New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in

Development Assistance: Agriculture,

Natural Resources, and Environment

September 1991

OTA-BP-F-71

NTIS order #PB91-220038
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in

Development Assistance, OTA-BP-F-71 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

September 1991).

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN O-16 -035305-X
Foreword

U.S. universities and the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) have along

history of collaboration in development assistance, and of frustration with aspects of their

relationship. Collaboration has been based on mutual recognition of the need to access the

broad range of U.S. intellectual resources to help address developing country problems; the

shared frustration has been based on mutually perceived shortcomings in collaborative efforts.

Numerous factors contributed to U.S. university/AID conflicts, including different approaches

to development assistance, differing bureaucratic styles, mistrust of each other’s commitment

and/or technical capabilities, and intrusion of politics into some aspects of development aid.

New opportunities for U.S. university involvement in foreign development assistance,

however, are arising from new initiatives in AID and in other development assistance

organizations. AID’s growing emphasis on sustainable agriculture, natural resource management, and maintenance or improvement of environmental quality offers U.S. universities new

areas of specialization and, thus, fresh areas of participation in development assistance.

Intensifying efforts to achieve mutual benefits from development assistance for developing

countries and the United States also offers U.S. universities involvement in ‘‘second

generation” development projects.

In addition, AID and U.S. universities are developing new, multi-institutional collaborative

relationships involving a wide sphere of U.S. universities, private sector organizations, and

Federal agencies. Benefits of such expanded collaboration may include: potential for

increased university participation in development assistance, economic and strategic

advantages of pooling knowledge and resources and of sharing risks and costs, the possibility

of garnering increased political support for university involvement in development assistance,

and broadening educational opportunities for U.S. and developing country students.

The House Committees on Foreign Affairs and Science, Space and Technology requested

the Office of Technology Assessment to review the constraints and opportunities to U.S.

university involvement in foreign development assistance related to agriculture, natural

resource management, and protection of environmental quality. The Subcommittee on

International Economic Policy, Trade, Oceans, and Environment of the Senate Foreign Affairs

Committee and Senator Tim Wirth supported that request. This background paper discusses

the legacy of 40 years of U.S. university/AID collaboration, and examines new opportunities

for U.S. university participation in development assistance.

OTA greatly appreciates the contributions of workshop participants assembled for the

study, authors of contracted papers, and reviewers of draft materials. We are especially

grateful for the time and effort donated by representatives of universities, private

organizations, and Federal agencies who provided materials and information to keep OTA

informed on the ever-changing relationship between U.S. universities and AID. As with all

OTA studies, the content of the report is the sole responsibility of OTA.

u JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

,..

Ill
Workshop Participants—U.S. Universities and Foreign Aid:

Technical Assistance for Agriculture, Natural

Resources, and Environment

March 23-24,1989

Kenneth Shapiro, Chair

International Agricultural Programs

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

William Bentley

Development Studies Center Winrock International

Morrilton, AR

Nancy Blanks

The Center for PVO/University Collaboration

in Development

Western Carolina University

Cullowhee, NC

William Burch

Tropical Research Institute

Yale University

New Haven, CT’

Richard Cobb

Bureau for Asia and Near East

Agency for International Development

Washington, DC

Spires Constantinides

International Center for Marine Resources

Development

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, RI

Don Dweyer

Department of Animal and Range

Sciences

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, NM

Francille Firebaugh

College of Human Ecology

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

William Furtick

Bureau for Science and Technology

Agency for International Development

Washington, DC

James Henson

International Program Development

Washington State University

Pullman, WA

Lance Jepson

Bureau for Africa

Agency for International Development

Washington, DC

James Lowenthal

Bureau for Asia and Near East

Agency for International Development

Washington, DC

Lynn Pesson

Board for International Food and

Agricultural Development

Agency for International Development

Washington, DC

Hugh Popenoe

International programs

Center for Tropical Agriculture

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL

Richard Robbins

International Agriculture Programs

North Carolina A&T State University

Greensboro, NC

Stephen Wingert

Bureau for Latin America and

the Caribbean

Agency for International Development

Washington, DC

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants.

The workshop participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full

responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
OTA Project Staff-New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in

Development Assistance: Agriculture, Natural

Resources, and Environment

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Alison L. Hess, Project Director]

Edward F. MacDonald, Project Director

Allen Ruby, Research Analyst

Nina Goldman, Research Assistant

Alice Skelsey, Editor

Administrative and Support Staff

N. Ellis Lewis, Office Administrator

Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary

Carolyn Swam, PC Specialist

I

From October 1990 to May 1991

2From October 1988 to September 1990
List of Acronyms

AID —Agency for International Development

AID/ANE —Bureau for Asia and the Near East, AID

AID/BA —Bureau for Africa, AID

AID/LAC —Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, AID

AID/PPC —Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, AID

AID/RUR -office of Research and University Relations, AID

AID/S&T —Bureau for Science and Technology, AID

ARDN —Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition fictional budgeting account (AID)

AUSUDIAP —Association of U.S. University Directors of International Agricultural Programs

BIFAD —Board for International Food and Agricultural Development

CGIAR -Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CRSP -Collaborative Research Support Program

DFA —Development Fund for Africa

ENR —Environment and Natural Resources

ESF —Economic Support Fund

HBCU —Historically Black Colleges and Universities

IAPI —International Agriculture Program Initiative

IARC —International Agricultural Research Centers

IQC —Indefinite Quantity Contract

JCARD —Joint Committee on Agricultural Research and Development

JCC —Joint Career Corps

JMOU/PSG —Joint Memorandum of Understanding/Program Support Grant

LDC —lesser developed country

MUCIA —Midwest University Consortium for International Activities

NARS —National Agriculture Research Systems

NASULGC —National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges

NGO —Nongovernmental Organization

NRMs —Natural Resources Management Project

OICD -Organization for International Cooperation in Development

PVO —Private Voluntary Organization

SECID -South East Consortium for International Development

USDA —U.S. Department of Agriculture

vi
Contents

Page

Highlights *.. ... ... *.. ... ... .*. .*. *.. ... ... ... ... **** *0. ... ... .**. .**. .*. ..** **. m.. 1

Chapter l. Introduction /

● ******** ********. ● ***.***** . . . . . . . . . . ● ******. 3

HOW AID HAS USED UNIVERSITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Research and Technology Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Extension and Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

LDC Institution Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Capacity Building of U.S. Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

RECENT TRENDS IN AID/UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chapter 2. Trends in AID Policies, Programs, and Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

AID STRATEGIES FOR AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES,

AND ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

General AID Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

AID Regional Bureau Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Bureau for Science & Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

TRENDS IN AID FUNDING AND PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Program Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chapter 3. Perceived Conflicts in the AID/University Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

HISTORICAL CONFLICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

RECURRENT CONFLICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Subordination of Development Assistance Objectives to Foreign Policy Objectives . . 26

Shifting AID Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Communication Constraints .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Conflicting Personnel Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Conflicting Development Assistance Timeframes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

AID Preference for Open Contract Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 4. Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development

Assistance ... *.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .**. .*. ... ... ***ee. ****e 33

COLLABORATION AMONG UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER

DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

University-to-University Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

University and International Agricultural Research Center Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

University/Private Sector Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

University/Agribusiness Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

University/Federal Agency Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR UNIVERSITY PARTICIPATION IN

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Second Generation Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix A: Title XII: Famine Prevention and Freedom From Hunger . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix B: Programs Supporting Research and Technology Generation . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix C: AID Regional Bureau Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Appendix D: University Consortia: Purpose and Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Appendix E: Aid to Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit . . . . . . . . . . . 67

vii
Appendix F: References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Appendix G: Contract Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Boxes

Box Page

l-A. Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act Concerning International Environmental

Protection and Natural Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

l-B. AID/U.S. University Collaboration Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2-A. The Role of U.S. Universities Under the New AID Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2-B. Funding for Environmental and Natural Resources Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3-A. Building a Domestic Agricultural Constituency for International Agricultural Development . . . . . . . 30

4-A. Current legislative Authority for USDA Support of International Agricultural Research,

Extension, and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figures

Figure Page

1-1. AID Supported R&D at U.S. Universities by Field of Study, Fiscal Year 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1-2. Title XII-Type Projects by Year of Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3-1. U.S. Farmer Views on Whether the United States Should Assist Developing Countries

Increase Their Agricultural Productivity and Trade Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Tables

Table Page

1-1. Chronology of University Involvement in International Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1-2. AID-Supported U.S. University and Host Country Organization Agricultural

Institution Building Projects Initiated Since 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1-3. AID/University Programs and Projects by Development Sector, Region, and

Amount Cumulative, 1960-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2-1. Project Portfolio Categories of Office of Agriculture’s Activities, 1977-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2-2. Percent Distribution of ARDN-Type Obligations by Purpose Category for AID as a

Whole and by Regional and Central Bureaus, 1984-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4-1. Primary Foci of International Agricultural Research Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

B-1. Universities Participating in AID’s Collaborative Research Support Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

. . . WI
Highlights

U.S. universities and the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) have had along history of

collaboration in development assistance, and of

frustration with aspects of their relationship. Collaboration has been based on mutual recognition of the

need to access a broad range of U.S. intellectual

resources to help mitigate developing-country problems; the shared frustration has been based on

mutually perceived lack of success in collaborative

efforts. Numerous factors have contributed to that

frustration, including different approaches to development aid (AID customarily emphasizes short-term

project implementation, universities excel at longterm institution building and research), different

bureaucratic styles (centralized universities v. a

decentralized, hierarchical AID), distrust in each

other’s commitment and/or technical capabilities,

and the intrusion of politics into some aspects of

development aid.

U.S. university participation in AID development

assistance ventures has declined since passage of the

Title XII program in 1975 such that U.S. university

entitlement effectively is ended. That program

authorized AID to direct resources to building U.S.

university capacity to support and carry out AID

agriculture projects. The decline in Title XII projects

is commonly attributed to:

●

●

●

●

decline in AID involvement in large institutionbuilding activities,

decline in the Agriculture, Rural Development,

and Nutrition budget, much of which initially

was directed to U.S. agricultural university

project collaboration, and earmarking of those

funds for other purposes,

growing Mission management of programs

involving private sector development and marketing elements for which private sector contractors tend to be preferred, and

growing preference by AID and host country

project leadership for fully open competition in

procurement of services.

Additional factors constrain increasing university

involvement in development assistance through

current AID/university collaborative activities. Declining international development assistance budgets are curbing AID programs in general and

university involvement in particular. AID’s decentralized bureaucracy, frequent policy shifts, and

rapid staff turnovers hinder university involvement,

whereas university tenure and reward policies are

commonly incompatible with AID priorities, such as

applied research. Some domestic constituents of

land-grant colleges continue to resist faculty participation in foreign aid projects. Time frames are

mismatched: the academic year does not conform to

AID’s open, flexible schedules. Perhaps the most

important factors hindering U.S. university involvement in AID programs today are the new trends

toward fewer projects, increased project size, and

increased reliance on nonuniversity players.

New opportunities for U.S. university involvement in foreign development assistance, however,

are arising from new initiatives in AID, and in other

development assistance organizations. Reorganization and redirection of AID’s programs was announced by AID Administrator Ronald W. Roskens

in early 1991, citing concerns with the U.S. budget

deficit, increasing scarcity of foreign assistance

funds, and proliferating legislative objectives. The

new mission is to “do fewer things, and do them

very well.’ To achieve this, four strategic initiatives

were

1.

2.

3.

4.

A

proposed to focus AID activities:

The Democracy Initiative: “to help promote

and consolidate democracy as the legitimate

organizing principle for political systems

throughout the world.”

The Partnership for Business and Development: “to engage American private sector

participation in the effort to develop and

sustain free-market principles and broad-based

economic growth in developing countries. ’

Family and Development: “to use the family . . . as a starting point for analysis of what

people need, how they use the resources they

have, and as an organizing principle for

mobilizing the energy of people to create

progress.”

Environment: “to guide the Agency’s environmental and natural resource interventions to

areas where . . . assistance will have the greatest impact. ”

new AID emphasis on sustainable agriculture,

natural resource management, and maintenance or

improvement of environmental quality differs from

the historical focus of U.S. agricultural (land-grant)

universities largely on increasing food production

and, thus, offers them new areas of specialization.

New efforts to achieve mutual benefits from devel-

–l-
2 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

opment assistance for developing countries and the

United States also open U.S. universities to involvement in “second generation” development projects

that direct new assistance to lesser developed

country (LDC) organizations from which AID

assistance had formerly been withdrawn.

In addition, AID is focusing its affiliations with

development assistance organizations, including

U.S. universities, to encourage multi-institutional

collaborative relationships. Benefits of collaboration include potential for increased university participation in development assistance, economic and

strategic advantages of pooling knowledge and

resources and of sharing risks and costs, the possibility of garnering increased political support for

university involvement in development assistance,

and broadening educational opportunities for U.S.

and LDC students. LDCs have reacted favorably to

past collaborative efforts.

U.S. universities have long collaborated with each

other, commonly in university consortia. Potential

exists, however, for additional collaboration among

universities and between universities and other

actors in development assistance community (e.g.,

International Agricultural Research Centers, private

sector organizations). Further, U.S. universities may

tap into the growing international efforts of other

Federal agencies, such as those of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Realizing the full potential for

U.S. university participation in U.S. development

assistance will require systematic collaboration

among all those involved.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Problems of bureaucracy, distrust, and misunderstanding have beleaguered interactions between the

U.S. Agency for International Development (AID)

and U.S. universities since the inception of a formal

partnership 40 years ago. In spite of these difficulties, some shared activities have proved successful,

thus raising hopes that working relationships could

be improved for both parties and that the ultimate

beneficiaries-developing countries--could benefit

from this relationship as originally intended. The

question today is what types of relationships might

encourage application of U.S. university intellectual

resources to developing country problems.l

This report focuses on university/AID interactions in activities directly related to agriculture,

natural resources, and the environment.2 Of these

three areas, agriculture has received the lion’s share

of attention and funding over the years. However,

agriculture only recently has been recognized as one

aspect of natural resource use and management.

Further, those natural resources that support and

underpin agriculture are components of a larger

system referred to generally as the “environment.”

Recognition of these concepts is evidenced by

expanding legislative language (see box l-A), new

AID initiatives, and by the growth in development

assistance funding for natural resource and environment programs and projects.

One symptom of the strained relationship between AID and universities that periodically surfaces is the inappropriate application of science and

technology to development problems. Matching

technology to developing country problems in

agriculture, natural resources, and the environment,

and achieving the desired results is an extremely

difficult task [111; see app. E], and failures commonly are highlighted in the media. However,

focusing attention on flawed past development

attempts probably is less constructive than addressing opportunities for expanding and improving use

of university resources to support foreign development assistance efforts.

New opportunities for U.S. university participation in development assistance maybe found in two

major areas: expanding collaborative efforts to

include organizations other than the U.S. Agency for

International Development, and developing expertise in areas that support new development assistance initiatives. Still, lying behind any new endeavors will be an instructive history of problematic

relationships between U.S. universities and AID.

HOW AID HAS USED

UNIVERSITIES

The Agency for International Development and

U.S. universities have collaborated for the past 40

years (see table l-l), and various contractual and

program mechanisms have been designed to facilitate their work together (see box l-B). Since

initiation of this collaborative association, AID

efforts primarily have involved U.S. land-grant

universities.

In 1975, Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act,

“Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger”

(see app. A), focused the joint activities of AID and

U.S. universities on food and agriculture-areas that

universities working in development assistance

traditionally emphasized. Passage of Title XII authorized long-term funding by AID to support

continuing university involvement in development

assistance. Title XII allowed universities increased

input in assistance program planning, and promoted

cooperative relationships between U.S. and developing country institutions [45].

Title XII also created the Board for International

Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD3), to

serve as an intermediary between AID and universities. An important result of Title XII was reemphasis

of U.S. university research aimed at increasing the

I~omtion defiv~ from ~ OTA workshop on us. universities an(i Foreign Aid: Technical Assistance for A@cdtuw Na~ Reso~ce& ~d

Environment, Mar. 23 and 24, 1989, is incorporated in the text of this background paper as geneq information; participants have not been cited

individually.

@or the purposes of this Background Paper, agriculture shall be defined to comprise all cropping and livestock management systems, including

aquacuhre, agroforestry, and forestry.

Sunderthe l~rarga~tionof MD, ~o%~mtionwwrem~ ~eBomd for~te~tio~ Food and AgrictitumlDevelopment and Economic

Cooperation (BIEADEC). However, it shall be referred to as BIFAD in this report.

–3–
4 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Box I-A—Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act Concerning International Environmental

Protection and Natural Resource Management

Congressional concern with international environmental protection has increased markedly over the last

decade. U.S. foreign assistance programs began incorporating environmental concerns in the late 1970s when a

series of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act defined the Agency for International Development’s (AID)

mandate in the area of environment and natural resource management. These amendments gave specific emphasis

to promoting efforts to halt tropical deforestation and maintain biological diversity.

1977: Amended sec. 102 to add environment and natural resources to areas AID should address.

1977; Added new sec. 118 on “Environment and Natural Resources,” authorizing AID to fortify “the capacity

of less developed countries to protect and manage their environment and natural resources” and to

“maintain and where possible restore the land, vegetation, water, wildlife, and other resources upon

which depend economic growth and well-being, especially that of the poor. ”

1978: Amended sec. 118, requiring AID to carry out country studies in the developing world to identify natural

resource problems and institutional mechanisms to solve them.

1978/79: Amended sec. 103 to emphasize forestry assistance, acknowledging that deforestation, with its attendant

species loss, constitutes an impediment to meeting basic human needs in developing countries.

1981: Amended sec. 118, making AID’s environmental review regulations part of the Act, and added a

subsection (d), expressing that ‘Congress is particularly concerned about the continuing and accelerating

alteration, destruction, and loss of tropical forests in developing countries.” Instructs the President to take

these concerns into account in formulating policies and programs relating to bilateral and multilateral

assistance and to private sector activities in the developing world.

1983: Added sec. 119, directing AID in consultation with other Federal agencies to develop a U.S. strategy on

conserving biological diversity in developing countries.

1986: Redesignated sec. 118 as sec. 117 with the new sec. 118 addressing tropical forest issues. Amended sec.

119, which among other things earmarked money for biological diversity projects.

1988: Directed AID to monitor the economic and environmental soundness of multilateral development bank

programs and projects.

1990: Directed AID to increase the number and expertise of staff in environmental and natural resources fields,

and to focus efforts on LDCs projected to produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases to the

atmosphere.

SOURCE: Adapted in part from B. Rich and S. Schwartzmann, “The Role of Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity

In-Situ in Developing Countries,” contractor paper for the Office of Technology Assessment report on Technologies To Maintain

Biological Diversity, OTA-F-330, March 1987.

world’s food supply, mainly through the creation of By statute and regulation Congress requires AID

Collaborative Research Support Programs. Today, to monitor and report to Congress on progress

such research remains central to university involve- toward achieving the Nation’s development assistment in development assistance [45]. ance objectives. AID spends about $11 million

Although Title XII initially increased university

activity abroad, the effect was short-lived. The

program has not achieved its potential for involving

U.S. universities in development assistance and for

creating the type of partnership between AID and

universities envisioned by the amendment creators

[1 18]. The majority of the work now carried out by

universities for AID Fits into five general areas:

annually conducting about 250 evaluations, many of

which relate to U.S. university performance in

development assistance activities [59]. Universities

themselves and outside organizations also conduct

evaluations, audits, investigations, and reviews.

These evaluations, however, may offer little insight

into the effectiveness of university participation in

development assistance activities. Few evaluations

have been performed in certain areas, such as the

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

research and technology generation, impacts of technology transfer, extension, or trainextension and technology transfer, ing. surveys containing the opinions of AID and

education and training, university personnel account for much of the inforinstitution building, and mation available to AID on university relations; the

U.S. university capacity strengthening. most prominent of these are the 1986 ‘‘Mcpherson
Chapter 1--Introduction . 5

Table l-l-Chronology of University Involvement in international

Development Assistance

Date Activity

1800s-1940s

-- . . . . . . . . . - . . .

1949

1949

1950

1950s

1961

early 1960s

1966

1973

1970-1975

1975

1980

1983

1988

1990

Individual, sporadic efforts based on personal affiliations between U.S. university

personnel and colleagues abroad; numerous foreign students attend U.S.

universities

President Truman calls for a U.S. foreign assistance program in his inaugural address

that will “make the benefits of our scientific advance and industrial progress

available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas”

Chairman of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

commits the land-grant community to the program, identifying agricultural

development as a primary U.S. strength and foreign development assistance need.

Congress creates the “Point Four Program,” administered by the Technical

Cooperation Administration, thus initiating the first formal overseas development

assistance program. Based on the successful Marshall Plan, the Point Four

Program centered on directly transplanting U.S. technology in LDCS.

United States supports 26 alliances between universities in the United States and

lesser developed countries (LDCS)

Congress passes the omnibus Foreign Assistance Act (Public Law 87-195) which

declares the “encouragement and sustained support of the people of developing

countries in their efforts to acquire the knowledge and resources essential to

development and to build the economic, political, and social institutions which will

improve the quality of their lives” a principal foreign policy objective.

Emphasis shifts from university alliances to “institution building:” training LDC

students at U.S. universities; providing U.S. university faculty to research, teach,

and advise at LDC institutions; and supplying LDC institutions with materials and

equipment.

Congress enacts section 211 (d) of the Foreign Assistance Act (Public Law 89-583)

allotting $10 million for research and educational institutions to strengthen their

programs (“capacity-building”) concerned with economic and social development

of LDCS.

Congress enacts the “New Directions” amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

(Public Law 93-189), emphasizing assistance to the “poorest of the poor,” and

de-emphasizing the role of universities in development assistance.

AlD-funded contracts to universities drop by 50 percent

Congress creates Title XII “Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger” in

amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act (Public Law 94-161), calling for

development of a formal partnership between AID and U.S. universities in activities

related to food and agriculture. The Board for International Food and Agricultural

Development (BIFAD) was created to intermediate between land-grant universities

and AID.

AID creates the Office of Forestry, Environment, and Natural Resources.

AID prepares policy determinations on “Environment and Natural Resources Aspects

of Development Assistance” and releases a “Statement on Environment and

Sustainable Development.”

AID prepares an updated policy paper on “Environment and Natural Resources” that

became the basis for a new Environmental Initiative proposed under the 1990

restructuring of the agency.

AID announces an agency reorganization, including creation of a Center for University

Cooperation in Development administered by the Bureau for Science and

Technology, that consolidates the Board for International Food and Agricultural

Development and the Office of Research and University Relations. AID also defines

anew mission, embodied in four development initiatives: 1) Democracy Initiative; 2)

Partnership for Business and Development; 3) Family and Development, including

food security; and 4) Environment Initiative.

NOTE: See U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs and U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign

Relations, “Joint Committee Print-Legislation on Foreign Relations Through 1979,” February 1980, for a

detailed description of the early evolution of U.S. foreign assistance legislation. For a detailed history of

AlD/university collaboration, see Jordahl, B., “Universities and AID: A History of Partnership and Problems in

Their Collaboration to Provide Technical Assistance for Developing Countries,” Master’s Thesis, University of

Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, March 1991.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991
6 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

1 Box 1-B—AID/U.S. University Collaboration Mechanisms

Several mechanisms have been developed over the years to bind the Agency for International Development

(AID) and universities together in formal relationships. AID uses universities primarilyto implement AID-designed

projects, specifying in detail the activities that need to be carried out and the expected end results. Most university

collaboration with AID is devoted to research and project implementation, however AID also has developed several

specialized mechanisms to involve U.S. universities in other stages of AID project development.

Three central mechanisms used by AID-contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements-establish different

types of obligations and contributions required of each party in the partnership. Contracts allow AID the highest

degree of operational control. Grants, in theory, leave program decisions to the recipient. Cooperative agreements

distribute control between both parties. The nature of an agreement between a university and AID determines to a

large extent the degree of oversight provided by AID as well as the amount of freedom and flexibility allowed the

university. Both factors seem to affect the level of satisfaction of AID and universities in the relationship.

Three-fourths of university business with AID occurs under the framework of contracts. Mission directors, who

are under heavy accountability pressure from Congress and AID/Washington, tend to rely on these “enforceable

instruments” over grants and cooperative agreements that do not necessarily provide Mission directors with the

ability to enforce effective performance by universities, Mission directors also choose to work under contracts when

guidelines do not deem grants or cooperative agreements the most appropriate mechanisms for carrying out the

activity.

AID formalizes the remaining one-fourth of its business agreements with universities under grants and

cooperative agreements. Both of these mechanisms--used mainly by AID’s Bureau for Science and Technology

(AID/S&T) for research services—are forms of assistance to an organization. AID/S&T directs approximately most

of its agriculture funds to universities through grants, which are the main instrument used by the Collaborative

Research Support Program and the programs of AID/S&T’s Office of Research and University Relations. The bulk

of remaining AID/S&T agricultural activities with universities is carried out under cooperative agreements.

Recipients of grants and cooperative agreements may be required to contribute a specified percentage of

funding to the project to demonstrate their commitment. Cooperative agreements, however, allow AID to participate

in project planning, while grants provide the recipient with more freedom in carrying out the activity and provide

for minimal AID involvement.

Universities seem to prefer the relationships established under grants and cooperative agreements to those

established under contracts because the former allow more flexibility and create more of a partnership or

joint-ventureship between the university and AID. Grants and cooperative agreements do not place the universities

survey” [cf: 52] and recent evaluation of Program

Support Grants [51].

Research and Technology Generation

Research and technology generation have played

varying roles in U.S. foreign assistance programs.

The Point Four program, established under President

Truman, placed heavy emphasis on the United

States’ strength in science and technology (see table

l-l). Although through the 1960s and most of the

1970s research was not the top priority of universities working in development assistance, enactment

of Title XII in 1975 reemphasized university research. Estimated AID funding for agricultural

research and technology generation rose during the

early 1980s, reaching a peak of nearly $200 million

in 1985, and then returned to the level of the early

1980s—approximate1y $130 million annually [59].

AID provided nearly $50 million for research and

technology development at 42 universities in 1988

(see figure l-l).

