food: the whole world’s business · 2019-11-16 · introduction and overview the case studies i....

Food: The Whole World’s Business

Investing in International Agriculture and Food SystemsDevelopment for the Mutual Benefit of the United States

and Developing Countries

A Compendium of Case Studies

Reed Hertford and Susan Schram, Editors

February, 2001

Association for International Agricultureand Rural Development (AIARD)

© Association for International Agriculture and Rural Development (AIARD)February, 2001

Copyright to the materials in this compendium are held by AIARD. However, the Association seeks to ensuretheir widest use, provided the source is credited.

The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AIARD.

Text editing, general design, layout and printing: Editorial Agroamerica, Inter-American Institute forCooperation on Agriculture (IICA)Publications coordinator Susana RaineCover design and maps Olman TriguerosLayout Pilar Castillo

Food : the whole world's business ; investing in international agriculture andfood systems development for the mutual benefit of the United States anddeveloping countries : a compendium of case studies / Reed Hertford andSusan Schram, eds. -- San José, C.R. : IICA, 2000.

pv. ; 23 cm.

ISBN 92-9039-450 1

1. Desarrollo agrícola - Estudios de casos prácticos - EUA. 2. Coopera-ción internacional - Estudios de casos prácticos - EUA. 3. Desarrollo agrí-cola - Estudios de casos prácticos - Países en Desarrollo. 4. Cooperacióninternacional - Estudios de casos prácticos - Países en Desarrollo. I. Hert-ford, Reed. II. Schram, Susan. III. AIARD. IV. Título.

AGRIS DEWEYE14 338.9

February, 2001San Jose, Costa Rica

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Introduction and Overview

The Case Studies

I. Ensuring Safe, High Quality Food

• Improving for U.S. Consumers the Food Safety of Raw Fruits and Vegetables from Central America I-1

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

• Sorghum Ergot Alert in the Americas I-2International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

• Saving the Livestock Industries of the Caribbean and the U.S. byEradicating the Tropical Bont Tick I-3


• Reducing Chemical Residues on Snow Peas I-4Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program

• Fruit Fly Eradication: The Binational Campaign of Chile and Peru I-5Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)

• Preventing Screwworms from Re-invading the Livestock Industryin the Americas I-6


II. Expanding Trade and Developing Business

• Promoting Private Agribusiness in Bangladesh II-1International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)

• Establishing an African Seed Trade Association II-2American Seed Trade Association (ASTA)

• Trade Links in Egypt: More than Cows and Sheep II-3Agricultural Cooperative Development International/VolunteersOverseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA)

• Development and Implementation of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Legislation in Morocco II-4

Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP)

• The U.S./Eastern Europe Market Information Project II-5U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service(USDA/ERS)

• Developing a Seed Industry in the Republic of Georgia II-6Agricultural Cooperative Development International/VolunteersOverseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA)

• Developing the Dairy Industry in Moldova and Ukraine II-7Citizen’s Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA)

• Russian-American Farm Privatization Project (RAFPP) II-8Ohio State University

• The KrediFanm Program: Investing in Rural Haitian Women II-9Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)

• The U.S. – Mexico Emerging Markets Project II-10U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS)

• Building Grain Marketing Infrastructure in Bulgaria II-11Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA)

• Establishing a Private Product-Distribution System in the Ukraine II-12Citizen's Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA)

• Establishing a Private Distribution Network for AgriculturalInputs in Albania II-13

International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)

• The Haitian Coffee Revitalization Project II-14Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)

III. Sharing Scientific Knowledge and Information

• Dramatic Spillovers to the U.S. from CGIAR Research III-1International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

• Diversifying Maize Varieties III-2U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service (USDA/ARS)

• Combating Striga and Improving Cereal Yields Through CollaborativeInternational Research III-3

Sorghum/Millet Collaborative Research Support Program

• Protecting Sorghum from Greenbug through International CollaborativeResearch III-4

Sorghum/Millet Collaborative Research Support Program

• Developing Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture Technologies forGlobal Returns III-5

Pond Dynamics Collaborative Research Support Program

• Breeding Beans for Drought Resistance Yields Mutual Economic Benefitsfor Mexico and Michigan III-6

Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program

• Reducing Food Loss in India III-7University of California, Davis

• Stemming the Resurgence of the Irish Potato Famine Fungus III-8Cornell University

• Analogous Zones Approach Hastens Technology Adoption in Russia III-9University of Maryland

• Biological Nitrogen-Fixation Technology Improves Yields and Incomes for Thai Bean Farmers III-10

University of Hawaii

• Investments in Agricultural Research in Latin America and the Caribbean Pay Handsome Dividends III-11

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)

• Biological Control of Invasive Species: The Case of Water Hyacinth III-12U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service (USDA/ARS)

• Development of Virus-Resistant Potatoes in Mexico III-13Biotechnology Industry Organization

IV. Solving Environmental Problems Across Borders

• AMISCONDE: Natural Resource Protection and New Income Sources for U.S. Partners and Local Rural Communities through New Institutional Alliances IV-1

Texas A &M University

• Natural Resource Conservation and Sustainable Improvement of Living Conditions on Central American Hillsides IV-2

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)

• Sustainable Forest Management: Criteria and Indicators IV-3Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

• Land Tenure Reform and Land Retention in Africa, Eastern Europeand the United States: Applying Overseas Experiences to North American Problems IV-4

University of Wisconsin-Madison

• The Impact of Climate Variability on Agricultural Production: The Case of the Rainfed Groundnut IV-5

Secretariat: Global Change System for Analysis, Research and Training

• Development of a Low Cost Technique to Restore Contaminated Soils IV-6U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service(USDA/ARS)

V. Preparing Human Capital for a Global Economy

• Washington State University and the University of Chile: GlobalizingHigher Education and Collaborating on Environmental Issues V-1

Washington State University

• Russia/Illinois Agricultural Student Exchange V-2University of Illinois

• The Polish-American Extension Project 1990-96 V-3Michigan State University/United States Department of Agriculture

• Improving University Development Performance and Human andInstitutional Capacities through Long-Term, Cross-Country Linkages V-4

Washington State University

• Bringing the U.S. Supermarket to China V-5U.S. Department of Agriculture/Foreign Agriculture Service (USDA/FAS)

• Accelerating Economic Growth and Expanding Opportunities for SouthAfrican Professionals in Agricultural Fields V-6

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Foreign Agriculture Service (USDA/FAS)

• Faculty Exchange Program in the Newly Independent States V-7U.S. Department of Agriculture/Foreign Agriculture Service (USDA/FAS)

Index by State

Index by Country

Glossary of Acronyms

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Association for International Agriculture and Rural Development (AIARD) gratefully acknowl-edges the financial support provided for the production of this publication by the organizations andagencies listed below, as well as the efforts of their staff members (in italics) who gave generouslyof their time to serve on the Editorial Board:

• United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)-Charles Riemenschneider

• Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)-Guillermo Grajales

• United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

- Africa Bureau David Atwood Atwood and George Gardner- Global Bureau Harvey Hortik

• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

- Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service-Hiram Larew - Foreign Agriculture Service-Frank Fender

• The World Bank Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)-ShirleyGeer

We also express our great appreciation to the case study contributors, who drafted information ontheir respective programs and collaborated with the Editors in completing each case study. It goeswithout saying that this was a genuinely collective effort of the international agriculture community.

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

International agriculture and food systems development is the whole world’s business, and we allbenefit from it! In many developing countries, the majority of people make their living in agricul-ture and food systems and spend the largest percentage of their income on food. In the United States,we take an abundant food supply for granted. To enjoy the fruits of international agriculture, we onlyneed to visit the local supermarket.

Behind our ready access to an abundant food supply in the United States, however, is a sophisticat-ed system of international collaboration. This collaboration ensures that Americans continue to haveaccess to safe, high quality food; expands trade for U.S. agricultural exports; assures our access tothe latest scientific knowledge and information; solves problems across borders regarding the natu-ral resources upon which agriculture depends; and prepares young people for working in a globaleconomy.

This publication presents case studies highlighting successful examples of "win-win" internationalcollaboration in agriculture and food systems development. Rather than a one-way street of "foreignassistance," these case studies show that U.S. investments in international agricultural cooperationproduce key mutual benefits for both the United States and developing countries.

The underpinning of every nation’s health and welfare is its food and agriculture system, a fact takenfor granted in the United States because of the success of our system. The series of case studies pre-sented herein aim to describe, in layman’s language and by means of brief case study summaries, justhow international collaboration in agriculture and rural development has been so successful and whyexpanding this investment in the future is a key strategy for assuring a safe, adequate and accessibleworld food supply in today’s global economy.

The cases are organized into five thematic areas: 1) ensuring safe, high quality food; 2) expandingtrade and developing business; 3) sharing scientific knowledge and information; 4) solving environ-mental problems across borders; and 5) preparing human capital for a global economy.

The win-win case studies are presented in a consistent format to facilitate comparison of objectives,approaches and outcomes. Each project case study begins with a summary of the program area, alist of participating partners, and the mutual benefits of the project. A two- to three-page narrativefollows, describing the issue addressed, project activities and objectives, benefits derived for bothdeveloping countries and the U.S., and total project costs. The case study contributor is identified atthe end of the narrative.

The following brief overview introduces the reader to the materials contained in each of the five sectionsand highlights conclusions and significant lessons learned from the case studies of each.


The case studies in Section I illustrate how cooperation in international agriculture and food systemsdevelopment protects the world from pests and diseases that have the potential of reducing farm out-put, curtailing exports and infecting the food we eat. The investment of U.S. taxpayers in this area

pays dividends by enabling the United States to identify potential problems before they cause seri-ous damage and by providing access to the best tools for addressing related concerns back home.

If left unchecked, pests and diseases can quickly wreak havoc in an agricultural industry. For exam-ple, the sorghum ergot, once found only in Asia and Africa, arrived first in the Western Hemispherethrough Brazil. In a mere two years, it had worked its way north and was discovered in a sorghumfield in Texas. The result was to put at risk a US$2 billion U.S. industry with annual exports ofUS$800 million.

The case studies presented in this section show that successful campaigns to arrest or eliminate thesediseases have two important and related characteristics: 1) they need to be well organized, and fre-quently include collaboration among a number of institutions and countries, and 2) they need to becomprehensive, addressing all the most vulnerable areas.

Without these characteristics, a small outbreak in a seemingly isolated area can rapidly spread andeven re-infect regions earlier ridded of a disease. Therefore, individual countries spend significantpolitical capital negotiating cooperation to produce the most appropriate partnerships. For example,one case study in this section shows that it took eight years to negotiate cooperation between Chileand Peru for eradication of the fruit fly.

In spite of substantial start-up efforts, project costs shown in these cases are surprisingly low in com-parison with the values of production and consumption that are protected and saved. Most projectsproduced spectacular net economic benefits. The total costs of fruit fly control in Chile and Peru,for example, were only one percent of the value of increased exports by these countries in just oneyear! The lowest benefit cost ratios ranged from 2.0 to 4.0—still high by any standard. These casestudies show that preventive "win-win" U.S. investments to ensure safe, high quality food areextremely important for international agriculture.


In the United States, 20% of agricultural production is exported and most potential for U.S. marketexpansion is in developing countries. Within this context, investing in expanding trade and devel-oping business is a strategic investment critical for the future of the U.S. economy. Moreover, invest-ing in developing country agriculture helps to generate the long-term income growth those countriesneed to become better customers for all U.S. exports.

Section II of this compendium includes the greatest number of win-win case studies, which can becategorized into three groups. One large group deals with a variety of efforts to assist developingcountries with economic transformation and transition to market economies, the markets of thefuture for the U.S. The second large group includes case studies describing basic initiatives to devel-op a particular commodity or a target group of rural inhabitants, for example, rural women. Finally,two cases recognize that successful economic transitions and economic development require highquality information and describe projects to satisfy that need.

With the collapse of communist regimes around the world, the previous economic, production, mar-keting and farm services systems disappeared, leaving farmers without even the most basic infra-structure support. Thus, as land became available under privatization efforts, farmers found them-selves without access to production inputs, technical information and advice for beginning to pro-

duce on their own. The case studies addressing these challenges describe projects that helped devel-op markets, fill gaps in extension information, and provide other basic agricultural support servicesso that new market-based economies could begin to work in agriculture and rural areas.

The second group of cases in Section II also address general economic and business developmentthrough agriculture, but seek to achieve the development of a particular commodity or group of ruralinhabitants. For example, one describes revitalizing coffee production in Haiti by improving coffeeprocessing and marketing; another concerns linking U.S. and Egyptian agribusiness communities toaccelerate the transfer of milk and sheep production technologies between the two countries.

The third group of case studies involves projects that are generating strategic information for tradeand business development, information that is vital to both U.S. and developing country producersas their markets open to each other under new trade regimes (i.e., the North American Free TradeAgreement Agreement, NAFTA). One such initiative describes how new, high quality reports andstrategic information on Mexican agriculture were made available in English after 400 officials ofMexico's Secretariat of Agriculture received training from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’sEconomic Research Service.

Costs of projects dealing with transformations to market economies are somewhat higher than forother types of projects illustrated in the compendium. This should not dampen enthusiasm for thistype of project as it underscores what Professor D. Gale Johnson, a former-President of the AmericanEconomics Association, said: "We dare not underestimate what it takes to build markets and marketeconomies." There has been a tendency on the part of U.S. citizens to take markets for granted sincethey have seemingly always been a part of our everyday lives.

Cases in Section II show that local rural development in developing countries results not only in eco-nomic success in those locations but also in dramatic payoffs for U.S. consumers, producers and theU.S. agribusiness community. Moreover, these cases show that direct involvement of U.S. profes-sionals, citizens and families in international collaboration results in long-term relationships withpeople from other countries that expand trade and exchange, build trust and confidence, and enrichlong-term relationships among international colleagues and nations.

III. Sharing Scientific Knowledge and Information

Section III contains a rich array of projects that describe and bring to life a variety of agriculturalresearch undertakings around the world, showing clearly that important benefits are generated over-seas that spill into the U.S. in major streams of economic benefits. Essentially, the case studiesdescribe four different categories of agricultural research projects:

• global research that addresses a single problem or commodity affecting many countries, usuallyin more than one region;

• research on specific production-reducing problems such as fungus, virus and invasive weeds,plus research on nitrogen fixation;

• post-harvest research to increase food availability by reducing production losses due to spoilageand other contaminants introduced beyond the farm gate; and

• "research on research," to improve the agricultural research process and make it more efficient.

The global research sub-category includes the work on wheat and rice of the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR). It is well known that these projects launched the"green revolution" overseas as a result of the development of short-stature, disease-resistant wheatand rice varieties. Less well publicized was the fact that these same improved crop varieties (in aU.S. wheat industry worth US$8 billion annually and a rice industry worth US$1.3 billion) producedup to US$13.7 billion for U.S. wheat farmers and roughly US$1 billion for U.S. rice farmers who aregrowing them on a wide scale. It is noteworthy that the cost of the CGIAR effort for just these twocommodities was less than US$150 million over the years (which excludes the value of importantcollaboration from regional and national organizations in the public and private sectors). In additionto its work on wheat and rice, CGIAR cooperation is evident in many case studies in this com-pendium, some of which are led by a particular international center and others where CGIAR cen-ters play a supporting role.

Also included in the global research sub-category are case studies from the U.S. CollaborativeResearch Support Programs (CRSPs) which harness land-grant university capabilities for interna-tional food and agricultural research. There are presently nine CRSPs, funded partially by the U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID), that are helping national agricultural research sys-tems in developing countries to solve priority local problems of agricultural production and utiliza-tion. The underlying legislation for the CRSPs makes it clear that they are expected to bring benefitsto both the U.S. and host developing countries, and the case studies included herein show that theyhave been successful in that mandate. Much of the programs' work is conducted in partnershipsinvolving not only U.S. universities but also the CGIAR International Agricultural Research Centers,U.S. agribusiness, private voluntary organizations, USAID offices and other U.S. federal agenciessuch as the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

While the work of the CRSPs addresses a range of cereal crops, beans, sorghum and millet, exam-ples of which are contained in this section of the compendium, the accomplishments of theAquaculture Collaborative Research Support Program are also reported here, illustrating the com-modity breadth of the program. Aquaculture holds promise for ensuring a worldwide expansion ofthe fish supply, given that the sea catch is now practically stagnant. This particular CRSP is trainingpersonnel in aquaculture techniques, developing extension strategies, improving methodologies forstudies of fish growth and reproduction, and conducting innovative research regarding fish and theircultivation.

Case studies in the second category of Section III may, at first sight, appear to overlap somewhatwith those in Section I. However, while the case studies in Section I deal with food contaminantsaffecting consumers adversely, or particular insects reducing crop and livestock production, those inSection III include research to stem virus, fungus and weed problems hampering plant and animalgrowth, plus cutting-edge work on biological nitrogen fixation. As in the case of the projects dis-cussed in Section I, major worldwide cooperation has been involved in these undertakings. Riddingthe world of water hyacinth by finding new biological controls is illustrative. The plant is an inva-sive, free-floating aquatic weed that costs the U.S. alone some US$122 billion annually. It is alsofound in most of the world’s tropical and subtropical regions. In most places, but certainly in thedeveloping world, the use of herbicides and machinery to kill the pest is costly and ineffective; hencethe interest in biological controls.

The third category of Section III contains only one case study: research to increase food availabili-ty by reducing post-harvest loss. It is an important example because it deals with India, where only50% of perishable commodities (mainly fruits and vegetables) ultimately become available for

human consumption owing to the reduction in volume, quality, nutritional value or food safety occur-ring between the farm and the consumer. It has been estimated that the value this represents isgreater than the annual value of all cars produced in India!

The final category of win-win case studies of Section III deals with research, training and informa-tion sharing to improve the quality and impact of the research process itself. One of the attractionsof this work is that in many developing regions of the world, notably Latin America and theCaribbean, financing for agricultural research from the public sector has diminished sharply.Furthermore, the realignment of relative commodity prices, following the opening of foreign traderegimes, has led to the need to make major realignments in commodity research priorities, increas-ing demands for priority-setting skills and methodologies with which to re-orient agriculturalresearch programs and show the way for the future.

The following conclusions and lessons can be drawn from the case studies in Section III on collab-orative international agricultural research:

• Investing in international agricultural and food systems research returns high dividends: caseafter case illustrates that total benefits of the research exceed costs by more than most other kindsof investments. In addition, it pays these major dividends both overseas and in the U.S., almostalways producing a "win-win" situation.

• International agricultural research aims to develop methods and skilled professionals who canimprove on the research process itself, with a view to reducing its costs and/or increasing itsimpact in a global economy.

• It has expanded biological diversity.

• It requires significant cross-country cooperation.

• Through efforts to reduce post-harvest loss, it not only aims to boost production but also to savewhat has already been produced.

IV. Solving Environmental Problems Across Borders

This group of case studies deals with the sustainable management of land, forests and biospherereserves, the natural resources upon which the future productivity of international agriculture andfood systems depend. Environmental problems do not halt at country or international boundaries;therefore, resolving them to protect the world’s precious natural resources requires collaborationamong the best scientific minds.

An intriguing case study in Section IV involves an effort at land reclamation, started overseas butwith important spillovers for the U.S.. There are areas both in Poland and the U.S. where, as a resultof years of mine waste disposal, piles of mining wastes with potentially toxic materials have builtup. One consequence is that the groundwater beneath the mines has been extensively contaminatedwith metals and acidity. Basic experimental work was done at two sites in Poland to rehabilitate suchareas. Successful solutions to the problem were found, which include establishing herbaceous veg-etative cover for the waste sites and growing metal hyper-accumulator plant varieties. The techniquehas provided a template for rehabilitating similar sites in Poland and around the world, includingSuperfund sites in the U.S.

Another case study deals with the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve, covering 2.7 million hectares inPanama and Costa Rica, that comprise the largest natural habitat in Central America, protectingmuch of the power and water supply of Costa Rica and Panama. Its protective buffer zone of 14,000hectares was seriously threatened by the growth of rural communities. A combined effort of privatecommercial firms, U.S. universities and international NGOs, plus Costa Rican and Panamaniancounterparts, helped improve agricultural technology in the buffer zone, restore degraded lands, protectforests, and establish environmental education programs for primary and secondary school students.

A third study also centers in the Central American region, where burning of the land is a generalizedfarming practice that has tragic consequences for human health, the environment and the economymore generally. When the land is especially dry, the effects of burning are felt locally, nationally andeven internationally. In 1997, burning provoked airport closings in Tegucigalpa, Managua, SanSalvador, Mexico City and the southern United States. President Clinton called the public’s atten-tion to this problem and committed resources for preventing it. In just two years’time, there was an80% reduction in the area burned. Local benefits were obvious and the U.S. is also benefiting fromreduced pollution, smog and health risks, plus improved carbon absorption as a result of forest con-servation and less burning.

Afourth related case study is a project to develop and test indicators and practical guidelines for sus-tainable forest management, which are being distributed and used internationally. A fifth describeshow achievements in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe by a U.S. university in the areas ofland tenure reform and retention led to the establishment of a North American Program which,among its activities, reviews and advises on the effects of tenure arrangements on the long-term pro-ductivity and sustainability of agricultural lands, mineral deposits and forest resources in the U.S.

Afinal case study in Section IV demonstrates how international collaboration to predict climate vari-ability helped improve the production of peanuts, rice and wheat in the Asia-Pacific Region. Beingable to predict climate helps determine more optimally the timing of crop management practices (fer-tilizing, plowing, pesticide applications, etc.) which contributes to increasing production and farmerreturns. Benefits for the U.S. lie primarily in helping improve the management of irrigation waterresources, one of the most valuable inputs to production because of the competing demands for thisnatural resource.

Regarding the benefits of international collaboration on environmental dimensions of internationalagriculture and food systems development, this section shows that:

• environmental problems extend beyond country and national borders and require investments ininternational collaboration that can produce win-win payoffs;

• techniques for sustainable resource management can be devised overseas and first applied there,for later, highly beneficial application in the U.S.;

• dealing with environmental issues (as in the case of pest and disease problems) usually requiressignificant collaboration among private and public institutions in the U.S. and overseas;

• environmental problems are not just the purview of the public sector; the private sector also seesthat work of this type is in its own best interest; and,

• costs tend to be somewhat higher than for many projects discussed in this section. While long-term benefits are potentially great, immediate benefits are much more difficult to detail.

V. Preparing Human Capital for a Global Economy

Educating the future generation of youth to function capably in a global economy, assuring the glob-al skills of university faculty, and helping citizens understand the importance of internationalinvolvement are challenges faced by today’s universities in the United States and abroad. Threetypes of programs are addressed in this section. One area concerns university exchanges betweenone or more U.S. universities and one or more overseas; the second has to do with efforts that inter-nationalize U.S. programs through individual youth and professional exchange programs; the thirdinvolves efforts to provide targeted short-term training in the U.S. in fields of strategic importanceto overseas professionals.

In the first case study, two collaborating universities, one in the U.S. and one in South America,found that they faced similar problems related to increased competition for environmental resources,economic growth, demographic changes and the resulting social pressures. They formed a long-termstrategic partnership, funded through a variety of separate projects, for conducting collaborativeresearch on conservation tillage and climate change, creating a masters' degree program in environ-mental management, conducting comparative international studies on environmental conflict pre-vention, and developing distance education. Building from an original set of shared problems, theyhave found that they are truly "growing together." At the outset, the U.S. partner was cast in a moretraditional technical assistance role. With time, however, the relationship has evolved into one ofpartnerships and exchanges among peers.

Other cases in Section V show the benefit of student and professional exchange programs in advanc-ing international relations and furthering international collaboration among institutions. A Russianstudent exchange program advanced long-term relationships between U.S. and Russian students andfaculty at their respective universities. An exchange program for Polish and U.S. extension profes-sionals not only helped the Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Food Economy re-focus and serve thePolish agricultural sector in a private market economy, but also strengthened the international capa-bilities of extension personnel in 31 U.S. states and brought the benefits of U.S. internationalinvolvement to citizens at the community level. The project was especially meaningful to extension-served communities with large Polish constituencies.

Targeted short-term training is also shown to provide mutual benefits for both developing countryparticipants and the U.S. One project in this area provided training for Chinese supermarket man-agers. After receiving short-term training in the U.S., Chinese participants reported starting up theirown food companies or obtaining senior management posts in supermarkets and the retail foodindustry. The U.S. part of the win-win situation was increased trade between the U.S. and Chinesefood industry, plus the establishment of new joint ventures between Chinese and U.S. food industryentrepreneurs.

In another case, South African professionals received training in agricultural business and tradedevelopment, management, marketing, policy development and agricultural technology transfer.After their participation in training, 15% of the South Africa participants were promoted in their jobs,57% were assigned increased job responsibilities and 15% started their own businesses, some ofwhich are sourcing inputs and products from the U.S. Over 70% indicated that the program helpedthem improve their job performance. Some 70% of the participants remain in contact with U.S. indi-viduals and organizations, suggesting that the relations forged are very sustainable.

These cases show that:

• in terms of student and faculty international exchange programs, the benefits to youth and pro-fessionals of both cultures last a lifetime;

• when U.S. and foreign universities begin a program with similar conditions and circumstances,the relationship and joint efforts developed through an exchange program are more likely toprosper and succeed;

• through a long-term program, more traditional technical assistance tends to give way to true part-nership among equals and peers;

• involving communities in exchange programs initiated by universities can expand internationalawareness and appreciation of foreign assistance programs among broad-based extension clien-tele;

• exchange programs among students result in their "internationalization" and produce lasting ben-efits and international connections; and,

• targeted, short-term training to help foreign professionals surmount a specific problem deliverssustainable results for the developing country and cements long-term relationships that haveimportant payoffs for the United States.

International Agriculture and Food Systems Development: An Investment withMutual Benefits for the U.S. and Developing Countries

A Case Study Series Developed by theAssociation for International Agriculture and Rural Development (AIARD)

Improving for U.S. Consumers the Food Safety of Raw Fruits and Vegetables from Central America

I-1

µ

µ

Program Area. Ensuring safe, high quality food

P a rt n e r s . Central American countries, U.N.Food and Agriculture Organization (FA O ) ,University of Arkansas and U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA)

Principal mutual benefits. Improved foodquality and safety of fresh fruits and vegetablesproduced in Central America benefit consumers inboth domestic and U.S. markets

Issue. Contaminated imported produce has causedd i sease outbreaks in the U.S.

Recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses associat-ed with produce, including Cyclospora in import-ed raspberries, have raised concerns regarding thesafety of fruits and vegetables that are not furtherprocessed to reduce or eliminate pathogens. U.S.consumers are increasingly demanding year-roundaccess to fresh fruits and vegetables as dietaryguidelines encourage greater consumption of freshproduce. U.S. fresh fruit and vegetable importsreached record levels in 1998, up nearly 15% fromthe previous year, totaling over US$2.6 billion forfresh fruits and US$2.1 billion for fresh vegeta-bles. Over 70% of U.S. imported fresh vegetablesand 50% of the fresh fruit come from CentralAmerican countries.

According to a recent General Accounting Officestudy, port-of-entry inspections by the Food andDrug Administration (FDA) cannot realisticallyensure that unsafe fruits and vegetables will bekept out of U.S. commerce. With increasingimports of fresh produce and limited inspectionresources, the only alternative is to improve thesafety and quality of imported fresh fruits and veg-etables at the source. Disease outbreaks fromimported food can damage the reputation of bothU.S. and foreign producers. With the relativelyshort shelf-life of fresh produce, lost markets, evenif relatively brief, can have a serious impact onproducer income.

Project objectives and activities. The projectidentifies training needs and provides training tolocal instructors with a view to developing askilled workforce that can facilitate the safe pro-duction, harvesting, handling, storage and trans-port of raw fruits and vegetables from Mexico andCentral America. For the month of April 1999alone, FDA import detentions of fresh fruits andvegetables from Central America totaled over 85shipments for reasons including filth, improperpesticide usage and microbiological contamina-tion. This resulted in significant lost income forexporters. The overall goal is to improve the qual-ity and safety of fresh produce for domestic andinternational markets, and to reduce the amountsof fresh produce impounded due to safety ands a nitary problems.

The first phase of the project was a training needsassessment workshop held in Guatemala City inDecember 1998. Results of this workshop formedthe basis of the regional training course held inMay-June 1999 in Costa Rica. The course provid-ed expertise and training to professionals from thegovernment, academic and private sectors onmethods to ensure the quality and safety of freshfruits and vegetables throughout the productionchain. FAO is working with USDA-ForeignAgricultural Service-ICD and the University ofArkansas, as well as a number of other groups, todevelop and implement training in this area,including the private produce sector, governmentagencies (Environmental Protection Agency, FDAand USDA) and regional organizations, includingthe Inter-American Institute for Cooperation onAgriculture (IICA), the Pan American HealthO rganization (PAHO) and the International RegionalO rganization for Agricultural Health (OIRSA).

National-level training will follow the regionalactivities as trainers prepared under the projecttransfer information/skills to individuals directlyinvolved in the handling of fresh fruits and vegeta-bles, including growers, packing house staff, trans-porters, brokers, buyers, and government foodcontrol agencies. This local training will be tai-lored to the needs and specific commodities ofindividual exporting countries.

Developing countries’ b e n e f i t s . Fruit andv e g e t a b l e exports from Central America total overUS$4 billion annually. This has been one of thebrightest export industries in the region, with rev-enues more than doubling in a decade. Importdetentions by the U.S. can result in major revenuelosses for individual exporters; lost markets due tofood safety and sanitary problems can result insignificant lost income for the region. Consumersin the targeted countries also benefit as local pro-ducers and handlers use good agricultural andmanufacturing practices, pesticide residue analysisand similar technical capabilities to improve thequality and safety of local produce.

U.S. benefits. According to a 1994 study of theCouncil on Agricultural Science and Technology(CAST), some 6.5 million to 33 million illnessesand up to 9,000 deaths annually are associatedwith contaminated foods. Hospital costs and lostproductivity costs resulting from food-borne ill-nesses are likely to exceed US$10 billion per year.Food product recalls due to life-threatening bacte-ria have increased from 79 reports in 1988 to near-ly 400 in 1995. With rising consumption of freshfruits and vegetables, a growing portion of whichis imported, efforts to improve the food safety ofimported produce can only serve to reduce thecosts of food-borne illnesses.

In addition to the obvious benefits of safer foodsfor U.S. consumers, domestic producers also standto benefit. Domestic strawberry producers wereinitially reported to be the source of theC y c l o s p o r a-related illnesses in 1996 that laterwere epidemiologically attributed to importedraspberries. Nevertheless, lost strawberry sales bydomestic producers (primarily in California) wereestimated at higher than US$40 million as a result.

Project costs. Total project costs from all sourceswill likely total around US$250,000, excludingresources in local training provided by the coun-tries of the region. This is less than 0.01% of thevalue of Central American fresh fruit and veg-etable imports into the U.S., a minuscule invest-ment in light of the major costs to U.S. consumersresulting from food-borne diseases.

Case study contributor

Dr. Charles H. Riemenschneider, DirectorNorth America, FAO2175 K Street NW, Suite 300Washington, D.C. 20437Tel (202) 653-2400; Fax (202) 653-5760E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Sorghum Ergot Alert in the Americas

I-2


Partners. Agricultural Research Service/USDA;Brazilian National Agricultural ResearchEnterprise (EMBRAPA), Brazil; Grains CropsResearch Institute, Potchefstroom, South Africa;Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR), Nazreth,Ethiopia; Instituto Nacional de InvestigacionesForestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFA P ) ,Mexico; International Crops Research Institute forthe Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT); Institut desSciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR),Rwanda; Institute of Microbiology of the CzechAcademy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic;I N S T S O R M I L CRSP; U.S. National GrainSorghum Producers Association (NGSP); TexasA&M University; and the University ofZimbabwe.

Principal mutual benefits. Effective manage-ment and mitigation of the threat of the disease inergot endemic areas

Issue. Sorghum ergot, once found only in Asianand African countries, has a propensity for rapid,uncontrollable spread, which recently took thesorghum industry of the Americas by surprise.First identified in Brazil in 1995, it spread toArgentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay by late1996. By the first quarter of 1997, ergot was in theDominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico andPuerto Rico. By late March 1997, it was spotted

in a sorghum field just north of the Rio GrandeRiver near Progresso, Texas. By the end of thaty e a r, the disease had spread throughout thes o rghum-growing areas of the U.S; producerswere stunned by the swiftness of the spread of thisdisease.

Ergot causes crop losses by reducing the quantityand quality of seed, predisposing seeds to disease,and making harvesting and threshing difficult.Since the presence of ergot increases disease trans-mission and toxicity risks, food safety concerns ininternational trade can bring down the exports ofsorghum-producing countries. U.S. exports arenear the US$800 million mark at present; it pro-duces 40% of the world’s seed and earns overUS$435 million annually from its sales. About90% of the sorghum area in South and CentralAmerica is planted with sorghum hybrids, the seedof which is produced, for the most part, by U.S.-based companies.

