economist," techniques of benefit-cost analysis do provide means of ordering a vast quantity of data.
A fourth area of work which is needed would include case studies of other kinds of rural development projects which promise to provide insights for the Pueblas, Garcia Roviras, and Cajamarcas. Irrigation, l].and reform, and colonization projects have been mentioned. A careful synthesis of existing studies
may be all that is required.
A final area of research need, which was intimated, concerns whether the qualitatively relevant manpower really exists which is capable of assisting with solutions to rural poverty. If not, what qualities and characteristics at what levels of training are needed? Increasingly, this question is being asked by national agencies. Certainly, the Foundation and the graduate agricultural economics programs with which it has collaborated would want to know more about the relevance of current. M. S. training in agricultural economics for planning, monitoring, and fieldwork'in rural development.
Before turning away completely from implications for research to program implications, it is worth asking whether mechanisms exist for supporting a menu of research like the one suggested here which would more fully exploit opportunities for comparative analysis between projects. Some such mechanisms-ALADER, the University of California at Berkeley group, and perhaps even CEDEAL--are now available. Are these adequate, however? Is something else needed? These questions were not discussed at any length at Sasaima.
Turning more directly to "the disdussions of the second (lay and possible program implications for the Foundation, a rather sharp distinction was drawn between the area of rural development and rural development projects.
The Foundation was drawn into the rural development projects as a result of a long-standing interest in graduate agricultural economics programs in Latin America. Specifically, as Colombia and, to a perhaps lesser extent, Peru began mounting Puebla-type projects in 1970-7.1, the Foundation was approached to partially finance the extension of agricultural economics competence to the undertaking of socioeconomic diagnostics in certain project areas. The final package of financing included some complementary support for activities of the rural development projects per se, but it was neither the focus-of the Foundation's assistance nor the primary basis for its involvement.
Sasaima produced. a consensus that this kind of action involvement at the
project level need not be extended further unless there are unique opportunities for insights gained to be applied to similar projects within a country and the Latin American region more broadly, manpower inputs--project leadership and staff--are of pilot quality, training efforts of l.ong-standing Foundation interest are to be reinforced, mechanisms exist for interaction and feedback between the project. and policy analysis ahd decision making, and the Foundation's inputs are small in relation to those of collaborating national institutions.
In contrast, discussions at Sasaima led to a conclusion that rural development more broadly should not only be an area of future interest for the FoundatOon's Latin Anerican program but possibly one of its major interests. This conclusion was bsed more on an understanding of the meaning and importance of tural development than on agreements about what the specific content of a rural development program.might be.
For most participants at-Sasaima, rural development came to mean any socioeconomic change in rural areas accompanied by greater participation by larger numbers of rural inhabitants in determining the direction of that change and in benefiting from its results. It is understood by this definition that rural development means greater access by rural inhabitants to resources, a more equal distribution of benefits from development, and a more equitable distribution of power in the countryside.
Less progress in the direction of specifying a rural development program undoubtedly reflected less accord among participants about the causes of rural poverty and stagnation. That, in turn, appears to be a consequence of the absence of a comprehensive theory of poverty. All subscribed to a view that there is some economic and social dualism in Latin America--a dichotomy of sorts which distinguishes hwves and have-nots. But some consider the underdevelopment of tfieihave-nots as a passive state-that of being "left behind" by technical change--which could be activated by a strategic combination of conventional tools in the best tradition of Lewis,- Fei and Ranis,- and Schultz.- This is essentially neoclassical, liberal wisdom; the highest current level of its
perfection is now the model of induced development of llayami and Ruttan.Others view the underdevelopment of the have-nots.in a dynamic context and as
1/ Arthur Lewis, "Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor," The Economics of Underdevel.opment, ed. A. N.. Agarwala and S. P. Singh (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 400-449.
2/ J. C. fi. Fei and Gustav Ranis, D)evelopmcnt of the Labor Surplus Economy (Hlomewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1964).
3/ T. W. Schultz, Traditional Agriculture (N1ew Haven: Yale University Press, 1964).
4/ Yujiro Hayami and Vernon W14. Ruttan, Agricultural Development: An International Perspective (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971).
a product of ;peci.fic historical developments correlated wiLth the lopsided progress of the haves and their alienation, marginalization, and exploitationof te ha -no s1/.
tion of the have-nots.- Contrary.to neoclassical wisdom, this perspective does not consider the have-noo to be people who have been left behind but rather pushed behind.
Passions and differences among proponents of these two views run deep in Latin America. Neoclassicists associate the opposing perspective with unconscionable ideologists who argue from a baseof economic fiction. They are
also classified as impractical types since inevitably an appeal is made by them for a multidisciplinary, integrated systems approach to development, for example,
". . the reasons for the impoverishment of rural areas often lie outside of these areas themselves . the ultimate cause of rural
poverty is still lack of integration into the overall socio-political
and economic system not only on a nationwide, but sometimes on a
worldwide, scale . and hence the application of a package programme. . It must take account of the interrelationships of
socio-polit cal, economic, and technical factors in a systems
The standard reply to the neoclassical criticism is that facts should not be confused with already existing self-evident truths. The issue is not at the observational or descriptive level but at the level of establishing valid connections between what is already observable.