U.S. universities have participated in research

related to development assistance in several ways

(see app. B). The Collaborative Research Support

Program and the International Agricultural Research

Centers provide forums for scientists, researchers,

and graduate students from U.S. institutions to work

in conjunction with other experts on global issues

affecting development. AID also has generated a

special collaborative program between land-grant

colleges (’ 1862 institutions’ with Historically

Black Colleges and Universities (“ 1890 institutions’ ‘). Moreover, U.S. university faculty work on

AID Mission project research, which usually entails

supporting a national agricultural research organization in the host country.
Chapter I---Jntroduction ● 7

in a typical business arrangement based on demands, results, and payments-an arrangement that at times seems

incompatible with traditional university activities such as education and research, where timeframes can be

unpredictable and results subjective.

Cooperative agreements also are not subject to the same open competition requirements that govern a contract.

Federal Acquisition Regulations require that all goods and services, such as a request for technical assistance, be

procured through a competitive process. Cooperative agreements, however, are governed by the Federal Grants and

Cooperative Agreement Act of 1982 and Office of Management and Budget Circular 110, according them a certain

degree of flexibility in competition requirements. AID requires competition to the “maximum practicable extent”

for grants and cooperative agreements, but the authorized exceptions to this requirement are such that many grants

and cooperative agreements are not allocated competitively [71]. This flexibility has allowed AID and universities

to negotiate a significantly different type of relationship than that obtained through a contract-one that places more

emphasis on partnership and focuses lesson the exchange of services for funding.

Several mechanisms have been developed to involve U.S. universities in various stages of AID project

development, but these are rarely used. The Board on International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD)

promoted the Collaborative Assistance Mode of contracting to involve universities in project design as well as

implementation. In the past 5 years, only 5 projects have been so designated, yet the mechanism remains BIFAD’s

preferred contracting method. Universities and consortia also may enter into Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IQC),

instruments through which universities agree to provide an unspecific quantity of technical services up to a specific

maximum dollar amount. Private firms also may compete for IQCs.

Finally, AID created the Joint Career Corps (JCC) as a means of sharing university technical expertise with

Mission personnel and increasing universities’ familiarity with and knowledge about AID. University personnel

participating in the JCC may devote one-third of their career time to AID and two-thirds to the university by

alternative 4-year stays at their home campus with 2-year AID assignments abroad. The JCC program also has

provisions for a “reverse exchange” program, whereby AID personnel work at universities for specified time

periods, usually l-year assignments. Through these exchanges, AID officials would be able to share their

international knowledge with the university community, reestablish their professional credentials, and broaden their

areas of expertise. Despite its popularity with AID employees, the JCC program has been little promoted and has

generated no long-term relationships [25].

SOURCE: Unless otherwise noted, adapted from John G. Stovall, “’The Role of U.S. Universities in Development Assistance: What Have We

Learned from Experience?” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment August 1989.

AID Bureau for Science & Technology has A growing number of organizations outside the

focused support in recent years for creating ‘‘centers

of excellence’: strengthening a U.S. university

department or institute linked to particular subject

areas or geographical regions. These commonly

consisted of cooperative agreements with universities for a core research program and provision for

Missions to draw on university expertise as needed

for technical services in specialized areas such as

seed technology, aquiculture, post-harvest technology, land tenure, and food security [59]. Some of

these U.S. university centers of excellence have

become world-reknowned in their specialties, playing an important role in acquiring, assimilating, and

analyzing knowledge from around the world and

integrating this information into solutions for developing societies’ problems. As such, they are unique

components of the U.S. and international development assistance community.

university community also have developed strong

research programs relevant to development assistance. While responses to the 1986 McPherson survey

revealed a positive perception among Mission Directors of U.S. universities’ work in research, a large

number of respondants indicated that the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) were

at least equal to U.S. universities in conducting

research [52]. Private firms and research institutes

(e.g., Appropriate Technology International) also

have developed far-reaching research programs.

AID environment and natural resource activities

have focused more on field-project implementation

than on research and institution-building and, therefore, have not meshed as well with U.S. university

strengths. Individual university scientists have conducted most of their developing country environ-
8 ● NeW Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Figure I-l —AID Supported R&D at U.S. Universities by

Field of Study, Fiscal Year 1988 (Total funding=

Medical

science

28.2%

Biological

science*

24.2%

42 universities) -

● includes Biological Science and Environmental Biology.

1

Agricultural

science

38.3%

● *includes Social Science, sociology, and Economics ‘“

SOURCE: National science Foundation, “Federal Support to Universities,

Colleges, and Select Non-Profit Institutions: FY 1988,” NSF

89-325 (Washington, DC: 1989).

mental research under the auspices of non-AID

organizations, such as the National Science Foundation, Smithsonian, World Wildlife Fund, and Missouri Botanical Gardens. Recently, however, AID

and universities have shown increasing interest in

research on environmental and natural resource

issues, potentially expanding opportunities for university involvement in research and technology

generation for development assistance [cf: 62].

Extension and Technology Transfer

Attempts to translate the U.S. land-grant university extension system model to lesser developed

countries (LDCs) have met with numerous difficulties [59]. AID’s support of land-grant style extension

services has declined over the past two decades

because of disappointing results, a desire for rapid

payoffs, and the high costs of supporting large

extension systems. One AID budget data analysis

shows obligations for such extension projects declining from $113 million in 1979 to $18 million in

1989—an 84 percent drop in one decade [96]. Fewer

than 10 current university projects (8 percent of all

current university projects) involve direct AID

support to public sector extension services.

AID has relied on an eclectic approach to technology transfer since the early 1980s, involving the

private sector, mass media communications, and

“innovative approaches to public extension. ” Although AID has given increased attention to technology transfer activities, expanding their funding from

$152 million in 1984 to $218 million in 1989,

university participation in these types of projects is

minimal [59]. AID commonly hires nonuniversity

contractors, including private voluntary organizations, to carry out technology transfer projects.4

Education and Training

A major emphasis of U.S. university participation

in international development assistance has been

training and educating LDC students. Approximately 200,000 LDC students today attend about

2,000 U.S. universities [20]. The preferred fields of

study for foreign students attending U.S. universities

in descending order are:

1. engineering,

2. business management,

3. natural and life sciences,

4. social sciences,

5. humanities, and

6. agriculture [1].

Only 2.8 percent of the 326,300 foreign students

attending U.S. universities in the 1981-82 academic

year were enrolled in agricultural programs [6]. The

percentage of AID-supported students enrolled in

agriculture and natural resource programs is signifi4A ~Went MD review identifies geneti weaknesses in AID’s extension activiti~:

● few innovative and creative extension activities in LDCs and a general overdependence on outdated extension methods,

● lack of contact with LDC farmers and few attempts to work through farmer organizations,

. insufficient contact between extension actors and research organizations,

. failure in tying extension activities to the overall development strategies of the LDCS,

. little practical technology to offer LDC farmers, and

. disregard for the signillcance of women’s roles in extension.

Recommendations from reviewers include: improving communications, coordination% and cooperation among researchers and farmers; improving

the mix of extension methods and complementing traditional one-on-one extension agentlfarmer contacts; and organizing fanmms to help themselves

through various organimations in which farmem participate [13].
Chapter 1--Introduction ● 9

cantly higher, reaching approximately 30 percent in

1988 [103].

U.S. universities participate in training LDC

students through several arrangements. Most foreign

students are supported by personal funds, university

assistantships, and other such arrangements. Some

students enroll in U.S. universities as a part of an

AID project, others do so with AID financial support.

For example, Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSP) provide graduate training for LDC

scientists in fields related to their area of research.

The Sorghum and Millet CRSP provided 77 foreign

students with advanced degree training in areas

related to research of those crops over a 4-year

period [59].

Although the effectiveness of LDC student education and training has not been determined, universities generally are credited with contributing significantly to building up the technical and research

capacity of many LDCs. Thus, the AID Mission

practice of separating training components from

technical components in projects, and AID’s increased reliance on private contractors for student

placements, have emerged as significant points of

contention between U.S. universities and AID.

A recurring criticism of AID/university education

and training focuses on the relevance of the material

taught [cf: 16]. To improve the relevance of U.S.

training of LDC students, thesis research might be

conducted in the home country, preferably in conjunction with specific development projects in the

home countries [59]. In addition, education and

training programs could emphasize training in

operating and modifying tools and techniques to

complement LDC conditions. Such programs should

view farming systems research and development in

the context of small farm size, farm enterprise

diversity, inclement agroecological conditions, and

scarce or costly inputs [16]. Other recommendations

for improving training and education programs

include: eliminating institutional barriers that hinder

LDC student performance, such as inadequate advising programs and inflexible curricula, and increasing the enrollment of women from LDCS in U.S.

university programs [20]. Regular evaluations of

foreign student education and training programs

could lead to improved curricula and opportunities

and help justify the funds invested in their training.

LDC Institution Building

One major task of U.S. universities working in

development assistance has been to help develop

higher education and research institutions in developing countries. Key elements of institution building include: modernization of curricula, development of research programs, creation of extension

activities, and training of new and current faculty.

Institution-building is a long-term process: training and developing a critical mass of faculty can take

10 to 15 years, and developing effective research

programs can take an additional 10 years. Long-term

collaborations in institution building have been

formed by linking a U.S. university or university

consortium with one or more LDC universities, a

government ministry, or a research institute in a

developing nation (see table 1-2). Development of

these “twinning” or “sister university” relationships have facilitated faculty exchange, training, and

other AID-financed support.

One of the largest institution-building projects,

and in quantitative terms perhaps one of the most

successful, linked six U.S. universities to nine State

agricultural universities in India beginning in 1952.

AID spent $31 million over a 20-year period on this

project, which provided at least 1,000 U.S.-trained

Indian students with advanced degrees and sent 337

U.S. faculty members to serve at Indian institutions.

A 1974 evaluation of the India Project found that the

number of Indian staff members with Ph.D.s at

participating universities increased from 251 to

1,234, the number of professors granted advanced

degrees from U.S. universities increased from 140 to

486, and enrollments at the participating Indian

universities more than doubled, rising from 9,790 to

23,213 [45]. The study also revealed that comparatively little progress had been made at unassisted

Indian universities over the same period.

LDC institution building through institutional

linkages commonly is perceived to be U.S. universities’ strongest achievement [cf: 51,52]. However,

surveys have revealed an AID preference to use

private firms to assist in private sector institutionbuilding activities, and private voluntary organizations for local level institution building (e.g., cooperatives and grassroots organizations).

A 1989 study by AID’s Center for Development

Information and Evaluation included examples of

U.S. university efforts in institution building activi-
10 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Table l-2—AID-Supported U.S. University and Host Country Organization

Agricultural Institution Building Projects Initiated Since 1950

Host university U.S. university Dates

Karaj College (Iran) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agricultural College at Aba-Ghraib (Iraq) . . . . . . .

National Institute of Agriculture (Panama). . . . . .

University of The Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alemaya University of Agriculture (Ethiopia) . . . .

Kasesart University (Thailand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seoul National University (Korea) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kabul University (Afghanistan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ataturk University (Turkey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Conception (Chile).. . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Quito and Guayaquil (Ecuador) . . .

Superior Institute of Agriculture (Mexico). . . . . . .

National Agrarian University (Peru) . . . . . . . . . . .

Hariyana Agricultural University (India) . . . . . . . .

University of Udaipur (India) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

G.P. Pant Agricultural University (India). . . . . . . .

Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University (India) . .

Mysore Agricultural University, Bangalore

(India) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orissa University of Agriculture (India) . . . . . . . . .

Bandung Institute of Agriculture (Indonesia) . . . .

Hokkaido University (Japan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of San Carlos (Guatemala) . . . . . . . . .

Peshawar University (Pakistan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bangladesh Agricultural University . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hebrew University (Israel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National College of Agriculture (Cambodia). . . . .

National Taiwan University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chung Hsing University (Taiwan) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National College of Agriculture (Vietnam) . . . . . .

National University of Asuncion (Paraguay) . . . ,.

Punjab University (Pakistan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Universidad de la Republica (Uruguay) . . . . . . . .

Egerton Agricultural College (Kenya) . . . . . . . . . .

Sokoine University of Agriculture (Tanzania). . . .

University of Ceara (Brazil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of San Paulo (Brazil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil) . . . . . . . .

University of Vicosa (Brazil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Costa Rica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ties in 23 countries representing each major developing country region [32]. This assessment found that

a majority of LDC faculty trained by U.S. institutions returned to their host countries and emerged as

university leaders, development of LDC undergraduate training programs led to a considerably expanded supply of trained agriculturalists, and many

LDC universities have been able to develop new

technologies for the agricultural sector.

Weaknesses in the institution-building process

also were identified, among them: overproduction of

Utah State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cornell University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma State University. . . . . . . . . .

Oregon State University. . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of California. . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas A&M University . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas State University. . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MUCIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Massachusetts . . . . . . . . .

University of Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado State University . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas A&M University . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State University of New York. . . . . . . .

University of Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan State University. . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan State University. . . . . . . . . . .

University of Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana State University . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico State University . . . . . . . .

Washington State University . . . . . . . .

Iowa State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia University . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia University . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . .

Purdue University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1951-58

1951-59

1951-57

1952-65

1952-68

1954-60

1962-65

1954-62

1954-57

1954-57

1954-57

1954-57

1954-56

1954-68

1982-88

1955-72

1955-72

1955-72

1956-72

1957-72

1957-72

1957-67

1969-81

1980-85

1957-61

1957-63

1958-64

1958-73

1958-62

1960-63

1960-64

1960-64

1960-67

1960-63

1960-63

1964-67

1961-69

1962-68

1962-72

1962-72

1964-73

1964-73

1964-73

1964-73

1965-70

manpower in LDCs in areas without sufficient jobs

to support the graduates; an insufficient LDC

university role in extension practices; a tendency for

social science programs to lag behind agricultural

and other scientific fields; and a tendency to sever

institutional support prematurely. In addition, the

study recognized that LDC institutions need to form

close linkages with ministries of agriculture in the

developing countries and must cultivate political

and financial support from farm groups, agricultural

fins, and other local organizations [32,59].
Chapter 1--Introduction ● 11

Table l-2-Continued

Host university U.S. university Dates

Superior Institute of Agriculture (Dominican

Republic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Punjab Agricultural University (India) . . . . . . . . . .

Makerere University (Uganda) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ahmadu Bello University (Nigeria) . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Ife (Nigeria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bunda College of Agriculture (Malawi) . . . . . . . . .

Njala Agricultural University (Sierra Leone) . . . . .

Madhya Pradesh Agricultural University (India)..

Maharashtra Agricultural University (India) . . . . .

Institute of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences

(Morocco) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Brazilian Agricultural Faculties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Jordan University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peredenia University (Sri Lanka) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eastern Regional Universities (Indonesia) . . . . . .

Western Regional Universities (Indonesia) . . . . .

Visayas College of Agriculture (Philippines) . . . .

Agriculture University at Dschang (Cameroon) . .

Northwest Frontier Agri. University (Pakistan) . . .

University of Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) . . . . .

University of Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University of Sanaa (Yemen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jamaica College of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

School of Agriculture for Tropics

Humid Regions (Costa Rica) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas A&M University . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1965-73

Ohio State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1955-72

West Virginia University . . . . . . . . . . . . 1964-73

Ohio State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984-93

Kansas State University. . . . . . . . . . . 1962-78

University of Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 1964-75

University of Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . 1963-70

University of Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1963-71

University of Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1964-73

Pennsylvania State University. . . . . . . 1967-72

University of Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 1969-90

Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . . . 1973-78

Washington State University . . . . . . . . 1975-79

Penn State/Texas A&M . . . . . . . . . . . . 1979-85

Washington State University . . . . . . . . 1980-85

University of Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980-90

Cornell University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1981-87

University of Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982-90

University of Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1983-92

University of Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1983-90

Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . . . 1984-89

Oregon State University. . . . . . . . . . . . 1985-96

Louisiana State University. . . . . . . . . . 1986-90

California Polytechnic and State 1986-88

University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rutgers University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986-88

University of Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986-88

Virginia Polytechnic Academy of 1986-88

Educational Development . . . . . . . .

Edgerton Agricultural College (Kenya) . . . . . . . . . University of Illinois.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986-91

SOURCE: G.E. Hansen, “AID Evaluation Highlights-The Impact of Investments on Agricultural Higher Education,”

prepared for the U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 1989.

Capacity Building of U.S. Universities

Since the enactment of 211(d) of the Foreign

Assistance Act in 1966, AID has formally attempted

to strengthen the capacity of U.S. universities

working in international development. The 211(d)

grants initially provided funds to improve university

competence across a broad spectrum of areas, but

over the following two decades the capacitybuilding program became more focused. Evolution

of the 21 l(d) program into the Strengthening Grant

Program and, in the mid-1980s, into the Program

Support Grant/Joint Memorandum of Understanding project (PSG/JMOU) presaged a new approach

to strengthening U.S. universities. AID provided

approximately $26 million to some 57 U.S. universities between 1979 and 1986 under the Title XII

Strengthening Grants program. Subsequent to criticism that funds were allocated to uses only peripherally related to AID objectives and activities, the

successor PSG/JMOU program focused funding on

U.S. university capabilities in certain specific geographic and subject areas to develop expertise

related to one or more specific AID projects.

Through the Joint Memorandum of Understanding, partnerships formed between 12 land-grant

universities that had “graduated” from the terminated Strengthening Grants program, and 12 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).

Each university then became eligible for a 5-year

Program Support Grant to develop faculty skills.

Receiving a PSG did not guarantee receipt of AID

contracts, it only assisted universities’ to develop

capabilities for AID work.

The PSG/JMOU program was terminated in 1991

subsequent to a determination that it not a costeffective means to involve U.S. universities with

AID programs [51]. The evaluation report recommended, instead, that AID:
12 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Table 1-3-AlD/University Programs and Projects by Development Sector, Region,

and Amount Cumulative, 1960-66

Number of Number of Total dollar

Region Projects universities amount

Agriculture

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Africa/Near East. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Development Planning and Economics

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Latin America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Africa/Near East. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health and Population

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Latin America.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Africa/Near East. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Human/Resources

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Latin America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Africa/Near East. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Natural Resources

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sciences and Engineering

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

79

71

25

34

41

24

16

139,898,662

114,235,549

89,815,845

58,243,986

232 115 402,194,042

11

11

21

3

10

8

15

3

8,450,653

14,978,914

14,317,723

13,359,717

46 36 51,107,007

20

16

23

5

 64 

12

12

16

5

45 

33,682,323

12,284,076

6,328,577

2,049,119

54,544,095

54

40

56

20

29

24

28

15

108,088,834

61,101,544

26,795,932

55.043.890

170 96 251,030,200

10 8 14,325,437

37

559

22

322

57,860,557

831,062,338

SOURCE: E.J. lmng and F. Campbell, ’’Reflections onthe Role ofAID andthe U.S. Universities in international

Agricultural Development” (Rockville, MD:Statistii, lncv19S9).

1.

2.

3.

4.

encourage noncontractual, long-term linkages

between U.S. universities and LDC institutions,

finance university services through contracts

or individually tailored grants (with the exception of certain “strengthening elements” for

HBCUs),

open AID use of university services to a wider

range of universities, and

encourage collaboration between U.S. univeraccount for most university development assistance

work (table l-3). At least half of Mission-sponsored

university contracts since 1960 have been agriculturally oriented.5

AID conducts and sponsors environment and

natural resources related activities, but these have

been minor foci of U.S. land-grant university

activity[cf: 109], even at a time of rapidly increasing

national and international attention to these issues.

They inevitably have been overshadowed by agricultural production activities. Increased attention to

natural resource and environment in foreign assistance policy and programs suggests that these areas

could figure more prominently in future U.S. university work.

University development assistance activities,

however, have declined as a whole. A review of AID

sities and the private sector.

RECENT TRENDS IN AID/

UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION

Agricultural development assistance has been the

focus of U.S. university involvement in development assistance from the start and continues to

5H~n Reso~ces kve alSO been an important area representing almost one-third of these University contracts. Universiv SeCtord Support in

development plarming and economics, health and populatio~ and science and engineering have been supported to some extent but will not be reviewed

in this report.
Chapter 1--Introduction ● 13

Figure 1-2—Title XlI-Type Projects by Year of Start

New project starts 50

40 \

30 I , \

I I I I I I 1 I I 0 ! I I

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

(Fiscal years)

(est)

Projects include those involving Title X1l-eligible institutions, whether procured through “set-asides” or open competition.

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Foreign Aid: Issues Concerning U.S. University Participation,” GAO/NSAID-89-38,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, April 1989.

report to the

Mission-sponsored university agricultural projects

between 1951 and 1988 shows that such activities

are now at their lowest level in 37 years [41]. A 1989

General Accounting Office (GAO) audit of Title XII

activities reports that, after the 1975 enactment of

the Title XII legislation, the number and dollar value

of new Title XII contracts and grants for technical

assistance grew, peaked in 1982, and subsequently

declined (see figure 1-2).6 Centrally funded AID/

university programs, such as the Collaborative

Research Support Programs (CRSPs) also have

declined, concomitant with overall reductions in

AID Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition

budgets.

The number of active projects and the number of

universities involved will probably continue to fall.

Universities implemented 96 new projects from

fiscal year 1979 through fiscal year 1981, with a total

value of $513 million-an average of $171 million

annually. New university projects totaled 12 for

fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1989, with an

annual average value of $47 million. University

projects represented 19 percent of the total AID

obligations for all agricultural projects from 1979 to

1981, but only 4 percent from 1987 to 1989 [59].

The decline in Title XII projects is commonly

attributed to four causes:

1.

2.

3.

4.

decline in AID involvement in large institution-building activities,

decline in the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition budget and earmarking of

those funds for other purposes,

growing Mission management of programs

involving private sector development and marketing elements for which private sector contractors tend to be preferred, and

preference by “AID managers and host country project leadership for fully open competition in procurement of services and strong

resistance to ‘set-asides’ “ [51].

Almost 75 percent of active projects terminated by

the end of fiscal year 1990. The number of universities implementing Title XII projects drops with the

number of active projects. In 1988, 72 universities

were participating in Title XII contracts or cooperative agreements. The GAO estimates that the number may drop to 35 universities after fiscal year 1990

[106]?

6NeitherND nor BIFi%D adopted an official definition of a “Title ~prOJect. ” The term is sometimes used to refer to projects that are “set aside”

for Title XU universities. At other times all agricultural projects awarded to universities are referred to as Title XII projects, regardless of the contracting

mode. The GAO used an unofficial list of projects maintained by BIFAD staff tbat includes all “Title XII-type” projects implemented by universities.

7These fires do not we fit. acmmt ~vmi~ p~cipation in nOn.Tifle XII type projects and contracts, such ss in health ~d en@neer@ [33].
Chapter 2

Trends in AID Policies, Programs, and Funds

The U.S. Agency for International Development

(AID) is the primary Federal agency in international

development assistance and the focus for university

involvement in such assistance. Thus, directions

taken by the agency will influence, to a large degree,

the level and areas of future university participation.

Existing agency and regional bureau policies and

strategies, as well as funding and program trends,

have significant implications for future university

involvement in AID-supported technical assistance.

AID STRATEGIES FOR

AGRICULTURE, NATURAL

RESOURCES, AND

ENVIRONMENT

AID has a range of agency and bureau strategies

and policies that help define the ways the agency

expects to achieve development goals. These strategies may not specify programs or projects, but they

have a strong indirect impact on program and project

development. They can:

consolidate AID support for a specific area of

assistance,

influence Mission Country Development Strategy Statements,

stimulate Missions to develop projects relevant

to the strategy,

help in review of ongoing or proposed projects,

and

establish funding targets.

The following section outlines the agricultural,

natural resources, and environment strategies for the

Agency overall, as well as for each of four bureaus

that work most directly with universities in the

provision of technical assistance. The Bureaus

include: Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, Bureau for Asia and the Near East, Bureau for

Africa, and Bureau for Science and Technology.l

The latter plays perhaps the most prominent role in

university involvement in technical assistance.

General AID Strategies

AID’s development strategy today emphasizes

national economic growth based on the free market

and development of the private sector. In part, this

strategy is based on the view that developing

countries commonly have overemphasized the role

of the public sector and restricted the role of the

private sector to the detriment of the LDC economy

and development.

In the 1980s, AID established four components or

“pillars of development” for supporting economic

growth through development assistance:

● policy dialogue and reform;

● Private sector development;

. institutional development; and

. technology research, development,

and transfer.

AID established three goals for agricultural assistance: 1) enable countries to become food selfreliant, 2) ensure the food security of their populations, and 3) contribute to broadly based economic

growth. These goals were to be reached through

approaches based on the “four pillars” of development [98,105]. An additional agricultural goal—

commitment to natural resource and environmental

maintenance and enhancement-was added under

the 1987 agricultural focus statement [72], nearly 20

years after recognition of the importance of maintaining environmental quality by the U.S. Government.

Reorganization and redirection of AID’s programs was announced by AID Administrator Ronald

W. Roskens in early 1991, citing concerns with the

U.S. budget deficit, increasing scarcity of foreign

assistance funds, and proliferating legislative objectives.

The much-amended Foreign Assistance Act

(FAA) of 1961, with its 30-plus objectives for U.S.

assistance, should be recast. It is simply too diverse

in its directions to provide a manageable framework

for assistance in the current and future environment

[55].

IRe@~~ Bm~u -es~d ~ssiom were c~g~ in D’s 1990 reorganization just prior to publication of tis doment. me new regio~

Bureaus am: Bureau for Africa, Bureau for Europe and the Near East Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Bureau for Asi& Private

Enterprise, and Housing.

–15–
16 ● New Oopportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

The new mission is to “do fewer things, and do them

very well” [63]. To achieve this, four strategic

initiatives have been proposed to focus AID activities [64,65,66,67], and funds will be allocated on the

basis of progress toward democratization, progress

in economic reforms, and establishment of a marketoriented economy [64]. While a blend of project and

nonproject assistance will continue, increasing

weight will be devoted to economic and democratic

policy reform and dialogue.

Mutual benefits—for LDCs and the United

States—are a prominent focus of the new initiatives:

the overall goal of AID is now to “administer

economic assistance programs that combine an

American tradition of international concern and

generosity with the active promotion of America’s

national interest. ’ As such, four new “pillars” of

development assistance have been defined:

The Democracy Initiative: “to help promote

and consolidate democracy as the legitimate

organizing principle for political systems

throughout the world,” [64]

The Partnership for Business and Development: “to engage American private sector

participation in the effort to develop and sustain

free-market principles and broad-based economic growth in developing countries,” [65]

Family and Development: “to use the family. . .as a starting point for analysis of what

people need, how they use the resources they

have, and as an organizing principle for mobilizing the energy of people to create progress,’

[66] and

Environment: ‘‘to guide the Agency’s environmental and natural resource ‘interventions to

areas where. . assistance will have the greatest

impact” [67].