Sorghum is the world’s fifth most important cere-al crop and about 90% of the area cultivated ins o rghum is in developing countries, wheresorghum is a basic food for millions of poor peo-ple. In the U.S., it is used chiefly as a feed grain–and the second most important one– with pro-duction valued at over US$2 billion annually.About three quarters of the crop is grown in threestates: Kansas, Nebraska and Texas.

µ

µ

µµ

µ

µ

µ

µ

Project objectives and activities. It is unlike-ly that ergot can be eliminated: it is in theAmericas to stay. However, it can be managed andits consequences diminished. The project’s objec-tive is to reduce losses caused by ergot to 1% ofcrop production within five years. (Before thisproject was launched, U.S. losses were estimatedto have been US$51 million annually, or almost3% of the value of the crop.)

In this connection, the community of agriculturalresearchers engaged in sorghum improvement pro-grams initiated a public awareness campaign,facilitating the exchange of available informationabout the disease with different audiences, gener-ating specific biological information about thepathogen in the Americas, designing ergot man-agement practices, and contributing to the devel-opment of regulatory policies for internationaltrade.

This public awareness campaign has had theeffect, among others, of stemming a tendency topanic among sorghum farmers in the Americaswho are alarmed by the disease. ICRISAT, one ofthe international agricultural research centers ofthe Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR), brought priorexperience with sorghum ergot in Ethiopia, India,Rwanda and Zimbabwe to bear in this vanguardeffort. A video describing the impact of sorghumergot and provisions for its control was developedby USDA and ICRISAT scientists and shown tokey policymakers in the Americas. In addition, amethodology was designed which enablesresearchers, including scientists in the U.S., toscreen sorghum varieties for resistance to ergot.

Just as the information generated in Africa and Asiahas benefited the Americas, research in theAmericas will benefit countries throughout the world.

In February 1999, an international team of ergotresearchers–one each from ICRISAT, South Africaand Zimbabwe, previously associated withICRISAT– received the Outstanding AchievementAward of the U.S. National Grain Sorg h u mProducers Board and the Sorghum ImprovementConference of North America for their contribu-tions to the sorghum industry worldwide.

Developing country benefits. The chief bene-fits for developing countries, mainly in theWestern Hemisphere, include: the availability ofresearch information on the biology and control ofs o rghum ergot, the availability of screeningmethodologies and locally adaptable and highyielding resistant varieties, rapid access to research

information and ergot-resistant lines, training, thegreater capacity of all developing country scien-tists to conduct research on sorghum ergot, andreduced losses due to rejection in the seed andgrain trade as well as by the animal feed industry.

U.S. benefits. I n e fficient ergot management

methods could produce a three-fold increase inseed production costs for producers due to the needto increase the use of fungicides to control the dis-ease. This would threaten the competitiveness ofthe U.S. in world markets and cut very substantial-ly into current exports, valued at about US$800million per year. A conservative estimate of U.S.benefits from all sources places benefits at US$30

million per year, which represents the estimateddifference between the value of crop productionlosses before the project and the value with lossesrepresenting only 1% of production.

Project costs. Most project costs were incurredby ICRISAT, USDA, INTSORMIL and Te x a s

A&M University. Costs for just under two yearsincurred by all donors/project partners are estimat-ed to total only slightly over US$175,000 –anextremely small amount when compared to theconservative estimate of annual benefits to theU.S. alone.

Case study contributors

R. Bandyopadhyay, Genetic Resources andEnhancement Division, and

S. Mohapatra, Public Awareness CoordinatorICRISAT502 324 PatancheruAndhra Pradesh, India

Tel 9140-329-6161; Fax 9140-241-239E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

mailto:.bandhyopadhyay@cgiar

mailto:s.mohapatra@cgiar



Saving the Livestock Industries of the Caribbean and the U.S. by Eradicating the Tropical Bont Tick

I-3

Program Area. Ensuring safe, high quality food;animal disease control

Partners. Caribbean countries and Belgium, theEuropean Union, U.N. Food and A g r i c u l t u r eOrganization (FAO), Holland, Germany, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture(IICA), the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (IFAD), Italy, the United Kingdomand the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Principal mutual benefits. Eradication of thetropical bont tick in Caribbean countries will fos-ter increased livestock production in this live-stock-deficit region of the world and prevent thespread of the tick to mainland countries wherelosses could run to hundreds of millions of dollarsannually.

Issue. A tick, spread by a bird, that kills livestockand damages hides and skins.

The tropical bont tick (Amblyomma variegatum)–first introduced into the Americas from Africa inthe 19th century– infects wild and domestic ani-mals, especially cattle, sheep and goats in theCaribbean region, with heartwater, a fatal disease.Tick bites are severe, producing septic wounds andabscesses that damage hides and skins. The tickalso increases the prevalence of an acute bacterialskin disease. These fatal and detrimental effects of

the tick largely explain why Caribbean countriesmust import annually US$100 million of livestockproducts to meet local demand, including that ofthe tourist industry.

The tick is also a threat to Florida and to Centraland South American countries because it is spreadby the cattle egret, which has a wide-rangingmigratory pattern. USDA estimated in 1993 thatthe spread of the tick to mainland countries couldproduce losses of over US$700 million annually.

Project objectives and activities. In 1986,eradication was shown to be feasible by FAO,IICA, the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) and USDA, and a projectwas developed to eradicate the tropical bont tickand heartwater disease from all infested Caribbeanislands. If effective, the campaign would alsoeliminate the threat of the tick from all of theWestern Hemisphere.

Islands and surrounding mainland areas were clas-sified into three risk levels. High risk areas, thosecontaining established populations of the tick,included Anguilla, Antigua, Barbados, Dominica,Montserrat, St.Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and thefive islands of Guadeloupe. Activities com-menced in Anguilla, St. Kitts and Nevis in 1995,moved on to Monteserrat and St. Lucia in 1996,and then to Antigua and Barbados in 1997. Inthese countries, program activities began with the

µ

µ

µµµµ

training of technical personnel responsible for theproject, the dissemination of informational materi-als, an animal census and disease survey, and thepurchasing of equipment and supplies.Eradication was then conducted with acaricidetreatments of all livestock by their owners.Finally, national project staff perform follow-upsurveillance until tick eradication is confirmed. Todate, St. Kitts and Nevis, Montserrat and St. Luciaare in the final stages of eradication; Antigua isahead of schedule.

The principal activities in medium- and low-risk areashave been public information and awareness cam-paigns, surveillance programs, training for surveil-lance personnel, and effective quarantine systems.

A Program Council (APC), acting as a Board ofDirectors, was constituted in 1994 by representa-tives of participating countries, internationalorganizations and donors. Implementation falls tothe Caribbean Community (CARICOM), FAO andIICA, which are responsible for the Project’sRegional Coordinating Unit (RCU), composed of aprogram manager, a research and training officer, aveterinary research officer, and an extension andcommunications official.

Developing country benefits. Highest returnsfrom the eradication program were estimated formedium-risk areas. Using a 6% discount rate andconservative assumptions, benefits were placed at4.2 times costs. Benefits amounting to 2.3 timescosts will be generated in the high-risk areas.

U.S. benefits. If the tick is not eradicated and

migrates to Venezuela, the Greater Antilles and,

most importantly, the U.S. mainland, losses couldrun to US$762 million annually. This figure, dom-

inated by U.S. losses, approximates the benefits to

the U.S. to result from tick eradication.

Project costs. The project is to accomplish its

aims in six years, at a total cost of US$20 million.

About US$15 million of this amount is contributed

by countries of the region for their national proj-

ects, with US$7 million coming directly from localfarmers and livestock producers. Another US$5

million is contributed by donors to finance the

RCU and the travel costs associated with APC

meetings. Using a 6% discount rate, total costscome in at US$12.3 million. This is a minuscule

sum of money when compared to the mutual ben-

efits resulting from the eradication of the tropical

bont tick.


Dr. Charles H. Riemenschneider, Director

North America, FAO2175 K Street NW, Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20437

Tel (202) 653-2400; Fax (202) 653-5760

E-mail: [email protected]




Reducing Chemical Residues on Snow Peas

I-4


Partners. Del Valle University, National Instituteof Agricultural Technology (ICTA) and theMinistry of Agriculture in Guatemala; theIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) CollaborativeSupport Program (CRSP) (with inputs mainlyfrom Purdue University and Ohio State University,in this instance, but managed by Vi rg i n i aTechnical University), and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (Agricultural Research Service (ARS)and Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS))

Principal mutual benefits. U.S. consumersbenefited from the availability of a US$40 millionflow of snow peas free from the health hazards ofchemical residues. Some 20,000 Guatemalan pro-ducers have secured this market and their liveli-hood through continued exports of US$40 millionof snow peas to the U.S.

Issue. Reducing chemical residues on snow peas.

Over the past 15 years, non-traditional agricultur-al exports from Central America to the U.S. haveincreased about 10 times, with three quarters ofthese exports currently comprising fruits and veg-etables. Three countries –Costa Rica, Guatemalaand Honduras– account for 90%. Costa Rica’snon-traditional agricultural exports are dependenton a single commodity, namely pineapples.Though representing a smaller share of CentralA m e r i c a ’s non-traditional agricultural exports,

Guatemala's agricultural exports are, by contrast,highly diversified. In the Central A m e r i c a nregion, Costa Rica and Guatemala are consideredthe most competitive, but with potential stillremaining for an expansion of non-traditionalagricultural exports.

Exploiting that potential requires addressing non-economic constraints, notably U.S. food safetystandards related to phytosanitary conditions andcontamination from disallowed chemicals.Between 1984 and 1994, over 3,000 non-tradition-al agricultural export shipments from Guatemalaworth US$18 million were detained or rejected atU.S. ports.

This situation is exemplified by the case of thesnow pea, a temperate climate crop cultivated inGuatemala's central highland districts by 20,000small producers, each with less than 0.5 hectaresin snow pea production. (These producers arethought to support a total population of over100,000 people.) Insect and disease infestationshave led these farmers to rely excessively onchemical control measures. When a leaf mineroutbreak occurred in 1995, chemical controlsresulted in a USDA Plant Protection Quarantine(PPQ) being imposed on all Guatemalan snow peaimports at U.S. ports of entry. (In its adult stage,the leaf miner looks like a fly. It lays eggs at thebase of the plant, the leaf miners emerge from theeggs, then make their way to the pea pods, wherethey feed by boring small brown-stained tunnelsthrough the snow peas .) Los t exports by

µ

µ

Guatemalan snow pea producers in 1996 alonewere valued conservatively at US$6 million.

Project objectives and activities. Against thisbackground, Del Valle University, ICTA and theMinistry of Agriculture in Guatemala; Purdue andOhio State Universities in the U.S., as members ofthe IPM CRSP which is managed by Virginia TechUniversity; and USDA’s ARS and FAS joinedforces to help get the quarantine lifted and todevelop longer-term solutions to the excessivereliance on chemical control by Guatemalan non-traditional agricultural export producers.

First, efforts focused on the immediate problem ofthe PPQ. It was scientifically proven that theGuatemalan leaf miner was not a species exotic tothe U.S. and thus not a threat to U.S. producers.The partners also tested several strategies toreduce chemical residues on snow peas and toenhance product quality. These proved successful,and the PPQ was lifted just 13 months after it wasimposed. Annual shipments of snow peas fromGuatemala to the U.S. resumed.

Efforts then turned to developing strategies toreduce reliance on chemicals more generally. Ninefield test sites were established in representativeproduction areas, with control plots being man-aged by local producers and IPM plots being man-aged by CRSP agronomists and field technicians.Few producers were acquainted with integratedpest management strategies, as most relied onagrochemical distributors for their pest manage-ment information.

Leaf miners were found to be the major pest prob-lem in snow peas. Weekly samples of leaf minerswere taken to determine adult insect pressures andnecessary pesticide applications. The earlierresearch which resulted in the lifting of the PPQ inU.S. ports assisted greatly with the design of thislater phase of the research, involving a reducednumber of applications of EnvironmentalProtection Agency-approved agrochemicals andthe use of sticky traps to reduce adult insect leafminer pressure. Other measures were also incor-porated into the IPM test plots to reduce adult leafminer reproductive capacities.

Results? It was found that the number of pesticideapplications could be reduced by two thirds, from

an average of 10.4 to 3.7 applications.Introduction of the practice of using fewer applica-tions resulted in marketable snow pea yields thatare almost 25% higher, improved product quality(as measured by marketable production at the ship-ping point grading station), lower productioncosts, and improved returns to producers and theirfamilies. Project partners were also instrumentalin getting growers and exporters in Guatemala toinstitute effective pre-inspections to ensure thatsnow peas exported to the U.S. are free from pestsand pesticide residues at their embarkation points.At present, 40% of the exported volume of snowpeas passes through this pilot pre-inspection pro-gram, and all farmers of this product are using thebest cultural practices recommended by the project.

Shared mutual benefits. U.S. consumers bene-fited from the project’s sustaining a US$40 millionflow of snow peas that would not threaten theirhealth with chemical residues. Because the kind ofleaf miner found in Guatemala is prevalent in theU.S., research and protocols developed inGuatemala will find applications in this countryfor bean and pea crops for fresh produce markets.Guatemalan producers –including 20,000 whosupport a total population of over 100,000– havesecured their livelihoods through the continuedannual sales of US$40 million of snow peas asnon-traditional agricultural exports. Moreover, thestrong partnerships that developed between U.S.and Guatemalan professionals have spun off addi-tional joint ventures on brambles, broccoli andsugar snaps, further benefiting the local populationand U.S. consumers.

Project costs. About US$50,000 of core fundingfrom the IPM CRSP supported the project, whichwas matched by US$25,000 of cost sharing on thepart of U.S. institutional partners and US$20,000by Guatemalan partners. In short, one year ofsnow pea exports from Guatemala to the U.S. isworth several hundred times the cost of the project.


Dr. Glenn Sullivan1165 Horticulture BuildingPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IN 47907-1165Tel (765) 494-1313; Fax (765) 494-0391E-mail: [email protected]




Fruit Fly Eradication: The Binational Campaign of Chile and Peru

I-5


Partners. Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG),Chile; Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agraria(SENASA), Peru; Inter-American Institute forCooperation on Agriculture (IICA), Costa Rica,Chile and Peru; and the International Agency forAtomic Energy (IAAE), Austria

Principal mutual benefits. The annual valueof Chilean and Peruvian fruit exports will beincreased significantly with the eradication of thefruit fly and a year-round supply of fruit will beassured to the U.S., which is the two countries'largest export market.

I s s u e . Chile (in 1963) and Peru (in 1957)launched campaigns to eradicate the fruit fly,which was seriously threatening fruit productionand fruit exports because of plant quarantinerestrictions in many countries. The fly's disastrouseffects begin when it lays eggs on mature fruit; theresulting larvae enter the fruit and ruin its contentsbefore re-emerging as mature fruit flies, leavingholes that are penetrated by other contaminants(fungi in particular) which further destroy the fruit.

By 1990, the Chilean campaign –relying heavilyon chemical treatment– successfully eliminated alloutbreaks of the fruit fly, except in the extremenorthern Region I of Arica (state-level entities inChile are called "regions"). This was becauseeffective barriers did not exist at the Chile-Peruborder as the Peruvian campaign had lacked conti-

nuity and the fruit fly continued to be a reasonablywidespread pest. As a result, the plant quarantineservices of many countries would not acceptChilean fruit because of the continued presence ofthe fruit fly in that country.

With the credibility and support of IICA, conver-sations were held for eight years (1981-89)between Chilean and Peruvian authorities in anattempt to resolve this problem and eliminate thefly from the border areas of the two countries.These conversations were unproductive at the out-set, largely because of the history of conflicts andtensions between the two countries (including the"Pacific War"). In addition, Peruvian fruit produc-tion in the Department of Tacna (in Peru, states arecalled "departments") at its border with Chile wasnot economically significant, as Tacna was chieflyused as a transshipment point for fruit produced inthe interior of the country.

The stalemate was broken when it was suggestedthat a binational project employing the "sterileinsect technique" (SIT) to eliminate the fruit fly inArica and Tacna could strengthen ongoing eradi-cation efforts. Peru's sterile fruit fly productionplant at La Molina had a surplus capacity thatcould be brought on stream by the project, replac-ing the chemical control of fruit flies –costly andenvironmentally unsound– with a biological con-trol that effectively curtails fly reproduction. Thisproposal was accepted by Chile because of itslong-time concern about the intensive use ofchemical pest controls.

µ

µ

µ

µ

Objectives and activities. When the projectwas finally agreed to, three objectives were set:elimination of the fruit fly from the binational bor-der area, approval of "fruit fly free status" forChile, and the launching of an ambitious fruit flycampaign in selected valleys on the western coastof Peru that offer the greatest promise for fruit pro-duction and exports.

Project activities were launched in 1991, utilizingintegrated pest management (IPM) techniques.First, the quarantine area was defined to includeChile’s Region I and Peru’s Tacna and MoqueguaDepartments, the latter being added so the bina-tional project would overlap with a part of Peru’snational fruit fly eradication program. Second,reliable detection methodologies were agreed toand implemented, involving the establishment of anetwork of traps and sampling techniques. Third,sterile fruit flies were produced, initially at the LaMolina center and later in Chile, after Chile built amodern facility near the site of the binational proj-ect. Since then, all project sterile fruit flies havebeen produced in Chile. Together with the distri-bution of the sterile flies from airplanes, this is themost tedious, demanding and costly aspect of theproject. Fourth, quarantine regulations for thePeruvian-Chilean border were agreed to, in partbecause of the large volume of trade in fruitbetween the two countries.

Although to date only one of the three projectobjectives has been achieved (Chile has beendeclared fruit fly free), good progress is beingmade with regard to the other two. During the1991-1998 period, the project had to be renewedon an annual basis. When it was recognized thatthe binational effort would need to continue if thegains achieved in eradication were to be sustained,an open-ended extension for an indefinite periodof time was signed in October 1999.

Benefits for Chile and Peru. Most important-ly, on December 14, 1995, Chile was declared fruitfly free, an advantage estimated to have increasedproducers' returns by at least US$500 millionannually, representing about 40% of the averageannual value of Chilean fruit production since1991. Fly populations in Peru’s Tacna Regionhave been reduced to what is technically termedthe "suppression level." An Inter- A m e r i c a nDevelopment Bank/Peruvian mission estimated

that the country’s export returns should increase byUS$100 million once the fly has been eliminatedcompletely from Tacna and the western coastalarea. This represents an almost 80% gain in the1991-98 average annual value of Peruvian horti-cultural exports!

Major advances have also been made in upgradingthe skills of human capital in both countries to con-trol the fruit fly; these professionals are nowequipped to control other diseases that may arise inthe future. In sum, Chile and Peru are in a positionto resolve speedily international sanitary issuesthat in the past could have taken years to over-come. Finally, new partners have been attracted tojoin and finance the project, for example, theIAAE, as well as private organizations that want toenter into production in Chile or Peru by reason oftheir efforts to control the fruit fly.

The project's positive results have moved Chile toestablish a similar binational program withA rgentina. It has also served as a model for collabo-ration among other countries of the Andean region.

U.S. benefits. U.S. consumers, the principal buy-ers of Chilean and Peruvian fruit, receive majorbenefits (represented by an additional US$600million in U.S. imports) because they are able tobuy fresh fruit year round. Moreover, USDA quar-antine inspection costs are reduced because pre-inspection stations are mounted in originatingcountries, once high levels of pest control havebeen achieved.

Costs. No more than US$5 million in total wascontributed to the project by the governments ofChile and Peru, the IAAE, and IICA during theeight-year period (1991-99). This represents aboutone percent of the value of estimated export gainsfor just one year.

Contributor

Javier Esparza Duque, Regional A g r i c u l t u r a lHealth SpecialistI n t e r-American Institute for Cooperation onAgriculture (IICA)3211 Paseo de la República, 8th FloorApartado 14-0185Lima 14, PeruTel (511) 422-8336; Fax (511) 442-4554E-mail: [email protected]




Preventing Screwworms from Re-invadingthe Livestock Industry in the Americas

I-6

Program Area. Ensuring safe, high quality food;animal disease control

P a rt n e r s . U.N. Food and A g r i c u l t u r eOrganization (FAO) and the Cuban Institute ofVeterinary Medicine

Principal mutual benefits. Preventing a re-invasion of screwworms in the livestock industryof the Americas will make it unnecessary to mountanother eradication campaign; the earlier 1960scampaign that successfully eliminated the parasitefrom seven countries (200 million hectares) in theWestern Hemisphere cost US$500 million.

Issue. Preventing economic loss caused by a live-stock parasite

The screwworm, a major current and potentialproblem of the livestock industry in the Americas,is a parasite that affects humans and animals. It iscaused by the larvae of a fly (C o c h l i o m y i ah o m i n i v o r a x) which invades and infects thewounds of warm-blooded animals. Mating onlyonce, the female lays one or more batches of up to300 eggs at the edge of any wound or skin abra-sion, however small. Within 24 hours the larvaedevelop and burrow into the living flesh, creatinglarge, deep, open wounds which attract furtheregg-laying females and frequently lead to the ani-mal’s death.

As late as the 1960s, New World Screwworms(NWS) blighted livestock from central U.S. tonorthern Chile, including the Caribbean. An ambi-tious eradication campaign was launched that suc-cessfully eliminated the NWS from Belize, ElSalvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panamaand the U.S., on the mainland. However, in theCaribbean, the NWS continued to be a major prob-lem affecting wild and domesticated animals. InOctober 1995, it was first reported in Cuba.Because the parasite can easily re-invade areasfrom which it has been eradicated, its presenceanywhere in the region represents a threat to otherparts of the hemisphere. Cubans had been treatingthe parasite manually, using local remedies ofdoubtful effectiveness; more effective is the period-ic use of insecticides in topical or bath applications.

FAO sent an EMPRES (Emergency PreventionSystem for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pestsand Diseases) evaluation mission to Cuba whenthe NWS was first reported there. That missionconcluded that the problem was severe and proba-bly worsening as a result of the scarcity of insecti-cides in the country and Cuba's difficulties in buy-ing ingredients to produce insecticides locally. Itwas also judged likely that a more severe outbreakof the pest in Cuba could result in its expansioninto disease-free countries.

FAO estimated that in Cuba alone, the pest wascausing economic losses (conservatively calculat-

µ

µ

ed) amounting to around US$36 million annually,not including the value of the weight lost by infect-ed animals, the additional manpower needed tocontrol the pest, livestock hides destroyed, anddecreased milk production. Given the magnitudeof loss, FAO and Cuba concluded that a campaignto control the pest, followed by a NWS eradicationprogram, would be fully justified.

Project objectives and activities. The project,implemented over a 24-month period, commencedin Cuba with the adoption of the modest objectivesof surveying the geographical distribution and sea-sonality of the disease, and establishing effectivesystems to control and monitor it.

In support of these objectives, the following proj-ect activities were agreed to by FAO and Cubanauthorities: assessment of the economic and pro-duction losses caused directly by NWS; training ofCuban professionals in methods to survey, monitorand control the parasite, as well as raising aware-ness about the disease and its control among ruralpopulations; evaluation of appropriate controlmethods for local conditions; design of a controlstrategy; reduction of the risk of the diseasespreading beyond Cuba (mainly through moreeffective controls in animal trade); and develop-ment of a follow-on eradication project, based onthe experience of the control campaign and includ-ing identification of potential donors for the fol-low-on phase.

FAO agreed to provide 29 person-weeks of short-term technical assistance, involving a NWS con-trol and monitoring expert, an expert in screw-worm breeding in high-security laboratories, aneconomist, and a communications specialist. Thistechnical assistance was to be provided in threemissions to Cuba during the project period. Inaddition, the national coordinator was sent toCosta Rica and Mexico to familiarize himself withtheir control and eradication programs, and 750Cuban professionals were financed to attend train-ing courses offered at Cuba’s Institute ofVeterinary Medicine. Cuba agreed to add technicalpersonnel to manage the statistical informationproduced by this initial project.

Developing country benefits. This project hasserved primarily to position Cuba to be able tolaunch a full-scale NWS eradication campaign.

This first-phase control project demonstrated thatthe parasite can be completely eradicated from thecountry in a matter of four years, at a total cost ofUS$65 million, using the Sterile Insect Technique.This involves releasing sterile flies into the envi-ronment that produce infertile eggs, arresting thedevelopment of larvae that create tissue damage inanimals. The benefits of eradication have beenestimated at about four times the cost of the eradi-cation effort.

Other specific benefits of the control programinclude establishment of a communications systemfor small farmers in the country which involvedthem in the survey, monitoring and control ofNWS. This included distribution of 182,000 NWStreatment kits and the development of mechanismsto prevent infestations of NWS-free areas.

Benefits in the Americas. The earlier eradica-tion campaign in the Americas launched in the1960s covered over 200 million hectares in sevencountries, including the U.S., at a total cost ofUS$500 million. Total economic benefits wereestimated to be six times this, or US$3 billion.Should Cuba not eradicate the NWS and the dis-ease again invade the same countries with equalintensity, the benefits foregone in the Americascould be as high as US$3 billion, which representsa measure of the real cost of inaction. To assessaccurately the benefits foregone, they are multi-plied by the estimated probability of parasite re-invasion in the formerly affected area and coun-tries, which would appear to be very substantial.

Project cost. The cost to FAO of the project wasUS$353,000.


Dr. Charles H. Riemenschneider, DirectorNorth America, FAO2175 K Street NW, Suite 300Washington, D.C. 20437Tel (202) 653-2400; Fax (202) 653-5769E-mail: [email protected]

M. Vargas-TeránAnimal Health Officer, FAOSantiago, ChileTel (562) 337-2234; Fax (562) 337-2101E-mail: [email protected]





Promoting Private Agribusiness in Bangladesh

II-1

Program Area. Expanding trade and developingbusiness

Partners

Bangladesh Ministry of Agriculture, privatefarmers, input dealers and food proc e s s o r s .

U . S . U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID), International Fertilizer DevelopmentCenter (IFDC) with RONCO Consulting Cor-poration, and Winrock International.

Principal mutual benefits. Formerly depend-ent on massive U.S. food aid, Bangladesh hasachieved self-sufficiency in rice, the principals t aple. Policy reforms, coupled with technicalassistance and credit programs, have begun toopen the economy to agri-entrepreneurs. U.S. agri-business exports (fertilizers, poultry, processingequipment) to Bangladesh have increased dra-m a tically.

I s s u e . Build confidence that market-drivenagribusiness can serve Bangladesh

At independence in 1971, Bangladesh facedsevere problems. One of the world's poorest andmost densely populated countries (130 millionpeople live in an area about the size of Wisconsin),it depended heavily on foreign aid for critical foodimports. Though most of its people were farmers,

an inefficient government marketing system, anineffective government-run inputs supply enter-prise, and an inconsistent maze of public policiesthwarted adoption of technology and open, com-petitive activities that could improve productivity,incomes and food security. During the 1980s andearly 1990s, IFDC led efforts at all levels of thefertilizer distribution chain to show that the privatecommercial sector could do a better job of meetingfarmer needs. The government stopped its subsi-dies and let the private sector distribute fertilizer.Building on that success, the Ministry ofAgriculture invited IFDC to help promote a pri-vate agribusiness sector to increase value-addedproduction.

Project objectives and activities. The Agro-based Industries and Technology DevelopmentProject (ATDP) is a unique partnership of public,private commercial and non-governmental organi-zations, the goal of which is to increase productivebusiness and employment in agriculture and therural sector of Bangladesh. The five-year project,which ended in July 2000, aimed to:

• strengthen the technical and financial capacityof agribusiness enterprises so they can increaseagricultural inputs, production, processing andmarketing;

• f o rge linkages among agro-enterprises andpartners who can support them; and

µ

µ

• promote efforts to create a policy environmentthat will encourage the expansion of privatecommercial sector activities.

The project worked in eight sub-sectors (includingthe dairy, poultry, fruit and vegetables industries)and reaches clients through eight field offices. Topromote business ties, ATDP helped Bangladeshfirms locate suppliers and markets overseas. Theproject had links with the U.S.-BangladeshBusiness Council and USAID's GlobalTechnology Network.

Developing country benefits. With the col-l a boration of the agricultural extension service anda local non-governmental organization, the projectpromoted the widespread use of a new fertilizertechnique (hand-placing of urea super granules inrice fields) that significantly increases productionand farmer returns while reducing fertilizer con-sumption. Project-advocated policy reforms adopt-ed by the government have reduced tariff and otherbarriers and created a more attractive environmentfor agribusiness.

As a result of improved technology, policy reformand hands-on technical and business assistance,Bangladeshi farmers began to export potatoes in1999. In addition, some enterprises are producingfrozen french fries. Shrimp exports to the U.S. andto the European community are growing rapidly,and poultry production is expected to double in1999 alone. As a result of these and numerousother successes, both the government and the

expanding agribusiness sector are gaining confi-dence in free market forces.

U.S. benefits. Improving agribusiness in a nationonce described as "a basket case" has madeBangladesh less reliant on foreign aid for foodsecurity, producing budget savings for the U.S.government. At the same time, U.S. exports toBangladesh continue through private commercialchannels and Bangladesh is now purchasing U.S.commodities and equipment with its ownresources, opening possibilities for a growingnumber of business ties. For example, commercialagro-exports, mainly fertilizers, from the U.S.increased from US$6.8 million in 1997 to US$20.6million in 1998. In just the first half of 1999, overUS$19 million of such U.S. exports were destinedfor Bangladesh.

Project costs. In addition to the US$10 millionprovided by USAID through the ATDP project, theBangladesh Ministry of Agriculture has madeavailable from its own resources a US$26 millionagribusiness credit fund and US$4 million in tech-nical assistance and other items from regular budg-et resources.


Daniel F. Waterman, Development OfficerInternational Fertilizer Development CenterP.O. Box 65099Washington, D.C. 20035-5099Tel (703) 883-8160; Fax (703) 883-8160E-mail: [email protected]




Establishing an African Seed Trade Association

II-2


Partners

U . S . American Seed Trade A s s o c i a t i o n( A S TA), U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e(USDA)

Overseas. International Seed Trade Federation(FIS), The Seed Company of Malawi, and theMalawi Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

Primary mutual benefits. Creating a viableAfrican Seed Trade Association will foster devel-opment of a modern, competitive regional seedindustry throughout Africa and encourage privatesector growth. As African countries receive infor-mation on U.S. biotechnology, seed technologyand seed regulatory systems in a free, competitivemarket, this will translate into increased U.S. seedexports to that region.

Issue. In 60% of African countries, the seedindus try is controlled by state monopolies.Despite decades of donor assistance for agricultur-al development, these countries lag far behind therest of the world in seed sector development.Most have not taken the necessary steps towardglobal integration of their seed sector, especially interms of agricultural research, seed regulation andcommerce.

Although government control of seed productionand distribution has declined in many countries, aviable commercial market has not yet filled thegap. The private sector, both indigenous andmultinational, has much to offer in terms of tech-nical expertise, technology and monetaryresources. However, it is over-regulated and hassuppressed participants in seed sector develop-ment schemes, due primarily to a limited under-standing of the private sector's potential contribu-tion to seed sector and agricultural development,as well as of the synergy that can exist betweenpublic and private institutions and organizations.

The African Seed Trade Association, the first ini-tiative of its kind to organize and empower the pri-vate seed sector in Africa, held its first organiza-tional meeting on April 8-10, 1999 in Lilongwe,Malawi. Representatives of national seed tradeassociations and enterprises from 16 African coun-tries, as well as representatives of internationalo rganizations, trade associations and NGOs,attended. Participants voted to create the AfricanSeed Trade Association (AFSTA), which willdetermine the location of its permanent secretariatand adopt its charter at a later date.

Developing country benefits. With a success-ful organization of the African seed sector, seedproducers worldwide can work together to build acommercial sector that can develop viable systemsfor agricultural technology transfer. Donor andseed industry support will enable such an organi-zation to eventually administer technical assis-

µ

µ

tance and agribusiness management skills, to asso-ciation members with the purpose of improvingtheir commercial viability. A strong associationwill enable the African seed industry to work withgovernment representatives to develop seed regu-latory systems and intellectual property protectionmechanisms that promote private seed commercenot only at the national and regional levels, butthroughout Africa. It can also forge closer tieswith national and regional agricultural researchinstitutes in order to improve the transfer ofimproved seed varieties to African farmers.Finally, a strong African Seed Trade Associationcan collect and provide market information to itsmembership to assist them in their market devel-opment pursuits.

