ContentsForeword

A new instrument for Sharing Knowledge 1Mario SeixasAssitant Deputy Director Generaland Director of the Technical Cooperation Secretariat

Perspectives

Agribusinesses in the new millennium 3The major challenges are twofold

Miguel GarcíaDirector, Agribusiness Development, IICA

An alliance for greater productivity 8Science, technología and agriculture in Mesoamerica

Gustavo Saín and Jorge ArdilaDirectorate of Technology and Innovation, IICA

New responsabilities in the face of new challenges 15National Agricultural Health and Food Safety Services

Kevin Walker and Ana Marisa CorderoDirectorate of Agricultural Health and Food Safety, IICA

Finding answers for people in the countryside 19The territorial approach and rural development practice in Latin America

Adrián Rodríguez and Sergio SepúlvedaDirectorate of Sustainable Rural Development, IICA

Two tools to ensure a good harvest 25Educaction and Training, the engine for change in the rural milieu

Francois DagenaisDirectorate of Education and Training, IICA

Points of View

The challenges in store for agriculture in 2005 29Julio Hernández EstradaPolicies and Negotiations Unit, IICA

As the specialized agency of the Inter-AmericanSystem for the promotion of agriculture and ruralwell-being, IICA attaches strategic importance to thetask of creating, sharing and applying knowledge.

Access to information and knowledge, continuouslearning and the efficient use of resources andcommunication technologies are therefore amongthe Institute’s main endeavors.

The sharing of knowledge has become one of thechief services provided by the Institute. It is whathas led it to gradually modernize the technicalcooperation it provides through the use of variousinformation technology tools to profit fromexperience gained, facilitate the work of itsprofessionals and increase continuous exchangeamong countries.

Through the exchange and transfer of knowledge,we have been building a common base from whichthe Institute can deploy activities at all levels:national, regional and hemispheric.

A very important part of this process has been thedevelopment and strengthening of instruments usedto transfer information and knowledge, such as theIICA Web portal http://www.iica.int; Infoagro.NET;Intranet; videoconference centers; institutionallibraries; in-person and virtual discussion forums;the Agricultural Information and DocumentationSystem for the Americas (SIDALC); a variety ofelectronic bulletins; and virtual communities orthematic networks.

Today, the launching of COMUNIICA online,represents part of this effort. COMUNIICA online isan electronic medium for sharing knowledge onagriculture and rural life in the Americas. TheInstitute has a long and rich history in thepublication of specialized journals –one need onlymention the highly regarded Turrialba. Theappearance of the new COMUNIICA marks a secondstage, since some years ago, IICA published a journalbearing the same name, which was also technical.

In this challenging 21st century, COMUNIICA onlineseeks to promote knowledge of the strategicimportance of agriculture and rural life, not only foreconomic and social development, but also becauseof its contribution to democratic stability,governance and peace. Also, it seeks to foster anexchange of experiences and horizontal cooperationby providing information on successful projects.

COMUNICA online targets decision makers,specialists in governmental and non-governmentalorganizations, international and regionalcooperation, financial and research agencies,academia, farmers’ organizations, opinion makersand journalists in the mass and specialized media inother words, all those directly or indirectly associatedwith agriculture and rural life.

It will be published each quarter in Spanish andEnglish (four editions a year).

In this first edition, we present an overview of thedifferent challenges facing agriculture and rural lifefrom the perspective of IICA’s areas of focus.

We would like to have your opinion on this newinstitutional initiative, which we are most pleased tomake available to you. Please contact me atmario.seixas@iica.int or the Editor-in-Chief atpatricia.leon@iica.int.

2

A new instrumentfor Sharing Knowledge

Foreword

Mario Seixas

Assistant Deputy Director General and Director of the TechnicalCooperation Secretariat

Perspectives Agribusinessesin the new millennium

he last 20 years of the twentiethcentury have witnessedunprecedented change inagriculture worldwide as a resultof globalization, changes inconsumer demand, the adventof new technologies, and theneed to do a better job of

conserving land, water and biodiversity.Consequently, agriculture in the XXIst century isviewed as a complete system, replacing thetraditional production-based concept.

In this new scenario, agribusinesses are viewed asconsumer-oriented, integrated business systemswhich encompass primary production, processing,storage, distribution and marketing, as well as thepublic and private services required for them tooperate competitively.

The new view of agriculture is that it is a system ofvalue chains focused on meeting the demands andpreferences of consumers, through theintroduction of practices and procedures thatinclude all activities within and outside of theproduction unit. In other words, all facets ofagriculture are included and it is understood thatthe end result is not merely the production offood.

The value added of agribusinesses is much moreimportant than the simple value of primaryproduction. To be able to assess this value, it isimportant to bear in mind that five markets areinvolved: primary production, inputs, distribution,wholesale and retail.

This article is based on a longer text prepared bythe Agribusiness Development Area for thedocument “Current State of Outlook forAgriculture,”which IICA publishes periodically. Itpresents what, in our opinion, are the futurechallenges to agribusiness in the hemisphere.

Changes in the world order

In May 2004, the European Union proposedeliminating subsidies on all agricultural products.It was later announced that general agreementhad been reached with respect to agriculturewithin the WTO. A process that, it seemed, wasdoomed after the “Cancun failure” was therebyreactivated.

Both events augured well for the future ofagribusinesses, given estimates (data summarizedby Runge et al, 2003) that the overall benefitsfrom eliminating agricultural subsidies wouldexceed US$32.5 billion by 2025. Despite theseexpectations, not all countries of the hemispherewould benefit equally and there was even the riskthat some might suffer severe effects.

3

The major challenges are twofold

Miguel García1

Director, Agribusiness Development, IICA

T

1 This article is based on contributions from the IICA specialists who work with the Directorate of Agribusiness Development, which have been

interpreted by the author. The ideas contained herein are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Institute. The author

wishes to thank Luis Lizarazo, Daniel Rodriguez, Estela Meza, Iciar Pavez, Hernando Riveros and Una May Gordon for their valuable contributions.

In order to capitalize on the new opportunities, as a group,they would have to institute structural changes involvingthe creation of a new public and private institutionalframework; the passage of laws to facilitate and promoteprivate enterprise, provide individuals with legalguarantees and facilitate trade and investment; the reformof laws governing land tenure and ownership; investmentin infrastructure; the development of know-how in theprivate and social sectors; and investment in publicresearch on agriculture and the rural milieu.

This new institutional framework would have to beconsistent with commitments assumed in variousinternational negotiations and with the nationalconstitutional framework of each country. One commondenominator in these proposed changes should be a clearmessage of security and confidence to the various sectorsof society.

Regardless of where the different multilateral and regionalagricultural negotiations go from here, the scenario at thebeginning of the twenty-first century is vastly different, asreflected in the change in relative importance of theagricultural sector within the economies of the countriesand in the importance of the latter in world trade.

Countries that have lower costs, that are more competitiveand that are better equipped to respond to changes indemand have a great advantage over those that have beenunable to institute sweeping structural reforms.Traditionally, the United States has been considered thecountry with the most competitive agribusinesses. Today,however, this is being called into question.

Brazil, Argentina, in the American hemisphere, andChina, India and the countries of the former Soviet Unionare emerging as major players in the world food trade. Asa matter of fact, recent estimates suggest that, if significantmeasures are not taken, the United States could cease to bea net exporting country and become a net food importer.(Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2004)

On the world stage, the performance of China, India andRussia has a profound impact on the global economy andshould therefore be carefully observed so that thecountries of the American hemisphere can take strategicaction to compete. China has to be watched because ofits importance as both a consumer and producer, India,because of the key structural adjustments it has made andthat have given it a place of prominence amongdeveloping countries, and Russia, because of its highpotential to produce grains and animal products.

For the small- and medium-scale economies of theAmericas, the realignment of production and trade forcesinvolves risks as well as opportunities that will depend ontheir ability to produce value added goods, offerdifferentiated agricultural products and lower transactioncosts in processes that connect producers to consumers

(Chesney and Francis, 2004). In the small countries, themajor challenge should be to focus on reducing the steadydecline in rural incomes caused by falling production andproductivity levels.

In short, the countries of the Americas must developpublic and private policies and rules and regulations, andbuild up entrepreneurship to promote and boost thedevelopment and consolidation of agribusinesses with along-term vision. In order to become a reality, this visionmust be built on local and territorial development, and thecreation of know-how.

Consumer-oriented agribusinesses

The future of today’s agribusiness is inextricably linked totrends on world markets, and their success will depend ontheir ability to respond to changes in such trends.

Several factors will determine the quantity, quality andtype of foods that will be in demand in the future. Incomelevel will, however, continue to be the most determiningfactor, followed by changes in consumption patterns.

It is well know that as income rises so does the demand formore highly processed animal products. Changes in urbanpopulations, improvements in communications, changingperceptions on the part of consumers regarding food safetyand quality, and increased awareness of the origin of andmethods used to obtain foods, will continue to be constantchallenges to the development of agribusiness.

