4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS (NARS)
In the sixties and seventies, the National Agricultural Research System, NARS and specially Institutes for Agricultural Research, INIAs, received a strong financial support from government and specialized agencies, in order to promote the agricultural modernization through the dissemination of the new technologies developed from the green revolution. In the eighties as a result of the crisis and adjustment programs, public funds for agricultural research diminished strongly. Expenditure in agricultural research dropped as a total but much more the expenditure per researcher because there were personnel increases even after that, affecting severely research activities. Ten of fourteen INIAs were in this case and expenditure per researcher dropped dramatically reaching in some cases 40%.
During the same period almost all the INIAs in the region implemented different reforms mainly with the purpose to improve efficiency in the administration and management of financial resources, and to reorient the agricultural research priorities according to demand driven criteria. In this context some market mechanisms as competitive funds were introduced and significant efforts to increase the generation of INIAs' own resources were made, through the sale of goods and services. At the same time objectives related with poverty, natural resources and environment, were included in the agriculture program research. In the nineties, the situation improved significantly for most INIAs as a result of a better financial situation in the public treasury and new financial sources as foundations for the agriculture research and transfer, and other Non Governmental Organizations (NGO). In general, budgets for agricultural research has increased notoriously recovering positions and even in some cases, overpassing the previous situation.
However agricultural research and technology transfer is seen in a profound crisis as a result of the deep changes in the political, social and economic environment. Two decades earlier these activities were actively promoted because agricultural transformation and modernization was considered as a condition for general development, and the State was identified as the main actor to promote economic and social development. In this context, technology was seen as a public good and transferred massively from developed countries through specialized public institutions. Since then, the situation has changed dramatically: structural reforms and adjustment policies implemented after the crisis of the eighties, major political changes in the world, increasing demands to diminish the size of the public sector and for less public intervention, more active role of the private sector, scarcity of public and international resources for agricultural research and significant scientific advances and institutional developments, are probably the most important elements that characterize the present environment.
Food supply was identified in the Sixties as a neckbottle for development, and consequently agriculture modernization was a strategic objective. Technologies to increase productivity of basic foods were promoted and diffused as a public good because they were considered an effective way to contribute to solve hungry and poverty problems in the world. In the eighties agriculture has diversified responding new consumption patterns derived from deregulation process, particularly trade liberalization, as well as fast urban growth. As a consequence of these facts, demands have changed in favor of post-harvest technologies, new agroindustrial products, quality factors and process to increase value added and to improve competitiveness. Closely related with these demands, discussions for allocation of funds are dominated by topics as genetics and biotechnology development.
However old problems as poverty and extreme poverty have increased dramatically, while natural resources experimented a fast and increasing process of deterioration. According to E. Trigo (1995), between 1980 and 1992 the number of people living below poverty line increased from 195 million to more than 250 million. Rural poverty reached 61% of population in spite of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) becomes an urbanized region (more than 71% of the population is living in urban areas in the 90's). In LAC countries, poor agricultural performance is at the heart of increasing poverty and the rapidly deteriorating natural resource base.
Deforestation, soil erosion, waterlogging, salinization and desertification of soils, contamination of surface and ground waters, and loss of biodiversity is on the rise. Since 1960, an estimated 2 million square kilometers of forest have been cut. In the late 1980's, deforestation proceeds at a rate of 50,000 hectares per year, mostly in tropical areas. The problem appears to be more acute in the mountainous ecosystem of the Andean zone and in Central America and Mexico, where it affects an estimated 40 to 60% of all potentially arable land, but is also present in sub-tropical and temperate zones (IDB-UNDP, 1990).
In this context, a number of issues will affect the evolution of agricultural and technological demand and opportunities over the coming decades. They include the changing nature of poverty, the repositioning of agriculture in national economies, the impact of urbanization on the demand for food, and the impact of trade liberalization and regional economic integration (E. Trigo, 1995).