U.S. benefits. Successful implementation of thisproject will provide a cadre of public and privatesector individuals in each African country withinformation on U.S. biotechnology, seed technolo-gy and seed regulatory systems in a free, competi-tive market. Over the next five years, this couldtranslate into well over a 5% increase in U.S. seedexports to combined target countries. It wouldalso be beneficial for trade in commodities pro-duced with biotechnology-derived seed products,

currently including cotton, corn, soybeans and somev e g e t ables.

The project will also promote regional integrationand harmonization of seed policies and regulationssupportive of U.S. seed trade in targ e tcountries/regions. Seed associations, open to pub-lic and private seed company membership, serve tolobby and influence governments, foster theexchange of information and, generally, ease barri-ers for an effective transfer of improved varieties.

Project costs. The cost of the initial AFSTAmeeting was US$65,000, which was contributedby ASTA, the Seed Company of Malawi and theMalawi Ministry of Agriculture. However, theassociation plans to be financially self-sufficient inthe near future.


Mark S. CondonVice President, International MarketingAmerican Seed Trade Association601 13th St. NW, Suite 570 SouthWashington, DC 20005-3807Tel. (202) 638-3128; Fax. (202) 638-3171E-mail: [email protected]




Trade Links in Egypt:More Than Cows and Sheep

II-3


P a rt n e r s . Agricultural Cooperative Develop-ment International/Volunteers Overseas Coope-rative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA) and the U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID)

Project objectives. Known as "AgLink," thisproject links U.S. and Egyptian agribusiness fortechnology transfer, trade development andincreased Egyptian exports

Principal mutual benefits. A gLink impactdata show a 37% increase in Egyptian client milkproduction and an almost 29% increase in meatproduction since the project was launched in 1997.AgLink has facilitated trade linkages with a poten-tial value of over US$30 million for U.S. busi-nesses. These linkages form the structure forEgypt's future sustainable growth in internationaltrade and export.

Issue. Egyptian livestock and dairy products arenot competitive in the world market due to defi-ciencies in quality, quantity and marketing.Technology transfer raises quality, efficiency andproduction, which will result in the placement ofmore and better products on domestic and worldmarkets.

Project activities. After two years of operation,AgLink has expanded its client base to 67; in addi-tion, 18 new clients will participate in AgLink'snew Lamb Export Development Sector. Theseclients receive a variety of services includingonsite expert consultations, workshops, demon-strations, seminars and training courses. Outreachactivities extend linkage opportunities exponen-tially.

Clients participate in exchange travel programs tothe U.S. where they gain access to new technolo-gy and trade opportunities, visit farms, and attendconferences and courses. A recent visit to Egypt bya representative of the Farmer's CommoditiesCorporation resulted in the visit of 18 Egyptiangrain traders to the U.S. to attend training on riskmanagement and hedging. Another group willattend the U.S. Dairy Expo in the fall.

Egyptian client needs represent trade opportunitiesfor U.S. businesses (suppliers of equipment, liveanimals, veterinary care products and feed nutri-ents, etc.). The Egyptian market holds tremendouspotential as i t has been growing at over 5%each year for the past several years and privati -zation is increasing.

To enhance this growth, AgLink operates a tradeinquiry system, encourages exchanges betweenprivate U.S. and Egyptian companies, and worksindividually to bring potential buyers and sellers

µµ

together. AgLink consultants work directly withclients to improve Egyptian product quality andmanagement skills, including facilitating trade andexport linkages.

Main benefits for E g y p t . Recent projectimpact data show a 37% increase in AgLink clientmilk production and an almost 29% increase inmeat production since the project was launched in1997. This dramatic increase is the result of theimplementation of over 1,800 technology recom-mendations to Egyptian farms and firms.

These statistics represent a significant contributionto the personal income of Egyptian farmers andfirm clients as well as to GNP. As the spread effectof technology transfer introduced and promoted byAgLink takes hold, impact will begin to reachsmaller farmers. Thus, the use of improved prac-tices and technology will be a viable means of alle-viating poverty in Egypt. As Egypt moves toexpand export development, these improvementswill be benchmarks for success.

Main benefits for the U.S. To date, AgLinkhas facilitated trade linkages with a potential value

of over US$30 million for U.S. businesses.

Excellent trade opportunities exist in Egypt as

AgLink continues to open avenues for tradeexchange for U.S. and Egyptian agribusiness.

These linkages form the structure for Egypt's

future sustainable growth in international trade andexport.

Total cost. US$9.1 million. Recently, AgLink

implemented "cost sharing" with clients as an exit

strategy for project completion in 2001. AgLink

expects to share 10% of program costs with clients

and vendors in 1999 and, by project end, cost shar-ing will cover 30% of program costs.


Mike Deegan

President and CEOACDI/VOCA

50 F Street, NW, Suite 1075

Washington, DC 20001Tel. (202) 383-4961; Fax. (202) 626-8727



Development and Implementation of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Legislation in Morocco

II-4

Program Area. Expanding trade and develop-ing business

Overseas partners

• Direction de la Protection de Vegetaux, deControles Techniques et de la Repression desFraudes (DPVCTRF) (the division of theMoroccan Ministry of Agriculture that regu-lates plant importation and exportation);Moroccan Agribus iness Project (MAP)/Development Alternatives International(DAI)

US Partners

• Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project(ABSP), Michigan State University; the U.S.Agency for International Development(USAID)

Primary mutual benefits. This project openednew markets for U.S. private sector companies.The Moroccan market was previously closed tosuch companies because the country lackednational intellectual property protection, specifi-cally plant variety protection (PVP). For its part,Morocco gained the ability to access newimproved crop varieties for local consumption andexport.

I s s u e . Enhancing trade opportunities throughplant variety protection

Agriculture plays a key role in Morocco’s econo-my, employing about 40% of the labor force andcontributing about 18% of Morocco’s grossdomestic product. Morocco actively trades freshand processed agricultural products in Europeanmarkets. In order for it to compete in internation-al markets with other exporting countries, it needsaccess to practical biotechnology applications thatcan quickly introduce selected traits in order toresolve production problems and accelerate large-scale propagation of disease-free plants.

Until recently, breeding for the purpose of improv-ing crop varieties was primarily the domain of theMoroccan public sector. Through the MoroccanAgribusiness Project, USAID became aware thatthe private agricultural sector was being deniedaccess to varieties improved by U.S. companiesbecause of a lack of national intellectual propertyprotection, specifically plant variety protection(PVP). The Morocco private sector had developedimproved crop varieties (e.g., citrus) that it couldnot protect. In addition, its horticultural sectorwas paying a high cost because it was deniedaccess to new plant varieties and genetic materials,for example, strawberries, peaches and other treefruit, date palm and flowers.

µ µ

Objectives

• To promote Moroccan/US agribusiness part-nerships

• To develop national policies promotinginvestment in agriculture and agribusiness

Project activities

• DAI/MAP promotion of US-Moroccan jointventures

• DAI/USAID work with the private sector andthe Moroccan government to develop plantvariety protection legislation

• ABSP, DAI and USAID-organized workshopsin Morocco to discuss the implementation ofplant variety protection legislation

• ABSP training for Moroccan DVPCTRF staffregarding the establishment and operation of aplant variety protection office

Total project costs. ABSP operated with aUS$200,000 budget from USAID/Morocco;DPVCTRF covered local administrative and work-shop costs.

Benefits to developing countries. Morocco

gained the ability to access new improved crop

varieties for local consumption and export.

Benefits to the U.S. The project opened poten-

tial new markets for producers in the U.S..

Economic benefits will become more quantifiable

when policy changes have been in effect for a

longer time period.


Andrea Johanson (Assistant Director) and

Catherine L. Ives (Director)

Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project

(ASBP)

414 Plant & Soil Sciences Building

Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824

Tel. (517) 353-2290; Fax. (517) 432-1982

E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]





The U.S./Eastern Europe Market Information Project

II-5


Partners. Economic Research Service (ERS)/U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), them i nistries of agriculture and the agricultural eco-nomic research institutes of Bulgaria, CzechRepublic, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

Mutual benefits. East European institutions arenow producing more timely and accurate marketinformation, both in English and in the native lan-guages of the participating countries. The infor-mation helps policy makers and agribusiness inboth Eastern Europe and the U.S. make betterinformed market decisions.

I s s u e . Upgrading capabilities in trans itionaleconomies for data collection and analysis

ERS received funds from the SEED Act (Supportfor Emerging European Democracies) and theUSDA's Emerging Markets Program to developinstitutions in transitional economies so as toequip them to collect, analyze and disseminate theeconomic information necessary for the function-ing of market economies.

Project activities and objectives. From 1991to 1998, ERS organized technical assistance forcommodity market analysis in several Central andEast European countries: Bulgaria, CzechRepublic, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. These

efforts were funded partially through the SEEDAct and partially through USDA’s Emerg i n gMarkets Program. Counterpart institutions werethe ministries of agriculture and the agriculturaleconomic research institutes of those countries.

The ERS program had two principal objectives.The first was to help counterpart institutions builda program for publishing regular commodity mar-ket reports on major markets in the country, pro-viding an analysis of the current situation in com-modity markets and short-term forecasts of supply,demand and prices. ERS provided training in thefundamentals of economic analysis and taughtcounterparts how to present the results in readableformat. Counterparts were also helped to identifyand reach their target audience.

The second objective of the ERS program was toprovide training in short-term policy analysis, withthe aim of providing objective analysis of the eco-nomic impacts of alternative policies and pro-grams proposed by high-level officials.

Developing country benefits. ERS trainedover 100 East European analysts in the fundamen-tals of economic analysis and forecasting. Manyof these counterpart personnel have gone on totrain others, and many have been promoted toimportant policy positions. As a result of thistraining, they have helped their ministries imple-ment policies that are more supportive of freem a rkets.

µµµµ

Counterpart institutions in Central Europe are pub-lishing regularly scheduled reports providinganalysis and short-term forecasts for key commod-ity markets in those countries. These reports pro-vide the fundamental market information thatfarmers and agribusinesses need to make appropri-ate decisions on production, purchasing, marketingand foreign trade.

U.S. benefits. These projects benefited theUSDA and the U.S. agribusiness community inseveral ways:

• USDA analysts now have access to betterinformation on the Central European market.This is an important benefit because, as USDAwas downsized, it is not able to devoteresources to collecting detailed economicinformation from these countries.

• USDA now receives better reports from theembassies in the region as a result of theirinteraction with ERS counterparts.

• Many of the analysts trained through these pro-grams have been promoted to high-level poli-cymaking positions in their governments andare using their training to make more enlight-ened policy decisions.

• East European analysts trained through theseprograms are also contributing to analysis pro-duced by the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD), whichis an important source of information for poli-cy makers in all OECD countries.

• U.S. agribusiness has more accurate informa-tion on which to base investment and tradedecisions.

Costs. Project costs totaled US$6.85 million, withthe following contributions being made by projecthost countries:

Poland US$3.0 millionCzech and Slovak Republics US$0.35 millionRomania US$1.50 millionBulgaria US$2.00 million


Nancy Cochrane, Project Manager for Central andEastern EuropeEurope, Africa and Middle East BranchEconomic Research Service, USDA1800 M St. NW, room 5060Tel. (202) 694-5143; Fax (202) 694-5795E-mail: [email protected]




Developing a Seed Industry in the Republic of Georgia

II-6


Partners

U.S. Agricultural Cooperative DevelopmentInternational/Volunteers Overseas CooperativeAssistance (ACDI/VOCA), the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID), the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Developing country. Republic of Georgia

Principal mutual benefit. This project pro-vides the technical expertise needed to develop aseed industry in the Republic of Georgia andencourages agribusiness expansion through ruralcredit activities, while developing potentiallylucrative business relationships with U.S. agricul-ture and machinery producers.

Issue. The Republic of Georgia has negligibledomestic seed production and opportunities forproducers to receive credit for agricultural produc-tion. In addition, there is little free market infra-structure to assist in the development of either theseed industry or credit institutions.

Project objectives and activities. The SeedEnterprise Enhancement and Development(SEED) project focuses on two complementaryareas of agricultural development. First, the project

stimulates agricultural production by fostering thedevelopment of a domestic seed industry in theRepublic of Georgia, with emphasis on maize,wheat, sunflower and potato seed. Secondly, theproject uses capital through a localized creditcooperative framework, enhancing local farmers’ability to take advantage of new investment oppor-tunities and to receive returns on those invest-ments.

Developing country benefits. Members of thefarming and agribusiness community in theRepublic of Georgia are witnessing the advantagesof having a reliable domestic seed market and reli-able access to credit. This is allowing local farm-ers and producers to begin expanding from local orsubsistence farming to larg e r-scale operations,which can lead to their becoming regional produc-ers, as well as trading partners with other coun-tries. The project is also developing the food andemployment market in this otherwise rural andunderdeveloped former Soviet Republic. Finally,grassroots economic expansion and access to cred-it for food production are increasing pro-market,pro-democratic opinion in a region that has seen agreat deal of instability and conflict in the lastdecade.

U.S. benefits. This project develops businessrelationships between agriculture and machineryproducers in the U.S. and the Republic of Georgia,and is developing a potentially lucrative trading

µ µ

partner for the U.S. Seed varieties from majorU.S. seed manufacturers, including Monsanto andPioneer, are currently being tested for soil, climateand growth potential.

F u n d i n g / p roject costs (including cost sharing)

USAID technical assistance US$3 million USDA monetized funds US$637,000ACDI/VOCA matching of

volunteer resources (through the Farmer-to-Farmer project) US$500,000


Mike DeeganPresident and CEOACDI/VOCA50 F Street, NW, Suite 1075Washington, DC 20001Tel: (202) 383-4961; Fax (202) 626-8727



Developing the Dairy Industry in Moldova and Ukraine

II-7


Partners. Small, private U.S. project engineer-ing and investment companies; three dairies inMoldova and Ukraine; World Bank Rural FinanceCorporation (RFC); U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID); Citizens Network forForeign Affairs (CNFA)

Principal mutual benefits. This project resus-citated a moribund dairy in a depressed Moldovancity through an infusion of U. S. technology, tech-nical assistance and training. Developing countrybenefits included increased employment,improved product quality and the introduction ofnew products. The U.S. company benefited fromequipment exports, sale of consulting services andnew market intelligence. The project's successand sustainability sparked the company to repli-cate the model in two other dairies: one inMoldova and one in the Ukraine.

Issue. Increasing and providing a reliable sup-ply of raw material (milk) to local dairies andupgrading dairy processing capabilities.

Following the near collapse of Moldova’s dairysector in the years immediately following its 1991independence, dairies struggled to meet a risingconsumer demand. The biggest problem was alack of raw materials for further processing.

Moldova also lacked an organized milk collectionsystem, which was complicated by the fact thatmost dairy cows are owned by inefficient, small-scale farmers.

Project objectives and activities. The projectobjective was to improve the operation of a localdairy and its milk suppliers by installing modernU.S. dairy processing and packaging equipment;providing a credit and technical assistance pro-gram for dairy suppliers to improve quality andproduction; developing an efficient distributionsystem for milk products; introducing new prod-ucts; and providing a comprehensive technical andmanagerial training program to improve produc-tion, storage and processing.

The first set of activities involved designing prod-uct packaging and shipping all equipment from theU.S. to Moldova. U.S. consultants were sent toestablish new manufacturing processes and totrain a Moldovan quality control manager.Workers were trained in business management,marketing, accounting and processing technologyto equip them with the skills necessary to improveplant efficiency and product quality. Yogurt, anew product, was introduced at the dairy; the shelflife of milk was increased from 36 hours to 8 days.

Next, a distribution network was established andrefrigerated units were installed in stores.Demand grew steadily, requiring the dairy to stop

µ µµ

adding new stores until a greater raw milk supplycould be secured. Although the volume of milkreceived per day increased from three tons of milkto 30 tons during the first six months of operation,product demand could not be met.

In order to meet the growing demand, the lastmajor set of activities included a farm support pro-gram to work with private farmers on dairy herdmanagement and proper sanitary methods. Twoteams of dairy specialists were sent to Moldovathrough the CNFA Agribusiness Vo l u n t e e rProgram to identify problems and assist milk pro-ducers in developing plans to improve the qualityand quantity of milk supplied to the dairy. Milkcollection stations —complete with equipment andsupplies including antibiotics, feed and refrigerat-ed storage tanks— were established in local vil-lages near the dairy to preserve and collect thegrowing milk supply of private farmers. TheWorld Bank Rural Finance Corporation (RFC)established credit unions in these villages, provid-ing short and medium-term credit to milk produc-ers for purchasing additional cows and/or dairysupplies and equipment.

USAID funding helped build critical upstream anddownstream linkages in the dairy sector through atraining and technical assistance program for dairyemployees and private farmers, value-added pro-cessing, new product introduction, packagingequipment, and an environmental mitigation pro-gram at the dairy.

Developing country benefits. The local dairyhas set a standard for quality dairy products in theMoldovan market. The dairy received a partner-investor that brought new technology and workingcapital to the struggling dairy. Workers' wagesincreased by 20%, the number of employees andhours worked increased, salaries were paid on atimely basis, workers received training in newprocesses and quality control, and communitypride bloomed in a newly renovated, privately run

enterprise. Locally produced, nationally recog-nized quality branded dairy products in westernstyle packaging became available in Moldova.Dairy farmers delivering to the milk collection sta-tions are paid in cash on a regular basis, which isbeginning to improve liquidity in the region.

The project developed a dairy that continues as oneof the strongest, most profitable companies in theregion. This dairy became a pilot and model proj-ect for future developments. Its success led thesame company to invest in two additional dairies,another in Moldova and one in Ukraine, where it isinstituting the same dairy upgrades and farm pro-grams to reach private milk producers.

U.S. benefits. Over US$2 million worth of U.S.modern dairy packaging, processing, storage anddelivery equipment is being used in Moldova, andthese exports will continue to grow as expansionoccurs. U.S. dairy consultants provide ongoingtechnical training to farmers in dairy husbandry,nutrition, and sanitary milking and milk storagemethods.

Project costs

Total planned investment:

USAID US$ 1.7 millionU.S. private sector company US$12.7 million Local Ukraine/Moldova dairies

(cash or in kind) US$ 4.6 millionTotal US$19.0 million


Lucrecia RowletteThe Citizen’s Network for Foreign Affairs, Inc.1111 19th Street NW, Suite 900Washington, DC 20036Tel. (202) 296-3920; Fax (202) 296-3948



Russian-American Farm Privatization Project (RAFPP)

II-8


Partners

U.S. Farm families from Texas and Wisconsin,Michigan State University, Ohio State Univer-sity, and the University of California at Davis

Russia The Minis try of Agriculture, theDepartment of Agriculture of Volkov Raion, St.Petersburg State Agrarian University, ShusharyAcademy of Agribusiness Management

Principal mutual benefits. For the Russians,viable private, self-managed farming with majorimprovements in economic and social livelihood.For the U.S., expanded markets and trade opportu-nities as a result of creating a platform for reci-procity and cooperation through personal contacts.

Issue. To begin moving Russian agriculture froma collective, state system to privately owned andmanaged farm enterprises.

Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture EdwardMadigan and the then mayor of St. Petersburg,Anatoly Sobchek, agreed in 1991 to implement aproject to assist the farm privatization process nearthe historic city of St. Petersburg.

Project objectives and activities. The projectsought to develop a focal point for farm privatiza-

tion in Russia through a research and demonstra-tion farm in an important rural area where it couldbe reasonably expected that Russian farm familieswould take the initiative to develop their own pri-vate farms, with mentoring from U.S. farm fami-lies. The site selected for the demonstration farmwas Volkov Raion, which lies 75 miles east of St.Petersburg. The city of Volkov Raion contributed850 hectares of a former state farm to the project;the Department of Agriculture of Volkov Raionselected 23 families to participate and gave eachroughly 150 acres on which to establish a privatefarm.

U.S. farm families were enlisted for 18- to 30-month stays at the research and demonstrationfarm; two families (husbands and wives) spentmost time there. They offered demonstrations oncrop and livestock production systems suited tothe small scale of the Russian units, and wereavailable to local farmers for consultation on agri-cultural and management issues. The U.S. farmfamilies also offered courses in a variety of areasand some U.S. individuals conducted adaptiveresearch on crops and livestock of relevance to theVolkov Raion area.

Faculty members and staff from Michigan Stateand Ohio State Universities, and the University ofCalifornia at Davis, helped upgrade the capabili-ties of the St. Petersburg State Agrarian Universityand the Shushary Academy of A g r i b u s i n e s sManagement to backstop, support and extend

µµ

r e levant farming information to project families.Five years after it was launched, the project alsoassisted in developing a formal information deliv-ery system that mirrors many aspects of the U.S.State Cooperative Extension System.

Developing country benefits. Twenty of theoriginal 23 Russian families successfully devel-oped productive farms that provide them todaywith livelihoods that are economically and social-ly more rewarding than their work on the earliercollective, state-run farms. The RAFPP h a sworked with the new extension system to contactroughly 1,000 additional families, some of whomhave taken responsibility for managing their ownfarm units.

U.S. benefits. While difficult to quantify at pres-ent, as the agricultural sector begins to developwith the project, doors will open for U.S. agribusi-ness to provide farmers with improved seed andanimals, farm equipment and more productivetechnology. The local Russian population becamefamiliar with the variety and quality of U.S. farmand non-farm products, and individual contactswere promoted between Russian and U.S. businessoperators, which resulted in greater demand for

U.S. commodities by the population in and aroundSt. Petersburg. As a result of the strong bondingthat developed between the Russians and the visit-ing U.S. families, a platform was created that U.S.agribusiness is building on to enhance its trade andto open markets in Russia.

Project costs. The total cost of the seven-yearproject was US$2.4 million, which was coveredwith funds from the USDA Foreign AgriculturalService. This covered the costs of travel and thelocal expenses of the U.S. families, acquisition ofsome farm supplies and equipment for the demon-stration farm, and the cost of participation of fac-ulty from the Land-Grant Universities.


Brad BeelerProgram CoordinatorInternational Extension ProgramsThe Ohio State University2120 Fyffe RoadColumbus, OH 43210. Tel. (614) 292-7252; Fax (614) 292-1757E-mail:[email protected]




The KrediFanm Program: Investing in Rural Haitian Women

II-9


Partners. Inter-American Institute for Coopera-tion on Agriculture (IICA) in Haiti; U.N. Fund forPopulation Activities (UNFPA) in Haiti;AgriFuture Foundation, Washington, D.C.;Kellogg Foundation; and the Assistance to CivilSociety Project (ASOSYE) - U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID)/Haiti.

Principal mutual benefits. Increased revenuesearned by poor rural Haitian women in their tradi-tional economic roles are resulting in the develop-ment of a new formal economy that offers commer-cial trade and business opportunities for the U.S.

Issue. More than 65% of the Haitian populationis rural and dependent on the agricultural econo-my, which went into stagnation and steady declinein the late 1950s, a trend which continues to thisday. The result is overcrowded cities, illegal emi-gration, conflicts and local tensions. The immedi-ate causes of this decline are overpopulation, frag-mentation of landholdings, over-exploitation oflands resulting in serious environmental deteriora-tion, and ever-declining agricultural yields. Thissituation has obliged rural dwellers to sell key fac-tors of production simply to survive: fruit trees,trees for charcoal, tools, seeds, livestock, and(finally) the land itself, to finance a permanentmigration. To halt and reverse this process, capi-tal and other production inputs must be injected atthe level of the individual household.

Traditionally, Haitian women have been responsi-ble for marketing the output of their households;men are responsible for production. With theincome earned through the sale of her household’sagricultural production, a woman supplies herfamily with all their purchased necessities. Anyadditional income goes to medical care, education,and (ultimately) investment in animals, seeds, landor other production inputs.

Because women are the business persons ofHaitian society and are most familiar with finan-cial transactions, rural credit interventions directedat women have been much more successful thanthose directed at men. Recognizing this expertisein Haitian rural women, IICA was able to identifythe most appropriate place to make additional cap-ital available to the rural economy. As a result ofKrediFanm, women are reporting not onlyincreased school attendance by their children, butalso expanded marketing activities, new micro-enterprises, and the purchase of livestock (the tra-ditional savings bank of rural villages).

Objectives and activities. The program capi-talizes revolving credit funds at the communitylevel with a methodology specifically suited to therural milieu, ensuring equitable management ofthe funds by women’s groups, including loan dis-tribution and repayment. Each community fundbegins with capital of about US$5,000, which ismanaged by between 40 and 60 women, and loansare provided at 2% monthly interest. A portion ofthe interest payments cover the charges of a local

µ

µ

agent; the rest is reinvested in the fund itself.About US$90,000 were invested in 29 funds overa period of two years. With over 7,000 loans takenout and repaid, this capital increased to overUS$130,000 in two years; the loan repayment ratewas fully 100%! Financial management is theresponsibility of each KrediFanm group, with proj-ect personnel only providing oversight, advice andtraining on an "as needed" basis.

In early 1999, Kellogg funding allowed six moreKrediFanm groups to be added to the program.Older KrediFanm groups took on the responsibili-ty of training and monitoring these newer groups,which have been as successful as their predeces-sors. KrediFanm women, now numbering almost2,000, are extremely proud of themselves and theprogram and have developed a striking solidarity.This spirit led to the establishment of theKrediFanm Foundation, which unites the now 35KrediFanm groups and manages the capital, cur-rently valued at more than US$145,000. TheKrediFanm Foundation was established inSeptember 1999, led by an executive committeeelected by the KrediFanm women. It is currentlyin the process of developing an aggressive fund-raising campaign. The KrediFanm Foundationalso plays an educational and advocacy role at thenational level relative to the rights and concerns ofrural women.

In addition to project efforts related to the creditfunds, each community received reproductivehealth training from a resident health team, address-ing not only reproductive health and family plan-ning, but also sexually transmitted diseases, preven-tive health care, general nutrition and hygiene, fami l ybudget planning and women’s civil rights.

Only donor's limitations to expanding the capitalbase and technical assistance have prevented morethan 5,000 waiting women to be incorporated intothe project. In early 1998, in an attempt to incor-porate all these women at the local level, 29 groupsinitiated and capitalized their own revolving cred-it funds with their own contributions. These "self-generated funds" are distinct from the donor/proj-ect funds. They are used primarily to finance loansto other women under the same terms of theKrediFanm program, and to finance collectiveinvestment schemes ranging from marketing toland purchases for collective agricultural produc-tion. By late 1998, these funds totaled US$14,140;just eight months later that sum had burgeoned to

US$49,000.

Benefits to Haiti. Haitian women play a crucialeconomic role in their society. Their marketing cir-cuit ensures that garden produce is sold, that goodsmove in and out of cities and regional markets, andthat profits are reinvested in household production.Providing these women with credit has been one ofthe most sound investments in the rural economy,one that is helping pull many rural people out ofgrinding poverty.

U.S. benefits. On a small-scale, the KrediFanmprogram has provided access to seed capital thatcertain women are developing into veritable enter-prises. One woman now trades regularly withFlorida and the U.S.; several women have openedsmall restaurants; and all of the KrediFanm groupshave invested their own funds in productive localeconomic ventures. A larger and more vibrant for-mal economy will transform Haiti into a solid trad-ing partner with the U.S. and even a partner in newbusiness investments.

The collective financial management of theKrediFanm funds is based on equity and trans-parency, key elements for a viable business cultureand the basis of a genuine democracy. Haitianwomen’s business acumen and understanding ofdemocratic principles suggest an untapped poten-tial for a profound transformation of the Haitianeconomy and polity, one that could prove moresubstantial than what has been achieved by mensince the 1986 fall of the Duvalier regime, or evensince the entry of U.S. and United Nations troopsin 1994.

Costs. Donors contributed about US$480,000 inthe two-year start-up period. Although KrediFanmand "self-generated" funds currently total onlyabout US$200,000, the start-up activities areexpected to yield a virtual explosion in the value ofthe local funds in the years ahead, based onprogress recorded to date.


Alexis M. Gardella, Program CoordinatorIICA, Première Impasse Lavaud, 14Port-au-Prince, HaitiTel. (509) 245-3634/3616/2778Fax (509) 245-4034E-mail: [email protected]




The U.S. – Mexico Emerging Markets Project

II-10


Partners

Mexico: the Center for Agricultural Statistics(CEA) and the Agency for Agricultural SectorStudies (DGESA), both of the Secretariat ofAgriculture and Rural Development (SAGAR).

U . S .: Economic Research Service (ERS),National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), allof the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Principal mutual benefits. This project hasenhanced SAGAR’s capacity to provide Mexicanfarmers and consumers with data on and analysisof the situation and outlook for the commoditiesmost important to Mexico’s farm sector. U.S.farmers and agribusiness gain from the projectthrough greater access to high quality informationon Mexican agriculture, which allows them tocompete effectively in Mexican agricultural com-modity markets.

Issue. As barriers to agricultural trade dissolvein the post-North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) era, it is increasingly important for theU.S. and Mexico to understand each other’s agri-culture. Both governments are relinquishing con-trol of their domestic agriculture at the same time

as trade barriers are coming down, further increas-ing farmers' need for information on internationalmarket conditions. In the 1996 Farm Bill, the U.S.Congress authorized the Foreign A g r i c u l t u r a lService (FAS) to fund projects that facilitate U.S.agricultural exports. To respond to the need forbetter information on Mexican agriculture, FASselected the Economic Research Service (ERS) tomanage a three-year project which began in 1996to strengthen Mexico’s agricultural informationsystem.

Project activities and objectives. The pro-ject's main objectives are to supply Mexican andU.S. farmers with the statistics, forecasts andanalyses they need for adjusting and adapting tochanges in the post-NAFTA farm economy, and toprovide U.S. agribusinesses with high qualityinformation on Mexican agriculture so they cancompete effectively in Mexican markets.

To achieve project objectives, activities are con-ducted in three areas. The first is commodityreporting, by which publications and other resultsare produced to inform a wide audience in the U.S.and Mexico on the status of and outlook forMexico's most important commodities. T h i sincludes training of SAGAR analysts by theUSDA.

The second activity is the collection and dissemi-nation of basic data on agricultural commodities,

µµ

with a view to improving the quality of informa-tion available. Mexican field technicians learn toconduct yield surveys for corn, beans, sorghum,avocados and other important commodities; theyalso receive training in remote sensing and geo-graphic referenced information systems that,among other things, facilitate data collection onareas planted in particular crops.

Finally, the project contributes to strengtheningSAGAR’s capabilities to conduct impartial andeconomically sound analyses of strategic issuesthat face North American agriculture in the post-NAFTA era —for example, how to eliminate trans-portation bottlenecks impeding agricultural tradebetween Mexico and the U.S..

Developing country benefits. Over 40Mexican SAGAR professionals with commodityreporting responsibilities have received trainingfrom USDA. As a result, nine SAGAR reportseries (for apples, beef, corn, edible dry beans,p o u l t r y, sorghum, swine, wheat and dai ryp r o ducts) were initiated, with over 10,000 copiesdistributed to users in Mexico. Reports were alsoposted on the SAGAR website in both Spanish andEnglish, so as to increase their access to U.S. users.The accuracy of SAGAR’s short-term productionforecasts was improved as a result of the USDAtraining received by 300 Mexican field techniciansin techniques for conducting sound yield surveys.USDA training in remote sensing and geographicreferenced information systems improved esti-mates of the areas planted and harvested for keyMexican commodities.

U.S. benefits. Enhancement of SAGAR’s web-site —by posting information in English and

expanding the data available— greatly increasedits use by producers and others in the U.S. Theproject-launched report series are increasinglybeing presented directly to U.S. agribusiness rep-resentatives, and they are becoming a key sourceof information. For example, a CEA representa-tive introduced the project-launched grain reportsat an FAS-sponsored meeting on the grain export-ing process, held in Laredo, Texas. The analysisand discussion of transportation bottlenecks thatimpede U.S.-Mexican agricultural trade wereinstrumental in facilitating access by U.S. produc-ers to Mexican markets. Under the same area ofproject activity, the A M S / U S D A and SAGARreviewed Mexico’s vegetable marketing system todetermine if increasing urbanization in Mexicowas channeling retail sales away from traditionalmarkets to U.S.-style retail outlets. Results arevaluable to a range of U.S. producers and sellersattempting to move vegetables into Mexican markets.

P roject costs. The FA S / U S D A E m e rg i n gMarkets Office contributed US$2.2 million for thisthree-year project, covering the cost of U.S. train-ing, equipment and travel by Mexican counterpartsto the U.S.. In addition, SAGAR has made majorcontributions of staff time, printing, office facili-ties, and travel within Mexico.


Cheryl Christensen, Deputy Director/International Program CoordinatorEconomic Research Service, USDA1800 M Street NW, Room 5118Washington, D.C. 20036-5831Tel: (202) 694-5203; Fax: (202) 694-5792Email: [email protected]




Building Grain Marketing Infrastructure in Bulgaria

II-11


Partners

U . S . Agricultural Cooperative DevelopmentInternational/Volunteers Overseas CooperativeAssistance (ACDI/VOCA), U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID), U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Developing country: Bulgaria's Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Agrarian Reform andits private sector

Principal mutual benefits. By developing agrain warehouse and commodity marketing pro-gram in Bulgaria, this project promotes develop-ment of commodity marketing and trading andadvances the Bulgarian agriculture sector whilefacilitating trade between the U.S. and Bulgaria.