To meet these challenges, technological and strategicpackages will have to be developed to promote innovationthat will be of benefit at the local level so that the valueadded is retained in the production areas and internationalrecognition for local values is achieved. At the same time,joint efforts are required to promote products with specialcharacteristics, to organize in identifying market nichesand implement rules and procedures to encourage the useof seals to differentiate products from one another, on the

4

Agribusinesses are viewed asconsumer-oriented, integratedbusiness system which encompassesprimary production, processing,storage, distribution andmarketing, as well as the publicand private services required forthem to operate competitively.

on the development of the markets of origin andtransparent marketing systems such as agriculturalcommodity exchanges and “contract agriculture.”

In response to these demands, it will become necessaryto find mechanisms for regional market integration;create uniform and interchangeable informationsystems, especially for fruits and vegetables; andestablish and accept common quality standards,efficient customs procedures and financial systemscapable of handling transactions in local currenciesbetween countries at different stages of development.

The challenge will continue to be how to increase theincome level for primary producers, despite risingtransaction costs. This will mean that new businessplans must include strategic partnerships among thedifferent actors in the system and must seek suppliersunder the best terms and conditions, includingsuppliers in nontraditional countries, the use of state-of-the art technologies (biotechnology), theincorporation of marketing strategies and the use ofmodels to determine the best time to buy and sell. Thepoultry industry is an excellent example of thepossibilities that exist for facing the challenges posed byglobalization and consumer demand through the use ofthese basic strategies.

Agribusinesses and scientificknow-how

Recent developments surrounding the threat to humanhealth associated with pathogens in foods of plant andanimal origin have changed the perception ofconsumers and modified shopping and consumptionpatterns, and could impact international trade. (Buzby,2002).

Since the agreements were initiated at the UruguayRound, in the framework of the GATT, to implementsanitary and phytosanitary measures, the countries

have determined that standards should be establishedon the basis of solid scientific principles and be appliedtransparently in order to avoid their being used forprotectionist purposes.

The greatest challenge is therefore to make certain thatagribusinesses base their development on scientificprinciples and that they have the institutional supportand policies needed to ensure that a food or industrialagricultural product will not harm consumers when itis prepared or used properly (WHO).

This will involve the establishment of control strategies,the use of technology to reduce risk points, verticalintegration of operations, certification by independentbodies and the use of equivalent risk assessmentsystems. The use of verification systems based onscientific principles may increase the competitiveness oflocal agribusinesses. However, it could have aboomerang effect by adding costs which the consumerswill not want to pay.

It is important to note that the implementation of localsystems can be used unilaterally to block anycompetition from abroad. As a result, as free tradeagreements are implemented, these barriers maybecome more prevalent in the future.

It is therefore necessary to rely on transparentmonitoring systems to be able to detect the existence ofnon-tariff barriers or any changes in them and providenational agribusiness with sufficient information toenable them to adjust their procedures and meet theseneeds.

It is likely that the use of foods prepared withgenetically modified agricultural products will be thesubject of debate in coming years. Advocates andcritics alike agree that it will be one of the key topics atthe table when discussing industry, consumers, politicalinstitutions and international organizations.

Faced with this panorama, the private sector in theAmericas must take a proactive stance and keep abreastof any national and international regulations and theestablishment of monitoring and risk assessmentsystems.

5

The agricultural scenario at the beginning of thetwenty-first century has undergone sweepingchanges which are reflected in a change in therelative importance of the sector in the economiesof the countries and in the importance of the latter in world trade.

The widespread threat of terrorism, especially in the UnitedStates, has triggered responses that affect the current andfuture development of agribusinesses, especially theenactment of the Public Health Security & BioterrorismPreparedness and Response Act in 2002. Immediate actionis required on the part of the public and private sectors inthe hemisphere to deal with the challenge of responding tothese new requirements and evaluating their impacts ontrade flows and the cost of merchandise.

Finally, the agribusinesses of the future will need stronginnovative capability. The possibilities extend far beyondthe traditional businesses to which we are accustomed or amere improvement in value added. The production of bio-diesel or bio-fuels and/or bio-pharmaceuticals and themanufacture of products designed for specific niches makeit necessary to constantly improve technological andscientific know-how.

Professionaly-run agribusinesses

The competitiveness of the agribusinesses of the future willbe irrevocably determined by their ability to manageknowledge, and will depend on the level of professionalismof companies and of the links in the agricultural productionchains. The great challenges of the future are creating theability to understand market needs, the requirementsgoverning trade transactions and the level ofprofessionalism of businesses.

The ability to base business decisions on proper and timelyinformation will be fundamental in ensuring thesustainability of agribusinesses in the twenty-first century.

These two challenges translate into other challenges. Thefirst is the need to revise educational and training programsassociated with agriculture and to adapt them to thespecific needs of each country and region.

The second is the creation of infrastructure that willprovide real time access to the information required tomake timely business decisions, which, in turn, make itnecessary to rethink programs for investment in telephonyand electrification in rural areas in the hemisphere.

In short, an investment in human capital will be anessential requirement. The greatest challenge in makingagribusinesses competitive will be the capacity to createnew paradigms in the minds of producers and ruraldwellers, so that they can adjust to change and assimilatetechnological changes with the required rapidity.

Agribusinesses in harmony with environment

Agribusinesses are particularly important in ensuring thesustainability of the future world. Water, soil, fossil energyand biodiversity are the pillars on which agribusinesses arebased.

Water consumption varies greatly from country to country.Nevertheless, the agricultural sector is the main user of thisvaluable resource, consuming more than 80% in Chile andMexico. Soil degradation not only leads to a loss ofproduction potential, but also, when added to the fact paceof deforestation, increases poverty.

Given this panorama, the future cannot be conceivedwithout agribusinesses that are compatible with theenvironment. It will therefore be necessary to create andstrengthen the national institutional framework, and findways of promoting private-sector participation in theseinitiatives. Technological, educational and investmentprograms in environmental topics will be mandatory forthe agribusinesses of the future.

6

On the world stage, the performance of China,India and Russia has a profound impact on theglobal economy and should therefore be carefullyobserved so that the countries of the Americanhemisphere can take strategic action to compete

The future of today’s agribusiness isinextricably linked to trends on worldmarkets, and their success will dependon their ability to respond to changesin such trends.

Agribusinesses with a social conscience

As the twenty-first century gets under way, the scourgesof inequity and poverty are more ominous than at anyother time in history. Economic growth is crucial inreducing poverty, and the private sector has a vital roleto play in creating wealth and spurring growth.

The # 1 challenge facing future agribusinesses will behumanizing the work of tilling the soil, fostering ways ofworking together, strengthening families and findingways to ensure equity, justice and dignity for ruraldwellers. To accomplish this, what is needed is a cohesivevision of society, one that places people at the heart ofdiscussions and actions.

IICA’s Role

The magnitude of the challenges andthe opportunities that come with thosechallenges create a unique opportunity forthe Inter-American Institute for Cooperationon Agriculture (IICA).

Accordingly, the Institute has focused itsefforts on the development of agribusiness.It has provided technical cooperation to thepublic and private sectors based on acomprehensive view of| agriculture in aneffort to facilitate the development of competitiveagribusiness with an awareness of social andenvironmental factors.

Within this framework, it established theInter-American Program for the Promotionof Trade, Agribusiness and Food Safety,located in Miami, Florida, as a new modelfor technical cooperation aimed at servingthe private and social sectors of the countries.

The Program seeks:

To provide technical cooperationfor strengthening entrepreneurial capacity

To cooperate in the identification ofmarket opportunities

To provide information to facilitatedecision-making and promote trade.

This initiative operates on the basis of a hemispheric team of specialists committed to the rural and agricultural sectors, and a hemispheric network of offices in all the countries of the hemisphere, including the Caribbean.

7

It is likely that the use of foods prepared withgenetically modified agricultural products will bethe subject of debate in coming years. Advocatesand critics alike agree that it will be one ofthe key topics tabled for discussion.

Perspectives An alliancefor greater productivity

his article summarizes the mainideas presented by 27 expertsfrom the Americas at the“Ministerial Conference on Scienceand Technology to IncreaseAgricultural Productivity,” held onMay 10-11, 2004, in San Jose,

Costa Rica. The document, which mirrors the orderin which the topics were addressed, concludes witha number of comments and conclusions.

Growth and innovation:Figures tell the story

During the first plenary session, one of the speakerscalled attention to the important role science andtechnology play in increasing agriculturalproductivity, stating: “...technological innovation is

the engine that drives the capacity of nations to meetbasic human needs, strengthen their globalcompetitiveness, and make the transition towardssustainability. Secondly, advances in informationtechnology have contributed to greater integrationof countries through communication.”

An analysis of the performance of the sector over thelast 40 years reveals the impact science andtechnology have had on agricultural development.

