Agricultural technology institutions in Colombia and linkages between research and technology transfer within them: an introductory overview

Texto completo

(1)Staff Notes. 88-25. ,:. ... ~'l\' ':. I. .~. ;. No ' ember, 1988. AGRIGULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTIONS IN COLOMBIA AND THE LINKAGES BETWEEN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY , TRANSFER WITHIN THEM - AN INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW. . ¡'. ,i ( ~'. David Kaimowitz. •. Enar· t. .. ,'. ... INTERNATIONAL SERVIGE FOR NATIONAL AGRIGULTURAL RESEARCH I I 11. I I I. j. . II ,. ISNÁR P.O. Box 93375 2509 AJ The Hague, Netherlands. ,1 '. i. 1. :1.

(2) .'. An ISNAR Staff Note is not reviewed and is intended as a preliminary step in the dissemination of ideas which may later be contained in more formal publications . An ISNAR Staff Note reflects the views of the author(s) and not necessarily those of ISNAR. Distribution is at the discretion of the author(s).. If the information or ideas contained in an ISNAR Staff Note are used. the author(s) should be cited..

(3) November, 1988. 88-25. j. I. AGRIGULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTIONS IN COLOMBIA ANO THE LINKAGES BETWEEN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER WITHIN THEM - AN INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW J. David Kaimowitz. I=:::\. ~ f'\. I. I. . ,' -.

(4) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1. 1.1 1.2 2 2.1. 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5 2.6 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1. 2. 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4. 3.2.5 4. 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1. 3. 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2. THE CONTEXT: AGRICULTURE IN COLOMBIA Background The Challenge Ahead. 2 2. 10. THE FORMATION OF THE INSTITUTIONALIZED AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANO THE EVOLVING RELATIONS BETWEEN RESEARCH ANO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER The Pre-War Period, 1830-1938 ICA's First Five Years, 1963-1968 The Institutional Reforms of 1968 The Rise of Rural Development, 1970-1978 The initial rural development projects Competition for resources Rural development as a po1icy and its impact on ICA The Great Debate: Should ICA be Redivided? (1978-1984) Summary and Conclusions. 24 27 29 33. AN OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF INSTITUTIONALIZED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ANO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ANO THE LINKAGES BETWEEN THEM Research Research at ICA Research at other institutions Technology Transfer Technology transfer at ICA Private technical assistance Commercial input distributors Non-governmental organizations Other technology transfer institutions. 34 34 36 38 39 39 39 41 41 42. ICA'S EXPERIENCE WITH SOME KEY PROCESSES OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERFACE BETWEEN RESEARCH ANO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Input and Feedback Technology policy The national agricultural research and technology transfer plans The participation of technology transfer workers and producers in defining research problems Adaptive Research and Testing Transforming Research Results Regulation of Technologies Publications and audio-visual materials The release of new technologies. 11 11. 15 18 22 22. 42 42 42 43 46 47 48 48 48 49. ...

(5) CONTENTS 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.6 4.6.1 4.6.2. Cornmunicating Research Results Research participation in techno1ogy transfer Publications Training Other channe1s for cornmunicating researeh resu1ts Linkages Between Researeh and Input Produetion an Seeds Other teehno1ogies Research Services Surnmary. 49 50 52 53 53 54 54 54 54 55. 5.2 5.3. SOME ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES Personne1 Po1iey Status issues The technica1 premium system The Level of Centralization Summary. 55 55 55 56. 6. CONCLUSIONS. 57. 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY. 59. 4.7 4.8 5. 5.1 5.1.1 5.1. 2. 57 57.

(6) INTRODUCTION This paper grew out of a joint research project between ISNAR and the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA) on the relationship between agricultural research and technology transfer in Colombia. Field work for the paper was conducted in the latter part of 1987. The first section of the paper looks at the agricultural context in which the Colombian technology institutions operate. The focus is on the relevant attributes of the client groups the technology system is expected to serve, the extent to which they have participated in specific types of technological change, and the challenges their demands for technology currently present to the technological institutions. The second sec tion fo11ows the his torical evolution of the agricultural technology institutions and the relationship between research and technology transfer within them. For the period prior to 1963, a11 technology institutions are covered, but discussion concerning later periods is mostly centered around ICA. Section three describes all the institutions currently involved in agricultural research and technology transfer. It looks at which institutions are involved, the extent of their mandate and resources, and the methodologies they use. The next section looks specifically at ICA's experience in carrying out seven functions identified in the literature as being relevant to the relations between research and technology transfer. Tilen, the implications for these relations, of leA' s personnel policies and centralized decís ion making process are examined. Finally there is a short conclusion..

(7) -21. 1.1. THE CONTEXT: AGRICULTURE IN COLOMBIA. Background. Agricul ture plays an important but declining role in the Colombian economy. In 1980, it accounted for 25% of GNP (down from 30% in 1968) and 29% of total employment (down from 41%) (Elías, 1985: 55). Sixty percent of Co10mbia's legal export earnings carne from agriculture in 1984, of which three quarters carne from coffee (Rojas, 1986: 147) (1). Bananas, flowers, cotton, and sugar are al so significant agricul tural exports. Agricultural imports (mos tiy of wheat, milk, soybeans, and corn) were 10% of total imports in 1977 and have tended to grow over time (lADB, 1979: 33). Approximate1y two thirds of agricu1tura1 production comes from crops and one third from livestock. Eight crops (coffee, rice, p1antains, cotton, yuca, corn, sugar cane, and potatoes) account for over 85% of crop production (IADB, 1979: 48). (See table 1.) Ihe crops can be divided into five groups: coffee, cornmercia1 crops, traditiona1 crops, mixed crops, and p1antation crops. Coffee is grown on about one fifth of a11 crop 1and. A 1arge and important group of sroall coffee producers cu1tivate between 1 and 10 hectares, but an increasing portion of output comes from medium sized growers with 10 to 50 hectares in production (Arango, 1986: 295-301). The category "cornmercial crops" in Colombia includes: rice, cotton, f10wers, sorghum, bar1ey, soybeans, sesarne, and sugar planted for industrial refining. These crops are produced principally by 1arger producers under optimal agro-ecological conditions. Most of their acreage has been mechanized since the 1950s. Al! make comparatively heavy use of improved varieties and in 1977 cotton, rice, and sorghurn alone accounted for 80% of the total cultivated area sown with purchased improved seed (Agudelo et al, 1987: 193; Perry, 1983: 55). (See table 2) . Cotton, rice, and sugar used 80% oE the insecticides, 90% oE the herbicides, and 35% of the fertilizers consumed in the country (Brochero et al, 1983: 68-69; Perry, 1983: 76). (Coffee and potatoes used most of the remaining ferti1izers.) Ihe commercial crops expanded dramatical!y between 1950 and 1970. Production physically increased by 8.2% a year, y~e1ds by 3%, and the area under production by 5.8% (ICA, 1978: 7) (2). Yield increases were particular1y high during the last part oE this period (Ka1manovitz, 1978: 70,71) .. (1) No statistics are available for cocaine and marl]Uana production and exporto But these are believed to generate at 1east as much revenue as coEEee and perhaps substantia11y more . (2) It is worth noting that practically a11 the studies showing high internal rates oE return to agricultural research in Colombia have looked at cornmercial crops during this periodo (See Eor exarnple IADB, 1979: 58).. -. -. -. _. _. _. o. _. _. _. _. ••. _.

(8) - 3 -. Tab1e 1 GOLOMBIA: Gontribution of Individual Grops to Grops Va1ue of Grop Production (Average Percentage During 5 Year Period). 1955-59. 1960-64. 39.1. 42.2. 28.4. 25.4. 30.0. Rice. 5.9. 6.6. 9.5. 11.3. 10.1. Sesame. 0.2. 0.5. 1.1. 1.2. 0.6. Gotton. 2.0. 3.3. 7.7. 8.7. 9.2. Bar1ey. 1.2. 1.1. 1.4. 1.0. 0.9. Soybeans. -.-. -.-. 0.5. 1.3. 1.7. Sorghum. -.-. -.-. 0.7. 2.0. Gane Sugar. 1.0. 1.4. 2.6. 3.2. 3.6. Gassava. 5.9. 4.5. 5.3. 5.9. 7.8. P1antain. 7.1. 7.3. 8.7. 9.6. 9.5. Pane1a. 7.0. 6.1. 7.3. 5.7. 3.9. Beans. 2.6. 2.5. 2.0. 1.5. 1.6. 8.1. 5.8. 6.7. 6.3. 5.5. Maize. 10.8. 8.9. 9.5. 8.5. 7.2. Wheat. 4.3. 3.3. 2.2. 1.6. 0.7. Tobacco. 1.4. 1.8. 1.6. 1.9. 1.7. Banana. 2.8. 3.1. 3.8. 4.5. 2.8. Gocoa. 1.2. 1.3. 1.6. 1.3. 1.4. TOTAL. 100.0. 100.0. 100.0. 100.0. PRODUGT. 1.. Goffee. 2.. Gomrnercia1 Grops. 3.. 4.. 1965-69. 1970-74. Traditiona1 Grops. Mixed Grops Potatoes. 5.. 1950-54. P1antation Grops. Source: IADB, 1979: p. 48.. 100.0.