Issue. Grain industry system needed in emerg-ing market countries

Farmers in emerging market countries face numer-ous problems stemming from a lack of readilyavailable, safe and secure storage facilities foragricultural commodities. Western farmers,traders, banks and businesses take for granted theavailability of reliable storage facilities that issuesecure warehouse receipts, which allow the holder

to borrow against stored grain and also facilitatethe sale, disposition and transfer of the commodi-ties received.

Project objectives and activities. The GrainIndustry Development Program in Bulgaria isestablishing a warehouse receipts system that willprovide farmers with flexible options for sellingand financing their crops. The program will ener-gize the agricultural economy and lay the ground-work for commodity exchanges and internationaltrade.

In 1997, six Bulgarians participated in anACDI/VOCA symposium held in Poland on ware-house receipts. Later, ACDI/VOCA, the BulgarianMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and AgrarianReform, USDA, USAID and the private sectorjoined forces to create such a system in Bulgaria.Goals included establishing a reliable marketinginformation system, forming a national grain andfeed association, and helping to draft a grain mar-keting law to implement reforms and a warehousereceipt program.

Throughout 1998, a series of ACDI/VOCA andUSDA experts advised the government on thepolicies and regulations that needed to be in placeto support a grain industry system. On 27 July1998, the Bulgarian Parliament passed the Storageand Trade in Grain Act, legalizing the system.ACDI/VOCA also piloted a project to test the poli-

µ µ

cies and regulations in real world conditions; fullimplementation was targeted for the 1999 harvest.

Providing a legal foundation was only the begin-ning. No one was sure that banks would provideloans using grain, let alone warehouse receipts, ascollateral. Three warehouses were selected for theproject-sponsored demonstration and educationproject, which was launched by the U.S. ambassa-dor on 15 September 1998. ACDI/VOCA workedone-on-one with the warehouse owners, bankersand producers at the three selected sites to educatethem on the importance of the system and to helpthem realistically evaluate risk.

The first success occurred on 27 October 1998when Eurobank issued the first two loans usinggrain as collateral; more loans were made in thefollowing months. ACDI/VOCA is working withUSDA to have 500 metric tons of storage spacelicensed.

Emerging market country benefits. Farmershave new options available to them relative towhen they can sell their crops, which will allowthem to take advantage of more advantageousprices. Negotiable warehouse receipt instrumentsenable farmers to borrow from banks using thereceipts as collateral, creating a new cash resource.With secured collateral, banks consider loans to

farmers as being less risky. Uniform grade stan-dards for grain and other products promote domes-tic and international grain marketing.

U.S. benefits. A licensed grain storage and com-modity marketing program is the foundation forinternational grain marketing, and uniform gradestandards for grain and other products further pro-mote international trade. The Grain IndustryDevelopment Program will foster growth in theagricultural sector. Economists predict that agri-culture could be one of the biggest growth areasfor Bulgaria over the next 10 years. As Bulgariansreap the benefits of a vibrant economy and pros-perity, they will import more goods and servicesfrom the U.S..

Project funding. Project funding comes fromUSAID’s Central and Eastern Europe II grant,which has provided US$4 million for activities inBulgaria.


Michael Deegan, President and CEO, ACDI/VOCA50 F St. NW, Suite 1075Washington, D.C. 20001Tel. (202) 383-4971; Fax (202) 626-8727



Establishing a Private Product DistributionSystem in the Ukraine

II-12


Partners

Developing country. Private input distributorsfrom the Western Newly Independent States(WNIS)

U.S. An American crop protection chemicalcompany; U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID); Citizens Network forForeign Affairs (CNFA)

Principal mutual benefits. Enhancing theUkrainian agricultural farm input supply sectorthrough the introduction of U.S. technology, salesand exports.

Issue. Establishing a competitive and sustainableprivate product distribution system

Since its independence, Ukraine's agricultural pro-ducers have had to rely on an inefficiently runstate distribution system. Small chemical busi-nesses struggled to establish a position in the mar-ketplace with minimal assets and ill-defined cred-it histories. With funding from USAID and othersources , an American chemical company isexpanding its operations to include 15 small-scaleprivate input distributors. By partnering with the

U.S. chemical company, these businesses are ableto benefit from a development contract betweenUSAID/CNFA and the American crop protectionchemical company.

Project objectives and activities. Initially,the objective of this partnership was to strengthenand expand the distribution network of 15 privatedistributors, who are now becoming the basis of acompetitive, private sector input distribution sys-tem in the transition from the state-dominated dis-tribution system. The crop protection companysupplies herbicides, insecticides and fungicides tothe distributors, who in turn supply these productsto farmers. Training in business management,product use, and storage and safe disposal is pro-vided both to distributors and to farmers.

In the first stages of the project, US$5.7 million ofcredit was made available to the 15 distributors,with more than half of that going to farmers. Over1,000 individuals (including farmers, agronomistsand farm managers) received training in agricul-tural and financial management practices. In addi-tion, 43 distribution managers received training atthree U.S.-based training/consultation sessionsheld in 1997 and 1998. Forty demonstration siteswere established for the field demonstrations thatwere an integral part of the training.

Not only has the project attained its original tar-gets, it has exceeded many of them. For example,

µ µ

the company has surpassed the goal of creating 15jobs by creating 30, four by the company itself and26 by its WNIS distributors. In 1998 the companywas able to expand the number of distributors from15 to 30, with 22 partners in the Ukraine, six inBelarus and two in Moldova.

Developing country benefits. The project hasmade otherwise rare western technology and serv-ices readily available to private farmers and others.With the use of the chemical company's technolo-gy, farm revenues increased by over 60% and therewas a marked improvement in yields and cropquality. The agricultural sector receives training,modern equipment, technical assistance, agricul-tural inputs and the know-how of U.S. companiesand agribusiness experts. Since the project began,farm revenues from 507,000 hectares treated withthe company’s products have grown to overUS$108 million.

U.S. benefits. In developing the distribution offarm input supply in the private sector, the compa-

ny is opening a market for U.S. goods and servic-es for itself and for other U.S. companies.Encouraging private farmers and distributorserodes state power and expands the distributionsystem.

Project costs

Investments

USAID US$ 499,162Private US company 4,782,912Ukrainian distributors 5,540,000

US$10,822,074


Lucrecia RowletteThe Citizen’s Network for Foreign Affairs, Inc.1111 19th Street NW, Suite 900Washington, DC 20036Tel. (202) 296-3920; Fax (202) 296-3948



Establishing a Private Distribution Networkfor Agricultural Inputs in Albania

II-13


Partners

Albania A host of private input distributors andthe trade association they formed

U.S. U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment (USAID), the International FertilizerDevelopment Center (IFDC) and MississippiState University

Principal mutual benefits. Albanian farmershave improved access to a reliable and competitivesupply of modern inputs. An effective trade asso-ciation is established that serves as a model forothers. The Albanian market is opened to US$10million in U.S. fertilizer and seed exports. Foodsecurity and economic growth are improved in anunstable, troubled region.

Issue. Establishing a competitive and viable pri-vate sector network for the distribution of agricul-tural inputs

With the collapse of the communist regime in theearly 1990s, Albania was at ground zero for devel-opment. Previous agricultural and delivery sys-tems disintegrated; credit disappeared. Becausethe private sector had not existed for over two gen-

erations, other entities did not step in to fill thevoids. Land was distributed to 400,000 farmers,but they had no access to inputs or technical infor-mation and advice.

Auctioning U.S.-supplied fertilizer to begin theprocess, IFDC identified and nurtured entrepre-neurs and helped form a trade association thatenabled dealers to obtain credit, purchase fertiliz-er and other agricultural inputs in bulk, and marketcooperatively as a group. Farmers now have areliable supply of competitively priced inputs andbenefit from private sector extension serviceswhich provide sorely needed technical advice.The program demonstrated that the market can bemade to work again, even after a long period ofneglect.

Project objectives and activities. Since 1992,USAID has supported IFDC efforts to establish aworking private sector distribution system foragricultural inputs in Albania. The project, whichended in December 1999, provided technical andbusiness assistance to over 200 emerging inputdealers and subsequently to hundreds moreagribusinesses engaged in a range of food produc-tion and processing activities. In a credit-starvednation, project staff helped dealers obtain overUS$20 million in loans to import fertilizer, nowfor a total of 75,000 metric tons annually at present.The dealers are now able to self-finance 75% of theirbusiness, which was worth US$23 million in 1999.

µ µ

The project implemented an aggressive media,marketing and field demonstration campaign, as aresult of which nearly all farmers are now usingimproved seeds and fertilizer. Significantimprovements were made in the agricultural infor-mation statistics unit, the soil and other laborato-ries, and the local seed industry. The trade associ-ation became totally sustainable in early 1999, fos-tering the development of seven other agriculturaltrade associations. A new USAID-funded projectawarded to IFDC will assist the new associationsachieve similar results and boost agribusinessgrowth by providing hands-on technical and mar-keting advice.

Developing country benefits. Crop productiongrew and the input supply and production systemswere able to withstand the 1997 collapse of thegovernment and the inflow of Kosovan refugees in1999. Over 400 new agribusinesses, each employ-ing 10 new workers on average, were established.Farmers now benefit from a reliable supply ofinputs and technical information, the trade associ-ations are effectively lobbying for policy reform,and new markets are opening up.

U.S. benefits. The policy reforms and technicalassistance helped open Albania for U.S. business

which, in recent years, has earned over US$10 mil-lion in fertilizer and seed exports. Thus, at a muchreduced cost, the U.S. was able to support foodsecurity without having to make large food ship-ments to a troubled country in a strategic andunstable region. The success of the input dealertrade association is serving as a model for others inAlbania and the region.

Project costs. USAID provided US$8.6 millionin grant funding. In addition to raising commercialcredit, Albanian fertilizer dealers and other projectclients provided significant counterpart resources.For example, in 1998, association members investedUS$9 million of their own resources and contributedUS$400,000 in dues, service fees and in-kindcosts. Thus, matching funds in just one yearexceeded the total value of the project grant fromthe U.S.


Daniel F. Waterman, Development OfficerInternational Fertilizer Development CenterP.O. Box 65099Washington, D.C. 20035-5099Tel. (703) 883-8160; Fax (703) 883-8160E-mail: [email protected]




The Haitian Coffee Revitalization Project

II-14


Partners. Inter-American Institute for Coope-ration on Agriculture (IICA) in Haiti; U.S. Agencyfor International Development (USAID) in Haiti;the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, NaturalResources and Rural Development (MARNDR);and the Inter-American Development Bank(IADB).

Principal mutual benefits. Increased gourmet-quality coffee production in rural Haiti boosts cof-fee farmers’ incomes, reverses environmentaldegradation, increases Haiti’s exports to the U.S.,and provides U.S. consumers with a prized coffee.

Issue. Coffee has long been the principal exportcrop of Haiti, providing more than 75% of exportrevenues until the 1950s. Over the last 20 years,h o w e v e r, coffee production fell sharply, from400,000 sacks (120 pounds per sack) in the early1980s to less than 100,000 in 1999. Coffee is pro-duced on small hillside plots along with fruit treesand other food crops by about 327,600 peasantfarmers; more than 50% of Haiti's tree cover isrelated to coffee production. Because coff e eprices have been falling relative to food cropprices, more and more farmers have replaced theircoffee with annual crops, setting in motion adownward spiral of environmental deterioration,over-exploitation of fragile lands, and rural-urbanmigration.

Coffee passes through a series of marketing inter-mediaries before it is exported. As a result, muchof the price paid by final consumers does not reachthe farmers, reinforcing the negative impact onproducers of the relative decline in coffee prices.Since the 1980s, a pound of red beans has broughttwice as much as a pound of coffee.

In collaboration with USAID, IICA launched the"Coffee Revitalization Project" in 1990 to boostc o ffee production. By 1993, however, it hadbecome clear that improved market incentiveswould be required to achieve this objective.

Objectives and activities. The Coffee Revita-lization Project fostered two changes in traditionalexport relationships. The first was to introducewashed coffee processing, as washed coffee isusually sold as gourmet quality and brings a high-er price than "natural" or traditional coffees. Thesecond was to promote farmer-managed exports,whereby farmers’ organizations replaced the tradi-tional intermediaries in export marketing, thusboosting farmers' returns.

Project activities consisted of establishing andproviding training for local coffee farmer organi-zations directly responsible for production, mar-keting, and export sales. This was crucial to thelong-term viability and sustainability of the entireactivity, which is based on democratic and equi-table principles of operation, transparency and

µ

µ

efficiency, characteristics that run counter to tradi-tional rural Haitian society. The 22 local farmerassociations were federated into the Federation deCaféières Natives (FACN) which, since 1998, hasoperated independently to produce, process andexport coffee. FACN sells Haitian Bleu™, a spe-cial blend of Haitian coffee, to selected regionalU.S. coffee retailers. Sales to these buyers havebeen made under a five-year contract at an excep-tional price of US$2.00/lb, representing a 67%premium over the normal price of US$1.20/lb forCentral American gourmet coffees. It is not sur-prising that the production of FACN HaitianBleu™ soared from 66,000 pounds in 1994 tomore than 145,000 in just four years.

The project also provided new coffee root stock(new varieties of coffee trees), helped organizelocal nurseries, and provided training in better cul-tivation techniques. It also invested in local, arti-sanal wet mills for washed coffee processing,trained local producers in improved productionand processing techniques, and initiated and devel-oped the marketing relationship with U.S. gourmetcoffee roasters and retailers.

Direct farmer participation in the project and thedemocratic principles governing its operationshave had a significant positive impact at the locallevel on Haiti's larger democratization process.

Benefits to Haiti. More than 65% of the Haitianpopulation is rural and over 325,000 producersdepend on coffee production for the well-being oftheir families. Coffee revenues are a primarysource of capital for reinvesting in agriculturalinputs and appropriate technology that result inhigher yields, as well as for investing in children'seducation and medical care. This encouragesfarmers to continue farming, reducing the emigra-tion of poverty-stricken rural dwellers to the citiesand overseas. Coffee cultivation is also one of thefew viable and efficient means of reversing envi-ronmental degradation in the country and, thus, ofpreserving downstream, lowland agricultural pro-duction. At the national level, increased and high-er value coffee production augments nationalexport earnings and improves the balance of trade.

Because of these important benefits, the Haitiangovernment obtained an IDB loan in 1998 toexpand the Coffee Revitalization Project. From1998 to 1999, IICA successfully implemented thisenlarged program in two new areas of the country.

U.S. benefits. The U.S. is the primary market forthe FACN’s Haitian Bleu™ coffee, which is dis-tributed by six retailers covering as many differentareas in the U.S. The value to U.S. consumers ofthis premium coffee is a principal U.S. benefit. Inaddition, the increased revenues of the rural poorimprove the economic conditions that cause somany Haitians to emigrate to other countries, andacquisition of democratic principles at the grass-roots level contributes significantly to bringingabout stability in this country that lies at thedoorstep of the U.S.

Cost. Since 1990, about US$7.2 million has beenprovided by USAID for the project. Haitian gov-ernment financing (US$656,700 through an IADBloan) constitutes the project's principal source offunding at this time.

Although a complete assessment of all project ben-efits since 1990 is unavailable (and would be diffi-cult to obtain given the wide range of activitiessupported, i.e., training, democratization, rootstock improvement, nursery development), we doknow that the two new regions just added to theproject include 3,000 coffee producers and that atleast 200,000 lbs of additional exports are expect-ed to be produced annually, valued at US$400,000at today’s prices. Because this one-year figure forproduction is close to the value of the IADB loan,it appears that the project will be highly beneficialinto the future.


Alexis M. Gardella, Program CoordinatorIICA, Première Impasse Lavaud 14Port-au-Prince, HaitiTel. (509) 245-3634/3616/2778Fax: (509) 245-4034 E-mail: [email protected]


III. Sharing Scientific Knowledgeand Information



Dramatic Spillovers to the U.S. from CGIAR Research

III-1

Program Area. Sharing scientific knowledgeand information.

Partners. Two centers of the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)[the International Maize and Wheat ImprovementCenter (CIMMYT - Mexico) and the InternationalRice Research Institute (IRRI - Philippines)]; andthe states of California, Minnesota, Montana,North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas.

Principal mutual benefits. Marked increasesin yields and production stability through develop-ment of short-stature, disease-resistant wheat andrice varieties.

Issues. The CGIAR is a worldwide network of 16international agricultural research centers thatbegan working in 1960 to reduce hunger in devel-oping countries. Although CGIAR's financingresults from a true partnership of over 40 donors,in recent years 12% of the total annual budget hasbeen contributed by the U.S. Other large donorsinclude: European countries (35%) the Wo r l dBank (15%) and Japan (11%).

Millions of people have escaped starvationthrough the work of the centers that work on wheat(CIMMYT in Mexico) and rice (IRRI in thePhilippines).

Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug began his workon wheat in the 1940s under a Rockefeller

Foundation program in Mexico. A yield ceilingwas soon reached, however, because the plantscould not hold up larger heads of grain withoutfalling over. Semi-dwarf wheat plants, involvingcrosses of a sturdy, short-stemmed Japanese vari-ety with U.S. varieties, were being introduced inWashington State by a USDA wheat breeder.Borlaug tried crossing the semi-dwarfs with dis-ease-resistant Mexican varieties, and producedstrains of sturdy wheat that could remain erectwhen fertilized and irrigated. Yields were two tothree times those of the unimproved wheats. Inthe 1960s and 1970s, these semi-dwarfs spreadthroughout the developing world. Owing toCIMMYT’s research in Mexico, they and theiroffspring are now grown by millions of farmers,including U.S. wheat farmers.

In 1966, IRRI scientists introduced a new ricevariety they called IR-8, which has been dubbedthe "miracle rice" by the news media. It resultedfrom crossing a disease-resistant, Indonesian vari-ety with a short-statured Chinese variety thatspends more energy producing grain than straw.Farmer yields improved four and five times, andyears of lost crops were reduced dramatically.Since its release, IR-8 has evolved into IR-26, IR-36 and IR-56, in response to research efforts tothwart the tungro virus, the grassy stunt virus, andvarieties of brown planthoppers. Without contin-ued investments and significant "maintenanceresearch," IRRI’s initial success would have cometo a bitter end.

µµ

µ

U.S. benefits and costs. Wheat production inthe U.S. generates almost US$8 billion annuallyand accounts for about 12% of world wheat output.In 1993, rice generated US$1.3 billion for the U.S.economy; moreover, U.S. exports account foralmost 20% of all rice traded internationally.Together, the land planted in these two crops annu-ally accounts for almost 25% of all U.S. cropland.

By the early 1990s, about one fifth of all U.S.wheat was sown to varieties having CIMMYTancestry. In 1993, virtually all the Californiaspring wheat crop was grown with CIMMYT vari-eties or with CIMMYT-based ancestors. Aboutone tenth of the acreages in other regions —thenorthern plains states (Minnesota, North Dakota,South Dakota and Montana), the central plains(Oklahoma and Texas) and the southern plains(Colorados, Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska)— wassown to varieties with CIMMYT ancestry. In thecase of rice, about 75% of total U.S. rice acreage issown to varieties with IRRI ancestry, and IRRI ricevarieties have been used primarily as parent stockfor developing medium- and long-grain, semi-dwarf rice varieties in California, A r k a n s a s ,Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas.

A research team at the International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI) recently tracked thedevelopment and use of improved, higher-yieldingvarieties of rice and wheat from IRRI, CIMMYTand U.S. breeders, over the 1970-93 period. It wasconcluded that the gains to U.S. farmers fromC I M M Y T wheat were between US$3.4 andUS$13.7 billion and that the gains from IRRI ricevarieties were as high as US$1.0 billion. Theselarge sums provide a sharp contrast to the US$71million in U.S. financing for CIMMYT’s wheatimprovement activities and its US$63 million for

IRRI rice research. In the case of wheat, aUS$0.02 investment in wheat research producedUS$100 of wheat production in the U.S. and a ben-efit-to-cost ratio as high as 190:1. In the case ofrice, the benefit-to-cost ratio was estimated at17:1. Few investments —even in today’s new hightechnology industries— show these levels ofreturn.

Developing country benefits. The CGIARcenters do not generally provide "finished seeds"to developing countries but rather parent stockfrom which locally suited varieties are obtained.In developing countries the rates of return to agri-cultural research at the local level, even whenCGIAR research is taken into account, have con-sistently proven to be high. In settings as varied asAustralia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, India,Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakis tan, Peru,Philippines and South Africa, rates of return esti-mated for wheat and rice research have generallyfallen in the range of 30% per year.

Project costs. From 1970 to the mid-1990s, U.S.investments in CIMMYT’s wheat research andIRRI’s rice research amounted to US$134 million,a small sum when compared to the benefits of theresearch and the importance of wheat and rice tojust the U.S. economy.


Dr. Philip G. Pardey, Research FellowIFPRI2033 K Street NWWashington, D.C. 20006Tel. (202) 862-8156; Fax. (202) 467-4439E-mail: [email protected]




Diversifying Maize Varieties

III-2

Program Area. Sharing scientific knowledgeand information

Partners. Two dozen firms from the U.S. privatesector, three dozen U.S. federal and state researchorganizations, and 12 Latin American countries

Principal mutual benefits. Enhancement ofU.S. and Latin American maize varieties throughthe introduction of exotic germplasm to broadenthe varietal base.

Issue. Expanding the ancestry of U.S. maize vari-eties to broaden their genetic base

In the U.S., maize is the major crop, planted on 75million acres (almost one quarter of all cropland)and accounting for half of world production.Beginning in the early 1960s, however, warningswere issued about the genetic vulnerability of U.S.maize, resulting from its very narrow genetic baseand the sale by private firms of closely relatedhybrids. It was therefore thought prudent to devel-op alternate breeding populations from diverseexotic sources to prevent possible productionbreakdowns resulting from unfavorable climate,pests and diseases, and market developments.This would require the involvement of LatinAmerican countries, since they are principal cen-ters of origin of the crop and possess most of theexotic germplasm.

Project objectives and activities. The objec-tive of the enhancement effort was to provide thecorn industry with materials developed from exot-ic germplasm, with the ultimate aim of improvingand broadening the varietal base of the maizegrown by U.S. farmers.

The first step was the LAMP project (LatinAmerican Maize Project), which involved 12Latin American countries and the U.S. Through it,over 12,000 different varieties (thought to repre-sent 74% of all maize races) were ultimately col-lected in these countries and evaluated for theiragronomic productivity (grain yield), disease andinsect resistance (i.e., to corn root worm, stalk rotsand ear molds) and value-added characteristics(percent oil, protein, and starch).

The second step was more complicated. Becausethe principal source of U.S. seed is the privatecommercial seed industry, competitive forcesmade it unlikely that any one company would sup-port a varietal enhancement effort that incorporat-ed LAMP accessions. To foster coordination andcollaboration among private firms, USDA’sAgricultural Research Service (ARS) and Land-Grant Universities joined the effort. Ultimately,the American Seed Trade Association pledged in-kind support and lobbied Congress for permanentbase funding for ARS and the universities, whichcommenced in 1995. This consortium launchedenhancement efforts under the U.S. Germplasm

µ

µµ

µ

Enhancement of Maize Project (GEM). Led by aTechnical Steering Committee (TSG) composed of11 cooperators, it meets four times a year to dis-cuss policies, protocols, and project results. TheTSG also oversees enhancement-related activities—for example, publication of a newsletter, datamanagement, and sponsorship of field days— andspecific activities of GEM cooperators, of whichthere are almost two dozen from the private sectorand three dozen from the public sector.

An example of how the project works can be illus-trated by the concern, expressed early in the pro-ject's life, for developing resistance to corn borerleaf. Almost 700 accessions from Peru were eval-uated and 11 resistant varieties were identified, allof which grow in coastal valleys along Peru’snorthern coast. Breeding crosses of the resistantaccessions with U.S. Corn Belt lines produced newvarieties that are resistant to the pest. Crossesmade to resist other pests and diseases have notonly protected the U.S. maize crop, but alsoreduced the need to apply agricultural chemicals(pesticides), thus reducing environmental degradation.

Developing country benefits. Like U.S. farm-ers, some maize producers overseas have benefitedfrom the enhancement project, although probablynot as yet to the extent of their contributions ofexotic germplasm. Their seed industries are lesswell developed and farmers typically reuse the seedthey produce from previous crops for several years.

U.S. benefits. The two projects described hereinwere designed primarily to benefit the U.S. maizei n d u s t r y, through collaboration with Latin

American countries possessing exotic germplasmthat could be bred with existing U.S. maize vari-eties to expand their genetic base. Although thatobjective has been largely reached, GEM is anongoing project and the U.S. seed industry willcontinue to use the exotic accessions made avail-able through LAMP and GEM to improve agro-nomic productivity, pest and disease resistance,and valued-added characteristics of U.S. maizeproduction.

Project costs. Since its inception in 1995, theGEM Project has been provided with US$500,000annually by the Congress, as well as further bene-fits from annual in-kind support from the seedindustry, estimated at US$450,000. The total costof the LAMP Project is estimated at US$3 million.These are minuscule amounts of money when con-trasted with a value-added improvement to thegrain, worth (say) only US$0.10 per bushel, thatwould increase the value of maize production byUS$800 million! Because of the importance ofmaize production to the U.S. and the world, evensmall improvements produce truly extraordinaryeconomic benefits.


Dr. Linda PollakUSDA-ARSDepartment of AgronomyIowa State UniversityAmes, Iowa 50011-0000 Tel. (515) 294-7831; Fax (515) 294-8469 E-mail: [email protected]




Combating Striga and Improving Cereal Yields ThroughCollaborative International Research

III-3


Partners

Developing countries Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali,Niger, Senegal, Sudan.

U.S. states Indiana, Virginia

Institutional partners

Overseas• Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Organization (Ethiopia)• Universität Hohenheim (Stuttgart, Germany)• Institut Nigerien de Recherche Agronomique

(Niger)• Institut de Economie Rurale (Mali)• Agricultural Research Corporation (Sudan)• International Center for Research in the

Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)• International Maize and Wheat Improvement

Center (CIMMYT)

U.S.• Purdue University• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Research Service, Animal & Plant HealthInspection Service (USDA/ARS/APHIS)

• University of Virginia at Charlottesville• NGOs: World Vision International; SG 2000

Principal mutual benefits. International col-laborative research brings together leading scien-tists to address problems that affect agriculture andfood systems worldwide. This particular researchis part of the Sorghum/Millet (INTSORMIL)Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP),which addresses the control of Striga speciesthrough the breeding of sorghum lines with resist-ance to pests and environmental stress. The objec-tive of this research is to boost and stabilize yieldsof sorghum, millet and other cereals in tropicalAfrica, Asia and in selected U.S. states.

Issue, objectives and activities. Witchweeds(Striga spp.) are an economically important para-sitic weed of sorghum, millets and other cereals,especially in tropical Africa and Asia. In Africa,Striga is one of the greatest biological constraintson food production —a more serious problem thaninsects, birds or plant diseases. It has also been aproblem in some counties in North and SouthCarolina.

This parasitic weed reduces the yields of cerealssuch as millets and sorghum, which are a dietarystaple for 500 million people in Africa and Asia.Cereal yield losses from Striga in Africa average40%; in some countries such as Ethiopia andSudan, losses of 65% to 100% are common inheavily infested fields. Sorghum losses due to thisparasitic weed have been estimated at 845,000metric tons per year in sub-Saharan Africa alone.

µ

µµ µµ µ

µ

µ

Control methods available to date have been cost-ly and beyond the means of sorghum farmers indeveloping countries.

The purpose of this research is to achieve a betterunderstanding of the biological interactionsbetween Striga and its hosts, and to devise controlstrategies based on host-plant resistance, partlythrough biotechnology. Project activities haveincluded providing training to developing countrycollaborators in research methods, breedingapproaches and the use of integrated Striga controlmethods. Project efforts have also included test-ing, demonstrating and distributing to farmers (incooperation with various public and private organ-izations, including NGOs) elite Striga-resistantcultivars in areas where Striga is endemic. Theadoption and use of these control strategies havebeen evaluated in cooperation with agriculturaleconomists.

Benefits to developing countries. A large col-lection of S t r i g a-resistant germplasm is beingshared with collaborating agricultural research sci-entists in developing countries who are breedinglocal lines of sorghum that are resistant to pestsand environmental stress. For example, in 1996-97 in Mali, the S t r i g a-resistant, food-qualitysorghum variety Seguitana cinzana provided 600to 800 kilos per hectare more grain than the non-resistant variety evaluated at Cinzana AgriculturalResearch Station trials —a 33% increase in grainyield when grown with an improved cropping sys-tem consisting of manure and ridge tillage. Inanother example, Ethiopian researchers workedwith the NGO SG 2000 to encourage farmers toadopt Striga-resistant lines of sorghum developed

by collaborative INTSORMIL research. The resist-ance of these improved sorghum lines to Strigaresulted in such high yields and lack of parasitismthat farmers are saving the grain for themselves inorder to plant larger areas next season.

U.S. benefits. The U.S. relies on African coun-tries for sources of sorghum germplasm to improveAmerican varieties. By collaborating with scien-tists in these countries to control this parasiticweed that decreases their sorghum yields,American scientists continue to build strongresearch bonds upon which the U.S. sorghumindustry depends. In 1998 alone, the value of U.S.grain sorghum exports was approximately US$532million; almost five million metric tons wereexported that year.

Project costs (1979-99)

Total donor (USAID) costs US$1,256,000 Cost sharing

Cost sharing by U.S. institutions 344,320 Cost sharing by foreign institutions 280,000

Total cost US$1,880,320


Dr. Thomas CrawfordINTSORMIL CRSP113 Biochemistry HallUniversity of NebraskaLincoln NE 68583Tel. (402) 472-6032; Fax (402) 472-7978E-mail: [email protected]




Protecting Sorghum from Greenbug through International Collaborative Research

III-4


Partners

Developing Countries Russia, China andcountries in the Western Hemisphere

U.S. states Texas, Kansas, Nebraska

Principal mutual benefits. International col-laborative research brings together leading scien-tists to address problems that affect agriculture andfood systems worldwide. This particular researcheffort is part of the International Sorghum/Millet(INTSORMIL) Collaborative Research SupportProgram (CRSP), which aims to reduce damage tos o rghum from greenbug in the We s t e r nHemisphere. Alleviating the impact of the green-bug requires studying it in its centers of origin out-side the U.S., and cross-country collaborativeresearch is the only way to do this. In the U.S. in1998 alone, the value of grain sorghum exportswas approximately US$532 million, with approxi-mately five million metric tons exported.

Issue. Reducing greenbug damage to sorghumproduction

Greenbug causes major damage to sorghum plantsin the developmental stage. The insect sucks juicesfrom the sorghum plant and releases a toxic sub-stance in the process, killing plant tissue.

The greenbug originated in the Mediterraneanregion and is currently present in several Africancountries (Botswana, Egypt, Sudan), Central andSouth America, and the U.S.. All U.S. productionof sorghum is from hybrids, grown either drylandor irrigated. Total damage to sorghum caused bythe greenbug has been placed at almost US$250million annually. The crop is used for export (188million bushels were exported in 1998) and as ani-mal feed: two thirds of the cattle in the Southwestand one third of the cattle in the Midwest are fedsorghum.

Project objective and activities. The immedi-ate objective of this collaborative research is toreduce damage by greenbug. Over the long-term,this requires more information and data on thebiology and genetics of the interaction betweensorghum plants with greenbug. This project ishelping to develop, evaluate and deploy greenbug-resistant sorghum; assess density/damage relation-ships; determine mechanisms and causes of resist-ance; identify the role of insect-resistant sorghumsin integrated pest management; and apply molecu-lar biology to increase resistance durabilitythrough an understanding of the genetic relation-ship between insects and resistant plants.

Developing country benefits. Research tech-niques developed and successfully used in the U.S.by entomologists, plant breeders and molecularbiologists are being transferred to developing

µµ

µ

µ

µ

µ

countries for developing insect-resistant lines ofsorghum and integrated pest management strate-gies to minimize economic damage. The successof interdisciplinary, cooperative research on green-bug in the U.S. serves as a model to developingcountries for strengthening their agriculturalresearch capabilities to combat greenbug and otherinsect pests before they become a more seriouseconomic liability.

The experience gained by graduate students, andthe principles and techniques they learn whiledoing marker-assisted selection research to devel-op greenbug-resistant sorghum in the U.S., will beput to use in their countries when they returnhome. For example, a Ph.D. student from Mali islearning plant breeding and molecular biologytechniques through the research he is engaged inon sorghum resistance to greenbug. After com-pleting his doctoral studies, he will be developingdisease-resistant lines of sorghum in Mali.