A study of agricultural production and productivity,and the factors contributing to same showed thatbetween 1961 and 1980agricultural production inMesoamerica during this period grew at an annualrate of 3.87%, surpassing the average for all of LatinAmerica and the population growth rate, estimatedat 2.8%. (See Table 1.)

In other words, during this period, per capitaagricultural production rose steadily. In contrast,from 1981 to 2001, it grew at an annual rate of only1.89%, falling below the rate of growth of thepopulation. As a result, per capita agriculturalproduction declined.

The data in the last two columns of Table 1 show thatthe downward trend experienced in Mesoamericadid not occur in other regions such as the SouthernCone and the Andean Area.

8

Science, technology and agriculture in Mesoamerica

Gustavo Saín and Jorge ArdilaDirectorate of Technology and Innovation, IICA

T

The relationship between research and development, as well as the use of technologies has evolved in recent decades.

9

Latin America and the CaribbeanRates of Growth in Agricultural Production

1961-1980 and 1981-2001

Crops Livestock Aggregate

Regions 1961-1980 1981-2001 1961-1980 1981-2001 1961-1980 1981-2001

Southern Cone 2.79 2.98 1.74 2.95 2.16 2.80

Andean 2.43 2.65 3.95 2.92 3.00 3.09

Mesoamerica 3.60 1.32 4.35 2.84 3.87 1.89

Caribbean 1.20 -0.71 2.78 0.77 1.48 -0.28

Average 2.55 1.57 3.56 2.38 2.74 1.89L.A.

Source: Flavio Ávila and Evenson (2004).Note: southern Cone: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay. Andean Area: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador,Peru and Venezuela. Mesoamerica: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panamá.Caribbean: Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.

However, data on the rate of growth in agricultural productionalone do not provide a complete picture of the efficiency andcompetitiveness of the agricultural sector. An instrument widelyused for this purpose is the Total Factor Productivity index (TFP),which measures how much of the growth in production is

attributable to the impact of technological change on production,rather than to an increase in the use of inputs and services. Table2 shows the annual rate of growth of the TFP index for severalregions of Latin America during the same two periods. anteriormente.

Table 1

Latin America and the Caribbean:Rates of Growth of Agricultural TFP Index

1961-1980 and 1981-2001

Crops Livestock Aggregate

Regions 1961-1980 1981-2001 1961-1980 1981-2001 1961-1980 1981-2001 Promedio

Southern Cone 1.49 3.14 0.72 2.51 1.02 2.81 1.92

Andean 1.11 1.71 1.73 1.92 1.41 1.81 1.610

Mesoamerica 1.65 1.05 2.77 1.53 2.1 1.32 1.74

Caribbean 0.66 -0.89 2.60 2.06 2.03 0.90 1.47

Average 1.46 2.40 1.42 2.2 1.39 2.31 1.85L.A.

Source: Flavio Ávila and Evenson (2004).

Table 2

1961-1980

Dominated by public research systems (NARIs)

Centralized administrative and funding system

High level of public investment

Significant increase in human capital

Linear concept of innovation: Research (NARI)-Extension-Farmer. Technology as a central concept

Supply oriented

Technology focused on production & productivity

Extension based on technology transfer

Products as public goods

Public funds allocated through a centralizedmonopolistic mechanism

Protected economies

Domestic market. No demand for quality

Domestic prices out of line with international prices

10

Changes in the rates of growth in the TFPindex, by region and period, match closelythose of agricultural production. However, inthe case of the TFP index, it is clear that theagricultural sector in Mesoamerica was less ableby 2001 to reduce production costs throughtechnological change.

What happened between these two periods thatimpacted negatively on agricultural productionand productivity? Table 3 lists some of the maineconomic and institutional changes which tookplace in Latin America in both periods.

Latin America and the Caribbean:main economic/institutional changes1961-1980 and 1981-2001

Table 3

1981-2001

Decreasing importance of public sector as new actors enter system

Decision making becomes important.Administration and funding decentralized.

Reduction in public investment in R&D. Private sector moves to fill void.

Reduction in human capital

Innovation system:Integration of research, extension and education.Knowledge is core concept.

Demand oriented

Technology focused on diversifying objectives

Extension based on transfer of knowledge

Products as a mixture of public and private goods

Allocation of funds is competitive and transparent.Funding is diversified.

Trade liberalization. Trade agreements.

Food quality important. Sanitary and phytosanitaryissues of key importance.

Domestic prices in line with international prices

11

Given the above, the question is: Why were these reformsor changes implemented successfully in other regions, butnot in Mesoamerica? Several speakers addressed this issue,each from his/her own perspective.

Using science and technologyto increase production

Several studies support the existence of a positivecorrelation between investment in agricultural researchand increased productivity in the sector.

For example, the study by Flavio Avila and Evenson showsthat higher growth rates in the TFP index are associatedwith access to more Technical Capital (understood asinvestment in R&D, the educational level of the work forceand the number of extension agents).

Furthermore, the authors showed that for a country todevelop a healthy innovation system, it must be able toinnovate on its own and to adapt technology developedelsewhere to their circumstances.

The 1961-1980 period was characterized by what is knownas the “Green Revolution,” one goal of which was to boostagricultural productivity through the development of newvarieties, the use of fertilizers, irrigation (where needed andavailable) and, to a lesser extent, the application ofpesticides.

The main goal of R&D in this period was to increase theproductivity of the land, as well as agricultural production.Agricultural research institutions in Central America werein the development stage and capitalized on the externalspillovers of the Green Revolution.

As a result of reforms carried out during the 1981-2001period, research priorities changed. New technologies wereaimed not only at increasing productivity, but also atreducing production costs, improving food quality and foodsecurity, preserving the environment, developing newmarket opportunities (organic production), and meetingsocial needs (equity).

This shift in focus also reflected a change in the forces thatdetermined the direction of technological change. In thepast, technological change was driven directly by the user.Today, as a result of globalization, the demand forinnovation comes mostly from is more dependant of finalconsumers, via two mechanisms: product prices andconsumer preferences.

In the first case, consumers’ demand is reflected in higherprices that are increasingly accessible for producers whoand passed on to the innovation system in the form oftechnology demand. The other mechanism is more subtleand is the result of public research institutions being more

and more dependent on external funding sources. In thisway, Cconsumers in foreign markets become bothconsumers and indirect donors and transmit theirpreferences to donors agencies who in turn passed to theresearch institutions through the funding mechanism(directed funds). In this way, consumers in third countriesinfluence the research agenda in an indirect way.

In the judgment of the speakers, more must be invested inresearch and rural education if a reasonable and sustainablerate of agricultural development is to be obtained. Also, it isnecessary to make further reforms in land tenure practices,with a view to promoting the operation of large-scale farmswhose products will have greater value added.

Another aspect of technology development that emerged inthe period 1980 – 2001 was natural resource conservation.Even though Latin America and the Caribbean possess awealth of biodiversity, problems such as deforestation,pollution and the indiscriminate use of agrochemicalspersist

While the situation continues to be precarious,globalization and consumer preferences have producedhopeful signs. New trends in organic agriculture, foodquality, and environmentally friendly production arebeginning to have an impact.

In addition to technology, the success of this trend lies intwo processes: marketing (differentiation of products andpenetration of niche markets) and product certification.

The role of biotechnology

The potential to ensure competitiveness and conserve theenvironment may come from an unexpected source:biotechnology. Biotechnology encompasses a wide range oftechniques, including, but not limited to, geneticengineering.

While it is true that most advances in biotechnology areassociated with the commercial cultivation of transgeniccrops in 1996, they are not the only option for agriculturein Mesoamerica.

According to the speakers, “several research andeducational institutions in the region are making goodprogress in important areas such as plant propagationtechniques or tissue culture, the use of genetic markers,and molecular diagnosis of pests and diseases.”

Three characteristics of the products of biotechnology,i.e., the transgenic revolution are:

A great deal of knowledge and considerablephysical and financial resources are requiredto produce them and place them on the market;

Their use is protected by law; and

Su producción reside básicamente en el sectorprivado.

Given the above, the development of the potential ofbiotechnology in Mesoamerica is no easy task. TheMesoamerican countries have begun to develop legal andregulatory frameworks to deal with this new science and,in particular, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

In general, the framework is focused on legal aspects.Actions are aimed at protecting intellectual propertyrights and human health. In this regard, it is essential toensure food safety, protect the environment and avoideventual repercussions on international trade(restrictions on demand).

Another compelling issue in the GMOs controversy is todetermine who benefits from them. Many organizationsclaim that most of the benefits have been appropriatedalmost exclusively by the private sector, which alsomakes the huge investments required to develop them.

However, recent studies presented at the conferenceshow that, even though the products are patented, theeconomic benefits of the dissemination of GMOs areshared among farmers, industry, and consumers.

Improving access to S & T

Science and technology must be accessible to all potentialusers. This topic caught the attention of the participants

and was addressed from two different perspectives: howto make science and technology more available in a givencountry; and how to ensure the science and technologysystem is more accessible, and is more utilized by finalusers.