(9) -. 4 -. TabIe 2. PERCENTAGE OF CULTIVATED AREA WITH IMPROVED VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS IN SOME COLOMBIAN PRODUCTS:. PRODUCT. 1972-1983.. COUNTRY TOTAL (Average) 1972-74. 1976-78. 1981-83. 1.. Sesame. 41.1. 38.6. 11.5. 2.. Soybeans. 94.6. 92.8. 95.5. 3.. Bar1ey. 62.3. 72.1. 40.7. 4.. Sorghum. 92.2. 100.0. 100.0. 5.. Maize. 24.6. 19.6. 13.5. 6.. Brown Beans. 22.3. 5.1. 0.9. 7.. Cotton. 99.2. 81.8. 73.0. 8.. Wheat. 20.1. 27.1. 16.5. 9.. Rice. 52.0. 54.3. 82.8. 10.. Potatoes. 0.2. 0.2. 0.2. Source: Ardi1a, 1984. Note: This refers to areas cultivated with seeds purchased froro the seed industry. It exc1udes areas cultivated with iroprov~d varieties mu1tiplied on the producers fie1d..

(10) -5Performance between 1970 and 1984 was more mixed. Yields tended to stagnate and in some cases decline (Balcazar, 1985: 9). (See table 3.) Ifhile rice, sugar cane, and sorghum production expanded, sesame, soybean, and bar ley produc tion fell. Cot ton output rose rapidly, only to later drop sharply (Weersma Haworth, 1984: 122,124,125) (3). (See table 4.) Falling cornmercial crop production, combined with increased restrictions on capital goods imports, al so caused a reduction in the importation and usage of agricultural machinery and agro-chemicals. Stagnation in cornmercial crop production can be attributed to three major factors: rising production costs, stable or falling demands, and a slowdown in technological innovation. The jump in agro-chemical prices following the 1970s oil price increases, a rapid growth in land prices caused by rapid urbanization and speculation, a rise in real rural wages, and a shift in real interest rates from negative to highly positive levels, have pushed up production costs and caused profit margins to decline (Balcazar, 1985: 14). (See table 5.) On the demand side, domes tic per capita rice consumption has plateaued. Sugar exports have been depressed by the decline of the U.S. quotas, and low world sugar prices. World cotton prices were also very low in the early 1980s. Sesame and soybean producers have faced sharp competition from imports and alternative domes tic sources of vegetable oil such as african palmo Since cornmercial crop growers have already incorporated most technology available internationally and in several crops achieved sorne of the highest yields in Latin America, there is little room for easy improvement. Intensive monoculture production and overuse oE agro-chemicals have promoted rising pest and soil pro)blems which are increasingly diEficult to resolve. Moreover, real funding Eor agricultural research declined during rnost of this period and this may have reduced the supply of available new technology. The case of flowers is somewhat exceptional. Flower exports grew three Eold between 1978 and 1984 and became Colombia' s third largest agricultural export (Rojas, 1986: 124). They are grown using sophisticated technology, mostly imported Erom abroad. There are, however, only 250 cornmercial producers(Perry, 1983: 143-144). The "tradi t ional" crops, produced almos t en tirely by small p;:oducers, include: plantains, yuca, beans, and sugar produced for artisanal processing (henceEorth referred to as "panela"). They also account for about a quarter oE total crop production (ICA, 1978:6). Their cultivation is rarely mechanized. Few improved varieties are available and relatively little use is made of those that are. Agro-chemical use Eor their production is minimal. Between 1950 and 1976 the volume oE. (3) Production and yields improved substantially for most cornmercial crops in 1985 and 1986, but it is still unc1ear whether this reflects a trend (Agude10 et al, 1987: 36,41,44). Many experts believe it does noto.

(11) - 6 -. Table 3. AVERAGE YIELD PER RECTARE OF SOME CROPS: 1970-1984 (Average yie1ds for 1970-72. Sorghurn. Soybeans. 103.5. 91.7. 103.5. 111.7. 95.8. 108.3. 95.4. 114.6. 89.3. 100.7. 104.1. 101.1. 87.4. 117.3. 90.1. 99.4. 86.2. 94.0. 81.1. 106.4. 128.8. 95.0. 108.3. 92.6. 104.4. 1975. 75.5. 93.4. 128.5. 93.3. 98.4. 104.1. 100.4. 1976. 85.3. 93.5. 126.5. 60.7. 106.5. 102.5. 104.2. 1977. 83.2. 83.3. 119.5. 101.0. 101.2. 89.2. 94.7. 1978. 83.8. 65.9. 125.1. 100.7. 100.2. 95.7. 92.5. 1979. 84.9. 98.7. 128.6. 107.1. 110.3. 94.4. 106.5. 1980. 80.9. 106.5. 128.2. 101.3. 108.4. 87.0. 103.2. 1981. 90.7. 108.4. 126.0. 90.7. 109.2. 95.8. 105.8. 1982. 88.8. 101.3. 134.1. 92.2. 110.3. 81.3. 104.3. 1983. 82.6. 111.2. 133.1. 91.4. 115.7. 91.1. 107.4. 1984. 91.7. 111. 7. 132.4. 100.2. 114.2. 104.0. 102.7. 2.1. 0.0. 1.0. -0.5. 0.4. Year. Sesame. Cotton. 1970. 99.1. 92.4. 80.9. 98.9. 1971. 101.4. 96.3. 104.4. 1972. 99.4. 111.3. 1973. 74.2. 1974. (%)*. Rice. Bar1ey. = 100). Maize. Average annua1 growth rate -0.5. 0.8. Source: Ba1cazar, 1985: p. 9..

(12) -. 7 -. Table 4. GROWTH OF PRODUGTION OF THE MAIN GROPS: 1970-1984 (In annual rates for the five year period 1/). Grops. 1970-1975. 1975-1980. 1980-1984. Sesarne. -4.3. -5.1. -24.4. Gotton. 2.6. -5.9. -16 . 3. 19.0. 4.2. -1.2. 3.5. 5.3. -29 . 0. Sorghum. 20.5. 5.8. 7.7. Soybeans. 4.5. 5.2. -6.5. -3.2. 2.7. 0.1. Potatoe*. 6.7. 7.3. 7.8. Yuca*. 1.0. 1.3. -7.6. 10.8. 4.9. -3.8. 7.0. 13.7. 13.8. 10.5. 12.4. 1.8. Sugar Gane. 7.0. 4.9. 1.4. Goffee. 0.2. 9.9. -1.5. Rice Barley. Maize*. Sugar Gane (Panela)* African Palm Banana. *. Grops for which statistics are doubtful.. 1/ The annual rates were calculated through exponential regressions Source: Balcazar, 1985: p. 5..

(13) -. u. -. Table S. INDICATORS OF MARGINS ON PRODUCTION COSTS 1/ FOR SOME CROPS: 1970-1984 (Average 1970-1972. =. 100). Sorghum. Soybeans. 96.2. 88.6. 110.9. 109.3. 117.0. 97.0. 96.6. 107.1. 101.8. 86.7. 114.4. 92.4. 68.0. 83.3. 116.4. 105.9. 108.3. 97.2. 1974. 83.5. 100.5. 121.8. 86.4. 79.4. 99.3. 1975. 47.2. 71.9. 82.8. 81.3. 67.1. 70.7. 1976. 48.9. 71.1. 71.2. 50.9. 68.3. 69.9. 1977. 41.5. 63.2. 84.4. 79.6. 59.5. 73.4. 1978. 40.3. 45.8. 76.8. 77 .8. 54.0. 62.3. 1979. 41.5. 71.1. 77 .1. 76.8. 62.0. 76.3. 1980. 38.1. 63.0. 74.3. 69.9. 55.5. 64.9. 1981. 32.9. 54.4. 76.6. 65.2. 57.5. 65.4. 1982. 29.7. 54.3. 81.0. 68.5. 50.1. 67.2. 1983. 31.6. 86.5. 83.4. 71.2. 57.6. 74.4. 1984. 32.1. 95.6. 80.3. 82.7. 78.8. 75.0. Rice. Year. Sesame. Cotton. 1970. 109.2. 84.9. 88.8. 1971. 102.7. 108.0. 1972. 88.1. 1973. 1/. Barley. Index of margin on costs: IPPi X IRi. -rci -. 1PPi = Indicator of producer prices corresponding to the crop IRi. = Indicator. ICi. =. of yie1d per hectare of each crop. Indicator of production costs per hectare of each crop. Source: Ba1cazar, 1985: p. 14..