U.S. benefits. Greenbug-resistant sorg h u mhybrids decrease dependence on chemicals for pest

control and are key components of an integratedpest management strategy for sorghum production.The economic gains to the U.S. resulting fromchanges in production and consumption of agricul-tural commodities through adoption of greenbug-resistant (Biotype E) sorghum developed by theI N T S O R M I L C R S P have been estimated atUS$113 million per year.

Project costs (1979-1999)

Total donor (USAID) costs US$1,562,100 Cost sharing by U.S. institutions 390,500Total cost US$1,952,600


Dr. Thomas CrawfordINTSORMIL CRSP; 113 Biochemistry HallUniversity of NebraskaLincoln NE 68583Tel. (402) 472-6032; Fax (402) 472-7978E-mail: [email protected]




Developing Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture Technologies for Global Returns

III-5


Partners

Developing countries: Honduras, Guatemala,Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru,Philippines and Thailand

U.S. states: Alabama, Arizona, A r k a n s a s ,California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,Oregon and Texas

Formal overseas institutional partners. AsianInstitute of Te c h n o l o g y, Thailand; CentralLuzon State University, Philippines; Departmentof Fisheries, Ministry of Natural Resources,Kenya; Instituto de Investigaciones de laAmazonia Peruana, Peru; Escuela A g r i c o l aPanamerica, Zamorano, Honduras; UniversidadJuárez Autónoma de Tabasco, Villahermosa,Mexico; and Universidad Nacional de laAmazonia Peruana, Peru

U.S. institutional partners. A u b u r nUniversity; Harbor Branch OceanographicInstitute; Ohio State University; Oregon StateUnivers ity; Southern Illinois University atCarbondale; The University of Michigan; U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA); Universityof Arizona; University of Arkansas at PineB l u ff; University of California, Davis ;

University of Delaware; University of GeorgiaUniversity of Hawaii; University of Nebraska;University of Oklahoma; University of Texas

Principal mutual benefits. The PondDynamics/Aquaculture Collaborative ResearchSupport Program (P/D/A/CRSP) contributes tooptimizing the efficiency of aquaculture systemsboth in the US and internationally, minimizing thenegative environmental impacts of fish culture,developing economical and culturally-appropriateaquaculture development strategies, and dissemi-nating international scientific and technical infor-mation worldwide.

Issue. The ability of the world fishery industry tomeet the growing global demand for fish is seri-ously threatened.

World fish production from all sources is nearly100 million tons annually, a level that approxi-mates (and for some fishery resources exceeds)maximum sustainable yield. Aquaculture is a pri-mary means of achieving significant futureincreases in the world fish supply, an importantprotein source in the world. The PondDynamics/Aquaculture Collaborative ResearchSupport Program conducts research that con-tributes significantly to removing major con-straints to aquaculture development, thereby pro-moting economic growth and increasing foodsecurity.

µ

µµµ

µ

µ µµµµ

Project objectives and activities. By enhanc-ing and developing sustainable aquaculture sys-tems, the PD/A CRSP aims to improve long-termfood supplies and human nutrition, especially forthe rural poor, including women and children. TheCRSP mission is to raise small farmers' incomes,increase consumers' welfare through an enhance-ment of fish farm activity, improve the well-beingof the rural poor, and conserve or enhance the nat-ural resource base.

The PD/A CRSP was awarded a five-year grant inAugust 1996 to serve as a basis for improving thesustainability of aquaculture production systems.The building blocks are production systemsresearch and capacity building via researchs u pport.

Developing country benefits.

• Training of over 2,400 farmers, scientists andagency personnel from 42 countries in fish pro-duction, sampling techniques, computer use,economics and marketing

• Development of an extension strategy inRwanda that enabled 3,000 fish farmers (manyof them women) to quadruple their ponds' pro-ductivity in four years

• Development of a computer model for study-ing the dynamics of organic matter and nitro-gen in integrated agriculture-aquaculture sys-tems. The findings help farmers choose bestpractices for optimal production with minimalnegative ecological effects

• POND© computer software developed byCRSP researchers was used in a geographic

information system (GIS) to assess aquaculturepotential in Africa and Latin America, in col-laboration with FAO.

US benefits. The U.S. tilapia industry is thefastest growing sector of U.S. aquaculture. U.S.output in 1996, 1997 and 1998 was 15, 17 and anestimated 21 millions tons, respectively.Successful tilapia farming requires the stocking ofponds with only male tilapia. The technology ofchoice for sex-reversal of tilapia fry is use of asteroid. A prime example of how CRSP researchcontributes to the U.S. aquaculture community is anew CRSP-developed technology which reducesworker exposure to hormones, minimizes environ-mental impact, and promises to be more economi-cal than earlier technologies involving steroid-con-taining feed. Laboratory results have been success-ful, and the technology is being tested under farmconditions. In addition, PD/A CRSP researchershave contributed significantly to getting FDAapproval for the new steroid-immersion technology.

Program costs. Program costs from 1982 to thepresent are US$27 million from USAID. U.S. andhost country institutions provided US$11.3 millionin matching funds.


Danielle ClairInformation ManagerPond Dynamics/Aquaculture CRSPOregon State UniversityCorvallis OR 97331-1641Tel. (541) 737-6416; Fax (541) 737-3447



Breeding Beans for Drought Resistance Yields MutualEconomic Benefits for Mexico and Michigan

III-6


Partners

U . S . : Bean/Cowpea Collaborative ResearchSupport Program (CRSP), Crop and SoilSciences Department, Michigan StateUniversity;

Mexico: Instituto Nacional de InvestigacionesForestales y Agropecuarias (INIFAP)

Principal mutual benefits. Mexico is the sec-ond leading producer of beans worldwide afterBrazil; Michigan is the leading producer of navyand black beans in the U.S. Drought conditionsseriously constrain rainfed production in Mexicoand Michigan. The germplasm developed as aresult of international scientific collaboration tobreed drought-resistant beans (within the frame-work of the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative ResearchSupport Program) has benefited both countries.

Issue. Drought is a major constraint to bean pro-duction worldwide, second in importance only topests and diseases. Developing new drought-resistant bean varieties through breeding is theonly sustainable long-term solution to this prob-lem. Breeding for resistance to drought is compli-cated by many factors, for example, the type ofdrought, widely varying moisture conditions in

bean production regions, the presence of rootpathogens, inadequate genetic variability to identi-fy drought-resistant varieties, and problemsinvolving screening methodologies.

Objectives and activities. With over one mil-lion hectares of beans planted under limited rain-fall, Mexico is an ideal location to study drought,evaluate germplasm and test control strategies.Work undertaken by the Bean/Cowpea CRSP andthe national bean program of Mexico, led by INI-FAP, focused on the evaluation and selection oflocal bean germplasm under drought stress and itsuse as parental material for varietal improvement.

During the development of the new bean varieties,testing was conducted for yield and performancein experimental station test plots and then in grow-ers’ fields. In the latter trials, the yields of the vari-ety Pinto Villa, developed through CRSP/INIFAPcollaboration, outperformed local varieties by72%. Based on these data, the new variety wasmultiplied, distributed and adopted by producers –first, in Chihuahua state and ultimately through-out Mexico's semi-arid highlands. The rapidadoption of Pinto Villa in the semi-arid highlandswas accelerated by three successive years ofsevere drought in the region.

Benefits to the developing country. In thesemi-arid highlands of Mexico, over 350,000hectares, or 80% of the acreage planted to pinto

µµ

beans, are now planted to the drought-tolerantPinto Villa variety. As a result, Pinto Villa pro-vides consumers with one of the cheapest beansavailable in Mexican supermarkets. Pinto beansare now 46% cheaper than black beans in the mar-ketplace.

Benefits to the U.S. The germplasm developedthrough the Bean/Cowpea CRSP has also benefit-ed the U.S., where periodic drought can dramati-cally reduce yields and economic returns to beangrowers. Over 90% of bean production inMichigan (the leading producer of navy and blackbeans in the U.S.) is grown under rainfed condi-tions. Annual bean production fluctuates consider-ably as a consequence of erratic rainfall patterns.

Based on research from the Bean/Cowpea CRSPprogram in Mexico, the line T3016-2 was identi-fied as top-yielding among the 181 lines grown inseven drought-stressed environments in Mexicoand Michigan. When T3016-2 was used as a par-ent in the Michigan State University breeding pro-gram, new black and navy beans were developedthat outperformed standard varieties under droughtstress by over 165%. This research is beingextended to assist bean producers in the semi-aridproduction areas of the Western U.S. where wateravailability for irrigation and escalating watercosts are restricting production.

Project costs. Since 1986, the obligation of theBean/Cowpea CRSP to work on drought has beenunder US$2 million. In Mexico, the resulting

research has sustained an industry with an estimat-ed annual farm gate value of US$390 million. Interms of importance to food security, Mexico hasthe highest bean consumption in Latin America,over 15 kilos per capita annually.

In Michigan, commercial dry bean yields peakedat an all time high in 1999, with a 13.5% increaseover the last record high in 1991. In general, mostestimates attribute 50% of the improved perform-ance to the improved variety and the other 50% toimproved management, including better disease,insect and weed control. The farm gate value ofthe 1999 bean crop in Michigan was US$150 mil-lion; the comparable value in 1991 was US$132million. Taking varietal improvement to representhalf of the US$18 million increase between thetwo years leads to the conclusion that the econom-ic benefit of varietal improvement was aroundUS$9 million for 1991-99 in just the U.S. Similaryield gains have been reported in other states of theU.S. as a direct result of CRSP research.


Dr. James D. Kelly 370 Crop and Soil SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48824Tel: (517) 355-355-0205; Fax (517) 353-3955E-mail: [email protected]




Reducing Food Loss in India

III-7


P a rtners. University of California at Davis(UCDavis); U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID); Punjab A g r i c u l t u r a lUniversity (PAU)

Principal mutual benefits. As a result of thisproject, the Punjab Horticulture Post-HarvestTechnology Center has become a model that canbe replicated in other parts of India to reduce seri-ous food losses, improve food quality and supportexpanded exports of horticultural products. Interms of benefits to the U.S., over the next threeyears the Center plans to buy more thanUS$500,000 of scientific equipment, services,instruments, and reference materials from U.S.-based post-harvest technology vendors. In addi-tion, improvements in India's food safety shouldincrease the supply and variety of exotic fruits andvegetables available for U.S. consumption.

Issue. Reducing post-harvest food loss

In India, only 50 of every 100 lbs of perishablecommodities produced (mainly fruits and vegeta-bles) become available for human consumption,due to reductions in volume, quality, nutritionalvalue, or food safety problems arising between thefarm and the points of final consumption. In valueterms, this 50% loss rate is truly astounding; it is

greater than the annual value of all automobilesmanufactured in the country!

Knowledgeable observers claim that these lossesare due to under investment in three areas: pro-fessional expertise, appropriate infrastructure andpost-harvest technologies.

Project objectives and activities. UCDavisdecided it had comparative advantages for facili-tating improvements in the first of these threeareas. In May 1997, it was provided modestfinancing by USAID to offer a short course atPunjab Agricultural University (PAU) on post-har-vest problems and technologies for Indianresearchers and private sector profess ionals.During the event, local state government officialsexpressed interest in developing a new post-har-vest technology center cooperatively with produc-ers, the government, PAU and UCDavis.Subsequently, UCDavis personnel spent severalmonths in the Punjab, helping assess the demandfor such a center, outlining its work program, andmaking suggestions as to how the center couldbest be managed.

In mid-1998, the Punjab Horticulture Post-HarvestTechnology Center was officially established withthe purpose of conducting research and transfer-ring technology, mainly through educational pro-grams, to an industry urgently in need of improve-ment. In support of this mission, the Center incor-

µ

µ

porated several innovative features. First, it isadministered by a Board of Directors comprised ofprivate sector, government and university repre-sentatives (including representatives fromUCDavis). Second, although located on the PAUcampus, it is a semi-autonomous entity that is only"associated" with the University. Finally, itreceives over US$1.0 million annually from bothgovernment and private sector org a n i z a t i o n sthrough a new kind of public-private partnership,although major funding comes from the PunjabAgricultural Marketing Board (which oversees themarketing of perishable commodities in thePunjab). It is noteworthy that USAID financing isno longer being provided.

Developing country benefits. As the PunjabHorticulture Post-Harvest Technology Center isstill in its infancy, having been established only inthe middle of last year, solid outcomes cannot yetbe claimed. However, the fact that the Center hasattracted substantial funding and has a strongBoard of Directors made up of representativesfrom different sectors of the economy indicatesthat it is off to a promising start. Continuing con-tact with UCDavis over the coming years (mostrecently with a visit to UCDavis by the Center’sDirector and his senior associate) should helpestablish and maintain the pace for the Center’saccomplishments, as well as the importance oftheir impact. Some observers fully anticipate thatthe Center will become a model replicated in otherregions of India for reducing food loss, improvingfood quality and supporting expanded exports ofhorticultural products.

U.S. benefits. Over the next three years, theCenter plans to buy more than US$500,000 of sci-

entific equipment, services, instruments and refer-ence materials from U.S.-based post-harvest tech-nology vendors. Exceptional case studies of post-harvest technology have been developed by facul-ty who have visited India. The opportunities forscientists from UCDavis to see and study new andchallenging problems in their areas of interest, andto interact with Indian scientists, have producedplatforms from which new research will belaunched and international cooperation sustainedinto the future. Moreover, India's improvements infood safety resulting from the efforts of the Centershould increase the supply of exotic fruits andv e getables for U.S. consumption.

Project costs. With their annual contribution ofUS$1.0 million to the Center, the Indians are theprincipal contributors. The other significant projectcost incurred to date was the USAID "seed grant"of US$90,000 to fund partially the activities lead-ing up to the establishment of the Center. Futuretravel and time commitments by UCDavis facultyand students will be absorbed by the University.Thus, if the project meets its objective of reducingthe present rate of food loss in India, benefits willclearly outweigh costs.


Dr. Michael S. Reid, Associate DeanCollege of Agricultural and EnvironmentalSciences1 Shields AvenueUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, CA 95616Tel. (530) 752-8473; Fax (530) 752-9049E-mail: [email protected]




Stemming the Resurgence of the Irish Potato Famine Fungus

III-8


Partners

Developing countries Mexico, Poland, Russia

U.S. states New York

I n s t i t u t i o n s Cornell University; Plant Breedingand Acclimatization Institute Radzikow,Poland; Russian Research Institute of PlantIndustry; Vavilov Institute for Research, St.P e t e r s b u rg, Russia; PICTIPA PA, Mexico;International Potato Center (CIP); ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR)

Principal mutual benefits. The release of newlate blight-resistant varieties significantly reducesthe use of fungicides and controls the resurgenceworldwide of the Irish potato famine fungus indeveloping countries and the U.S.

I s s u e . Crop loss caused by potato late blight fungus

During the last 10 years, new aggressive strains ofthe potato late blight fungus have spread fromtheir ancestral home in Toluca, Mexico to allmajor potato-producing areas in the world. Thenew strains are resistant to the commonly appliedsystemic fungicide "Metalxyl" and can cause loss-

es of up to 40% in developing nations. The esti-mated annual cost of late blight in developingcountries is US$3.25 billion. Control of the dis-ease through resistant varieties could increase thevalue of potato production by as much as 50% indeveloping countries. The environmental cost ofthe use of fungicides is also of concern, includinghealth risks as a result of exposure to and misuseof fungicides.

While comprehensive economic data are not avail-able on losses in the U.S. and Canada, severe loss-es have occurred to individual producers. In themid-1990s, late blight was especially severe in thenortheastern United States and in the ColumbiaBasin in Washington and Oregon states.

Project objective and activities. In order toreduce the problem of potato late blight, this proj-ect is working in Mexico, Poland, Russia and theU.S. to: 1) investigate the fungus in its ancestralhome and at Cornell University; 2) breed forresistance; and 3) train scientists, students andgrowers in integrated pest management. Valuablegermplasm, rescued at the Vavilov Institute in St.Petersburg, Russia, is being shared among projectpartners.

Benefits to developing countries. Economicbenefits derive from increased yields resultingfrom the planting of high quality, disease resistantpotatoes. This project is based at Cornell

µµ

µµ

University and focuses only on Eastern Europeand Mexico; no final economic impact data areavailable. However, the Cornell program collabo-rates closely with the Global Initiative on LateBlight (GILB), which is coordinated by theInternational Potato Center (CIP).

Internal rates of return from research conducted byCIP over the past 15 years in cooperation withnational agricultural research systems in EasternAfrica have been estimated at 91% annually. Netbenefits to farmers totaled approximately US$10million in 1993 and more than US$60 million dur-ing the past decade. Investments totaled approxi-mately US$5.6 million over 15 years. This sur-passes the profitability of many development proj-ects and compares favorably with other document-ed success stories in international agriculturalresearch.

U.S. benefits. The release of new late blightresistant varieties significantly reduces the use offungicides in the U.S., allowing its growers to bemore competitive. Private sector companies,including McDonalds, McCain, Frito Lay,Monsanto and Zeneca are keen on making use ofthe best control methods available to combat thisfungus. The National Potato Council also consid-ers the use of integrated pest management a highpriority.

Project costs. This six-year project has an annu-al budget of approximately US$400,000. Thesefunds are raised through a diverse group of private

and public sector donors, including the USDAForeign Agriculture Service; Wallace GeneticFoundation, Civilian Research DevelopmentFoundation; Nature Mark-Monsanto; Frito Lay;McCain Foods; Rohm and Haas; Zeneca;USDA/Integrated Pest Management Fund;USDA/Agricultural Research Service; C o r n e l lUniversity Hatch Funds; and PULSAR. Severaladditional donors wish to remain anonymous.

Cost sharing. Several Cornell faculty are partic-ipating in this effort. Their time is supported by theUniversity's College of Agriculture and LifeSciences at an estimated cost of US$800,000 toUS$1 million. PICTIPAPA in Mexico supports theproject with a grant from PULSAR (a private con-cern); their investment to date has been US$1.5million. Several scientists in Poland are also par-ticipating, with their salaries being paid by theirbase institutions.


Dr. K.V. Raman Executive Director, Potato Late Blight ProjectAssociate Director, Special ProjectsP r o f e s s o r, Department of Plant Breeding andBiometry267 Emerson HallIthaca, NY 14853-1902Tel. (607) 255-6357; Fax (607) 255-8186Email: [email protected]://www.cals.cornell.edu/dept/plantbreed/CEEM/


http://www



Analogous Zones Approach Hastens Technology Adoption in Russia

III-9


Partners

C a n a d a Natural Sciences and EngineeringResearch Council, Manitoba Pool Elevators,Uniroyal Chemical, Yellowquill Farms, andZeneca Seeds

Russia AgEvo, Dow Agro Sciences, KurganState Agricultural A c a d e m y, Omsk StateAgrarian University, Siberian A g r i c u l t u r a lResearch Institute, and the Siberian Branch ofthe Oilseed Crops Institute

U . S . U S D A Agricultural Research Service;Global Livestock CRSP; Gore/StepCommission Subcommittee on A g r i c u l t u r a lResearch, Education and Extension; Gustafson;Hennings Seed Company; University of Idaho;University of Maryland, College Park; U.S.Canola Council; and the World SoilResources /U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e(USDA)

Principal mutual benefits. This approach sig-nificantly reduces the time it takes to adapt andapply technologies available in one part of theworld to other regions.

Issue. The development of new agricultural tech-nologies is time consuming —on average around

12 years from first identification of a researchproblem to the application of resulting technolo-gies. Shortening this time period reduces invest-ment costs and extends the stream of benefits.

This project identified areas with similar climates,soils, moisture and temperature (growing habitats)so that a technology developed to fit one areacould rapidly move into the other "analogouszone," sparing the latter time and the full costs ofdevelopment.

Project objectives and activities. Russia’slivestock industry has been protein deficit foryears and also in need of edible oils. The USDAEconomic Research Service reports that animalproductivity in the former Soviet Union wasroughly half U.S. levels, and that animal produc-tion declined further since its breakup. Low pro-tein content in livestock feed has been identified asthe primary factor. In 1997 Russia imported760,000 tons of vegetable oil at a cost of US$453million. Several oil crops could meet both needs,but the climate seemed unsuitable. Canola, a mod-ified rape variety developed in Canada to meet itsanimal protein and edible oil needs, showed prom-ise. Would it transfer to Russia, specifically to theOmsk Region?

To identify the analogous zones in the two coun-tries, soil and climatic data from World SoilResources of USDA’s Natural Resources

µµ µ

Conservation Service and the United Nations Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO) were consoli-dated in a single data set called the BiologicalResources Analysis Support System (BRASS).Using BRASS data, Northeastern A l b e r t a ,Northwestern Saskatchewan and areas in Montanaand Wyoming were found to be analogues ofOmsk, Russia, by reason of similar latitudes, soilsubclass classifications, soil temperature regimes,soil moisture regimes, average monthly air tem-peratures, and average monthly rainfall.

Ten U.S. varieties and two Russian varieties ofcanola were then evaluated in three Russian sites.Yields obtained with similar cultural and manage-ment practices in two Omsk sites were found to becomparable to those obtained in the analogouszones of the U.S. and Canada. The third Russiansite produced lower yields, apparently due to asevere drought. These experiments are beingrepeated to verify the first round of results andadditional experiments are being undertaken inSouthwestern Siberia, where a highly promisingoutcome has already been obtained.

Mutual benefits. Russia benefits by having anew technology (specifically, a new crop varietyand related management practices) quickly avail-able for its livestock industry, one that responds tothe industry’s need for additional sources of oilsand protein for animal feed. The U.S. and Canadabenefit from larger markets for sales of their seeds,inputs and related equipment.

Project costs. Although the project has beenunder way for three years, and many people andorganizations have provided financial and in-kindsupport, total costs are estimated to be in the rangeof merely US$150,000.


Dr. Raymond J. MillerInternational Programs in AgricultureUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742-5822Tel. (301) 405-1316; Fax (301) 314-5920E-mail: [email protected]




Biological Nitrogen-Fixation Technology Improves Yields and Incomes for Thai Bean Farmers

III-10


P a rt n e r s . Departments of Agriculture andExtension of the Kingdom of Thailand; Universityof Hawaii; U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)

Principal mutual benefits. Higher incomes forThai farmers, increasing their demand for U.S.exports, plus sale of U.S. agricultural equipmentand supplies valued at US$750,000.

Issue. In the Kingdom of Thailand, grain legumes(mung bean, peanuts and soybeans) rank secondjust after rice in terms of their importance to pro-ducers and consumers. The demand for thesecrops has been expanding at over 10% yearly since1980. However, local supply could not keep paceand legume imports skyrocketed from 16,000 to1,064,000 metric tons. Closing this wideningdemand-supply gap had to be done in a way thatwould hold down production costs and raise yieldssubstantially since opportunities for expanding theland area under grain legumes was limited andyields ranging between 900 and 1,200 k/ha werelow.

One prospect for achieving higher yields whileminimizing production costs was to increase theavailability of nitrogen to the plants through a

process termed biological nitrogen fixation (BNF).Through BNF, legume plants, working in cooper-ation with a soil bacterium, are able to capturenitrogen from the air and convert it into plant ener-gy, precluding the need for manufactured nitrogenfertilizers. In modern agriculture, farmers inocu-late their legume crops with selected strains of thebacterium that are highly efficient in capturingatmospheric nitrogen for the plant. The seeds arepainted or coated with material containing the bac-terium. Legume inoculants are manufacturedunder rigorous quality standards and support highenough populations of the bacterium to ensure thatfarmers apply many millions of cells to each seedjust before the seed is planted.

Project activities and objectives. When it gotunder way in 1982, the project aimed to improvef a r m e r s ’ access to BNF technology throughresearch and by improving the strains and manu-facturing processes of bacterium used to inoculategrain legumes. To begin with, the principal Thaiscientists received training and conducted researchin the U.S. through programs financed by USAID.The research helped identify superior strains ofinoculants for prevailing Thai agro-ecosystems;tested the suitability of Thai raw materials for themanufacture of inoculants; and calibrated inocu-lant application rates and application methods forThai field conditions. A USAID loan to the Thaigovernment resulted in development of a moderninoculant production facility in the T h a i

µ

µ

Department of Agriculture (DOA), designed byU.S. experts. The DOA and University of Hawaiiestablished a resource center for BNF technologywhich provided needed technical expertise, genet-ic resources and professional training for agricul-tural specialists from Thailand and nearby coun-tries. Furthermore, agricultural extension agentsthat received training from the BNF Center offeredfield demonstrations to Thai farmers on BNFmethods and benefits.

Once the project proved successful, the Thai pri-vate sector joined in the production and distribu-tion of inoculants, producing a "takeoff" in thespread and use of BNF technology for grainlegumes.

Developing country and U.S. benefits. Thaifarmers increased their use of inoculants from28,000 bags in 1980 (200 grams per bag) to 1.1million bags in 1993. Inoculant penetration of thepotential inoculant market for soybeans reached51% by 1990. Gross returns to farmers from theadditional output attributable to the use of the newtechnology were estimated at US$121 million overthe project period. The use of inoculants resulted

in a saving of 143,828 metric tons of urea, valuedat US$25.9 million. Adding these two amountsand subtracting the estimated cost of inoculantsyields a rough estimate of project benefits of aboutUS$140 million over the 1982-93 period. Theresulting rise in Thai farmer incomes increased thedemand for U.S. exports, as well as farmers’demand for agricultural equipment and suppliesfrom the U.S., valued at over US$750,000 annually.

Project costs. Project costs amount to aboutUS$2.6 million over the 1983-94 period, withUS$1.2 million of this originating in a USAIDloan and USAID grants.


Dr. Paul SingletonDepartment of Agronomy and Soil ScienceCollege of Tropical Agriculture and HumanResourcesUniversity of Hawaii, 1000 Holomua RoadPaia, HI 96779Tel. (808) 579-9568; Fax (808) 579-8516E-mail: [email protected]




Investments in Agricultural Research in Latin America and the Caribbean Pay Handsome Dividends

III-11


Principal Partners. Inter-American Develop-ment Bank (IADB), Inter-American Institute forCooperation on Agriculture (IICA), InternationalCenter for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT ) ,International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI), subregional agricultural research pro-grams (including the so-called "PROCIs"), and thenational agricultural research institutes of LatinAmerican and the Caribbean

Principal mutual benefits. As a result of thisproject to upgrade technologies for planning andevaluating agricultural research, public and privatesector investors in Latin America and theCaribbean have tools for better orienting theirresearch so as to optimize investment returns.This has made investments by all partners, includ-ing the U.S., more efficient, effective and prof-itable. Priority setting and evaluation technologiesdeveloped through this project are being adaptedfor use in U.S. agricultural research programs.

Issue. Significant economic reforms were put inplace in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)in the 1990s, two of which have had profound con-sequences for agriculture. One was the reductionin public expenditures, the size of government andthe activities of the public sector. The other was

the opening of the region resulting from the liber-alization of its international trade regimes.

These reforms had an important impact on gov-ernment-financed national agricultural researchinstitutes, historically the backbone of agriculturalresearch and technology generation efforts inLAC. First, the financing available for their oper-ations was cut quite markedly as of the late 1980s,although they are still principal beneficiaries of theUS$1.0 billion LAC spends on agricultural tech-nology generation annually. Second, the reduction(and sometimes the elimination) of tariffs and sub-sidies on agricultural commodities, which tradi-tionally enjoyed some form of protection,realigned relative prices. For example, horticul-tural crops are now much more attractive to farm-ers and basic grains have become distinctly lessattractive. Coffee and sugar are no longer LAC’smajor agricultural export commodities; maize,wheat and other basic grains are being increasing-ly imported; and horticultural crops (fruits andvegetables, in particular) now rank first as export-ed agricultural commodities.

Not surprisingly, commodity price realignmentshave raised major questions at government-fundedagricultural research institutes regarding theircommodity priorities. Where should they invest?At the same time, reduced budgets have led gov-ernments to press researchers not only to redefinetheir priorities, but to define them more sharply

µ

µµ

µ

µ

then ever before and to monitor, evaluate and care-fully assess results in order to ensure efficiencyand effectiveness.

The upshot has been a sharp rise in the demand forpriority-setting and evaluation skills and method-ologies which can orient agricultural research pro-grams and "show the way." This case study dealswith a unique project which was extraordinarilysuccessful in responding to this need.

Objectives and activities. In 1995, IICA andthe IADB executed a cooperative agreement forthe project "Strengthening Capacities andApplications to Prioritize Agricultural Research inLatin America and the Caribbean," to be led tech-nically by IFPRI, a member the ConsultativeGroup for International Agricultural Research(CGIAR). Partners included CIAT, the nationalagricultural research institutes in LAC, and sub-regional agricultural research programs such as theCaribbean Agricultural Research andDevelopment Institute (CARDI). The aim of thethree-year undertaking was to accelerate the devel-opment of much needed priority-setting and evalu-ation skills and methodologies which could orientagricultural research programs and "show the way."

The project produced a user-friendly Windowssoftware program called DREAM, which is capa-ble of assessing investment returns on agriculturalresearch projects; basic data were assembled tofacilitate applications of this program. Some 58technicians from throughout the region, mainlystaff from the national institutes, were trained inagricultural research priority-setting and evalua-tion techniques. In addition, ex-ante assessmentsof agricultural technology generation eff o r t s ,involving two or more countries addressing sharedproblems, were performed for the Andean andCaribbean subregions. Research projects assessedincluded those to rid the Andean Region of a pota-to pest, to produce new rice varieties for LAC, andto increase vegetable production for local andtourist markets in the Caribbean. Finally, a pack-age of eight documents, constituting a method-ological textbook for assessing and evaluatingagricultural technology development projects, waspublished and made available.

Benefits to LAC countries. Most of the coun-tries in the region now have trained personnel,methodologies and instruments for producing andanalyzing information which should optimizeinvestment returns to agricultural research. Over-investments in one area of research or under-investments in another are much less likely tooccur, increasing the efficiency and effectivenessof both public and private sector investments.Furthermore, it has been repeatedly demonstratedthat few investments have returns that are higherthan those that can be generated through agricul-tural research. For instance, the project found thatnew varieties of rice for LAC that would reduceproduction costs by just 18% could produce a totalnet return over the following 15-year period ofaround US$161 million.

Furthermore, the methodologies, instruments anddata made available through this unique projectshould help sharpen the division of labor betweenthe public and private sectors, and show how "win-win" synergies can be exploited through joint ven-tures and shared programs involving both sectorsor two or more countries.

U.S. benefits. The U.S. government makes majorinvestments in the CGIAR, IADB, the Land-GrantSystem of Universities and State ExperimentStations, the World Bank, USAID, and USDA,which, in turn, invest in agricultural research inLAC. The U.S. private commercial sector is alsoa major player in the region. The data, methodsand instruments made available by the IADB-IFPRI-IICA project are helping them to make theirinvestments more efficient and productive, and areproviding a valuable common language betweenthem and their collaborators in LAC.


Hector Medina CastroIICAApartado 55-2200, CoronadoSan José, Costa RicaTel (506) 216-0222; Fax (506) 216-4741E-mail: [email protected]




Biological Control of Invasive Species:The Case of Water Hyacinth

III-12


P a rtners. U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e ’sAgricultural Research Service (ARS), SouthAmerican Biological Control Laboratory inHurlingham, Argentina, and ARS Aquatic PlantControl Research Unit in Fort Lauderdale,Florida); South African Plant Protection ResearchInstitute; CABI Bioscience in the United Kingdon

Principal mutual benefits. Discovery of newnatural enemies to combat the water hyacinth,which is among the top 10 noxious weeds world-wide, which cannot be controlled with herbicidesand mechanical harvesting, particularly in devel-oping countries.

I s s u e . Although the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) has long worked to excludeand manage invasive pests, the globalization oftrade and travel has resulted in an unprecedentedintroduction of foreign plants and animals. Thedamage caused by invasive pests in the U.S. aloneis estimated at US$122 billion annually, includingthe costs of control, lost resources and damage toproperty.

Since 1881, biological control—the deliberate useof one living organism to control another—hasbeen used as a tool to stem the spread of intro-

duced pests. When properly conducted, biologicalcontrol works because it uses carefully selectedand tested natural enemies (i.e., insects, mites orpathogens) against the target pest.

Water hyacinth is a free-floating perennial herbwith lush leaves and blue-to-lavender flowers. It isalso the worst floating aquatic weed in many trop-ical and subtropical parts of the Americas, Asia,Australia and Africa. It provides a good illustra-tion of the use of biological control against harm-ful invasive species.

