REPORT OF A REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON THE GLOBAL CASSAVA DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

held at the

Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical

and supported by the

International Fund for Agricultural Development

on

1 April 1998

CIAT

Cali, Colombia

BACKGROUND

The preparation of the Global Cassava Development Strategy was initiated in 1996 at a "brainstorming" meeting convened by the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The meeting recognized cassava as a food security and commercial crop that lends itself to a commodity approach to poverty alleviation. Cassava plays an important role in income generation and reducing the risk of food shortage in many parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America where poverty is widespread. The importance of farming systems issues and market linkages was also stressed. However, in order recognize and meet the full potential of this crop, a Global Strategy was considered necessary to:

(i) Identify the opportunities for further public and private investments;

(ii) Develop a framework for international technical co-operation for research and technology transfer;

(iii) Identify more cost effective institutional mechanisms for rationalizing (and increasing to the extent possible) the allocation of public and private resources for research and investment; and

(iv) Set the scene for future debates on global issues.

The Global Strategy requires a coalition of stakeholders including cassava producers and their organizations, Governments, the donor community, technical and research agencies and their networks, NGOs and their networks and the private sector in order to achieve the objectives set out above.

The Strategy is being developed from a number of country case studies and regional reviews. A review workshop was held in June 1997 where progress was determined and a schedule for completion of the Strategy decided upon. The plans involve preparing a draft of the Strategy and distributing it to regional bodies and stakeholders for comment and modification. A Forum of representatives of all stakeholders will be held in 1998 to ratify the final Strategy and develop a plan for its implementation.

THE REGIONAL CONSULTATION

The Regional Consultation, that was held at the Centro Intemacional de Agricultura Tropical, CIAT, Cali, Colombia on 1 April forms part of the schedule for completing a draft strategy with wide stakeholder participation and consultation. The objectives of the meeting were to:

Provide feedback on the draft Global Cassava Development Strategy and supplementary documents, from the perspective of the Latin American and Caribbean region

Formulate a set of priority issues, for the Latin American and Caribbean region, that should be considered in the final formulation of the Strategy and its subsequent implementation

The Program of the Meeting and List of Participants are presented in Annexes 1 and 2 respectively.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MEETING

Opening remarks

Dr. Grant Scobie, Director General of CIAT, opened the meeting with a summary of the principles that guide the research of the Center, namely increased productivity through the enhanced use of genetic resources, sustainable production through the appropriate management of natural resources, and close and integrated collaboration with our partners. Dr Scobie made particular reference to the appropriateness of the consultation on a global strategy for cassava, as a means towards clearly focusing research and development efforts on the commodity while ensuring a wide stakeholder perspective. Dr Raul Moreno, consultant representing IFAD, reminded the audience that the primary interest of the Fund is to combat rural poverty. In this context, there are today more than 122 million peasant farmers and their families in Latin America, 55% of which are considered to be below the poverty line. While 27 million of these rural inhabitants may fill their minimum food requirements, they do not have access to minimum levels of education, health care and housing. The fact that cassava would receive particular attention from the Fund lies in this commodity's relative importance in alleviating poverty through providing employment and income generating opportunities in rural areas.

Presentations

Dr Guy Henry, agricultural economist, CIRAD, Montpellier, France, presented the most salient points of the recent regional review of cassava in Latin America (see Supplementary Document 1: Cassava in Latin America and the Caribbean: Resources for Global Development). The review highlights the present important contribution that cassava makes towards achieving poverty alleviation goals, and highlighted some of the potential areas for growth of the cassava sector, through a diversification in products and markets.

Dr Truman Phillips, agricultural economist, University of Guelph, followed by presenting the draft global cassava strategy that has been prepared by himself and Dr Don Plucknett (see Supplementary Document 2: A Global Development Strategy for Cassava: Transforming a Traditional Tropical Root Crop). The authors stress that, for cassava to be an effective instrument for promoting sustainable rural development, the approach must be demand driven, incorporating both "bottom up" and "top down" dimensions. These dimensions imply mechanisms for ensuring ownership and participation of farmers', processors' and marketing organizations, and the provision by government of an appropriate policy environment within which to develop the crop.