(14) -9traditional crop production grew less than 1% annual1y and even this increase was 1arge1y the result oE the expansion oE cultivated area (Kalmanovitz, 1978: 82; Perry, 1983: 185-187). Corn, potatoes, wheat, and tobacco are "mixed" crops. They are produced by a variety of grower types and under widely differing systems of production. Of the four, potatoes and corn are by far the most important. About half of the area in each of these two crops is grown under cornmercial conditions and half using traditiona1 techniques (Weersma-Haworth, 1984: 26). Po tato production was very dynamic up until recentIy, increasing 9% annually between 1970 and 1982, with a 3% annual increase in yields (ibid: 122, 125). Production has since stagnated but yie1ds continue to rise. Agro-chemica1 usage for potatoes has grown rapidly, particular1y Eungicides and fertilizers. In contrast, corn production and yields have remained prac tically cons tant, improved seed purchase has fallen, and agro-chemical use remains low. The poor performance of corn and the tradi tional crops does no t necessarily ref1ect stagnation in the small farm sector as a whole. Although statistical data is weak, regional and anecdotal evidence suggest a process of regional specialization and intensification of production in crops affording localized comparative advantages to small producers such as vegetables, potatoes, mi1k, coffee, or beans, depending on the region. (Bernal et al, 1982: 154-161.) The sector's institutional credit and agro-chemical usage has risen, although it is s till low compared to the large farro cornmercial sec tor. Overall, small producers are responsible for an estimated 40% oE all crop production (Siabato, 1986: 386). ) Plantation crops in Colombia include oil pa1m, cocoa, and bananas. They account for on1y a sma1l percentage oE agricu1tural output and are grown almost entirely by 1arge producers. Production of these crops has grown rapidly, mostly as a result of increases in area. The case of livestock presents a heterogeneous panorama. Forty years ago, extensive catt1e production with mínima1 capital investment (beyond the cattle itse1f) was the rule. Whíle .such extensive systems continue to dominate certain regions, intensive milk production has emerged on the outskirts of the major cities, and capital investment has risen. Basic productivity indicators have shown a slight improvement (ICA, 1978: 16; Lorente, 1986: 355, 360). Rural violence, particularly in the more isolated traditiona1 cattle raising areas, is current1y the sectar's principal constraint. A modern poultry industry has also emerged ayer the last Eorty years. In 1971, eggs and poultry represented 24% of a1l livestock production and were the principal uti1izers oE concentrated feedstufEs (ICA, 1978: 15). Regiona11y, Colombian agrículture presents a wide diversity oE situations. There are 7 major agricultural macro-regions: the Andes, the Inter-Andean Valleys, the Amazon, Orinoquia, the Caribbean, the Pacific Coast, and the Islands..

(15) -10The Andes region is characterized by a temperate climate, small holdings, a high population density, and hill side production oE coEEee, potatoes, panela, milk, corn, beans, Eruits, and vegetables. The Sabana oE Bogotá within this region is the center oE lárge-scale capital-intensive milk, vegetable, and flower production. The southern part of the region is culturally associated with the indigenous regions of the neighboring countries, while to the north the population is mostly of European descent. The inter-Andean valleys include much of the country's most productive farm land. The valleys are dominated by large producers of commercial crops such as sugar cane, irrigated rice, soybeans, cotton, and sorghum. Both the Orinoquia and the Amazon are tropical humid zones of recent agricultural colonization where there is still little land scarcity. Extensive cattle production, yuca, plantains, rainfed rice, and cocoa are typical of these regions. Land is al so relatively abundant in the Caribbean, which is characterized by hot tropical lowlands appropriate for commercial banana production, cotton, irrigated rice, and beef cattle. The population is largely of African origino The islands and Colombia's Pacific Coast are of only limited agricultural significance. 1.2. The Challenge Ahead. Colombia's current agricultural situation presents major challenges for technology development. Without significant breakthroughs based on basic research, large jumps in commercial crop yields are unlikely. Moreover, given current rnarket conditions such increases might well result in reduced agricultural earnings. Thus, there is increasing concensus that technological initiatives in these crops must prioritize unit cost reduction even if that means stable or declining yields. Reducing costs will require technological fine-tuning and localized solutions and a relatively sophisticated and decentralized technological infrastructure. A completely different set of issues faces the small and medium sized producers working in agricultural frontier areas. These areas have be en increasingly prioritized by government officials because of their high level of social conflict and violence. But at present almost no appropriate technology is available for their unique tropical environments and factor endowments. Nor is there much infrastructure in place to create it. Hence, attention must be given to basic studies and results can only be expected in the relatively long-term, even if substantial resources are invested. For small Andean producers labor and land-intensive systems, combining cropping with livestock, will be required (Agudelo et al, 1987). Because agro-chemical use is limited there are still possibilities for greater consumption in different places; but profi tabili ty will have to be carefully studied in each case. Work to adapt improved varieties to local conditions and small producers' particular needs will continue to be important. But to have a major impact, the current bottlenecks in producing and distributing improved genetic materials must be overcome..

(16) -11Two issues of growing importance to a11 producers are environmental s tabili ty and the search for market opportuni ties. Pes t icide abuse, rapid erosion, uncontro11ed deforestation, the contamination and drying up of water supplies, and the degradation of tropical environments all pose major challenges. Producers must also compete in an every day more competitive environment where there is a high premium on identifying new markets, producing non-traditional goods (particularly those with a high income elasticity of demand such as fruits, vegetables, ornamentals, and dairy products), improving product quality, and reducing costs. Flexibility wi11 be required to provide technologies which meet this need, as well as a stronger role for economic and market research, and an adaptive approach which focuses on future alternatives as well as current constraints. 2. 2.1. THE FORMATION OF THE INSTITUTIONALIZED AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM AND THE EVOLVING RELATIONS BETWEEN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER The Pre-War Period, 1830-1938. Colombia's first magazine emphasizing modern agricultural techniques was a private initiative begun in 1832. Forty years later a small group of producers founded the Colombian Agricultural Society (SAC), among which some sta ted purposes were to: in terchange seeds, promo te improved 1 ives tock breeds, forro agricul tural schools, and disseminate advanced agricultural techniques from abroad. During the remainder of the century SAC leaders were involved in various technology-related initiatives including publications, agricultural fairs, and attempts to establish a national agricultural institute (Bejarano, 1987: 144-166); In 1878, a national departrnent of agriculture was estab1ished. Law 64, which foresaw the creation of a national agricultural institute with responsibilities for agricultural research, education, and technology dissemination, was passed the following year (Piñeiro et al, 1982: 238). But i ts only prac tical resul t was the opening of a small teaching institute that operated a few years and then was forced to close. A handful of agricultural vocational schools appeared at the turn of the century. The first university agronorny faculty was established in 1911. In 1914, a ministry of agriculture was created and efforts were renewed to organize a national agricultural institute. Again these efforts led nowhere. The Minis try of Agricul ture was incorporated into the Minis try of Indus try in 1924. Agricultural education was transferred to the Ministry of Public Instruction and the Superior School of Agriculture (ESA), the only secti9n of the national agricultural institute which had materialized, lost its budget.. (4) This work emphasizes technology-related activities carried out by institutions. This should not be taken to imply, however, that individual agricultural producers playa limited role in generating and transferring new innovations..