Agriculture

Agriculture is addressed in large part under the

Family and Development Initiative:

Food production is a family enterprise. . . . Family

land and labor determine agricultural productivity,

and the way in which the land and labor are used

affects the natural resource base. . . . Understanding

and appreciating the contribution that families make

to a farm-system agricultural approach [and] to

encouraging the use of safe, clean water. . can be the

factor that spells success for a development project

or program [66].

Activities that AID plans to emphasize in its Family

and

●

●

•

●

Development Initiative include:

consideration of LDC family food security

goals, strategies, and constraints in formulating

development policies;

‘‘supporting the family’s role in coping with or

balancing the often competing needs for economic productivity and sound management of

natural resources;

designing development activities based on

studies of resource allocation within families

and the impact on individual members (e.g., the

impact of cash cropping on the nutritional

status of various family members); and

investigation of the relationship between environmental problems and family stability, “including the short-term potentially negative

impact on families’ access to food and fuel

resulting from long-term measures to protect

the environment. ” [66].

Environment and Natural Resources

Although stewardship of natural resources is

mentioned in several new AID Initiatives, primary

attention is given to environment and natural resource issues in the new Environment Initiative.

Under this initiative, AID is expanding its environmental activities given encouragement by “the

Congress, the Administration, a vocal environmental NGO [nongovernmental organization] community, and by a growing number of developing

countries” [62]. AID projects total environmental

obligations to grow from $408 million in fiscal year

1990 to $460 million in fiscal year 1992, and a

method of tracking these obligations currently is

under development. Each bureau has been directed

to devote 75 percent of all new environmental

resources to:

1. assistance in developing sound economic and

environmental policies;

2. strengthening host country environmental institutions; and

3. projects related to priority environmental

problems areas in each region.

Regional problems areas identified are: loss of

tropical forests, loss of biological diversity, unsound

agricultural practices, poor management of coastal

resources, poor management of watersheds, inefficient use of energy, and urban and industrial

pollution. These problem areas show remarkable
Chapter 2-Trends in AID Policies, Programs, and Funds . 17

similarity across regions; all three regional bureaus

list tropical forests, biological diversity, and aspects

of sustainable agriculture as priority environmental

problem areas.

AID’s Environment Initiative is based on a 1988

Policy Paper on Environment and Natural Resources

that identifies three program areas for AID support:

sustainable production (including sustainable agriculture), maintenance of natural ecosystems, and

improving environmental quality for human health

needs [97]. Since the early 1980s, AID focused

projects on management of natural resources, to aid

the small-scale farmer growing food crops on poor

farmland and to limit loss of tropical forests and

hillside erosion. Support for this work has included

development and dissemination of technologies to

increase agricultural production while reducing

degradation of land (e.g., agroforestry), improved

management of natural forests, and support for

natural resource management education at regional

education and training centers.

Roles for universities are cited in many of AID’s

direction-setting documents: participation in research, developing human resources through education and training, institution building, and provision

of technical assistance [74,75,79,82,98]. Whereas

AID strategy recognizes a substantial role for the

type of work that universities have traditionally

carried out, concerns exist that this work has

received a disproportionately small share of AID’s

funding. For example, the Board for International

Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD)

Budget Panel has argued that “programming guidance’ sent by AID to its Missions emphasized

policy reform and private sector development while

virtually ignoring institution building and technology generation [84].

Under the new organization and directions, entitlements to specific types of organizations seem

effectively over, and matching commitments-in

initiatives, in staff, and in funds, are expected:

[AID’s] work is becoming a cluster of partnerships with recipient countries, with other donors,

with many U.S. Federal and State agencies, and with

the American private sector. . . . In the future we will

not be working with recipient countries but with

partner countries. We will not use various private

sector entities as agents, but enroll the energies of

private voluntary agencies, universities and profitmaking enterprises in the development challenge

[55].

In turn, these organizations will be encouraged by

AID to develop linkages among themselves (see box

2-A).

AID Regional Bureau Strategies

Each of AID’s three regional bureaus has established different development objectives for its region and, thus, has different implications for university collaboration in development assistance. Regional bureaus have varying foci in line with their

strategies (see app. C). The Bureau for Africa

concentrates on private sector support as part of its

policy reform strategy. Technology development,

technology transfer, and construction receive less

emphasis. The Bureau for Asia and Near East

focuses primarily on construction, credit, technology transfer, and private sector support. The Bureau

for Latin America and Caribbean focuses on credit,

marketing, technology transfer, construction, and

export promotion as part of its strategies in nontraditional exports and private sector development.

Bureau for Science & Technology

Prior to the recent reorganization and mission

redefinition, the Bureau for Science and Technology

(AID/S&T) identified two primary functions: to

encourage research, development, and use of new

technology to promote LDC economic development; and to plan and carry out scientific activities

that are more efficiently conducted by a centralized

organization or that are outside the capacity of an

individual Mission. Such activities have included

[99]:

•

●

basic and applied research to develop new or

improved technology that is not locationSpecific;

research and development of new and improved

technology conducted in the LDC in collaboration with the host country, Mission, regional

bureau, or other donor; and

● technical field support for Mission projects.

AID/S&T identified five priority problem areas

for its work: inadequate income growth, hunger,

health deficiency, illiteracy and inadequate education, and unmanageable population pressure. At

least two-thirds of the Bureau’s resources were

directed to the latter two problem areas in 1989;
18 ● New Opportunities for U.S. universities in Development Assistance

Box 2-A—The Role of U.S. Universities Under the New AID Mission

Competitiveness Through Universities

AID’s goal is to assist the movement in U.S. universities toward internationalization by developing

partnerships between academic institutions in the United States and in developing countries.

The non-profit sector, particularly U.S. universities, can contribute as significantly as U.S. corporations to the

long-term competitiveness of the United States in the world of the 1990s. The broad, historic engagement of U.S.

centers of intellectual excellence with the world at large has positioned them well if a sustained effort is made. The

influence of American scientists on the disciplines, the role of English as a universal language of intellectuals and

scientists, and the continuing innovation pursued by U.S. institutions all create favorable conditions. But

universities of other countries can now seethe opportunities created by the U.S. precedent. The global playing field

will be a crowded one, so U.S. institutions will not be able to rest on past glory.

For AID, the health and vigor of U.S. universities are of great importance as well. To respond to new

challenges, AID needs new ideas and technologies. As the core cadre of scientists and technologists in AID declines,

the need for strong, healthy linkages with the university sector grows. But the need is not simply for linkages

between AID and U.S. universities. They, in turn, need to be linked with U.S corporations active in developing

countries. And over the long term, strong support for the development process will come from linkages between

U.S. universities and counterpart institutions in developing countries. The transfer of technical knowledge essential

for development, both in terms of hardware as well as training key developing country nationals, is a multiyear

process where AID can best facilitate the process. AID has extensive experience in this regard in the agricultural

sector. It is now time to extend that comprehensive effort to other sectors: natural resources and the environment,

health and family planning, enterprise management, and the management of increasingly free-enterprise economies.

The universe of U.S. universities, already embarked on increasing internationalization, can work more closely with

AID.

No longer can AID afford exclusive, entitlement-style relations with U.S. universities. We need to create

processes that are inclusive and competitive, able to adapt to rapidly changing times and requirements, and to grow

with the dynamic change occurring in the developing countries. AID will focus on two mechanisms for this activity:

(A) Creation of the Center for University Cooperation in Development, This center will serve to build,

promote, and strengthen mutually beneficial development cooperation and partnerships among AID, U.S.

institutions of higher education and their counterpart institutions in developing countries.

(B) Creation of ties between schools of business and management in the United States and in developing

countries. These linkages well be permissible within the center described in Proposal A but may be desirable on

a broader scale than developed in the center. The linkages could involve students, faculty and research projects.

SOURCE: Excerpted from U.S. Agency for International Development\ “The Partnership for Business and Development-One of a Series of

Initiatives of the U.S. Agency for International Development” December 1990.

agricultural activities made up approximately one- The AID/S&T Office of Agriculture established

fourth of AID/S&T’s appropriations [68].

Agriculture activities have been carried out by

several offices in AID/S&T. The Office of Agriculture is the primary funding source for agricultural

activities, supplying approximately 50 percent of the

funds allocated to the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition (ARDN) account. Nearly onethird of the Office of Agriculture’s projects focused

on soil and water management for agriculture

between 1977 and 1988 (table 2-l). Other offices

carrying out ARDN-type work have included: Nutrition, Forestry and Environment and Natural Resources, Energy, and Rural and Institutional Development.

three primary responsibilities in 1989: 1) managing

the U.S. core contribution to the International

Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), 2) overseeing the Collaborative Research Support Programs

(CRSPs) that operate semi-autonomously, both

technically and administratively, and 3) projects

directly managed by AID/S&T through contracts

and cooperative agreements. Over time the CRSPs

have become increasingly important components of

the Office’s work and, in 1988, received 46 percent

of its obligations [101].

The Office of Agriculture has one of the closest

relationships with U.S. universities of any office

within AID. In its purpose, its emphasis on research

and technology development, and the academic
Chapter 2-Trends in AID Policies, Programs, and Funds ● 19

\

Table 2-l—Project Portfolio Categories of Office of

Agriculture’s Activities, 1977-88

Percentage of

Category project portfolio

Soil and water management (primarily soils

and fertilizer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Crop production (primarily sorghum/millet and

beans/cowpeas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Livestock production and health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Economic planning and policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Fisheries and aquiculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Pest management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Reducing post-harvest losses, storage and

utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

SOURCE: U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Science

and Technology, Office of Agriculture, “Statistical Overview of

S&T/AGR Project Portfolio FY 77-FY 8S,” 1989.

background of its personnel, it is similar to the

agricultural universities and therefore collaboration

is facilitated. The Title XII mandate, and its precursors, strengthened these ties, particularly through the

CRSP program. The majority of the Office’s nonCRSP projects are also with universities.

AID/S&T does not seem to suffer disillusionment

with AID/university relationships as do AID Missions and regional bureaus. This is reflected in the

consolidation of the Board for International Food

and Development support staff and the Office of

Research and University Relations into the Center

for University Cooperation in Development within

AID/S&T. The goal of this consolidation is to

“develop programs which optimize the contributions of U.S. universities” to achievement of AID

goals [56]. Most domestic funding for agricultural

and natural resources research currently is directed

at nonland-grant universities and private organizations [108]. Thus, the future of AID/S&T’s relations

with universities is likely to be concerned more with

expanding access to nonland-grant schools as priorities change and with preventing budget cuts from

straining existing university work, than with the

current debate over the extent to which universities

should be favored in development assistance.

TRENDS IN AID FUNDING

AND PROGRAMS

In conjunction with its agency and bureau strategies, AID’s choice of program emphases and allocation of funds among the resulting initiatives illustrate

its commitment to agriculture, natural resources, and

environmental programs and projects. This commitment and the choices it inspires will affect the type

and extent of AID/university relationships.

Funding Trends

Funding data can help show AID’s direction and

trends in agricultural development and environment

and natural resource activities. Budgetary constraints have affected the international development

program as a whole, and university involvement in

particular. In fiscal year 1989, the U.S. Government

allocated $15.1 billion in foreign assistance funds to

developing nations, down from a peak of $22.6

billion in fiscal year 1979 [114].

Not only has AID’s overall budget decreased, but

so has the Agriculture, Rural Development and

Nutrition (ARDN) budget, which accounts for the

majority of university funding. Since its creation in

1973, the ARDN account has been a significant

component of development assistance and, as such,

an indicator of AID’s commitment to agricultural,

natural resource, and environmental development.

The ARDN account is projected to decline as a

percentage of development assistance functional

accounts. In 1986, the ARDN account was allocated

$759.9 million, representing 47 percent of total

functional account allocations. Projections for 1990

indicated that ARDN will receive $477.7 million, or

39 percent of total functional account allocations

[83].2

Concern also has been raised over declines in the

actual buying power of the ARDN account. AID/

S&T’s Office of Agriculture estimated that, after

adjusting for inflation, the 1988 ARDN budget

would purchase only about 44 percent of what the

1977 budget could buy [101].

Decline in the ARDN account reflects an overall

decline in Development Assistance (DA) as a

proportion of total foreign economic assistance,

primarily due to an increase of obligations under

me fiscal year 1992 AID appropriation request to the Congress recommended that the eight functional accounts, including the ARDN accoun~ be

aggregated into a single nonfictional “Development programs” account that would provide flexibility in funding allocation. Certain priority areas,

including “the environment” are to be assured funding at levels consistent with fiscal year 1991 abcations [56].
20 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Economic Support Funds (ESF).3 An AID response

to this trend was to use part of ESF to fund projects,

including those similar to ARDN activities. While

not originally envisioned, this use of “projectized

ESF” has helped offset downward trends in ARDN

funding.

Obligations for ARDN-type activities (funded

through both DA and ESF accounts) have been $1

billion a year since 1982, although there have been

significant fluctuations (some in the hundreds of

millions of dollars) between years. Obligations for

ARDN-type activities declined by 20 percent between 1984 and 1989 [76]. (Nonprojectized ESF and

P.L. 480-generated local currencies may also be

used for ARDN-type activities. Their use in this way

is not well documented and is not included in data on

funding of ARDN-type work.)

A recent study examined ARDN-type obligations

for the period 1984 to 1989 by breaking them down

into 12 purpose categories (table 2-2). Overall AID

has focused its efforts in five areas: construction,

credit, sector support, technology transfer, and

technology development. Only the central bureaus,

especially the Bureau for Science & Technology,

focus substantial attention on developing LDC

capacity to develop, manage, and conserve soil,

water, and other resources (Resource Development)

or on strengthening LDC capacity for conducting

research on improved technologies for production

and consumption (Technology Development). Further, considerable uncertainty exists regarding data

on funding of natural resources and environment

activities (box 2-B).

Diminishing ARDN and ARDN-type funding,

and redirection of activities away from resource and

technology development, reduce the opportunities

for university involvement in development activities

and lead to competition over the types of activities

to be funded. Further declines in ARDN will lead to

increased tradeoffs between natural resources work

and the more traditional agricultural activities.

Program Trends

In addition to the type of development work that

AID supports, certain changes in the way in which

it does its work affect future university involvement.

Program trends include: agency decentralization;

emphasis on short-term results; reduced AID staffing, particularly of technical personnel; increased

project size; increased use of nonuniversity contractors; and transition to a performance-based budgetary system. Many of these trends are reinforced in

the proposed AID guidelines “Towards Strategic

Management,’ December 1990, which states:

Some planning assumptions being explored are

that AID will be a smaller bureaucracy, with most of

its staff overseas, running the same-sized or larger

program in dollar terms. AID may move toward

‘‘wholesaling’ a set of tested development approaches in certain areas, through private, non-profit

or university organizations. . . . There may be two

main groups [of AID staff]: highly skilled managers

with a clear career path and technical specialists

employed as their skills are required. Larger blocks

of work maybe run under contracts and grants. There

will be greater autonomy for field operations within

a system of evaluation and operational/financial

auditing to assure accountability. Promotion, incentives and awards will flow to those individuals and

teams who can show program impact, account for

resources and find a productive balance between

innovation and prudence.

Agency Decentralization

Decentralization of decisionmaking and a shift of

management responsibilities to the AID Missions

occurred throughout the 1980s. Mission directors

gained authority in 1985 to approve and implement

projects costing up to $2.5 million based on initial

Project Identification Documents if no major issues

are raised. The goal of decentralization was to

increase administrative efficiency and allow personnel with on-the-ground expertise to make decisions.

Decentralization has hindered use of centralized

programs, such as Title XII, and thus may make

SAID’S fomiW ~sis~ce funds are divided into two accounts: Development Assistance (DA) funds and Economic SUPPOfl Funds ~F). ~though

some 13SFfundinghasbeenredirected to development assistance projects, these accounts generally are allocate dbased on political objectives rather than

on development assistance goals, and are directed to only a few particular countries. Further, these funds cannot be accessed by central bureaus such

as the Bureau for Science and Technology. ‘l’he Development Assistance accounts are the primary source of funding for agriculture, natural resources,

and environment projects, especially tbroughthe Agriculture, Rural Development and Nutrition (ARDN) account. Funding for “ARDN-type” activities

may also come from functional accounts, such as tie Private Sector, Ihergy and Environment and through E!conomic Support Funds. The new

Development Fund for Miicq created in 1988, combined all funds for Sub-SaharanAiiica (including those previously funded from the ARDN account)

into a single fund for development assistance to the regiom complicating estimates of funds and program activities in agriculture, natural resources, and

environment. Aggregation of funds into a single nonfunctional account also would complicate budget analysis, although AID is developing a system

to improve accountability for use of appropriated funds [56].
Chapter 2—Trends in AID Policies, Programs, and Funds ● 21

Table 2-2—Percent Distribution of ARDN-Type Obligations by Purpose Category for

AID as a Whole and by Regional and Central Bureaus, 1984-89

Latin

Asia & America Central

Purpose-category AID Africa Near East & Caribbean Bureausa

Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 10 24 10 0

Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 20 33 14

Educational systems development . . . . . 2.5 4 3 0 0

Human resources development . . . . . . . . 3.5 5 3 5 1

Input supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 3 0 0

Land tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0 0 9 1

Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2 0 11 0

Planning and policy analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 6 5 5

Resource development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 3 4 4 13

Sector support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 35 12 4 0

Technology development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 14 6 7 64

Technology transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 15 18 10 2

Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

aThe column includes data for the following AID bureaus: Science & Technology; Food for Peace and VoIuntary

Assistance; and Private Enterprise. The study did not include data from the Bureau for Program and Policy

Coordination, which in 1985 became the source of AID’s core contribution to the International Agricultural Research

Centers of the CGIAR (> $40 million annually). The table thus undercounts the Technology Development category

(which actually represents the majority of this funding) and to a lesser extent the Technology Transfer, Resource

Development, and Human Resource Development categories.

NOTE: Between 1984 and 1989,54 percent of ARDN-type obligations were in Asia and the Near East, 25 percent in

Sub-Saharan Africa, 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 9 percent in the Central Bureaus.

These percentages were calculated after including AID Central Bureau contribution to the core budget of the

International Agricultural Research Centers for 1985-89.

SOURCE: U.S. Agency for International Development, AID Washington Technical Personnel, and Chemonics,

International Consulting Division, “Agriculture, Rural Development and Nutrition Portfolio Review: Analysis

and Recommendations,” prepared for AID’s Working Group of the Joint Sector Councils of Agriculture, Rural

Development, Natural Resources, and Nutrition, Dec. 30, 1988. Data for core contributions to the

International Agricultural Research Centers provided by AID, Bureau for Sdence and Technology, Office

of Agriculture, CGiAR Staff, June 1989.

Purpose-Category Definitions

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

construction: to construct” or strengthen* the capacity to construct basic facilities/infrastructure-transport,

communications, water supply/waste disposal systems. Does not include construction undertaken as an ancillary

activity of project dassified under any other category.

Credit: to improve* or strengthen* the capacity to improve the delivery of credit for production and consumption.

Educational systems development: to develop* or strengthen* the capacity to develop education institution

structure/curricuia/operations/facilities.

Human resources development:to improve” or strengthen’the capacity to improve training and human resource

development.

input suppiy: to improve* or strengthen* the capacity to improve the deiivery of services and physicai inputs for

production and consumption.

Land tenure: to improve* or strengthen* the capacity to improve access to and/or ownership of land, water, and

other resources.

Marketing:to improve” or strengthen” the capacity to improve assernbly, handiing, processing, storage, transport,

and/or distribution of commodities and products.

Planning and policy analysis: to conduct* or improve* the capacity for conducting economic planning and

anaiysis of poiicy issues. inciudes data collection and processing.

Resource development: to deveiop’ or strengthen* the capacity to deveiop, manage, and conserve soii, water,

and other resources.

Sector support: to provide baiance of payments and program support primariiy for sector economic deveiopment.

Indudes Commodity import Programs, Sector Grants, and Program and Development Support funds.

Technoiogy development: to improve* or strengthen* the capacity for conducting research on improved

technologies for production and consumption.

Technology transfer: to extend* or improve” the capacity for extension/diffusion/transfer of improved

technologies for production and consumption.

. .

● or expand, estabiish, study, organize, etc. as appropriate.

university involvement in development assistance increase their links to the Missions to keep track of

more difficult. Universities and BIFAD commonly and be prepared to respond to potential projects

depended on AID/Washington for information on [117]. In addition, increased Mission authority

upcoming Title XII projects. With authority trans- combined with current reward systems may lead to

ferred to the Missions, universities and BIFAD must decreased attention to long-term projects, such as
22 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Box 2-B—Funding for Environmental and Natural Resources Activities

Uncertainty and controversy surround the data on AID funding of environmental and natural resources (ENR)

activities. Concerns exist that the data significantly undercount AID’s ENR activities. Because ENR has only

recently become a major issue, past funding was not broken out by ENR obligations, and trends cannot be reliably

determined with existing data. Sources of AID obligation data show that ENR obligations were increasing from the

1970s to the mid-1980s; declined in the later 1980s; and are expected to rise through the early 1990s. These sources,

however, have been criticized for their weaknesses in counting ENR obligations.

AID’s Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination (AID/PPC) developed obligation data for 1985 to 1988

by examining individual projects, breaking out the ENR portion, and cross-checking results with individual bureaus.

AID/PPC has since established an automated system for tracking ENR obligations. Project officers at each mission

identified ENR obligations for each project, and this work is reviewed by the regional bureaus and compiled by

AID/PPC. This system currently contains data compiled for 1989 to 1990, which has not yet been fully reviewed.

Data for both periods are combined below. However, due to the change in compilation methods, data may not be

fully compatible.

The figure shows a higher level of AID obligations for environmental and natural resources activities than other

sources show. The data indicate that AID ENR obligations reached a high point in the mid-1980s, then declined

in the latter 1980s. Despite the new Environment Initiative and other activities, such as the Forest Management

Project II that will provide $65 million to forestry and natural resource activities in 42 nations [47], it is unclear to

what extent ENR obligations will rise in the 1990s. If funds for such activities do not rise appreciably, then

university involvement in ENR work may not grow as projected from mid-1980’s obligation trends.

Obligations for Environment and Natural Resources Actvities: AID Total and by Bureau

Millions of dollars

200 ,

I

I

160

120

80

40

o

~ Science and Technology

~ Afri a

d

~ Latin America & Caribbean

~ Asia and Near Easte

- Otherf

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989b 1990C

Year

aDataforthi~figure come from ~odifferentcoll~ tion systems, therefore 198W8dataare notfullycnmpatible with datafor 1989-90. Data for 1985-88

were developed by AID’s individual bureaus and the Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination’s (PPC) reviews of individual projects. Data for

1989-90camefrom a newly implemented, automated system underwhich the project officers in the Missions provide thedatafrom each project, which

is then reviewed by the individual bureaus and compiled by PPC. The data for 1989-90 have not been fully reviewed.

bEstimated.

cProjected.

@atadisplayed for the Bureau for Affi~ are about ~percent lower than thoeecalculated by the Bureau for Africa. This discrepancy is due to different

definitions of environment and natural resources activities used by PPC and the Bureau for Africa.

‘Data forthe Bureau for Asiaand the Near Eastdonot include funding forfourwastewater projects in Cairo, Egypt Whose obligations run from $85to$250

million a year over this period.

fln~ludes the aim of the &.ien@ Adviser, the Bureau for Food and Voluntary Assistance, and the ~reau for program and pol@ Coordination

(Primarily the core funding it provides the CGIAR).

SOURCE: U.S. AgenW for International Developmentr Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, unpublished data on environment and natural

resources management obligations for 1985-87, summer 1987; initial 1988-90 environment and natural resource management obligations

submissions from AID Missions to AID headquarters for review.

—... ..— ————.. . —.—- —- .— —
Chapter 2—Trends in AID Policies, Programs, and Funds ● 23

research and institution building relative to work

that brings observable results in the short-term (see

app. E).

Reduced AID Staffing

Long-term projects are hampered by short-term

changes in AID policy and personnel. Declines in

relevant staff, such as agricultural development

officers, environmental scientists, and training officers, can restrict the number or extent of projects or

hinder reform implementation [46]. In addition to

lack of AID staff, institution-building work, often

seen as requiring 10 to 25 years to succeed, can be

hampered by staff turn-over [30]. Mission directors

and agricultural and rural development office management average 3 years or less per tour of duty [26].

Changes in personnel often result in changes in

AID policy and programs that adversely affect the

continuity required for long-term projects. Adding

to this problem is AID’s system that rewards

planning and design more than implementation,

thereby reducing the incentive to maintain continuity [111,1 12]. Inability to carry out long-term work

may strongly affect the Agency’s environmental and

natural resources activities since many problems

faced in resource-poor regions are not well understood and may require long-term work to develop

solutions.

Reduction in AID technical staff and increasing

focus on management may also create new opportunities for university involvement. If agricultural

development, natural resource management, and

improvement of environmental quality continue as

primary foci of AID work, AID will need to draw

uncreasingly on outside technical expertise. Universities may be one source. Joint Career Corps,

Indefinite Quantity Contracts, and other such mechanisms could be used more to draw on university

technical capabilities (see box 1-B inch. 1).

Increased Project Size

AID has reduced its management responsibilities

by designing larger and fewer projects than in the

past. Accompanying this was a shift of project

management responsibilities to AID’s contractors.

Larger projects push universities to combine into

consortia with other schools, private fins, and

others and, as a consequence, reduce their management autonomy.

,

Use of Nonuniversity Contractors

Growing numbers of organizations have become

involved in international development and have

worked with AID over the years. Currently, U.S.

universities face competition from an increased

number of nonuniversity development organizations. Some of these have direct AID or congressional support. For example, AID’s emphasis on

private sector development has fostered increased

use of private U.S. fins, and Congress has placed

funding earmarks on development assistance for

private, voluntary, and minority fins. Congress

earmarked 13.5 percent of certain development and

disaster assistance for PVOs in 1981 and, in 1984,10

percent for certain minority contractors. GAO found

that 17 percent of ARDN funds went to PVOs in

1987 [106].

