formation needed to identify structural, organizational, or administrative and managerial problems.

          Efforts to assess the results achieved by S&T institutions overall, and not just specific projects, only began in the 1980s and 1990s, and the issue has still not been addressed with the dynamism, energy, and depth needed to ensure a better use of resources and improve the planning and general efficiency of these bodies. The complexity and scale of NARIs has produced vertical organizations with many hierarchical levels and a bureaucratic management style, because they were established to respond to the problems of every region in the country, leading to highly complex institutions both from the organizational point of view and in terms of the quantity, variety, and heterogeneity of the topics to be researched. (Piñeiro et al., 2003).

          Recent literature emphasizes the need for research institutions to adopt decentralized management styles with a horizontal organizational structure that promotes discussion and consensus-building among peers. In pursuit of this type of organizational structure and management style, two complementary paths have been followed (Piñeiro et al., 2003). The first has sought to develop a highly decentralized organizational structure in which different units enjoy a high level of operational autonomy, a model exemplified by American universities. The second approach, inspired by the reforms introduced in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, has been to create relatively small bodies with specific mandates, highly focused on regions, products, or scientific topics.

           The main challenges facing AKST system institutions in LAC are to: (1) identify and measure all outputs, emphasizing productivity in terms of the products and services generated for clients/users; (2) address crucial management issues and constraints; (3) create consensus and a sense of ownership; (4) improve internal and external transparency; and (5) strengthen knowledge of the institution’s strengths, weaknesses, and constraints. (Peterson et al., 2003).

           The region’s AKST institutions can improve their performance by assessing periodically, and critically, the relevance and quality of their research through the peer review system accepted by the international scientific community. It is also useful to review the modern and practical concept of assessment, which has progressed “from the notion of finding weaknesses and culprits, to an approach where the assessment is at the service of users, with an emphasis on learning to improve organizational and institutional performance” (McKay and Horton, 2003).

2.2.6 Knowledge, science and technology from an agroecological perspective
Starting in the 1970s, alternative production models have been developed with a view to reducing the use of pesticides in agricultural production. This has led to a variety of practices, among them integrated pest management (IPM), integrated crop management (ICP), and agroecological pest management (Burlet and Speedy, 1998).

          In the early 1980s, an agroecological alternative to the commercial agricultural system began to develop. This alternative is based on a systemic approach to managing agricultural production that identifies the ecological, social, economic, cultural, and geopolitical dimensions related to

the management and use of natural resources, revaluing the exchange between local know-how and scientific knowledge (Sevilla and González, 1995; Sevilla and Woodgate, 2002; Bernal, 2006). Other sustainable management approaches have emerged, such as agroforestry, integrated soil management, and integrated watershed management.

           The agroecological approach has been adopted by producers’ organizations, public research institutions, universities, and non-governmental organizations. The most prominent include the Latin American Consortium for Agroecology and Development (CLADES), based in Chile, the Masters Program in Ecological Agriculture of the Tropical Agriculture Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica, and the Masters Program in Agroecology of the University of Caldas, Colombia. Leading NGOs in the field include the Ecological Agriculture Network and the Agroecological Movement of Latin America and the Caribbean (MAELA), an open, pluralistic and diverse movement involved in research, development, training and promotional activities that brings together over 65 institutions.

2.3 Financial Resources and Administration of the AKST system
2.3.1 Development and impact of investment in AKST
In Latin America, total investment in agricultural R&D in 2000 came to 2.6 million dollars; of these, 2.5 million (95.2%) were public investments (Pardey and Beintema, 2006). Most studies carried out in the region, as in other regions, show extremely high rates of return on investment in agricultural research and development (Alston et al., 2000; Ávila et al., 2002, Días Ávila et al., 2006) (See Table 2-5).

           Despite this, from the mid-1980s onward, and especially during the nineties, public investment in agricultural research and development declined. As a result of fiscal and public debt problems, most countries in the region implemented profound reforms in their macroeconomic, commercial, sectoral, and overall public investment policies, aimed at limiting state intervention and reducing public spending and deficits. These policies restricted agricultural credit, making it more expensive, and reduced the budgets allocated to investment in rural infrastructure and those aimed at agricultural research and extension and other programs and services to support rural development.18

           This less favorable context of macroeconomic and sectoral policies was reflected in lower growth rates for agricultural production in LAC countries—both in terms of cultivated area and average productivity—for the period 1982-2001, compared with those recorded for the period 1962-1981 (Table 2-6). As the authors note, average growth of production for the main agricultural commodities was 3.05% annually in the 1960s and 1970s, and fell to 1.98% in the last two decades. But there were significant differences in the growth patterns of the different subregions. In the Andean countries, Central America, and the Caribbean,

____________________

¹⁸ These policy changes to support agriculture in LAC also coincided with the start of a review of subsidies and food self-sufficiency policies in developed countries, especially the Common Agricultural Policy.