(17) -12The situation improved somewhat in 1926 (Bejarano, 1987: 184). A governmental program of agricultural research, education, and extension was developed, new plans were made for an agricultural institute, and regional experiment stations were consolidated in a handful of locations. These efforts were followed by the passage of Law 132 in 1931 which declared that "agricultural and l}vestock research, testing, demonstration activities, teaching, statistics, and technology transfer should follow one joint plan under the auspices of the national government" (Trigo et al, 1982: 141-142). In sununary, the mos t outs tanding charac teris tic, of the agricul tural technology institutions in the pre-war period was their fragility. Educational facilities open only to close again soon after. Laws are passed but never implemented. Programs are assigned functions but no resources to carry them out. Minis tries change names and func tions, appear and disappear. The few more or less regular publications were all privately sponsored. In part, this simply reflected the weakness of the national government. In addition, the existing traditional production relations in agriculture did not genera te much demand for technology. Agriculture was considered menial, and i ts techniques a province of the lower classes, who were basically bared froro the educational systero. Nor was there any foundation of accumulated scientific knowledge or trained agricul tural experts on which to build. The many laws and documents froro this period can easily be interpreted as acknowledging the need to integra te agricultural education, research, and technology transfer. Indeed almost all of them attribute aspects of all three functions to the various institutes, schools, and experimental farros they discuss. That interpretation, however, is roisleading. As noted above, there was a great gap between the documents and the reality. Ambitious plans were regularly translated into roeager realities. More important s till, to discuss the problem. in these terms implies imposing present-day conceptions on an earlier periodo At the time the documents were written research, education, and dissemination were not considered separate functions. Hence, they could not need integrating. There was a vague idea of the necessity to introduce modern farming techniques, but none that required a well-defined social division of labor. Nor was there either the human resources or knowledge base to sustain such a division of labor. Agriculture had not yet been accepted as a valid area for real scientific analysis. Experimentation was based solely on direct observation. There were no Colombian university-trained agronomists until the 1920s. Practically all the efforts relied heavily on foreign, mostly European, instructors, whose main task was to introduce the agricultural techniques practiced in their countries. The Post-War Transformations in the Public Sector Prior to the Formation of ICA, 1945-1963:.

(18) -13The official separation of research and extension dates back to just before World loJar II. In 1938, agricul ture was again subsumed wi thin another ministry, this time the Ministry of Economy, within which completely independent sections were created for agricultural research and extension (ibid: 12). A specific agricultural ministry was reestablished in 1947. Soon after the ministry was divided into three departments: research, extension, and natural resources. A program coordination department was formed with the authority to review, modify, and approve all the ministry's programs and to ensure that the extension and natural resource departments' campaigns were based on research results (ibid: 17, 18). But judging from subsequent complaints about the continued 1ack of interaction between research and extension, the department had little success. The Second Wor1d War 1ed to the disp1acement of European influence by the United States. Previously Americans had not participated in any of the many foreign miss ions concerned wi th agricul tural technology or been among those contracted to teach agriculture. But in the post-war period, U.S. inspired initiatives in both agricultural research and extension were central to all the principal changes in thesc fields. There were three major US missions related to agricultural technology between 1944 and 1950 (Rice, 1971: 54). Then, in 1950 the Rockefe11er Foundation agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture to establish a Special Research Office (DIE), modeled after Rockefeller's Mexican program begun in 1943. During the following years the DIE' s funding and guidance played a major role in stimulating agricultural research. In 1953, the Colombian-American Agricul tural Technical Service (STACA) was set up with u.s. funding. STACA was one of a numb~r of similar agencies established in Latin America as part of President Truman's Point IV programo The service had a pilot extension program in Boyacá and emphasized direct contact between extensionists and farmers and the use of demons trations to disseminate technology. Without replacing the Minis try of Agricul ture' s extension division, it exerted a major inf1uence on it. Following the U.S. mode1, STACA created home economics and rural youth programs. Unlike the U.S., however, there were no effective mechanisms for 1inking extension with research. The implicit assumption was that many supe-rior farming techniques were available to be irnmediately extended and adopted by producers without additional research. The agreement between Rockefeller and the Ministry of Agriculture expired in 1956 and OlE' s assets were transferred to the Colombian goverrunent (Trigo et al, 1982: 142,143). The STACA agreement expired two years later, although in both cases American assistance continued on a reduced sca1e. Following STACA's disappearance the government greatly expanded its own extension division's coverage, without altering its basic conceptual and organizational framework (Jaramillo, 1984: 29-31). The Ministry of Agricu1ture was restructured again in 1955; and again one justification was the need to improve coordination between research and extension (Pineiro et al, 1982: 244). The Department of Agricu1tural Research (OlA) was created as a high1y centralized institution built.

(19) -14around five national agricul tura1 research centers. To make research more responsive to producers' needs extension, the coffee and 1ivestock federations, the SAC and the Caja Agraria (the public agricultura1 lending agency) were made members of "the OlA' s board of direc tors . (Revealingly though, extension was given on1y speaking but not voting rights) . The 1955 reorganization, however, was no more successfu1 than its predecessors at achieving effective coordination between research and extension. A 1959 Ministry of Agricultura1 report to Congress noted that "coordination between" •.. "extension services, agricu1 tura1 development campaigns, and agricul tural and socio-economic research" ... "has been almost non-existent, and consequent1y their resu1ts have been deficient" (Piñeiro 1982: 245). The resu1 t was ye t ano ther res truc turing. The OlA was raised to the status of a division and a director general post was established to promote greater integration between research and development activities. One of the few areas of joint OIA-extension work were the regional demonstration trials. Neverthe1ess, at least as described by landstra et al, the relationship was hardly optimal: "These trials were formulated by the research staff of the national commodity and soi1 ferti1ity programs. Each agency was responsib1e for the p1anting, maintenance, harvesting, and recording of data on a number of such trials." "For each trial seed, fertilizer, and insecticides were supp1ied in preweighed package s together with the experimental design and a diagram of the plot sequence in each replicate. The regional tria1s were emp10yed as a central focus for fie1d days in which the recornmendations published by the national research programs were discussed, often by personne1 froro these programs specifica1ly invited to the fie1d daYs .•• Over the years, extension agency personnel began to express dissatisfaction with the way their task was structured, feeling that they were often f100ded with demands for regional tria1s, had few possibilities to initiate their own activities, and were too heavily centrally directed" (1979: 29) (5). Perhaps the most successfu1 research-technology transfer 1inkage was the re1ationship between the OlA and the Caja Agraria. In 1959, the Caja agreed to distribute improved wheat, corn, and bean seeds as part of its credit packages and arrangements were made for seed mu1tip1ication. This program proved effective in disseminating new varieties, particularly in heavily mechanized areas (Trigo et al, 1982: 143).. (5) Zandstra et al a1so mentions frequent changes in extension 1eadership and policy as major factors contributirig to poor coordination between extension and research in this period (1979: 29)..

(20) -15The Expanding Role of Semi-Officia1 Producer Associations Increasing Diversity of Extension Programs:. and an. The Colombian Coffee Growers Federation (Federacafé), was created in 1927. In the following years it set an example for the creation of a unique set of semi-official, semi-private producers federations. These federations are characterized by: (1) an official mandate to engage in marketing and technology-related activities; (2) financing through government-imposed levies on crop sales or exports; and (3) indirect election of leadership bodies by producers, with a specified number of positions allocated to public sector officials. After the Coffee Growers Federation, the next such associations to be formed were the National Cotton Institute (INA) (later the Cotton Development Institute IFA) and the Rice Growers Federation (Fedearroz). Both were created in 1947. A Tobacco Development Institute (INTABACO) was created along similar lines in 1954. During this same period, a wide variety of other technology transfer institutions were also established. Popular Cultural Action (ACPO), Colombia' s most successful non-governrnental organization invol ved in agricultural technology transfer, was founded in 1947 by a Catholic priest (Villamizar, 1986: 51). ACPO initiated Sutatenza Radio and began a massive program of rural radial education, backed up by a large number of paraprofessionals working in educational and extension activities. Soon after, they began publishing the weekly newspaper "El Campesino", as well as a wide variety of other published materials designed to complement their radio work. The National Training Service (SENA) was formed in 1957 with a mandate to provide practical training in agriculture, as well as otber occupations. The passage of an agrarian reform law led to the creation of the Colombian Agrarian Reform Institute (INCORA) in 1961 with its own technical assistance program for agrarian reform beneficiaries. The Provincial Secretaries of Agricultural and various regional development corporations a1so began extension programs (Jaramillo, 1984: 35-43). Some idea of the tremendous diversification of agricultural information sources can be obtained from the growth in the number of agriculture-related periodicals. Whereas only 14 agricultural periodicals were initiated between 1883 and 1945 (most of which were very short-lived) between 1945 and 1963 no fewer than 106 started pub1ication (Hernandez de Caldas, 1964). The tremendous variety of periodicals and institutions producing them point to a technology transfer system which, by the early 1960s, had become exceedingly complexo 2.2. ICA's First Five Years, 1963-1968. Following a general Latin American trend, in 1962 the Colombian government transferred the responsibility for agricultural research from the Ministry of Agriculture to a newly created decentralized semi-autonomous public institution (ICA). This decision was encouraged by the Ford, Kellog, and Rockefeller Foundations, the University of Nebraska, the U.S. Department of Agricultural, and the Agency for International Deve10pment (AID) all of whom provided funds and technical assistance..