In few words, it is possible to identify the following main trends affecting the NARS:
· A structural change in the NARS as a result in the eighties of a reduction of public and international funds for agricultural research for INIAs and other institutions related with agricultural research and public and semi-public universities;· Strong demands to INIAs and other public institutions, to improve efficiency in the allocation, administration and management of resources, and demands to increase the generation of financial resources through sales of properties, services and products;
· Increasing participation of the private sector in research and technology transfer
· A change in research priorities to demand driven or client demand criteria, poverty and ecological capital issues as a result of agricultural diversification responding to the urbanization process and to the open economy context, a dramatic increase in the number of people living in poverty and below the poverty line in LAC in spite of the success of the modernization of cereals and commodities technologies;
· Close interactions between marginalism, rural poverty, natural resources degradation. Deforestation, over exploitation and degradation of soils, water and air pollution and loss of biodiversity, are problems widely spread in almost all the ecosystems of the region. Allocations of national and/or international public funds to generate or adapt technology to be disseminated as a public good, makes sense only if it solves this kind of problems.
In this environment, the institutions of agricultural research are encouraged to increase the generation of their own resources in order to be less dependent from public funds. At the same time, the government together with the private sector, implemented new mechanisms to obtain funds and to apply them more efficiently. These initiatives and those that reinforce and create new organizations encompassing products (such as the case of coffee, sugar and rice in Colombia), characterize this period.
The most important initiatives, as it was mentioned before, are the competitive funds and the foundations:
Taking into account the experience of general scientific purpose, the competitive funds were created in several countries of the region, special competitive funds for agricultural research. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica among other countries have experienced this mechanism.
There are two kinds of funds: a) those that finance scientific research projects, and b) those that promote innovation and technology transfer promoting linkages between public and private sectors. The purposes of these funds are the following;
· to complement resource allocations, while increasing the accountability of research and researchers;· to improve research resource allocations and technology transfers by promoting more effective linkages between research institutes and agricultural producers, and
· to promote demand driven research lowering costs.
This non-governmental organizations are an alternative mechanism for funding and/or to coordinate the agricultural research and transfer. Most foundations are working with the commercial private sector, especially in export crops and agribusiness. In general, foundations can be classified in three types:
a) Foundations that finance and execute agricultural research. In this group we find the more mature and financially independent initiatives that are endowed and evolving from the private sector, such as POLAR (Venezuela), FUSAGRI (Peru) and Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA) (Honduras).b) Foundations that act as intermediaries for research funds but are not involved in implementing research activities. This group closely depends from external donor agencies, especially, the United States Department of Agriculture (USAID). Its main purpose is to channel donor resources to programs and projects in national research institutions, strengthen management capabilities and monitor research execution.
c) Those that seek to link scientific and technological capabilities with research and development needs and implement projects. This type of foundation is much less common and is restricted to the cases of Fundacion Chile and Argentina, where the objective is to facilitate the mobilization of resources and to link the research and technological capabilities with innovation and investment opportunities.
1. General aspects
2. Human Resources
3. Resource Allocations
4. Expenditure per Researcher
5. Scope of Research
To collect information from secondary sources was not easy: In the first place the last comprehensive studies were done around 1992 (e.g., Lindarte, 1995). Other information is partial and fragmentary and sometimes contradictory. Secondly, probably as a result of severe criticisms related with efficiency in resource administration and management, INIAS and other institutions are not willing to give information with respect to sources and use of funds. Finally, it should be noted that in some cases, budget sources are presented in a equivocal way; INIA Chile, for instance, presents the private sector as a financing source, but the last item corresponds to sales of goods, services and assets as well as contracts made with the private sector. In the case of INTA, a special tax is presented as "own resources" despite the fact that it is a public source of resources with a specific purpose.
NARS are very heterogeneous in LAC as can be demonstrated by the resource allocations and the number of researchers that they have. In one side are the largest NARS of Brazil, Mexico and Argentina and in the other extreme are the smallest NARS from Central America and Caribbean countries. In all cases, public institutions are by far the main components of NARS, and public resources, the main source. Despite this, some differences can be mentioned: INIFAP from Mexico and INTA from Argentina develop agricultural research activities together with technology transfer, while in other INIAs, these activities are separated in different specialized institutions.
In almost all cases, INIAs have made or are making reforms to adapt the institutions to the new demands and the scarcity of funds. The effects of these reforms are reflected in the objectives and in the programs and project contents of the institutions, that identify as priorities to solve: poverty, natural resource degradation and the environment. In many cases, competitiveness is another important consideration that appears almost in all the programs together with concerns about biotechnology development.
