Este es on renurM probspilici por los Derschos its Anor Dightall con su per"hic, Tomics dishichos; reseroados por At linstbuto the Cil y TiLhisilogia Angincolas 11his is a Copynglived resounihs Dqued with parnmussion All ri resensid by IfTe institute de Coil y hschntkhgha A icdasi Sent one oessouniORTGARANTIE LES DIRECTS AUTEUR Digirti Men sa permission Tons drovis rises Ear Let Invol Ciencia y TectinclogiaArgincolas
MOTOR PONLOO AGIMPEOWRIO Y OR ALRENTATION
INSTIOUTO DE Cil IRCHOLOGLA AGRICOLAS 21 $ C.I.W, P.TO W1. ww N..
"i TOM 6Va M GR 'W.C'
ROOM ROB )OpiW 9 2XX
ROOT Hil TWO, sn
El". D, "l
,Rvic, ddR U[NoWdirl
RRwORIMIMA MOTTM, "rij, R xMiOrMn k; .rudb ri IT, M-KXO M
. N iul OR
THE INSTITUTE OFAGIUCULTURAL SCIENCE AND not F I;i
TECHNOLOGY OF GUATEMALA
(Insdtuto de Ctes m y Teenolops Arl olms)
1-4 WIt IN ok % s 4&41 r t"Aft
vu W 14 lk^% a
#A A"4*4 4 p,* %A I ^vfioftlo
I-AV O'lmb lL* vo4*bm
.1 ro* .60 .
I- 1 41 tv -4 jo 1 44, *W,
N -AA I -Q
all 4%, vm tA %k I*- %ArA -&..*! -* - - - - -
THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECH NOLOGYOF GUATEMALA (Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologra Agrrcolas) I C TA
Robert K. Waugh ICTA/ Guatemala September, 1975
4 Years of History ICTA
This, with very few changes, is the second printing of this brief story of the development of the Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnoloqgia Agricolas. The supply of the first printing of 100 copies was exhausted rapidly, and ICTA is replenishing supply with an additional 500 copies in changed format.
An edition in Spanish is being prepared.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND......................... ...... I.... ... ...... 1
THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AND FORMATION OF ICTA: October 1971 May 10, 1973 .. ..................... 4
ICTA AFTER TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE ......... ...... ........ ..........14
OBJECTIVES, POLICY AND STRATEGIES ..............................15
DEVELOPMENT VS PRODUCTION ........24 2' POLICY FOR INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAM EXPANSION ................24
TRAINING-....... ...... .. .. ... .. 26
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ..... ... .......... ....... 26
ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ....29 THE STRUCTURE OF ICTA .. ... .. . ... 29
PERSONNEL ................................ ..............30
PHYSICAL FACILITIES ............ .......... 30
FINANCING AND BUDGET -,........................ 31
THE TECHNICAL UNIT FOR PRODUCTION ...............................2
PRODUCTION CENTERS .................... 36
SEED PROGRAM .... .............................. ....................37
DISCIPLINES..... . ..................... .... ..38
PROJECTS FOR TESTING TECHNOLOGY......... ...42
WHAT, WHERE, WHEN & HOW? 47
Among the relations maintained by ICTA with international and foreiqn organizations throughout the world, the joint collaboration with CIAT is one of the most important. In the above picture, Dr. John L. Nickel, Director of CIAT, pays close attention to the explanations given by an ICTA technician. In the center of the picture is Dr. Robert K. Waugh, author of this report.
THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF GUATEMALA (Instituto de Cienciu y Tecnologla AgrfCIcoa ICTA)
Guatemala is a country with 5.5 to 6 million inhabitants within an area of 108,000 square kilometers. It lies entirely within the tropical belt. Temperatures are markedly influenced by elevation above sea level, an important factor in this mountainous country. Rainfall is limited principally to the months of May through October. The rainfall curve by months is bimodal with peaks in June and September. Total rainfall is highly variable between areas with the maximum total around 4,000 mm. (there are exceptions with greater amounts) and the minimun total around 500 mm. (Annex B, C).
Land distribution in similar to many of the developing countries (Table 1.). There are probably 400,000 to 500,000 rural families with very limited resources. This group represents about one-half of the total population.
Most of the agricultural units are very small and the agricultural practices traditional and almost primitive. A low percentage of the farms use chemical fertilizer and most of the energy is human (Table 2). Even though the data cited is not recent, and the accuracy is not known, these data do reflect the present situation.
The population increase is probably 2-9 to 3.2o/o annually. While the data at hand indicated that over the years production of basic food grains (corn, beans, wheat, rice, sorghum) have increased, yields have increased only slightly or not at all except for rice. (Tables, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).
The contribution of the small farmer to overall production is relatively large. Applying the percentages of Table 8 to total basic grain production gives a weighted average of about 55 percent by farms under 7 hectares. Table 9 shows hectares of basic grains by size of farm. These data, for example, show 80 percent of the corn acreage being seeded on farms under 45
hectares. Thus, it is evident that the small farmer's production is of first order of importance to the country, And this is produced on a small percentage of the land in farms. The 67 percent of the total number of farms in the size group 0.7 to 7 hectares have only 18 percent of the total land in farms. (Table 1).
Guatemala has a history of agricultural development quite similar to that of many other countries of Latin America. During the first 40 or so decades after the arrival of the Spanish, food production for local consumption was considered as a simple process, using the natural resources of the soil, sun and water with almost no technological inputs. The energy input under this system, other than solar energy, was almost exclusively the energy of man. Only the commercial crops for export (sugar, bananas, coffee, cotton, etc.) received the benefit of technology which in many cases reached a rather high degree of sophistication during the recent decades.
For production of food for local consumption there was no advantage in an individual parcel or farm being larger than what a man and his family could cultivate. Neither was there much advantage in the land being level or free from obstructions because the land was worked by hand. The small agriculturist was content, and relatively efficient, even though relegated to a hillside parcel. In Guatemala the small farmer, especially in the highlands, lived where his ancestors lived. He knew the land. He had corn, beans and squash, that his ancestors had cultivated. He also knew the crops. If he received the axe, the machete and the hoe from the new masters, he also continued with the planting stick. Traditional agriculture was established.
But new generations divided the land parcels, crops mined the soil of plant food, and erosion further reduced productivity. Some remained without land. But it was still no major problem to feed the people, and the landless worked in services and on the Urge commercial farms producing export crops. The country needed the export dollar for importation$ to develop the cities, to raise the standard of living of those who shared in the export dollar and who benefited from the economic growth of the country which was taking place.
But under this system the majority remained a small farmer or a laborer with a low standard of living. Farms were further divided, land parcels became smaller, more people were landless, fertility decreased.
Traditional System for Technology
The government did initiate programs to increase production. Point IV programs of the U.S. government stimulated this movement. The U.S. and other countries continued to give technical assistance. International Centers were established.
But what Point IV, and the later agencies, brought to Guatemala, naturally was what the U,S. had at home. But-is was not exported in its entirety and it was exported piecemeal.
The U.S. University sent people to Guatemala but the University stayed at home; the home base for -agricultural-research and extension was the University. Extension and Research programs were established. within. the Ministry of Agriculture in Guatemala, but the two never worked hand in hand. Small but highly capable discipline groups were developed, but they remained as islands within the governmental burocracy. Technology had relatively little effect upon agricultural production except on the large farm. The margin between food produced and demand widened.
There still remained open for the Guatemalan Government a "safe position strategy": import relatively small amounts of grain, at favorable prices and conditions. This was also a "comfortable" strategy. If -local production was 5 percent below needs, this margin of deficiency contributed to maintaining prices without needed price supports. This deficiency could be met easily by importations, The prices were right and the conditions of credit favorable. Under this system. storage and distribution problems were minimum.
THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AND FORMATION OF ICTA: OCTOBER 1971 -MAY 10, 1973
The situation has now changed. The margin of deficiency grows larger. Importations are not so easily arranged; the costs are higher. The source of importation is not as sure. The situation has truly changed.
Reorganization of the Ministry of Agriculture.
Early in the presidential term (1970-1974) of General Carlos Manuel Arana, action
Table: 1. Number, size, and fragmentation of farms in Guatemala, 1964 (1) Percent
Number Percent Area of land Average
Farm size class of farms of farms (ha) in farms size
Less than 0. i0 haa 85.083 20.0 32.619.2 0.9 0.38
From 0.70 to 6.99 haa 279.797 67.0 607.855.6 17.7 2.17
From 6.99 to 45.13 haa 43.656 10.0 648.900.2 18.8 14.86
From 45.13 to 902.51 ha 8.420 2.0 1,258.545.2 36.6 149.47
More than 902.51 ha 388 0.9 894.600.4 26.0 2,305.67
Total 417.344 100.0 3,442.520.6 100.0 8.25
aBy definition all farms of 28 ha or less are classed as small or medium by DIGESA
bRepresents 31 6oo of the total area of the county (10 888 999 ha)
Source: Segundo Censo Agropecuano 1964 Direcci6n General de Estadstica
REFERENCE: "Appraisal of Fertilizer Markets & Distribution Systems in Central America with
Emphasis on Small Farmers", prepared for the Agency for International Development by John T. Shields, Curtis L. Ahrens and H.B. Tatum, National Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660.
Table 2. Agricultural production practices in Guatemala, 1964 (1) Energy use in Fertilizer use
production o/o No. of Percent of Percent of Percent of
Number Area in crop Mechanical Animal farms farm4 farms using farms using
of and and and Human using using natural chemical
Farm size class farms (ha) human human only fertilizer fertilizer fertilizer only fertilizera
Less than 0.70 ha 85.083 80.614.A 0.1 2.5 97.4 29.00" 34.1 88.3 19.5
From 0.70 to 6.99 ha 279.797 486.655. 0.3 6.7 93.0 88.617 31.7 83.1 28.3
From 6.99to 45.13ha43.656 321.525.2 1.8 14.4 83.8 15.260 35.0 78.8 36.1
From 45.13 to 902.51 ha 8.420 421.422.3 13.1 26.5 60.4 3.867 45.9 62.9 62.0
More than 902.51 ha 388 223.248.3 40.2 10.3 49.5 261 67.3 51.7 79.3
Total 417.344 1,483.465.6 0.7 7.0 92.3 137.011 32.8 83.1 28.4
"Includes farms using natural and chemical fertilizer
Source: Segundo Censo Agropecuano, 1964 Direcci6n General de Estadlistica
REFERENCE: "Appraisal of Fertilizer Markets & Distribution Systems in Central America with
Emphasis on Small Farmers", prepared for the Agency for International Development by John T. Shields, Curtis L. Ahrens and H.B. Tatum, National Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660.