It is clear that the technological gap between countrieswidened during the past decade as a result of economicdifferences and the physical capital and knowledgerequired to access enter into the production sector of thenew technology.

Consequently, cooperation in research has become moreimportant in bringing advances in science andtechnology within the reach of less developed countries.One example of such cooperation is the creation of theposition of Science and Technology Advisor within theU.S. Department of State in 2000, with the objective ofstrengthening the role of science and technology in thecountry’s foreign policy.

For such cooperation to exist, there must be stableinstitutions that can support the funding of research inthe long term.

Another possible explanation as to why the reformssucceeded in the Southern Cone and Andean regions,but not in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, was the lowlevel of involvement (investment) of the private sector.

Some factors that may have affected its involvementwere the relatively small size of the market, anagricultural sector dominated by a non-commercialfarming structure, lack of appropriate enforcement ofintellectual property rights, and high transaction costs.

Others were national policies and the lack of a strongagribusiness sector to add value to agricultural products.

As a result of the reforms implemented, a new paradigmfor providing technical support to agriculture emerged.The concept of National Agricultural Research Systemsgave way to a more complex and comprehensive one:the Innovation System.

Greater integration among research, extension servicesand educational institutions gave rise to what is knownas Agricultural Knowledge and the Information System(AKIS). This concept is further expanded by includingthe sources of innovation (including farmers and foreignsuppliers), and a non-linear pattern of interaction andfeedback among research, development, and the uptakeof technology, giving rise to the concept of nationalagricultural innovation systems.

In this new context, the role of the public sector ingeneral and that of the National Agricultural ResearchInstitutions (NARIs) also changed. These changes

12

1.

2.3.

Innovation is the foundationfor increasing agricultural production,

productivity and competitivenessin Mesoamerica.

Economic considerations and the institutional reforms that worked inother regions of Latin America did not produce the expected results inMesoamerica or the Caribbean.

required a major adjustmentin the role of the public sector.

This evolution occurredwithin the framework of thepolicy reforms the countriespromoted in the 1980s as aresult of structuraladjustment programs. Theinitiatives focused on thereduction the size of thepublic sector, which ceased tointervene in the areas of seedproduction and marketing.

Also, marketing boardsdisappeared, governmentsprovided fewer extensionservices and the transfer ofresponsibilities to the privatesector began. In the interest ofefficiency, many countriesprepared a profile of theiragricultural sectors based on

the size of farms and the income of farmers. As a result,extension services were adapted to the needs of eachsector.

According to the speakers, Mesoamerica must design aneffective policy for innovation in agriculture which takesinto consideration the characteristics of the countries,identifies opportunities for regional cooperation and forgescloser relations with key trading partners.

Who should be responsible for this transfer at the presenttime is a key topic of discussion. Also, it is important torecall that in the past, public extension services in manycountries have failed to deliver technologies to most of therural population, which, in Mesoamerica, is the poorestsegment of the population.

Other topics of discussion are: Who should provideextension services? Which is the most effective way toensure that the results of science and technology areavailable and provide benefits? There are no easy answersto these questions, and there may not be a single solutionfor each country.

Toward a regional innovation system

Regional cooperation plays an important role in facilitatingthe development of science and technology in thecountries. Globalization and the information revolutionhave significantly reduced the cost of accessinginformation and knowledge available in and outside theregion.

International and regional research organizations facilitatethis task by promoting partnerships with nationalorganizations. Some countries have questioned thewisdom of basing the development of their researchsystem and level of technological progress on their abilityto imitate.

This raises an interesting question: Is it better to invest indeveloping the ability to innovate or in the ability toimitate? The findings of the Avila and Evenson studysupport the hypothesis that there is no single solution.

In other words, no system should earmark 100% ofinvestment resources for one or the other, but rather in acombination of the two, based on the needs andcapabilities of the given country.

In a complex world characterized by rapid scientificprogress and new social and economic demands from themarkets, there is no easy answer to this question. Thecountries of Mesoamerica, however, share certainattributes that would support a policy directed atstrengthening regional and international cooperation inresearch.

Summary and conclusions

It is clear that innovation is the foundation for improvingagricultural production, productivity and competitivenessin Mesoamerica. Economic considerations and theinstitutional reforms that worked in other regions of LatinAmerica did not produce the expected results inMesoamerica or the Caribbean. As a result, after 20 yearsof reform in the region, in the agricultural sector:

The rate of growth in agricultural production is belowthat of the population

There has been a significant decline in economicefficiency (competitiveness)

Levels of poverty and indexes of inequality have risenconsiderably

There is a greater variety of exports, but with littlevalue added

13

The design and implementation of these policies will contribute to reducing poverty and inequality

1.

2.

3.

4.

Some of the key reasons for this poor performance are:

A decrease in public investment in research andextension

Insignificant investment on the part of the privatesector

Declining importance of the region internationally

The existence of a dual structure in the agriculturalsector.

Consequently, the countries of Mesoamerica have agreedon the urgent need to invest in the development of asound innovation policy which takes into accountinternal and external factors such as globalization andtrade liberalization, promotes the development of scienceand technology and addresses intellectual property rights.

This policy must address important issues such as thestrategy to follow in deciding to improve local capabilitiesfor innovation or the ability to imitate; the policy andlegal framework to adopt to encourage the participationof the private sector and have access to GMOs; thepromotion of public and private partnerships for researchand extension; and the role of the public sector in thistask.

The design and implementation of these policies willcontribute to reducing poverty and inequality. In thearea of technology, caution must be exercised to avoidwidening the poverty gap.

Governments must ensure that small-scale farmers haveaccess to new technologies.

In this regard, the promotion of partnerships with thepublic and private services will be very important. Also,the governments must provide a legal, political andeconomic environment conducive to the promotion ofprivate investment, with a view to adding greater valueto agricultural products and creating jobs at the locallevel.

Notes:

1. Mesoamerica (Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, ElSalvador, Honduras Guatemala and Belize) andMexico

2. Flavio Avila A. and R. E. Evenson. 2004. Total FactorProductivity Growth in Agriculture: The role ofTechnological Capital, presented at the annual meetingof the IDB Board of Governors. Lima, Peru, March 25.

3. The growth rates reported in the table also includethe interpretation of rates of cost reduction at constantfactor prices (Avila and Evenson, p 24).

14

A.

B.

C.D.

Perspectives New responsabilitiesin the face of new challenges

raditional agricultural health andfood safety (AHFS) programsbegan on the borders of a givencountry and focused on whatoccurred within it. The generalgoal was to protect domesticagriculture, with resources beingused to control the agents that

caused diseases and pests that affected primaryproduction.

The credibility of AHFS services with the privatesector and other countries was based on theeffectiveness of their programs at the domestic level,continuous inspection and surveillance, and theirresponse to unforeseen emergencies. The goal ofinspection systems, ports of entry and surveillancewas to prevent the introduction and spread ofundesirable diseases or pests.

In recent years, however, new demands have beenplaced on AHFS systems as a result of globalization,

the Agreement on Sanitary and PhytosanitaryMeasures of the World Trade Organization(WTO/SPS), the signing of free trade agreements andother external factors, such as bioterrorism,biotechnology, environmental protection, etc.

In the last decade, it became clear that the traditionalapproach was insufficient to come to terms with thenew challenges. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy,dioxin contamination in Belgium, foot-and-mouthdisease in the United Kingdom and avian influenzain Asia are examples of major sanitary problems thatcan be traced and linked to the introduction ofadulterated foods, but manifest themselves furtherdown the agrifood chain.

As a result, in 2000 the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities issued a white paper, in which it statedthat the best way to guarantee a high level of foodsafety was by creating an independent food agency.

The European Food Safety Authority was created in2002 to protect consumer health, and restore andmaintain public confidence, which had beenundermined by the sanitary problems that occurredin the 1990s.

In response to the events of 9/11, the U.S.authorities also enacted the Public Health Securityand Bioterrorism Act, which granted the FDA newpowers to control food imports and reduce theterrorist threat. Under the new regulations, acountry’s exports may be rejected or additional testsor treatment required.

The challenges and opportunities for AHFS services

In the current situation, national AHFS services needa wider international vision and a broader mandate.Agricultural health has traditionally been theresponsibility of ministries of agriculture but theorganizational structure now needs to be revampedto include closer alliances and more integration withministries of health, trade and foreign affairs.

15

National Agricultural Health and Food Safety Services

Kevin Walker and Ana Marisa CorderoDirectorate of Agricultural Health and Food Safety, IICA

T

The extent to which national AHFS services arestrengthened will depend on the priorities of each country.However, close links between the public and private sectorsare the starting point for any modernization process inthat formal or informal intersectoral communicationmechanisms are developed to facilitate dialogue, analysisand the identification and prioritization of needs among thedifferent stakeholders.