Working groups

The participants were organized into three working groups which were constituted as follows:

A fourth group of participants from non Latin American countries, representing principally research organizations from Europe, Asia and Africa, and donor agencies met to analyse general aspects of the draft strategy. The moderator and rapporteur of this group was Truman Phillips

It was recognized that the constitution of the groups was to a certain extent uneven. Colombia, the host country, was understandably well represented by all sectors. In contrast, Brazil, with over 75% of cassava production in Latin America, was represented by two persons, and Paraguay, the second most important cassava producing country was regrettably not represented at the meeting. However, many of, the persons who attended had a thorough knowledge of the cassava sector in their respective countries, and several had experience in other Latin American countries. It should be noted that at the regional Cassava Biotechnology Network Meeting held in Brasilia in March, in which the global strategy documents were analysed by participants, all sectors of the Brazilian cassava community were represented, as well as Paraguay. Notes on the outcome of this meeting are presented in Annex 3. The working groups met in two sessions. The first was oriented towards the consideration of the draft Global Strategy document, and the second to identifying actual and potential market opportunities, together with the requirements, limitations and institutions that can catalyze and participate in their development.

Working Group session 1

The working groups were presented with identical questions to respond to:

1. The vision for cassava is described in the preliminary version of the Global Development Strategy for Cassava as:

Cassava can spur rural industrial development and raise incomes for producers, processors and traders. Cassava can also contribute to the food security status of its producing and - consuming households.

Do these statements reflect your own vision for cassava? If they do not, how would you modify them?

2. How would you qualify the relative importance of cassava development in the region, seen from the point of view of achieving food security, equity, the alleviation of poverty and natural resource conservation?

For this second question a matrix was provided to differentiate between countries and regions within countries for each of the criteria.

Working Group session 2

During the second working group session, the participants were requested to identify the most important actual and future markets for which there is expansion potential. For each identified market, a list of the essential requirements needed for realizing the market opportunity was noted, together with the principal constraints. In a similar fashion, the catalysts (those sectors or institutions that should act as capable of identifying the market opportunity) and the champions (those that might act at different levels to ensure that the opportunities are grasped) were determined.

Presentations by the Working Groups

Following the working group sessions, the rapporteurs for each group presented the outcome of their sessions. The details of their interventions are presented in Annexes 4 and 5.

In response to the first question regarding the vision for cassava, all groups suggested modifications to the vision statement. A general feeling was that the vision was somehow timid in its proposal. Since many of the participants are active in cassava development programmes, for many of them cassava production and transformation already contributes significantly to the alleviation of poverty and the increase in income of small farmers and rural inhabitants. However, they agreed that more support and investment were needed to extend some positive experiences to other areas within a single country or among different countries.

For the response to the second question on the relative importance of cassava, the groups undertook the exercise for each of the major cassava growing regions of their respective countries. For Group 1 (Colombia), the Atlantic Coast and the Andean region, in particular the Cauca Department, were considered areas of high importance, followed by the coffee region and the Llanos Orientales (Eastern Savannas). For Brazil (Group 2), the North and North East regions were equally scored in terms of the high importance of cassava, with lower importance given to the Central and Southern region. In Venezuela (Group 2), cassava is most important in the East of the country, both for farmers that have incorporated technology (technified) and the traditional sector (non-technified). For the countries that made up Group 3 (Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador) cassava was perceived currently as having a relatively high importance in achieving development goals, with potential for an enhanced role in the future. Costa Rica, with its export of fresh cassava (conserved in paraffin wax or frozen) to the USA and Europe, principally for the ethnic market, illustrates the potential foreign exchange earnings from cassava development.

With respect to the exercise on identifying markets, constraints, catalysts and champions, the responses were varied but in general terms cassava chips for animal feed were identified as very important; starch (industrial and modified); fresh cassava and cassava flour followed in.importance. Farinha, because of the very specific but large Brazilian market was also important. The identification by the participants of potential markets more related to products for human consumption (starches, flour, farinha, and fresh roots) than animal use was contrary to the tendencies of the available information from F AO that show a significant increase in cassava utilization as feed in the region. Some potential industrial uses were also identified.

Among the production constraints, seasonality, root quality, low yields and low starch content in most available germplasm, were frequently cited as important. From the cassava processing point of view, more information about processing technologies and lack of technical assistance were singled out as important aspects that limit cassava processing expansion. Finally, from the marketing side, studies and methodologies for market identification and development were also considered important aspects that need to be reinforced so as to fully benefit from the potential of cassava. Surprisingly, and this was pointed out in the discussion that followed the presentations by the rapporteurs, access to land was not highlighted as a constraint.