Table 3. Maize crop production Table 4. Production, importation, and apparent
statistics in Guatemala, 1961-72 consumption of wheat (1,000 t), Guatemala, 1962-73
Area harvested Total production Yield Year Production Imports consumption
Crop year mz q q/mz 1973a 50.0 (est.) NA NA
1971-72 943.250 16.247.055 17.2 1972b 40.0 75.0 115.0
1970-71 947.236 17.083.601 18.0 1968-71 NA NA NA
1969-70 992.411 15.626.492 15.7 1967c 35.3 59.6 94.9
1968-69 987.872 14.975.870 15.2 1966 40.1 64.4 104.5
1967.68 946.997 13.789.759 14.6 1965 39.4 65.7 105.1
1966-67 944.206 12.901.420 13.7 1964 36.1 54.5 90.6
1965-66 968.237 14.036.107 14.5 1963 34.1 64.2 98.3
1964-65 910.467 13.906.072 15.4 1962 25.8 51.2 77.0
1963-64 525.141 9.900.000 18.8 aAssociacion Supervisora de Compras de Trigo Nacional y Fomento
1962-63 1.061.532 14.451.771 13.6 Industrial,
1961-62 895.787 11.263.344 13.05 bUSDA FAS. Guatemala-Agricultural Situation report G1-3001.
CGuatemala's Economic Development: The Role of Agriculture.
Source: Direcci6n General de Estadistica Iowa State University Press, p. 97.
REFERENCE: "Appraisal of Fertilizer Markets & Distribution Systems in Central America with
Emphasis on Small Farmers", prepared for the Agency for International Developrment by John T. Shields, Curtis L. Ahrens and H.B. Tatum, National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660.
Table 5. Bean crop production Table 6. Rice crop production
statistics, Guatemala, 1962-72 statistics. Guatemala, 1961-72
Area harvested Total production Yield Area harvested Total production Yield
Crop year mz q q/mz Crop year mz q qtmz
1971-72 253.182 1.420.489 5.6 1971-72 28.389 1.275.207 44.9
1970-71 215.474 1.408.053 6.5 1970-71 16.140 492.679 30.5
1969-70 264.670 1.358.999 5.1 1969-70 13.376 315.327 23.6
1968-69 217.185 1.427.019 6.6 1968-69 19.410 544.798 28.1
1967.68 185.956 921.271 5.0 1967-68 19.813 618.032 31.2
1966-67 179.836 959.718 5.3 1966-67 8.783 319.525 36.4
1965-66 204.532 1.076.313 5.3 1965-66 8.710 2&5.887 32.8
1964-65 173.208 1.130.201 6.5 1964-65 16.335 528.711 32.4
1963-64 83.548 679.300 8.1 1963-64 12.377 283.364 22.9
1962-63 100.998 717.817 7.1 1962-63 14.728 355.630 24.1
1961-62 72.808 710.917 9.8 1961-62 12.854 273.015 21.2
Source: Direcci6n General de Estadistica Source: Direcci6n General de Estadistica.
REFERENCE: "Appraisal of Fertilizer Markets & Distribution Systems in Central America with
Emphasis on Small Farmers", prepared for the Agency for International Development by John T. Shields, Curtis L. Ahrens and H.B. Tatum, National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660.
Table 7. Grain sorghum (maicillo) crop production statistics Guatemala, 1961-72 Area harvested Total production Yield Crop year mz q q/mz
1971-72 71.747 822.891 11.5
1970-71 57.817 646.597 11.2
1969-70 73.448 992.965 13.5
1964-65 68.245 591.505 8.7
1963-64 24.541 335.200 13.7
Source: Direcci6n General de Estadfstica.
REFERENCE: "Appraisal of Fertilizer Markets & Distribution Systems in Central America with
Emphasis on Small Farmers", prepared for the Agency for International Development by John T. Shields, Curtis L. Ahrens and H.B. Tatum, National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660.
Table 8. Basic grain production by farm size. (2)
TOTAL CORN BEANS WHEAT RICE SORGHUM
FARM SIZE 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Total 11 625.2 100.0 9 883.7 100.0 679.3 100.0 397.5 100.0 329.9 100.0 335.2 100.0
less than 0.7 658.9 5.7 578.7 5.9 16.8 2.5 14.8 3.7 42.2 12o8 6.4 1.9
0.7 to 1.4 1 463.3 12.6 1 279.8 12.9 77.4 11.4 42.2 10.6 17.6 5.3 46.3 13.8
1.4 to 3.5 3 285.3 28.3 2 776.9 28.1 224.8 33.1 109.5 27.6 49.8 15.1 124,3 37.1
3.5 to 7.0 1 810.5 15.6 1 528.1 15.5 115.8 17.0 83.2 20.9 34.9 10.7 48.5 14.5
7.0 to 22.4 2 192.7 18.8 1 874.8 19.0 114.9 16.9 81.5 20.5 64.9 19.7 56.6 16.9
22.4 to 44.8 496.5 4.3 395.4 4.0 40.3 5.9 23.8 6.0 19.6 5.9 17.4 5.2
more than 44.8 1 718.0 14.7 1 450.0 14.6 89.3 13.2 42.5 10.7 100.6 30.5 35.6 10.6
Farm size in hectares.
Production in thousands of cwt.
Taken from: II Censo Agropecuario 1964.
Direcci6n General de Estadistica.
Table 9. Areas in hectares seeded to basic grains according to farm size. (2)
TOTAL 0.7 to 1.4 to 3.5 to 7.0 to 22.4 to more than
CROP HAS. 0.7 1.4 3.5 7.0 22.4 44.8 44.8
Total 578477 26318 72853 174472 97896 114378 24431 68 156
1 ?.-p 5 ,X I)4 1 / 1 .4 lAl -7 1./ 1-24 ;-,
Corn 525029 25046 68157 159746 87574 103330 21296 59880
1, !? 1 e. 1 -4 I 2 -,I I -. )-I I -, .?o 0 14, 5
Beans 19 457 22? 1455" 5 813" 3735 4 119 1259 2844
Rice 8649 154 425 1463 1052 1915 602 3038
Wheat 22863 867 2639 6678 5112 4555 1 122 1890
Sorghum 2479 19 177 772 423 459 152 477
Taken from: Censo II, 1964.
Direcci6n General de Estadfstica.
was taken to reorganize the Agricultural Sector of the Government. Colonel Miguel Angel Ponciano was Minister (VII-1-70 to VI-9-71) (3) and Ingeniero Agr6nomo Mario A.
Martinez Guti6rrez was Viceminister (and Minister following Colonel Ponciano), Ingeniero Agr6nomo Rodolfo Perdomo Men~ndez was named Viceminister when Ing. Martinez was named Minister. There was professional competence in the Ministry, which became an important factor in the organization of ICTA.
The reorganization of the Ministry sought to revitalize the agricultural sector, in view of the increasing demands for food grains and a very large rural population with limited resources, a group better informed each day of different living conditions elsewhere. The campesino or peasant has remained relatively loyal to the land, his traditional way of life. But the system is running out of land, and the peasant may run out of patience.
Thus, there were two principal goals: increase food production, especially of the basic food grains, and stimulate rural development. The small and medium sized farmer were the main target group. This strategy offered the possibility of increasing food production and contributing to rural development without decreasing production of export crops: coffee, cotton, bananas, cattle and essential oils.
The first three major changes were:
1. The establishment of INDECA as a decentralized marketing organization;
2. The reorganization of the agricultural credit in one institute, BANDESA;
3. Reorganization of the general services of the Ministry of Agriculture, DIGESA,
which is the non-decentralized operating arm of the Ministry. INDECA and BANDESA were decentralized, with the Minister of Agriculture chairman of
both the boards of directors.
DIGESA was organized into "Direcciones" or divisions:
1. Development (Desarrollo). This division operated mainly as a supervised
agricultural credit organization. The agents of the program (Promotores) were
given some training, but the technology was mainly cook book, recipe style.
2, Training and Education (Capacitaci6n y Enseflanza). This division
included the extension service and the "Perito" School, a secondary vocational
training program at B~rcenas,
3. Natural Resources (Recursos Naturales). Mainly irrigation projects.
4. Research (Investigaci6n). This was a traditional research program,
fractionated, working on many crops. This division was headed by Ing. Astolfo
Fumagalli, later named as the first director of ICTA,
At this point, as shown above, agricultural research continued within the Ministry (DIGESA)
National Planning. The GuatemalanGovernment has had an economic planning office for several years (Secretaria Nacional de Planificaci6n Econ6mica), A national economic five-year plan had been developed during the presidential term of Julio C6sar M6ndez Montenegro, president just prior to General Arana. This plan placed first priority on agriculture, followed by education, health and industrial development It was the policy of President Arana to follow this plan. Some refinements and modifications were of course necessary, and its execution depended upon financing approved each year by the Congress of the Republic. Under this five-year plan, the Planning Office of President Arana developed a basic grain plan to be executed by the agricultural sector (governmental).
Marketing had been placed in a decentralized agency, INDECA, credit reorganized and programed under BANDESA, the DIGESA programs designed, without giving the source of technology (research) much attention. The sequence of reorganizing the governmental agricultural sector did not foresee the importance of structuring transfer of technology with the development, identification and adaptation of technology to Guatemalan small farmer conditions. This did not necessarily indicate that research was to be given a low priority.
It was time to take a look at research. The information at hand (4) indicates that the first concrete move on the part of the Guatemalan government to reorganize research was a visit to CIMMYT in Mexico and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations in New York in October
of 1970 by Ing. Mario Martinez, at that time Viceminister of Agriculture, Ing. Astolfo Fumagalli, the Director of Research, and Robert Culbertson, Head of USAID/Guatemala. The purpose of the trip was to inform the Foundation of the interest and desire of the Government of Guatemala to establish a research institute, and to request the collaboration of the two Foundations. The collaboration was sought based on the experience of the Foundations and not for economic aid.
A meeting was held in the office of the Ford Foundation with Dr Lowell Hardin of the Ford Foundation and Drs, Sterling Wortman and John Pino of the Rockefeller Foundation present. (The documentation in the ICTA files of this small conference does not specifically indicate whether or not Fumagalli and Culberfson attended but it is assumed that they did so.)
Viceminister Martinez made the presentation on the part of the Guatemalan Government.
The Rockefeller Foundation indicated interest in the project of a new agricultural research institute for Guatemala, and suggested that Guatemala consider a meeting in Guatemala of a group of Latinamerican Scientists with the purpose of studying the Guatemalan proposal and to write up a preliminary project. For the purpose of the sequence of developments with reference to the organization of the new institute, it should be noted that the request for collaboration was for the development of a research institute. Extension and use or application of technology had already been organized within DIGESA.