The first area that needs to be developed in this process isthe institutional framework. It is here that nationalinterests in the sanitary and phytosanitary field arerepresented and defended, agreements are implementedand the commitments assumed at the international levelare fulfilled. Communication channels are also establishedat the intersectoral and interinstitutional levels, and thesystem is made financially and technically sustainable.

The second area to be addressed is the regulatoryframework, which promotes the modernization oflegislation (laws, regulations, decrees, standards) to bring itinto line with international regulations (Codex, IPPC, OIE)and establish the rights and duties of the stakeholders.

Finally, there is the technological framework, which makesboth the public and private stakeholders more efficient andinvolves actions in the field of surveillance, quarantine anddiagnosis. The resources available for this framework arelimited, so identification and prioritization efforts areneeded, and the possibility of regional investments shouldbe considered.

IICA’s Agricultural Health andFood Safety Program

MISSION

To assist Member States in strengthening theiranimal health, plant health and food safety services,including their capacity to develop and comply withinternational norms and standards, in order tocompete successfully in national and internationalmarkets and help safeguard consumer health

To carry out its mission successfully, IICA places emphasison meeting the infrastructure requirements of nationalservices, especially with respect to the capacity of countriesto develop international norms and standards and complywith them. Accordingly, the Institute’s work is geared totwo specific actions:

I. Support for the efforts of national AHFS services todevelop regulatory mechanisms, science-basedtechnical capabilities and sustainable institutionalinfrastructures

National AHFS services now have to be sufficiently strongand sustainable to protect animal and human health,maintain consumer confidence and evaluate risks.

IICA has concentrated its actions on strengthening theinfrastructure of national services, especially in the area ofimproving the performance of government services and thecapacity of countries to develop international norms andstandards and comply with them.

The Institute has focused its efforts on helping the countriesto evaluate the progress made in improving theperformance and quality of their national AHFS services. Ina strategic partnership with the Office International desEpizooties (OIE), it prepared an instrument known asPerformance, Vision and Strategy (PVS), designed toevaluate the operation of national veterinary services basedon a vision shared by the public and private sectors. It willbe used to determine the strategic actions that governmentservices need to implement to improve and boost theirperformance.

The results will help establish a cooperation agenda for theagencies and countries taking part in this effort, based onthe priorities and needs identified by the public and privatesectors.

16

In the past, the general goal of traditional

agricultural health and food safety (AHFS)

programs was to protect domestic agriculture.

Based on a mandate issued by theCentral American Council ofMinisters of Agriculture, thisinstrument is being applied jointlywith the national services. Resultshave so far been obtained for five ofthe seven countries in CentralAmerica, and the global results for theregion should be ready by the end ofyear.

The PVS is available for othercountries in the Americas to use. Asimilar instrument is now beingprepared to evaluate plant health andfood safety services.

II. Work with the Member Statesto implement the provisions ofthe WTO Agreement on Sanitaryand Phytosanitary Measures, andthe decisions adopted by theinternational standard-settingorganizations (OIE, IPPC, andCodex Alimentarius)

The Initiative for the Countries of the Americas inSPS, a joint effort involving IICA and the U.S.Department of Agriculture, was launched in 2002.Its objective is to strengthen the institutionalcapabilities of the countries so that they may play amore active role in the SPS Committee. Theapproach enables the participants to shareexperiences, promotes the presence of experts at SPSCommittee meetings and fosters the development ofnational capabilities.

Between June 2000 and June 2002, only 15% of thecountries of the hemisphere were represented at SPSCommittee meetings. Between October 2002 andJune 2004, this percentage rose to 95%. Theprogram promoted interinstitutional participation tofacilitate close ties between the technical personnelof different ministries.

Prior to the meetings of the SPS Committee,workshops were held to develop institutionalcapabilities, in order to promote interaction amongthe participating countries and the sharing ofnational experiences through the study of successfulcases.

The success of the activity is due to cooperation andthe synergy that exists among the countries. Theyhave been the protagonists in technical cooperation,identifying and selecting the issues to be addressed.The fact that the same group of people continue tobe involved in the activity and share theirexperiences, combined with the countries’commitment to this activity, helps optimizeresources.

If the efforts to increase the participation of thecountries in the international forums are to have alasting effect, parallel actions must be implementedat the national level to develop the institutionalframework needed to manage and implement theSPS Agreement.

Conclusiones

When properly structured and maintained,AHFS programs offer very significant benefits invarious areas, ranging from primary productionto public health, tourism, trade, competitiveness,food security and the environment.

To obtain those benefits, broad support must bepromoted throughout the agrifood chain. Aconcerted effort is required from the public andprivate sectors, and support from financialinstitutions and technical cooperation agencies toenable the countries to tap the opportunities notseized in the past. IICA’s efforts have beenconcentrated in this direction.

17

AHFS services now have to besufficiently strong andsustainable to protect animaland human health, mantainconsumer confidence andevaluate risks

The last decade demonstratedthat the traditional approach to AHFS programs

was insufficient to come to termswith the new challenges

Perspectives Finding answersfor people in the rural communities

ural development issues gainedrenewed momentum in the lastdecade, in part due to theineffectiveness of the existingeconomic model, which failed tosolve the serious structuralproblems faced by a large numberof countries or provide a creative

response to the new rural conditions in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (LAC). Some of theprincipal factors that account for this resurgence arethe continued existence of rural poverty and theneed for innovative approaches to deal with it,changes in the role that agriculture and smallfarmers are perceived to play, and the need for amore holistic approach to rural issues. Concepts such

as “expanded agriculture,” “new rurality,”“territoriality,” environmental services, local culture,decentralization, governance and local cooperationhave received considerable attention in the literatureon rural development and are influencing thethinking of many governments and developmentagencies. One of the most important contributions isthe new approach to rural development practiceknown as the Territorial Approach to RuralDevelopment (TARD).

The TARD includes several of the emphases ofprevious approaches, such as communitydevelopment, small-scale producers andcomprehensive rural development (Sepulveda et al.2003, pp. 35-51). It also incorporates some of themore recent concepts, such as the participation andempowerment of rural dwellers, and the mainelements of the “new rurality” theory developedduring the 1990s that has also generated a large bodyof literature (e.g., Perez, 2001; Gomez, 2002;Echeverri and Ribero, 2002).

An integrated approach

Essentially, the TARD integrates spaces, agents,markets and public intervention policies. Its purposeis to integrate rural territories within the nationalterritory and to link them and with the rest of thedomestic economy; revitalize and restructure them;and enable them to assume a new role and meetnew demands.

Under this development model, territory is thoughtof as more than merely a physical space. A giventerritory is regarded as the product of its social andhistorical development (which gives it a uniquesocial fabric), and endowed with a specific naturalresource base, certain forms of production,consumption and exchange, and a network ofinstitutions and forms of organization that give theother elements cohesiveness.

18

The territorial approach and rural development practice in Latin America

Adrián Rodríguez and Sergio SepúlvedaDirectorate of Sustainable Rural Development, IICA

R

An alternative

The TARD is an alternative to conventional ruraldevelopment approaches. Some of its most importantelements include:

A reconstruction of the concept of “rural”

A shift from the “agricultural economy” to the“territorial economy”

The rightful inclusion of the territorial andlocal rural economy in growth strategies

Environmental management and thedevelopment of markets of environmentalservices

A shift from private competitiveness toterritorial competitiveness

Territorial management as a complement todecentralization

Cooperation and shared responsibility as acomplement to participation, and as keyelements for the integration of the top-downand bottom-up approaches

Coordination of macro, sectoral and localpolicies

Knowledge management to promoteinnovation

Increasing interest

Governments and technical and financial cooperationagencies are showing increasing interest in the TARD. InIICA’s case, the approach is merely the logical phase of alengthy process aimed at constructing a new developmentparadigm. Over the last decade, the Institute’s sustainablerural development approach and ideas have evolved basedon the lessons it has learned along the way. The TARD istherefore a synthesis of earlier postulates that were fine-tuned with practice. These include issues such as agrarianreform in the 1960s, the cooperative movement in the1970s, the modernization of production as part of thegreen revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, integrated ruraldevelopment in the 1970s and 1980s, modernization, thelinkage of trade to dynamic markets and sustainabledevelopment in the 1990s, as well as more recentapproaches that place emphasis on aspects such asparticipation and the empowerment of rural dwellers (e.g.,Ellis and Biggs, 2001).

The adoption of the TARD marks a turning point in IICA’sapproach to rural development. In particular, itincorporates two elements that have formed part of therecent institutional agenda on the subject: microregionaldevelopment and “new rurality.” In point of fact, theTARD adopts wholesale the microregional developmentconcepts and methods that the Institute began to developback in the early 1990s (e.g., Sepulveda 2002), under acooperative program supported by the GTZ. IICA’s newapproach to rural development also corrects its bias towardthe assessment made in its research on the “new rurality”concept (e.g., IICA, 2000).

The Institute has also drawn on technical cooperationinitiatives it has led or facilitated in the hemisphere overthe last decade in developing the TARD. These include the

19

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Basically, the territorial approachintegrates spaces, agents, marketsand public intervention policies.