The plant used to be held in check by natural ene-mies, such as insects and microbes in the Amazonthat stress the plant and control expansion of itsmat. Over time, however, water hyacinth escapedinto other waters lacking these natural enemieswhen tourists and visitors took them home asattractive ornamentals. Out of reach of its naturalenemies, the water hyacinth wreaked havoc. Theplants grow about three feet as they float on thewater's surface, with their stems intertwining inextremely dense mats. In Africa the plant nowinfests every major river and nearly every majorfreshwater lake. In the U.S., it flourishes in hun-dreds of bodies of water in Hawaii and Californiaand throughout the South, from Texas to theCarolinas.

At worst, this plant can be considered a killer. Inthe Sepik area of Papua New Guinea, for example,

µ

µµ

µ

it is blamed for contributing to the starvation ofindigenous people. According to Australian scien-tists K.L.S. Harley, M.H. Julien and A.D. Wright,people "could not access subsistence gardens andhunting areas, catch fish, or travel to market to selland buy produce" because of the presence of densewater hyacinth mats.

Water hyacinth also damage water quality byblocking sunlight and oxygen and slowing thewater's flow. Capable of doubling its height with-in a couple of weeks, it grows faster than any otherplant. By choking out other vegetation, it makesan area unusable to plants and animals that live inor depend on the water, and is capable of eradicat-ing fish spawning grounds. In some parts of theworld, the mats form habitats for disease-carryingmosquitoes, as well as for snail species that areintermediate hosts for schistosomiasis, among theworld's worst parasitic diseases.

Uncontrolled water hyacinth robs water from poten-tial drinking and irrigation supplies. The mats canblock boat travel, and chunks of mat can break freeto clog downstream pump stations that supply waterfor drinking, irrigation and hydro-power. Chemicalsand mechanical removal, formerly the primaryweapons against the weed, are costly, often ineff e c-tive and not environmentally friendly.

P roject objectives and activities. To d a y,increased cooperation by governments and scien-tists around the world is turning up new naturalenemies to help combat this invasive weed. Themore unique and specific natural enemies that sci-entists can find and evaluate, the more likely theycan deploy new biological control agents suited tothe weed's various growth stages, climates andgrowing conditions.

In April 1999, scientists from ARS, South Africa’sPlant Protection Research Institute, and CABIBioscience in the United Kingdon conducted ajoint exploration near Iquitos, Peru, a regionthought to be the world's richest source of naturalenemies of water hyacinth. The team searched 180km of the upper Amazon River and the Ucayaliand Marathon Rivers that converge to form theAmazon, collecting hundreds of natural enemiesand plant samples at 30 sites over seven days.

Among the natural enemies and plant samples col-lected were new species of Thrypticus, a tiny

Amazonian fly that attacks water hyacinth.Immature flies feed inside the weed's petioles, thetiny stalks that attach leaves to stems, and the flies'tunneling may enable microbes to enter and furtherweaken or kill the plants.

This newly discovered fly has, for the first time,been reared in large numbers. "These flies –plusother new species scientists discovered in theupper Amazon basin– could become the first newinsects imported to attack water hyacinth in about25 years," said Floyd P. Horn, Administrator ofUSDA's Agricultural Research Service."Biological control with insects and other naturalenemies, such as fungi, is essential for a long-termsolution. Today's primary weapons –herbicidesand mechanical removal– can be costly and oftenineffective."

In December 1999, Cordo's research team atSABCL released several hundred adult Thrypticuswater hyacinth petiole mining flies on waterhyacinth plants in a six-foot square cage outside itsBuenos Aires laboratory. The flies mated and largenumbers of their adult offspring began appearingin January. Cordo said, "Thrypticus might beready to import in two or three years" for testingin an ARS quarantine laboratory in Florida.

Shared mutual benefits. A more diverse crewof natural enemies should increase the effective-ness of efforts to combat water hyacinth by theU.S. and other countries. Currently known naturalenemies are being deployed in the U.S. and morethan 20 other countries, including Australia, Cuba,Egypt, Honduras, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico,Panama, South Africa, Thailand, Vietnam andZimbabwe. Of those natural enemies, two SouthAmerican weevils (Neochetina bruchi and N. eich -horniae) and the water hyacinth borer (Sameodesa l b i g u t t a l i s) were first released in the UnitedStates as a result of ARS efforts.


Liz Mayhew, International Affairs SpecialistOffice of International Research ProgramsUSDA/ARS5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Mail Stop 5141Beltsville, MD 20705-5141Tel. (301) 504-4522; Fax: (301) 504-4528E-mail: [email protected]




Development of Virus-Resistant Potatoes in Mexico

III-13


P a rtners. Lead project partners were theMonsanto Company (U.S.) and the Center forResearch and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV) inMexico. Other project partners included CornellU n i v e r s i t y, Washington State University,International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), Mexican NationalInstitute for Agricultural, Livestock and ForestryResearch (INIFAP), Mexican National Service forSeed Inspection and Certification (SNICS), andthe Rockefeller Foundation.

Principal mutual benefits. Significant potatoproduction increases in Mexico, an improved reg-ulatory framework for the transfer of biotechnolo-gy, and greater public awareness and understand-ing of the benefits of agri-biotechnology research.The latter, in particular, favors expanded futureexport sales by U.S. private firms to Mexico.

Issue. Potato is considered a horticultural crop inMexico and as such it ranks second in importanceafter tomatoes in area harvested, accounting foralmost 3% of the value of total crop production. Inthe central and southern states of the country, theyare grown principally by small-scale producers(farming five hectares of land or less), accountingfor one eighth of the total value of potato produc-tion. In northern regions, potatoes are producedprimarily by large-scale farmers.

Viral diseases of potatoes, transmitted mainly byinfected seed materials, adversely affect the crop’syield and quality. The economic impact of suchdiseases is estimated by knowledgeable observersto be about 30% of the crop annually. Despiterecent advances in chemicals for a variety of cropprotection purposes, plant viruses are unaffectedby chemical treatments (which is somewhat anal-ogous to the case of human viruses that are notgenerally susceptible to available antibiotics).

While the use of certified, pathogen-free seedmaterials can reduce the presence of infected pota-to varieties, certified seed is often beyond thereach of farmers either because their farms are iso-lated from input markets, or because certified seedcosts exceed their financial resources. As a conse-quence, over three quarters of the land area devot-ed to potato production in Mexico is not plantedwith certified seed. Producers either save some oftheir potato production for seed or buy seed mate-rials from nearby producers; both practicesincrease, of course, the prevalence and spread ofviruses.

Objectives and activities. Three viruses desig-nated as virus X, virus Y and potato leaf roll viruswere targeted. The plan was to insert geneticresistance to these viruses in three widely grownpotato varieties (Alpha white potato, Rosita redpotato and Norteña white potato) grown byMexican producers of most farm-size classes. The

µµ

project also sought to develop a regulatory frame-work to establish risk assessment measures and toexchange general information and data on the newmethodologies of biotechnology research. Thedevelopment of biosafety and regulatory proce-dures for testing and introducing new technologiesshould be applicable to other recombinant DNAproducts. The ultimate goals of this collaborativeproject are a greater food supply, lower prices forurban consumers, increased rural employment, andhigher incomes for Mexican potato producers.

Because the three viruses are common to potatoesin other parts of the world, at one point the projectconsidered including Kenya as a full partner. Thedecision was made, however, to extend the newtechnology first to Mexico. After success there,efforts could be made to extend and market thetechnology in Africa and other developing regionsof the world where it would be of relevance, apply-ing a strategy similar to the one followed inMexico.

Through the partnership between Monsanto andCINVESTAV, Monsanto swapped its professionalservices and a license for its gene technology toMexico (ultimately executed in 1991) with CIN-V E S TAV, which contributed knowledge aboutlocally grown potato varieties, the growing envi-ronment, and Mexican agriculture as a whole. In afirst phase of the project, scientists from CINVES-TAV in Irapuato, Mexico traveled to St. Louis,Missouri to receive training in gene transformationprotocols and plant regeneration, using the Ti plas-mid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The plasmidcontains sequences for X and Y coat proteinswhich, in turn, enable scientists to confer resist-ance to both viruses in a single transformation.

L a t e r, CINVESTAV established laboratories toconduct the transformations and Mexican scien-tists began adapting the virus resistance technolo-gy to the three potato varieties. The first trials ofthe transformed Alpha, Rosita and Norteña vari-eties took place in 1993; these showed highlypromising results. By the year 2001, these trans-formed varieties will be made available to localseed producers. Shortly thereafter, they shouldbecome widely available to Mexican potato pro-ducers.

An alternative strategy was considered early on byproject partners , namely, the importation ofMonsanto’s Russet Burbank potato variety for

seed production, due to its resistance to the virus-es. Because this variety is not consumed locally,however, it would not have met with demandunless substantial investments were made in mar-ket development. Inserting the genetic resistanceinto the three Mexican varieties already consumedlocally appeared to be a far more promis ings t r a t egy.

Mutual benefits. Although ISAAA has report-ed that yields of the improved Mexican potatovarieties are as much as 142% higher than those oftraditional varieties, a more conservative estimatewould be that yields (and total potato production)should increase by about 30% once full adoptionhas occurred—a figure roughly equivalent to thecurrent economic loss from potato viruses inMexico. For the U.S. private commercial sector,the improved regulatory framework in Mexico willbenefit the transfer of other technologies and prod-uct sales. Furthermore, the Mexican experiencewill increase the general acceptance and under-standing of the benefits of agricultural biotechnol-ogy, a payoff of real value for private and publicU.S. and Mexican research organizations.

Project costs. Although there was some costsharing by project partners, including costsincurred by Mexican institutions that cannot befully documented, the major elements of projectcosts include US$50,000 made available by theISAAA and the Rockefeller Foundation, fundingfor two biotechnology training fellowships forC I N V E S TAV scientists, a William BrownFellowship for one scientist from the KenyanAgricultural Research Institute (KARI) –to trans-fer the technology from Mexico to Kenya in a laterphase– and Monsanto’s costs of training CINVES-TAV scientists. It is readily apparent that the valuethe new potatoes add to production will be vastlysuperior to these modest costs incurred over thepast nine or 10 years, without even taking accountof the benefits of a better public understanding ofagri-biotechnology and an improved biotechnolo-gy regulatory framework in Mexico.


Christopher ZalewskiBiotechnology Industry Organization1625 K Street NW, Suite 1100Washington, D.C. 20006Tel. (202) 857-0244; Fax: (202) 857-0237E-mail: [email protected]


IV. Solving Environmental ProblemsAcross Borders



AMISCONDE: Natural Resource Protection and New Income Sourcesfor U.S. Partners and Local Rural Communities Through

New Institutional Alliances

IV-1

P rogram A re a . Solving environmental pro-blems across borders

Partners

U . S . Coca-Cola, Clemson University,Conservation International, East Balt Bakeries,Inc., Keystone Foods, L&O Fleischwarren,M c D o n a l d ’s Corporation, Monsanto, Nestle,OSI, SONY Corporation, and Texas A & MUniversity

Costa Rica and Panama. Tropical ScienceCenter (CCT) in Costa Rica, and Foundation forSustainable Development (FUNDESPA) inPanama

Principal mutual benefits. Successful protec-tion of a biologically rich biosphere reserve inCentral America was accomplished throughalliances between U.S. universities and the privatecommercial sector, producing new means of liveli-hood and income for local rural communities andfor participating U.S. partners.

Issue. The concept of an internationally recog-nized biosphere reserve requires that importantconservation reserves and parks be protected byb u ffer zones from large-scale development.Strategies for the protection of buffer zones arecritical to the conservation of reserves and parksworldwide.

La Amistad Biosphere Reserve, with 2.7 millionhectares in western Panama and southern CostaRica, is the largest undisturbed block of naturalhabitat in Central America, protecting much of thepower and water resources of Costa Rica andPanama. It is also the ancestral home of fourindigenous groups: the Bribri, Cabecar, Teribe andGuaymi. Over 75% of the migratory birds in theWestern Hemisphere pass through the region andare affected by its environmental degradation. LaAmistad’s buffer zone in the project area, whichcovers some 14,000 hectares, was seriously threat-ened by the growth of local rural communities.

Project activities and objectives. Project part-ners undertook efforts in 1991 to stem habitatdestruction and provide new means of livelihoodfor the people settled in the La Amistad bufferzone. Their project name (AMISCONDE) is aSpanish acronym from the words meaning friend-ship, conservation and development. Workingwith 30 community groups from 14 rural commu-nities, project partners sought to: improve agri-cultural technology and productivity to reduce thenegative environmental impact of farming; intro-duce and expand cash crops as well as related pro-cessing and marketing facilities; restore degradedlands, protect forests and better control fires; pro-vide environmental education for 1,500 primaryand secondary students annually; furnish equip-ment, adequate remuneration and training for

µ

µµ

guards, fire fighters and agricultural agents of thebiosphere reserve; establish women- and youth-run community tree nurseries, which produce100,000 seedlings each year; and establish well-managed and sustainable community credit systems.

These activities were selected and managed by aProject Advisory Committee that delegatedresponsibilities for day-to-day operations to anExecutive Committee composed of representativesof Conservation International, Texas A&M staffand faculty members, and staff of the McDonaldsCorporation. Conservation International was chieflyresponsible for on-the-ground project implementa-tion, working in collaboration with local non-g overnmental and community organizations.

Developing country and U.S. benefits. Sinceits inception in 1991, the project has become avery successful buffer zone preservation projectfor poor, rural hillside communities. Local farm-ers now export fruits and vegetables from theregion and local organizations have been assumingincreasing responsibility for project operations.By late 1999, the initial 14 rural communities willhave acquired full ownership of the program andAMISCONDE will be able to shift its operationsinto new regions of the biosphere reserve.

Seven Ph.D. theses on AMISCONDE have beencompleted by Clemson and Texas A & MUniversity students, and university faculty haveconducted and completed numerous research proj-ects in support of the project. Partners are now

moving into new collaborative projects unrelatedto natural resource and environmental conserva-tion, for example, to improve rice and sugar caneproduction in Panama. Some 20 Panamanian ani-mal science students have initiated a studentexchange program between their country andTexas A&M University.

Building on university/private commercial sectorcollaboration, the AMISCONDE approach hasspread to other regions in the world. For example,McDonalds and Texas A&M are engaged withother partners and donors (e.g., the U.S. Agencyfor International Development) to improve poultry,beef and potato production in India, Indonesia,Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey.

P roject costs. Financial support for A M I S-CONDE has come chiefly from its corporate spon-sors and their family of suppliers. The universitypartners have made in-kind investments thataccount for about 25% of total project costs, main-ly in the form of graduate student researchers andscientific leadership. About US$3.0 million wereinvested between 1991 and 1999.


Dr. Thomas E. Lacher, Jr.Caesar Kleberg Chair in Wildlife EcologyDepartment of Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas 77843-2477Tel (409 862-7667; Fax (409) 845-4096



Natural Resource Conservation and Sustainable Improvement of Living Conditions

on Central American Hillsides

IV-2


Partners. The Government of Holland; the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture(IICA); third parties in Central America

Principal mutual benefits. The burning of bio-mass, deforestation and rural poverty werereduced through appropriate technologies, humanresources development and new sustainableapproaches that are reducing in the U.S. the asso-ciated pollution, smog, health risks, atmosphericcarbon and in-migrations from the region.

I s s u e . With few exceptions, the countries ofCentral America have been experiencing serioussocial, economic and environmental imbalancesand disruptions. Natural resource and environmen-tal degradation, the intensification of conditionscontributing to rural poverty, and the difficultiescountries are experiencing in taking advantage ofthe "opening" of the Americas —to say nothing ofthe limited participation of their people in demo-cratic processes— all constitute examples of theseimbalances and disruptions. The working hypoth-esis of this project is that they can be attributedlargely to institutional weaknesses and shortcom-ings in the fabric of society, especially shortcom-ings in human capital development.

One environmental problem, the burning of theland, is a generalized practice of farmers in theregion that affects practically all areas and hastragic consequences for human health, environ-mental degradation and the economies overall.When the land is very dry and rainfall has beenscarce, the effects of burning are felt not only atthe local and national levels but at the regional andinternational levels as well. For example, in 1997,when conditions were especially dry, the general-ized burning of lands in Central America andMexico provoked the temporary closing of impor-tant international airports in Te g u c i g a l p a ,Managua, San Salvador, Mexico City, and even inthe southern U.S. As the smoke mass movednorthward, President Clinton called it to the pub-lic’s attention and committed resources for pre-venting re-occurrences in the future.

Where forests are prevalent, the demand for farm-land for food production prompts the developmentof a crop cultivation system called in Spanishtumba-rosa-quema (clear-cutting trees and burn-ing biomass). The consequence is that forest landshave been steadily denuded and exposed to windsand rainfall that have produced erosion, naturalresource degradation and flooding. The devastat-ing effects of Hurricane Mitch in 1998 (to saynothing of the tropical storms of 1999) reveal alltoo clearly the frailty of the land in CentralAmerica, where conditions are further aggravatedby economic and social poverty.

µ

µ

µ

Historically, although much effort and resourceshave been channeled to these problems, significantand sustainable results have not been achieved.This project seeks to identify and apply newapproaches and methods.

Objectives and activities. The project is divid-ed into two phases (1995-98 and 1998-2002) andits general goal is to help develop institutionalframeworks that can more adequately respond tosocial, economic and environmental imbalancesand disruptions at the local and national levels inCentral American countries, focusing efforts onfragile hillside areas. To this end, three specificobjectives were adopted for the project andinvolve the creation of appropriate "platforms" forthe generation of needed human resources, agri-cultural technologies and methodologies for effec-tive diffusion, communication, and local participa-tion in project activities. Platforms consist of theconditions necessary for ensuring the sustainabledevelopment of human, technological and method-ological resources.

Activities associated with the first specific objec-tive relate principally to the training ofleaders/facilitators who can, in turn, conduct proj-ect-relevant training at all levels. About 70% of theproject’s training is done at the local level. Mostactivities relating to the second objective revolvearound a competitive fund established to supportsmall-scale innovative projects that help identifyand demonstrate promising approaches forincreasing agricultural productivity and resourceconservation. The project team itself works mostdirectly in connection with the third objective toconsolidate and systematize approaches and find-ings that have been found to work and can betransferred to a wider range of project participants.

These activities have been effective. For example,in the case of activities to control the burning ofagricultural lands, the project began by mobilizinglocal residents in two counties in El Salvador andtwo in Honduras, showing them agricultural prac-tices that could be used in place of burning. In justtwo years’ time, this resulted in an 80% reductionin the area burned and a 75% reduction in the num-ber of producers using this practice, reductions thathave been successfully sustained to the present.

Another case illustrating the project’s effective-ness is the different performance of two villagesafter Hurricane Mitch. The village of Sulaco

(Department of Yoro, Honduras) was effectivelyorganized at the village level as a result of the proj-ect, which permitted it to respond effectively (andwithout external prompting) to the consequencesof Mitch. Residents monitored the rise in the localriver; organized the evacuation of people along theriver ’s edge; provided food, health services andprotection from the rain to the needy; made quan-tified estimates of losses due to the Hurricane; andlaid out a plan for post-Mitch recovery efforts.Marales, a neighboring and similarly positionedvillage in the Department of Yoro, had not benefit-ed from project interventions and demonstrated alimited capability to react to the natural disaster.Villagers appeared to be taken by surprise by theeffects of Mitch and really did nothing to improvetheir lot until external assistance arrived. Damageto Marales by Mitch, including the loss of threelives, was visibly greater than in the case ofSulaco.

Benefits to Central American countries. Theproject plans to perform quantitative estimates ofits economic costs and benefits in the near future.However, it is important to note that project asso-ciates provided almost US$0.40 for each U.S. dol-lar invested by the project during the first threeyears, clearly indicating the benefits and worthi-ness of the undertaking for local villagers. In addi-tion, a thorough-going, qualitative external evalu-ation was conducted of the project in October1997, which concluded that ". . .the project is oneof the best externally financed rural developmentprojects . . .that can be found at present in coun-tries of Central America." This conclusion wasbased on the large number of project beneficiaries;the number of local organizations and agenciesformed to work with the project teams; the signif-icant number of project beneficiaries trained innatural resource management; the project’s incor-poration and management of gender issues; thesupport provided by the project to other institu-tions; the replication of project methodologies in aUS$40 million World Bank project for Panama, inanother US$16 million European Union project forHonduras, and in a US$22 million Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank environmental project for ElSalvador; and in the biomass not being burned as aresult of project activities, which now covers soilsand improves water retention, soil fertility and soilstructure.

U.S. benefits. The U.S. benefits from the reducedpollution, smog and health risks resulting from the

decreased burning of biomass on the CentralAmerican peninsula. In addition, by increasingabsorption of carbon from the atmosphere, forestconservation is an environmental service of signif-icant value to the U.S. Finally, enhancement of thelivelihoods of rural people in the region helps stemmigration to the U.S. of competing supplies oflabor and welfare dependents.

Costs. In the first phase (1995-98), project coststotaled US$2.0 million, including a contributionfrom the Government of Holland of US$1.6 mil-lion and local counterpart contributions totalingUS$0.4 million. A total of US$2.67 million hasbeen budgeted for the second phase (1998-2002),which includes a Dutch contribution of US$1.80

million, an IICA contribution of US$0.15 million,and a counterpart contribution of US$0.72 million.These are small amounts when compared with theexternal capital the project has helped draw infrom the European Union and development banks.


Byron Miranda Abaunza, Regional ProjectCoordinatorIICAApdo. Postal 01-78San Salvador, El SalvadorTel. (503) 288-1500; Fax (503) 288-2061E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]





Sustainable Forest Management: Criteria and Indicators

IV-3


Partners

Overseas. University of Indonesia; Universityof Benin (Nigeria); BHF (Germany); CIRAD-Foret (France); Center for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR); Tr o p e n b o s(Holland); ODI (UK); IUCN (Switzerland);University of Hamburg (Germany); Universityof Greenwich (UK), EMBRAPA - C PAT U(Brazil); ONADEF (Cameroon); IRAD(Cameroon); SODEFOR (Cote d’Ivoire); LEI(Indonesia); WWF-Cameroon FORDA(Indonesia); Bogor Agricultural University(Indonesia); IPEF (Brazil); University ofBritish Columbia (Canada); Umweltbundesamt(Austria); State Forests of Lower- S a x o n y(Germany); IITA-HFS (Cameroon); ONF(France); GTZ (Germany); FFT ( B r a z i l ) ,IBAMA-Para (Brazil).

US. New Jersey: Rutgers University; Idaho:Idaho Department of Lands; Boise StateUniversity; I l l i n o i s: University of Illinois ;Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Forest Service.

Issue. Developing international standards fornatural resource sustainability

In today’s world, while there are pressing demandsfor "sustainability," a lack of definition continuesto hinder natural resource management. A cleardefinition of sustainability is essential for naturalresource managers and project evaluators. Theability to evaluate objectively and consistentlyvarious forms of natural resource managementaround the world and in varying physical, biologi-cal, social and economic environments is essentialfor conducting credible and comparable impactassessments. Sustainable forest management indi-cators will contribute to reducing the environmen-tal and social costs of logging and other types offorest use; enabling more productive use offorests; and reducing environmental impact anddegradation. These indicators can also enhanceopportunities for income generation, whileimproving social inequities and the quality of life.

Project objectives and activities

The purpose of this project is to:• develop and test indicators for sustainable for-

est management that can be applied interna-tionally;

• develop practical guidelines for sustainableforest management;

• develop methods for reaching consensus onsustainability and weighting criteria, and

• distribute these indicators internationally.

µµµµ

µ

µ

µµµµ

Tests of Criteria and Indicators (C and I) for natu-ral forest management have been conducted inAus tria, Brazil, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire,Germany, India, Indonesia, Trinidad and the U.S.Research and development is concentrated in fiveareas for the purpose of developing a "tool-box"for those interested in developing and applying Cand I: a) biodiversity; b) forest management forlocal communities; c) plantation forests; d) socialC and I; and e) new tools for C and I developmentand application. Training modules have beendelivered to certification training courses and aprototype method for determining the most impor-tant stakeholders in forest management has beendeveloped. A manual of 12 methods to be testedfor social C and I has also been developed.

Developing country benefits. The project hasmade major progress to achieve two main outputs:the adoption of the criteria and indicators by anumber of organizations internationally andexpanding collaboration with other agencies.

The research has been utilized by:• the African Timber Organization, which based its

draft set of criteria and indicators on this work;• the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF),

which recommended the project outputs tomember countries;

• the Forest Stewardship Council, which recom-mended the project documents to its nationaldevelopment working groups as useful concep-tual tools;

• a number of certification bodies, which testi-fied to the utility of the Center for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR) results for thedevelopment of effective assessment systems;

• the state of Para in Brazil, where results wereused as a basis for reforming regulations onforest management planning;

• Austria, where they were used to define theregulations governing certification of the sus-tainability of forest management and forestproducts;

• several international institutions (e.g.International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, IUCN), which have drawn onthe research to provide a better focus for theirresearch; and

• finally, the work provided the basis for trainingcourses on certification and forest monitoringin Sweden, Indonesia and Costa Rica.

U.S. benefits

Forest management Project methods and resultsare being used by U.S. federal agencies and theState of Idaho to develop a set of criteria and indi-cators for the Boise and Sawtooth National Forestsand adjoining forests owned by the Boise CascadeCorporation and Idaho Department of Lands. Thisexperiment was deemed successful and useful forthe development of sustainable forest managementby the corresponding federal and state authorities;as a result, the ‘CIFOR-Boise Model’ is to be repli-cated in a number of other states.

Research Project findings are fostering researchto develop appropriate monitoring and reportingsystems in the U.S. (at the USDA-Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Center).

Institutional reporting Project-developed indi-cators are under consideration by U.S. forest man-agement and international development agenciesas a basis for reporting their own performance.

Project costs

Total costs(August 1994-March 1999): US$5.1 millionDonors: US$4.1 millionCIFOR: Approx US$300,000

Cost sharingUS institutions: Approx. US$300,000Foreign institutions(excluding CIFOR): Approx. US$400,000


Dr Ravi Prabhu, CIFORP.O. Box 6596 JKPWBJakarta 10065, IndonesiaTel. 62-251-622622; Fax 62-251-622100E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:rprabhu@cgiar



Land Tenure Reform and Land Retention in Africa, Eastern Europe and the U.S.: Applying Overseas

Experiences to North American Problems

IV-4

P rogram A re a . Solving environmental problemsacross borders.

Partners. Several research institutes, universities,government agencies and community-based groupsin Albania, Canada, Mexico, Uganda and the U.S.

Principal mutual benefits. Providing the ruralpoor and disadvantaged with secure land rights,equal opportunities, more secure land access, pro-tection against land loss, and less risk of land con-flict through knowledge generation, pa r t n e r s h i p sand networking to improve land policy.

Overview. The Wisconsin Idea embodies a part-nership between the University of Wisconsin, go-vernment and citizens working together to solvestate and national problems through programs ofinstruction, applied research and outreach. TheUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison’s Land TenureCenter (LTC), established in 1962, helped extendthis outreach mission to issues of land tenure re-form and land use policy in Latin America in the1960s and 1970s, in Africa in the 1980s, and inEastern Europe in the 1990s (two illustrative pro-jects are summarized in Box 1). Knowledge gai-ned from these programs, combined with Univer-sity investments in networks, staff, library resour-ces and critical thinking on land tenure issues, ena-bled and encouraged LTC in 1996 to establish aNorth America Program (NAP).

About the North America Program. NAPwas the first of its kind on the continent to work onissues of social and cultural conflict and inequalityin social and economic power relative to land andnatural resource tenure. From 1996-1999, overUS$1.1 million was committed to NAP(US$900,000 from the Otto Bremer, Ford and Ke-llogg Foundations and US$242,978 in extramuralgrants). During this period, proposals were formu-lated for establishing two centers devoted to landtenure issues: the Appalachian Land and ResourceCenter (with the Mountain Association for Com-munity Economic Development, in Berea, Ken-tucky), and the Center for Minority Land andCommunity Security (with Tuskegee University inAlabama).

To date, NAP has developed three programs (se-lected projects are summarized in Box 2). The Po-litical Economy Program helps community-basedorganizations identify the forces that shape land te-nure patterns and develop comprehensive strate-gies for a more equitable utilization of land and na-tural resources. The Social and Cultural ConflictsProgram sponsors research on a broad range ofproperty rights issues that generate land use con-flict, including state-based property rights legisla-tion, land and resource consolidation and concen-tration, land use regulations, and legal challengesto the regulatory powers of government. The Te-nure and Sustainability Program reviews and as-

µ

µ

µ

µµ

Box 1: Selected international projects on land tenure reform; the Land Tenure Center

Albania (1994 – 2001)Total funding US$10.1 million.

Institutional partners Chief Registrar, Project Management Unit, Albanian Ministry of Agriculture andFood, Ministry of Construction and Transport, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Finance, Ministry ofPublic Economy and Privatization, Ministry of Defense, and Ministry of Local Government.

Project objectives• Assist the Albanian government in creating the informational, legal, and administrative basis for social-

ly and environmentally sustainable land markets• Delineate, record and publicize the nature and extent of private and public rights to land as an input for

democracy and equitable and sustainable growth in the country.

Principal outcomes1. A land registration institution was created for the protection of private and public interests in land and

buildings; 1.3 million properties incorporated into the Immovable Property Registration System2. Enhanced information was made available on property rights, providing an improved climate for private

investment and the implementation of local development projects 3. Major land legislation was developed and approved (Immovable Property Registration Act of 1994;

Transfer of Ownership of Agricultural Land, Pastures and Forests of 1995).

Box 2: Selected research activities; the Land Tenure Center’s North American Program

Institutional affiliation

UW-Madison, Dept. ofSociology

Mountain Association forCommunity EconomicDevelopment (MACED)

UW-Madison, Dept. ofForest Ecology andManagement

Norfolk State University,Dept. of Political Science

Summary of research

Study of land tenure among American Indiansin Wisconsin, and implications of recent popu-lation growth and tribal registration on futureland tenure.

Pilot community-level planning with commu-nity-based organizations and local governmentin the "coal county" for sustainable economicdevelopment. The project resulted in the cre-ation of the Appalachian Land and ResourceCenter.

Study of conflict over ownership of public for-est land, where private owners frustrate publicforest expansion efforts and the practice ofecosystem management. Study looks at taxincentives and conservancy alternatives for for-est development.

Study to develop a land registry and interactivecommunity development program servingblack land owners in Surrey Country, Virginia,including web-based interface for the dataset ofentering and exiting farmers.

Box 2: Selected research activities; the Land Tenure Center’s North American Program

Project

5. Ecosystem Co-Managementin Southwest Colorado

6. Indigenous Land Tenureand Land Use in Alaska:Community Impacts of theAlaska Native ClaimsSettlement Act

7. African-American LandOwnership and CivicEngagement in the RuralSouth

8. State-Based PropertyRights Legislation andSecurity of Land Tenure: ANational Assessment

Institutional affiliation

UW-Madison, Dept. ofRural Sociology andInstitute of EnvironmentalStudies (IES)

UW-Madison, Dept. ofUrban and RegionalPlanning, and IES

UW-Madison, Dept. ofRural Sociology

UW-Madison, Dept. ofUrban and RegionalPlanning, and IES

Summary of research

Study of the evolution of a successful co-man-agement coalition in southwest Colorado thatincludes the U.S. Forest Service, loggers,ranchers, environmentalists and local govern-ment officials.

Study of community-level impacts of theAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971(11% of state of Alaska, or 44 million acres, tobe transferred to native corporations) and cor-poration-government relations.

Examination of the ties between citizenshipand land ownership among blacks in the ruralsouth, including case study of the ResettlementCommunity of Milestone in Holmes County,Mississippi

Commissioned papers on property law (bothconstitutional and administrative frameworks)in seven states across the U.S., with regard toland use and environmental planning and regu-lation. Project results were used in the request-ed testimony to a Congressional sub-committeein Washington in September 1997.

Continuation

sesses the effects of tenure arrangements on thelong-term productivity and sustainability of theeconomic foundations of rural communities: agricul-tural land, mineral deposits and forest resources.

One of NAP’s successful activities was to establishthe Center for Minority Land and CommunitySecurity. In 2000, USDA Secretary Glickmanannounced US$3.5 million in funding for theCenter over the next four years. To be housed onthe Tuskegee University campus, the Center willcollaborate with NGOs working closely withAfrican American, Latin American and NativeAmerican groups (the Federation of SouthernCooperatives, New Farms, and the Indian LandWorking Group). Its work will focus on three sub-stantive areas: community legal education, naturalresource-based community economic development,and social and cultural community development.

Another of NAP’s successful activities was a 10-week Summer Law Externship Program. Eachsummer, law students are placed with community-based organizations and law firms to work on landtenure dispute cases, primarily with low-incomeminority farmers and landowners. NAP a l s oorganized two conferences entitled "Who OwnsAmerica?", which brought together land tenureresearchers, educators and activists from Canada,Mexico and the U.S. to share information.