With respect to the relations between the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system and NARS, it must be noted that from the INIA's perspective very few references appear. It was possible to identify relations only in the following cases:
a) INTA: the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) is mentioned in several meetings and seminars. Permanent relations with the International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) and ISNAR are noted, but without specific references.b) EMBRAPA: General references to CGIAR institutions are made.
c) INIA Chile: Permanent links with CGIAR institutions, specially CIMMYT, International Potato Centre (CIP), International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and ISNAR are mentioned.
d) International Coffee Agreement (ICA)/CORPOICA: Projects with CIMMYT, CIP and CIAT are mentioned in official documents;
e) IAN: Projects with CIP and activities with ISNAR are mentioned.
f) INIA Uruguay: two projects with CIP on potato and sweet potato and one with CIMMYT on wheat are mentioned.
In connection with resources for agricultural research, it must be noted that while new demands on NARS took place, expenditure in agricultural research declined in a number of countries of the region. Between the early 1980's and 1990's the average research budgets of INIAs were reduced by 13% to 15%, while at the same time, the number of personnel increased between 22% to 27% according to different estimations.2 This resulted in a reduction in expenditure by researcher, sometimes even in reductions of salaries of qualified personnel, less operating budgets, and other strong difficulties that have affected negatively the performance of public institutions dedicated to agricultural research.
2 Pardey and Robinson (1989) and Lindarte (1995), mentioned in Echeverría et al (1995).
On the other hand, the participation of private sector in agricultural research activities has increased notoriously, but reaching only 15% of total resources invested. This means without capacity to replace or fill the gap. This participation is more significant in some countries as e.g., Colombia, where since many years, combined efforts from public and private sectors were made to organize farmers specialized in a specific product as coffee, sugar cane, cattle and others.
INIAs are still the most important component of NARS in almost all the countries of the region. Recent estimations for some selected countries, show that INIAs have the highest share in agricultural research expenditures realized by different institutions of the public, semi-public and private sectors. As can be appreciated in table 1, in Argentina the INTA represents 89% of total agricultural research expenditure, while Colombia exhibits the highest participation of farmers' groups with 29% of the total and Ecuador the highest participation of private companies that sell inputs.
Table 1
SELECTED COUNTRIES: ESTIMATED SHARES OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURE BY PUBLIC INSTITUTES, UNIVERSITIES, FARMERS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR, 1995
(Percentage of total expenditure)
|
Countries |
INIAs |
Universities |
Farmers' groups |
Private companies |
|
Argentina |
89 |
5 |
0 |
6 |
|
Brazil a/ |
63 |
29 |
0 |
8 |
|
Chile |
75 |
20 |
1 |
4 |
|
Colombia b/ |
61 |
2 |
29 |
8 |
|
Ecuador |
52 |
5 |
7 |
36 |
|
Mexico |
50 |
17 |
5 |
28 |
|
Peru |
65 |
20 |
10 |
5 |
|
Venezuela |
80 |
10 |
1 |
9 |
Source: Rubén Echeverría, Eduardo J. Trigo and Derek Byerlee, "Institutional change and effective financing of agricultural research in Latin America", World Bank Technical Paper No. 330. August 1995.
a/1991, b/1993.
Approximately 43,854 persons were involved in agricultural research activities in LAC in 1992; from this number 8,522 were reported as researchers with at least a university degree (Lindarte, 1995). According to this source, 15.8% have a PhD degree, 38.5% a M.Sc. degree and the other 45.7% only a B.Sc. degree. Around 64.5% of these people work in INIAs.
A big heterogeneity in human and financial resources availability can be appreciated: almost 60% of the researchers are working in institutions located in the Southern sub-region of LAC, while in the other extreme, the Caribbean countries, have only 1.3% of the total. Similar considerations can be made with respect with human resource qualifications. The Southern sub-region concentrates almost 71% of the masters and doctorate degrees in LAC, while Central America have 7.5% and Caribbean countries only reach 1.4% of total. Table 2 shows these figures by sub-regions.