Increased open competition for projects has also

been stressed, and some mechanisms used to tap

universities have been withdrawn, in part, because of

their noncompetitive nature. In addition, other development actors now compete directly for work in

which universities are considered to have strengths.

Private firms may be used to place students in

university programs. The International Agricultural

Research Centers carry out agricultural institution

building and research, and provide training. Private

firms also engage in institution building. Increased

university involvement may be constrained by that

of these other organizations, especially if development assistance funding stabilizes or decreases

further.

Shift to a Performance-Based Budgetary Systems

In response to concerns over increased reporting

requirements and decreased program flexibility,

Congress and AID created the Development Fund

for Africa (DFA) in 1987 to provide development

assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa without earmarking funding. Assistance for agricultural development under the DFA is projected to fall from 43.7

percent of the DFA in 1988, when it was implemented, to 31.8 percent in 1990 (a drop of about $60

million) [85]. Based on projections, reduction of

earmarks points to reduced emphasis

agricultural development and, thus, a

ingly reduced role for universities.

at AID on

correspond-
Chapter 3

Perceived Conflicts in the AID/University Relationship

Since their earliest formal involvement in foreign

assistance programs, universities have had a troubled relationship with the Agency for International

Development (AID), prompting a number of evaluations of joint activities. A string of reviews conducted from the 1950s to the present reveal numerous and persistent problems in the AID/university

partnership. A number of recent papers, seminars,

workshops, meetings, and conferences by members

of the university community, AID, the Board for

International Food and Agricultural Development

(BIFAD), the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), various foundations, and other organizations have

probed these problems in greater depth.

HISTORICAL CONFLICTS

One of the earliest conflicts between AID and

university oflicials surfaced in 1956. Dismayed by

lack of support for institutional contracts abroad by

top AID officials, and the perceived hostility of AID

officials towards universities, the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities

(forerunner to NASULGC) threatened to withdraw

its member institutions from participation in AID

programs. A meeting by the AID Administrator with

a group of university presidents led to some changes,

most focused on the operating level. For example, a

“standard” contract format geared towards involving universities in AID projects was created. A task

force on AID/University Relations was formed in

1963 to find ways to simplify contract procedures

and to improve cooperative action by AID and the

universities. AID and the universities took few

actions on Task Force recommendations [27].

A 1968 NASULGC Task force recommended

establishment of a new development assistance

agency outside the aegis of the State Department to

reduce conflict between development assistance and

foreign policy objectives [7]. The proposed agency

would support scientific and academic technical

assistance, institution building, and international

institution-to-institution relationships. The Task

Force believed that an agency isolated from foreign

policy crises would eliminate some of the conflicts

troubling AID/university relations.

AID and NASULGC formed a Joint Committee

that subsequently issued the following eight criteria

for Optimizing the effectiveness of the AID/university

relationship:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

proper matching of universities with development assistance activities,

joint planning,

improved program evaluation and feedback,

flexible implementation authority,

effective management by the universities,

employment of qualified personnel,

strengthening of U.S. universities’ ability to

support development assistance activities, and

enhancement of host institutions’ capacities to

induce and sustain changes in the host country

[7].

Other recommendations included developing longterm commitments from universities and broadening

professional opportunities for university faculty

under AID contracts. This study served as a foundation for the Title XII legislation in 1975.

Although U.S. universities had high expectations

of Title XII, these were not met. The U.S. General

Accounting Office’s (GAO) 1981 evaluation concluded that AID and the universities had not yet

forged an effective partnership. Blurred lines of

authority within AID made implementation of

projects difficult and caused numerous misunderstandings. University policies regarding promotion,

tenure, and salaries were incompatible with fostering faculty participation in development assistance.

Thus, GAO contended that U.S. universities commonly lack the capacity to make significant contributions to AID’s development program [107]. The

1986 McPherson survey also revealed dissatisfaction with university performance and expressed

concerns that BIFAD, the entity responsible for

intermediating between AID and universities, acted

more as an advocate for university involvement than

as a mediator in the partnership [40].

Various AID officials and AID Mission directors

expressed disillusionment with the Title XII program, and specifically with the limited competition

for Title XII projects. A top AID official upon

reading the responses of 39 Missions and 14

–25–
26 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

universities to the 1986 McPherson survey on Title

XII commented:

My reading of the responses, frankly, leads to a

conclusion that many USAID Mission directors and

USAID staff are becoming somewhat disenchanted

with Title XII universities due to weaknesses in past

performance. This growing disenchantment is reflected by a growing reluctance to set aside projects

for Title XII universities and a desire for more

private sector-Title XII competition. There also

appears to be some erosion of the previously held

assumption that Title XIIs have a predominant

capacity in agricultural research, technology transfer

and institution-building activities. The universities,

however, still feel they have predominant capability

in these areas. . . .

The perceived weakness (of performance by

universities) needs to be dealt with, and most

Missions feel that they can be dealt with so that in the

future they will feel more comfortable in choosing to

work with a Title XII university. Most Missions

recognize the marvelous resource base which exists

in the U.S. university community and want to use

Title XII. Performance has not, however, lived up to

potential [14].

One university administrator commented:

A central problem which limits the effectiveness

of Title XII progress is the inability of AID

professionals in the field to accept and take advantage of the university’s role. Suspicion has evolved

in the system and too many stories of university

inadequacy go unverified and uncontested [119].

GAO reevaluated the Title XII program in 1989

and found a significant decline in university involvement in development assistance activities. The

report attributed the decline to budget decreases in

AID’s agricultural development account, decreasing

emphasis on institution-building, increased AID

emphasis on private sector initiatives, and a reluctance on the part of certain AID officials to designate

projects as Title XII.

RECURRENT CONFLICTS

Among the AID/university conflicts are some that

recur largely due to differences in development

assistance philosophy between the two types of

organizations, and differences in organizational

structure and goals (see also app. E). These include:

conflicts between humanitarian development assistance objectives and political foreign policy objectives, shifting AID policies and priorities, difficulties in communication, mismatched personnel goals

and systems, and conflicting personnel timeframes.

In addition, the growing AID preference for open

contract competition is giving rise to new conflicts

between AID and universities with which it has

historically worked. Few of these conflicts are likely

to be resolved without substantial revision of

organizational policies and structures.

Subordination of Development Assistance

Objectives to Foreign Policy Objectives

Although universities successfully maintained an

apolitical stance in their initial forays into development assistance, formal collaboration with the U.S.

Government inevitably politicized the nature of their

work. U.S. development assistance is inherently

political: although humanitarian motives spurred the

creation of the Point Four Program in 1949, strong

political antecedents as well as powerful economic

objectives were also involved.

Blurring of boundaries between U.S. development assistance programs and U.S. foreign policy

initiatives and objectives is a persistent problem

from the university perspective.

Probably no issue more profoundly affects the

AID/university collaboration than that posed by the

juxtaposition of political sponsorship, on the one

hand, and the tradition of academic institutional

independence, on the other. American universities

have historically resisted domination by the publics

they serve. The marked increase in the interdependence between government and the universities during the last decade in particular has not deadened the

sensitivity of the academic community to the problem of political control [35].

In 1989, the House Foreign Affairs Committee

sponsored the International Cooperation Act of 1989

that proposed repealing Title XII and establishing a

university-oriented development assistance organization separate from the State Department [3]. The

presumption was that this autonomy would shelter

the development assistance program from foreign

policy, would provide a stronger role for the

universities in the areas of research, extension, and

education, and could involve all related disciplinary

programs in the universities. Programmatic and

budget management authority would be given to the

Center for programs in all centrally funded areas; the

Center also would have had authority to oversee

programs developed and funded by AID’s country

Missions.
Chapter 3--Perceived Conflicts in the AID/University Relationship ● 27

The International Cooperation Act of 1989, however, was not passed. Under the current restructuring, AID and the newly established Center for

University Cooperation in Development remain

under the aegis of the Department of State.

Shifting AID Policy

From universities’ perspectives, numerous shifts

in AID policy have also hindered university performance in overseas development. AID has

changed its priorities over the years, sometimes

deeming university activities to be outside the realm

of their current area of interest. Universities have

had difficulty identifying AID priorities and understanding apparent contradictions in AID policy.

Universities dislike shifting their own activities in

the direction of changing AID policies and often find

it difficult to do so.

Substantial decreases in government funding for

development activities has forced AID to identify

and focus on specific priority areas. Proliferation of

unranked objectives and congressional earmarks for

specific development assistance programs, geographical regions, and types of development assistance organizations reduces long-term consistency

and has forced AID to use resources on mandates

that may not be relevant in specific cases or whose

goals may not be clear [1 10]. The lack of consistency

and clarity of objectives has reduced Congress’

ability to maintain and mod@ the direction of U.S.

assistance, and also limits the monies allocated to

U.S. universities.

AID has placed great emphasis on two priorities:

policy dialogue and reform and private sector

development. Universities have not participated

actively in these two areas. The few universities that

have participated in AID-supported policy work

have tended to be nonland-grant institutions. Further, the focus on private sector development has

redirected assistance from host country public institutions, such as national agricultural research systems, with which universities have worked in the

past, to private organizations, with which universities have not traditionally worked. In addition, AID

has interpreted private sector development to mean

an increased focus on the provision of assistance

through private organizations, such as private firms

and private voluntary organizations.

The other two “pillars’ ’-institutional development (including human resource development), and

technology research, development, and transfer—

include activities more suited to university capabilities, but have not received as much attention.

Personnel training, institution building, and technology development nonetheless are cited commonly as

major AID accomplishments. For example, the

World Bank recently identified the United States as

the only donor playing an effective role in building

African agricultural scientific manpower [39]. And

yet, Agency commitment to these two pillars does

not appear as strong as AID documents suggest. For

example, support for human resource development

and educational system development constitute a

small part of AID’s ARDN-type work (see table 2-2

in ch. 2). Although concern has been focused on

Sub-Saharan Africa where the lack of trained

personnel and functional institutions is seen as

especially detrimental to development [21], AID’s

Plan for Supporting Agricultural Research and

Faculties of Agriculture in Africa remains underfunded, especially for the faculties of agriculture

[89].

Obligations for technology development declined

about $40 million between 1986 and 1988, and

technology development as a percentage of ARDNtype obligations fell about 2 percentl [76]. Opportunities may exist to increase funding of this work. For

example, the Latin America and Caribbean Bureau

has concluded that its nontraditional, export-led

strategy will require research and technology development or adaptation; the Asia and Near East Bureau

is stressing increased cereal grain production in

low-income countries; and the Africa Bureau has

had a plan for agricultural research since 1985 (see

app. C). Obligations for technology transfer have

been increasing in all regions, although in some

cases, such as nontraditional crops in Latin America

and the Caribbean, AID may not be turning to U.S.

universities for this work.

l~ese fiWes are c~ctiat~ without the inclusion of the U.S. core contribution to the International Agricultural Research Centers, tie majority of

which could be classiiled under technology development. Core obligations for the centers dropped over $6 million during this period (about 13.5 percent

of the contribution of 1986, the peak year).
28 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Communication Constraints

Universities have centralized collegiate bureaucracies that commonly conflict with AID’s decentralized, hierarchical bureaucracy. AID’s decentralized

structure places a great deal of control in the hands

of Mission directors-too much, according to some

university participants in joint projects. Misunderstandings and poor communication between university personnel and AID Mission directors are common, and little opportunity exists for face-to-face

discussion, nor are there other mechanisms to broach

this long-acknowledged gap between university

personnel and Mission directors. One university

participant commented:

The pattern of decentralization at USAID has been

likened to an octopus with each tentacle having its

own power. The decisions and actions by country

Missions and Mission directors vary so that it is

becoming extremely difficult and nonrewarding for

universities to be involved in international development contracts [120].

Conversely, university bureaucracies may hinder

Mission directors in AID/university transactions.

For example, some universities may resist allocating

control of AID/university contracts to their representatives in LDCs; instead, universities prefer, or may

be obligated by law, to manage contracts from their

U.S. campuses. Remoteness of decisionmakers from

development assistance activities can slow organizational and decisionmaking processes.

Convicting Personnel Systems

Another barrier to successful AID/university collaborations is conflicts inherent in AID’s and

universities’ personnel systems. AID project staff

turnover and misplacement of technical experts may

hinder achievement of project goals [111]. Conversely, university staff turnover, tenure obligations,

and dearth of financial support or professional

rewards deters some faculty from participation in

development assistance programs.

Rapid turnover of AID staff, particularly of

Mission directors, has led to discontinuity in AID

programs. New AID personnel entering an ongoing

project also may have different project goals and

expectations than their predecessors. For one university project, there were over a 36-month period ‘two

Agricultural Development Officers and seven project managers, each wishing to put his or her imprint

on the project outcome” [118]. Moreover, project

managers may be junior AID employees with little

technical expertise or training to support participation in the projects that they manage [2].

Frequent turnover also may hinder university staff

effectiveness in development assistance programs.

Some in AID contend that about the time that

university personnel are becoming effective, they

are rotated back home and another faculty member

comes into begin a‘ ‘learning process. ’ On the other

hand, universities contend that while personnel may

inevitably change, there is continuity of leadership,

understanding and commitment to the project

through stable university structure [119].

Some AID employees assert that universities do

not contain sufficient numbers of adequately trained

and interested staff to just@ favoring universities in

AID contracts. The perceived lack of U.S. university

commitment to international development is evidenced, it is argued, by:

●

●

●

●

●

inadequate integration of international programs in university departments,

dearth of support for faculty and student

research in foreign countries and with international organizations,

inadequate university investment in development assistance initiatives,

inability of university staff to commit to

long-term projects, and

deficient university capabilities in areas integral to international development work [cf: 25].

Obligations associated with the tenure system and

the general lack of rewards and incentives for

university personnel working in the international

development field discourage university staff from

becoming involved in development assistance activities. University faculty may focus on subjects that

lead to generation of publications and other forms of

peer or public recognition to achieve tenure. Much

of the research needed in LDCs is of an applied

nature and may not appeal to university researchers,

or be more readily conducted by nonuniversity

organizations. Thus, university personnel participating in AID-funded projects overseas may be older

faculty members with secured tenure that may not be

up-to-date with current scientific or technological

advances, or young faculty members with little

experience. Further, difficulties in finding replacements for faculty sent overseas potentially lead

university administrators to discourage faculty
Chapter 3-Perceived Conflicts in the AID/University Relationship ● 29

wishing to participate in development assistance

work.

Adverse reactions by the primary constituents of

land-grant universities-farmers and other agriculturalists-also may induce some university faculty

to avoid work in international development assistance. Farmers are generally characterized as perceiving international agricultural development activities as a threat: by stimulating production in

LDCs, they promote competition for markets [60]

(figure 3-l).

An argument commonly used to convince U.S.

farmers to support the land-grant universities’ participation in international development work is that

returns will directly benefit American society and

U.S. farmers (box 3-A). This argument fails to

completely convince agricultural audiences, largely

because the rewards of overseas work tend to be

unpredictable and do not solely benefit the farmers

of the individual State supporting the development

assistance activity. Even State legislators prepared

to accept the reverse technology transfer argument

may find it “more convenient to let another State

pay the bills” [38]. A general belief exists among

many U.S. agriculturalists that State funding should

be devoted to domestic or State-related programs,

whereas Federal funding may be allocated for

international purposes [58].

Conflicting Development Assistance

Timeframes

Historically AID has aimed at short-term solutions to development problems and universities have

preferred long-term involvement, with ensuing conflict. Congressional pressure accounts for much of

AID’s emphasis on short-term results, as does AID’s

reward system [111].

Whereas university personnel arrange their schedules in terms of the academic year, AID personnel

have a much more flexible but less predictable

calendar. AID projects are subject to delays, and

university personnel may not have the freedom to

coordinate their schedules with a revised project

schedule.

Conversely, universities bring stability to international activities. Unlike many private firms, which

are subject to fluctuations of the economy, and

PVOs (particularly smaller ones), which are vulnerable to abrupt changes in funding and constituent

Figure 3-1-U.S. Farmer Views on Whether the United

States Should Assist Developing Countries

Increase Their Agricultural Productivity

and Trade Potential

Strongly disagree

1 O% 

Strongly

Not sure

21%

aBased on 21-State composite.

SOURCE: H.D. Guither et al., “U.S. Farmers’ Preferences for Agricultural

and Food Policy in the 1990s,” North Central Regional Extension Publication 361, North Central Regional Research Publ”mtion 321, Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 787,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November 1989.

support, universities largely are organizations with

long histories and reasonably assured futures. Once

established, relationships and collaboration between

U.S. faculty and LDC colleagues can endure

despite periods of strained political relations between countries. Mechanisms such as the tenure

process, often seen as interfering with university

involvement in development assistance activities,

can also be viewed as a force contributing to

long-term continuity of faculty. As a result, the

objectives and overall philosophy of a university

tend to remain consistent over long periods of time,

promoting concomitant consistency in the quality

and objectives of the work university personnel

perform.

AID Preference for Open Contract

Competition

AID personnel tend to prefer open competition for

projects, which may promote selection of the most

competent available contractor for a given project.

Private firms are playing a growing role in the AID

development assistance program. Some believe that
30 ● New Oppportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Box 3-A—Building a Domestic Agricultural Constituency for International

Agricultural Development

University involvement in foreign agricultural assistance has been plagued by strained relations between

land-grant universities and U.S. agricultural interest groups. Farmers may oppose agricultural assistance as a result

of more general critical attitudes towards foreign affairs and, in particular, foreign aid. Surveys comparing the

attitudes of farmers to those of the general public on foreign aid have found that U.S. farmers: 1) felt more strongly

that economic aid to other nations hurts the U.S. economy, 2) felt the U.S. should restrict imports from Third World

countries until the U.S. trade deficit is lowered (83 percent v. 60 percent), and 3) were less supportive of opening

U.S. markets to assist developing countries (17 percent v. 32 percent).

Moreover, some U.S. farmers together with producer organizations and their representatives in the U.S.

Government, perceive the participation of the land-grants and other public agricultural research organizations in

development assistance programs as contrary to the interests of U.S. agriculture. Opponents argue that

production-oriented agricultural aid operates as a subsidy that unfairly strengthens their international competitors,

assisting developing countries to produce and export larger volumes of commodities at a lower cost than they could

without U.S. aid. Critical U.S. farmers argue that publicly owned technical resources, which farmers themselves

help support through taxes, should not be used to their own economic detriment.

In response to these criticisms, U.S. universities and the broader development assistance community have

developed several lines of reasoning to convince farmers of the merits of land-grant involvement in development

assistance abroad, and its benefits to U.S. agriculture. The primary argument for continued aid is based on the

expansion of markets for U.S. agricultural products resulting from increasing Third World incomes. In the long run,

growth in the agricultural sector of lesser developed countries (LDCs) stimulates aggregate agricultural imports into

those countries. This somewhat paradoxical effect occurs because Third World farmers’ disposable income grows

faster than indigenous agricultural production. In particular, as incomes rise, LDC farmers buy more meat and dairy

products, but do not generally produce enough feed to satisfy these changing tastes. Producers of feedgrains and

soybean meal, among which the United States is the largest, would tend to benefit from the increased foreign

demand.

Despite historical evidence supporting this argument, it is no longer universally applicable. Patterns of

economic development vary from developing country to developing country: U.S. commodity producers are not

all affected the same way by Third World economic growth. High national debts also have tended to negate much

of the value to U.S. farmers of foreign agricultural development: debtor countries are forced to spend their added

income on debt repayment rather than additional imports. Nonetheless, this argument, when propounded by

individuals whom farmers trust, has been moderately effective in building constituencies for land-grant university

foreign assistance programs in some States.

Other arguments for aid include:

*

●

●

●

●

Increasing LDC consumption of even competitive commodities will potentially increase demand for U.S.

production, especially if U.S. products have higher quality.

U.S. scientists participating in foreign agricultural assistance, and particularly international agricultural

research, can incorporate research results into ongoing U.S. research programs. Research results can then

be transferred to U.S. farmers for use in domestic production.

Research may focus on improving pest control, nutrient management, or storage practices, potentially

reducing U.S. production costs.

Access to LDC germplasm can improve cultivars available to U.S. farmers through breeding programs for

characteristics such as drought tolerance or virus resistance.

International research may provide faculty and students with a global perspective, beneficial in an

increasingly interdependent ‘world, and can contribute to the land-grant university’s reputation and

subsequent ability to attract high-quality personnel.

Land-grant universities have undertaken a variety of programs to counter opposition and strengthen support

for their development assistance programs. A crucial element in all of these constituency-building programs seems

to be the trust that farmers have in the expertise of land-grant faculty and staff, and their social identification with

these land-grant personnel. Because extension personnel work most closely with U.S. farmers, they may be a

particularly valuable asset in university attempts to build constituencies for agricultural development assistance

programs.
Chapter 3-Perceived Conflicts in the AID/University Relationship ● 31

Box 3-A--Continued

While long-standing personal relationships between land-grant experts and farmers may be the most effective

means to communicate the benefits of land-grant development assistance programs, land-grant universities have

also employed more formal means to gain farmer support for international programs. Most land-grant Title XII

offices publish newsletters on the universities’ agricultural assistance programs, highlighting the benefits of these

programs for farmers of a State or region. The University of Illinois’ International Agriculture Update is perhaps

the most ambitious of these newsletters. In addition, faculty working on AID grants often hold field days, during

which farmers can examine research projects intended to assist developing countries, ask questions, and air concerns

about the projects.

Most land-grant universities receive some funds from State- and National-level producers organizations for

commodity-specific research. Use of these funds commonly is determined by committees composed of land-grant

personnel and members of the commodity association’s research committees. Faculty involved with international

programs periodically use these committee meetings to inform farmers about the programs and to answer questions.

The principal organizations representing land-grant faculty active in agricultural development assistance

programs-the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC.) and the

Association of International Agriculture and Rural Development (previously the Association of U.S. University

Directors of International Agricultural Programs)---have produced educational materials intended to educate

farmers and other traditional land-grant constituencies about the value of their work for U.S. agriculture. For

example, the latter institution recently published a brochure that clearly explains how “technical assistance to

developing countries expands the world markets in which U.S. agriculture must compete” [5]. Since at least the

mid-1980s, when farmer opposition to publicly funded agricultural research and technical assistance for

development reached its peak, land-grant experts also have used the annual meetings of these two organizations to

discuss ways to build support within the farm community for development assistance programs.

Some universities have indirectly used AID’s Biden-Pell program, begun in 1982 for educating the U.S. public

about development assistance. Biden-Pell monies are intended for the use of private voluntary organizations

(PVOs), but some of these PVOs have worked with universities to educate farmers about developing countries and

development assistance programs. Little formal evaluation of Biden-Pell educational projects has been undertaken

by AID, and it is difficult to ascertain the impact of the program in the farm community. However, AID and

internationally oriented agricultural experts in land-grant schools generally believe that the program has helped

alleviate opposition to foreign agricultural assistance.

The Biden-Pell program that was perhaps most closely associated with the universities was conducted by the

Consortium for International Cooperation in Higher Education (CICHE) during the mid-1980s. The creation of

CICHE was inspired by NASULGC personnel and was “designed to mobilize the resources of the Cooperative

Extension Service (housed on land-grant campuses) to enhance citizen understanding of. . . the stake of the U.S. in

international development. ’ CICHE, in cooperation with Extension personnel in four states (Georgia, Michigan,

Rhode Island, and Utah), produced a variety of educational materials, primarily focusing on the benefits to the

United States of agricultural assistance. These materials were then distributed to internationally oriented extension

leaders throughout the country.

Another way the Cooperative Extension Service has built constituencies for land-grant development assistance

programs is through a farmer-to-farmer assistance program. Funds for the program, obtained through the “P.L.

480” food aid program, also were intended for use by PVOs. However, the international office of USDA’s

Extension Service (the Federal arm of the Cooperative Extension Service) is attempting to obtain authority to

disburse some of the farmer-to-farmer funds to State extension services. Part of the office’s intent is to employ U.S.

farmers returning from short-term consultancies in developing countries, together with internationally oriented

extension personnel, to convey to other U.S. farmers the value of agricultural development assistance for LDC

farmers and U.S. agriculture.

SOURCE: Based on Robert C. Stowe, ‘‘U.S. Universities and Constituency Building Development Assistance,’ contractor report prepared for

the OffIce of Technology Assessment, August 1989.
32 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

AID’s current emphasis on the private sector undermines the Title XII program because private consulting firms operate under competitive, but less restrictive, regulations and may use university personnel to

staff projects [119]. Others fear that private consulting firms operated by ex-AID staff will receive an

unfair advantage in contract competition deriving

from previous personal connections [2].

AID preference for private firm contracts may

reflect dissatisfaction with university performance

in private sector development activities, or may

indicate recognition that private firms are more

suited for participation in private sector development activities than universities. AID personnel

have encountered various difficulties managing

university contracts. Among the complaints lodged

by Missions: universities tend to be less costconscious and university personnel tend to be less

familiar and have less experience working with AID

than private sector fins. Universities are also

perceived as being less responsive to AID project

needs [4,52].

Continuity of many U.S. university/LDC institution relationships probably will not be sustained

(i.e., continue when AID financing is no longer

forthcoming), however, without AID resources [51].

Thus, AID is supporting an Institutional Linkage

program based on encouragement of noncontractual

linkages between U.S. universities and LDC institutions, and of collaboration between universities and

the private sector.
Chapter 4

Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in

Development Assistance

Changes in development assistance policy have

affected every member of the development community. Significant constraints on funds allocated to

U.S. development assistance activities, and the

resulting cutbacks in U.S. Agency for International

Development (AID) management staff, have led to

a decrease in the number of AID-supported development projects. As the number of projects has

decreased, individual projects have grown larger,

demanding different types of management skills and

participation. Simultaneously, increasing numbers of

development assistance enterprises have emerged.

Thus, while opportunities for involvement have

diminished, the number of parties eager to participate have grown. These shifts have sparked increased competition-for projects and for funds—

for which U.S. universities, because of the Title XII

program, were not prepared.

Opportunities may exist for increased university

involvement in international activities promulgated

by Federal agencies other than AID. AID’s changes

also may open opportunities for collaboration

among U.S. universities and between universities

and private voluntary organizations, private sector

firms, agribusiness, and International Agricultural

Research Centers. Land-grant universities have had

some success in collaborating with other U.S.

organizations; the potential exists for extending this

experience to their international work.