A wide network of Canadian, Mexican and U.S.institutions are involved in NAP-sponsored train-ing and capacity building, research and outreachactivities, including the production of videos andpublications. On U.S.-Mexican border issues,NAP works with the Colegio de la Frontera Norte(COLEF), the Center for North American Studiesat the National Autonomous University (NAU) in

Mexico, and the Monterrey Te c h n o l o g i c a lInstitute. On Canadian land tenure issues, it workswith the Center for Property Studies at theUniversity of New Brunswick, Simon FraserUniversity, and the First Nations DevelopmentInstitute. In the U.S., NAP cooperates with theCollege of the Menomonee Nation in Wisconsin,the Black Farmers and A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t sAssociation, and national organizations such as theLincoln Institute of Land Policy and the U.S.Department of the Interior.

Mutual Benefits. The precise value of these pro-grams is difficult to estimate; nevertheless, it issubstantial and takes many forms. Establishmentof property rights reform in Albania and Ugandahelps support democracy through individual prop-erty ownership, and contributes to improvinglivelihoods through greater economic opportuni-ties and political stability. Land tenure reform inUganda helped articulate problems of environmen-tal degradation, and assisted in the implementationof policies to arrest those problems. Privatizationand economic growth in Albania and Ugandaexpanded opportunities for U.S. export sales andprivate investment.

LTC’s international activities expand and strength-en the capacity of the University of Wisconsin toextend its mission to U.S. land tenure problems.NAP is positively impacting economic opportuni-ties for disadvantaged rural communities and usersof the environment. The design of property man-agement systems abroad has provided techniquesfor dealing with common property management onnative American reservations, land loss by ruralblack people in the southern U.S., and conflictsbetween the U.S. government and the public in theWestern States over the control of naturalresources.

In Letcher County, Kentucky, for example, NAP-supported research revealed that mineral depositswere systematically being undervalued, resultingin an under-funding of county schools by approxi-mately $600,000 annually in state revenues. (Alawsuit to recover lost funds is pending.) InMadison, Wisconsin, the Troy Drive Gardens proj-ect documented the efforts of a neighborhood citi-zens’ group to successfully negotiate a long-term,no-cost lease of state-owned land for use as urbangardens. With the co-sponsorship of the Collegeof Menominee Nation, a workshop held inKeshena, Wisconsin, attended by 21 tribal repre-sentatives from the North Central Region of theU.S., produced a list of priority land tenure issuesthat serves as a planning guide for the tribes'efforts to develop solutions.

NAP’s success derives from many factors otherthan LTC’s international activities. However, itcan be said that the Program would not have beenas effective (or even possible) had it not been forthe critical thinking skills, staff and resources thatresulted from LTC’s (and donors’) long-term com-mitment to the international research and to theextension of the Wisconsin Idea. The Universityand its partners abroad will benefit as long as LTCcontinues its efforts to span countries through col-laborative research, outreach and partnership.


Michael Roth, Gene Summers, Anne Kuriakose,and Kurt BrownThe Land Tenure Center; University of Wisconsin-Madison1357 University AvenueMadison, WI 53715 Tel.(608) 262-8029; Fax (608) 262-2141http://www.wisc.edu/ltc

http://www



The Impact of Climate Variability on Agricultural Production: The Case of Rainfed Groundnuts

IV-5


Partners

• Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences(India)

• Secretariat: Global Change System forAnalysis, Research and Training (START)

• University of Georgia (U.S.)• National Oceanic and A t m o s p h e r i c

Administration, Office of Global Programs(U.S.)

Principal mutual benefits. In this project,international collaboration between scientists atthe University of Georgia (where peanuts are animportant crop) and India's Centre forAtmospheric and Oceanic Sciences is improvingfarmers' capabilities to utilize predictions of sea-sonal climate variation to enhance groundnut pro-duction.

Issue. Within the broad area of global climatechange, climate variability and severe weatherevents can cause billions of dollars of damage toagricultural production worldwide. The rainfedgroundnut project (CLIMAG) is part of a largereffort to utilize climate variability predictions toimprove agricultural production. CLIMAG focus-es on using climatic variability predictions on the

scale of months to one year to improve crop pro-duction decision making at the farm and up to thenational level. The research conducted throughCLIMAG’s four pilot projects addresses the fol-lowing: a) modeling the impact of climate vari-ability on rainfed groundnut; b) climatic variabili-ty and rice production in Thailand; c) effects of cli-mate variability on rice production in the Asia-Pacific region; and d) use of climate informationin winter wheat production in Northern China.

Objectives and project activities. U.S. andIndian scientists work together to model theimpact of climate variability on rainfed groundnut.This project developed and tested a model for theindirect impact of climate variability on the trig-gering of pests, diseases and weeds for rainfedgroundnut in the Anantapur region of CentralIndia.

A simple hydrological model was used to deter-mine soil moisture in any given year. The criteriafor determining when specific farming operationsare performed (such as plowing and sowing) aredefined in terms of soil moisture, based on farm-ing practices in the region. Once the sowing dateis determined, the dates of occurrence of the dif-ferent life history stages are known for any givenyear.

The events that trigger the growth andincidence/infestation of the major pests/diseases

µ

µ

relative to wet/dry spells are also defined in termsof soil moisture and/or rainfall. In the model, theprobabilities of the occurrence of the pests/dis-eases were calculated by using eight years of dailyrainfall data from the India MeteorologicalDepartment. The model was validated by compar-ing the results with observations of the inci-dence/infestation of specific pests/diseases at theAnantapur agricultural station of Andhra PradeshUniversity.

The PNUTGRO model, developed at theUniversity of Georgia, is a numerical frameworkfor the growth and development of the groundnutplant. It simulated well the variability of the yieldat the Anantapur agricultural station, wherepest/disease incidence produce lower yields com-pared to optimal yield predictions. When theheuristic model for pests/diseases was used in con-junction with the PNUTGRO model, the simulatedvariation of the yield during 1970-90 was close tothe observed district yield. This suggests thatmodels that incorporate the direct impact of cli-mate on growth and development, as well as theindirect impact of triggering pests and diseases,can be used to understand the response of ground-nut yield to climate variability and in decision sup-port systems for the region.

Developing country benefits. According to theU.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),agricultural production will need to increase by250% in developing countries by 2030 to meet theneeds of the future population. Advanced integrat-ed climatological and meteorological models areneeded to determine the timing of crop manage-ment practices (fertilizing, plowing, application ofpesticides, etc.). Ultimately, these tools willimprove seasonal climate prediction and cropgrowth modeling, improve advance planning inresponse to climate forecasts, and increase eco-nomic benefits for farmers by alleviating the con-sequences of unforeseen climatic events. Sinceproject inception, scientists have extended themodeling applications to other crops such as rice,wheat, and sorghum, which are important subsis-tence crops for developing countries.

Main benefits to the U.S. In Georgia and otherSouthern states, weather is one of the main limit-ing factors controlling agricultural production.Although rainfall is abundant in the southeasternU.S., the availability of water for agriculture is stilllimited. The PNUTGRO and related crop simula-tion models will play a significant role in the nearfuture in helping farmers with irrigation manage-ment. Application of the PNUTGRO model willprovide farmers with options for conserving natu-ral water resources and optimizing the yields ofpeanut, soybean, maize and other crops. A world-wide web-based information delivery system iscurrently being developed, which links the PNUT-GRO model with weather data bases. The systemcan be accessed by anyone in the agricultural sector.

Application of US-developed agricultural modelsin the developing world provides "real world"opportunities for testing and validation in areaswhere significant increases in production are bothpossible and necessary. Techniques developed bythe CLIMAG case studies can be easily transferredto peanuts and other crops in the U.S..

Project costs. This project was supported by agrant of US$25,000 from NOAA’s Office ofGlobal Programs. Two short-term fellowships andone visiting scientist award were provided bySTART in support of this project. The duration ofthe study was one year (1997-1998).

Significant in-kind support was provided by theIndian Institute of Science. Use of facilities, staffand computer equipment for implementing thisstudy was valued at approximately double theamount of direct funding.


Sulochana GadgilCentre for Atmospheric and Oceanic ScienceIndian Institute of ScienceBangalore 560 012, IndiaTel. 9-180-334-0450; Fax: 9-180-331-5428Email: [email protected]




Development of a Low Cost Technique to RestoreContaminated Soils

IV-6

Program Area. Solving environmental prob-lems across borders

P a rtners. U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e ’sAgricultural Research Service, Beltsville A g r i c u l t u r a lResearch Center (ARS) U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency; Vi rginia Polytechnic Institute andState University; and the Institute of Soil Science andPlant Cultivation, Poland.

Principal mutual benefits. This technique,discovered through a USDA/ARS collaborativeeffort with Poland, is being applied at numerouswaste sites in the Upper Silesia region. The pro-cedure is expected to bring major benefits to theU.S. through its application to Superfund sites.

Issue. Poland's Upper Silesia region is home toover three million people (10% of the country’spopulation), occupying two percent of the landarea. Located in the southwestern part of thecountry, it has coal, zinc and lead resources and aconglomeration of mines, steel plants, smelters,chemical plants and other industries. Years ofpoor mine waste disposal techniques formed pilesof mining wastes, containing an estimated 87 tonsof potentially toxic materials. Most of thesewastes are exposed to water and wind erosion andto the leaching of toxic constituents by rain. Worstof all, the groundwater beneath the piles and asso-ciated mine workings has been extensively con-taminated with metals and acidity.

A 1994 screening analysis supported by the U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID)concluded that lead exposure via airborne particleselevated blood lead levels among children, whowere also found to be exposed to high doses ofzinc and cadmium. A primary source of the leadparticles was dust from the smelter wastes; othersources included vehicles, coal and coke burning,and smelting stack emissions. Lead is a neurotox-in, affecting the nervous systems of children andcontributing to high blood pressure in adults.

In its efforts to enter the European Community,Poland came under significant pressure to dealwith such pollution problems. As a result, it hasundertaken a massive program to construct waste-water treatment plants to clean up the Baltic Sea.Some 60% of the wastewater from plants entersdirectly into wastewater streams with little or noprior treatment. Due to this lack of pre-treatment,biosolids from wastewater treatment have toxiccompounds that prevent the use of land disposaltechniques, particularly in agricultural lands.Other efforts have significantly reduced industrialpollution, but the country must still deal with theexisting piles of mine waste and the increasinglevel of biosolids produced in new wastewatertreatment facilities.

Project objectives and activities. A demon-stration project was mounted, led by USDA’sAgricultural Research Service (ARS) and Poland'sInstitute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, the

µ µ

main objective of which was to reduce the risk tohuman health caused by airborne metal dust andthe erosion of the mine waste disposal piles. Thedemonstration project left the groundwater prob-lem to future efforts.

To address both is sues of mine waste andbiosolids, the project team sought to develop aviable and cost-effective technology for the re-vegetation of mining and smelter wastes, usingbiosolids and liming treatments. Major researchon waste geochemistry and the selection of metal-tolerant plants was required, however, before thistechnique could be demonstrated to be practicaland widely applicable.

In the spring of 1994, the team experimented ontwo, two-hectare sites, Welz and Doerschel, at alead/zinc smelter in the Katowice area. The siteswere barren of vegetation and contained differentwaste materials deposited between 1950 and 1985.The team collected and then analyzed 160 samplesfor pH, total sulphur, zinc, cadmium and lead.Water soluble forms of zinc, cadmium and lead, aswell as electrical conductivity, were measured bywater extraction. Once the geochemistry wasidentified, the team adjusted the Doerschel site’spH, which was very acid, with selected chemicalapplications. The Welz site’s pH was close to neu-tral, but it was limed to suppress water solublemetals. Biosolids were then applied to both sites,and amendments were mixed into the soil with achisel plow. In the fall, metal- and salt-tolerantgrasses were seeded, using varieties selected onthe basis of results from earlier germination andgrowth tests.

In the spring of 1995, the team found vegetationsuccessfully established on 85% of the Welz site;however, the vegetation did not survive beyondgermination on the Doerschel site. The teamdecided that this was due to high salinity and watertoxicity from soluble zinc and cadmium.Doerschel was re-treated in 1995 with additionallime and sludge material. The result was a muchimproved ground cover by the spring of 1996.That same spring saw the Welz site continuing tosupport vigorous herbaceous vegetation, includinglegumes, with plant roots penetrating to a depth of10 to 20 centimeters.

Subsequent studies will determine whether thesesites should remain as wildlife areas or might beused for crop and livestock production. Animal

grazing is not recommended because of soil inges-tion by grazing stock. However, a USDA feedingstudy showed that there was no health risk in themeat of calves fed grasses grown at the site.

Another outcome from this cooperation was theidentification and analysis of metal hyper-accumu-lator plant varieties. ARS had already beenresearching the use of Thlaspi caeruleschens orAlpine pennycress. This variety, however, pre-sented a problem for mechanical harvesting andthe rate of metal uptake by the plant was so slowthat 16 years would be required for all metals to beremoved from the soil. Thus, in collaboration withCentral and Eastern European scientists, the ARSteam began to look for different genotypes of pen-nycress that were both more susceptible tomechanical harvesting and more efficient as metalaccumulators. The team found and tested newvarieties that could reduce the 16-year period forrehabilitation to only four years.

The team also considered two additional possibili-ties: using the harvested pennycress as biomassand recovering metals from incinerated pennycressash. It was later confirmed that metals can berecovered by means of a relatively simple proce-dure. Therefore, it was concluded that, withappropriate economic incentives, this techniquenot only provides a low-cost method for cleaningup heavy metal contamination in soils, but theplant metal accumulators can provide energy frombiomass and the residual ash can be "mined" formetals for subsequent sale to industry.

Shared mutual benefits. Based on this suc-cessful project experience, recommendations weredeveloped for the use of biosolids and lime to re-vegetate toxic mining wastes such as those inPoland's Silesia region. The technique provides atemplate for rehabilitating similar sites in Polandand around the world, including Superfund sites inthe United States.

The real attraction of the technique stems from thefact that it is inexpensive and very effective whencompared to conventional techniques. For exam-ple, one alternative involves covering smelterwaste piles with topsoil, which requires that soil beremoved from land elsewhere and results ingreater expense and environmental damage thanwhen biosolids and lime are employed.Furthermore, the technique is environmentally safeand makes beneficial use of biosolids exactly

when dramatic increases in the number of waste-water treatment plants and sewage sludge produc-tion are being seen, making it a strategic compo-nent of regional sludge management programs.Finally, this technique uses vegetative cover onwaste piles to reduce wind and water erosion ofmetal-rich dusts, thus reducing the associated med-ical risks of inhalation and ingestion. A l s o ,decreased erosion and run-off contamination ofsurface waters aesthetically improves the commu-nities surrounding waste piles.

Project costs. Project costs are insignificant incomparison with present and future project bene-fits. Funding was provided by local currency gen-

erated from U.S. commodity sales to Poland underPL416/480. Total funding was equivalent toUS$202,000, and an estimated US$100,000 ofadditional financing was provided in-kind byPolish and U.S. cooperating institutions.


Eileen Herrera, International Affairs SpecialistO ffice of International Research Programs,USDA/ARS5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Mail Stop 5141Beltsville, MD 20705-5141Tel. (301) 504-4547; Fax: (301) 504-4528E-mail: [email protected]


V. Preparing Human Capital fora Global Economy



Washington State University and the University of Chile:Globalizing Higher Education and Collaborating

on Environmental Issues

V-1

Program Area. Preparing human capital for aglobal economy; solving environmental issuesacross borders

Partners

P r i m a ry Universidad de Chile (UCH), Santiago,and Washington State University (WSU)

Others Universidad Austral de Chile (UA),Universidad de Magallanes (UM), Universidad deConcepcion, and numerous other public and pri-vate sector organizations/firms (Chile and U.S.)

Principal mutual benefits. This WashingtonState University/University of Chile partnershipfosters collaboration between Chile and the U.S. toidentify and test improved environmental policies,regulations and technologies. Collaborative edu-cational, research and outreach programs haveincreased the quality and efficiency of both uni-versities' environmental programs.

Issue. Increased competition for environmentalresources, economic growth, demographicchanges and resulting social pressures all call forimprovements in higher education in order to bebetter able to address development needs. Asnorth-south "mirrors" of one another geographi-cally and in historic patterns of European settle-ment, Chile and the state of Washington share sig-

nificant similarities in agro-ecological diversity,natural resources, maritime resources, demograph-ics and trade. As a result, they face similar prob-lems and issues. This WSU/UCH partnershipaddresses a variety of specific problems shared byboth the state of Washington and Chile.

Objective, activities and benefits. In thisincreasingly interdependent world, education,technology and information (the core products ofuniversities) are increasingly global in nature. It isthe objective of Washington State University(WSU) and the University of Chile in Santiago(UCH) to implement a strategic, long-term part-nership in the area of environmental resources.The partnership is yielding benefits to the univer-sities and their clientele in Chile, in other parts ofCentral and South America, and in the U.S.

Because the generation of mutual benefits is a pri-mary criteria for selecting partnership activities,examples of specific activities and benefits to bothChile and the U.S. are summarized together below.Results of this partnership are contributing to socialand economic development in a spectrum of areas:

• Collaborative research on conservation tillage("zero-tillage") agriculture is adding to Chile’slong-term experience with these practices; les-sons learned are being adapted to address soilerosion problems in the state of Washington.

µ

µ

Because Chile’s growing season is duringWashington’s winter, coordinated research tri-als can be carried out year-round, acceleratingprogress and results.

• A master’s degree program in environmentalmanagement, jointly developed by WSU andUCH, is assisting professionals and lay personsin implementing Chile’s new national environ-mental policies and legal framework. Modeledafter Washington State programs designed forworking professionals, the program servesgovernment officials, clients from the industri-al and agricultural private sectors and commu-nities. Demand for these programs has spreadto other countries in the region, giving rise tothe development of short courses and trainingmodules, some of which are being adapted foruse with distance learning technology.

• The partnership has increased integration ofLatin American cultural and socio-politicalconcepts into WSU curriculum and programs.This is important to Washington State, whichhas a large and rapidly growing Hispanic pop-ulation.

• Collaborative research on various aspects ofglobal climate change is ongoing, primarilyrelative to Chile’s Antarctic "ozone hole" andon comparative studies north and south of theequator. Using combined expertise to accessresources from Chilean, U.S. and third-countryfunding agencies, UCH and WSU are conduct-ing joint research on the physiologicalresponse of food crops to ozone depletion,which is expected to result in the developmentof crops and trees with improved performanceunder conditions associated with the thinningof the ozone layer.

• Comparative studies and collaborative out-reach programs on environmental conflict pre-vention and resolution are helping communi-ties in Chile and Washington better deal withthe escalating competition for use of dwindlingnatural resources. Results and feedback fromactivities carried out both in Chile and the U.S.are improving approaches to balance the oftenconflicting demands of economic developmentand conservation and environmental safety.

• Collaborative development of degree and con-tinuing education courses for distance delivery

in Latin America and the U.S. is ongoing inseveral program areas, which is resulting incourse content and methodologies that aremore international in perspective and thusmore useful and marketable to higher educa-tion’s expanding global clientele.

Partnership costs. The partnership model hasencouraged long-term investment of time andresources by the partner institutions as opportuni-ties evolve. This diversified approach has attract-ed resources from the U.S. and Chilean govern-ments and the private sector, as well as from inter-national funding agencies. The strategy to leveragefunds and in-kind resources internal and externalto the core partners makes it difficult to accuratelymonitor costs, but U.S. government investmentshave been extremely modest, and the funding baseis steadily broadening. In sum:

• Strategic planning and start-up costs werefunded entirely by the universities themselves,and the universities continue to invest in ongo-ing activities. WSU and UCH investments todate are estimated at more than US$500,000.

• A U.S. Information Agency grant ofUS$120,000 supports part of the environmen-tal program.

• The pharmaceutical industry in Chile has pro-vided funding for collaborative research andtraining.

• Trillium Corporation (a U.S. natural resource-based firm with operations in Chile) has provid-ed personnel and other resources for researchand education in sustainable development.

• A National Science Foundation (NSF) grant ofUS$25,415 covers part of the work on effectsof ozone depletion on photosynthesis.

• Funds have been obtained from numerousagencies of the Chilean government.

• The Fulbright Foundation has funded a portionof the activities on environmental conflict res-olution.


Dr. Jan C. Noel and Dr. James B. HensonInternational Programs/Development Cooperation221 Hulbert HallWashington State University, Pullman,Washington, USA 99164-6226Tel. (509) 335-2980; Fax (509) 335-2982E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]





Russia/Illinois Agricultural Student Exchange

V-2

Program Area. Preparing human capital for aglobal economy

Partners

U.S. University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-paign (UIUC); Southern Illinois University atCarbondale (SIUC); U.S. Information Agency(USIA)

Russia St. Petersburg State Agrarian University(SPAU)

Principal mutual benefit. Promotion of coop-eration and development between U.S. andRussian university youths through a studentexchange study program.

P roject objectives and activities. S t u d e n texchange is a proven way to advance internation-al relations and to further continuing internationalcollaboration among higher education institutions.The benefits to youth in both cultures can last alifetime. In today’s globalized world, studentsstudying agriculture and natural resources need tounderstand what is occurring in other parts of theworld and to be prepared for the possibility of liv-ing and working overseas during the course oftheir careers. This requires familiarity with othercultures and languages, with economic, social andpolitical conditions abroad, and with internationalbusiness practices and market opportunities.

This project helped to advance long-term relation-ships among students and faculty at the Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Southern IllinoisUniversity at Carbondale, and St. Petersburg StateAgrarian University in Pushkin, Russia. Themajor project activity was to enroll ten Russianstudents in Illinois universities for the spring 1996semester and to enroll ten U.S. students at the St.Petersburg State Agrarian University in Pushkin,Russia for the summer 1996 semester. U.S. stu-dents were required to complete a minimum oftwo semesters of Russian prior to their departure;Russian participants were required to be conver-sant in English.

Developing country benefits. For Russia, themost tangible result of this project was the aca-demic experience in agriculture that each of theRussian students had while in exchange status.Each participant was registered as a full time, non-degree student and received a transcript from thehost institution that was delivered to the homeinstitution, where it became part of each student’spermanent academic record. Life-long Americanfriendships were formed that can be called on tostimulate future agricultural development inRussia.

U.S. benefits. Student exchanges and long-termpartnerships with developing country higher edu-cation institutions contribute to "internationaliz-ing" U.S. universities and their faculty and to

µµ

preparing internationally literate graduates. TheIllinois students participating in the Russianexchange program referred to their own interna-tionalization saying:

• "I learned so much about myself and the world;this experience gave us a true picture of what itis like to be a Russian."

• "I made some good contacts in the businesscommunity that could pay off in the future."

• "They gave us the best they had to offer, but thelife of the Russian student is hard."

The students studied Russian agriculture in a for-mal classroom setting, but also learned about inter-national human relationships. In addition to thedirect beneficiary students, this project touched thelives of their families and neighbors and made asignificant contribution to the education and atti-tudes of many individuals.

Project costs

U.S.I.A. US$ 99,985.00U.S. universities’ cost US$ 50,226.93Total cost US$150,211.93


Dr. John SantasUniversity of Illinois, International Agriculture109 Mumford Hall; 1301 West Gregory DriveUrbana, Illinois 61801Tel. (217) 333-6420; Fax (217) 244-6537E-mail: [email protected]

D r. Jim Legacy, Professor and Director ofInternational AgricultureAgriculture Education Mail Code 4414Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, Illinois 62901Tel. (618) 536-7733; Fax (618) 536-7734 E-mail: [email protected]





The Polish-American Extension Project 1990-96

V-3


P a rt n e r s . The Polish American ExtensionProject (PAEP) was established as a joint educa-tional project of the U.S. Department ofA g r i c u l t u r e ’s Cooperative State Research,Education and Extension Service (CSREES) andthe Agricultural Advisory Service of Poland'sMinistry of Agriculture and Food Economy(MAFE). The PAEP involved over 100 U.S.extension professionals, most of whom worked ontwo-person teams in provincial-level extensionoffices (ODRs) for six months or more.

Principle mutual benefits. The PAEP was suc-cessful in orienting the Polish advisory servicetoward client-defined needs, incorporating sci-ence-based programming, and enhancing thecapacities of Polish extension staff and clientele todeal with the challenges of a market-based econo-my. In the U.S., the project strengthened the inter-national competence of extension personnel in 31states and brought the benefits of U.S. internation-al involvement to citizens at the community level.The project was especially meaningful to exten-sion-served communities with a significant Polishconstituency.

Project objectives. The primary objective ofthis project was to assist the Polish Ministry ofAgriculture and Food Economy to re-focus andreorganize agricultural advisory centers to serve

the Polish agriculture sector in a private marketeconomy. The project achieved this objective byestablishing business planning centers, developingtraining curricula and providing specialized train-ing for local agricultural advisors.

A senior U.S. extension advisor (project director),a staff development specialist and an agriculturaleconomist worked with the national ministry inWarsaw. At the provincial level, 42 teams of U.S.Extension Specialists (each consisting of a gener-al farm advisor and an agricultural economist)served a six-month assignment. The two-personteams worked collaboratively with local Polishadvisory center specialists, extension workers andfarmers to design and implement new extensionprograms based on local needs. Much of the train-ing requested by the Poles concerned the develop-ment of farm business plans.

Another 20 U.S. specialists worked on specialregional projects to develop training curricula (forPolish trainers to use after project conclusion) andcommunications networks; improve computercapacity; and foster leadership development andmanagement. Local demand from Polish commu-nities was high for assistance to youth develop-ment programs. U.S. extension personnel inPoland provided training in 4-H youth develop-ment to over 100 provincial representatives. Themovement has grown from a single 4-H summeryouth camp in 1992 to active clubs in 39 of the 49provinces.

µµ

Developing country benefits. Evaluation stud-ies indicated that the PAEP was highly successfulin orienting the Polish advisory service towardclient-defined needs, incorporating science-basedprogramming, and enhancing the capacities ofstaff and clientele to deal with a market-basedeconomy.

U.S. benefits. In the U.S., the project strength-ened the international competence of extensionpersonnel in 31 states and brought knowledge ofthe benefits of U.S. international involvement tocitizens at the community level. The project wasespecially meaningful to communities with a sig-nificant Polish extension constituency.

As a result of this project, U.S. citizens and com-munity leaders became supportive of an interna-tional dimension of their Cooperative ExtensionServices and welcomed interactions with Polishguests. In addition, more than 15,000 citizens haveincreased their knowledge of Poland and over 500long-term linkages between U.S. and Polish inter-ests have developed. U.S. Cooperative Extension

Service staff gained international knowledge andperspectives that improved their performance inthe extension service and in their communities.

Project costs. The project was funded under theSupport for Eastern European Democracy (SEED)Act. Resources were also made available fromlocal currency accounts administered byUSDA/Foreign Agricultural Service/Warsaw andthe Polish Ministry of Agriculture.

Total USAID Funding US$6,631,568Local cost sharing US$ 887,500


Dr. Mary AndrewsDirector, International Extension Programs 109 Human Ecology Building Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48824-1030Tel. (517) 353-9890; Fax: (517) 432-4949E-mail: [email protected]




Improving University Development Performance and Human and Institutional Capacities through

Long-Term, Cross-Country Linkages

V-4


Principal part n e r s . University of Jordan(UOJ), Amman, Jordan; Washington StateUniversity (WSU), Pullman, Washington

Principal mutual benefits. Higher educationprograms of greater relevance to the global mar-ketplace, generating diverse economic, social andpolitical benefits for their primary clients

Issue. Jordan faces major challenges posed by arapidly expanding population, severe water short-ages, a fragile environment, and significant politi-cal and economic turbulence. A well-educatedpopulation is required for fostering regional peaceand stability, and a skilled and flexible workforceis needed if Jordan is to compete successfully inthe global marketplace, achieve sustainable eco-nomic development, help develop appropriatelegal and regulatory frameworks for progress, andexpand the ranks of an environmentally-sensitivecitizenry. With a big stake in the stability of theregion, the U.S. has a major interest in helpingJordan meet these challenges successfully.

In response to these challenges, WSU partneredwith the UOJ in 1973 to help prepare the educatedpopulation and skilled workforce and to develop,

adapt and extend needed information and technol-ogy. Clients of university programs in both coun-tries were to be the primary beneficiaries.

Objectives and activities. The relationshipbetween the two universities has had a two-foldpurpose:

• To improve and expand the content and rele-vance of academic programs in an increasing-ly interdependent world, especially throughimproved communications and informationflows between scientists and educators, with aview to internationalizing the content of high-er education

• To increase the positive impact of universityteaching, research and technology/informationtransfer programs on their clients. In bothJordan and the U.S., clients have included thecitizenry at large, public sector institutions, theprivate commercial sector and non-govern-mental organizations. WSU and UOJ serveregional and international clients, as well as thosewithin their own state and national borders.

The partnership has consistently focused on theagricultural sector, including improved manage-ment and use of scarce water and other naturalresources.

µµ

Now in its twenty-sixth year of existence, the mul-tifaceted relationship between WSU and UOJ hasinvolved the principals in a rich range of joint ven-tures and partnerships, from participation in donor-funded development projects and collaborativeeducational programs to more traditional facultydevelopment and exchanges. Although early phas-es of the relationship primarily involved develop-ment assistance by WSU to UOJ, benefits to bothparties began to emerge as the partnership evolvedand matured. Examples of some especially signif-icant activities include:

• Launching in Jordan an interdisciplinary pro-gram leading to the M.S. degree in environ-mental management, the graduates of whichare contributing to upgrading the skills ofhuman resources in other institutions con-cerned with water and natural resources in theMiddle East.

• Establishing two Ph.D. programs for water andenvironmental management at UOJ, one out-come of which was the development of new andunique materials for related programs at W S U .

• With collaboration from WSU, installing andtesting Internet access and e-mail at UOJ, con-necting UOJ faculty not only to WSU but alsoglobally through the world’s new informationhighway.

• Inserting UOJ in the worldwide stream of com-petitive grants through WSU assistance ingrant writing and grantsmanship techniques,which produced 15 full-scale proposals in justthe past two years, 12 of which have beenawarded funding.

• Drawing numerous other U.S. and Jordanianins titutions into cross-country activities,including Bringham Young University, theJordan University of Science and Technology,Purdue University, Texas Tech University,Yarmouk University, and the University ofSouth Carolina. In one instance, cross-countryactivities involved the development of an"Environmental Research, Education andEconomic Development Network" whichoffers participants greater access to funding,research and education, including distance edu-cation. In another instance, a "U.S.-MiddleEast Conference on Dryland Farming Systemsand Technologies for a more Sustainable

Agriculture" was held at WSU (the so-called"Extraordinary Peace Conference") with sup-port from the U.S. Department of Agricultureand the U.S. State Department.

Benefits. Certainly, both countries gained a vehi-cle by which they can make meaningful contribu-tions to peace and stability in the Middle East.Additionally, the U.S. and Jordan are gaining amore skilled and flexible workforce, improvinguniversity-client relationships, infusing the twouniversities with globally relevant programs, open-ing more effective scientific and informationalexchanges, and developing a network of profes-sionals worldwide in the agricultural, environmen-tal and natural resources fields. The success of thispartnership and its sustainability demonstrates todonors and other investors the payoffs of universityparticipation in collaborative development programs.

Specific examples of how the universities haveestablished closer and more vital relationshipswith producers in their agricultural sectors (impor-tant clients for both universities) include:

• Biological control agents collected in Jordanwere used to help control the Russian wheataphid, a major cereal pest in the U.S.

• Collaborative activities between the universi-ties introduced improvements in Jordan thatraised irrigation efficiency under protectedagriculture by 30% through the use of betterirrigation schedules and management.

• A collaborative WSU-UOJ-Ministry ofAgriculture biological control research and exten-sion effort rapidly controlled a potentially cata-strophic outbreak of the spherical mealy bug, anon-native pest accidentally introduced intoJordan Valley citrus orchards. Following rapid,successful field testing of a natural predator, ateam of Jordanian women extension workersmanaged the production and release of the bio-control agent until it was established. As a result,this pest is no longer of commercial importance.This successful effort also paved the way for useof future biocontrol agents in Jordan.

• Utilizing technologies and practices extendedby their partners, farmers in the Jordan Valleydoubled production in a single year and subse-quently increased yields another 400%, raisingthem to world standards.

• National agricultural research investments inJordan are now directly related to the econom-ic importance of the given problem and com-m o d i t y. This prioritization process hasincreased agricultural productivity and eco-nomic returns on research investments. Byfocusing their collaboration on areas of sharedinterest and complementary strengths, WSUand UOJ gain in program effectiveness andcost efficiency.