Conclusions of the meeting

There was general satisfaction among the participants with the development of the meeting. Concern was expressed about the restricted amount of time available for discussion of the Strategy, given the relative complexity of the issues, and the fact that it was not possible to have a balanced representation across the whole region.

In the final discussion session, the following aspects were highlighted:

- The initiative to develop a Global Cassava Strategy and Regional Review documents, as a common ground for discussion and exchange of experiences within and among regions of the world, is supported by the participants of the meeting. Given regional differences, a decentralized approach to the implementation of the strategy is called for.

- As previously stated, the cassava vision within this Strategy should be more assertive when stating the role of cassava as a poverty alleviation mechanism in Latin America and the Caribbean. Farmer representatives clearly made the point that cassava will never lose its strategic importance for small producers.

- The demand-driven approach, in which the industrial client or consumer determines the potential and quality requirements of different cassava products, is accepted as the basis for determining the future role of the crop in the region. In addition, the development of the crop requires the active participation of farmers and/or processors plus a favourable policy environment.

- It is also accepted that an integrated approach, similar to the concept of production to consumption system approach, and which emphasizes producer - business linkages, is necessary for the successful implementation of the cassava strategy in Latin America.

- With regard to the above statement, it was queried to what extent a commodity approach could be used in areas where cassava is frequently only one part of more complicated production systems.

- It was pointed that the sustainability aspects of cassava production and processing (from an ecological perspective) were not clearly stated in the Global Strategy. In Latin America, cassava is frequently produced in the hillsides with implications for soil conservation. Also, starch factories are known to produce a waste product that negatively affects the environment close to where the plants are located.

- Human resource development (training) was another area not clearly addressed in the Strategy. The need for human resource development at the level of cassava producers and processors is evident in the region. There are good examples of farmer to farmer transfer of technologies in many cassava projects.

- Finally, it was clearly expressed by the participants that the implementation of this strategy in Latin America was the next step at both national and regional level. It was pointed out that there exists a knowledge base and research results that should be used in the process of implementing the Strategy.

ANNEXES

1: Regional Consultation on a Global Cassava Development Strategy

Objectives of the regional consultation:

Provide feedback on the draft Global Cassava Development Strategy and supplementary documents, from the perspective of the Latin American and Caribbean region

Formulate a set of priority issues, for the Latin American and Caribbean region, that should be considered in the final formulation of the Strategy and its subsequent implementation

Tentative Program
1 April 1998

Moderator: Carlos Iglesias

Moderator: Guy Henry

Moderator: Rupert Best

2: List of participants

Regional Consultation on the Global Cassava Development Strategy
1 April 1998

Brazil

Marcio Porto
EMBRAP A/CNPMF
Caixa Postal 007
44380-000 Cruz das Almas-BA, BRASIL
Tel: (55-75)7212120 Fax: 7211118
E-Mail: [email protected]

Luis JCB Carvalho
CBN Regional Representative for Latin America
CENARGEN/EMBRAPA
CPo 02372 - Sain Parque Rural
70770-900 Brasilia, DF, BRASIL
Tel. (55-61) 3403564 Fax: 3403624
Email: [email protected]

Marco Tulio Ospina Patiño
Gerente, RAIZES
CERAT/UNESP
Fazenda Lageado
Caixa Postal 237
18603-970 Botucatu-SP BRASIL
Tel. (55-14) 8216604 Fax 8216604
Email: [email protected]

Dr. Waldo Espinoza
Secretario Ejecutivo
PROCITROPICOS
Caixa Postal 02995
71609-970 Brasilia, DF, BRASIL
Tel: (55-61) 3231988 Fax: 2485845
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]

Colombia

Pablo Agamez,
Director Gral. de Desarrollo Empresarial
Ministerio de Agricultura
Av. Jiménez No. 7-65
Santafé de Bogotá, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-1) 2822010-3419092 Fax (57-1) 2822010

Alonso Cardona Nicholls.
Coordinador, Programa de Modernizaci6n y Diversificaci6n MADR-IICA
Ministerio de Agricultura
Univ. Nal. Cra. 30 Calle 45 Edif. IICA
Santafe de Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-1) 3683677 Fax: 3680920
Email: iicaco [email protected]

Hector Martinez Granja
Cámara de Alimentos Balanceados
ANDI
Carrera 52 No. 135-04 B-1 Ap. 408
Santafe de Bogota, Colombia
Tel. (57-1) 2265083