COLLABORATION AMONG

UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER

DEVELOPMENT

ORGANIZATIONS

Effective marshaling of resources has become a

crucial issue given depletion of the foreign assistance budget. Members of the development community have long acknowledged that pooling and

sharing resources may offer advantages to the U.S.

development assistance program.

There is a pressing need to develop new national

partnerships in international agriculture, ones that

maximize the return to U.S. agriculture by coordinating the missions of our institutions. AID, USDA,

other Federal agencies, universities, private institutions and producers can all benefit through improved

cooperation [25].

Analysis of the complementary strengths and

weaknesses of the different development actors

reveals that, in many instances, potential for successful collaboration does exist and may provide a

route to a more economical and effective development assistance program.

Constraints posed by certain elements of the AID

structure, by dearth of interest on the part of

universities and other development actors, and by

competition and animosity among various organizations, have hampered past efforts to carry out

collaborative ventures. AID has attempted to boost

the capabilities of individual actors, but has not

addressed the possibility of building complementary

capacities necessary for joint undertakings. In fact,

AID’s efforts to establish separate entities to address

each sector—the Board for International Food and

Agricultural Development (BIFAD) to represent

universities, the Private Enterprise Bureau to work

with the private sector, and the Office of Private and

Voluntary Cooperation to assist private voluntary

organizations (PVOs)-without promoting efforts

to link them, may hinder collaboration.

U.S. universities have successfully pooled their

resources and skills to address a variety of domestic

concerns, but few collaborative activities have been

extended to the international domain. While linkages between universities and other development

actors must in many cases be developed from

scratch, a number of extant mechanisms and programs might support cooperative efforts between

universities. Programs may have to be modified to

stimulate cooperative efforts. Competition for development assistance contracts may not ensure

access to sufficient expertise.

Successful collaboration between U.S. universities and other development actors will depend on a

number of different factors including: magnitude of

interest demonstrated by organizations, degree to

which participants perceive joint efforts to contribute to their self-interest, and quality of incentives

–33–
34 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

offered to participants. Initiating fruitful collaborative relationships will involve two important steps:

1) discerning when collaboration will prove beneficial and when it will prove ineffectual, and 2)

developing mechanisms and incentives for organizational collaboration.

University-to-University Linkages

Some of the most successful university development work has been generated by university-touniversity links. Collaborative Research Support

Programs (see app. B), for example, commonly

involve U.S. universities from different crop growing regions and with differing developing country

experiences. This program operates on a wide range

of agricultural production problems in most regions

of the world.

Single universities often cannot provide the critical mass necessary for complex projects. Multiinstitutional efforts in training and research can unite

resources from a diversity of disciplines, experiences, and backgrounds. This type of collaboration

is particularly valuable in an era when development

assistance programs are leaning towards multidisciplinary approaches and solutions.

In addition to providing a broader spectrum of

resources and, thus, improved university performance, joint university efforts can also generate

political support for development assistance that

single university undertakings sometimes undermine. Lack of understanding and visibility tend to

limit the popularity of U.S. universities’ international activities. Collaborative programs serve to

reinforce each university commitment to participation and performance. Cost sharing for international

activities among universities also may appease

constituents who otherwise fault U.S. universities’

involvement in overseas work for attenuating resources that should be channeled to the universities’

domestic responsibilities.

U.S. universities also benefit from sharing risks.

Financial and personal risks involved with university participation in overseas work have increased

due to factors such as political instability in countries and regions, international terrorism, and larger

project size that calls for increased fiscal investments.

Developing countries have reacted favorably to

contracts with multiple-university entities. Joining

of university forces has often provided host countries with a large stock of resources and commonly

permits more flexibility than contracts with single

universities. Accessing the right mix of qualfied

staff at appropriate times has proved easier when

host country governments have the reservoir of

talent available under multiuniversity contracts.

Universities linked to consortia, and small institutions linked to larger ones, can benefit from pooling

expertise and experience to win contracts. Internal

reviews of collaborative projects also could lead to

improved university performance. The Consortium

for International Development (CID) has initiated a

policy of reviewing all projects within the first year

to identify and correct problems.

Collaborative efforts also may provide more effective predeparture orientations than single institutions

tend to offer. Many universities have effectively

administered training programs for a development

project. AID has used the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) to administer general training

programs in agriculture and assigned a similar role

to private firms in other areas. A broad collaborative

effort could allow universities to participate in AID

training in agriculture, natural resources, and environment. For example, a single training unit representing all five regional consortia could marshal a

unique set of resources and link the educational

systems of virtually every State.

Short training courses oriented to development

assistance have been developed and offered without

coordination except for the small number coordinated by USDA. CID has recently created a catalogue of short courses for its members. Analysis of

that information indicates many opportunities to

enhance performance and save money through

greater collaboration, by merging courses, sharing

resources, and reducing duplication.

Constraints on University Linkages

Constraints to multiuniversity development assistance activities vary according to the ‘mechanism

through which the universities are joined and the

nature of the particular institutions involved. Certain

problems, however, seem common to joint university work.

Diffusion of responsibilities and communication

inherent in multiuniversity projects sometimes

causes difficulty for donor agencies and participants.

Donor agencies may have difficulty determining or
Chapter Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development Assistance ● 35

assigning responsibility within development projects where several universities are involved. Confused channels of communication also lead to

miscommunications between university participants.

Complexities in contracting have plagued multiuniversity arrangements. Most university participation in development assistance occurs under some

form of contract or agreement with the donor

agency. For a single university program, these

arrangements generally are straightforward. Existing procurement/contracting processes for work

with multiple organizations generally are designed

for activities in which private sector firms serve as

lead institutions and other organizations serve as

subcontractors. Such processes do not support coequal collaborative efforts involving several universities working together.

Approaches Used in University-to-University

Linkages

Universities in the past have formed various

formal and informal linkage mechanisms to perform

work together, including simple agreements, ad hoc

membership in consortia, subcontracting activities

to other universities, development of transitory or

long-standing specific-purpose linkages, and formal

consortia. Universities commonly base their joint

work on simple agreements to work together on

programs of common interest, such as Memoranda

of Agreement or Understanding, which do not create

an entity that can contractor implement programs on

behalf of the partners.

Ad Hoc Membership in Consortia-Institutional

agreements to facilitate access to individual staff

members and to incorporate institutions into consortia on an ad hoc basis allow unique program

resources to be shared. For instance, a number of

institutions have benefited from Mississippi State

University’s seed technology program using this

form of collaboration.

Subcontracting With Other Universities- Universities often enter into contracts to carry out a specific

set of predefine activities related to an AID project,

commonly in response to AID Requests for Proposals. While collaborative decisionmaking and management may occur, one partner tends to act as the

prime contractor in legal/financial matters, subcontracting specific program elements to other institutions. In this way a combination of universities,

tailored to the needs of a particular project, can

contribute to an AID program [12].

Specific Purpose Collaboration-Long-standing

specific-purpose networks of universities also exist

to address particular development concerns. CRSPs

have proved particularly successful specific-purpose

collaborative arrangements. Further, the Consortium

for International Crop Protection and the Farming

Systems Support Project involve a number of

universities that provide staff and other services to

AID through a lead institution. The majority of the

specific-purpose linkages are transitory, functioning

for a defined period and subsequently dissolving

[17].

Consortia-Formal consortia have been used

mostly for implementation of development projects

(see app. D). Although each of six such consortia has

developed an individual management style, organizational structure, underlying philosophy, and disciplinary expertise, they share some features [12].

Each, for example, has aboard of directors or similar

mechanism by which university members direct the

organization’s activities as well as a central executive office and staff [17]. Most commonly, a

consortium often assigns primary implementation

responsibility to a single lead institution, while the

other participating institutions contribute staff,

training, and other inputs. In other cases, universities

divide responsibilities among members by functions, such as training, or by subject matter or

discipline.

Host governments identified university consortia

as their preferred type of contractor in one analysis

of alternative technical assistance delivery systems

[12]. Host country government’s would have difficulty replicating, let alone improving on, advantages

offered by access to a number of high qualify U.S.

universities.

Linking Large and Small Universities-The

major motivation for developing linkages between

small and large universities is to help the smaller

institutions build their capacities to participate in

development assistance projects. Through these

linkages, AID and universities also hope to ensure

access to all relevant resources. To date, partnerships

have aimed at pairing universities based on shared

interest in the same substantive field.

AID and universities have used a variety of

methods to support linkages between large and small
36 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

institutions. CRSPs allow staff to be drawn from

small as well as large universities. Many small

universities also are members of consortia. Most

historically black colleges and universities

(HBCUs) are members of the Southeast Consortium

for International Development [17]. Enactment of

Title XII created a program whereby land-grant

universities and HBCUS participate in Joint Memoranda of Understanding (JMOU); AID allocates

funding to each partner to facilitate and enhance the

involvement of each institution in future AID

programs. Larger institutions sometimes engage

HBCU partners to secure and implement a specific

project-a practice that AID encourages. The Joint

Memorandum of Understanding project was terminated in 1991, although a mechanism to continue

support for HBCUs may be developed.

Several difficulties hinder linking small universities with larger ones. Large universities may lack an

incentive to form binding relationships with smaller

schools that may not already house desired resources

or expertise, and may not vigorously pursue overseas opportunities with these institutions [51].

Larger institutions also may dominate smaller ones

in collaborations, hindering HBCU faculty ability to

influence decisions. Critics of the HBCU program

believe the arrangement focuses too much on

benefiting the HBCUs and does not necessarily take

into account what is in the best interest of the larger

universities, AID, and the developing country recipients. However, a review of the JMOU program

found that the partnership approach has been beneficial to both groups of organizations and to AID [51].

University and International Agricultural

Research Center Linkages

Much of the increase in agricultural production

worldwide over the past two decades drew on the

research and innovations of international collaborative networks, especially the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs). For example, much

of the progress that has occurred in developing world

agriculture-including some of the most famous

breakthroughs, known collectively as the “green

revolution’ ‘-can be largely attributed to the contributions of IARCs.

Since inception of the IARCs, U.S. universities

have participated in their work. However, the basic

philosophy for university involvement in IARCs has

changed in recent years. Initial altruistic motivations

have shifted to an emphasis on the potential for

mutual benefits resulting from knowledge discovered at the IARCs. Growing emphasis on “reverse

technology transfer” and a two-way flow of information in international agricultural research has

revealed many areas of mutual interest and opened

up possibilities for sharing techniques and resources

between the United States and lesser developed

countries (LDCs). This change in U.S. philosophy

has broadened the rationale and expanded the

possibilities for U.S. university/IARC linkages [cf:

25].

The United States has a vested interest in many of

the major crops studied by the IARCs (table 4-l).

Wheat, maize, sorghum, beans, cowpeas, rice, and

barley serve as staples to U.S. and LDC agriculture.

U.S. and LDC scientists seeking answers to problems on the same crop or facing similar agroecological conditions have a strong basis for conducting

cooperative research activities: agronomic techniques developed for one area of the world can often

be applied to another. Texas has a black soil region,

for example, similar to regions in Africa and Asia.

TARCs present a forum in which mutually beneficial

joint activities can take place.

IARCs also serve as repositories for germplasm,

the genetic resources that serve as the building

blocks for many cultivars. Scientists from the United

States and across the world draw on these genetic

resources and constantly look for new sources of

variation to integrate into ongoing programs.

Through IARCs, U.S. universities have shared useful

knowledge about genetic resources with other organizations and benefited from new information

from these organizations.

U.S. university participation in the IARCs also

helps promote global flow of knowledge attained

through scientific research. IARCs foster international exchange of information and knowledge

among a worldwide network of scientists. In addition to research requiring direct collaboration among

international colleagues, IARCs sponsor conferences and workshops that also foster the flow of

knowledge. Thus, a U.S. scientist working at a center

has multiple opportunities to interact with counterparts from all areas of the world.

The relationship between U.S. universities and

IARCs has a synergistic and self-perpetuating quality. Increased university collaboration with IARCs

contributes to the internationalization of U.S. uni-
Chapter &Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development Assistance ● 37

Table 4-l—Primary Foci of International Agricultural Research Centersa

Acronym Center Location

Specific commodities:

AVRDC

CIAT

CIMMYT

CIP

ILCA

ILRAD

INIBAP

IRRI

ITC

WARDA

Geographical areas:

CARDI

CATIE

ICARDA

ICRISAT

IITA

Agricultural inputs:

IBPGR

ICIPE

IFDC

Natural Resource Systemb

IBSRAM

ICI-ARM

ICRAF

IIMI

Food and Agricultural Policy

CABI

IFPRI

ISNAR

Asian Vegetable Research and Development

Center

International Center for Tropical Agriculture

International Maize and Wheat Improvement

Center

International Potato Center

International Livestock Center for Africa

International Laboratory for Research on Animal

Diseases

International Network for the Improvement of

Banana and Plantain

International Rice Research Institute

International Trypanotolerance Center

West Africa Rice Development Association

Caribbean Agricultural Research and

Development Institute

Center for Tropical Agricultural Research and

Training

International Center for Agrcultural Research in

the Dry Areas

International Crops Research Institute for the

Semiarid Tropics

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources

International Centre for insect Physiology and

Ecology

International Fertilizer Development Center

International Board for Soil Research and

Management

International Center for Living Aquatic

Resources Management

International Council for Research in

Agroforestry

International Irrigation Management Institute

Commonwealth Agricultural Board International

International Food Policy Research Institute

International Service for National Agricultural

Research

Taiwan

Colombia

Mexico

Peru

Ethiopia

Kenya

France

Philippines

Gambia

Liberia

Trinidad

Costa Rica

Syria, Lebanon

India

Nigeria

Italy

Kenya

United States

Thailand

Philippines

Kenya

Sri Lanka

United Kingdom

United States

Netherlands

a~me IARCS are sponsored by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Re=ard.

bTwo new international tropical forest research centers, based in Costa Rica and Indonesia, have ken ProW~.

SOURCE: Developed, in part, from information presented in Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research, The Secretariat, “Sustainability Research in the CGIAR-lts Status and Future,” Agenda Item

No. 9 of Consultative Group Meeting held May 29June 2, 1989, Canberra, Australia (Washington, DC:

CGIAR, 1989).

versities. This will, in turn, spur future involvement

of university staff members in IARC activities.

U.S. universities already play a major role in

training IARC researchers. A 1984 survey of staff at

several Centers revealed that 48 percent of their

researchers received their most recent degrees from

U.S. universities; 90 percent of those degrees were

awarded by U.S. land-grant institutions [9]. IARCs

also provide foreign students pursuing graduate

degrees at U.S. universities with a forum to conduct

research relevant to their LDC field of interest—

opportunities that may not exist at the U.S. university. Participating in the training of these LDC

students also contributes to development of the

future capacity of host country national agricultural

research institutions where many students later

work. Thus, linkages between U.S. universities and
38 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

IARCs offer benefits to the individuals involved

today, and strengthen the future of international

agricultural research.

Constraints to University/IARC Collaboration

IARC and university staff have identified few

constraints to the formation of additional university/

IARC linkages. Some IARC personnel view research as their central objective and believe that

training programs waste IARC researchers’ time and

resources; one solution might be to link the theses of

graduate students being trained at IARCs to particular IARC projects, thereby making their training

beneficial to the research objectives of the centers.

A more critical constraint seems to be lack of

financial support for U.S. scientists to participate in

IARC programs. By one estimate, for every dollar

contributed to IARC budgets, certain European

governments allocate 3 dollars to link their scientists

to the Centers; the United States devotes 3 cents for

each dollar contributed [25]. A program specifically

designed to encourage and support participation of

U.S. scientists in IARC collaboration may be

required.

Approaches Used in University/IARC Linkages

Extensive collaborative links exist between the

international centers and U.S. researchers, the majority of whom work at U.S. universities [9]. U.S.

university staff work collaboratively with IARCs in

each category of activity in which IARCs carry out

collaborative work:

●

●

●

●

●

Research contracts commonly formalized and

funded by an external donor (frequently AID),

allows universities to assist IARCs by contributing expertise in a particular area or towards a

specific task.

Noncontract research collaboration includes a

wide variety of activities, from the exchange of

germplasm for reciprocal screening to conduct

of formal, joint studies through visits or longdistance communication.

Research cooperation facilitates continuing

correspondence and interaction to plan research

programs. Cooperation may develop into more

formal activities.

Personnel exchanges include sabbatical leaves

in both directions and shorter forms of exchanges.

Training activities fall into two general categories: 1) training courses for researchers and

●

●

technicians from developing countries conducted at U.S. universities, and 2) degreerelated student research projects, involving

U.S. and LDC students, jointly administered by

IARCs and universities.

Information exchange includes joint publication and sharing of research databases or other

documentation programs.

Other informal collaboration includes a wide

variety of activities, generally short-term, such

as professional meetings, workshops, and planning or review panels.

AID has three programs specifically designed to

encourage and support linkages between U.S. institutions and IARCs: Collaborative Research on

Special Constraints, Scientific Liaison Officers Program, and CRSP/IARC Linkages. In addition to

continued support for these programs, two relatively

inexpensive opportunities exist to increase collaboration between IARCs and U.S. researchers.

Collaborative Research on Special Constraints—

This relatively new program is intended to solve

short-term problems that may be blocking technological breakthroughs at the centers by allocating 2-

to 3-year grants of approximately $50,000 a year for

collaborative research between scientists at U.S.

institutions and at IARCs. This approach already has

proved cost-effective [53], and might beneficially be

expanded.

Scientific Liaison Officers Program-AID identifies individual U.S. researchers to serve as Scientific Liaison Officers to IARCs to improve linkages

to the U.S. scientific community and to strengthen

technical exchange between the centers and AID.

The liaison officers help IARC researchers contact

U.S. scientists conducting relevant research and

assist U.S. researchers in establishing contact with

center staff. Liaison officers are selected on the basis

of professional excellence and interest in the research of the center for which they have been

chosen; they make annual visits to the centers they

represent, and serve as resource persons to AID

personnel.

CRSP/IARC Linkages—AID encourages research linkages between CRSPs and relevant

IARCs. In some cases, IARCs and CRSPs form

linkages based on existing areas of common interest,

in others, AID has prompted CRSPs to seek center

researchers to participate in joint planning conferences and serve on evaluation panels.
Chapter Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development Assistance ● 39

Post-doctoral Fellowships—AID could support

post-doctoral fellowships for U.S. researchers at

IARCs with relatively little additional funding.

Many post-doctoral fellows move into senior researcher positions either at the same center or

elsewhere in the system. For example, nearly 70

percent of the Rockefeller Foundation Social Science fellows remain in the Consultative Group on

International Agricultural Research system. At approximately $33,000 per post-doctoral year, $1

million would provide opportunities for 30 scientists

to come to the Centers.

Small-Scale Collaborative Linkages-Despite

shared interests, lack of funding commonly constrains the number of collaborative activities occurring between personnel at the international centers

and their U.S. colleagues. Small amounts of money,

perhaps $5,000 to $20,000 a year, can support a

graduate student working on a project of mutual

interest, provide resources for a series of germplasm

screening tests, or allow joint trials that require

travel funds. For a cost of $1 million, 50 to 200

activities could thus be supported. If treated as an

augmentation to the core IARC contribution, these

would require little managerial overhead.

University/Private Sector Linkages

Private sector participation in international development assistance is one of AID’s four main

objectives. This created interest in promoting linkages between U.S. universities and private sector

organizations. The term ‘‘private sector” remains

ambiguous, however, and has been defined to

encompass a wide range of establishments. Different

private sector entities play differing roles in the U.S.

economy, have varied motivations for participating

in the U.S. foreign assistance program, and develop

distinct types of relationships with U.S. universities.

For the purposes of this report, private sector has

been defined to include three groups: private voluntary organizations, private consulting fins, and

agribusiness fins. In order to address the distinct

issues involved in their linkages with U.S. universities, each of the groups will be treated separately.

University/Private Voluntary Organization

Linkages

Private voluntary organizations (PVOs) have

broadened their capabilities in recent years, simultaneously competing with and offering U.S. universities new opportunities. Due to a shift in philosophy

as well as congressional mandates to include PVOs

in the development process, PVOs have shifted their

major emphasis from disaster relief and food aid to

development assistance [113]. PVOs now play a

substantial role in development assistance work,

administering at least $1.2 billion in annual aid to

developing nations, some of which is supported by

AID.

A number of factors have contributed to AID’s

increasing reliance on PVOs. Despite heterogeneity

in the PVO community, many have emerged as

sophisticated, well-organized development assistance actors. They are employing growing numbers

of professional staff and forming long-term, strategic outlooks. PVOs have also expanded the range of

LDC nongovernmental organizations with whom

they interact [104]. Thus, PVOs have developed into

a strong constituency for foreign assistance. As a

result, despite apparent complementarities of university and PVO functions and the potential benefits

of forming collaborative university/PVO relationships, competition for congressional funding generally characterizes the university/PVO relationship.

Financial or prograromatic incentives to members of

both communities are probably necessary if successful university/PVO collaboration is to evolve.

Moreover, PVOs and universities tend to reach

out to different echelons of LDC societies. PVOs

tend to focus on “bottom-up” or grassroots strategies, emphasizing developing capacities for action at

the local level to solve local problems. Universities,

on the other hand, tend to work from the top down,

focusing most of their work at ministerial or

institutional levels. Because PVOs commonly engage in short-term projects disconnected from mainstream institutional development, many of their

innovations are not applied to other problems or

replicated by other organizations.

However, PVOs are increasingly called on to

plan, administer, and carry out large-scale development projects; universities are simultaneously

searching for new ways to participate in AID’s

development efforts. Thus, both communities are

carrying out extensive policy and program evaluations. These simultaneous searches for new development assistance approaches may provide an opportunity for PVOs and universities to consider more joint

endeavors.

Members of both communities have recognized

the potential benefits of carrying out cooperative
40 • New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

activities and have expressed interest in pursuing

that potential. A 1984 AID-commissioned survey of

180 PVOs and 120 universities revealed that both

groups value their previous collaborative efforts,

which mainly entailed PVOs hiring university consultants to carry out specific tasks [44]. The survey

also indicated that the two communities shared

priorities in a number of areas, including: agriculture, rural development, livestock development,

health, and water and sanitation.

Recent cutbacks in Federal development assistance have affected both communities. An alliance

between the two groups could strengthen their

ability to influence Congress and increase public

support for development work.

While university and PVO approaches represent

different development assistance philosophies, they

could prove to serve highly complementary functions. Through combined efforts, universities and

PVOs could extend their assistance to an even

broader spectrum of LDC populations. Although

universities have made some major technological

breakthroughs, they have been repeatedly criticized

for failing to disseminate new knowledge and

information to local populations. PVOs might provide an effective vehicle for transporting useful

knowledge from the generating institutions—

including universities-to the people who can implement it. University/PVO collaboration could lead

to adoption of successful PVO methods by universities in their long-term development activities. Concomitantly, PVOs could benefit from university

expertise in development of training skills.

Staffing problems have afflicted universities

working in development in the past. Many projects

require long-term staff participation, while university personnel generally are unable to commit to

such activities for extended periods of time. PVOs

could enlist university personnel for short-term

assignments on their projects. This type of arrangement would benefit PVOs by providing them with

the specific expertise they need, and would benefit

universities by broadening the universities’ international experience without depriving the university

community of valued personnel for extended periods

of time. Such assignments also would fit well into

the academic calender, which restricts the availability of faculty members for overseas assignments.

Constraints to U.S. University/PVO Linkages—

Despite potential successful university/PVO collaboration, a number of constraints stand in the way of

such linkages. Basic philosophical differences exist

between PVOs and universities. The typically conservative nature of universities tends to conflict with

the generally untraditional nature of PVOs. While

PVOs tend to be proactive and action-oriented,

universities are more often reactive and responseoriented. These philosophical differences have led to

the development of friction between the PVO and

university communities. Universities often question

the effectiveness of PVO efforts, because they view

the size of and scope of PVO efforts as inadequate

and unlikely to result in lasting change [11]. On the

other hand, PVOs have questioned the relevance of

university staff knowledge and expertise to developing country conditions and have criticized university

projects for failing to address the needs of the

“poorest of the poor.”

AID has done little beyond organizing several

pilot projects to stimulate PVO/university cooperation. Structurally, the agency treats the university

and PVO communities as separate development

actors operating in unrelated spheres. AID sponsors

advisory groups to each community-Advisory

Council for Voluntary Foreign Assistance (ACVFA)

for the PVOs and BIFAD for the universities-that

operate independently with little interaction. While

AID has provided guidance to help PVO groups

strengthen their capabilities, and Title XII provided

strengthening grants and other mechanisms to improve university performance, the agency has not

organized efforts to promote a collaborative relationship between the two groups. Specifically, no

funding mechanisms exist to support university/

PVO activities, and the two groups have not managed to communicate the benefits of past collaboration successfully to AID. Because successful university/PVO linkages will depend on AID’s support,

little progress will be made in this area until AID

recognizes the value of this type of cooperation.

Approaches Used in U.S. University/PVO Linkages—U.S. universities and PVOs have had little

experience working together in international development activities. The Center for PVO/University

Collaboration in Development was established by

Western Carolina University in 1979 to encourage

and institutionalize collaboration between PVOs

and Appalachian universities to address rural poverty. The participants perceived a number of comrnonalities between the problems of rural poverty in

the United States and in developing nations, and saw
Chapter Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development Assistance ● 41

the value of applying solutions developed in response to problems in one region elsewhere.

Based on meetings focused on involving PVOs

concerned with the environment and natural resources in collaborative efforts with the universities

and AID, BIFAD established a Standing Committee

on Sustainable Agriculture in 1989. Composed of

representatives from all three groups, the committee

currently is developing a National Agenda for

Promoting Sustainable Agriculture in Developing

Countries. In addition, AID is supporting a number

of university/PVO pilot projects to explore the

effectiveness of this type of broad cooperation.

Because so few examples of university/PVO

collaboration exist, initial efforts to improve university/PVO collaboration could involve an AIDorganized meeting between the agency and representatives of the PVO and university communities.

Substantive discussions might assist AID in determining the types of activities best suited for collaboration and the types of incentives needed to foster

that collaboration. Collaboration will likely work

best in cases where universities, PVOs, AID, and

LDC organizations work as partners from project

design and planning throughout project implementation.

CRSPs may also provide a forum for university/

PVO collaboration. While CRSPs have been cited as

effective examples of AID-supported university

programs, they have been criticized for lacking

extension elements. PVOs—recognized for their

success in extension activities--could contribute

these strengths to the CRSPs, ensuring the broad

dissemination of CRSP-obtained research and technology.