HILLSIDES Project in Central America; severalinitiatives in the Seridó region of northeast Brazil;and the work in Colombia with support from theCorporación Latinoamericana Misión Rural.”

The TARD is therefore a concept that is in the processof being constructed and validated. It has beenapplied at three levels:

Initiatives that have contributed to its construction

Initiatives aimed at its adoption as a frame of reference for national policies

Initiatives aimed at its adoption asa framework for guiding concreteinvestments and interventions

The following are some examples of initiativesimplemented by IICA and other cooperationagencies that emphasize the first two aspectsmentioned above.

PIONEERING EXPERIENCES

Central América – HILLSIDESProject (1995-2002)

One of the most important efforts in Central Americawas the HILLSIDES Project implemented by IICAwith financial support from the Royal Embassy ofthe Netherlands, and cooperation from TERA, adivision of the Centre for International Cooperation

in Agronomic Research for Development (CIRAD,France) and the governments of El Salvador andHonduras. This initiative developed a methodologyfor promoting open institutional systems capable ofincluding a large number of social organizations andstakeholders in the design and implementation ofparticipatory sustainable development plans on thehillsides of Honduras and El Salvador.

The participatory, territorial and multisectoralapproaches bring together groups that historicallyhave had no say in the decisions that affect economicand social variables and natural resourcemanagement (e.g., community associations,women’s organizations, ethnic minorities, smallfarmers, young people, educators, businesspeopleand religious leaders). The results of the HILLSIDESProject suggest that, although no less complex, theseapproaches are the surest means to get all thestakeholders to work together on common concernsand pool resources to find ways of improving naturalresource management and reducing poverty in ruralterritories.

The stakeholders organized at the local municipallevel and several Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees (SDC) were set up. These Committeesincreased the capacity of grassroots organizations tomanage, negotiate and impact natural resourcemanagement; make contributions at the nationaland regional levels; achieve consensus among keyactors; and promote exchange and cooperationamong institutions and stakeholders. Thanks tothese committees, a notable improvement in thecoordination of institutional actions was achieved(Byron Miranda, 2002).

The IICA-Holland/HILLSIDES Project developed andimplemented a conceptual, methodological andoperating framework that has contributed to thedevelopment of the territorial approach tosustainable rural development. It producedimportant results and contributions, and its goodpractices are being incorporated into national ruraldevelopment projects and programs in CentralAmerica, with a view to increasing the influence andmultiplier effect of investments of this kind.

Northeast Brazil

Among the technical cooperation projects in whichIICA has been involved to provide technicalcooperation to state governments in northeast Brazilare several initiatives financed by the World Bank,.One of the most significant results has been thecreation of the Territorial Development Secretariat

20

1.

2.

3.

(February 2003) within the Ministry for AgrarianDevelopment.

Reliance on the territorial approach is in its pioneeringstage, and many lessons have been learned. In the Seridóregion, for example, the application of the territorialconcept is linked to political-institutional and culturalfactors, specifically to the organizational capacity of eachlocality. The Seridó Sustainable Development Plan is themost tangible product of this experience and a powerfultool for orienting future development strategies andprojects (Carlos Miranda, 2002).

The Seridó plan demonstrates that sustainabledevelopment concepts are viable and that it is possible tobuild a Utopia. The sustainable development approach isnot only multidisciplinary; it also focuses on participation.The institutional roles are reversed. Instead of thegovernment ‘intervening’ to do or build things on behalf ofthe people, spaces and opportunities are created so that thepeople themselves do the building. The stakeholders arethe driving force of development. (Carlos Miranda, 2002,pp. 79-80).

The Plan also demonstrates that a participatory planningprocess supported by social capital makes it possible tobecome familiar and identify with the territory. This wasnot possible under the technocratic and sectoral planningsystem. Traditionally, the sector was not an actualgeographical units, but rather an invention, with differentrationales and rates of development. The management ofdevelopment was haphazard, and resources and energywere wasted. Within a given municipality, different placeshad different rationales and rates of development inresponse to specific objectives or paradigms.

In the Seridó experience, the region -a heterogeneous andunique territory- is a place where natural ecosystemsoverlap and a diversity of social constructs coexist. Seridóis an identity; it is a land that belongs to a specificpopulation. The planning process involves the entirepopulation. (Carlos Miranda, 2002, p. 80).

Colombia – Misión Rural

Sponsored by the Colombian government and variousinternational technical cooperation agencies, IICAspearheaded a broad participatory process of research andanalysis of the current and future state of the rural andagricultural milieu in Colombia. This initiative, calledMisión Rural, created a network of rural developmentorganizations and consensus on a national agenda that

contains guidelines and instruments for taking action onrural issues. Involved in the project were organizations ofsmall farmers and businesspeople, academics, publicinstitutions, territorial entities, international agencies andvarious sectors of public opinion.

It thereby fostered a broad movement that analyzednational development policy, and included actions forreorganizing the public sector and empowering thecitizenry. It also facilitated local cooperation experiencesand supported institutional reforms of rural developmentorganizations and the drafting of legislation for ruraldevelopment and agriculture. Furthermore, it madeconceptual and methodological contributions that havehelped enhance the territorial approach to ruraldevelopment.

Based on the experience of this project, in 1999 theCorporación Latinoamericana Misión Rural (CLMR) wascreated. This corporation is a nonprofit organization thatcontinues to study, research and discuss ruraldevelopment. In conjunction with IICA and thegovernment of the Department of Cundinamarca, theCLMR is currently implementing the project “Network ofPeoples, a local cooperation experience,” thanks to AndeanDevelopment Corporation (ADC) funding. This projectrepresents a process designed to create partnerships andagreements whereby efforts will be a galvanizing factor inspurring the economic, cultural and political growth of theterritories involved in the process.

The network provides a framework for social innovation,for cooperation among the public, private and local sectors,with citizens working together closely for the commongood.

A change in policy direction

In the process of transition toward a TARD, the countriesare at different points in mapping out alternatives,. Nocountry has so far structured its entire national policysystem around the territorial approach. Perhaps the most

21

The adoption of the territorial approachmarks a turning point in the way that

IICA views rural development

complete cases are Mexico, where the process isunderpinned by the Rural Development Act (2001),and Brazil, where a Territorial DevelopmentSecretariat has been created (2003). Honduras alsohas a Sustainable Rural Development Act (2000),but less progress has been made in implementing itthan in Mexico.

The mexican case

Since the Mexican Revolution and the ensuingagrarian reform processes, Mexico has sought todevelop a rural development model. The model hasbeen under review in recent years, however. One ofthe most significant results of the reform process sofar has the Sustainable Rural Development Act(December 2001), which lays the groundwork for acomprehensive institutional framework forsustainable development. Complementing thisframework are other instruments such as theNational Agreement for the Countryside. Also calledfor is the development of budgetary instruments foreconomic development and social well-being, andthe fight against marginalization. This law paves theway for implementation of a state ruraldevelopment policy. It sets out a comprehensivevision and a territorial approach that promote thecoordination of government agencies and bodies andprovide for the participation of rural society.

One of the key elements of this law has been thecreation of Rural Development Districts (RDD).Article 13 of Chapter I of the second section of thelaw, which deals with the Planning andCoordination of Sustainable Rural DevelopmentPolicy, establishes that the RDDs are to be used topromote the design of programs at the municipal,regional or watershed-level, with the participation ofthe authorities, the respective inhabitants andproducers. These programs must be congruent withthe Sectoral Programs and the NationalDevelopment Plan. Article 29 of Chapter VI, on the

Rural Development Districts, also establishes that theRDDs are to serve as the basis for the territorial andadministrative organization of the agencies of thefederal and decentralized public administration, forthe implementation of the operating programs of theFederal Public Administration taking part in theSpecial Concurrent Program and its correspondingSectoral Programs, and with the governments of thestate and municipal bodies, and for consensus-building.

The highest authority of each RDD is a collegiatebody composed of representatives of agencies of thethree levels of government (central, state andmunicipal governments), and representatives ofproducers and social and private organizations thatoperate in the respective district.

The colombian case

The Colombian Rural Development Institute(INCODER) was created in 2003 to help improve thequality of life of rural dwellers. It sought toimplement agricultural and rural developmentpolicy, strengthen territorial entities and theircommunities, and promote the coordination ofinstitutional action in the rural milieu.

INCODER explicitly adopted a territorial ruraldevelopment approach in drafting the rural policyfor the National Development Plan, “Toward aCommunity-based State.” A multifunctional andmultisectoral approach is used for this plan, in which“rural” is understood to refer to much more thanagricultural production and the synergy between thecountryside, small and medium-sized urban centersand metropolitan areas is recognized.