(21) -16The real importance of the linkage issue in rCA's creation is hard to determine, but references to the problem abound in all rCA's founding documents. Decree 1567, for example, ;CA's basic enabling legislation, states "the creation of an autonomous organization is necessary in order to coordinate agricultural research and extension activities. Therefore, the Colombian Agricu1tural rnstitute Corporation, is hereby established to promote, coordinate, and carry out agricu1tural research, education, and extension" (Pineiro et al, 1982: 249). Pineiro et al a1so mentions the DrA s lack of effective techno1ogy transfer mechanisms as a major factor in rCA's creation (ibid: 249). I. rnitially rCA was organized into three divisions: research, extension, and education. Neverthe1ess, its primary function was research and, to a les ser exten t, pos tgraduate education. The Minis try of Agricu1 ture continued to have its own separate national extension service. rCA S techno1ogy transfer activi ties were limited to: "a) carrying out studies concerning extension methodo1ogy; b) co1laborating with other entities in the s tudy and eva1uation of their extension services; c) coordinating the different entities charged with extension operations; d) providing in-service training for personne1 of other institutions; and e) organizing short courses for specialists, professionals, professors, s tudents, agricul tural technicians, experts, and farmers" (Jarami110, 1984: 40). According to Jarami11o: "new recornmendations were cornmunicated through formal courses supported by various mediurn such as publications, field days etc.; but there was no direct and continuous re1ationship between researchers, farmers, and extension professionals through which any real interactive cornmunication could be established" (ibid). I. Responsibility for rCA's technology transfer activities initially be10nged to the agricul tural cornmunications programo This program changed names several times in the early 1960s, but its basic functions remained the same. rt was small, with only five professionals in 1964 (all agronomists) and only a minimal percentage of rCA I s budget was assigned to it (Villamizar et al, 1985: 34; Trigo et al, 1982: 171). The impact of ICA I s research on agricu1 tural production came almost exclusively from the release of improved commercial and mixed crop varieties for which there were relatively effective distribution channels (at least for large producers). The first rCA varieties were released in 1966. By 1969, a total of 68 were available (Ardila, 1984: 7). (See table 6.) In terma of new varieties, this proved to be rCA s mas t productive periodo I. Most technology transfer-related activities were carried out directly by the research division, with little involvement from the extension section. Research was responsible for certified seed production and managed rCA's relationship with the Caja Agraria which distributed the new varieties. The research division also continued to organize regional trials and field days through which at least sorne producers becarne acquainted with the new varieties. Simultaneously major changes were underway in the private sector. There was an influx of imported agro-chemicals and a majar increase in the.

(22) -. Tab1e 6. 17 -. COLOMBIA. PROOUCTION OF IMPROVEO MATERIALS (IMPROVEO VARIETIES ANO HY8RIOS) BY ICA, PRIVATE COLOM8lAN PROOUCERS, INTERNATIONAL CENTERS (FOREIGN) ANO JOINT ICA/CIAT EFFORTS AS WELL AS OTHER COLOMBIAN ENTITIES. Period: 1955-1981.. CREATORS Years. Private Exteri or (Colombia). ICA-. ICA/CIAT. ICA/Others (Colombia). Annua1 Total. Accumu1ated Total. 1955 1956. 2. 1957. 3. 1958. 4. 1959. 5. 1960. 6. 1961. 3. 4. 10. 1962. 3. 3. 13. 1963. 7. 7. 20. 1964. 21. 1965. 22. 1966. 5. 5. 27. 1967. 32. 34. 61. 1968. 11. 12. 73. 16. 89. 11. 11. 100. 6. 9. 109. 1972. 8. 9. 118. 1973. 7. 7. 125. 1969. 3. 1970 1971. 2. 10. 3. 1974. 2. 6. 9. 134. 1975. 2. 5. 7. 141. 17. 158. 17. 175. 10. 185. 33. 218. 5. 223. 2. 16. 239. 5. 6. 239. 2. 1. 2.6. 100.0. 1976. 4. 11. 6. 1977. 8. 3. 1978. 3. 5. 1979. 5. 12. 1980. 2. 2. 1981. 3. 2. 9. Total. 26. 38. 164. Percentage 10.8. 15.9. 2. 16. 68.6. Source: Ardila, 1984: p. 7. (Only corresponds to improved materia1s that are registered. Exc1udes other non-registered improved materia1s or others being registered . ) - Before 1966, these figures refer to ICA's predecessor, OlA..

(23) -18number of commercial input distribution companies. Just as the 19505 was the decade of the mechanization of C010mbia's commercial agriculture, the 19605 became the decade of that sector's massive incorporation of chemical techno10gies. Fertilizer and .insecticide consumption increased three-fold (Kalmanovitz, 1978: 232; Perry, 1982: 74). The growth of these industries changed the environment in which public sector research and extension operated and created a neéd to regu1ate the imported techno10gies disseminated by the input companies. The boom in cornmercial agriculture and its auxiliary services was also accompanied by a rapid expansion of institutiona1 credit. This, in turn, brought about the formation of an important group of private agronomists providing technica1 assistance. In 1966 the Agricultural Financial Fund was established to provide 10ans to large farmers, conditiona1 on their use of private technica1 assis tance, improved seeds, ferti1izers, and insecticides. The Caja Agraria estab1ished a similar program the year after, aimed at somewhat smaller producers (Brochero et al, 1983: 36,37). 2.3. The Institutional Reforms of 1968. In 1968, there was yet another reorganization of the public sector agricul tural technology ins ti tutions. Once again the need to improve inter-institutional coordination and avoid duplication of efforts figured prominently in the official rational (Piñeiro et al, 1982: 253). The reform transformed ICA from principally an agricultural research agency to a multi-functional agricultural technology institute. The national extension service, the cotton, tobacco, and animal disease institutes, and the extension services of the regional autonomous corporations were all turned over te ICA (6). In addition, the institute was given responsibility for: the regulation of agricultural input production, distribution, and use; seed certification; animal and plant sanitary measures; the supervision of agronomists who provide technical assistance; and rural development activities for small producers. These changes radically al te red ICA' s size and complexity. The total number of employees jumped from 1,779 in 1967 to 6,272 in 1972. The budget doubled in real terms between 1968 ancl 1970 (Trigo et al, 1982: 161, 170). The extension program in particular, expanded dramatically; well beyond the resources transferred from the old ministry extension service. ICA' s new responsibilities also 1ed to the creation of a laberynth of programs and divisions and regional and local offices. Under ICA's new erganizational structure, research and educationo were combined into one technical department. Most technology transfeor-related activities (except for cornmunications) were incorporated into a separate deve10pment division (7). Seed multiplication and certification activities were transferred from research to development.. (6) ActuallY' the Extension Service was transferred to ICA from the Ministry of Agriculture in 1967, but for all practical purposes the shift can be considered part of the 1968 reforms. (7) This refers to ICA's organizational structure in 1969. structure existed for a brief period in 1968.. An interim.