Until a new, more comprehensive theory of rural poverty emerges, which is capable of reconciling some of these existing differences, Sasaima participants were of a mind that an interim rural development program might be defined simply in terms of an extension of the Foundation's current agricultural program in
---------------------------------------1/ See, for example, Herbert R. Kotter, "Some Observations on the Basic
Principles and General Strategy Underlying Integrated Rural Development," Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, Vol. 23, No. 4 (April, 1974), pp. 1-12.
2/ Ibid., p. 2.
Latin America but with an important qualitative difference: that additional concern be evidenced for who is benefiting from the program and how much hlow many have to say about its final outcomes. This would not imply any abrupt break with existing activities. Indeed, a rural development program cast in these terms would be more revisionist than reformist. The emphasis would still be placed on developing research and training capacities, for example. However, there would be the twist that "capacities" would not relate exclusively to the traditional agricultural economics discipline at the graduate level but to capacities at any level in educational and research systems which could address relevant problems of poverty and rural development. It was agreed that this
could involve anything from support for an H. S. graduate program--which has a serious commitment to problems of rural development and is exploring differing views of the causes of poverty--to support for training centers for fieldworkers in rural development. Two provisos were inserted: that the Foundation's inputs lead to a self-sustaining activity (e.g., it would not be interested in simply training fieldworkers to fill existing positions in Colombia's rural development projects) and that the undertaking be related in some way to the talent and institutions of long-standing Foundation concern.
In addition to the examples already mentioned, it was felt that this kind of.rural development program would permit advancing projects like the following to the consideration of the Foundation:
Proposals which would lead to additional comparative analysis and
cross-country generalizations about the rural development projects
discussed in the seminar.
Programs for national-level policy research for rural development
(like, for example, the COCOSA program).
HResource base proposals to -urther synthesize available information and literature in an attempt to provide a more coniprehetisive theory of. poverty and stagnation.
Research which provided an assessment of the relevance of existing production technologies available at the national and international levels for small farmers.
Proposals promoting additional interaction between international and national research centers concerned with smallholders' production technology.
Friday, July 19
Moderator Reed Hertford
8:00 Opening Comments
8:30 Santiago Friedmann, Puebla
9:45 Coffee break
10:00 Ismael Rochin, Garcia Rovira
11:15 Efrain Franco, Cajamarca
Moderator James R. Himes
14:00 Reed llertford, Towards a synthesis of
common and contrasting lessons 15:15 Coffee break
15:45 Alain de Janvry, Suggested directions
for the community of effort 18:30 Dinner
20:00 Informal evening discussions with
Rodrigo Botero, Executive Director, Foundation for Higher Education and Development (FEDESARROLLO), and Rafael Marino, General Manager, ICA Saturday, July 20
Moderator Norman R. Collins
8:00 James R. Limes, Other program options
in rural development
9:15 William D. Carmichael, The place of rural
development within Foundation programs 10:30 Coffee break
Saturday July 20 (Con inued)
11:00 Michael Nelson, Suggested agenda for
discussion of rural development "position paper"
Moderator William D. Carmichael
13:30 Opening comments
14:00 Discussions leading to the rural development "position paper" 15:15 Coffee break
(C) Botero, Rodrigo Executive Director, FEDESARROLLO
(A) Caballero, Carlos Consultant in rural development, Ford Foundation,
(A) Cardona,' Canuto Rural Development Program Advisor, ICA
(B) Carmichael, William D. Head, Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Ford Foundation
(B) Collins, Norman R. Program Advisor, Agriculture, Office for Latin
America and the Caribbean, Ford Foundation
(B) de Janvry, Alain Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of California, Berkeley
(A) Franco, Efrain Cajamarca Project
(B) Friedmann, Santiago Project Specialist, Ford Foundation, Mexico
(B) Guardiola, Beatriz Administrative Assistant, Ford Foundation, Bogota
(B) Hertford, Reed Program Advisor, Ford Foundation, Bogota
(B) Ilimes, James R. Representative, Ford Foundation, Bogota
(C) Marino, Rafael General Manager, ICA
(B) Nelson, Michael Program Advisor, Ford Foundation, Mexico
(B) Rochin R. Ismael Program Advisor, Ford Foundation, Bogota
(A) Rojas, Alvaro Director of International Department, IFI, Bogota
(A) Rojas, Elsa Secretary, Ford Foundation, Bogota
(A). Scobie, Grant Staff, Agricultural Systems Program, CIAT
(A) Valderrama, Mario Director, Division of Agricultural Economics, ICA
(A) Villadiego, Tomis Rural Development Section, Division of Agricultural
(A) Zulberti, Carlos IDRC/Ciqueza Project
(A) Attending July 19
(B) Attending July 19 and 20
(C) Attending evening session, July 19