Table 2
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: HUMAN RESOURCES DISTRIBUTION BY REGION
|
|
Sub-regions |
TOTAL |
||||
|
Caribbean |
Central |
Andean |
South |
|||
|
Total involved in research activities |
118 |
1,538 |
3,386 |
5,692 |
10,734 |
|
|
Researchers: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with B.Sc. |
43 |
861 |
1,228 |
1,762 |
3,894 |
|
with M.Sc. |
54 |
306 |
600 |
2,321 |
3,284 |
|
|
with Ph.D. |
12 |
141 |
239 |
955 |
1,347 |
|
|
Total researchers |
109 |
1,308 |
2,067 |
5,038 |
8,522 |
|
|
Percentage by sub-region |
1.3 |
15.3 |
24.3 |
59.1 |
100 |
|
Source: E. Lindarte, "Resultados del Inventario Institucional de 1993 sobre recursos, capacidades y áreas de concentración de entidades de investigación agropecuaria en América Latina y el Caribe", IICA, 1995
As can be expected, heterogeneity and asymmetries are also present between INIAs in any sub-region. Table 3 shows the total number of researchers according with their university degree: B.Sc., M.Sc., PhD., between 1983 and 1997 for some selected INIAS. EMBRAPA from Brazil, INIFAP from Mexico, and INTA from Argentina, concentrate a high proportion of the total. As can be appreciated, EMBRAPA from Brazil exhibits the highest proportion of M.Sc., and Ph.D., and shows an enormous effort to improve human resource qualifications between 1983 and 1997. Within the South sub-region, in the other extreme, Bolivia and Paraguay show the weakest situation in terms of total researchers, and qualified human resources.
Table 3 LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH INSTITUTES: STAFF RESEARCHERS EVOLUTION, 1983-1997
Total resources allocated for agricultural research in the region, are important but they appears to be insufficient in front of the present demands for technology. As it is was mentioned, in the eighties budget allocations experienced a strong reduction because crisis and adjustment programs. Reforms implemented, news sources of funds, generations of own resources in the perspective to be more independent from public treasury, permitted INIAs to improve the situation, but generally without reach the previous situation, at least in terms of resources per researcher. Table 4 shows the total budget allocations for some selected INIAs in the nineties.
Table 4
Latin America and the Caribbean: Some selected INIAs' budget allocations
(US$ million)
|
INIAs |
Year |
Budget allocations |
|
EMBRAPA Brasil |
1996 |
509.0 |
|
INTA Argentina |
1995 |
133.5 |
|
INIFAP México |
1996 |
50.9 |
|
ICA-CORPOICA Colombia |
1994 |
41.0 |
|
INIA Chile |
1996 |
39.0 |
|
INIA Uruguay |
1996 |
13.8 |
|
INIAP Ecuador |
1996 |
7.0 |
|
IDIAP Panamá |
1996 |
5.5 |
Source: Official reports from INIAS
From the point of view of the geographical distribution, allocations of financial resources show the same asymmetries between sub-regions of LAC. The South American sub-region concentrates more than three quarters of the total resources allocated in the budgets, while in the other extreme the Caribbean reaches only 0.3% of the total. As can be expected, salaries is the main item in the budgets; in fact resources allocated for this purpose, represent 66.7% of the total for LAC countries followed by operative costs with 18.5% and 14.8% for investment. As can be appreciated in tables 5 and 5, from the total resources, the South sub-region salaries concentrate 82.8%, while the Caribbean has only 0.3%. The budget structure reveals that Central America proportionally destined less resources to pay salaries, 41.7%, while the South sub-region destined 71.4% for this purpose.