While in Mexico discussions were held with Drs Robert Osler, Elmer C. Johnson and Norman E. Borlaug on the same subject.
Work Group I. (Grupo de Trabajo I) (5) With the collaboration of the Rockefeller Foundation and AID/Guatemala, the Ministry of Agriculture organized a conference which was held in Guatemala in January 11-15 of 1971 with the following persons participating:
Ing. Astolfo Fumagalli C., Director Agricultural Research, Dr. Canuto Cardona A., Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia, Dr. Alejandro Ortega, Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo, CIMMYT, M6xico, Dr. Eduardo Venezian, Ford Foundation, Mexico,
Dr. Luis Marcano C., Shell Foundation, Venezuela, Alphonse C. Chable, USAID/Guatemala,
Dr. Ricardo Bressani, INCAP, Guatemala,
Agr. Jos6 Manuel Tirano, SIECA, Guatemala, Lic. Jos6 Angel Andrade, National Planning Office, Guatemala, Lic. Hector Ramirez, National Planning Office, Guatemala, Lic. Tomds Niifiez A., National Planning Office, Guatemala, Ing. Edgar Ibarra, Instituto T6cnico de Agricultura, Guatemala, Ing. Luis Manlio Castillo, Agricultural Research, Guatemala, Dr. Albert N. Plant, Mississippi State University, Agricultural Research, Guatemala.
The group, known as Work Group I, prepared a report with both specific and general recommendations for the formation of a new institute.
The importance of a strong tie between the research group and those responsible for the use of the technology at the farm level was given emphasis in the report. While it was recommended in the report that the new institute be responsible for both, research and "promoci6n", the recommendations as to how to relate the research and its application was couched in a terminology, which indicates that the group was aware that "extensi6n" and "promoci6n" already existed, the latter having only recently been organized within DIGESA, that recommendations for major changes in promotion and extension were touchy subjects. It seems clear that the sequence of planning, which hardly touched the existing extension service, and organized a program of "promoci6n" separated from extension, without planning the identification, generation, and adaptation of technology for farm use was faulty. This is mentioned here because the structural arrangement continues as it was before the formation of ICTA.
March 1971, meeting with Dr. John Pino at Texas A&M. With the specific
recommendation of a highly capable group of scientists, Work Group I, to structure a
decentralized, flexible and dynamic institute within the Agricultural Sector responsible for research to be focused pragmatically upon the needs of the small farmer, and with responsability for the use of the technology, the Guatenmlan Government sought a committment on the part of the Rockefeller Foundation to participate in the planning of the new organization. A group from Guatemala, Ing. Mario Martinez G., Vicermninister of Agriculture, Ing. Edgar L. Ibarra, Dean of the School of Agronomy at San Carlos University and Ing. Rodolfo Perdomo M., Consultant to AID/Guatemala for Renewable Natural Resources met with Dr. John A, Pino of the Rockefeller Foundation at College Station, Texas.
Work Group II (Grupo de Trabajo II) (6) Work Group II met in May of 1971, with the following participants:
Dr. Canuto Cardona A., Director del Proyecto de Fomento y Promoci6n de Maiz Opaco, Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA) y CIAT, Colombia;
Dr. Alfredo Carballo Q., CIMMYT/Mexico;
Ing. Astolfo Fumagalli, Director de Investigacion Agricola;
Ing. Edgar Leonel Ibarra, Decano Facultad de Agronomia;
Ing. Rodolfo Perdomo, Director Departamento de Suelos, Facultad de Agronomia y Asesor Desarrollo Rural y Recursos Naturales AID/Guatemala;
Lic. Luis Arturo del Valle, Director Unidad Sectorial de Planificacion Agricola, Guatemala.
This group elaborated on the ideas expressed in the report of Work Group I, specifically policy, overall strategy, and sketches of possible organization patterns. Emphasis was made for a strong and close relationship with the technological promotional activities of DIGESA, close ties with the University of San Carlos, and the importance of conducting research at the farm level.
Work Group III (Grupo de Trabajo III) (7) This group met for about 3 weeks during
June of 1971. The participants were:
Dr. Afredo Carballo, CIMMYT/Mexico;
Dr. Robert K.Waugh, ICA/Colombia, Representante de la Fundaci6n Rockefeller; Ing. Edgar Leonel Ibarra, Decano Facultad de Agronomia, Guatemala; Ing. Rodolfo Perdomo, AID/Guatemala, Facultad de Agronomia, Guatemala; Lic. Luis Arturo del Valle, Director de la Unidad Sectorial de Planificaci6n Agricola, Guatemala; Ing. Astolfo Fumagalli, Director, Investigaci6n Agricola, Guatemala; Also contributed in this group in specific assignments: Lic. Hugo Soto, DIGESA
Dr. Jos6 de Jesis Castro, Facultad de Agronomia, Profesor y Director del Departamento de Entomologia,
Ing. Romeo Rodriguez, Divisi6n de Recursos Hidriulicos, Ministerio de Agricultura Sr. Manuel Arag6n, Jefe del Departamento de Dibujo y Fotograbado, Instituto Geogrnifico Nacional.
Ing. Astolfo Fumagalli, later named the first Director General of ICTA, was group coordinator.
The report of this group was a more complete project which included a brief analysis of the agriculture sector, justification for the new institute, its functions, areas of work and goals, geographical zones of concentration, for personnel, operations, constructions and machinery. Estimated costs for the first five years of operation were approximately $12,000,000.
An important and specific part of the plan presented were the geographical areas for concentration of field work at the farm level, naming specific crops as target crops. The strategy was based principally upon the basic grains: maize, beans, wheat, rice and sorghum.
This report has become known as the "Libro Verde" or Green Book, and was the document presented to the National Planning Council (Consejo Nacional de Planificaci6n Economica) for their consideration The Planning Council approved the creation of the Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas the 20th of August 1971 according to "Resoluci6n nfimero 2008".
The Group IV report (November 1971) (8) was a brief presentation for the purpose of clarifying points in relation to the plan presented by Group III. It did propose a transition period to move ICTA into activities at the farm level, and to coordinate programs with DIGESA.
Contact an discussion was continued with the Rockefeller Foundation during November
and December with the objective of determining the interestof that organization in continued collaboration with the new institute The answer was affirmative but requested more concrete proposal and suggested that such be studied and prepared with CIAT, CIMMYT and USAID/Guatemala early in 1972.
Work Group V (Grupo de Trabajo V) (9) of Guatemalans and a representative of
AID/Guatemala met in March 1972, for the purpose of including in one brief document the basic philosophy of the new institute, and write a draft of a law which would be presented to Congress to create the new institute.
Also this work group made a study and summary of available funds to be used by the new institute, highly important for the first stage of operation and which was used in discussions with the Rockefeller Foundation, CIMMYT, CIAT, AID/Guatemala and the Ministry of Agriculture.
Included in this important group were:
Ing. Rodolfo Perdomo, Viceminister of Agriculture, President of the Commission,
Ing Alfredo Gil Spillari, Director of DIGESA, Coordinator,
Lic AdAn Rodriguez, Sectorial Unit, Planning Office, Ministry of Agriculture,
Ing. Astolfo Fumagalli, DIGESA,
Lic. Yolanda Castillo de Ar6valo, INDECA
Lic. Arturo Tobar Blanco, Sectorial Unit, Planning Office, Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Joseph Courand, USAID/Guatemala,
The Group to Organize ICTA was named by the Minister on March 24, 1972. This group consistent of:
Ing. Rodolfo Perdomo Men4ndez, Viceminister of Agriculture, President of the Commissions, Mr. Alfredo Gil Spillari, Director of DIGESA, Coordinator, Lic. Adin Rodriguez, Chief of the Sectorial Unit, Planning Office, Ministry of Agriculture, Ing. Astolfo Fumagalli, Director of Agricultural Research, Lic. Yolanda Castillo de Ar6valo, INDECA
Robert K. Waugh of the Rockefeller Foundation and Joe Courand of AID were named as advisors.
Also in March 1972 (4) high level personnel of the Ministry of Agriculture met with representatives of CIAT, the Rockefeller Foundation, CIMMYT and AID/Guatemala, having already agreed that a satisfactory method for the Rockefeller Foundation to collaborate with ICTA would be through CIAT with a grant in aid to that organization. A document for technical cooperation between ICTA and CIAT was prepared which later was signed by the Minister of Agriculture and the Director General of CIAT in May. At this time it was agreed that Robert K. Waugh would come to Guatemala for three weeks in April, and after that as frequently as foreseen necessary to collaborate in the preparation in the more specific plans, and review of work plans.
At this time the Rockefeller Foundation agreed to support two scientists to work with ICTA through the arrangement with CIAT, one to work at the administrative level and the other at the technical level
The participants at this meeting were:
From the Rockefeller Foundation: Dr. Lewis M Roberts and Dr. Robei t K Waugh,
From CIAT Dr Ulysses J. Grant and Dr Cohn McClung, From CIMMYT: Drs. Elmer C. Johnson and Alfredo Carballo,
From USAID/Guatemala. Messrs. Harlan Harrison, Alphonse Chable & Joseph Courand, From the Mi:istry of Agriculture: Ing. Mario A. Martinez, Minister; Ing. Rodolfo Perdomo,
Vic minister, Mr. Alfredo Gil Spillari, Director of DIGESA, an 1 Ing. Astolfo
Fur-agalli, Director of Agricultural Research.
On Otober 24, 1972 the Congress of the Republic passed the law creating ICTA, under "Decreto nimero 68-72".
There were other participants who contributed much to the organization of ICTA during this phase of almost two years They cannot all be mentioned here in this brief presentation; they were important
Conversations and discussions were held with both local and foreign personnel, especially with personnel of CIAT for the purpose of reviewing wor i plans. Thus, following the decision of March 1972 to work with CIAT, close contact was maintained with that organization In this manner, work plans were developed before the inauguration of ICTA, and CIAT which has contributed technology and training, was "present" from the beginning.
ICTA was formally inaugurated on May 10, 1973 and )fficialdtly opened its doors on June 1 of that year.
ICTA AFTER TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE
Allowing ourselves the-privilege of being subjective, we feel that ICTA, during the two years and a few monthsaof operation, was organized and has progressed in accordance with the basic philosophy and. objectives of the planning documents. For those involved in the organization of ICTA andthe initiation of activities, the experience has been unique, one that is seldom available within the official or governmental sector. In the case of the "Direcci6n de Investigaci6n", the- -lights- were turned off, the theater closed. With some~of tha same actors present, ICTA opens as a new performance and in a new location, to perform before the same old audience, the same clients. Will the performance be a better one than presented in the old theater? We think so. The curtain is now going down on the final dress rehearsal. The analogy is defective, because at the same time the curtain is already going up on opening night, and we feel that the first scenes have been favorably received.
