together with regional and international research centers, in association with national technology development organizations.

          Taking into account the growing importance of operating in knowledge networks, FORAGRO is a mechanism designed to facilitate discussion and support the definition of a regional agricultural technology research and development agenda. FORAGRO’s general objective is to contribute to the consolidation of the Agricultural Technology Innovation System for the Americas by facilitating dialogue, coordination, and strategic alliances between the stakeholders that comprise national, regional, and international technology research and development systems. In 1997, the Inter- American Board of Agriculture (IABA) decided to support the Forum’s creation and asked IICA to set up its Technical Secretariat. In May 1998, FORAGRO held its first meeting. The Forum includes a wide range of members: national public and private agricultural research institutions, national science and technology councils, university education centers and private sector organizations, producers’ associations, NGOs, public and private foundations that implement or promote technological innovation, sub-regional cooperative research programs, regional networks, CATIE and CARDI centers, CGIAR Centers located in the Americas, as well as FONTAGRO and IICA, which acts as the Forum’s Technical Secretariat.13 Although FORAGRO does not have official representation in CGIAR, it plays an important role in the design of that body’s overall strategy by providing regional inputs for determining its priorities at the global level.

          Finally, the regional Technology Research and Development Center of the Americas is supported by the international centers of CGIAR, the main global agricultural research network. Three of these centers are located in the LAC Region: CIMMYT, headquartered in Mexico; International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), based in Colombia; and the International Potato Center (CIP), headquartered in Peru. The region also receives support from the network of international research centers for different activities and products with headquarters in other countries, including those specializing in policy (International Food Policy Research Institute—IFPRI), plant genetic resources (International Plant Genetics Resources Institute, now known as Bioversity International—IPGRI), livestock production (International Livestock Research Institute—ILRI), and forestry and agroforestry (Center for International Forestry Research—CIFOR, and the International Center for Research in Agroforestry—ICRAF). All these institutes carry out activities in LAC and in some cases have offices in several countries in the region (Box 2-2).

          In brief, we can say that the present AKST system in LAC consists of a complex web of institutions, programs and other cooperation mechanisms created over time with the aim of ensuring sufficient spatial and thematic coverage, and taking advantage of potential contributions from
__________________

¹³ FORAGRO implements biannual plans based on the interaction between the agreed political-institutional lines of action and the priority technical lines of action, consisting of 11 major research topics adopted for hemispheric cooperation (www. iicanet.org/foragro).

public and private stakeholders at the different levels (local, national, regional and international) (Figure 2-1).

          Nevertheless, various authors have noted that the lack of inter-institutional links has been a major weakness of AKST systems in LAC (Níckel, 1989; Eckboir et al., 2003; Parellada and Eckboir, 2003; Piñeiro et al., 2003).

          In the Amazon region, the evolution of the institutional complex has been based on integrating its important contribution at the global level to the respective national economies, and reinforcing national sovereignty in the face of the possible internationalization of tropical rainforests (Walschburger
1992; Chaves de Brito, 2001; Becker, 2005). In this subregion, the key problem is the lack of an autonomous research corps and hence of regional capacity in science and technology for the agricultural sector (Aragón, 2001, 2005; Sicsú and Lima, 2001; Perez-Garcia and Domingue, 2004; Becker, 2005).

          The advance of democracy and subsequent economic liberalization at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s redefined and energized the roles and functions of the State—all this in the context of an environmental crisis that has encouraged new ideas within the framework of
sustainable development. Special reference must be made to the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), or Earth Summit, which was held in Rio in 1992 and promoted the development of AKST systems both by governments and non-governmental organizations.

          In the 21^st Century, a new AKST agenda is emerging in the region. It involves, for instance, South-South cooperation for eco-development and sustainable water management in the Amazon basin (Aragón, 1998), the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America and the United States Agency for International Development’s Amazon Basin Conservation Initiative.

2.1.4 Institutional and administrative constraints in national AKST systems
Although LAC’s national AKST systems vary greatly in size, organizational structure, effectiveness, and level of support, and have very different characteristics stemming from their institutional, cultural and political context, a study identified a number of common problems affecting these institutions
(Nickel, 1996). The most outstanding include limited inter-institutional cooperation (Table 2-1a), lack and poor allocation of resources (Table 2-1b), organizational and management weaknesses (Table 2-1c) and labor-related
weakness (Table 2-1d).

          National AKST leaders in LAC have acknowledged the existence of these problems and several efforts have been made to correct them, often through externally financed projects. ISNAR, for instance, sent specialists to various countries to assess their institutional situation and offer advice on the best measures to improve organizational structure and administration and management procedures. It also devised tools for research management and made them available to institutions through publications and training programs. This has led to a significant improvement in the effectiveness and efficiency of some national institutions. But many problems persist because certain institutions continue to operate in a policy and cultural environment that is not conducive to the changes required.