José Restrepo
Director
Fundación para la Investigacion y el Desarrollo Agricola, FIDAR
Calle 2 No. 42-96
Cali, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-2) 5524547 Fax: 5522785
Email: [email protected]

Luis Eduardo Herazo
Jefe Tecnico ANPPY
Carretera Troncal via Corozal Diagonal Bafm No.5
Sincelejo, Sucre, Colombia
Tel. 57-52) 841697 Fax: 812876
Otra dirección:
Calle 33C #19A-34, Los Alpes
Corozal, Sucre

Arnulfo Antonio Sierra
C/o Eusebio Ortega
Gerente
Cooperativa COINPROSAN
Manzana 49 Lote 10, Barrio El Cortijo
Sampues, Sucre, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-52) 805620

Norela Avila Castafieda
Jefe Investigacion y Desarrollo
CONGELAGRO
Transv. 64A No. 42B- 70 Sur
Santafe de Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-1) 7240063 Fax: 7112588

Adriana Cuervo de Forero
Consultora
Corporacion Colombia Intemacional, CCI
Calle 16 No. 6-66 Piso 60.
Santafe de Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-1) 2834988 Fax: 2867659
Ernail: [email protected]

Gerard O'Brien
Investigador y Profesor
Dpto. Ciencia y Tecnologia de Alimentos
UNIVALLE
A.A. 25360, Cali, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-2) 3307285 Fax: 3334907
Email: [email protected]

Martin A. Moreno
Profesor
Dpto. Disefio y Procesos de Manufacturas
UNIVALLE
Cali, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-2) 3334899-3212133 Fax: 3392086-3302479
Email: [email protected]

Julian Buitrago
Consultor, Nutricionista Animal
Asociacion Americana de Soya
NUTRIBAL
Calle 48 Norte No. 3CN-09
Cali, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-2) 6653627 Fax: 6655248

Juan Pablo Bedoya Florez
Unidad Desarrollo Empresarial Fundacion Carvajal
Calle 2a. Oeste No. 24F- 73
Cali, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-2) 5542949 Fax: 5542892
Email: [email protected]

John Jairo Lopez
Jefe de Produccion
Arango Cano & Cia
Carrera 5a. Calle 11 Esquina
La Tebaida, Quindio, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-67) 542451 Fax: 542291 +

Nestor Tous España
Evaluador de Proyectos
Fondo EMPRENDER
Ministro de Agricultura
Carrera 10 No. 16-82
Santafe de Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-1) 2861012 Fax 2861012

Fernando Franco Ruiz
Gerente Operativo
Fondo EMPRENDER
Ministro de Agricultura
Carrera 10 No. 16-82 Piso 10, Of. 1005
Santafe de Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-1) 2861012 Fax 2861012

Noe Prieto
Presidente del Consejo de Administracion
COOAPRACAUCA
Santander de Quilichao, Cauca, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-28) 292242

Jose Felix Montoya
Coordinador Regional Programa de Modemizacion y Diversificacion
IICA- Ministerio de Agricultura
A.A. 487
Carrera 30 No. 23A-13
Sincelejo, Sucre, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-52) 804071 Fax: 804071 Fondo EMPRENDER

Ministro de Agricultura
Carrera 10 No. 16-82
Santafe de Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-1) 2861012 Fax 2861012

Luis A. Oliva
Gerente
CORPOTUNIA
A.A. 1902
Popayán, Cauca, COLOMBIA
Tel. (57-28) 250233/6

Canada

Truman P. Phillips
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics & Business
University of Guelph
25 Latenda Place
Guelph, Ontario
Canada N1G 3B8
Telefax: (1-519) 8239241
Email: [email protected]

Costa Rica

Geovanni Carmona Villalobos
Direccion Calidad Agricola
Consejo Nacional de Produccion
200 m Este y 75 m Sur Gimnasio Nacional
P.O. Box 2205-1000
San Jose, COSTA RlCA
Tel. (506) 2579355 Fax 2332058
Email: [email protected]

Cuba

Sergio Rodriguez
INIVIT
Apartado 6
Santo Domingo, Villa Clara, CUBA
Tel: (53) 42344/42103 Fax: 42201
E-Mail: [email protected]

Ecuador

Henan Humberto Caballero Vera
UATAPPY
Calle 26 de Sept. Puente Chile #103
Portoviejo - Manabi, ECUADOR
Tel: (593-5) 635707 Fax: 639830