During the period of March, April and May of 1973, there was much to be done to start the new ICTA to function. Determining the organic structure, administrative procedures,
obtaining the basic facilities, hiring the first people, and planning and initiating the first technological activities required attention.
The Government was helpful, and special mention is deserved by DIGESA, and at that time Director Alfredo Gil Spillari for the excellent cooperation.
The Ministry of Agriculture participated directly in taking inventory of the facilities which ICTA needed to receive and control so that work could begin without loss of time. DIGESA arranged for ICTA to receive control of experiment stations, and loaned vehicles.
Since a cropping season would have been lost if work did not start before the inauguration of the institute, and before opening new headquarters, it was arranged with DIGESA for loaned office space, loaned technicians, and land. ICTA agreed to review the work previously under DIGESA in order not to precipitously erase an important activity or lose valuable breeding materials. So, the first seedings were made in cooperation with DIGESA with the agreement that ICTA would assume responsibility by June 1, then extended to July 1.
OBJETIVES, POLICY AND STRATEGIES
The general objectives, policy and philosophy of ICTA are set forth in the Congressional Law (Decreto 68-72) which established the institute and other planning documents related to its creation. The law of course takes precedent over any other document in case of discrepancies.
Over the period of its short life span to present, the law and other documents have been interpreted, in a few cases modified, and amplified.
A summary of the objectives and actions as stated in Article 3 and Article 19 of the law are as follows:
Article 3 refers to objectives.
1. ICTA is the Governmental institution responsible for generating and promoting
the use of science and technology within the agricultural sector.
2. Therefore, it is ICTA's concern to conduct research focused on the solution of
problems of the agriculture of the country related to social welfare.
3. It falls to ICTA to produce the materials and determine the methods to increase
4. ICTA should promote the use of technology.
5. ICTA should promote regional rural development.
Article 19 refers to the operations or functions mentioned below which imply general objectives.
1. Research and studies related to agriculture.
2. Programs of training and promotion directed toward the application of results
obtained from research.
3 Formulate and propose academic programs for the formation of scientific personnel
4. Intei change of information and materials related to research, and,
5 In addition those necessary for the proper function of the Institute allowed within the
spirit of the law establishing ICTA
In addition, Article 19 says that the Instituteof Agricultural Science and Technology is the public governmental ) institute responsible for generating and promoting the use of science and technology in its respective sector This assigns large responsability to ICTA. While other institutions are not excluded form these activites, since the law reads "the institute" it is clear that ICTA cannot evade this responsibility,
The law implies that the action of ICTA towards technology is direct, saying that "le corresponde investigar". while with reference to the application or use the tecnology ICTA's responsibility is to promote its use.
This leads to the interpretation that ICTA has a direct responsibility for creating, identifying generating technology, testing it under conditions where it will be used and adapting it to these same conditions. ICTA has further decided that it must know the results of the technology when in the hands of farmers, when managed by the agriculturist. With regard to transfer of technology, ICTA's responsibility is to promote its use, but who conducts the action of transfer is not stated. ICTA is not excluded as an instrument of direct transfer, ICTA has made the interpretation that while it is not necessarily responsible for the action of transfer it is responsible for studying transfer strategy and logistic (transfer systems), that ICTA must assure itself that the technology is transferable, must know how the farmer evaluates the tecnology, and must accept that the degree of transfer which can be obtained is a important measure of the value of the technology (for Guatemalan agriculture). The transfer obtained has usually been a measure of the success of tlhe extension service.
Since the purpose, of ICTA seeks to correct the deficiencies of the traditional system with the objective of increasing production, it has been important to identify the defects of the prior organizations In general it is believed that major faults lay in the fractionated-steps of (1) identifying the problems of the farmer, (2) identifying and developing technology, (3) testing of technology at the farm level and adapting it to farmers' conditions, (4) evaluating the technology when, managed by farmers, (5) evaluating the acceptance of the technology and (6) the general promotion of its use, along with assurance of availability of inputs and services.
The traditional system had only two steps which were research to determine the potential of a given technology, this usually under favorable conditions, and the extension service, with these two activities managed by separate groups.
Furthermcr, research has failed for the small farmer because:
1. The researcher has not taken into consideration the problems of the small farmer
and' his systems of farming.
2. The ,researcher is not competent as an agriculturist as practised by the small
3. The researcher has not tested the technology at the farm level, under conditions of
the small farmer, because he has not mastered his system, and has not truly felt the
responsibility to do so.
4. Acceptance by the small farmer has not been a part of the evaluation of the
* technology, and,
5. No workable system has been found to bring about sufficient dialogue and
communication between researchers and extension agents when separated into two
Likewise, extension has failed for the small farmer
1. Because adequate technology has not been available and recommendations
given by the extension agent are taken from a book, a folder, or the classroom.
2. Because the extension agent has not worked with the farmer to compare the
traditional varieties and practices with new technology before recormmending it.
3. Because the new technology is presented to the farmer as demonstration in
which the farmer has no confidence.
4. Because the extension agent has not mastered first hand the practices of the
farmer, nor on the other hand does he know what the researcher worker is doing.
5. Because the evaluation of the work of the extension agent b~ag been based on
quantifying activities and not based upon his effect upon production,
Technology development and transfer. The general objectives of ICTA have not been changed during the first two years of operation. The policies and philosophy have been modified slightly, and the strategy of work has passed through a "controlled evolution". The idea is to maintain a good degree of flexibility, with considerable opportunity for innovation at the regional or project level, but not allow changes to result in chaos.
ICTA thought from the beginning (1) that the steps mentioned previously (page 17) should not be separated one from the other, (2) that the quality of the work depends on the capacity of the personnel, their training, their dedication and adequate logistic support and (3) due to limited resources, human, economic and physical, as well as limited administrative capacity, that it is important to focus upon those areas of work most important in order to make an impact upon production, and that the efforts should not be diluted by academic interest or activities of low priority.
Parallel with the evolution of policy and philosophy, the identification of priorities, a basic strategy has been developed illustrated in the Diagram 1, for the development and transfer of technology. ICTA believes that all of these steps are important, but also recognizes that
these are flexible, can be applied with modifications, and is certainly willing to accept change when justified. The number of the paragraphs which follow immediately correspond to the numbers in parentheses in the diagram.
1. The identification of the problems of the farmer and an understanding of his
system and practices, and to the point possible the reason for them, is the first step on the part of the technician (agronomist). For example, under the old system of research crop varieties had been selected, testing them only under favorable conditions, or perhaps only under highly favorable conditions without recognizing and understanding the problems and conditions of the small farmer. During several years fertilization of beans was studied in monoculture, while 70 percent of the beans produced are cultivated in association with maize- (10) Therefore, it is the policy of ICTA to give emphasis to
the understanding of the system of the farmer, in order to correctly focus the research.
At this stage it is important to try to judge whether or not the problem can be solved
by technology, and if so what should be the priority given to it.
Also, many problems will cede to the scientific attack, but one must ask with what period of time and at what cost. We have the technological backstopping of international
centers and universities where it is very possible the problem should be studied.
When the problem is not technical such as poor markets, lack of credit, or lack of inputs, the technician (agronomist) should not remain silent, because if there is coordination
within the agricultural sector ICTA can, institutionally, make the problem known.
2. Once the problem is described, and a decision made to try to improve it with
technology, the technician has the facilities of the Production Centers (experiment stations), the collaboration of the regional or zonal Project for Testing Technology, the
backstopping of many other professional contacts, including the international centers.
The technician has the responsibility of developing his technological work at an intensity
in agreement with the priority given to the problem.
3. If the effort to develop a technology is successful the next step is to try it, to
test it at the farm level, and not only on the best farms, the best land It is important to know the potential of a variety or a technique under favorable conditions but it is also even more important to evaluate the variety under conditions of reality for the farmer. Preferably the same technician who developed the technology should do this testing. In this manner he will know the behavior of his technology, he will have to
learn to use it under farmer conditions, he will learn its weaknesses, and will learn more
about the problems of the farmer. These are designated farm experiments.
4. The farmer himself should test the technology, and hopefully compare it with
his own technology (Farmer's tests). With the participation of the farmer it is possible to test the technology over larger areas, under a wider range of conditions, and results used to refine the technology. Also the farmer's test can serve to introduce (also the farm experiments) a new practice into an area. If the farmers collaborators are well selected this can be the "prueba de fuego" (critical test) for the technology under test.
It should be possible to collect a large amount of useful data and information with
this system. 1/
5. It is to be expected that the farmer's trials will give favorable results- Therefore,
it is important to have taken the steps to assure the availability of the necessary inputs, so that he can use the new technology if he chooses to do so. Hopefully he will wish to do so. Availability of seeds of improved varieties definitely needs attention. There is the risk that seed will be produced that the farmer does not wish to use, but it must be done, because on testing a new variety and the farmer decides to use it, he will be discouraged if seed is not available. In the case that the new variety does not prove out
as well under farmer conditions as anticipated, seed can be sold as grain
1/ ICTA pay- for all of the -iputs fo, the farm expe-,mc n!5. But the farmer ,, paying fo,
the inputs for farmer's te t Thui, the fawme- is pa tpatcyng in the tost of adaptzng
technology to hzs conditions-
Reviewing Plans of Action:
Work conducted by the different Programs is periodically reviewed in order to orient it towards the needs and objectives of the Institute: Maize Program technicians at a work session with the Directors of ICTA.
D(SaRROLLO Y TRaNSF(KN(la aGRICOLA
POLITICAL N A C 10 N A L JACC I ON DEL SECTOR ORGANIZATION Y POLITICAL
ENT AR -LOS PROBLEMS DEL AGRICULTURE Y JUZGARR COMO LA
0 r nC P BL C(I
DE I V Tj( PODI
PREPARATION DE INVESTIGATION PODRIA CW
Aim"Am"To ORIENTACION 2) IDENTIFICAR Y/O DESARROLLARI
TECNOLOGIA EN CENTERS Y FINCAS
PROBAR TECNOLOGIA A NIVEL DE FINCA EXPERIMENTSO)
F RICULTORES PRUEBAN TE OLSOM CONSLUA CON TECNI
A U AUMEN SEMIL[A-__]
ASEGURAR INSUMO S ETComocloN PRODUCTION COMERCIO
0 (3 PT
aENCiA Y TECNOLDGIA AGRCOLAS SECTOR PUKJCO
This also applies to other inputs.
6. if the five steps above are successful, the new technology should be introduced
into programs of technology transfer that cover as large an area as possible. The technology should be continuously evaluated based upon its effect on production, the
net income to farmers and its general acceptation.