• UOJ's Water and Environmental Research andStudy Center has provided leadership and sup-port for establishing or upgrading many watercenters throughout the Middle East. Several ofthese are collaborating in research eff o r t saddressing the Middle East water crisis. WSUbenefits by being able to access resources (sci-entific expertise, students and funding) throughthis expanded network.

C o s t s . Funding from three U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID) projects andone cooperative agreement contributed to thedevelopment and maturation of the WSU-UOJpartnership. The first USAID investment was aUS$2.25 million four-year project (l975-79) forUOJ faculty development. Two subsequentUSAID projects were highly successful in betterlinking agricultural research in Jordan with end-users, first in the Jordan Valley and then on a

national scale. Both these projects were under theMinistry of Agriculture; the second involvednumerous non-university and university partnersin the U.S. and Jordan. Both UOJ and WSU facul-ty played major strategic and operational roles inboth projects, funded by project monies and insti-tutional cost-sharing. The most recent USAIDinvestment was a US$500,000 grant to the twoinstitutions to strengthen the UOJ’s Water andEnvironmental Research and Study Center(WERSC). These USAID monies succeeded inleveraging significant additional funding of aboutUS$1.5 million from WSU and the UOJ, plusother investments from over 20 institutions in theMiddle East, the U.S., and Europe. Examplesinclude the Arab Development Fund, the FulbrightFoundation, the Hebron and Beir Zeit Universitiesin Palestine, the University of Idaho, thePortuguese Ministry of Construction, theUniversity of Valladolid in Spain, and HRWallingford in Great Britain.


Jan C. Noel and James B. Henson, InternationalPrograms/Development Cooperation (with theassistance of collaborators at UOJ)221 Hulbert Hall, Washington State UniversityPullman, Washington 99164-6226Tel. (509) 335-2980; Fax (509) 335-2982E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]





Bringing the U.S. Supermarket to China

V-5


Partners. Chinese participants involved in super-market businesses; Cornell University; USDepartment of Agriculture/Foreign AgriculturalService/Food Industries Division (USDA/FA S /ICD)

Principal mutual benefits. Rapid expansionof Chinese supermarkets, yielding greater choice,selection and variety for consumers. Program par-ticipants started up their own businesses and werepromoted to senior management in food retailing.U.S. food exports to China expanded and U.S.-Chinese joint ventures in local manufacturing offood products were accelerated.

Issue. The Chinese supermarket was created inthe early 1990s, but its growth did not accelerateuntil around 1993. In part, this was a result ofChina’s shift from a planned economy to a moreopen, market-based economy that encouraged theintroduction of new concepts and technologies inretail businesses. The traditional grocery store,which responded to the Chinese practice of "buy-ing little, buying often," largely because of a lackof refrigeration in homes, consisted of only onecounter with products stored behind it. The cus-tomer presented a ration coupon for a particularproduct and the clerk retrieved it. Choice, selec-tion and variety were not options.

Supermarkets were initially established by state-owned companies that lost their monopoly privi-leges after the revitalization of economic reformsin China in 1992, or they were introduced intolarge department stores (as is the case in Japan),where grocery sales accounted for up to 10% oftotal business. Other factors providing an impetusfor the upsurge of supermarkets were risingincomes, an expanding desire for wider varietyand convenience, and the acquisition of newappliances, including refrigerators, which came onthe heels of China’s rising personal incomes.

In 1990, the first Chinese supermarket was openedin Shanghai; in 1993, the first privately ownedchain supermarket was opened; and by 1997 therewere 1,000 supermarkets in the region, belongingto more than 20 different companies. Typically,these supermarkets are small by U.S. standards,with only about 2,700 square feet of space (com-parable, perhaps, to a neighborhood bread andmilk store in the U.S.). These smaller-scale oper-ations, plus the high tariffs on grocery importsfrom the U.S., led supermarket owners to buythrough Hong Kong agents who break up largecontainers of imports for resale and whose foodselections accord with Chinese tastes.

However, two problems accompanied the acceler-ated growth of supermarkets: a shortage of capitaland insufficient competent retail managers. Thecapital shortage constrained the use of refrigera-tion and modern facilities; managers of the new

µµ

supermarkets came from a variety of businessbackgrounds (i.e., from former state-owned retailoperations or from the state-owned food serviceindustry), but generally had neither in-depth pro-fessional training nor practical experience in theoperation of supermarkets within the new econom-ic climate.

Activities and objectives. The U.S. govern-m e n t ’s Cochran Fellowship Program (CFP) seeks to:

• assist eligible countries in developing agricul-tural systems that help meet the food needs oftheir domestic populations; and

• strengthen trade linkages between eligiblecountries and agricultural interests in theUnited States.

These objectives are met through short-term train-ing opportunities (up to three months), whichinclude interaction with U.S. professional peers,field observations and industry visits, on-the-jobtraining and attendance of university courses andseminars. Most programs, tailored to the particu-lar needs of participants, offer a mixture of techni-cal instruction, practical field observation andhands-on experience.

In the 1993-98 period, the CFP sought to respondto the deficit of human capital that had becomeevident in China’s rapidly growing supermarketindustry. To this end, specific objectives adoptedby the CFP were:

• to expose Chinese participants to U.S. productsand technologies which might enhance tradebetween the two countries;

• to encourage the development of linkages andrelationships between U.S. supermarket represen-tatives and Chinese supermarket managers; and

• to assist the development of Chinese manage-ment skills and distribution technologies.

Specific programs were tailored to participants'needs with the assistance of local USDA/FASForeign Agriculture Affairs officers. It was deter-mined through this means that the Chinese specif-ically sought advanced training and information onsupermarket development and on the effectivemanagement of day-to-day operations, especiallyin regard to location, selection, store layout and

display, marketing, distribution, storage, inventorycontrol, sales promotion, personnel training, storesecurity and theft prevention. More recent partici-pants have expressed additional interest in com-puter systems operations for retail businesses.Because speedy and effective distribution contin-ues to be one of the greatest challenges for retailgrocers due to China’s size and poor transportationinfrastructure, there is rising interest in this aspectof the overall program.

Participants attended lectures and short courses atCornell University. Lecture topics included acomprehensive treatment of the distribution andretailing of food, groceries, and consumer pack-aged goods. Most participants also attended theFood Marketing Institute (FMI) trade show whichshowed them the commercial potential of super-markets; introduced them to the vast variety ofproducts available to U.S. consumers; and helpedthem appreciate the concepts of choice, variety,and catering to consumer desires and preferences.In addition, they toured numerous supermarketcompanies in New York, Arizona and on the WestCoast. These contacts with U.S. businesses werehighly rated by all participants.

Mutual benefits. Fifty-four Chinese traineesparticipated in this supermarket management pro-gram. When Sun Yoon Xun returned to China, hestarted his own food additive import company, therevenues of which now amount to US$6.0 millionannually. He attributes the inspiration for and suc-cess of this start-up company directly to the CFP.Jian Hua Zhang, Lian Wange and Jie Zhu, whowere in the same group as Sun Yoon Xun, alsostarted their own companies. Most participantsreport starting up their own food companies afterthe program, or obtaining employment on the sen-ior management teams of supermarkets and theretail food industry.

Imports of U.S. products for Chinese supermarketshave continued at a modest pace. Several Cochranalumni report regular imports of container loads ofU.S. consumer-ready products. But the growth inU.S. exports into this market has not expanded aswidely as first thought. The Chinese argue thatU.S. products are too expensive and are not pack-aged for the average Chinese family. Many U.S.products that sell successfully in Chinese super-markets today are the result of joint ventures withthe Chinese, including some former program par-ticipants, and produced in China.

The most striking evidence of the success of theprogram from the Chinese side of the equation isthat the Chinese participants no longer need train-ing in the fundamentals of supermarket manage-ment. The Cochran Program has done its job. TheChinese executives now arrive with specific ques-tions they want answered and are ready foradvanced supermarket training. This function haslargely been taken over by U.S. private industry,which has sponsored advanced supermarket train-ing for Chinese the past several years. USDA hascontinued to support this effort in China.

Project costs. Total costs of the supermarketmanagement program are estimated at aboutUS$425,000, or roughly US$7,500 per participant.The Chinese participants paid their own airfare to

the U.S. (about US$2,200), roughly a 30% contri-bution to the program. Nonetheless, cost sharingwas probably less than the 40% figure cited forsimilar U.S. government travel and study pro-grams. Still the program’s cost was quite modest—about one fourth the annual revenues createdjust by Sun Yoon Xun’s new company!


Gary Laidig, Program LeaderCochran Fellowship ProgramFood Industries DivisionUSDA/FAS/ICDSouth Building Room 3243Washington, D.C. 20250-4300Tel. (202) 690-3737; Fax: (202) 690-0349E-mail: [email protected]




Accelerating Economic Growth and Expanding Opportunitiesfor South African Professionals in Agricultural Fields

V-6


Partners. South Africa: 67 professionals in agri-cultural business and trade development, manage-ment, marketing, policy development, and agricul-tural technology transfer. U.S.: USDA/FAS/ICDas administrator of the Cochran FellowshipProgram (CFP).

Principal mutual benefits. U.S. commodityand technology exports to South Africa wereexpanded by program participants; collaborativeU.S.-South African research was implemented;agreements with U.S. universities for training andresearch were executed; and attitudes concerningthe U.S., and its goods and services became morepositive. Participants’ job performance improved,leading to job advancement; 15% of participantslaunched their own businesses based on programexperience; and many participants are engaged inhelping develop improved agriculturalsystems/policies in South Africa at the provincialand national levels.

Issue. One public and one private sector missionwere commissioned in 1994 by USDA’s EmergingMarkets Office to identify a priority need of SouthAfrica as the country provided a rush of newopportunities for long-neglected segments of itspopulation and sought to position itself to acceler-

ate economic growth and development. Short-term training in carefully targeted areas was iden-tified by each of these missions as a priority need,and plans were then laid to launch a short-termtravel and study program of training in 1995.

Activities and objectives. In 1998, theCochran Fellowship Program (CFP) evaluated itsactivities in South Africa since 1995 financed byUSDA’s Emerging Markets Office. In its first twoyears of operations, 67 participants had receivedtraining in the U.S.

The CFP’s founding legislation calls for it to pro-vide training for selected senior and mid-levelagricultural specialists and administrators from thepublic and private sectors (in middle income coun-tries and emerging democracies and markets),involved in agricultural trade, management, mar-keting, policy and technology transfer. The aim ofthe training must be to help develop the agricul-tural systems necessary to meet domestic foodneeds and strengthen trade linkages with the U.S.From 1984 through 1997, training was providedunder the CFP for over 6,000 individuals.Through 1999, over 6,800 individuals from 70countries participated in the CFP (see tablebelow).

South African candidates for training applied tothe local CFP representative, some having beeninvited to apply by USDA and U.S. government

µ

µ

Cochran Fellowship Program Participants by Region for Selected Years, 1984-98

Year

1984198819931984-99

Africa

182013

574

Asia

2457126

1,345

LatinAmerica

5011679

1,331

NewlyIndependent

States

00

1911,538

Non-EUEurope

1782

2162,073

Total

109275625

6,861

agencies represented in that country. CFPWashington-based staff traveled to the country toconduct interviews with applicants and in-countryinterviews served to outline individual trainingprograms which would be most beneficial to SouthAfrica and the U.S. Final selections were made onthe basis of the interviews, the relationship oftraining needs to CFP objectives, local recommen-dations, and budget availability. Participants werenotified of their selection, the program designedfor each individual was then fine-tuned, and CFPWashington-based staff implemented the programsof individual participants.

Individual programs did not exceed three monthsin duration. In general, they included meetingswith U.S. professional peers, field observationsand industry visits, on-the-job training, and atten-dance at university courses and seminars, thuscombining technical instruction with practicalfield observations and hands-on experience. Allprograms dealt with one or more of the followingtopics: agricultural business and trade develop-ment, management, marketing, policy develop-ment, and agricultural technology transfer.

Mutual benefits. In spite of depressed econom-ic conditions in South Africa, participants withtrade and business development objectives in theirtraining programs established a number of initia-tives. For example, commercial ties were devel-oped with a U.S. company for the importation ofcheese for sale in South Africa and in Kenya;another participant started by purchasing wine andthen opened his own winery, for which he isimporting white oak barrels from the U.S.; and oneparticipant provided training to specialists in theMinistry of Agriculture, resulting in a more expe-ditious process for maize imports from the U.S.Another participant is importing technologies forhis laboratory, which he observed in operationwhile visiting the U.S.; he also conducted a

research project with a Penn State University fac-ulty member and developed a memorandum ofunderstanding with the University. One partici-pant is now producing herbal botanical productsfor U.S. firms in partnership with the HerbResearch Foundation; another worked withUSDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and StockyardsAdministration to standardize the training of graingraders in South Africa.

One participant took over her father’s business andbecame the only black, female landscaper inSoweto.1 Another participant received a grantfrom the South African Department of Agriculturefor a cooperative-run maize milling project, whichhe is using to leverage technical assistance fromAfriCare. Mill operations are now bringing inprofits.

Following their CFP training, some 70% of theparticipants remain in contact with U.S. individu-als and organizations. For example, several havecontacted U.S. universities concerning opportuni-ties to enter formal, academic training programs,and one arranged an exchange program with NorthCarolina A & T U n i v e r s i t y. Many former partici-pants hosted U.S. delegations visiting South A f r i c a .

Based on their CFP experiences and training, par-ticipants also contributed to agricultural systemsand policies at both the provincial and national lev-els, which have developed rapidly since the 1994elections. At the national level, one participantconsulted with the Ministry of Agriculture in con-nection with the development of a national agri-cultural policy paper, much of which was builtdirectly on the CFP experience; another assistedwith the design of an agricultural credit policy thataddresses the needs of all the nation’s farmers; still

1 As an aside, the CFP was disappointed with the percentageof women participants in the program, which ranged fromonly 13% in 1995 to 25% in 1997.

another contributed to developing a new rural elec-trification policy for small-scale farmers.

Five participants are making major policy contri-butions at the provincial level, one in a specificreconstruction and development project and anoth-er in a liaison unit that connects small farmers withtheir provincial governments. Another participantis developing a market information system as amember of two regional councils, and one is in thepost of deputy director of the provincial depart-ment of agriculture. These participants were alsovery impressed with the U.S. cooperative form oforganization and have endeavored to introducecooperatives to the small-scale farmers with whomthey work.

For a host of personal and professional reasons, allparticipants view the CFP as a "lifetime experi-ence." Among other things, the CFP changed theirattitudes about U.S. citizens; they were especiallyimpressed with how hard U.S. citizens work. Theyalso reported improved opinions about the qualityof U.S. goods and services. Following the CFPexperience, 15% of the participants were promot-ed in their jobs, 57% were assigned greater job

responsibility and 15% started their own business-es. Over 70% indicated that the CFP helped themimprove their job performance and 37% indicatedthat the CFP helped them improve specificallytheir management skills.

Program costs. Total program costs (direct andindirect) for the 1995-97 period were US$1.2 mil-lion. This amounted to US$12,448 per participantin 1995, US$9,996 in 1996 and US$11,263 in1997. Costs for some participants were highermainly because they engaged in formal trainingcourses. The CFP does receive significant in-kindcontributions but these were not quantified in thecase of the South African program.


Gary Laidig, Program LeaderCochran Fellowship ProgramFood Industries DivisionUSDA/FAS/ICDSouth Building, Room 3243Washington, D.C. 20250-4300Tel. (202) 690-3737; Fax: (202) 690-0349E-mail: [email protected]




Faculty Exchange Program in the Newly Independent States

V-7


Partners. In the Newly Independent States (NIS)of Kazakstan and Ukraine, as well as Russia: 44universities, institutes and training institutions. Inthe U.S.: International Food and A g r i b u s i n e s sManagement Association, University of A r k a n a s a ,Colorado State University, University ofMinnesota, University of Missouri, University ofNebraska-Lincoln, North Dakota State University,Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University,University of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture/Foreign Agricultural Service/International Cooperation and Development(USDA/ FAS/ICD) Food Industries Division.

Principal mutual benefits. The openness andfree exchange fostered by this program —througha network of people in the Newly IndependentStates who know the U.S. market and higher edu-cation systems well, have meaningful personalaccess to U.S. professors, and are implementingeducational reforms that support a transition to amore open market economy—creates an idealplatform for mutual academic and commercialbenefits between the U.S. and the NIS.

Issue. The Newly Independent States of the for-mer Soviet Union are moving from a long historyof operating within the framework of classicaleconomics and socialism into an entirely new sys-

tem involving neoclassical economics and capital-ism. Farmers and agri-business operators are hav-ing immense difficulty learning the new rules ofthe game and operating successfully with them.Because of inexperience with what constitutesappropriate policy in a capitalist economy, gov-ernment strategies have not been designed to sup-port the new system, resulting in frightening per-formance failures and corruption. University pro-fessors continue to teach outdated, irrelevantmaterials and methods designed for a centralizedeconomy; students are learning what their parentswere taught!

The resulting frustration and disappointment withthe "new economics" is leading many citizens tocall for a return to the old system which, for all itsfaults, would at least enable them to deal with theeconomy and better understand its potential for them.

Activities and objectives. Conducted by theProfessional Development Program of the U S D A /FAS/ICD Food Industries Division, the FacultyExchange Program (FEP) seeks to promote thedevelopment of sound agricultural policies andeffective and competitive agricultural marketingand business systems in the Newly IndependentStates. Its specific objectives are to:

• increase the number of adults in the NewlyIndependent States who understand marketeconomies by improving and expanding aca-

µ µµ

µ

demic and adult education programs in agricultur-al economics, marketing, agribusiness, andagrarian law;

• create a capacity in participating NewlyIndependent States faculty to evaluate andrevise curriculum; and

• establish enduring relationships between theU.S. and Newly Independent States for the pur-pose of fostering curriculum development,course revisions, and faculty strengthening inagricultural economics, business and law.

Each year since the program’s inception in 1995,and after interviewing applicants and universityadministrators, the USDA Administrator of theFEP has selected for the program a small numberof faculty (between 10 and 20) from Russian,Kazakstan and Ukrainian agricultural universities.Selected participants travel to the U.S. for an ori-entation program in Washington, D.C., plus inten-sive supplemental instruction in English (partici-pants must have basic English skills prior toarrival). After successfully completing these train-ing activities, participants travel to hosting U.S.academic institutions which have included theUniversity of Arkansas, Colorado State University,University of Minnesota, University of Missouri,University of Nebraska-Lincoln, North DakotaState University, Pennsylvania State University,Purdue University, and the University ofWisconsin.

There they participate in selected courses on busi-ness, economics and law; learn new teachingmethods; develop new courses and adapt class-room materials for use in the Newly IndependentStates. On average, participants have taken rough-ly four to five courses at the undergraduate level,including some short courses. Additionally, partic-ipants make extensive visits to nearby U.S. farmsand agri-businesses and, whenever possible,internships are arranged with local business firms.Participants also travel to a U.S. region that con-trasts with the region to which they have beenassigned by the FEP to observe farm production,storage and marketing activities, and to visit land-grant university programs where they discuss fac-ulty course offerings, curricula and teaching pro-grams. Before returning home, participants aredebriefed at the USDA in Washington, D.C., dur-ing a three-day wrap-up program. Program dura-tion is approximately six months.

U.S. faculty provide follow-on advisory visits tothe home university of participants as a regularpart of the program. These usually entail discus-sions and interactions on curriculum reform,course development and other activities initiatedby participants as a result of their FEP experiences.For example, in 1999, six U.S. university facultymembers provided follow-on support visits to 15participants from the 1998 program and five par-ticipants from the 1997 program, reviewing newlydeveloped course outlines and materials; holdingmeetings and discussions with department heads,deans and rectors; offering lectures and seminarson market economies and agri-business; holdingvisits and meetings with farmers; reviewing exten-sion and adult education programs; and discussingcollaborative research and future exchanges.

Mutual benefits. Through the year 2000, theF E P has supported 85 participants (41 fromRussia, 36 from the Ukraine and eight fromKazakstan), representing 44 different universities,institutes and training institutions. These figuresreinforce the conclusion that the FEP has played acritical role in upgrading human and institutionalcapacity for the Newly Independent States' transi-tion to a market-based economy.

Participants maintain contact with other FEP par-ticipants and the U.S. faculty they met during theexchange program; they also share their experi-ences with other participants and co-workers.They believe they have applied their improvedskills and understanding of the free market econo-my in teaching. For example, the 11 Ukraine par-ticipants were teaching 18 courses to 2,655 stu-dents just one year after returning home; they werealso instrumental in revising 22 courses and intro-ducing 12 new courses, using materials from theirFEP experience. They conducted 26 seminars,wrote 22 research and extension articles, and fiveof the participants were in the process of writingnew textbooks. Participants reported improvingtheir teaching methods as a result of the FEP expe-rience through the use of case studies, discussionformats, out-of-class papers, quizzes and ongoingassessment of student progress. Moreover, all par-ticipants have reported that the FEP experienceaccelerated their professional development,expanded their collegial and professional net-works, and renewed their professional motivation.

Evaluations performed through surveys of partici-pants indicate that they value most the follow-oncommunications with U.S. faculty and especially

the opportunity to improve their English-languageskills. Follow-on has been reinforced by the sign-ing of eight U.S.-NIS university cooperativeagreements (through 1998).

An evaluation of the program concluded that:"One of the largest impacts of the FEP is that thereis now an emerging network of people in theNewly Independent States who know a great dealabout the U.S. system of higher education, havemeaningful contacts with U.S. professors, and aretrying to implement U.S. style reforms in highereducation systems that support the transition to amore open market economy."

There are other FEP-like programs in the NewlyIndependent States. The FEP, however, is alonger-term program, permitting more in-depthpractical experiences, study, understanding and thebuilding of more lasting relationships. It remainsfocused on a few disciplines; accepts participantsonly with interests relating to agricultural econom-ics, business and law; and requires participants toproduce immediately usable materials on returninghome. Finally, the FEP offers a fine mix of theoryand praxis. In the Ukraine there is an expressionthat runs to the effect: "Tell me one hundred times,or you can show me just once."

The U.S.-NIS university linkages are beneficial toboth countries. They promote an international per-spective on all campuses. Newly IndependentStates faculty gain firm understandings of the U.S.market and of public-private relationships whichthey transmit to their students. Thus, a solid cadreof professionals with an understanding of U.S.principles and approaches is developing. As thoseprofessionals implement policies and programsand conduct their everyday lives, U.S. principlesand approaches are being emulated and permeat-ing the ways things are done in the NewlyIndependent States. This change, and the network

of U.S.-NIS relationships developed through theprogram, also result in the enhancement of marketsin these countries for U.S. products, goods andservices.

Project costs. Funding for the FEP has been pro-vided through a U.S. government inter-departmen-tal arrangement, involving the USDA, theDepartment of State and the U.S. Agency forInternational Development. Total (direct and indi-rect) out-of-pocket costs per participant are esti-mated at about US$40,000, implying that the 85program graduates in the past five years have costthe U.S. government about US$3.4 million.

The program also receives considerable in-kindsupport from both collaborating U.S. universitiesand the private sector. It is estimated that approx-imately 40% of the total cost of the training pro-gram is offset by these in-kind contributions,including approximately US$10,000 of in-kindsupport from the USDA itself. These estimateswould place total program costs to date at US$5.7million, with US$3.4 million being provided bythe U.S. government and US$2.3 million by otherinstitutions. Additionally, the universities pay thefull salary of each participant while in the U.S., orUS$100 per month for six months. This is a sig-nificant contribution where teachers are often notpaid for four to six months at a time and electrici-ty and heat are often shut off for non-payment ofbills.


Frank A. Fender, DirectorFood Industries DivisionUSDA/FAS/ICDSouth Building, Room 3243Washington, D.C. 20250-1085 Tel. (202) 690-3737; Fax: (202) 690-0349E-mail: [email protected]


INDEX BY STATE

State Case Study Number

Alabama III-5, IV-4

Alaska IV-4

Arizona III-5, V-5

Arkansas I-1, III-1, III-5

California I-1, II-8, III-1, III-5, III-7, III-12

Colorado III-1, IV-4, V-7

Connecticut --

Delaware III-5

Florida I-3, II-9, III-5, III-12

Georgia III-5, IV-5

Hawaii III-5, III-10, III-12

Idaho III-9, IV-3, V-4

Illinois III-5, IV-3, V-2

Indiana III-3

Iowa III-1, III-2

Kansas I-2, III-1, III-4

Kentucky IV-4

Louisiana III-1

Maine --

Maryland III-9, IV-6

Massachusetts --

Michigan II-4, II-8, III-5, III-6, V-3

Minnesota III-1, V-7

Mississippi II-13, III-1, IV-4

Missouri III-1, III-13, V-7

Montana III-1, III-9

Nebraska I-2, III-1, III-3, III-4, III-5, V-7

Nevada --

New Hampshire --

New Jersey IV-3

New Mexico --

New York III-8, V-5

North Carolina III-3, III-12, V-6

North Dakota III-1, V-7

Ohio I-4, II-8, III-5

Oklahoma III-1, III-5

Oregon III-5, III-8

Pennsylvania V-7

Rhode Island --

South Carolina III-3, III-12, V-4

South Dakota III-1

Tennessee --

Texas I-2, II-8, II-10, III-1, III-4, III-5, III-12, IV-1, V-4

Utah --

Vermont --

Virginia I-4, III-3, IV-4, IV-6

Washington III-1, III-8, III-13, V-1, V-4

West Virginia --

Wisconsin II-1, II-8, IV-4, V-7

Wyoming III-9

INDEX BY COUNTRY

Country Case Study Number

Albania II-13, IV-4

Bangladesh II-1, III-1

Belarus II-12

Belgium I-3

Botswana III-4

Brazil I-2, III-1, IV-3

Bulgaria II-5, II-11

Cameroon IV-3

Canada III-9, IV-3, IV-4

Caribbean countries I-3, I-6, III-11

Central America I-1, I-4, I-6, III-2, III-4, IV-1, IV-2, V-1

Cote d’Ivoire IV-3

Chile I-5, V-1

China III-4, IV-5, V-5

Costa Rica I-4, I-6, IV-1, IV-3

Cuba I-6, III-12

Czech Republic I-2, II-5

Egypt II-3, III-4, III-12

Ethiopia I-2, III-3

France IV-3

Germany I-3, III-3, IV-3

Guatemala I-4, I-6, III-5

Haiti II-9, II-14

Holland I-3, IV-2, IV-3

Honduras III-5, III-12, IV-2

India I-2, III-1, III-7, IV-1, IV-3, IV-5

Indonesia III-1, III-12, IV-1, IV-3

Jordan V-4

Kenya III-3, III-5, III-13

Mali III-3, III-4

Mexico I-2, I-6, II-10, III-1, III-5, III-6, III-8, III-12, III-13, IV-1, IV-4

Moldova II-7, II-12

Morocco II-4

Nicaragua III-5

Niger III-3

Nigeria IV-3

Panama I-6, III-5, III-12, IV-1, IV-2

Peru I-5, III-1, III-2, III-5, III-12

Philippines III-1, III-5, IV-1

Poland II-5, II-11, III-8, IV-6, V-3

Rwanda I-2, III-5

Republic of Georgia II-6

Russia II-8, III-4, III-8, III-9, V-2, V-7

Senegal III-3

Slovakia II-5

South Africa I-2, III-1, III-12, V-6

Switzerland IV-3

Thailand III-5, III-10, III-12, IV-1, IV-5

Ukraine II-7, II-12, V-7

United Kingdom I-3, III-12

Zimbabwe I-2, III-12

Glossary of Acronyms

ACRONYMS

ABSP Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (U.S.)ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International / Volunteers Overseas

Cooperative AssistanceAFSTA African Seed Trade AssociationAIARD Association for International Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentAMISCONDE La Amistad Conservation and Development Initiative (Costa Rica, Panama)AMS Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA)APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)ARS Agricultural Research Service (USDA)ASOSYE Support Project for a Haitian Civil SocietyASTA American Seed Trade AssociationBNF Biological nitrogen fixationBRASS Biological Resources Analysis Support SystemCARDI Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development InstituteCAST Council on Agricultural Science and TechnologyCCT Centro Científico Tropical (Costa Rica)CEA Center for Agricultural Statistics (Mexico)CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCIAT International Center for Tropical AgricultureCIFOR Center for International Forestry ResearchCIMMYT Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maíz y TrigoCIP International Potato CenterCIRAD Center for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for

Development (France)CLIMAG Climate Prediction and Agriculture ProjectCNFA Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs (U.S.)COLEF Colegio de la Frontera Norte (Mexico)CPATU Center of Agroforestry Research for Eastern Amazonia (Brazil)CRSP Collaborative Research Support ProgramCSREES Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension ServiceDAI Development Alternatives InternationalDGESA Agency for Agricultural Sector Studies (SAGAR-Mexico)DOA Department of AgricultureDPVCTRF Direction de la Protection de Végétaux de Controles Techniques et de la

Répression des Fraudes (Morocco)DREAM Dynamic Research Evaluation for Management (a software program)EMBRAPA Brazilian National Agricultural Research EnterpriseEMPRES Emergency Prevention SystemEPA Environmental Protection Agency (United States)ERS Economic Research Service (USDA)FACN Federation of Caféières Natives (Haiti)FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization FAS Foreign Agriculture Service (USDA)FDA Food and Drug Administration Agency (United States)FFT Fundação Floresta Tropical (Brazil)FIS International Seed Trade Federation

FORDA Forest Research and Development Agency (Indonesia)FUNDESPA Fundación para el Desarrollo Sostenible de PanamáGAO General Accounting Office (United States)GEM Germplasm Enhancement of Maize Project (U.S.)GILB Global Initiative on Late BlightGIS Geographic Information SystemGTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische ZusammenarbeitIAAE International Agency for Atomic EnergyIADB Inter-American Development Bank IAR Institute of Agricultural Research (Ethiopia)IBAMA Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais RenováveisICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsICTA National Institute of Agricultural Technology (Guatemala)IES Institute of Environmental StudiesIFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFDC International Fertilizer Development CenterIFPRI International Food Policy Research InstituteIICA Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on AgricultureIIED International Institute for Environment and DevelopmentIITA International Institute of Tropical AgricultureINIFAP Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias

(Mexico)INTSORMIL-CRSP International Sorghum/Millet Collaborative Research Support ProgramIPEF Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais (Brazil)IPF Intergovernmental Panel on ForestsIPM Integrated Pest ManagementIRAD Institut de Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement (Cameroon)IRRI International Rice Research InstituteISAR Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du RwandaIUCN World Conservation UnionLAC Latin America and the CaribbeanLAMP Latin American Maize ProjectLEI Agricultural Economics Research Institute (Netherlands)MACED Mountain Association for Community Economic Development

(Kentucky, U.S.)MAFE Ministry of Agriculture and Food Economy (Poland)MAP Moroccan Agribusiness ProjectMARNDR Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development (Haiti)NAFTA North American Free Trade AgreementNAP North America ProgramNASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (U.S.)NAU National Autonomous University (Mexico)NGO Non-governmental organizationNGSPA National Grain Sorghum Producers' Association (U.S.)NSF National Science FoundationNWS New World ScrewwormsODI Overseas Development Institute (United Kingdom)ODR Provincial-level extension office which provides agricultural advisory

services (Poland)

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOIRSA Regional International Organization for Agricultural HealthONADEF Office National de Développement des Forêts (Cameroon)ONF Office National des Forêts (France)PD/A/CRSP The Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture Collaborative Research Support ProgramPAEP Polish American Extension ProjectPAHO Pan American Health OrganizationPAU Punjab Agricultural University (India)PICTIPAPA International Cooperative Program for Potato Late BlightPNUTGRO Peanut Crop Growth Simulation ModelPPQ Plant Protection QuarantinePROCIs Regional Programs for Horizontal Reciprocal Cooperation in Agricultural

Research and Technology TransferPVP Plant Variety ProtectionRAFPP Russian-American Farm Privatization ProjectRCU Regional Coordinating UnitRFC Rural Finance CorporationSAG Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (Chile)SAGAR Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development (Mexico)SEED Support for Eastern European DemocracySENASA Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agraria (Peru)SIT Sterile insect techniqueSIUC Southern Illinois University at CarbondaleSODEFOR Société pour le developpement des plantations forestières (Ivory Coast)SPAU St. Petersburg State Agrarian University (Russia)START Global Change System for Analysis, Research and TrainingUA Universidad Austral de ChileUCDavis University of California at DavisUCH Universidad de ChileUIUC University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUM Universidad de Magallanes (Chile)UNFPA United Nations Fund for Population ActivitiesUOJ University of JordanUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentUSDA United States Department of AgricultureUSIA United States Information AgencyWNIS Western Newly Independent StatesWSU Washington State UniversityWWF World Wildlife Fund

food: the whole world’s business · 2019-11-16 · introduction and overview the case studies i....

Documents