Table 5
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: BUDGETS BY SUB-REGIONS, 1992
(000 US dollars and percentages)
|
|
Central |
Caribbean Percentage |
Andean |
South |
Total 000 US$ |
% |
|
Salaries |
5.3 |
0.3 |
11.6 |
82.8 |
346,764.1 |
100 |
|
Operative Costs |
11.1 |
0.3 |
14.1 |
74.5 |
96,049.2 |
100 |
|
Investments |
19.6 |
0.2 |
23.3 |
56.9 |
76,789.9 |
100 |
|
Total |
8.5 |
0.3 |
13.8 |
77.4 |
519,603.2 |
100 |
|
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: BUDGETS' STRUCTURE (Percentages) | ||||||
|
Salaries |
41.7 |
69.1 |
56.1 |
71.4 |
66.7 | |
|
Operative costs |
24.1 |
22.3 |
18.9 |
17.8 |
18.5 | |
|
Investment |
34.2 |
8.6 |
25.0 |
10.9 |
14.8 | |
|
Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 | |
Source: E. Lindarte, "Resultados del Inventario Institucional de 1993 sobre recursos, capacidades y áreas de concentración de entidades de investigación agropecuaria en América Latina y el Caribe", IICA, 1995
Budgetary allocations of resources go primarily to INIAS and Public Sector Central Programs for agricultural research. INIAs concentrate 85% of resources allocated for this purpose to institutions dedicated to agricultural research (INIAS, or Central Agricultural Research Programs, other public institutions, universities, and semi-private entities). On the other hand, for LAC countries in general, the Government is the main source of funds: In 1992 more than three quarters -77.1% of total-, came from the public sector. In second place came external sources with 11.0% of the total, followed by "own resources" item"3 with 9.4% of the total. As can be appreciated in table 6, the South sub-region is the most important in terms of total incomes followed by the Andean sub-region. According to source and structure of funds, government represents for 82.4% of the total in the South sub-region, while in Central America external resources are an important source representing 46.8% of the total.
3 Own resources: For some institutions, this item implies the sale of goods and services (as certified seeds and laboratory tests), while in others, in INTA, Argentina, e.g., own resources refer to a specific source of funds as was the special export tax exports first and over import tax later.
Table 6
LAC: SOURCE OF RESOURCES FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
(Percentages and US$)
|
|
Central |
Caribbean |
Andean |
South |
Total |
|
|
US$ |
% |
|||||
|
Government |
37.2 |
77.7 |
82.4 |
71.6 |
433,510 |
77.1 |
|
Own resources |
14.8 |
20.3 |
8.5 |
10.9 |
52,620 |
9.4 |
|
External resources |
46.8 |
6.4 |
7.5 |
9.2 |
61,733 |
11.0 |
|
Other incomes |
0.2 |
5.5 |
8.2 |
1.7 |
14,055 |
2.5 |
|
Total |
8.1 |
0,3 |
14.2 |
77.4 |
561,918 |
100 |
Source: E. Lindarte, "Resultados del Inventario Institucional de 1993 sobre recursos, capacidades y áreas de concentración de entidades de investigación agropecuaria en América Latina y el Caribe", IICA, 1995
As it is was mentioned previously, in a number of countries of the region, expenditure per researcher diminished strongly in the eighties, and then recovered in the nineties but without reach the previous position. This indicator varies widely between INIAs; considering that salaries and operative costs figures for 1992 vary from US$ 71,354 in the South sub-region, to US$ 28,406 in the Caribbean countries. From the point of view of institutions, INIAs appear with the highest level in resources allocated, as can be appreciated in table 7.
Table 7
LAC: EXPENDITURE PER RESEARCHER AND INSTITUTIONS, 1992
(US$)
|
Sub-regions |
Salaries and operative costs |
Total |
Institutions |
Salaries and operative costs |
Total |
|
Caribbean |
28,406 |
29,559 |
INIAs |
68,080 |
79,715 |
|
Central |
35,445 |
48,361 |
Natural resources |
11,306 |
20,728 |
|
Andean |
47,112 |
57,077 |
Others from Public sector |
36,050 |
42,460 |
|
South |
71,354 |
80,051 |
Universities |
23,683 |
29,375 |
|
Region (LAC) |
59,413 |
69,010 |
International centers |
79,660 |
85,502 |
Source: E. Lindarte; "Resultados del Inventario Institucional de 1993 sobre recursos, capacidades y áreas de concentración de entidades de investigación agropecuaria en América Latina y el Caribe", IICA, 1995
According with E. Lindarte, (1995), ten of fourteen INIAs increased the number of researchers while simultaneously decreased the resources allocated for agricultural research. Thus, according with this source, total expenditures per researcher dropped 40% between 1980 and 1985.
Direct information from INIAs shows a slightly different picture due to variation in the number of researchers. The trends appear to be the same. Figure 1 and tables 8 and 9 show the evolution of expenditure per researcher considering respectively total allocated resources and operative costs and salaries only. As can be noted, expenditures decrease strongly during the crisis and adjustment process in Brazil, Argentina and Ecuador, and then recover positions without reaching the original level, while INIA - Chile exhibits an increase of this indicator.