ICTA has organized three projects for testing technology which will be explained
further under Projects and Activities. These are technology transfer or production projects conducted within specific areas, on specific crops as the target crops. Even though DIGESA is the agency of the government responsible for conducting such programs on a country-wide basis, it is important for ICTA to conduct technology transfer at the farm level on a scale sufficiently large in order to evaluate the technology, including its acceptance by farmers.
ICTA is also working with two privately organized groups to introduce and test technology at the farm level. Since the private organization is responsible for the work with farmers, and ICTA only serves as the source of technology and as the technological backstop, the cost of such programs is low. This system promises to be highly effective. It will be discussed later.
Expansion and extension of transfer projects or activities in Guatemala should be given
high priority. At this time ICTA should consider the expansion of transfer projects along two lines:
1. The extension, or expansion of the Test of Technology zonal projects, and,
2. The promotion of the use of technology through other groups, especially the
official agencies and already organized rural groups such as mentioned on page 19
The present Projects for Testing Technology, which are rather small production projects of limited size, are far from sufficient to meet the needs of the country. It is important that in these projects, a strategy be developed which can be extended to other areas, whether directly
by ICTA or by other agencies.
The extension of a given production project to an adjacent or neighboring area should be possible at less cost and be effective in less time because some of the same technology should be relevant and useful, even of direct application, and some personnel will already have been trained in the area to serve as the nucleus of the group for the new area.
It is important to test, probe, and gain experience in the transfer of technology, but also in the expansion of a successful strategy to a new area. Nothing should be left to change that can be effectively and rapidly checked. As in the case of the transfer of technology, the method of testing the expansion of production projects is to carry out the expansion on a scale sufficiently large so that the results can be analized, interpreted and evaluated. This can be done with ICTA still meeting the needs only of a very small part of the country.
ICTA must recognize that in order to meet the needs of the country directly with their own programs, the institutional growth in order to meet such a goal would be very great and take time. Neither would such a strategy be in agreement with the policy of the government for the agricultural sector.
ICTA, as mentioned previously, must have a direct action program for transfer of technology (Projects for Testing Technology) but if ICTA, over the long run, is to have a major responsibility for direct transfer, it has not been decided. It will be important for the government to study the problem, and define a policy. But a precipitous decision should not be made and a plan should be based upon results obtained under different systems which at present exist. ICTA should contribute to the development of this policy in a major fashion.
There is always the problem of sufficient personnel, adequate budget and the overall logistical problems. Abrupt major changes would probably not be efficient,-and a plan of transition should be made for developing new agricultural production projects with small farmers. Perhaps ICTA should concentrate a major part of its resources and limited number of prepared (trained) personnel in training programs for production projects.
In the meantime, ICTA should continue its Projects for Testing Technology (Production
Projects), and also take action to assure that information reaches the individuals and the groups of people, both government and private, that can use it.
In this case of indirect transfer of technology, the acceptability is jut a important as in the cae of farmers. It is important that the attitude of ICTA not offend these receptor groups, that the information and the technology be easily understood, ICTA should define a strategy, methods and systems to effect such transfer, deviating from traditional methodology when indicated.
ICTA should take under consideration different methods such as:
1. Short courses
4. Work sessions or clinics,
ICTA should take the initiative to seek the groups, to make the contacts, notjust wait until a request is received. ICTA should consider this as a mean of advancing their own programs toward meeting their objectives. Very little of this has been done, but the reasons for this can be explained.
ICTA feels that the programs should remain flexible. If the programs as designed at
present do not result in a satisfactory technology with effective transfer, the programs should be modified. The programs should be sufficiently flexible to take advantage of what is learned through experience, evaluation and feedback of information from the farm. The time, and the creditability, lost in uneffective programs which could not be turned around, given a new direction, or modified rapidly has been a major drawback to technological transfer. Furthermore, with time farmers will be learning and the manner of working with them can be modified; hopefully will reduce the time for acceptance of new technology.
The clients of highest priority of ICTA are the small and medium sized farmers. The large farmers are not excluded, but they are not sought out, as prospective clients.
ICTA has not defined what is a small or medium sized farmer. The largest average size farms with which ICTA is working today is 20 hectares, at La Maquina. DIGESA uses 28 hectares and down as medium and small. For the time being, ICTA accepts this as a guide.
DEVELOPMENT VS. PRODUCTION
ICTA is profoundly interested in the wellbeing of the rural population but ICTA's prime responsibility is to increase production. This increase in production will not take place unless new technology necessary to increase production is economically favorable. The country needs food in increasing amounts, and the increased production can serve as a stronger economic base for development. In this manner the rural areas can contribute to the costs of their development.
Rural development is a process more complex than increased production; in agreement with the National Planning Office the goal is production. The production effort, to be successful, will put the rural people in contact with people from outside of their region, should improve communications, and can contribute to development in this manner.
A POLICY FOR INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAM EXPANSION
The objective of ICTA is not to develop itself, but to develop sound programs. It should not seek institutional development and then look for programs.
The principal components of institutional development are trained personnel, physical facilities, and financing. While programs cannot be carried out without these components, these should be justified on specific program planning.
Many laboratories have been constructed aj#d equipped without adequate personnel, without budget and without a plan of work, believing that the laboratory is development when it is nothing more than a structure. This should be avoided.
ICTA must grow, .but growth can cause stagnation. Therefore, it is important to be dynamic but cautious, -aggressive -but -discrete and diplomatic, have faith but demand facts. Likewise, ICTA must spend money but in a justifiable manner, must believe in itself and its programs without being egoistical. ICTA must respect tradition, be competent in modem technology and act for the future.
At this time ICTA is developing a five-year plan. While the first- draft of this should be finished within a matter of weeks, additional study will be necessary, before discussing it with the National Planning Office.
Programs must change with time, a fact which must be recognized by the technicians of ICTA and the administration. At times the modification should be accompanied by expansion. For example, -the soils work has been focused principally upon fertility and soil testing. Now it seems logical to give more attention to soil management, soil conservation, crop rotation, associated and multiple cropping, fertilizer use and water conservation. The Meditierranian fruit fly has_ recently appeared in Guatemala. The objective of the horticultural programs must be reviewed. Maize as a crop is 10 times larger than any other crop and very little technology is used in highland corn production. Should not the efforts of ICTA be expanded with the objective of making highland corn more productive?
The expansion of -the programs to give major attention to additional crops must be carefully considered. Basic, grains should receive first attention, but- the -institute also recognizes that other tropical crops can contribute to food production and rural development. The problems facing bean production might be alleviated if other pulses and'soybeans could be substituted. The Guatemalan diet is not high in energy and yuca is good possibility for food as well as industrialization. Additional emphasis should be given to rice production in order to lower its price to consumer and alleviate the demand for corn. Horticultural crops can become much more important both for local consumption and export, but again grains should receive a h ig her priority and within ICTA the chaotic situation which can easily occur when many such crops are studied must be avoided. Industry should develop any major export enterprises.
In considering new crops it is important not to allow academic, professional or group interests to unduly affect the decision.
The expansion of production programs and increased production through other means of increasing the application of technology should be given major consideration, as contrasted with increasing the number of crops under study.
No one is indispensable but the institute's success will depend-upon people.
The world has seen that agricultural technology, poorly managed, in the developing countries can be costly without making a contribution to food production and the wellbeing of the rural people.
ICTA needs highly trained personnel, but at the same time they must be oriented tO the application of technology under conditions of the small farmer. ICTA should not limit nor commit itself to one kind of training. Graduate studies are important but it is also important to take advantage of other kinds of training programs such as the production training in CIAT and CIMMYT. A production training course will be given by ICTA in Guatemala in 1976. (See Annex A.)
The external aid received by ICTA has been modest but very inpatant Tlns -aid has
arrived mainly y in the form of donations and has been used principally to obtain the services of foreign technicians, for scholarships and technical support through the international centers.
ICTA recognizes the value of this aid, especially during the first stages of developing programs and to establish institutional and professional contacts which serve as an important base for the long run interchange of genetic materials and professional dialogue and training.ICTA understands that it cannot always have this help available. In the use of foreign aid to obtain professionals from other countries, they have been integrated into the programs, are not advisers, and do not develop satellite programs which will be dropped when they leave.
It is important to maintain relations with international and foreign organizations and play a role as a member of the international scientific community. This is important to assure that important information and the up-to-date technology are received in Guatemala. It is importAnt that ICTA not only receive but must also contribute.
The United States Agency for International Development (AID), The Rockefeller
Foundation, and the Centro Intemacional, de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), (see Financing) have been the principal foreign contributors to ICTA, but also other organizations have made important contributions to the new institute, such as CIMMYT, Cornell University, Michigan State University North Carolina State University, the Government of Spain, the Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The U.S. Peace Corps, Texas A&M University, and Utah State University. Contacts have been made with a good many other organizations, which overall have clearly been beneficial to ICTA.
Official documentation will probably not reflect any special or unique relationship of USAID/Guatemala with ICTA, but that agency, especially through its personnel in Guatemala, has contributed much, in addition to what the records probably will reflect. Their stand willingness to help the new institute began before its establishment and has continued. Technical foreign personnel funded by AID have been integrated into ICTA and have carried major loads of responsibility directly under the ICTA administration.
The Rockefeller Foundation collaborated early in the establishment of ICTA and then continued support through CIAT. They furnish technicians both directly and through CIAT, and give scholarship and training support.
The case of CIAT deserves special mention. Their contributions have been largely, but not exclusively, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. An agreement was signed between CIAT and the Ministry of Agriculture of Guatemala, before the institute was established, This agreement simply states that CIAT will give technological support to the new institute within the capabilities of CIAT, taking into account availability of financing. This agreement also serves as the formal basis for locating CIAT personnel in Guatemala to work in ICTA. ICTA thus became an "outreach" program of CIAT, and ICTA has received major technological support. In this manner, ICTA became one of the first new organizations which was structured, and
whose programs developed, based upon such a relationship with an international center, and thus ICTA has not developed the biological disciplines such as genetics, entomology and plant pathology, has not developed the research programs in an academic manner, and has relied upon CIAT for strong technological backstopping. CIAT has accepted ICTA as a direct technological responsibility, and ICTA has felt "comfortable" and has not hesitated in requesting specific aid from CIAT.
ICTA also is developing closer relations with CIMMYT. The wheat program of the Ministry of Agriculture, over the years has had close relationship with CIMIMIYT which has continued. To a certain degree the same is true for the corn program, but here better working relationships are developing, probably due to the greater capability of ICTA to use what the CIMMYT corn program has to offer. National organization, strength and capability is basic in order to use to good advantage what international organizations can offer.
National institutions do not always understand what a foreign or international institution can offer, how it is offered, and what the relationship should be. The written agreement with CIAT has served as a green light to develop the relationships with CIAT needed to "get the job done".