Solanda Elina Intriago
Gereente AT APY -San Vicente Calderon
Portoviejo- Ecuador
Tel. (593-5) 637240

France

Guy Henry
SAR-PROAMYL/CIRAD
73, Rue J.F. Breton, BP 5035
34090 Montpellier, Cedex 1, France
Tel. (33-467) 615752 Fax: 611223
Email: [email protected]

Kenya

John Lynam
Rockefeller Foundation
P.O. Box 47543
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel. (254-2) 228061 Fax: 218840
Email: [email protected]

Mexico

Raul Moreno
Consultor
Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agricola FIDA
Apdo. 281-6151, Sta. Ana 2000
San Jose, COSTA RICA
Tel. (506) 2828927..
Email: [email protected]

Netherlands

Richard Visser
Department of Plant Breeding
Wageningen Agricultural University
P.O. Box 386
Lawickse Allee 166
6700 AJ. Wageningen, Netherlands
Tel. (31-317) 482836 Fax: 483457
Email: richard. [email protected]

Klaas Tamminga
DCO/OZ/BT, DGIS,
PO Box 20061
2500 EB The Hague, THE NETHERLANDS
Tel: (31-70) 3485412 Fax: 3485888
Email: [email protected]

Nicaragua

Cristobal Gustavo Aviles Lopez
Presidente
Asociacion de Comites Comarcales
Facultad de Derecho 125 vs al N.
Leon, NICARAGUA
Tel. (505-2) 3117015

Omar Blanco Beteta, PROCADAE
Asesor de Proyectos
Techno-serve
Proyecto PROCADAE
De la Iglesia "Recoleccion" ½ crs abajo "Leon"
Managua, NICARAGUA
Tel. (505-2) 3113209

United Kingdom

Graham Henshaw
School of Biology & Biochemistry
University of Bath
Claverton Down, Bath
BA2 7 A Y, United Kingdom
Tel. (44-1225) 826826 Fax: 826779 Email: [email protected]

Nigel Poulter
ISTRC
Programme Manager
International Division
NRI, Natural Resources Institute
Central A venue, Chatham Maritime
Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB United Kingdom
Tel. (44-1634) 883572 Fax: 883388
Email: nigel.poulter@.,nri.org

Venezuela

Rafael Laberry
Agropecuaria Mandioca, C.A
Carretera Nacional
Maturin- Temblador Km 95
Temblador-Monagas, VENEZUELA
Tel: (58-87) 921113 Fax: 921112
Email: [email protected]

Uganda

George William Otim-Nape
Leader, National Root Crop Program
NAARI-Root Crops Department
NARO
P.O. Box 7084
Kampala, UGANDA
Tel. (256-41) 21047 Fax: 20115
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

Thailand

Montri Chulavatnatol
Professor of Biochemistry
Faculty of Science Rama 6 Road Mahidol University
Rajthevi, Bangkok 10400, Thailand+
Tel. (66-2) 2455195 Fax: 2480375
Email: [email protected]

3: Notes of two feedback sessions on the Global Cassava Strategy Regional Review of Latin America and the Caribbean

CBN Regional Planning Meeting, Pirenopolis, Brazil, 17-18 March 1998
Coordination & notes by Dr. Guy Henry, ClRAD, France

As part of the Global Cassava Strategy (GCS), a regional cassava review for LAC was written in 1997, by Hershey, Henry, Best & Iglesias, titled "Cassava in Latin America and the Caribbean: Resources for Global Development". On the occasion of the CBN Regional Planning meeting, this document (in Spanish) was distributed, presented and discussed. The meeting was attended by Latin representatives of fanner groups, processors, industrialists, NGO's, and national, regional and international R&D institutes. The following are the combined notes of two feedback sessions on the document. The first session was on general clarifications and comments. The second session was guided by a set of 7 discussion provoking questions:

(1) That the document should include a discussion about the potential of cassava leaf utilization for human consumption. Also, the possibilities for cassava based alcohol manufacturing for pharmaceutical industries ought to be mentioned.

(2) Research needs to react to market opportunities, but at the same time the results of research can open new market opportunities. Furthemore, cassava producers need to be better integrated to what the market dictates.

(3) Colombian representatives argued that the cassava sector needs government intervention regarding protective producer price bands and/or minimum support prices.