(24) -19Paradoxically, the transfer of extens ion respons ibil i ties f rom the Ministry of Agriculture, a deve10pment-oriented agency, to a specifica11y techno10gical institute was accompanied by a shift within lCA's extension program away from a technical orientation. The initia1 lCA extension service' s objec tive of "making lCA' s know1edge avai1ab1e to the majori ty of producers" was rep1aced with the broader goal of "achieving an integral improvement of rural families' situation" (Jaramil10, 1984: 53). The extension agencies inherited from the Ministry of Agriculture maintained their non-techn010gical activities with rural women and youth and even added a program promoting peasant organizations (8). This general deve10pment focus strongly hindered the development of effective research-extension linkages and tended to justify the impression of many extensionists and researchers that their counterpart' s activities were irrelevant to their work (Alba, 1970: 18-22). The re1ationship between research and extension within lCA was conf1ictive from the beginning. Extensionists interviewed remembered being rejected by researchers and looked upon as inferior. Rice, writing at the time, also found poor re1ations, despite great efforts to the contrary by the director of extension whose own background was in research (1971: 106). These conc1usions are further supported by a 1970 Alba et al survey of lCA extension workers which found litt1e direct contact between researchers and extension workers. There, only 13.5% of extens ion workers surveyed mentioned experiment stations as their principal source of information. Extension workers had more access to research resu1ts through publications. Forty percent cited lCA's extension publications as their principal source of information. (See table 7.) The publications, particu1arly the less purely scientific ones, were regarded as both useful and unders tandable, (see tab1e 8), al though many extensionis ts comp1ained they were out of date or difficult to obtain. Sti11 a1most ha1f of lCA extension workers cited sources other than lCA's research as their principal source of information. The study also concluded that subject matter specia1ists p1ayed on1y a limited role in the sys tem (9). lCA had a small group of such specialists with responsibility for "converting research resu1ts into practica1 tools and serving as a permanent bridge between researchers and change agents" (ibid: 16). On1y 3% of extension workers, however, cited subject matter specia1ists as their principal source of information (ibid: 14).. (8) lCA's organ1z1ng activities were eventua11y discontinued after many groups became po1iticized and began pressuring for poliey ehanges. (9) Alba et al a1so eites a 1962 survey of 613 extensionists in five different organizations whieh a1so found a weak relationship between extensionists and subjeet matter speeialists (1970: 6)..

(25) - 20 -. Table 7. PRINCIPAL SOURCES THAT ICA CHANGE AGENTS CONSULTED TO OBTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION, 1971. Sources ICA Extension Brochures. 14.5. Centers and Experimental Stations. 13 .5. Information Bu11etins. 12.8. Textbooks. 11.8. ICA Extensionists. 11.8. Technica1 Assistance Manua1s. 10.0. Agricultural Magazines. 8.3. Subject Matter Specialists. 3.1. Non-ICA Pub1ications. 3.1. Others. 11.1. Total:. Source: Alba, 1971.. 100.0.

(26) - 21 -. Table 8. ICA EXTENSION WORKER'S OPINIONS OF USEFULNESS OF ICA'S PUBLICATIONS. EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES, 1971. Type of Publication. Very Useful. Useful. Quite Useful. 1.. Extension Brochures. 68.8. 23.8. 3.0. 1.0. 0.0. 3.4. 2.. ICA-Informa. 47.5. 39.8. 7.0. 2 .4. 0.3. 3.0. 3.. Bu11etins. 59.5. 26 .7. 5 .4. 1.0. 0.0. 7.4. 4.. Tecni cal Bulletins. 55 . 2. 24.7. 4 .0. 1.3. 0.4. 14.4. 5.. Leaflets. 41.7. 37.7. 11 .0. 1.3. 0.0. 8 .3. 6.. Revista ICA. 36.7. 40.1. 9.1. 3.4. 0.7. 17.2. 7.. Technical Assistance Hanuals. 50.2. 25.9. 5.0. 1.0. 0.7. 17 . 2. 8.. Hiscelanous Publications. 20.3. 38.0. 13.3. 3 .0. 0.7. 24 .7. 9.. lCA Annua1 Reports. 11.7. 35.1. 12 . 4. 6.7. 0.3). 33 .8. 43.5. 32.4. 7.8. 2.3. 0.4. 13 . 6. Averages. Source: Alba, 1971.. Not Very Useful. Use1ess. No Answer.

(27) -22The study's human resource data provides at least a partial explanation of the weak relations between extension and research. Extension workers were found to be young, unexperienced, and poorly educated. Almost three quarters were under thirty-five. Over half had less than three years experience and less than a quarter weré university graduates (ibid: 10). In comparison, the research department had 80 professionals with postgraduate education, the majority of whom had PhDs (Trigo et al, 1982: 171,173). These differences were reflected in a lower status for extension workers and communication problems between the two groups. 2.4. The Rise of Rural Development, 1970-1978. 2.4.1 The initial rural development projects. In 1970, ICA professionals toured a number of rural development projects in different countries. They were particularly impressed by the Puebla Project in Mexico. These tours convinced them of the need to adapt technology to the specific resources and local conditions of small producers, and of the importance of on-farm trials and socio-economic and communications research in this process (Zandstra et al, 1979: 9-11). To test these new methodologies four experimental rural development projects were set up in Caqueza, Rio Negro, Norte del Cauca, and García Rovira. The projects were operated by a Division of Special Projects within the Development Department. Internally, they functioned as multidisciplinary teams. External assistance was provided by IDRC, the Ford Foundation, CIMMYT, US AID, and the Peace Corps. Like the earlier extension programs, the projects engaged in non-technology related activities such as ahorne economics program and community organization (ibid: 34). They also became heavily involved in credit activities, in collaboration with the Caja Agraria. The rural development approach provided a justification for this through emphasizing that development had to be an integral process where production activities could not be separated from other aspects. But these decisions also tended to distance project professionals even more from the traditional commodity research carried out in rCA's Technical Division. The shift to a rural development paradigm apparently also 1ed to the elimination of the subject matter specialist category. Each rural development project was responsible for both adaptive research and dissemination activities. Although one professional in each project was specifically responsible for the dissemination unit they were to "receive support from staff of all other units and from technical assistants who were expected to dedicate 30 to 50% of their time to dissemination activities" (ibid: 34). The new emphasis on rural development was associated with a concern for participation issues and making extension more responsive to small producers' needs. For this purpose a new base level prograrnming methodology was developed in 1972 which used diagnos tic techniques designed to ana1yze and prioritize small producers' problems together wi th the producers themsel ves (Jaramillo, 1984: 56). Another related deve10pment was the emergence of a strong interest in rural communications both as an area of study and as a majar institute.

(28) -23activity. This carne from the realization that techno10gy adoption rates among sma11 producers remained 10w and inadequate methods were being used to make information avai1ab1e to them. In 1968, ICA formed a Social Science Department including three programs: mass communications, extension education, and rural sociology (Vil1arnizar, 1985: 35). The communications program in particular, was at the forefront of Latin American research in this field and, by 1973, had comp1eted 27 studies of the communications channe1s used by rural families, the effectiveness of different mediums, and the comprehensibility of lCA s dissemination materials (Arevalo and Alba, 1974: 86-89). I. The net result of all these changes was to question ICA research department' s claim of having large quantities of readily available techno10gies suitab1e for resource poor producers in a wide range of agro-eco10gical environments. When development-oriented professionals sought to meet the new demands for techno10gy or understand the causes of low adoption rates, they frequent1y found no available technological solutions compatible with the producers' resources and objectives. This lack of suitab1e techno10gy and an unwil1ingness on the part of ICA' s research department to re-orient its prograrn, led development professionals to initiate their own research projects (lO). Most of these concentrated on variety and fertilizer trials in on-farm conditions with crops such as corn, beans, and potatoes (Zandstra et al, 1979: 300,301) (11). They also carried out a number of socio-economic studies and studies of factors affecting techno10gy adoption. At times, there was good cooperation between the development agronomists engaged in these trials and the ICA research staff (ibid, 1979: 75). lnteraction was enhanced when both groups worked on the skme crop. Ties also developed as a result of project professionals' use of the central soil analysis, entomology, phytopatho10gy, and veterinary 1aboratories (ibid: 56). Another positive factor was the use of graduate students for more mechanical data collection and field trial tasks, relieving project professionals of these tasks and allowing them time to establish a more meaningful interaction with the central research staff (ibid: 89). Nevertheless, tensions between the two groups were always present:. (10) Encouragement from foreign donors and their willingness to finance such research was also an important factor. (11) The following discussion relies heavi1y on Zands tra et al' s description of the Caqueza project. Nevertheless, consultations with ICA professionals, lCA-ISNAR s tudies in Huila and Pasto s tudies in this volume, and other sources confirm that most of it also applies to the other projects..