Figure 1 TOTAL EXPENDITURE BY RESEARCHER (S+OC)
Table 8
LAC: EVOLUTION OF EXPENDITURES PER RESEARCHER
(US$ of 1992)
|
Country |
1981-85 a/ |
1992-93 b/ |
|
Argentina |
46.7 |
70.4 |
|
Brazil |
248.9 |
217.3 |
|
Paraguay |
11.8 |
1.6 |
|
Uruguay |
4.3 |
12.6 |
|
Bolivia |
1.3 |
5.0 |
|
Colombia |
19.9 |
18.8 |
|
Ecuador |
11.9 |
4.3 |
|
Peru |
13.8 |
22.7 |
|
Venezuela |
44.7 |
20.6 |
|
El Salvador |
4.5 |
0.8 |
|
Guatemala |
6.8 |
4.3 |
|
Honduras |
2.6 |
0.5 |
|
Mexico |
114.3 |
83.6 |
|
Panama |
7.0 |
5.4 |
Sources: a/ ISNAR (Pardey, Roseboom and Anderson), originally in dollars PPP, corrected and adjusted to dollars of 1992; b/ E. Lindarte; "Resultados del Inventario Institucional de 1993 sobre recursos, capacidades y áreas de concentración de entidades de investigación agropecuaria en América Latina y el Caribe", IICA, 1995.
Table 9 INIAS: EXPENDITURES PER RESEARCHER. SELECTED COUNTRIES (000 US$ 1992)
Data collected in 1992-1993 (E. Lindarte, 1995) reveals that NARS have concentrated on animal production and cereals involving 20% of the programs and 23% of researchers. If animal health and forages are considered, proportions increase even more. Tables 10 and 11 show the number of programs or disciplines -by sub-region and by institution- on which the research activities in LAC countries focus (with the exception of EMBRAPA). More detailed information will be examined in each national case in the following pages.
Table 11
LAC: PROGRAMS AND DISCIPLINES DEVELOPED BY NARS BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION
(Totals and percentages)
|
Program or discipline |
Type of the institution |
|||||||
|
INIAS and similars |
Natural resource entities |
Others public entities |
University and semi private entities |
Regional or international centers |
Total |
Total |
||
|
cereals y grains |
37 |
|
23 |
3 |
1 |
64 |
8 |
|
|
legumes |
12 |
|
5 |
4 |
1 |
22 |
3 |
|
|
oilseeds |
15 |
|
9 |
3 |
|
27 |
3 |
|
|
roots and tubers |
12 |
|
7 |
|
1 |
20 |
3 |
|
|
vegetables |
16 |
|
8 |
7 |
|
31 |
4 |
|
|
fruits |
25 |
|
18 |
11 |
|
54 |
7 |
|
|
coffee and sugar cane |
4 |
|
7 |
|
|
11 |
1 |
|
|
forestry |
8 |
33 |
7 |
5 |
1 |
54 |
7 |
|
|
animal nutrition, grass and forages |
9 |
|
7 |
14 |
4 |
34 |
4 |
|
|
animal production |
42 |
1 |
26 |
23 |
5 |
97 |
12 |
|
|
soil, water, climate, irrigation |
14 |
|
15 |
6 |
3 |
38 |
5 |
|
|
animal and vegetal health |
21 |
|
24 |
9 |
6 |
60 |
8 |
|
|
phitotecnia |
10 |
5 |
28 |
9 |
7 |
59 |
7 |
|
|
genetic resources |
22 |
1 |
17 |
3 |
5 |
48 |
6 |
|
|
natural resources |
7 |
10 |
12 |
2 |
1 |
32 |
4 |
|
|
economics and social |
24 |
2 |
21 |
8 |
10 |
65 |
8 |
|
|
others |
22 |
2 |
30 |
13 |
4 |
71 |
9 |
|
|
Totals (number) |
300 |
54 |
264 |
120 |
49 |
787 |
100 |
|
|
|
(percentages) |
38 |
7 |
34 |
15 |
6 |
|
|
Source: E. Lindarte; "Resultados del Inventario Institucional de 1993 sobre recursos, capacidades y áreas de concentración de entidades de investigación agropecuaria en América Latina y el Caribe", IICA, 1995