Such an agreement should not be necessary to work with international organizations but perhaps it is an effective mechanism in developing close working relations. It is a manner of saying, on. the part of the international organization, that we are willing to help, and on the part of the national program, that the door is open.
International agreements are often too formal, cumbersome, and time consuming. In the case of ICTA, the law establishing the institute, foresees this problem with the provision that ICTA can sign agreements with national and international organizations, with the approval of its Board of Directors, and in such cases the foreign personnel would have the rights and privileges accorded to personnel of international organizations under Guatemalan law. The peronnel assigned to ICTA by CIAT come under this provision.
ORGANIGRAMA DEL SECTOR PUBLICO AGRICOLA
9____ I I
-- -- -- -
R G A N I G_ R A M -A I C TA
AUDITORIA ASESORIA JURIDICA
SE6RETARIA GENERAL --FRELACIONES PUBLICASA
UNLOAD DE SERVICIOS
AID MINI STRATIVOS Y LNIDAD TECNICA DE PRODUCTION, UNIDAD DE PROGRAMACION
FRIJOL .2 E S T U D 1 0 3
PERSONAL Y AUXILIARIES E 0
LOGISTICAL 0 cc TRIGO 0 ol P R 0 0 R A MACON
0 -cc E 0 ARROZ
SERVICIOS FINANCIERS 0- 0 0 2 E V A L U A C16]N'
a U).!2 SORGO a..
CAJA E 'j; t (n E
PRESUPUESTO HORTALIZAS a 0
CONTAI PORCINOS v
SOYA-- -AJONJOLI a..
F T -7
REGION I REGION Ilylli REGION IV REGION V REGION*Vl_ REGION VII
COORDINATOR COORDIRADOR COORDINATOR
CENTRO DE PRODUCTION CENTERS DE PRODUCTION CENTERS DE PRODUCTION CENTRO DE PRODUCTION CENTERS DE PRODUCTION
........ .. ON ON]
LABOR OVALLE CUYUTA Y CHIMALTENANGO Y JUTIAPA EL OASIS Y
PRUEBA DETECNOLOGIA L A MAQUINA SAN JERONIMO- PRUEBA DE TECNOLOGIA CRISTINA
PRUEBA DE TECNOLOGIA
........... V X
Z JEjecucion Regionalizoda. Uniclad de Programoci6n Sep,/ 1975.-
ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
With the organization of ICTA, the agricultural sector of the government was as shown in Diagram II. The only change since this time is the organization of INAFOR, which absorbed CETEFOR, as a decentralized forestry institute.
The dotted lines indicate decentralized agencies, with their own board of directors, the chairman of the board being in each cas the Minister of Agriculture.
INTA, agrarian transformation institute, operates directly under the presidency of the country.
DIGESA, solid line in the diagram, is not decentralized. THE STRUCTURE OF ICTA
The organization of ICTA is illustrated in Diagram II.
As a decentralized institute of the Governmental Agricultural Sector, it has a board of directors, whose president is the Minister of Agriculture.
In addition to the Minister of Agriculture, other members are the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Economics, the Secretary for National Planning, the Dean of Agriculture of San Carlos University and one citizen at large named by the other members of the board.
The heads of the other decentralized institutes of the Sector and the head of INTA, are permanent advisers to the board, and are usually invited to the sessions of the board, which meets about once a month.
The technical activities are carried out within the Technical Unit for Production. There are National Programs for the major crops, headed by a Coordinator. Disciplines are not
programs but activities focused upon the commodities and production programs through the Projects for Testing Technology.
ICTA is using the same system of regionalization as DIGESA and the rest of the Sector. The Regional Director is also Head of the Zonal Project for Testing Technology, these being the main activities in the regions. The Production Center (experiment station) within a region with a Regional Director has a station director responsible to the Regional Director. All other activities in a region, including the projects of the national commodity programs are under the Regional Director.
As of May 1, 1975, the personnel of the Institute were:
Office of the Director General, Administrative Services and Planning had: 1 Ph.D.,
2 M. S,, 9 University Graduates and 14 Peritos (Secondary level education); The Technical Unit had: 5 Ph.D., 10 M.S., 49 University Graduates and 30 Peritos.
Of the previously mentioned personnel, 4 Ph. D. and 3 Agronomists are foreign, the remainder is Guatemalan.
ICTA rents headquarters office space in Guatemala, 1200 square meters, fifth floor, Galerias Espafta: 7a. Avenida 11-59, Zona 9. Also within Guatemala there is the laboratory for soils analysis; still located in La Aurora, Zona 13.
Other physical facilities are the Production Centers (experiment stations) located as shown in Map. I. This map also shows the Regional divisions. The Centers are described in the sections of this report under the Technical Unit for Production.
With the exception of two, the centers are small, as they should be since much of the
work must be done off station on farmer's land. Some also serve as regional headquarters.
Most of the centers need considerable improvements in order to be more useful.
A small seed handling facility will be mounted at Barcenas, where there presently exists some seed equipment and storage.
It is proposed that additional facilities such as laboratories be built but only when justified, based on their contribution to production. FINANCING AND BUDGET
As of July 31, 1975, ICTA had spent the following funds of the Guatemalan Goverment:
1973 $ 697,485
1975 to July 31 1,226,657
TOTAL: $ 3,484,732
The budget for 1975 is: $ 2,595,167*
Financing has been adequate. Grant funds from foreign sources have been used almost exclusively to contract and support foreign personnel. Such funds have not been used to facilitate purchasing of equipment or to support ongoing operations, despite the fact that governmental controls and required procedures are at best cumbersome. This policy has been upon the need to foresee the future when no flexible funds are available and that now is the time
* This includes $ 185,000 loan funds from AID.
to learn how to operate the institute strictly under Guatemalan rules. Progress has been good and more effective, administrative procedures have been adopted, especially for purchases and sales.
Foreign donations are being used:
AID about $ 200,000 a year
RF/CIAT about $ 200,000 a year. This is an estinmted figure. (This is both direct
from RF and also through CIAT.)
Anticipated additional funds: AID $100,000 peryear
BID $ 600,000 over a three year period, $ 410,000 for seed programs and $ 190,000
for local training program.
THE TECHNICAL UNIT FOR PRODUCTION
The activities of the technical unit began in May of 1973 with a technical personnel of 9 Ingenieros Agrbnomos and 11 Peritos Agr6nomos.
The first step which was taken consisted in changing the traditional organization of departments to a system of National Commodity Programs focused upon farming systems and oriented toward production. Discussions were held with each of the technicians and a work plan for 1973 was designed. CIAT personnel participated in many of these original plans. The first step strategy was to test and re-evaluate existing technology, in other terms, to screen available information and materials.
The following is a brief statement about the National Commodity Programs:
The Maize Program of ICTA has worked principally with materials brought from CIMMYT, having tested the most outstanding varieties including the opaque. As a result of the work conducted, it has been possible to obtain the ICTA-Tropical-101 hybrid and the C-11 variety, both of them to be used in the Pacific Coast of Guatemala. These varieties of maize have competed favorably with the best commercial varieties, and during the present year approximately 2,000 cwt. of seed of the ICTA-Tropical-101 variety were produced with collaborating farmers,
Several problems were confronted with the opaque varieties, especially due to the lightness of the ear and ear rot, but ICTA has now selected families that are considerably improved for these characteristics.
A weakness in the program continues to be the lack of varieties available in the Highlands. The best variety is a selection called San Marcefio.
The Maize Program has been reviewed by experts:
Dr. Edwin Wellhausen and Dr, Ernest Sprague of CIMMYT, and
Dr. Dale Harpstead of Michigan State and others, who have been of great help with their opinions.
Since the beginning, this program has been strongly related to the Program in CIAT. About 4,000 vareties brought from CIAT have been evaluated at this time, and selections have been made.
The program selected the varieties: Negro Jalpatagua, Cuilapa, San Pedro Pinula and Ipala. These varieties were submitted to tests in plots and in two occasions seed production was arranged with small farmers who produced 2,000 cwt. of seed in each case.
This seed has been disseminated in the Eastern region.
This program has also been closely coordinated with CIAT and has concentrated its efforts on the germplasm under local conditions. As a result, new varieties of CICA-4, CICA-6 and another new line, have been selected.
Further improvements have been made on the CICA-4 variety and approximatly 1,500 cwt. of CICA-4 and 100 cwt. of CICA-6 are now available for distribution.
This program has received material from CIMMYT and Texas A&M and as a result, it has obtained the varieties of Guatex rojo, Guatex blanco, Guatex enano and Guatecau. These varieties compete with the commercial hybrids.
This seed was distributed among the farmers, packed in small bags, and sold in the villages. Last year, ICTA sold 3 tons in 3 weeks, this evidently being an efficient manner of distribution.
The wheat program receives the germplasm from CIMMYT. All of its personnel has received training in that institution and we are sending a person every cycle for the cropping season, to obtain the material.
As a result of this, the varieties Gloria and Maya were obtained. Seed was quickly increased and approximately 2,000 cwt. has been placed in the hands of the farmers. Considerable differences between the commonly used and the new varieties showed up in field trials with small farmers.
This program is designed to take advantage of the irrigation districts to obtain products for export.
From the crops experimented with up to this time, garlic and melons seem to be the best selections for production and export.
In the case of melons, semi-commercial seed production has been carried out and a high quality product has been produced and exported. Profit to growers has been satisfactory. An important aspect is to give additional attention to irrigation which is essential for obtaining a high quality product.
This program is very recent and it is oriented towards assisting the small farmer and improving the swine production. It was initiated with simple recommendations and the
establishment of several small units with farmers. Up to the moment, the results have been satisfactory and are drawing the attention of the people. This program has also been reviewed by CIAT Swine specialists, and techniques and strategy improved.
Soybean production in Guatemala is essentially nil. Trials have shown that soybeans can be successfully grown in the lower areas of the country.
After screening several hundred lines Improved Pelican is the variety selected to study further this new crop possibility and to introduce it to farmers.
Other lines are showing promise of greater yields, but Improved Pelican has the advantage of availability of seed.
There is much interest in small farmers as well as the industrialists. Its category within ICTA will be raised to a national program for 1976.
A few other miscellaneous crops, such as cowpea, are being studied for possible introduction on a large scale.
ICTA has eight production centers (experiment stations) for developing technology (See Map I)
Center Location Hectares Principal crops
Labor Ovalle Quezaltenango 21 Maize, wheat,potatoes
Cuyuta Cuyuta 220 Maize, sesame, cowpea,
soybeans, rice, sorghum
La Maquina La MAquina 15 Maize, sesame, cowpea,
soybeans, rice seed
Chimaltenango Chimaltenango 21 Maize, garlic, potatoes,
San Jeronimo San Jeronimo 40 Maize, beans, horticulture
Jutiapa Jutiapa 14 Beans, sorghum, maize,
El Oasis Zacapa 164 Horticulture, beans,
Cristina Cristina 10 Rice
"Our father is corn"- a quote
The ancestral crop corn, is the most important harvest for the sustenance of rural Guatemalans.