INCODER’s general manager, Arturo Vega Varon,says that the Institute’s approach is based on a broadvision of life in rural areas, one that recognizes thatrural territories perform economic, political, socialand institutional functions. Those functions arekeyed to the supply of natural resources and thebiophysical and cultural diversity that exist. They arealso related to the existence of social, cultural andethnic relations and shared responsibilities thatunderpin the integration and cohesiveness of thecommunities; and to different capabilities fordevelopment at the internal level and in relation toother territories, the nation and the rest of the world(Vega,2004,http://www.incoder.gov.co/editorial/index.asp?id=38).

INCODER’s objectives include taking the lead inidentifying and reinforcing public, private and jointrural development initiatives; strengthening the

22

participatory processes for institutional, regional and localplanning used to prepare rural development programs;improving inter- and intra-sectoral coordination tofacilitate integrated action in the rural milieu; reinforcingthe delegation and decentralization of responsibilities tothe departmental level; and affording small and medium-scale producers access to, and the use of, the factors ofproduction, by managing and granting co-financingresources, subsidies and incentives.

Other national experiences

Several countries have begun to draw up national ruraldevelopment strategies or review their national programsand institutional frameworks for rural development, withthe territorial approach as the linchpin.

In August 2000, Honduras passed the Sustainable RuralDevelopment Act, which called for the creation of theNational Program for Sustainable Rural Development(PRONADERS). This paves the way for a new multi-sectoral approach to rural development geared to humandevelopment and the use and sustainable management ofnatural resources. IICA is currently assisting theGovernment in reorienting PRONADERS and the nationalinstitutional framework for rural development, with theTARD as the frame of reference.

Brazil has created a Territorial Development Secretariat tospearhead the process of drafting, building a consensus onand implementing a Territorial Rural Development Plan.Ecuador is considering creation of a National RuralDevelopment System and a National Rural DevelopmentFund. Uruguay is reviewing the institutional structure andpreparing rural development initiatives in specificterritories. Costa Rica is promoting a review andreorientation of the National Rural Development Program,the main government initiative in this field, focusing onterritories in the northern region of the country. Morerecently, the new administrations in Guatemala andPanama have begun reviewing the institutional frameworkand rural development policies, with emphasis on ruralpoverty alleviation.

23

In Colombia, the Misión Rural project created a network of organizations involved in ruraldevelopment and consensus on a national agenda that contains guidelines and instruments for implementing actions.

References.

Echeverri, Rafael y Ribero, María. (2002). Nueva ruralidad: visión del territorio en América Latina y el Caribe. Ciudad del Saber, Panamá: CIDER/IICA.

Ellis, Frank y Biggs, Stephen. (2001). Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950-2000s. Development Policy Review, 19 (4), pp. 437-448.

Gómez, Sergio. 2002. La “nueva ruralidad”: ¿Qué tan nueva?. Valdivia, Chile: Universidad Austral de Chile.

IICA. (2000). Nueva Ruralidad (Serie de Documentos Conceptuales). Ciudad de Panamá: IICA,

Miranda, Byron. (2002). Institucionalidad y Desarrollo Sostenible del Territorio: La Experiencia del Proyecto IICA-Holanda/LADERAS. San José, Costa Rica: IICA.

Miranda, Carlos Luis. 2002. Brasil: descentralización y desarrollo regional sustentable, La experiencia del Seridó. San José, Costa Rica: IICA-Gobierno del Estado de Rio Grande do Norte.

Pérez, Edelmira. (2001). Hacia una nueva visión de lo rural. En N. Giarracca (Compiladora), ¿Una nueva ruralidad en América Latina? Buenos Aires, Argentina: CLACSO.

Sepúlveda, Sergio; Rodríguez, Adrián; Echeverri, Rafael; y Portilla, Melania. (2003). El Enfoque Territorial del Desarrollo Rural. San José, Costa Rica: IICA.

Sepúlveda, Sergio. 2002. Desarrollo sostenible microrregional: métodos para la planificación local. San José, Costa Rica: IICA-UNA-Consejo de la Tierra.

Vega, Enrique. (2004). La nueva visión de desarrollo rural territorial y su formulación en el plan de desarrollo. Recuperado el 15 de octubre de 2004, de http://www.incoder.gov.co/editorial/index.asp?id=38

Perspectives Two toolsto ensure a good harvest

n recent years, countries inthe Americas have made aconsiderable effort to improvetheir educational systems.

Governments have shownincreasing interest in education

as a means of achieving development to enable themto better face up to conditions in an environment,characterized by globalization and tradeliberalization processes, the signing of free tradeagreements, the rapid development of biotechnologyand the advent of new information andcommunication technologies (ICTs).

Production has increased, but at the cost of growingimbalances among and within countries.Furthermore, the wealth created has not been

distributed equitably. Poverty has increased,affecting children under 16 and rural womenespecially.

In vast areas of the hemisphere, illiteracy rates forrural women exceed those for men. Another cost ofgrowth has been pollution and the degradation ofthe environment.

To face these challenges, educational reforms havebeen instituted in an effort to afford access toeducation at all levels, promote respect for peopleand their environment, encourage greater use oftechnology and guarantee more private sectorinvolvement in the delivery of educational services.Organizational capability was upgraded in order toimplement programs and better respond to theneeds of the milieu.

The chief problems

According to the FAO, the OAS, UNESCO and theWorld Bank, despite progress that has been made,curriculum design problems continue to plagueagricultural and rural education programs in thehemisphere.

In the case of vocational and higher agriculturaleducation, there is a disconnect between what istaught and what people need to learn. As a result,many graduates have difficulty finding work, whileproducers make little use of the knowledge theyhave acquired on their farms.

Education continues to be too theoretical, abstractand divorced from the realities of production. It failsto deal with pertinent topics such as the processingof products, the management of production,sustainable development and the organization ofproducers.

The coverage of training programs is very limiteddue to lack of financing. On average, extensionservices reach 10% of producers.

24

Education and Training, the engine for change in the rural milieu

François DagenaisDirectorate of Education and Training, IICA

I

Due to the economic conditions and the poortelecommunications infrastructure, training programshave failed to tap the full potential of ICTs formultimedia-based distance education programs. Basiceducation programs in rural areas are still hindered bycentralized, universal education policies, with little scopefor adaptation to rural areas. In most cases, the coursecontent refers to situations that have nothing to do withthe rural milieu.

Generally speaking, community institutions,municipalities and parents play only a limited role insupporting educational programs in rural areas of thehemisphere.

Despite the efforts made to correct the situation, there aremajor differences between the quality of the educationalprograms on offer in urban and rural areas. Limitedcoverage, the dropout rate and big differences in qualityare some of the main problems affecting the sector.

IICA’s contribution

Ever since it was founded, the Inter-American Institutefor Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) has played animportant role in improving rural education. It hassupported vocational and higher agricultural educationprograms, and a number of training initiatives in thisfield.

In its 2002-2006 Medium-term Plan, the Institute set asits objective for the Strategic Area of Education andTraining “to support the efforts of the Member States todevelop and upgrade human capital and talent forsustainable agricultural development and theimprovement of rural life,” employing a strategy aimed atimproving the quality of agricultural education.

Esa iniciativa comprende tres grandes líneas de acción:

The modernization of vocational and higheragricultural education programs

Dialogue aimed at integrating agricultural and

rural education in the Americas

The development of multimedia materials toestablish distance education programs

Lines of action

To support curriculum modernization in state-run andprivate agricultural and rural education institutions, astrategy has been developed entitled “Improving thequality and relevance of agricultural education.”

The first stage of this strategy involved diagnosticassessments of strategic planning, curriculum review anddevelopment, and the design of short- and medium-terminstitutional improvement plans.

This effort was undertaken using an innovativemethodology developed by IICA involving the use ofICTs. Traditional training materials were converted intointeractive CDs to encourage self-teaching and theapplication of the knowledge acquired to real worksituations, with the support of specially trained tutors.

The strategy was implemented in Costa Rica, Colombiaand Guatemala. The appraisals carried out showed thatthis program is a tool for improving the quality ofeducation. It is available for use by agricultural vocationalschools and agronomy and science faculties.

In response to a series of requests from the public andprivate sectors, the Directorate of Education and Traininghelped the member countries set up forums for dialogueand the integration of agricultural education at thenational and regional levels.

Among the mechanisms created are the Andean,Southern and Central regional forums, the CentralAmerican Association of Higher Agricultural Education(ACEAS) and the Caribbean Council of Higher Educationin Agriculture (CACHE).

IICA has supported the organization of the annualmeetings of these bodies, where the members discussspecific issues, evaluate the progress made and programactivities. Ties have been strengthened as a result, andjoint activities promoted.

25

1.

2.

3.

Course on CD have become a very useful source

of information and learning. They are inexpensive

and reach extension workers and producers in isolated areas

Despite the progress made, curriculumdesign problems continue to plagueagricultural and rural educationprograms in the hemisphere.