(29) -24"Sorne lCA central research staff felt that project staff should fulfill the role of data collectors and that the researchers should then analyze the information collected and publish recornmendations with little field staff participation or recognition. This was not accepted by the project staff who felt that the separation of tasks between research and dissemination was counterproductive. They fe1t- that in any on-farm research carried out in rural deve10pment projects the research specialists shou1d contribute their experimental design and subject matter know1edge and the project staff their fie1d experience. Both groups shou1d active1y participate in the implementation and supervision of the experiments and in the ana1ysis and final determination of the recornmendations. The fie1d staff resented . being a1ways regarded as junior partners, and this resulted in a number of clashes that 1ed to severa1 unfinished projects" (ibid: 75) . Project professiona1s al so comp1ained of irre1evant research, researcher' s lack of concern for socio-economic variables, and their unwi11ingness to 1eave the experiment stations. From the research side, the deve10pment projects' research activities were accused of: being outside their mandate, since a11 research activities ought to be carried out by or under the authority of the research department; not responding to nationa1 priorities; dup1icating previous work; suffering from fau1ty experimental design; confusing demonstration activities with experiments; and using insufficient1y trained agronomists with no background in agricu1tura1 research. The researchers tried (and succeeded for a brief period) to prohibit the deve10pment projects from conducting research and forced them to refer to their activities as "techno1ogica1 adjustment" rather than research. 2.4.2 Competition for resources. A strong, under1ying factor which made the re1ationship between the two groups more difficu1t was competition for resources. Fol1owing the structural reforms in 1968, the distribution of resources shifted sharp1y from research to deve10pment activities, at a time when lCA's overa11 real resources were constant and the financing for researchers' operationa1 costs was falling rapid1y (Trigo et al, 1982: 161,164). The percentage of lCA's budget a110cated to research fe11 sharp1y between 1970 and 1974 whi1e the deve10pment activities' percentage rose (A1arcon, 1986: 13). (See tab1e 9.) Sma11 farm deve10pment programs in particular grew great1y both in re1ative and absolute terms (Ardila, 1982: 400). (See tab1e 10). A similar shift can be seen in training opportunities. lCA began to send a significant number of professiona1s to masters programs in rural deve10pment and extension in Mexican and U.S. universities and in lCA and the National University' s own joint program (Jaramillo, 1984: 61). lnternally, three training centers were set-up specifical1y to provide in-service courses in rural deve1opment. As a resu1t, the percentage of lCA professionals with postgraduate degrees that worked in research fe11 from 75% in 1966 to 48% in 1975. The percentage invo1ved in rural deve10pment doub1ed, from 12% to 24% (Trigo, 1982: 173). A1though the abso1ute number of researchers receiving scho1arships actually increased, their percentage of total scho1arships fe11 sharp1y (ibid: 188)..

(30) Table 9. lCA. ANNUAL DlSTRlBUTlON OF EXPENSES BETWEEN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND SERVlCES, AND OTHER ADMlNlSTRATlVE AREAS. 1970. 1972. 1974. 1976. 1978. 1980. 1982. 1984*. 1986*. Research**. 50. 38. 32. 30. 31. 33. 31. 39. 43. Development and Services. 25. 37. 40. 50. 39. 47. 50. 42. 40. Other Administrative Areas. 25. 25. 28. 20. 30. 20. 19. 19. 17. *. Inc1udes external credit. ** Research here refers to the entire research and technology transfer division. terms almost all the division's activities are research-related. Source: Alarcon, 1986: p. 13.. But in practical. N lJl.

(31) Tab1e 10. ICA'S EXPENSES ON RURAL DEVELOPHENT. 1968-1980 . (1970 Hillion constant Pesos). Year. 1968. 1969. 1970. 1971. 1972. 1973. 1974. 1975. 1976. 1977. 1978. 1979. 1980. Rura 1 Development. 14.0. 20.0. 51.0. 52.4. 55.4. 58.5. 52.8. 49.9. 51.2. 57.2. 72.5. 57.0. 53.1. Source: Jaramill0, 1984: P,,, 92.. tJ. 0\.

(32) -27The effect of postgraduate training for development professionals on their relations with research is complexo The previous disparities in educational levels hindered cornmunication, but attempts to overcome them promoted competition for training opportunities. Cornmunication was also impeded by differences in the type of postgraduate education the two groups obtained. Development professionals tended to go into programs with a social science emphasis that had a very different perspective on small farm agricultural technology development than the North American disciplinary programs most lCA researchers had studied in. Eventually, access to postgraduate education gave development professionals greater access to leadership positions within lCA, both in development and in research itself. This influence was first felt in a major way in 1976, when a main proponent of the rural development perspective became lCA's general director (Zandstra et al, 1979: 301). Since that time, there have been ebbs and f10ws, but the tendency has been for professionals with deve10pment experience to increase their participation in leadership. This has undoubtedly had a positive effect on research and its relation to technology transfer activities. 2.4.3 Rural development as a policy and its impact on lCA. The shift in lCA's emphasis from research on cornmercial agriculture to development activi ties and adaptive research was the result of a broader policy decision to concentrate public sector efforts in agriculture on resource-poor producers. Among the factors which influenced that decision were: stagnating production of many traditional small farm crops and an associated rise in their real prices, massive rural to urban migration, concerns with rural unrest, and a growing willingness by foreign donors to finance small farm development projects. By 1973-4, lCA had expanded the number of its rural development projects to 20, not including sorne 44 rural development agencies that were converted extension agencies (Jaramillo, 1984: 67) (12). An even greater expansion carne with the creation of Colombia's lntegrated Rural Development (DRl) prograrn which began operation in 1975. The DRI program was managed directly by the nationa1 planning department with the participation of 14 different government agencies. But frorn the beginning lCA played a major role. The prograrn covered technology generation and diffusion, marketing, credit, and physica1 and social infrastructure (13). lt had a five year budget of $240 million financed. (12) "The difference between a project and an agency lay in the emphasis given to development activities and the area covered. A project covered various municipa1ities, while an agency attended only a single municipa1ity. Projects also had priority over agencies in financial and human resources" (Jaramillo, 1984: 68). (l3) The program was aimed at families whose principal activity was self-employed cultivation (rather than wage labor or non-agricultural activities), who had less than 20 hectares, and who lived in regions of traditional minifundio concentration. A goal was set oE reaching 90,000 rural families, approximately 8% of small farm households..

(33) -28through the central budget and major loans from the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, The Canadian International Development Agency, and U.S. AID (ICA, 1978: 67). To accommodate the new emphasis on small farm rural deve10pment and to solve a number of institutional problems which had emerged after the 1968 reforms, ICA's structure went through a ~umber of changes from 1973 to 1978. The Development Department was divided into three parts: rural development, agricultural production, and livestock production. The first was directly involved in small farm technology adaptation and transfer activities while the other two concentrated on activities related to agricultural inputs and supervising the technical assistance for larger producers. In addition, both the socio-economic studies and communications departments were brought under the auspices of the rural development division. On the local level ICA created sorne 85 rural development districts. These districts, later called technology transfer districts, were supposed to be decentralized units of administration responsible for all three oE ICA I s development-oriented departments I technology transEer activities. Over time, the rural development departments technology adaptation activities became more institutionalized. A special section was Eorrned to carry them out, and a national support group was created to develop methodology. A relatively uniform approach, based mostly on the experience of the initial rural development projects, was disserninated throughout the program through training programs and publications. This helped irnprove the statistical procedures and rnethods of analysis used in the trials and the trials ' overall quality. Thus, it responded to sorne oE the researchers ' earlier cornplaints. Nevertheless, many experiments continued to Eail, were never written up, or no final synthesis or recommendation was made. Moreover, the vast majority oE the adaptive work continued to concentrate exclusively on variety and fertilizer trials (Bernal et al 1982: 143,146). I. The cornmunications department' s transfer to the rural development division tended to isolate it from the concerns oE the conunodity or disciplinary-oriented researchers. The department was respons ible for publications and audiovisual materials, as well as for creating plans for small campaigns to transfer specific innovations to identified target groups. In its new institutional setting, the departrnent tended to move towards a small producer, rural development-oriented focus. 1 ts relationship with the researchers was largely limited to printing their publications. Eventually, the conflicts between the researchers and the development workers became les s severe, partly because contact between thern fell. Once the DRI projects were placed under the national planning department, which contracted out ICA's services for the technology-related components, lCA researchers began to see the lCA rural development program as somewhat external to the institution and feel les s threatened by ita This situation highlights the contradictory nature of the conflicts themselves. On the negative side, conElict made cooperation,.