SECTOR PUBLIC AGRICOLA
fENTROS DE PRODUCTION ICTA
D 2 5
I CTA INSTITI DE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGIA AGRICOLAS Sector Publico Agricola Guatemolojulio 1975 CENTERS DE PRODUCTION A- LABOR OVALLE F SAN JERON IMO B LA MAQUINA G JUTIAPA C NLIEVA CONCEPCION H,- EL OASIS D' CHIMALTENANGO I IZABAL E CUYUTA
Early in the work of ICTA it became clear, that not only would adequate supply of high quality seed of good varieties be important but that the national commodity programs were not organized nor trained to produce even the minimal quantities of the basic seed needed. Also it became immediately evident that there was no seed industry in Guatemala that would assure adequate supplies of seed.
The commodity programs worked hard to help in a difficult situation and the Technical Production Unit with the commodity programs, in cooperation with the Production Centers, produced appreciable quantities of seed, demonstrating considerable imagination and capacity for innovationFor example, four varieties of beans were quickly selected for seed increase; but they were also contaminated with seed transmitted disease. CIAT, in a crash program, was able to furnish ICTA with small quantities of clean seed of these varieties, by producing in the greenhouse, in time for August seeding in Guatemala for (1973) initial seed increase. Then was seeded again by farmers under an unconventional arrangement, whereby ICTA furnished seed and fertilizer to farmers at San Mattas, an area traditionally dedicated to onions, bears, etc., under irrigation, in January during the dry season. This seed was available for the first and second plantings in May and again in August of 1974. The farmers paid ICTA for the seed and fertilizer with beans and also sold to ICTA much of the remaining seed for a price negotiated at the time of harvest. In 1975 (January) the same general procedure was used, with some improvements, such as paying farmers is cash.
While these kind of procedures got the work with farmers off to a good start, the system had several defects such as insufficient equipment for handling and storage. It was evident that ICTA did not have enough trained personnel. Part-time dedication to the overall sed problems was not enough.
On March 3,1975 the Seed Program was established with its own personnel, in order to focus more effectively on this important input for production.
The commodity programs continue to produce small quantities of seed and collaborate with the ICTA seed program.
The Seed Program has as its role to:
1. Determine what should be the seed program within ICTA;
2. Determine the facilities and personnel that are necessary in order for ICTA to
carry out its determined role;
3& Take initiative in developing a seed policy and program for Guatemala, in
collaboration with other agencies and private industry.
4. Do all possible so that lack of seed will not be a deterent to increased production,
and that seed as an input is used to fullest advantage.
5. Be responsible for that part of the national seed program assigned to ICTA.
Until the national seed policy and program is further developed, the ICTA seed program is doing all possible to assure adequate amounts of the best known varieties for use within the areas of concentration of ICTA, and collaborating with other agencies, such as DIGESA, in the manner which is deemed most logical,
Areas of work, which are not commodities, but deemed important for agricultural production, are not considered national programs, but as activities or disciplines oriented around one or more national commodity programs or the projects for testing technology. In some cases, the technician is assigned directly to a commodity program and there is no national coordinator for that discipline. In other cases there is a national coordinator for a discipline. Soil management and socio-economics are two examples of the latter case.
ICTA is aware of the great importance of high capacity and capability in certain disciplines ICTA as a technological institute must be responsible for bringing to bear upon production technology the knowledge and knowhow which is most important, both those disciplines which are considered specifically agronomic and others as well such as the social sciences. In Diagram III, under the Unidad T6cnica de Producc16n, these areas or disciplines are written vertically while the national commodity programs are written horizontally
The disciplines of socio-economics are the newest but the most developed of the non-agronomic disciplines. The work of the group is integrated with the agronomic groups. The interest of ICTA in the social sciences is based on their possible contributions to the efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural production. The work of the social science group is focused upon:
1. The micro economics of the systems presently in use by the small farmer;
2. An analytic function to assure that the recommended practices are ecormically
favorable for the farmer;
3. Detecting and identifying the desires and needs of the small farmer with the
objective of making the research more efficient and the transfer of technology to
the farmer more effective.
4. Contributing to the feedback of information from the field to the commodity
programs and to the administration, and
5. Participating in the evaluation of the institutional projects.
Other possible disciplines should be included when the possibilities of their
contributions are sufficient to justify them.
PROJECTS FOR TESTING TECHNOLOGY
ICTA area projects. The need for ICTA to be directly involved at the farm level was set forth in the section of this report on Strategy, Philosophy and Objetives. Early in the organization of ICTA three areas were selected where ICTA would concentrate work with farmers. These consist of three geographical areas, each different in their ecology and the ethnic groups of their populations,
In each of the three areas, target crops were selected. The plan is to work with these crops according to the farming systems of the area. The work would be a direct extension of the work of the national commodity programs.
Areas Target crops
Highlands, around Quezaltenango, Maize and wheat. Secondary crops
covering about 8,000 hectares with are beans, potatoes, and other
perhaps 15,000 families. commonly grown in the region.
Pacific Coastal plain at La MAquina, Maize. Secondary crops are sesame,
covering an area of 24,000 hectares rice, cowpea, soybeans.
with 1,200 families.
Eastern Guatemala, around Jutiapa, Beans, sorghum and maize. -Secondary
the area is large, perhaps 100,000 crop is rice.
This field work was started by the national commodity programs, but in order to cover greater areas, intensify the work by increasing the number of farm experiments and farmer's test and assure that the target crop were being tested under farmer's conditions, all the work in each of the three areas were put under the direction of a Coordinator. The purpose of this arrangement is to bring about greater participation of technicians, that have a direct relationship with commodity programs, in the field testing and also assure the reflection of the results of the field work in the commodity program efforts.
The location of these three Projects for Testing Technology are indicated on Map II. Maps III, IV and V show more details of the areas of the three projects.
Summary of work in the three Pr4ects for Testing Technology 1975
Kind of Trial Farm Experiments Farmer's Trials
Weed effect 3
Date of seeding 4
Insect control foliage 3
Insect control sod 7
SUB-TOTAL 48 20
Weed effect 3
Date of seeding 3
Insect control soil 6
Rice on Chicaj soil 2 3
Kind of Trial Fe rm Experiments Farmer's Trials Total
Sorghum -- 1
SUB-TOTAL 33 29 ----TOTALS 81 49 130
Maize 34 20
Wheat 17 35
Potatoes 3 10 ....
TOTALS 54 65 119
Agronomic Practices 94
Soybeans -- 24 ---TOTALS 94 240 334
Projects for Testin* Techwlo*
SECTOR PUBLIC AGRICOLA
CENTRES DE PRODUCCION ICTA
Highland Project. 2
0 %4., %- .0..,w 2
I 3r4 ;;:b-'r'
3 0 %3E3 %'.
ip, D e 2
Pacific As #-%.
4A plain ?astai X 3
C oJect Easte
0 1 / *E oject
INSTITUTE DE CIENCLA Y TECNOLIDGIA AGRICOLAS
Sector PukAico Agricdo Gmtenwigjidio 1975
CENTRIDS DE PRODUCTION A LABOR OVALLE F SAN JERONIMO 8- L A MAQUINA 6 JUTIAPA C NUEVA CONCEPCION H EL OASIS
0 CHIMALTENANGO I IZABAL E CUYUTA
Map .V..Eastern Project for Testing Technology 1975
AREAS DE ACCION SUR ORIENTE- REGION ~
Area cubierta por dl Equipo de Produccio'n del ICTA en Jutiapa
Superfidie cubierta 120,000 Has.
@ 01 0)
@ & A
Not: Te nmbes bsid th sybol
indicat the3 nubro3~til
in eac ara
4ASUA SLANA EN RIJO
TYUIPQUE [ C ARCEA DPRAEN MAI
ISAJEREZ MI PARCELS E A RRILJ0SOY
Work in the Pacific Coast
"Different strategies in the testing and transfer of technology, as well as studies to evaluate economic feasability, are used by ICTA at La Maquina, over an area of 24,000 hectares", is explained by Ing. Carlos Crisostomo, Head of the Team on the Pacific Coast.
VOMUM DE CENaA Y TECNOLOGIA AG400LAS
PROYECTO SE-T- 75
Sid Is* 4.8 1 *a. a 9 a 1 414, il -A
E= NWTROS BE RNCA
PARCCLAS D9 PMENA
CJWMJWWOS DJr IFINVA
Pacific Coastal Plain W 41
Project for Testing O"a"s 09"LOSIS n Inseam
wig a Jose. as a ".04 soft OWNWIN Vs.
"IF into CIAS
I ... "Istsess"Wess'- d-ww"
*man 4&aw limaillwalLe WRILS :lM*4
be bessse R
PL AINID' --se
ft Fw" ftofte "&Masi Folle M& 134Likes Ke 4 do so is boisa"I" Co-.L
volo-o" a- AM&- -Y" $"Be OftffibGft PWSMGWMW MAGMA P; 4W
A 4LOO Oa- 76f Cob 4 M& alft"Vo.
Farming Systems are being studied in the Highlands
Farmers in the cool climates use many unique farming practices to assure the food supply with a minimum of risk. ICTA technicians headquartered at the Center of Labor Ovalle look for productive innovations and alternatives.
AREA DE ACTION ALTIPLANO- REGION I T In Quez nango
Area cubierfa por el Equipo de Produccion de I C T A en Quez nango
Superficie cublerfa 8,000 Has.
0- CABECERA DEPARTMENTAL
0 CABECERA MUNICIPAL
0 ENSAYOS EN MAIZ
PARCEL DE PRUEBA EN MAIZ
EXPERIMENT DE PAPA
PARCEL DE PRUEBA DE PAPA
EXPERIMENT DE TRIGO
PARCEL PRUEBA DE TRIGO
UNIDAD DE PROGRAMACION- Agosto 75
ICTA is also collaborating with two privately organized groups, for testing and transfer of technology.
These two groups are World Neighbors at San Martin Jilotepeque and the Cooperativa Santa Lucia at Novillero (Map VI),
ICTA was seeking rural groups already organized, that were interested in using new technology, that could receive information and materials and test it with farmers, with the objectives of improving small farmer production. The other aspect was that the group would require practically no supervision.