The CACHE, for example, has strengthened student andfaculty exchange programs among agricultural educationinstitutions in the Caribbean, promoted the creation ofthe Distance Education Network for AgriculturalDevelopment in the Caribbean, the Program to DevelopEducational Quality in Agricultural Education Institutionsin the Caribbean, and the implementation of forums fordialogue and the integration of agricultural and ruraleducation.

Universities in the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Haiti,Puerto Rico, Suriname, the Virgin Islands, Trinidad andTobago and Jamaica have taken part in the initiative.

Development and disseminationof materials

To harness the potential of ICTs, IICA has consolidated atraining system for the various actors in the rural milieuat the national and international levels. This has providedinput for efforts to improve outreach and productionprograms, and made it possible to offer training in areas ofspecific interest.

New technologies can play a valuable role in theexpansion of training programs.

The tools that IICA has been developing are of three mainkinds:

. Videoconferences

. Courses on CD

. Electronic networks

The systems of videoconferences has made it possible forproducers, technical personnel, educators andgovernment officials of a single country, or severalcountries, to establish contact with one another, receivetraining and exchange points of view.

The system has also proved to be an ideal way forproducers and exporters to make contact, andprofessionals of different institutions to network on issuessuch as bioterrorism, indicators of sustainability,environmental economics, environmental anddevelopment project management, and theimplementation of hazard analysis and critical controlpoints (HACCP) plans for the food industry, organicagriculture and to prevent bioterrorism.

Courses on CD have become a very useful source ofinformation and learning. They are inexpensive and reachextension workers and producers in isolated areas.

This project started in the Caribbean with support fromthe OAS. The courses developed so far include FarmManagement, E-Commerce and Organic Farming forEntrepreneurs.

IICA’s Distance Learning Center (CECADI) recentlybecame in involved the project, to work on topics such ascompetitiveness in agrifood chains, international trade,the quality and relevance of agricultural education, andthe development and implementation of hazard analysisand critical control points plans for the food industry.

The electronic networks were developed by poolingefforts with the American Distance Education Consortium(ADEC), an umbrella group of 64 Land Grant institutionsinvolved in the development of distance educationprograms in the hemisphere. IICA also worked with theWorld Bank to set up the Global Development LearningNetwork (GDLN).

26

A FAO-UNESCO study carried out in 2003 revealed that farmers’productivity is directly linked to their level of education.

Based on the theory of Human Capital,the research showed that theeducational level of producers impactsagricultural productivity: trainingimproves the quality of their work, as the factors of production are utilized better and resources are allocated more efficiently.

Finally, education helps producersselect more effective means of production by adopting new techniques.

Hand in hand

This system has been used to implement trainingactivities and hold global dialogues for producers,technical personnel, educators and government officialsof different countries to share their know-how andexperience.

As a result of IICA’s efforts to consolidate a digitaldistance learning system, the infrastructure, team andresources now exist for developing multimedia teachingmaterials. These tools for implementing distanceeducation programs are available in videoconferenceand CD formats.

Thanks to the actions implemented, “ed.rural” has nowbecome a training tool and a way for differentprofessionals and producers located in rural and urbanareas of the hemisphere to interact.

27

Centralized, universal education policies continue to dominate basic education programs in rural areas, with little scope for adaptation to rural areas.

Three major challenges

The major objectives for IICA’s Education andTraining Program are to:

Improve the quality of education keyed tonational and regional conditions, takingcultural diversity into consideration

Promote the introduction of new informationand communication technologies (ICTs) inIICA’s cooperation activities

Support the development of trainingprograms based on the use of ICTs

New technologies can play a valuable role in the expansion of training programs for the rural milieu.

Points of View The challenges in store for Agriculturein 2005

griculture’s fate in 2005 dependson events on the internationalstage: the U.S. fiscal and currentaccount deficits and the country’sgrowing neo-protectionism,China’s prolonged economicgrowth and the relentless rise inoil prices.

All these issues are interrelated, and a failure tokeep any one of them in check would plunge theworld economic system into chaos. Even a majorchange in regard to any of them would sendshockwaves through all the world’s economies.Due to these combined factors, the world’sstability hangs in the balance, with the dollarcontinuing to lose value, inflation high worldwideand interest rates on the rise.

The collapse of the dollar, the growth of the U.S.fiscal deficit, the rise in oil prices, which reached

over US$50 a barrel, and China’s inability to slowits economic growth, have sparked currents ofprotectionism. All of this comes at a time whenthe negotiations under the aegis of the WorldTrade Organization (WTO) continue, bilateralagreements have mushroomed and there is animpasse in the negotiations for the Free TradeArea of the Americas.

The state of the U.S. economy gives food forthought and must be monitored constantly toanticipate the potential impacts of anyadjustments throughout the world economicsystem. The current account deficit reached arecord high of US$600 billion, equivalent to overfive per cent of current Gross Domestic Product(GDP). Projections suggest that this figure will risesharply in 2010 if there is no change in the currentconditions.

U.S. imports are now twice its exports. Higherproductivity or a stronger dollar would be neededto reverse this situation and change the directionof the trade flows between Europe, Japan and theUSA.

To prevent a major downturn in the growth rateof the world as a whole, and the United States inparticular, a further increase in the U.S. fiscaldeficit is likely, to drive the expansion of domesticdemand.

The stability of world money markets depends, inpart, on the confidence generated by institutionsand the people who run them. In the UnitedStates, rumors of changes in the leadership of theFederal Reserve and the Treasury have led tointerest rate hikes and falls on stock markets.

In the international economic arena, China hascontributed 20% of growth in world trade.Investment rates in China are half the country’sGDP. Analysts agree that the economic growthrate must fall but government policies have failedto slow economic growth, much less spark a rise inthe value of the nation’s currency.

28

Julio Hernández EstradaPolicies and Trade Negotiations Unit, IICA

A

While the above developments dominate internationaleconomic affairs, agriculture’s relative share of GDP hasdeclined, despite the fact that the relative importance ofthe expanded agricultural sector in the economy is muchgreater. The sector’s budget allocation has also beendeclining as a percentage of GDP. Some functions of theministries of agriculture have also been transferred to thenew portfolios of science and technology, environment,fisheries, etc., along with their respective budgets.

Other challenges facing the sector in 2005 include areassuch as nutritional and food security, environmentalconservation and poverty alleviation which have acquiredgreater importance but are no longer in the purview of theministries of agriculture. All of these areas now require theinvolvement of other portfolios such as environment,education, health, finance, and foreign affairs.

Today, the most important decisions are taken in cabinetsdealing with social and economic issues where theministers of agriculture neither have the leverage nor thetraditional policy instruments. At best, sectoral issues areelevated to form part of sustainable rural developmentstrategies where, again, the ministries in charge of thesector must coordinate actions with their counterparts ateducation, health, communications, transportation, etc.

Under the new model, interministerial partnershipsinvolving agriculture, foreign affairs, finance, home affairs,etc., will be essential for designing actions to address thenegative effects of changes in the world economy thatcould produce more extreme poverty, degrade theenvironment, undermine health and education, and limitrural development.

Another challenge facing agriculture in the hemisphere isa potential increase in migration to the USA if there is a fallin the remittances that immigrants send home due to aneconomic downturn. A slowdown in the world economywould also fuel more migration from rural to urban areasin the countries of the region.

Accordingly, the main challenges for Latin America andthe Caribbean are to alleviate the extreme poverty of 200million people and achieve a higher level of food security.

World economic growth would stimulate trade andgenerate higher levels of aggregate employment if,of course, there is no overheating of the economy.The fear at the moment is whether the worldeconomy can sustain growth rates of over five per

cent for much longer. The International Monetary Fund(IMF) predicted growth rates of five per cent for this year,which would be driven by two international factors:consumer spending in the United States and the boom incorporate investment in China.

The upturn in the Japanese economy has been strongerthan expected and the European market has also beengrowing. The economic growth rate of the emergingeconomies, as a group, is the highest it has been in 25years. The question is: when will the world economy slowdown?

Faced with this world outlook, nearly all of the countriesin Latin America have pinned their hopes on securing abigger share of regional trade by signing bilateral free tradeagreements. At the same time, they have intensifiedregional integration efforts.

For this strategy to work and help raise the levels of well-being, the countries must design policies that will maketheir economies more competitive and improve thebusiness climate. They will also have to adapt their legalframework to be able to operate under ad hoc economicincentives and thereby achieve more and better integrationinto world markets, especially the United States’ market.

For its part, IICA must develop the ability to make rapidadjustments to its technical cooperation model. Withregard to policies and trade, the Institute anticipated thesigning of trade treaties and began to systematize regionalexperiences related to the administration of trade treatiesand the design of policies to take advantage of the newopportunities.

The Institute is facilitating the countries’ efforts to becomemore competitive and participate in the new trade treatiesby identifying real options for small- and medium-sizedagricultural producers through the certification oftraditional processes, geographic identification anddenomination of origin. This enables producers to engagein alternative forms of agricultural production, obtain abigger return on traditional products in world markets andseek new niches.

29

World economic growth would stimulate the growth of trade