AID could establish a clearinghouse to facilitate

communication among AID, universities, and PVOs

[cf: 110]. A successful clearinghouse would provide

PVOs with technological support and universities

with useful evaluations of PVO experiences in

implementing university-generated technology.

The greatest opportunity for forming university/

PVO linkages maybe in training. Poor or inadequate

training programs often hinder the performance of

PVO personnel working in developing nations. U.S.

universities could be enlisted to train PVO staff and

indigenous nongovernmental organization staff,

thereby distributing the benefits of a widely recognized university strength. Concomitantly, PVOs

could train university personnel in development of

grassroots collaboration.

Universities and PVOs also could explore the

possibilities of creating links between LDC alumni

of U.S. universities and PVOs within those LDCs.

These alumni, knowledgeable about the host country

and likely to be familiar with the philosophies

backing the western organizations, could provide a

valuable resource for PVOs.

University/Private Consulting Firm Linkages

Significant collaboration currently occurs between U.S. universities and private consulting firms

working on AID-supported international development projects. Of 141 Title XII projects identifed by

BIFAD in 1988, private firms participated in some

capacity in 23 percent of the contracts, leading 11

percent of the activities and serving as subcontractors in the remaining 12 percent [79].

Private consulting firms present universities with

their most rigorous competition for development

assistance projects, reflecting the overlapping functions of private firms and universities working in this

field. Tightening of AID’s budget, the change in its

project portfolio, AID’s increased emphasis on

short-term results, and growing emphasis on private

sector development in the past decade have all led to

an increased reliance on private sector firms in

AID’s international work. private firms now often

replace universities as contractors. These factors

have contributed to antagonism between universities

and private fins.

Increasing the number of university/private firm

linkages could provide an avenue for reinvolving

universities in development assistance work while

maintaining the current focus of the development

assistance program. As the funds available for

development assistance work diminish and competition over the available funds increases, the expansion of university/private consulting firm linkages

could also present a cost-effective method for

accessing the best resources of these two development actors.

Universities and private consulting firms have

complementary resources and strengths and,

through joint undertakings, might be able to compensate for each other’s weaknesses. While universities’ low staff turnover rates tend to bring an element

of long-term stability to their work with AID,

universities sometimes lack the staff with the
42 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

expertise necessary to carry out specific tasks or to

work on individual projects. Regular full-time university staff fill about 62 percent of long- and

short-term overseas technical assistance positions in

Title Xll projects [80]. Private firms which tend to

hire particular staff members to work on specific

projects, could help fill personnel gaps in these

projects.

Private firms have shown strengths in certain

areas of development assistance work including:

private sector development, technical assistance to

business activities, and short-term technical assistance. Because private firms engaged in development

assistance activities are highly dependent on AID for

survival, they have also learned cost-effective,

efficient management methods. Collaboration between universities and private firms could help

universities conduct their development assistance in

the results-oriented reamer that AID prefers.

Constraints to U.S. University/Private Consulting Firm Linkages—The current competition and

antagonism between U.S. universities and private

consulting firms serves as the strongest deterrent to

forming increased linkages between the two. With

the implementation of Title XII set-asides, bad

feelings developed between universities and private

fins. Firms have argued that the set-asides create an

“uneven playing field,” ensuring universities with

easy access to AID contracts. Similarly, because

firms often hire ex-AID employees, universities

view private firms as having an inside track for

winning bids.

Areas of competitive overlap--such as extension

activities and economic policy analysis--exacerbate

this rivalry. Because a number of firms have

expanded their portfolios in response to the decline

in funding and limited opportunities, universities

and private firms find themselves competing over

more and more projects.

Universities and private consulting firms do work

together when they view collaboration as mutually

beneficial. University/private firm linkages will

likely continue to form in these cases, particularly

given the increased complexity and size of AID

projects. While expanded university/private firm

linkages would likely offer AID and developing

countries access to improved resources, a formal

collaboration program does not seem to offer many

benefits to either universities or private firm and

thus may not facilitate university/private firm linkages.

Approaches Used in U.S. University/Private

Consulting Firm Linkages—The most common

mechanism employed in forming university/private

firm linkages, the contract-subcontract relationship,

specifies the demands expected from and the benefits anticipated by each party involved. Because of

their honed management skills, experience in project

implementation, and cost-effective methods for

winning proposals, private firms tend to be effective

lead contractors. They apply these skills particularly

effectively when carrying out short-term projects.

Universities are perceived as more effective prime

contractors on long-term projects that comply with

their traditional strengths, such as institutionbuilding activities.

Universities and private firms currently share

certain personnel through various informal mechanisms. Because university and private firm staff

members are often recruited from the same places,

lines sometimes blur between the two entities.

University staff often play short-term advisory roles

at fins, and private firms often hire university

specialists, particularly economists, to work on their

development projects.

Increasing exchange of personnel between universities and private consulting firms may facilitate

collaboration between the two groups. Homestays at

private firms by university personnel, and vice versa,

could provide means to educate staff from one entity

on the techniques employed by the other. Staff

sharing, however, previously has led to some

discomfort on the part of universities. Private firms

usually can offer the financial incentives necessary

to enlist the assistance of the specific university staff

members needed to meet the demands of their

contracts. Universities tend to resent private firms

tapping into their resources in this manner without

fully involving the universities in those contracts

[43].

AID efforts to promote collaboration between

universities and private consulting firms may require little more than support for open competition

for projects or specification of preference for collaboration in AID’s Request For Proposals. Both

methods require AID to match the strengths of each

private firm and university with the particular

demands of individual projects.
Chapter 4-Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development Assistance ● 43

A Title XII-type mechanism may prove advantageous for projects that fall into universities’ field of

comparative advantage, such as long-term institution-building activities. The proposed Institutional

Linkages program is designed, in part, to accomplish

this. AID could maximize the use of open competition as a means of finding the best contractor in cases

where no candidates have inherently superior

strengths, but simultaneously universities could be

ensured access to the types of projects for which they

are best equipped.

Increased use of AID contracts that specify the

desire for joint university/private firm activities may

provide another means for fostering collaboration in

AID projects that would benefit from the involvement of both a university and a private consulting

firm. For example, private sector development

projects that also have training components would

likely benefit from joint participation.

Awarding joint study grants to universities and

private consulting firms also may provide an effective method for contributing to the available development literature. Private firms perform the majority

of AID project evaluations and, therefore, serve as

reservoirs of knowledge on past AID projects.

Universities have the capacity to synthesize that

knowledge and develop it into more generally

applicable theory. The entire international development community could benefit from collaborative

efforts geared at creating improved frameworks and

hypotheses for understanding past development

efforts and improving future ones.

University/Agribusiness Linkages

U.S. agribusiness experience working in Third

World countries has been scant, as are examples of

U.S. university/agribusiness collaborations in development assistance projects. Despite the growing

emphasis on integrating the private sector into

AID’s development work, the resources of U.S.

agribusiness largely remain untapped. The dearth of

agribusiness participation in AID’s development

assistance activities can be attributed largely to two

factors: agribusiness fins’ inability to see a place

for themselves in development assistance, and

AID’s difficulty conceptualizing and developing a

direct, meaningful relationship with agribusiness.

Universities and agribusiness have worked together effectively on the domestic front and maybe

able to transfer that collaboration abroad successfully. Private businesses have played a role in

determining the research agenda at universities and

then providing support for that research. Private firm

representatives serve on university advisory cornmittees and governing boards, and agribusiness

firms frequently participate in university conferences.

For example, U.S. universities and domestic

agribusiness firms recently launched the National

Agribusiness Education Development Project with

the support of USDA. This project, sponsored by 30

agribusiness firms, aims at encouraging the creation

of a model masters degree curriculum and developing anew way to deliver agribusiness education. The

project should offer benefits to both communities:

for agribusiness, it provides an approach to help

narrow the gap between the demand for professional

agribusiness managers and the supply of trained

graduates; for universities, the project shows

agribusiness support for academic programs jointly

managed by colleges of agriculture and of business.

Thus, universities and agribusiness have found ways

to provide advantages to both communities through

collaboration; the international sphere may provide

similar opportunities for mutual gains.

Although potential for successful collaboration

between U.S. universities and agribusiness firms

exists, development assistance activities suitable for

agribusiness participation are few. The range of

activities for U.S. university/agribusiness collaboration in development assistance activities, is even

more narrowly defined.

With decreasing funds allocated to development

assistance activities and increasing emphasis on

private sector involvement in these efforts, AID has

expressed increasing interest in involving agribusiness firms in its development assistance work.

Among the possibilities envisioned by the agency is

the development of joint activities that require a mix

of the type of skills that the two entities have to offer.

Agribusiness firms offer capital resources in the

form of investment and credit, the provision of

goods and services, management acumen and business skills, and an ability to market advanced

technology through licensing and R&D work. Many

of these strengths could complement the traditional

activities carried out by U.S. universities.

University/agribusiness collaboration might help

to eliminate some of the tensions between these two

communities based on commodity group pressure.
44 ● New Opportunuties for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Some agribusiness firms have viewed U.S. university efforts in developing nations as detrimental to

the firm’s business activities, particularly in cases

where the university work contributes to LDC

production of a crop that could provide competition

for U.S. producers. An emphasis on collaboration

between universities and agribusiness in development assistance could reduce this fiction.

By participating in the development assistance

process, agribusiness firms may hasten their access

to the profits available from Third World markets.

Growth and profitability of U.S. agribusiness largely

depends on the development of LDC markets for

U.S. products. Hastening the development process

will provide them with quicker access to these new

consumers.

Constraints on University/Agribusiness

Linkages

A primary obstacle to U.S. university/agribusiness

firm collaboration is difficulty reconciling the contradictory qualities of business oriented agriculture

firms with academically oriented universities. The

profit nature of agribusiness, and its potential to

skew a private fro’s ability to act as an objective

partner, has often appeared contrary to traditional

development assistance objectives and incompatible

with the philosophies of AID and the universities

participating in this type of work.

International development assistance is not the

primary concern or activity of agribusiness firms, aS

it is with many of the private sector organizations

examined earlier. Because these firms do not consider development assistance a priority, much of the

competition afflicting university relationships with

other development actors does not exist in the

university/agribusiness relationship. However, promoting university-agribusiness linkages likely will

require powerful incentives.

Approaches in University/Agribusiness Linkages

Universities and agribusiness have had a short

history of collaboration in AID-supported development activities. Two agribusiness associations fund

individual land-grant university faculty to demonstrate techniques for improving livestock and aquaculture production in developing countries, with the

expectation that increased U.S. sales of feed grains

will result from this project.

A livestock development project in Belize shows

how AID was able to enlist university/agribusiness

collaboration in development assistance. Subsequent to successful lobbying of AID by the U.S.

Feed Grains Council (USFGC), the terms of the

government bidding process specifically required

university/agribusiness collaboration. State-level affiliates of USFGC participate in the funding and

selection of technical assistance projects conducted

by land-grant faculty and staff. University/agribusiness

cooperation achieved scant success with this project

because some universities participating in the project interpreted the instructions to mean they could

hire individual agribusiness personnel rather than

develop a joint university/agribusiness endeavor.

The American Soybean Association/AID Liaison

Committee was first established as a means to ease

tensions among soybean producers, universities, and

AID; however, it has evolved into a mechanism for

promoting development cooperation. The committee identifies projects that mutually assist LDCs and

the U.S. soybean industry [24]. Although still

strongly opposed to publicly funded, productionoriented agricultural aid, the Association has developed into a positive force for economic development

in developing nations relative to many other U.S.

farm groups [60].

Successful university/agribusiness collaboration

will depend on identifying the regions and the types

of economies best suited for the type of collaborative

activities these actors wish to undertake. AID’s Asia

and Near East Bureau has shown a distinct interest

in pursuing agribusiness involvement in their development work, identifying one of its highest priorities

to be strengthening collaboration between U.S.

agribusiness and AID to develop new markets and

investment opportunities.

AID, universities, and agribusiness will need to

work together to determine where university/

agribusiness collaboration would prove most successful. The best areas for university/agribusiness

collaboration may lie in advanced developing countries where the infrastructure for private sector

development and profit motives for agribusiness

participation already exist. The types of projects

suited for joint undertakings might enlist universities to provide project analysis, training, education,

and technological support and engage agribusiness

to build processing or waste management facilities

and to lead the management and marketing systems.
Chapter 4-Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development Assistance ● 45

AID established the Bureau for Private Enterprise

(AID/BPE) to facilitate access to private sector

expertise. Working with AID/BPE and BIFAD, AID

could establish an advisory committee to examine

mechanisms for promoting and directing university/

agribusiness cooperation. The U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA), and particularly the Private

Sector Relations Division of its Organization for

International Cooperation in Development, could

promote similar discussions.

AID may not prove the best candidate for

organizing joint endeavors between universities and

agribusiness; USDA may prove abetter facilitator of

university/agribusiness collaboration. First, USDA

and agribusiness have a long history of working

together; they are comfortable with each other and

familiar with each other’s policies. Second, unlike

AID and agribusiness, USDA and these firms tend to

share many of the same objectives. This shared

philosophy may promote a more compatible working relationship.

University/Federal Agency Linkages

Although the primary charnel of U.S. university

involvement in development assistance has been

through the Agency for International Development,

other Federal departments and agencies have international offices active in international agriculture,

natural resources, and environmental affairs. Many

of these have established cooperative arrangements

with AID.

Among the relevant offices are: USDA’s Office

for International Cooperation in Development and

Foreign Agriculture Service, the Forest Service’s

Office of International Forestry and Forestry Support Program, the Environmental Protection

Agency’s Office of International Activities, and

international offices of the Department of the

Interior (e.g., National Park Service, Fish and

Wildlife Service) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These offices historically are

small and marginal to the primary mandate of their

own institutions, but they may expand their efforts

with the increasing international concern over sustainable agriculture and environmental issues, and

streamlinin “ ‘ g of AID activities.

USDA has long had a close relationship with U.S.

land-grant universities (and through them, to U.S.

agribusiness) related to domestic agricultural and,

more recently, natural resource and environment

teaching, research, and extension. It also has had

authority since 1977 to participate in multiinstitutional international research and extension,

and to strengthen U.S. colleges and universities to

help them participate in this collaboration (see box

4-A).

Thus, USDA’s support for international agricultural and environmental activities could be expanded, especially in those areas that provide clear

benefit to the United States. It is becoming increasingly clear that, to remain economically competitive

and environmentally sound, U.S. agriculture will

need access to new crop varieties, new pest and

disease control materials and techniques, and new

information on the workings of various agroecological systems.

For example, USDA, U.S. universities, and overseas institutions might found new Collaborative

Research Support Programs (CRSPs) to investigate

crops of mutual importance. The eight extant CRSPs

have provided substantial benefits to the supporting

countries, including the United States. For example,

nearly every commercial sorghum variety sold in the

United States is derived from varieties developed

through the Sorghum and Millet CRSP. The Bean

and Cowpea CRSP used germplasm from developing countries to develop bean varieties that have

generated approximately $12,960,000 for Michigan

farmers alone [25]. Similar collaborative programs

could be established for research on other major

commodities.

USDA might increase support for scientists from

U.S. universities to conduct collaborative research at

International Agricultural Research Centers and

through other international research and development networks (e.g., the International Biotechnology Collaboration Program). As previously noted,

AID does not match its core contribution to the

IARCs with funding for participation in IARC

activities. This participation provides U.S. scientists

exposure not only to knowledge and research results

generated by the Center, but also to the work of

visiting scientists from Europe and elsewhere.

However, to date USDA has devoted little effort

and resources to international agriculture. According to one estimate, USDA invests no more than 1

percent of its research funds annually in international agricultural research activities; less than 25

researchers and 100 counselors and agricultural

attaches are posted overseas to implement USDA
46 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Box 4-A-Current Legislative Authority for USDA Support of International Agricultural Research,

Extension, and Technical Assistance

Public Law 95-113: National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended*:

SEC. 1458. INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

(a) AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.--To carry out the policy of this subtitle, the Secretary (in consultation with the

Agency for International Development and subject to such coordination with other Federal officials, Departments, and agencies

as the President may direct) may—

(1) expand the operational coordination of the Department of Agriculture with institutions and other persons throughout

the world performing agricultural and related research and extension activities by—

(A) exchanging research materials and results with the institutions or persons; and

(B) conducting with the institutions or persons joint or coordinated research and extension on problems of

significance to food and agriculture in the United States;

(2) enter into cooperative arrangements with Department and Ministries of Agriculture in other nations to conduct

research, extension, and education activities in support of the development of a viable and sustainable global

agricultural system, including efforts to establish a global system for plant genetic resources conservation;

(3) enter into agreements with land-grant colleges and universities, the Agency for International Development, and

international organizations (such as the United Nations, World Bank, regional development banks, the International

Agricultural Research Centers), or other organizations, institutions or individuals with comparable goals, to promote

and support the development of a viable and sustainable global agricultural system;

(4) further develop within the Department highly qualified and experienced scientists and experts who specialize in

international programs, to be available to carry out the activities described in this section;

(5) work with transitional and more advanced countries in food, agricultural, and related research, development, and

extension (including providing technical assistance, training, and advice to persons from the countries engaged in the

activities and the stationing of scientists and other specialists at national and international institutions in the

countries);

(6) expand collaboration and coordination with the Agency for International Development regarding food and agricultural

research, extension, and education programs in developing countries;

(7) assist colleges and universities in strengthening their capabilities for food, agricultural, and related research and

extension that is relevant to agricultural development activities in other countries through-

(A) the provision of support to State universities and land-grant colleges and universities to do collaborative research

with other countries on issues relevant to United States agricultural competitiveness;

(B) the provision of support for cooperative extension education in global agriculture and to promote the application

of new technology developed in foreign countries to United States agriculture; and

(C) the provision of support for the internationalization of resident instruction programs of the universities and

colleges described in subparagraph (A); and

(8) establish, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, a program, to be coordinated through the International Arid Land

Consortium, to enhance collaboration and cooperation between institutions possessing research capabilities applied

to the development, management, and reclamation of arid lands.

(b) ENHANCING LINKAGES.-The Secretary shall draw upon and enhance the resources of the land-grant colleges and

universities, and other colleges and universities, for developing linkages among these institutions, the Federal Government,

international research centers, and counterpart agencies and institutions in both the developed and less-developed countries to

serve the purposes of agriculture and the economy of the United States and to make a substantial contribution to the cause of

improved food and agricultural progress throughout the world.

(c) PROVISION OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.-The Secretary may provide specialized or technical

services, on an advance of funds or a reimbursable basis, to United States colleges and universities and other nongovernmental

organizations carrying out international food, agricultural, and related research, extension, and teaching development projects

and activities. All funds received in payment for furnishing such specialized or technical services shall be deposited to the credit

of the appropriation from which the cost of providing such services has been paid or is to be charged.

IAu~o~tionfor .internatiom agricultural research extensio~ and collaboration was established in the National @Ctd~t_d Rm-h,

Extensioq and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (Public Law95-1 13) and was substantially amended by the Agricukure and Food Act of 1981 (Public

Law 97-98, sec. 1436), the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-198, sec. 1418), and the Food, Agriculture, Conservatio~ and Trade Act

of 1990 (Public Law 101-624, sec. 1613).
Chapter 4-Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development Assistance ● 47

activities. In contrast, France’s Center for International Agricultural Research and Development disseminates nearly 800 professionals worldwide [25].

Expanding USDA’s international activities thus is

likely to require expansion of international office

staff and new funds.

In response to the 1990 reauthorization of USDA

programs to strengthen the international capacities

of State universities and land-grant colleges, USDA

and the U.S. universities, under the leadership of the

National Association of State Universities and Land

Grant Colleges, are proposing a $25 million International Agriculture Program Initiative (IAPI). The

goal of IAPI is “to promote international research,

extension, and higher education programs in the

U.S. self-interest and to bring the economic benefits

of international work to U.S. farmers” [48]. Key

components of IAPI fall in four primary areas.

●

●

●

●

The

Research—strengthening international research capacity of land-grant university scientists, grants for research relevant to international competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, and

funding to conduct collaborative international

agricultural research.

Extension--expand bilateral technical assistance and promote application of new technologies developed overseas to U.S. agriculture.

Higher Education-expand curricula and support faculty and graduate participation in international food and agricultural endeavors.

National Agricultural Library--expand collection and transmission of international agricultural information relevant to U.S. agricultural

competitiveness.

proposal currently is under consideration by

university, commodity, and congressional groups.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR

UNIVERSITY PARTICIPATION IN

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

Since shifting its direction for development assistance, AID also has identified additional development needs and opportunities that may offer new

opportunities for university involvement. These

include: 1) sustainable agriculture and natural resources management, and 2) links with advanced

developing countries and attention to second generation problems of institutions.

Sustainable Agriculture and Natural

Resources Management

Sustainable agriculture and natural resources

management have received heightened AID attention in the past few years. Sometimes the two are

addressed separately and sometimes together. Their

growing importance can be seen in the Plan for

Supporting Natural Resources Management and the

Natural Resources Management Support project for

Sub-Saharan Africa; the environment and natural

resource strategy for Central America; the BIFAD

Task Force on both issues; the current Asia and Near

East Bureau’s development of a natural resource

management strategy; and the S&T Office of

Agriculture review of its strategy.

Obligations for this work are not well documented, but appear to have increased since the 1970s

and may have reached a plateau for the immediate

future. International attention to these two areas

continues to increase, implying that obligations for

this work may not be keeping pace. While activities

and funding for these areas have increased, it is not

clear to what extent universities can benefit. A

number of factors may limit their involvement:

. Only a small number of U.S. schools are

perceived to have the expertise to perform

sustainable agriculture and natural resources

management technology research and transfer

in a developing country context [8].

● AID’s focus is no longer on research nor the

type of large-scale institution-building that

universities have contributed to in the past.

Much of AID’s work is geared to PVOs and

nongovernmental organizations, in part because they also have relevant expertise and also

because AID hopes to leverage their funds for

this work. (The Bureaus for Africa and for Latin

America and Caribbean stress the role of

nongovernmental organizations in their environment and natural resource strategies.)

. Title XII has done little to promote university

involvement in environment and natural resources [78].

AID’s new Environment Initiative and BIFAD's

recent establishment of the Standing Committee on

Sustainable Agriculture reflects a growing interest

in AID and the U.S. university community in

environmental and natural resource issues. Still,

much of AID’s increased work is seen as responding
48 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

to proactive private organizations. Environmentally

sustainable development issues are of growing

concern to many contemporary development actors

within the university and PVO communities. U.S.

universities and PVOs have separately carried out a

number of activities involving natural resource

management in the past. University/PVO collaboration may serve as an effective means for addressing

environmental issues.

University development of proposals for university involvement, and for building the capability to

carry out natural resource and environmental

work—in training, research, policy, institution

building, or other activities—would be a way to gain

further AID interest and support. For Title XII

universities to cultivate these opportunities will

require outreach from the colleges of agriculture

(that tend to control technical assistance programs)

with other parts of the university with relevant

expertise, particularly environment and natural resources management. Significant potential in these

areas also lies outside the Title XII universities, and

in fact much of the work that has been done has been

undertaken by non-Title XII schools. A 1988

BIFAD document notes that:

The diverse talents in the forestry schools, departments of fisheries and wildlife, in faculties of range,

soil, ecology, and in the varied water programs areas

have had limited involvement through Title XII

programs to date. Yet they have important capabilities in both project development and human and

institutional development that can improve the

developing countries’ capacity for forming and

implementing economic and social polices that

integrate environment, natural resources, and sustainable agriculture issues [78].

Substantial opportunities as well as challenges for

university collaboration lie in fields that are relatively new to the development assistance agenda,

but that have rapidly gained importance. Sustainable

agriculture, policy research and analysis, and environmental issues in recent years have emerged as

priorities in development assistance programs.

Through joint efforts, universities may develop a

comparative advantage at:

● conducting research on environmental issues

and developing designs and strategies for

related projects,

building or enhancing indigenous capacity to

provide sustainable agricultural technology,

and

developing links between experts in specific

fields at different institutions to provide muchneeded information and analytical capacities in

policy reform.

However, neither AID nor universities have taken

advantage of the range of resources available for

such collaborative ventures. Data banks and personnel rosters of all staff who have the interest and

expertise required for project activity could be

developed and made available.

Collaborative efforts among consortia members,

or other linkages, should make course offerings in

such areas as sustainable agriculture, low-resource

agriculture, and agroforestry accessible to a larger

number of students across the various universities.

Furthermore, universities can collaborate to offer a

unique service in development assistance by directing training for a specific country or region. The

University of Wisconsin and Purdue University

effectively carried out such a program for 300

Brazilian students, administering programs spread

over more than 30 institutions.

AID recently has established the Sustainable

Agricultural Systems Collaborative Research Support program (CRSP) in response to congressional

mandates. AID has requested the National Academy

of Sciences to assist in development of this CRSP:

The NAS will appoint a panel of experts from U.S.

and international institutions; identify researchable

constraints to sustainable agriculture; identify required component disciplines; develop mechanisms

for integration of components; and design a global

implementation plan for a sustainable agriculture

CRSP [100].

Supporting universities have not been identified, but

clearly could play a prominent role.

Finally, the LARCs have identified sustainable

agriculture as an important goal of their international

agricultural research programs. In general, the

IARCs have incorporated research related to agricultural sustainability into ongoing work ‘‘as the issue

has gained salience and its omission in the past has

been seen to have incurred costs or added risks”

[18]. In fact, the underlying mission of the CGIAR

system has been modified by experience with

nonsustainability of some systems developed:
Chapter 4--Opportunities for U.S. University Participation in Development Assistance ● 49

While the system was born with the mission of

increasing total food production potential in developing countries, it is ever clearer that this objective

is tempered by sustainability considerations, by the

need to lower external inputs, and by the need to

support poor people who live in less-favored areas

that will never contribute substantially to aggregate

food production [18].

Most IARCs have some work underway related to

the physical, biological, and socioeconomic determinants of sustainable systems. Despite recognition

of the high priority of agricultural sustainability

concerns, however, many IARCs are ‘‘reluctant to

reallocate existing resources so rapidly as to endanger the successful completion of ongoing research”

[18]. Increased support, both financial and human,

probably is required for a major increase in IARC

attention to sustainable agriculture. AID, USDA,

and U.S. universities could assist these efforts.