(34) -29coordination, and conununication between researchers and development workers more difficul t . But it al so reflected a certain intellectual dynarnism, where issues were being raised, pre-existing assumptions being questioned, and new methodologies being experimented with. Consequently, the decline in conflict was a two-edged sword. A1though the technology adjustment activities were institutionalized, they lost their dynarnism in most areas sometime around 1978 or 1979. The number of experiments fell sharply and have continued falling every since (Bernal et al, 1982: 145). Many of the more qualified and innovative professionals left. The prograrn fell into a relatively routinized pattern. Within the DRI projects, technology generation lost ground to traditional technical assistance and dissemination activities. The DRI prograrn as a whole fell out of the limelight. After a series of mixed evaluations, resources becarne tighter. Project management was removed from the national planning department where it had privileged accéss to resources, and an independent project management department was created instead. These changes lowered even further the level of conflict between researchers and development professionals. The 1atter lost their ability to effectively compete for resources or question the authority of the former and the arnount of contact between the two continued to decline. 2.5. The Great Debate: Should ICA be Redivided? (1978-1984). In 1977, a group of key researchers carne together in what carne to be known as the "Reunion de Monserrate" to discuss the status of ICA's research program and the problems it faced (Alarcon, 1986: 16). Out of that meeting carne a proposal to radica11y restructure ICA. In the years that followed the question of an appropriate institutiona1 model for ICA was the subject of intense discussion. Numerous seminars, internal commissions, and external consulting missions were organized to study the question. Navas et al cite 32 separate documents which address this issue (1986: 23-27). In one way or another practica11y every pub1ic and private institution concerned with agricultural technology in Colombia was involved. Eventually almost everybody reached the same conclusion: that ICA s supervision and control functions should be separated from its research functions (Samper, 1982: 3-17; Alarcon, 1986: 17-20). Among the principal arguments for this were the following: I. 1) Excessive Size Combining too many functions into one institution has made it urunanageably large, complex, and bureaucratic. Management has been forced to attend to such a wide range of problems that it has not been ab1e to focus on long-term strategic goals in specific areas. 2) Different Management Needs for Research and Development Many of the initial advantages of g1v1ng ICA a decentralized, semi-autonomous status, separate from the Ministry of Agriculture, were.

(35) -30subverted by placing too many ministry functions within lCA itself. To manage such a large system, where routine tasks and non-professional employees are mostly predominant, requires a hierarchical structure and inflexible rules. These are poorly suited for agricul tural research which requires a more informal and co11aborative envirorunent. The necessity to maintain uniform salaries for a11 staff with equal educational levels has made it impossible to provide higher salaries and other incentives to researchers. 3) Politization ICA's involvement in development tasks of irnmediate national political interest such as sanitation campaigns, credit programs and the quantity of resources (and hence power) have fomented its politization. This is reflected in inappropriate appointments, particularly on the regional level, taken out of political considerations. There has been, in this view, an excessive concern with irnmediate development problems. Resources within lCA have been shifted from research to activities providing more short-term political benefits. Constant changes in leadership personnel, owing to political motives, have weakened the research program's continuity. The average duration of an lCA Director General between 1978 and 1986 was only 13 months, and that of a research director only 32 months (Alarcon, 1986: 31-32). 4) lncompatibility of Research and Control Functions Many of the supervision and control functions lCA currently engages in involve the possibility of punitive action against producers, technical assistance workers, or input distributors if they fail to follow government regulations. This creates an adversarial relation between these groups and the institution which is unsuited for a research and technology transfer institution which must rely on a spirit of mutual trust. 5) Structural lncompatibilities The institutional structure and geographical divisions necessary for development activities are very different from those needed by research. For the former i t is important that greater attention be paid to political/administrative divisions and a much larger local and regional infrastructure is necessary. Research, however, needs to concentrate on agro-ecological zones and requires a critical mass of researchers to be effective. Often, the future role of technology transfer in: a divided lCA has not been clear in these discussions. Most participants talk about keeping research and technology transfer together and ",separating them from supervision and control. But by technology transfer they generally mean the type of dissemination activities lCA engaged in prior to 1968. Research's responsibility would be to transfer technology to agricultural professionals in both the public and private sector. lCA would have no responsibility (except perhaps through field days and the mass media) for transferring technology directly to agricultural producers. lts direct.

(36) -31partícipation in small farm technology transfer actívities would presumably be turned over to another (typically undefined) institution. The supervision and control functions which would be separated from research and technology transfer include: the supervision of prívate technical assistance, the regulation of agricultural and veterinary input, usage and quality, the registering oE new varieties, the certification of seed production, the realization oE animal and plant sanitation campaigns, and the sanitary control of agricultural imports and exports. There has been relatively little discussion of what the future linkages between these and ICA's research and technology transEer activities should be. The future place for "technology adjustment" activities has al so been unclear. In fact, the whole question of how to link research and technology transfer activities in the proposed alternative institutional model has been surprisingly neglected. There is a tendency on the part of proponents of separation to look back on the mid-l960s as ICA' s "golden years". The institutional model of that period is seen as an efficient system to be returned too lt is easy to see why. Researchers as a social group did well in this period, had higher salaries, more operating funds, greater pres tige within the institution, and good opportunities for postgraduate training and travel. Moreover, they succeeded in creating many new innovations, particularly varieties, which had a majar impact on cornmercial agricultural production. However, as shown above, the earlier model al so had important weaknesses. The linkages between research and technology transfer were poor. While the system worked relative1y well in making improved varieties avai1ab1e to the 1arger producers, it was less)successful with other types of innovations or meeting the needs of resource-poor farmers. lndeed, these concerns were among the original reasons for the 1968 reforms. Most proponents of this separation recognize the need to maintain or increase researchers' direct contact with farmers to ensure the re1evance of their work. Sorne support ideas such as incorporating a systems' perspective for research, participatory diagnosis of research problems, greater attention to the problems presented by agro-ecological diversity, and a need for on-farro research that goes beyond the traditional regional trials. There would presumably be little place in the new model, however, for technology transfer workers to play an advocacy role, pressuring researchers to respond to producers' needs, as they did do at least at certain moments and places, through ICA' s rural de v e10pment programs. There has al so been a tendency to throw a11 the blame Eor the difficu1ties Eaced by research during the 1970's and ear1y 1980's on the integration oE research, technology transfer, supervision, and control activities within ICA. But this may have been an important factor, it certain1y was not the on1y one..

(37) -32The shift in institutiona1 models coincided with an unre1ated drop in externa1 funding for research as a number of key agreements simu1taneously carne to an end (Pineiro et al, 1982: 259). Dec1ining resources (particu1ar1y operating funds), rapid management turnover, and high professional turnover rates a11 exist in many Latin American systems which have not integrated the different- functions. Fina11y, experience shows it is simp1y more difficu1t to achieve 1arge-sca1e rapid resu1ts with resource-poor farmers and the types 9f prob1ems ICA has turned its attention to than it is to breed new varieties for cornrnercia1 agricu1ture. This is not to say that the current integration of functions within ICA is satisfactory. Most know1edgeab1e observers agree it is noto The coexistence of functions within one institution has not provided the integration the p1anners expected and has created many prob1ems. What does need to be stressed is that there are no simple solutions and many key 1inkage issues have yet to be fu11y addressed. In practice, the division of ICA has proven difficult to accomplish. Despite the support of nurnerous cornrnissions, prominent figures, and even presidents, it has still not taken place. To establish a new institution or shift some ICA attributes to a different i.nstitution requires 1egis1ative action and the nationa1 governrnent has been re1uctant to reopen the legislative debate on this issue. Within ICA, sorne development and technology transfer managers have perceived restructuring as unfavorable to their interests and have opposed it. On the research side, some of the urgency of division has been removed by an improvement in their re1ative position within the institute. Through a major World Bank research loan, research's share of the budget rose from 31% in 1981 to 40% in 1986 and new opportunities for postgraduate training for researchers were opened up (Alarcon, 1986: 13). In contrast, funding for non-research activities stagnated. A partial reorganization did occur in early 1984 which supposedly represented a first step towards ICA' s division. The agricultura1 production, livestock, and rural deve10pment departments were combined into one Development and Services Department. The Research Department was renamed the Research and Techno1ogy Transfer Department. (The justification for this name change was apparently the incorporation of a technical support division inc1uding, among other things, a communications program and an agricultura1 economics program.) This separation into two basic departments was repeated at the regional 1evel. Whether this reorganization wi11 eventua1ly lead to a complete separation is unclear. lt seems unlike1y under the current circurnstances, but the situation is c10uded by a number of major institutiona1 changes which have recently either been discussed or taken place. The first is a nationa1 push for decentralization. As part of the governrnent's p1ans for greater municipal autonorny, rnunicipa1ities will be expected to organize or contract their own technology transfer programs. How exactly this will work, however, is sti11 undefined. In theory, a11 rCA's work in directly transferring techno1ogy to producers will be taken over by the rnunicipalities. But in practice this has not happened because the latter have neither the funds nor the expertise to take on these tasks..