(4) Most attendants expressed their conviction that dried cassava (animal feed) and cassava starches are the best future market opportunities. However, there seemed to be a consensus that the industry scale differs: large industry for native and modified starches, and small to medium scale industry for sour starch (sun-dried). Paraguay mentioned that the fresh market has additional potential; for example, in Buenos Aires live 1 + million Paraguayans who demand their traditional fresh cassava. There is a lack of integration between producers and consumers to realize the potential of this market.

(5) Participants agreed in general, that cassava not only has a future potential, but that in the past, cassava has already played a very important role regarding food security and income generation.

(6) Large scale commercial cassava production in S Brazil is currently considered as a good economic option vis-à-vis alternative crops; however, the major problem is availability of technology and its transfer to fanners. This was later picked up again, when a demand was expressed for production mechanization in order to reduce per unit production costs.

(7) All small fanners' representatives and most researchers were adamant about their ' conviction that cassava reduces poverty and not that cassava induces poverty. The Paraguay representative stated that "a Paraguayan fanner without cassava implies absolute poverty and hunger; with cassava, he will always survive and be able to feed his family".

(8) Especially in Brazil, a clear distinction between different levels, scales and intensity of cassava production systems has to be made. The NE fanner cannot be compared with the Parana farmer. Hence, for the different Brazilian cassava systems there are different needs, opportunities and potential technological interventions. This needs to be more recognized!

(9) Regarding the issue of cassava production versus environmental degradation, it was concluded that it is not cassava that causes erosion or soil depletion, but rather the management system, irrespective of the kinds of crops.

(10) The meeting was in agreement about the importance of the role of the private sector in the development of the cassava sector. In a broader context, this relates to all pertinent stakeholders of the sector.

(11) Additional discussion focused again on the need for better information diffusion of available cassava technologies on the one hand, and market/product information on the other hand. The key issue became the need for better information.

4: Outcome of Working Group Session 1

Summary of the replies to the first question

Group 1, formed entirely by participants from Colombia, answered that the word "can" should be replaced by "should", on both two occasions. Furthermore, they suggest that the fact that cassava constitutes a low-cost, dietary alternative for urban populations should be highlighted.

Group 2 (Brazil and Venezuela) answered that cassava is already an agent of change in rural areas and that the vision, instead of posing the role of cassava as something feasible, should simply affirm its role because that's what happening. The vision should consider the future, in the sense of further enhancing the role currently played by cassava and not treating it as just a theoretical possibility. The Group also commented that it really involves "agroindustrial development" and not, generically, "industrial development", which is a very broad concept. The Group believes that the phrase "increase the income of entrepreneurs" should be eliminated and replaced by "increase incomes and the standard of living".

Group 3 answered that the vision is appropriate, but that "cassava is an efficient way to use natural and human resources" should be added. In addition, cassava should also be considered as a means to substitute imports and develop exportable items. Finally, the Group suggests that the proposed vision should mention that cassava should participate in different food production chains.

Relative importance of cassava development in Colombia.

3 = Very important; 2 = Important; 1 = Less important; 0 = Do not know

Replies referring to the environment relate to the relative role played by cassava in relation to that of other crops. The replies referring to economic development in Colombia's Atlantic Coast region and Eastern Plains relate to future potential.

Relative importance of cassava development in Brazil.

Relative importance of cassava development in Venezuela.

Relative importance of cassava development in the region: Central America, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador

5: Outcome of Working Group Session 2

Participants were asked to identify the main growth markets for cassava in their countries/regions; indicate the requisites to make use of that market opportunity; and specify the main constraints to be overcome within that market. Participants were also asked to identify catalysts and main principal actors involved in the development process.

Summary of replies to this question

Group 1. Opportunities, constraints, catalysts, and actors: Colombia

This Group also considers that, in general terms and for all Colombia, major constraints regarding cassava that should be solved are seed availability, status of public order, access to credit, cassava business organizations, permanent offer, access to information, and infrastructure.

Group 2. Opportunities, limitations, catalysts, and actors: Brazil

Group 2. Opportunities, limitations, catalysts, and actors: Venezuela

Group 3. Opportunities, limitations, catalysts, and actors: Central America, without Costa Rica

Group 3. Opportunities, limitations, catalysts, and actors: Costa Rica

Group 3. Opportunities, limitations, catalysts, and actors: Ecuador

Group 4. Opportunities, limitations, catalysts, and actors: Cuba