Second Generation Development Assistance

The other two new development opportunities—

building links with advanced developing countries

and addressing second generation problems of

developing country institutions--do not receive

substantial funding but they may offer significant

potential for university involvement. One AID

official has characterized aspects of these emerging

opportunities:

Anew wave of projects appears to be emerging of

a “second generation” character where AID is

returning to developing country universities which it

formerly assisted and establishing a new round of

project assistance. This second generation of assistance will likely be of a different order with the focus

less on institutional pairing than on assisting the

revitalization of the host-country university through

collaboration with faculty and networks from a wide

range of universities in both the developed and

developing countries [32].

A current criticism of U.S. assistance is that once

the United States is successful in helping a country

develop, AID’s ties with the country are cut and the

United States is less able to benefit from this

success. Increased attention is being paid to the

concept of ‘‘mutual benefits’ of assistance, in

which both the recipient and the United States gain.

An example of mutual benefits in agriculture would

be using assistance to link U.S. public and private

agricultural research agencies with countries that

have developed strong national agricultural research

systems to conduct research of benefit to both

countries.

There is one concern about how development

oriented this work would be, since the focus would

probably be on more advanced research topics.

Questions arise about AID’s involvement given its

present mandate. Another U.S. agency, such as

USDA or the National Science Foundation might be

more appropriate.

A further difficulty may arise from a strong U.S.

domestic constituency arguing that development

assistance should not lead to developing country

competition with U.S. exports (see box 3-A inch. 3).

A focus on the less developed countries has partly

avoided this problem since many of these countries

do not pose serious competition to U.S. producers,

at least in the short-term. The advanced developing

countries on the other hand could pose more serious

competition, and programs to collaborate with them

may engender greater domestic political opposition.

Agricultural institutions that have received U.S.

foreign aid now may be facing criticisms on the

relevancy/effectiveness of their work and even

wondering about their continued existence. U.S.

universities could play a role in addressing some of

these problems by:

educating the next generation of faculty;

providing access to advances in science and

education;

helping build new programs (e.g., in the social

sciences, agribusiness, natural resources and

environment, and forestry);

helping the school play an increased role in

research or policy advice;

finding alternate funders; and

linking to constituency groups.

At the same time, schools in developing countries

may need to reduce their emphasis on increased

agricultural production, avoid overspecialization

and the fragmentation of disciplines, and focus

instead on being an agent of rural development. This

means emphasizing employment, income generation, environment and natural resource management,

and rural policy and institutional issues [30,31].
Appendix A

Title XII: Famine Prevention and Freedom From Hungerl

Sec. 296. General Provisions-(a) The Congress

declares that, in order to prevent famine and establish

freedom from hunger, the United States should strengthen

the capacities of the United States land-grant and other

eligible universities in program-related agricultural institutional development and research, . . . . should improve

their participation in the United States Government’s

international efforts to apply more effective agricultural

sciences to the goal of increasing world food production,

and in general should provide increased and longer term

support to the application of science to solving food and

nutrition problems of the developing countries.

The Congress so declares because it finds-

(1) that the establishment, endowment, and continuing support of land-grant universities in the United

States by Federal, State, and county governments has

led to agricultural progress in this country;

(2) that land-grant and other universities in the

United States have demonstrated over many years their

ability to cooperate with foreign agricultural institutions in expanding indigenous food production for both

domestic and international markets;

(3) that, in a world of growing population with

rising expectations, increased food production and

improved distribution, storage, and marketing in the

developing countries is necessary not only to prevent

hunger but to build the economic base for growth, and

moreover, that the greatest potential for increasing

world food supplies is in the developing countries

where the gap between food need and food supply is the

greatest and current yields are lowest;

(4) that increasing and making more secure the

supply of food is of greatest benefit to the poorest

majority in the developing world;

(5) that research, teaching, and extension activities,

and appropriate institutional development therefore are

prime factors in increasing agricultural production

abroad (as well as in the United States) and in

improving food distribution, storage, and marketing;

(6) moreover, that agricultural research abroad has

in the past and will continue in the future to provide

benefits for agriculture in the United States and that

increasing the availability of food of higher nutritional

quality is of benefit to all; and

(7) that universities need a dependable source of

Federal funding, as well as other financing, in order to

expand, or in some cases to continue, their efforts to

assist in increasing agricultural production in developing countries.

(b) Accordingly, the Congress declares that, in order to

prevent famine and establish freedom from hunger,

various components must be brought together in order to

increase world food production, including—

(1) strengthening the capabilities of universities to

assist in increasing agricultural production in developing countries;

(2) institution-building programs for development

of national and regional agricultural research and

extension capacities in developing countries which

need assistance;

(3) international agricultural research centers;

(4) contract research; and

(5) research program grants.

(c) The United States should—

(1) effectively involve the United States land-grant

and other eligible universities more extensively in each

component;

(2) provide mechanisms for the universities to

participate and advise in the planning, development,

implementation, and administration of each component; and

(3) assist such universities in cooperative joint

efforts with—

(A) agricultural institutions in developing nations, and

(B) regional and international agricultural research centers, directed to strengthening their joint

and respective capabilities and to engage them more

effectively in research, teaching, and extension

activities for solving problems in food production,

distribution, storage, marketing, and consumption in

agriculturally underdeveloped nations.

ITifle XII Wm es~b~hed in the kternatioti Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975 (22 U.S.C. 2220a. SW. 312 of ~blic ~w 94-161 (89

Stat. 849)), and was substantially amended by the bternational Development and Food Assistance At of 1978 (~b~c JAW 95-424; 92 Stat. 945),

International Development Cooperation Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-53, 93 Stat. 364), and section 6 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1979, which

established the IDCA and transferred all responsibilities for the implementation of this title from the Administrator of the Agency for International

Development to the Dhector of IDCA.

–51–
52 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

(d) As used in this title, the term “universities” means

those colleges or universities in each State, territory, or

possession of the United States, or the District of

Columbia,. . . which are commonly known as ‘‘landgrant” universities; . . . sea-grant colleges; and other

United States colleges and universities which-

(1) have demonstrable capacity in teaching, research, and extension activities in the agricultural

sciences; and

(2) can contribute effectively to the attainment of

the objective of this title.

(e) As used in this title, the term “Administrator”

means the Administrator of the Agency for International

Development.

Sec. 297. General Authority--(a) To carry out the

purposes of this title, the President is authorized to

provide assistance on such terms and conditions as he

shall deterrnine-

(1) to strengthen the capabilities of universities in

teaching, research, and extension work to enable them

to implement current programs authorized by paragraphs (2) (3) (4), and (5) of this subsection, . . . ;

(2) to build and strengthen the institutional capacity

and human resources skills of agriculturally developing

countries so that these countries may participate more

fully in the international agriculture problem-solving

effort and to introduce and adapt new solutions to local

circumstances;

(3) to provide program support for long-term

collaborative university research, in the developing

countries themselves to the maximum extent practicable, on food production, distribution, storage, marketing and consumption;

(4) to involve universities more fully in the international network of agricultural science, including the

international research centers, the activities of international organizations such as the United Nations Development Program and the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the institutions of agriculturally developing

nations; and

(5) to provide program support for international

agricultural research centers, to provide support for

research projects identified for specific problemsolving needs, and to develop and strengthen national

research systems in the developing countries.

(b) Programs under this title shall be carried out so as

to--

(1) utilize and strengthen the capabilities of

universities in—

(A) developing capacity in the cooperating nation

for classroom teaching in agriculture, plant and

animal sciences, human nutrition, and vocational

and domestic arts and other relevant fields appropriate to local needs;

(B) agricultural research to be conducted in the

cooperating nations, at international agricultural

research centers, or in the United States;

(C) the planning, initiation, and development of

extension services through which information concerning agriculture and related subjects will be made

available directly to farmers and farm families in the

agriculturally developing nations by means of education and demonstration; or

(D) the exchange of educators, scientists, and

students for the purpose of assisting in successful

development in the cooperative nations;

(2) take into account the value to the United States

agriculture of such programs, integrating to the extent

practicable the programs and financing authorized

under this title with those supported by other Federal or

States resources so as to maximize the contribution to

the development of agriculture in the United States and

in agriculturally developing nations; and

(3) whenever practicable, build on the existing

programs and institutions including those of the

universities and the United States Department of

Agriculture and the United States Department of

Commerce.

(c) To the maximum extent practicable, activities

under this section shall—

(1) be directly related to the food and agricultural

needs of developing countries;

(2) be carried out within the developing countries;

(3) be adapted to local circumstances;

(4) provide for the most effective interrelationship

between research, education, and extension in promoting agricultural development in developing countries;

and

(5) emphasize the improvement of local systems for

delivering the best available knowledge to the small

farmers of such countries.

(d) The President shall exercise his authority under

this section through the Administrator.

Sec. 298. Board for International Food and Agricultural Development—(a) To assist in the administration
Appendix A—Title XII: Famine Prevention and Freedom From Hunger ● 53

of the programs authorized by this title, the President shall

establish a permanent Board for International Food and

Agricultural Development (hereafter in this title referred

to as the “Board”) consisting of seven members, not less

than four to be selected from the universities. Terms of

members shall be set by the President at the time of

appointment. Members of the Board shall be entitled to

such reimbursement for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties (including per diem in lieu of

subsistence while away from their homes or regular place

of business) as the President deems appropriate.

(b) The Board’s general areas of responsibility shall

include, but not be limited to-

(1) participating in the planning, development, and

implementation of,

(2) initiating recommendations for, and

(3) monitoring of, the activities described in section

297 of this title.

(c) The Board’s duties shall include, but not necessarily be limited to-

(1) participating in the formulation of basic policy,

procedures, and criteria for project proposal review,

selection, and monitoring;

(2) developing and keeping current a roster of

universities-

(A) interested in exploring their potential for

collaborative relationships with agricultural institutions, and with scientists working on significant

programs designed to increase food production in

developing countries,

(B) having capacity in the agricultural sciences,

(C) able to maintain an appropriate balance of

teaching, research, and extension functions,

(D) having capacity, experience, and commitment with respect to international agricultural efforts, and

(E) able to contribute to solving the problems

addressed by this title;

(3) recommending which developing nations could

benefit from programs carried out under this title, and

identifying those nations which have an interest in

establishing or developing agricultural institutions

which engage in teaching, research, or extension

activities;

(4) reviewing and evaluating memorandums of

understanding or other documents that detail the terms

and conditions between the Administrator and universities participating in programs under this title;

(5) reviewing and evaluating agreements and activities authorized by this title and undertaken by universities to assure compliance with the purposes of this title;

(6) recommending to the Administrator the apportionment of funds under section 297 of this title; and

(7) assessing the impact of programs carried out

under this title in solving agricultural problems in the

developing nations.

(d) The President may authorize the Board to create

such subordinate units as may be necessary for the

performance of its duties, including but not limited to the

following:

(1) a Joint Research Committee to participfie in the

administration and development of the collaborative

activities described in section 297(a)(3) of this title; and

(2) a Joint Committee on Country Programs which

shall assist in the implementation of the bilateral

activities described in sections 297(a)(2), 297(a)(4),

and 297(a)(5).

(e) In addition to any other functions assigned to and

agreed to by the Board, the Board shall be consulted in the

preparation of the annual report required by section 300

of this title and on other agricultural development

activities related to programs under this title.

Sec. 299. Authorization-(a) The President is authorized to use any of the funds hereafter made available under

section 103 of this Act to carry out the purposes of this

title. Funds made available for such purposes may be used

without regard to the provisions of sections ll0(b) and

122(d) of this Act.

(b) Foreign currencies owned by the United States and

determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be excess

to the needs of the United States shall be used to the

maximum extent possible in lieu of dollars in carrying out

the provisions of this title.

(c) Assistance authorized under this title shall be in

addition to any allotments or grants that may be made

under other authorizations.

(d) Universities may accept and expend funds from

other sources, public and private, in order to carry out the

purposes of this title. All such funds, both prospective and

inhand, shall be periodically disclosed to the Administrator as he shall by regulation require, but no less often than

in an annual report.

Sec. 300. Annual Report-The President shall transmit to the Congress, not later than April 1 of each year, a

report detailing the activities carried out pursuant to this
54 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

title during the preceding fiscal year and containing a established pursuant to section 298 of this title and may

projection of programs and activities to be conducted include the separate views of the Board with respect to

during the subsequent five fiscal years. Each report shall any aspect of the programs conducted or proposed to be

contain a summary of the activities of the Board conducted under this title.
Appendix B

Programs Supporting Research and Technology Generation

U.S universities have participated in research related to

development assistance in several ways. The Collaborative Research Support program (CRSP) and the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) provide

forums for scientists, researchers, and graduate students

from U.S. institutions to work in conjunction with other

experts on global issues affecting development. AID also

has generated a special collaborative program with

Historically Black Colleges and Universities. U.S. university faculty also work on AID Mission project research,

which usually entails supporting a national agricultural

research organization in the host country.

Collaborative Research Support Program

(CRSP) and Other Research and Technical

Services Projects

AID’s Bureau for Science and Technology manages the

majority of the AID-supported research activities conducted by universities. AID and universities carry out the

majority of their agricultural research through grantfunded CRSPs or other research and technical services

projects funded through cooperative agreements or

grants. The CRSPs use matching grants as a mechanism

and most other research and technical services projects

use cooperative agreements.

CRSPs were formed for the conduct of long-term,

collaborative research in areas of mutual interest to U.S.

and LDC institutions and were designed to create strong

linkages between the two along with mutual benefits.

Each CRSP uses a multidisciplinary approach to analyze

and solve specific problems in the fields of food, nutrition,

or rural development [57]. The nine CRSPs focus on the

following topics: small ruminants, sorghum and millet,

beans and cowpeas, soil management, nutrition, peanuts,

pond dynamics, fisheries, and sustainable agriculture (see

table B-l).

U.S. and LDC institutions and the host country AID

Mission participate in planning and continued development of the CRSP. Based on recommendations from

BEAD, AID selects one institution as the core planning

entity for the CRSP. Later, AID and BEAD select the

institutions to be involved and designate one as the

management entity. The planning entity develops a 5-year

plan of action; the managing entity receives the grant and

is in charge of running the CRSP. Through a series of

subgrants allocated by the management institution, other

institutions also participate in the CRSP. Three separate

committees are important in the governance of CRSPs-a

board of directors to direct CRSP policy, a technical

committee to provide scientific guidance to the CRSP,

and an external evaluation committee to provide evaluation and recommendations to the management entity and

AID [81].

CRSPS focus on more than research: institution building and training are two other major CRSP activities.

CRSPs sponsor educational programs to provide agricultural graduate and technical training to LDC students,

scientists, and researchers and thereby build research

capabilities in the LDCs.

Approximately 900 scientists from LDC institutions

and 30 U.S. universities presently participate in the

CRSPs. About 30 nations work with the United States

through CRSPs [77]. Because of the mutuality of interest

in CRSP subject matter, U.S. universities are required to

match at least 25 percent of AID funding for CRSPs. Host

countries are also required to contribute financial support

for the program. Of the $152.3 million spent on CRSPs as

of fiscal year 1985, the U.S. Government contributed

$104.2 million, U.S. universities contributed $31.2 million, and host countries contributed $16.9 million. U.S.

universities’ contributions totaled about 30 percent of

government expenditures, exceeding the 25 percent in

matching funds required [77].

An outside review of the four oldest CRSPs in 1986

provided a positive overall assessment of the CRSPs.

Achievements listed by reviewers included: excellent

research results, focus on high priority issues, successful

collaboration among U.S. universities and between U.S.

and LDC institutions, and overall cost-effectiveness

(having about 20 percent of the overhead costs that IARCs

require). The evaluators found that CRSPs needed to

improve their linkages with other CRSPs and LDC

Missions [34].

Funding for CRSPs has dropped significantly in recent

years. Prior to 1986, CRSP annual funding averaged

about $20 million. After implementation of the GrammRudman-Hollings balanced budget law in 1987, the

CRSP budget dropped to $15.75 million [77]. BIFAD

commissioned a study in 1987, to examine the effect of

budget cuts on the viability of the CRSPs. The report

deemed all of the CRSPs “viable” at that time, but

warned that additional cuts would render some CRSPs

dysfunctional [28]. The evaluators showed particular

Concern that recent budget cuts have eroded the training

and social science components of CRSPs, and that future

cutbacks might prove fatal for these programs.

A central area of debate in the development community

revolves around the possibility of enlarging the scope of

CRSP work in the areas of extension and institution

building. One criticism of the CRSPs has been that they

–55–
56 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Table B-l—Universities Participating in AID’s Collaborative Research Support Programs

Small Ruminant CRSP

Purpose: To improve production of meat, milk, and fiber from

sheep, goats, and alpacas owned by smallholders in LDCs.

Program began in 1978.

U.S. institutions: University of California at Davis,* University of

Missouri, Utah State University, Texas Tech University,

Texas A&M University, Colorado State University, Montana

State University, Washington State University, North

Carolina State University, and Winrock International.

Developing countries and regions: Worldwide (inc. projects in

Indonesia Kenya, Morocoo, Peru, and Bolivia)

Program components and activities: Research-75 percent,

Training-24 percent, Technical Assistance-tl percent,

Other-1 percent

Funding: (in $ millions 1978-90); AID contributions: $38.314;

University match: $14.395; Host country contributions:

$21.42; Total: $74.129

Sorghum and Millet CRSP

Purpose: Toimprove the overal quality of life, both economically

and nutritionally, in LDCs where sorghum and millet are

principal food crops, through increasing sustainable

production of these crops. Program began in 1979.

U.S. institutions: University of Nebraska at Linooln,* Kansas

State University, Mississippi State University, Purdue

University, and Texas A&M University.

Developing countries and regions: Worldwide (including projects

in Mali, Niger, Botswana, Honduras, Colombia, and Sudan)

Program components/activities: Research-70 percent,

Training-20 percent, Technical Assistance-1 O percent,

Other--0 percent

Funding: (in $ millions 1981-90); AID contribution: $30.182;

University match: $7.426; Host country contribution: $4.51;

Total: $42.118

Bean/Cowpea CRSP

Purpose: To help organize and mobilize the financial and human

resouroes available to: mount a multi-institutional US/LDC

collaborative effort of research and training related to beans

and cowpeas; improve the living conditions of small farm

producers in developing countries; and increase the

availability y of low-cost, nutritious food for the rural and urban

poor. Program began in 1980.

U.S. institutions: Michigan State University,* Purdue

University, University of Georgia, Cornell University,

University of Wisconsin, Boyce Thompson Institute,

University of California at Davis, University of California at

Riverside, University of Minnesota University of Nebraska at

Lincoln, University of Puerto Rico, and Washington State

University.

Developing oountries and regions: Africa and Latin Amerioa/

Caribbean

Program components/activities: Research-60 percent,

Training-35 percent, Technical Assistant percent,

Other--0 percent

Funding: (in $ millions 1981-90); AID contribution: $28.769;

University match: $6.325; Host country contribution: $4.180;

Total: $39.274

soil Management CRSP

Purpose: To develop soil management technologies that are

agronomically, economically, and environmentally

sustainable in developing countries in the tropics. Program

began in 1981 (planning grants during 1979-81).

U.S. institutions: North Carolina State University,* Cornell

University, Texas A&M University, and

University of Hawaii.

Developing countries and regions: Tropics Worldwide (includes

projects in Indonesia Mali, Niger, and Peru)

Program components and activities: Research-100 percent

Funding: (in $ millions 1982-90); AID contribution: $21.552;

University match: $5.148; Host country contribution: $3.087;

Total: $29.787 --

Peanut CRSP

Purpose: To improve the availability and consumption of food,

increase incomes, and maintain and enhanoe the natural

resource base through the development of a peanut research

base in both the U.S. and host countries that can bring relief

to constraints to peanut production and utilization. Program

began in 1982.

U.S. institutions: University of Georgia: Texas A&M University,

North Carolina State University, and Alabama A&M

University.

Developing oountries and regions: Worldwide (inc. projects in

semiarid tropical Africa, Southeast Asia and Caribbean

regions)

Program components and activities: Research-60 percent,

Training-35 percent, Technical Assistant percent

Funding: (in $ millions 1982-90); AID contribution: $12.558;

University match: $2.940; Host country contribution:

$1.227; Total: $16.725

Pond Dynamics/Aquiculture CRSP

Purpose: To define the principles underlying sound aquaculture

management so as to provide increased employment and a

dependable, inexpensive source of animal protein. Program

began in 1982.

U.S. institutions: Oregon State University,* Auburn University,

University of Hawaii, University of Michigan, Michigan State

University, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and the

Consortium for International Fisheries and Aquiculture

Development.

Developing countries and regions: Honduras, Rwanda and

Thailand.

Program components and activities: Research-100

percent

Funding: (in $ millions 1982-90); AID contribution: $7.449;

University match: $1.668; Host country contribution: $2.218;

Total: $11.335

Flsherles Stock Assessment CRSP

Purpose: To improve analytical and sampling methodology for

assessment and management of the size and sustainable

yields of small-scale multispecies tropical marine capture

fishery populations. Program began in 1986 (planning grant

in 1982).

U.S. institutions: University of Maryland, *University of Delaware,

University of Rhode Island, University of Miami, and

University of Washington.

Developing countries and regions: Costa Rica and Philippines

Program components and activities: Research-100 percent

Funding: (in $ millions 1985-90); AID contribution: $3.919;

University match: $1.005; Host country contribution: $0.066;

Total: $5.190
Appendix B-Programs Supporting Research and Technology Generation ● 57

Table B-l-Support programs-Continued

Functional Implications of Marginal Malnutrition, Nutrition University match: $2.917; Host country contribution: NA;

CRSP Total: $15.808

Purpose: To provide new information on the effect of marginal Sustainable Agricultural Systems CRSP-planning grant

food intake on human performance, and to contribute to food Purpose: To identify constraints to development of sustainable policy reform. Project began in 1981 (planning grant in 1978).

U.S. institutions: Purdue University (’1989-91), University of

agricultural systems and to prepare a research plan for a

California at Berkeley (*1981-88), University of Connecticut,

program that will bring about sustainable agriculture in

developing countries. Planning began in 1990.

University of Arizona, University of California at Los Angeles, U.S. institutions: Not yet identified; planning currently conducted and University of Kansas Medical Center. by the National Academy of Sciences.

Developing countries and regions: Egypt, Kenya, Mexico Developing countries and regions: Worldwide

Program components and activities: Research-100 percent Program components and activities: Research-100 percent

Funding: (in $ millions 1981-90); AID contribution: $12.891; Funding: (in $ millions); To be determined

‘Indicates management entity.

SOURCE: Imren Schulze, U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Science and Technology, Office of Agriculture, personal communication,

Apr.23, 1991; Board forlnternational Food and Agricultural Development, “TheCollaborative Research Support Program (CRSP),’’Apr. 12, 1989;

U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of Agriculture, “Program Guide to the Office of Agriculture,” 1990; U.S. Agency for International

Development, Office of Nutrition, “Program Directoy,” June 1990.

are research organizations that do not disseminate their

information successfully. Evaluators stated in the 1986

review that CRSPs were prolific generators of papers and

articles but funneling information through academic

channels generally does not disseminate the information

to those who most need it. However, the reviewers

cautioned: “The CRSP cannot be all things to all people”

[34]. In the face of declining budgets, the reviewers

suggested that broadening CRSP

the field of institution building

“only lead to a dimunition in

research” [34].

activities too much in

and extension would

the quality of CRSP

While CRSPs generally cover a large but specific topic,

other university research and technical services projects

can be used for funding research on smaller topics and

generally are supported through cooperative agreements.

For example, Kansas State University’s grain storage

program does not require a CRSP-size program; a

cooperative agreement program is more suitable. These

smaller non-CRSP research programs are generally

viewed as more efficient and responsive than CRSPs due

to lower overhead and management costs and because

they are generally entered into with a single university,

making decision processes simpler. AID also has a

relatively simple procedure for facilitating buy-ins of

technical services from these programs by Missions.

CRSP resources are more difficult to access. Research

programs supported through cooperative agreements,

however, may require more AID management time than

CRSPs. An AID manager evaluating a CRSP with 10

projects need only write 1 evaluation. Evaluating 10

cooperative agreements requires 10 sets of paperwork

[42].

International Agricultural Research Centers

(IARCs)

As multidisciplinary centers for adaptive research,

IARCs draw together scientists, policymakers, and other

experts for research on problems related to LDC agriculture. The IARC system consists of 13 individual centers,

each sharing the common goal of increasing LDC

agricultural productivity as a means to increase farm

incomes, lower food costs, and improve human health.

The IARCs received strong support from AID throughout the 1980s, reaching a peak of $46 million before

leveling off at about $40 million at the end of the decade

[59]. Previously, AID’s Science and Technology Bureau

(AID/S&T) funded the IARCs, but recently funding

responsibilities were shifted to the Bureau for Program

and Policy Coordination (AID/PPC), although AID/S&T

retains management responsibilities.

The United States currently contributes about 18

percent of the IARCs’ annual budget, the remainder

coming from approximately 40 other international donors. International donors pledged $228 million for the

IARCs for fiscal year 1989 [23]. Because IARCs are

international in nature and receive the majority of their

funding from non-U.S. Government sources, they are

more autonomous and subject to less U.S. control than the

CRSPs, the latter being overseen by the U.S. Government

and funded almost entirely by U.S. sources.

Like the CRSPs, the IARCs focus only partly on

research. They also try to help build the research

capabilities of developing countries by offering training

to LDC researchers, scientists, and graduate students.

Graduate students and visiting scientists from various
58 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

institutions around the world also come to contribute to

and learn from the IARCs. The IARCs have trained at

least 20,000 agricultural scientists from LDCs to date

[23].

IARCs also create linkages with the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in LDCs. Their goal is to

complement LDC national research systems, not to

substitute for them [15]. Training has traditionally been

one way for IARCs and NARSs to form bonds, because

many scientists trained at IARCs go on to work for

national research centers [23].

Although some IARC-NARS linkages have met with

success, problems may arise from attempts to connect the

two entities. Collaboration between IARCs and NARS

can result in diminished funding for the national systems

as more money is allocated to the collaborative effort.