The World Neighbor group works in an area of 12 communities with perhaps 1,200 or 1,500 families. World Neighbors has named a Perito Agr6nomo who heads the agricultural activities. He has one bilingual helper, and three farmer "extension agents" (barefoot agronomists) who work with farmers testing varieties and agronomic practices and through conferences. ICTA is paying the three farmers, not to work for ICTA, but to work with World Neighbors. A recent preliminary evaluation of this project by the ICTA Socioeconomic group carries the following information: (11)
FARMER'S TRIALS 1975
Potatoes Corn Wheat Beans Soybeans
Wenceslao Armira 25 30 2
Jos6 Cupertino Sunuc 5 1 32 15 2
Angel Maria Moreno 8 25 12 1
TOTAL 13 1 82 57 5
Comparisons of average yields with traditional technology and introduced technology
Previous New Increase in
Technology Technology 0/0
Corn 24 qq/mz 56 qq/mz 133
Beans 18 qq/mz 36 qq/mz 100
Wheat very few was 33 qq/mz
Potatoes nothing was 360 qq/mz
Source: Evaluation test of the Socioeconomic group of ICTA. July 1975. (11)
The Cooperative Santa Lucia is considered a progressive and successful organization with 1,200 families as members. The recent evaluation report of the ICTA Socio-Economics group presents the following information: Farmer's Trials 1974-1975
1974 20 15
1975 30 20
Recently ICTA has agreed to pay two farmers to work with the Perito Agr6nomo.
New strategy of action:
A local leader of the World Neighbors Program, trained by ICTA, transmits his recent experiences to a group of farmers at San Martin Jilotepeque. This dynamic of group has been used with success in the transfer of technology.
MAP V1 Collaboration with privately orgamzed rdr&l gmups.
SECTOR PUBLIC AGRICOLA
CENTERS, DE PRODUCTION.. ICTA
12 SIB *F, .02
A 'Vecino-s 'Uundiales W Dld I bors)
ta at' %3[- \
San 3 % ,
D e 2 3
INSTITUTE DE CENCIA Y TECNOLOGIA AGRICOLAS
Sector Publico Agricola Guatemola,]61io 1975 CENTERS DE PRODUCCION's A LA80R OVALLE F SAN JERONIMO 8- LA MAQUINA G JUTIAPA
C- NUEVA CONCEPCION H E L OASIS D CHIMALtENANGO I I Z ABAL E CUYUTA
Comparisons of average yields with traditional technology and new technology.
Previous New Increase
Technology Technology in 0/o
Corn 21 qq/mz 46qq/mz 104
Wheat 19 qq/mz 41 qq/mz 114
Potatoes 300 qq/mz 450 qq/mz 50
Source: Evaluation test of the Socieconomic group of ICTA. (10) July 1975.
Based on the results of the 15 farmers' testswith wheat in 1974, the Cooperativa Santa Lucia requested 5 tons of seed of the new variety "Gloria".
The evaluation of these two projects is highly favorable, and we may be setting a pattern for an effective system of transfer of technology, specially for the highlands of Guatemala.
At the present time, ICTA has requests from additional organizations for similar programs.
Summary of Technological Testing on Farms, 1975*
Group Farm Experiments Farm Trials Total
Eastern Guatemala 81 49 130
Highlands 54 65 119
Pacific Coast 94 240 334
World Neighbors -- 158 158
Cooperativa Santa Lucia 50 50
229 562 791
* Does not include trials by national commodity programs.
WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, AND HOW?
As this report is terminated, it is recognized that ICTA has not been fully described. In other words, the description is not complete.
The technical activities of ICTA, the backbone of the institute, have been given short treatment. But there are annual technical reports, and these will continue to be published.
The administration, the small library, publications, information, communications and public relations, have not even been mentioned. Relations with other organizations of the sector are highly important, as well as with the university, and with other institutes of Central America and those have not been treated here. All of these, and more, are important. Some are poorly developed and need attention, while others are being developed with interesting characteristics, They are not forgotten.
The errors that have been made, the slippage so to speak, could be discussed, along with a series of topics whose list alone is almost too long to be included here, not to mention discussing them. Such things as budgets, purchasing and sales, flexibility of administration; the logistics of transportation, gasoline and fertilizer; personnel policy and salaries, the coordination of national commodity programs with regional activities and decentralization; the development of physical facilities; the need for obje-ctive evaluation, and many more are subjects important.
The attempt here has been to present the sequence of events that led to the organization of ICTA as an official technological organization to increase food production in Guatemala, the policy and philosophy which has been developed, and a general description of the current activities of the institute.
It has not been the purpose of this report to discuss future programs. The institute during its first two years of operation has established a pattern which can serve as a solid base for future programs. The programs for 1976 have been written and a first draft of a five-year
Plan 1976-1980, is well advanced, to be presented to the board of directors of ICTA in September, 1975. ICTA is preparing this document with the belief that the basic approach or developing technology to serve farmers, and testing the technology on farms that represent the true conditions of production under which the small and medium sized farmer in Guatemala labors, is a good one. With the objectives of reaching a large number of farmers, ICTA must expand its activities and/or extend the work through other organizations.
(1) Apprpisal of Fertilizer Markets & Distribution Systems in Central America with Emphasis
on Stall Farmers. Prepared for the Agency for Internationfl, Development by John T.
Shields, Curtis L. Ahrens & H.B. Tatum. National Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle
Shoals, Alabama 35660.
(2) 11 Conso Agropecuario 1964. Direcci6n General de Estadistica. Guatemala. Adapted by
Hugo Soto, Unidad de Programaci6n, ICTA.
(3) Acciones 1970-1974. Sector PAblico Agricola. Ministerio de Agriculture, 1974.
(4) Crojologia de Eventos para la Estructuracift del Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnoloqj
Agr polas. Presentada en Is primer reuni6n de la Junta Directiva, Diciembre de 1
(5) Grupo de. Trabajo para la Creaci6n del Instituto Guatemalteco de Investigaci6n y
ProMoci6n Agricola, Enero 1971.
(6) Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Apricolas (Grupo de Trabajo II), Mayo 1971.
(7) Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas (Grupo de TrabAjo III), Junic, 1971.
(8) Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia. Agricolas ICTA. Proyecto de Establecimlento del
Institute. (Grupo de Trabajo IV)
(9) Ins#tuto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas (Grupo de Trabajo V), Marzo 1?74.
(10) 11 Censo Agropecuario 1964. Recopilado por Hugo Soto, Unidad de -Programaci6n,
(11) Eval aci& del Trabajo del Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas en la Cooperativa
Santa Lucia R.L., Departamento de Sololi y con el Programa.deNecinot Mundiales,
Dep4irtamento de Chimaltenango, Socioeconomia Rural, ICTA, Agosto 1975.
(12) AtlAs Nacional de Guatemala. Institute Geogrifico Nacional. Ministerio de
Comunicaciones y Obras Riblicas, Guatemala.
ANNEX "A" AL Ia. do JUNIO do 1975
BECABOS ESTUDIANDO FUERA
GUILLERMO CALDERON: Curso Comercializaci6n Internacional, Brasil
WERNERSCHMOOCK: Suelos, Chapingo, M.S.
Agosto 1973-Enero 1975 (FR) Actualmente se encuentra realizando Ia labor de tesis en Guatemala.
RAMIRO ORTIZ: Suelos, Chapingo, M.S.
Febrero 1975-Febrero 1976 (FR)
GILBERTO SANTAMARIA. Economic Agrfcola, ICA/Colombia, M.S.
Enero 1973-Junio 1975 (AID/ICTA)
RICARDO DEL VALLE: Entrenamiento T6cnico, CIAT 3 meses
Enero Abril 1975 (CIAT)
ROLANDO LARA: Curso de producci6n, CIAT 7 meses
Enero Agosto 1975 (ICTA)
CARLOS HERNANDEZ CAMPOLLO: Curso de Producci6n, CIAT 7 meses
Enero Agosto 1975 (ICTA)
DANILO GONZALEZ: Curso de Producci6n, CIAT 7 meses
Enero Agosto 1975 (ICTA)
RAUL MATHEU: Curso de Producc16n, CIAT 7 meses
Enero Agosto 1975.
OSCAR MARTINEZ: Curso de Producci6n, CIAT
Finalize en 1974, comisionado actualmente para impartir curses en CIAT. (CIAT)
MARCO A. DARDON: Curso de Mejoramiento de Matz
Mayo a Noviembre 1975 (CIMMYT) JUAN FRANCISCO GALVEZ: Curso de Mejoramiento de Maiz
Mayo a Noviembre 1975 (CIMMYT)
CARLOS FIGUEROA: Entrenamiento T6cnico, CIAT 3 meses
Enero Abril 1975 (CIAT)
PORFIRIO MASAYA: Ph. D. Frijol, Cornell
15 Agosto de 1974 (FR)
Al I o. do JUNIO do 1975
BECADOS CON STUDIOS TERMINADOS
FREDDY ALONZO: Entomolgia Frijol, Monterrey (FR)
CARLOS 0. ARJONA: Producci6n Trigo, Chapingo (FR)
OSCAR PAIZ ALFARO: Hcrticultura, Puerto Rico (AID)
GUILLERMO CALDERON: Administraci6n, INCAE/Nicaragua (AID)
ROBERTO RENE VELASQ.UEZ: Chapingo (AID)
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ: Chapingo (AID)
ROBERTO FONSECA: Equipo de Producci6n, CIAT (CIAT)
OSCAR A. MARTINEZ: Equipo de Producci6n, CIAT (CIAT/BID)
MARCO MALDONADO: Equipo de Producci6n, CIAT (CIAT/BID)
ALFONSO VELASGUEZ: Equipo de Producci6n, CIAT (ICTA)
RENE CASTAN-EDA-: Equipo de Producci6n, CIAT (ICTA)
ROLANDO AGUILERA: Frijol, CIAT (CIAT)
OSCAR LEIVA: Frijol, CIAT (CIAT)
EDGAR RIOS: Frijol, CIAT (ICTA)
SALVADOR CRUZ: Trigo, CIMMYT (CIMMYT)
CARLOS ALBUREZ: Arroz, CIAT (ICTA)
FREDDY ALONZO: Entomologia FrUol, CIAT (CIAT)
RAMIRO PAZOS, Producci6n de Arroz, CIAT (ICTA)
FELIPE PARDON: Papa, CIP (CIP)
EDNA DE MORALES: Bibliotecologia, CIAT (ICTA)
VALENTIN AZANON: Selecci6n de material de trigo, CIMMYT (ICTA)
MIGUEL A. HIGUEROS: Fitomejoramiento de Trigo, CIMMYT (ICTA)
3000awn fmam atom
PRECIPITATION MEDIA ANUAL Pirfado: 1931 1960
"Wit a It
WftnWAU smi JL 10
TEMPERATURE MEDIA ANUAL oc