Because participants in IARC programs tend to receive

higher visibility and more professional opportunities than

those in NARS, IARCs can draw commitment away from

national programs. In the least developed countries,

where the NARS may have the most problems surviving,

IARCs sometimes are perceived as replacements for the

national systems. These factors can undermine attempts to

develop national research capabilities in LDCs. Some

critics also claim that, although IARCs effectively pursue

specific project objectives in collaboration with the

NARS, they do not concentrate on strengthening the

capabilities of the national systems in a sustainable

manner [37].

The IARCs receive their direction from the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research

(CGIAR), a body created in 1971 made up of representatives from international organizations, governments, and

foundations to fundraise for the IARCs and coordinate

their activities. CGIAR also works to ensure that the

IARCs are accountable for their funding. CGIAR created

the Technical Advisory Committee composed of 12

members, half from LDCs and half from developing

countries, to carry out systemwide reviews of Center

programs [57].

IARCs were not formed on the basis of university

participation. In the early years of the IARCs’ existence

the centers seemed to avoid a close relationship with

universities from industrialized countries. This attitude

seems to have changed, and IARC activities today involve

U.S. universities in several ways. Most university participation is arranged on an ad hoc, scientist-to-scientist

basis. A program for Collaborative Research on Special

Constraints represents the only formal AID-supported

linkage between U.S. universities and IARCs, providing

grants to scientists at U.S. universities to research specific

bottleneck issues restricting progress in LARC research.

Linkages between IARCs and CRSPs also promote

U.S. university participation in the IARCs. The linking of

IARCs with CRSPs increasingly is seen as a way of

sharing research information as well as complementing

the various strengths of each program. CRSPs fill an

important gap between work covered by the IARCs and

research carried out by U.S. scientists. However, a certain

amount of overlap between the two may promote

competition for researchers and funding. Concern exists

that a fully noncompetitive, collaborative relationship

between CRSPs and IARCs would be hard to achieve.

The CGIAR commissioned a major review of the IARC

system in 1985, and the IARCs received an overall

positive assessment. The evaluators emphasized the

vitality of the IARCs in international research and the

successes of their training and research, particularly in the

areas of wheat and rice production. Among the areas of

weakness, however, were:

●

●

●

●

The

absence of research results for IARCs working on

particularly confounding issues,

failure to realize the full potential of working with

LDC officials on policies affecting food production

issues,

failure to investigate the problems of female farmers

in male-dominated societies and the limited presence

of women in research organizations, and

a tendency to underemphasize certain crops that

might improve food production in the developing

world [19].

reviewers predicted that the IARCs will continue to

play a crucial-role in LDC-related research given the

perceptions of the weakness of most national research

systems.

A 1986 audit of IARCs by AID’s Inspector General

applauded the IARCs’ contributions to wheat and rice

production, but questioned the overall contributions of

IARCs to LDCs.

AID’s investment in the Centers since 1967 now totals

$350 million. This huge investment should have resulted

in measurable benefits to the small fanners-however, our

audit as well as the Centers own [19] impact study found

that this has not occurred [102].

The Inspector General’s report listed several barriers to

implementation of IARC technologies by small farmers:

●

●

●

●

National agricultural research organizations were not

capable of adapting IARC technologies to local

conditions.

The means to extend technology to the farmer often

did not exist.

Countries lacked adequate seed production capability, fertilizer, and storage facilities.

Policies on crop prices and other inputs were

unfavorable to the farmer.
Appendix B--Programs Supporting Research and Technology Generation . 59

Some of these conclusions are viewed by many as

being overly critical. Other evaluations of the LARCs have

tended to be more positive, although they acknowledge a

deficiency on the part of the IARC’s in disseminating

research knowledge. A number of technical papers on the

IARCs have praised the level of their contributions to

international development. One internationally recognized scholar on research productivity wrote:

A donor agency interested in getting the maximum

increment of food supply in the developing world from a

given aid grant will obtain it by investing more in an

IARC. . . . Futhermore, investments in IARCs stimulate

more national system investment than will a comparable

amount of direct aid [22].

Research Grants Program for Historically

Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

AID created the Research Grants for HBCUs in 1984

as a mechanism for accessing the research skills of

scientists in the HBCUsin international development. To

date, 30 HBCUshave been awarded a total of 127 grants

at a total cost of $11.4 million. The research has been

conducted in 28 developing countries and the United

States [10]. Of the 116 HBCUsbelonging to the National

Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education,

90 have signed Memoranda of Agreement with AID,

thereby increasing the pool of talent available to do AID

development work. To date, AID has allocated approximately $2 million per year for the HBCU grants

progrram 50 percent for agriculture and 50 percent for

health proposals. An average grant is about $90,000; the

upper limit for any one grant is $100,000. Approximately

20 new grants are awarded annually in agricultural and

health related areas after review by special panels at the

National Research Council [49].

A National Research Council panel conducting a 1989

evaluation of the HBCU Research Grants program found

it too soon after the creation of the program to assess the

impact of grants on the production of relevant research,

but concluded that “there are a sufficient number of

demonstrated successes in the program’s brief history to

indicate that the program is achieving its goal” [116].

Since that evaluation, approximately half of the 127

funded proposals have been completed. From these

completed projects more than 100 scientific articles have

been published in refereed journals; providing one

measure of successful productivity [10].
Appendix C

AID Regional Bureau Strategies

Bureau for Latin America and the

Caribbean (AID/LAC)

Agricultural and rural development is the major

thrust-about 40 percent--of AID’s Development Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean [70]. The

Agency’s agricultural development strategy for the region

focuses on increasing and diversifying exports as a means

to increase rural income [94]. Primary attention has been

given to developing nontraditional agricultural exports

for the U.S. market, although work also has addressed

increasing productivity and marketing of traditional

exports, such as bananas and coffee.

A premise of the strategy is that in the long term it will

be more efficient for the region to concentrate on export

crops and to increase import of cereal grains from the

United States, where production costs are lower [94].

Export diversification has been promoted through:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

creation of private producer organizations to provide

services;

increased access to credit (a major expenditure);

transfer of technology from other regions;

establishment of private foundations to support

research;

support for increased access to land;

development of rural infrastructure--roads, onfarm

storage, and irrigation systems; and

support for privately owned processing and packing

plants.

Economic Support Funds (ESF) and P.L. 480 food aid

have been used to encourage supportive policies such as

market-driven exchange rates, reduced price controls on

agricultural commodities, reduced State involvement in

agricultural input and commodity marketing, and simplified export procedures and export incentives [94].

One effect of AID’s agricultural export-focused strategy has been reduced work with public organizations,

such as the national research systems. The emphasis on

the private sector, such as that promoted through the

Caribbean Basin Initiative, has been partly responsible for

this but so has frustration with public organizations and

their associated inefficiencies, lack of financial support,

and political influences. AID was involved earlier in the

successful development of public organizations in the

region’s larger counties, such as Brazil. The smaller

nations suffer from lack of financial and human resources,

populations too small to support such organizations, and

in some cases from political instability.

Within AID some disagreement exists over the dearth

of work with public organizations. In part the disagreement stems from the argument that increased production

of basic food crops is necessary to increase the region’s

food security. Since food crop research is conducted by

the national agricultural research systems, the argument

concludes that AID should therefore work to strengthen

these national systems, help ensure that they have access

to resources and trained personnel, and link them to the

appropriate domestic and international bodies [95].

AID/LAC recognizes that its export-led strategy cannot

be maintained without capable host country organizations, some of them public. AID has provided support to

several public education organizations that are to serve as

regional agricultural education, training, and research

centers for groups of small countries. These include the

Pan American Agricultural School in Honduras, the

Humid Tropics Regional Agricultural School and the

Agricultural Technology Research and Training Center in

Costa Rica, the College of Agriculture in Jamaica, and the

National Agrarian University in Peru.

Sustainable development of nontraditional export

crops requires technologies that will not degrade the

environment nor contaminate the product (e.g., through

improper use of pesticides). It is not yet apparent whether

private research foundations will develop such technologies. Also, the indigenous national capacity for policy

analysis necessary to maintain policy reform has not yet

been developed [94].

AID released a natural resource strategy for Central

America in June 1989 that outlines five areas for support:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

sustainable agriculture;

production from natural forests;

management of wildlands and protection of biological diversity;

management of critical watersheds; and

policy formulation, institutional strengthening, and

environmental education.

The Plan projects obligations to reach $50 to $100 million

annually by 2000, depending on the success of economic

stabilization programs in the region. The strategy envisions assisting host governments, regional educational

institutions, and private local and international groups.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are seen as

taking on much of the field implementation while public

agency activities may be scaled back, in part due to budget

limitations [93].

-60-
Appendix C--AID Regional Bureau Strategies ● 61

Bureau for Asia and the Near East (AID/ANE)

Agricultural and rural development assistance is an

important component of AID’s work in the Asia and Near

East region, and has made up between 15 and 25 percent

of AID’s economic assistance to the region in the 1980s

[61]. AID’s strategy for the region has stressed policy

dialogue, increased private sector roles, improved environment for science and technology, natural resource

management, and attention to “advanced developing

countries” [69]. A recent summary of the AID agriculture

and rural development strategies for 10 countries shows

assistance for policy dialogue in 9 countries; for private

sector work in 6 countries; and for agricultural research,

education, and extension in 8 countries [61].

The AID/ANE Bureau’s agricultural strategy currently

is undergoing substantial revision, in part because of the

changing economic status of the region. A new draft

strategy sets out a common path of agricultural development in the region, based on review of experiences over

the past two decades [92].

The first step calls for the introduction of high-yielding

cereal varieties along with infrastructure development

(roads and irrigation) and supportive government pricing

policies for inputs and outputs plus import restrictions.

The resulting increase in grain production is expected to

foster social stability plus increased employment and per

capita incomes, which will lead to greater demand for

manufactured goods and services. Labor—supported by

cheap food and in time pushed by slowing labor demand

in agriculture due to slowing yield increases--should

move into the manufacturing and service sectors. Increased urban incomes will lead to demand for processed

and higher protein foods, such as meat and dairy products.

At this point, growth in agricultural employment is

expected in processing, marketing, and transport for

domestic and export markets.

Using this model, AID has divided the countries of

Asia and the Near East into three types of economies:

low-income agricultural, low-income transitional, and

middle-income industrializing (see table C-l). U.S. development assistance is to be provided in accordance with the

economic stage of a country in order to help the country

advance along the lines of the model.

Low-income agricultural economies are those in which

per-capita income is below $250 a year, and agriculture

produces more than 50 percent of income and industry

less than 20 percent. In these nations, cereal production

has not kept pace with population growth, per-capita

caloric consumption is below recommended levels, and

the intensity of agricultural production is low. The major

development objective is to increase basic cereals production. AID can support this through investments in

development and diffusion of technology; improvement

Table C-l—Development Assistance Recipients in

Asia and the Near East Region by Stage of Economy

low-income Low-income Middle-income

agricultural transitional industriailizing

Bangladesh Egypt Jordan

Burma India Oman

Nepal Indonesia Thailand

Morocco Tunisia

Pakistan

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Yemen

SOURCE: U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Asia

and Near East, Office of Technical Resources, Agriculture and

Natural Resources Division, “A Rural Economic Growth Strategy for Asian and Near East Countries in the 1990s,” draft,

January 1989.

in support systems needed for intensification of production (e.g., input markets, irrigation, and transport);

strengthening government’s capability for making supportive interventions and understanding of the environmental costs of the production focus; and training of

personnel.

Low-income transitional economies are those in which

per-capita income ranges between $251 and $750 a year,

and agriculture produces less than 35 percent of income

and industry more than 25 percent. In these nations, cereal

production exceeds population growth; per-capita caloric

intake approaches recommended levels; increased percapita income leads to demands for processed and higher

protein foods; and development of the industrial sector

grows. The major development objectives are the maintenance of growth in cereal production and the expansion of

the industrial sector, especially in agro-processing. AID

could support these objectives by fostering government

changes in policy, such as reductions in expensive

production supports no longer needed; withdrawal from

agricultural markets in favor of the private sector; and

liberalized trade policy. AID also could support increased

efficiency of the agricultural research system, encourage

private sector investment in agro-processing, support

improved watershed management, and develop the

human resources and institutions to maintain these

activities. One hoped-for impact of increased employment in agro-processing would be the reduction of

population in, and intensive farming of, marginally

endowed areas, thereby reducing their environmental

degradation.

Middle-income industrializing economies are those in

which per-capita income is above $751 a year, and

agriculture provides less than 20 percent of income and

industry more than 30 percent. In these nations, growth

occurs in both noncereal agriculture and agriculcurerelated industry; per-capita caloric intake is above recommended levels (through production and/or imports); and

the government has withdrawn from control of agricul-
62 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

tural markets and liberalized trade. The major development objectives and role for AID are strengthening of the

domestic agricultural institutions (e.g., trade, agribusiness, research) and linking them to one another and with

their international counterparts through such means as

collaborative research, scholarly exchanges, and increased trade links.

The strategy includes some work that universities have

been involved in in the past, such as increasing agricultural production, working with research systems, and

training. It does not include major agricultural institutionbuilding, except possibly in the low-income agricultural

economies, and includes large emphasis on trade, investment, agribusiness, and policymaking-areas in which

universities have not traditionally been involved in

development assistance.

The AID/ANE Bureau is in the process of developing

a strategy for environment and natural resources as well.

Its development is in a much earlier stage than the new

agricultural strategy.1 The strategy is expected to address

five areas:

1. agricultural sustainability,

2. quality and quantity of water and trade-offs in its

use,

3. reducing environmental impacts of energy use while

increasing its efficiency and meeting increased

demand,

4. improving the urban environment (primarily sanitation), and

5. management and protection of biological resources.

Much of the work is to be geared to NGOs and PVOs with

some potential roles for universities, especially in training

and institution building-although widespread attention

to enhancement of environmental and natural resource

capability at Asian host-country universities and research

institutions is likely to exceed current budget allocations.

A number of new environmental and natural resource

projects are slated to begin in 1990. These are larger and

broader than past projects and address environmental

policy, institutional development, and training in addition

to field-oriented activities (e.g., tree plantations and

onfarm forestry).

Bureau for Africa (AID/BA)

Unlike the other two regional bureaus, the Bureau for

Africa has no separate strategy for agricultural development. Instead, agriculture is discussed as part of the

Bureau’s overall development strategy for the region and

also in plans addressing specific agricultural issues, such

as agricultural research. The Bureau’s regional development strategy closely reflects AID’s overall development

strategy and proposes accelerated national economic

growth through:

. economic stabilization and policy reform,

. emphasis on the private sector,

. emphasis on institution building and human resources development, and

. emphasis on the agricultural sector [86].

Development in the agricultural sector is to be supported through policy reforms and private sector development in such areas as market liberalization, pricing policy,

and privatization of parastatals; improved market links

and transport; institution building and education/

training-including a focus on agricultural research; and,

as the strategy evolved, natural resource management

[73].

Beginning in fiscal year 1987, separate development

funding accounts were merged into one account for

Africa, known as the Development Fund for Africa

(DFA). The DFA gave the Bureau greater flexibility in

programming, allowing it to steer nonproject assistance to

support of policy reforms and to focus on those countries

having a potential for growth and committed to improving

economic policies. Current objectives of the DFA include:

●

●

●

●

•

●

maintaining its focus on market-oriented economic

growth:

reducing the public sector role in the economy and

increasing its efficiency through reduced involvement in the production and marketing of goods and

services;

improving economic stability through debt management and fiscal and monetary policy, and rationalizing expenditures on public goods (e.g., health,

education, and family planning) while increasing

their equity and efficiency;

liberalizing markets for commodities, capital, and

labor to support private sector-led growth;

developing the potential for long-term productivity

increases through conservation of natural resources,

new technologies, and improved job skills; and

improving food security through use of food aid,

early warning systems, targeted welfare programs,

and increases in agricultural production and utilization [85].

lconc=m ~ve ~n void that dweloprn~t of the two strategies has not been well coordinated and that they may conflict, for e=ple, wheti~

to provide assistance to marginally endowed regions that maybe important in the protection of natural resources but which give less returns than

investments in agricultundly better-endowed areas. In additio~ concerns have been raised over a lack of developing country personnel involvement in

strategy formation.
Appendix C--AID Regional Bureau Strategies ● 63

In addition to its overall plan for the DFA, the Africa

Bureau has two other plans directly relevant to agricultural development: one supporting agricultural research

and faculties of agriculture, and the other to manage

natural resources.

In 1985, AID released the “Plan for Supporting

Agricultural Research and Faculties of Agriculture in

Africa.” The plan outlines long-term, 15-year support to

develop national agricultural research systems, regional

research networks, and higher education programs in

agriculture. Countries are categorized by their technical

capacity (technology-producing or technology-adapting).

Priorities for support are set by country, commodity, and

other research area. Currently AID has four regional

agricultural research projects and is working with research institutions in eight technology-producing countries and 13 technology-adapting ones. AID has faculty of

agriculture projects with nine countries, five of which are

ending in fiscal year 1989 [89].

Although AID funding of the plan has not reached the

levels outlined in 1985, AID has supported agricultural

research in most of the higher priority countries. Support

has been maintained in those countries carrying out policy

reforms, but the trend in obligations for the past few years

is one of decline.

Obligations for agricultural research made up over 6

percent of the DFA in fiscal year 1988; they are projected

to fall to about 4.4 percent in fiscal year 1990 [87].

Support for faculties of agriculture has been uneven, often

significantly lower than projected. For example, actual

obligations in fiscal year 1988 were $5.5 million (1

percent of the DFA) rather than the projected $20 million

[89]. The plan also included sustained support for four to

six U.S. universities that were to help implement the

plan’s priorities, but this support has not been provided.

AID adopted the “Plan for Supporting Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan Africa” in February

1987. Under this plan, AID is to integrate natural resource

management activities into its agricultural activities and

human resources work. Additionally, two groups of

countries are also to receive direct support for natural

resource management: eight priority countries for AID

natural resources assistance, and nine countries that may

receive limited direct support. AID missions in both

groups are to carry out a natural resource management

assessment and from it develop an action program. The

plan’s priority technical concerns are loss of vegetation,

soil erosion/loss of soil fertility, and declines in biological

diversity. Also, arid/semiarid and tropical highlands are

priority agroecological subregions along with Madagascar [88].

Following the plan, AID/BA began the National

Resources Management Support project (NRMS) whose

primary purpose is to provide technical services to AID

missions, host governments, and PVOs/NGOs in order to

encourage increased activities in natural resource management rather than to fund projects or long-term

personnel (although some biodiversity projects have been

funded) [91]. Results so far include completed natural

resource assessments in 8 countries, project design in five

countries, and a survey of PVO/NGOs in preparation for

the provision of support services to them [90]. The Africa

Bureau estimated that natural resource management work

will receive 8 to 9 percent of the Development Fund for

Africa’s annual obligations between 1988 and 1990 [87].
Appendix D

University Consortia: Purpose and Membership

Consortium for International Development (CID)

Purpose: 1) to facilitate the involvement of the member universities and their faculties in international development,

especially in arid and sub-humid areas; and 2) to promote orderly scientific development, management, and use of the

world’s natural resources.

Member Institutions

California State Polytechnic University University of Arizona

Colorado State University University of Idaho

Montana State University University of Wyoming

New Mexico State University Utah State University

Oregon State University Washington State University

Texas Tech University

Mid-America International Agricultural Consortium (MIAC)

Purpose: 1) to provide for a combination of university resources so as to strengthen and enlarge international agricultural

outreach services, 2) to complement the areas of strengthen each of the member universities and at the same time expand

the opportunities for faculty to participate in worldwide agricultural development activities, 3) to strengthen and enrich

the academic and technical staffs of member universities in international agriculture, and 4) to build upon the history of

harmonious working relations among these universities and take advantage of the close geographic proximity, especially

as this would relate to an effectual and rapid response capability.

Member Institutions

Iowa State University University of Missouri

Kansas State University University of Nebraska

Oklahoma States University

Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities, Inc. (MUCIA)

Purpose: 1) to internationalize the curriculum, research, and teaching of member universities, 2) share the national

obligation to improve the lot of developing nations and their people by means of a qualified technical assistance programs,

and 3) influence the priorities and agenda of donor and assistance agencies.

Member Institutions

Indiana University University of Illinois

Michigan State University University of Iowa

Ohio State University University of Minnesota

Purdue State University University of Wisconsin

Northeast Council for International Development (NECID)

Purpose: 1) to gather and share information about international program and project opportunities relating to

agriculture, natural resources, and rural development, 2) to cooperate in developing proposals for external funding where

such cooperation has clear advantages over individual proposals and is consistent with the objectives of the activity, and

3) to develop and disseminate a statement about the areas of strength of universities and colleges in the northeast which

may be applied to problems in developing countries.

Member Institutions

Cornell University University of New Hampshire

Rutgers University University of Puerto Rico

University of Connecticut University of Rhode Island

University of Delaware University of Vermont

University of Maine West Virginia University

University of Massachusetts
Appendix D-University Consortia: Purpose and Membership ● 65

The South-East Consortium for International Development (SECID)

Purpose: 1) to facilitate collaboration on international activities in education, research, and extension, and 2) to foster

university involvement in projects which would not be feasible to staff from a single institution.

Member Institutions

Alabama A&M University

Alcorn State University

Auburn University

Clemson University

Delaware State College

Duke University

Florida A&M University

Fort Valley State College

Georgia Institute of Technology

Kentucky State University

Langston University

Louisiana State University

Lincoln University

Mississippi State University

North Carolina A&T University

North Carolina State University

Pennsylvania State University

Prairie View A&M University

Research Triangle Institute

South Carolina State College

Southern University

Tennessee State University

Tuskegee Institute

University of Arkansas

University of Florida

University of Georgia

University of Kentucky

University of Maryland

University of Maryland

(Eastern Shore)

University of North Carolina

University of Tennessee

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University

Virginia State University

Organization for Tropical Studies, Inc. (OTS)

Purpose: 1) to promote the study of science in the tropics, 2) to conduct organized programs of graduate training and

research on tropical problems, and 3) to serve as a national and international agency for coordinating and facilitating the

work of individuals and groups in the tropics. Unlike other consortia, OTS is a nonprofit corporation, established in 1963

to provide leadership in education, research, and the wise use of natural resources in the tropics.

Member Institutions

Auburn University

City University of New York

Cornell University

Duke University

Harvard University

Indiana University

Instituto Tecnologico (Costa Rica)

Louisiana State University

Michigan State University

Pennsylvania State University (system)

Rutgers University

Stanford University

State University of New York/Stony Brook

Smithsonian Institute

Tulane University

Universidad Nacional (Costa Rica)

Universidad of Costa Rica

University of Arizona

University of California (system)

University of Chicago

University of Connecticut

University of Florida

University of Georgia

University of Hawaii

University of Iowa

University of Kansas

University of Maryland

University of Miami

University of Michigan

University of Minnesota

University of North Carolina

University of Puerto Rico

University of Utah

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin

Washington University
Appendix E

Aid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit

Staff Paper

Food and Renewable Resources Program

Office of Technology Assessment

Congress of the United States

June 1987

The views expressed in this OTA Staff Paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Technology Assessment

Board the Technology Assessment Advisory Council, or individual members thereof.

4 7 –
68 ● New Oppotunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

OTA PROJECT STAFF

Roger Herdrnan, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Analytical Staff

Alison L. Hess, Project Director

Bruce Ross-Sheriff, Contractor

Patricia Durana, Research Analyst

Administrative Staff

N. Ellis Lewis, Administrative Assistantl

Sally Shafroth, Administrative Assistant2

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, Secretary

, From May 11,1987.

2 Until May 1,1987.
Appendix Mid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 69

Foreword

The U.S. Congress influences development assistance most directly through the U.S. Agency for International

Development (AID) and five multilateral development banks (MDBs): the World Bank,l the InterAmerican

Development Bank the Asian Development Bank the African Development Bank, and the Caribbean Development Bank. Congress also influences development assistance through a number of Federal civilian and military

agencies, bilateral programs (e.g., the Peace Corps and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation), and

multilateral organizations (e.g., United Nations’ agencies).

The Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Committee on Science and Technology2 and its

Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment requested the congressional Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA) to investigate how aid agencies might improve their capability to match

technologies to local environmental conditions of recipient development countries. The request grew out of an

earlier study conducted under the auspices of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and ten

Members of Congress. The EESI study identified the mismatch of technologies with developing country

environments as a common contributing cause of development assistance project failures. One of the EESI

report’s 13 explicit recommendations for congressional and aid agency action was to conduct a study addressing this

aspect of development assistance failure.3

The House Science and Technology Committee staff, and staff of several other interested committees,

suggested that this OTA paper might serve as a resource for oversight and reauthorization hearings of the Foreign

Assistance Act, which provides the framework for U.S. development assistance. To enhance the report’s utility,

questions are included that committee Members and staff might use in hearings or informal conferences with

development assistance personnel.

This paper focuses primarily on AID and to a lesser extent on the World Bank. AID and the World Bank have

made the most observable efforts to integrate environmental and development concerns. Other multilateral and

bilateral organizations tend to emulate their environmental policies and procedures to various degrees. Today, the

World Bank is undergoing major reorganization in part to enhance its environmental capability. It is not clear at

this time what the magnitude of these changes will be, although the President of the World Bank Barber Conable,

has stated his environmental goals for the Bank’s reorganization. Once the reorganization incomplete, the success

of this effort in achieving the stated environmental goals could be examined through the congressional hearing

process.

This paper is based on information derived from: 1) a series of interviews with personnel of development

assistance organizations, certain Executive and congressional agencies, nongovernmental organizations involved

in development assistance, and development consultants; 2) an OTA workshop, and 3) study of selected aid

organization reports (many of which are not intended for specific citation). By agreement with persons interviewed

and workshop participants, observations are not attributed to particular individuals.

OTA greatly appreciates the contributions of the workshop participants, interviewees, and reviewers. As with

all studies, the content of the Staff Paper is the sole responsibility of OTA.

~ Director

1 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Agency, and the International Finance

Corporation comprise the World Bank.

2 The Committee was renamed the Committee on Science, Space and Technology at the beginning of the I00th Congress.

3 OTA and the World Resources Institute initiated similar studies; this report presents only the results of OTA’s study.
70 ● NeW Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Contents

Page

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Ecological Underpinnings of Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Agencies’ Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Why Ecologically Inappropriate Technologies Maybe Selected . . . . . . . .0.....0 ● 00..... .00..... ..00.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Where Sustainable Technologies May Not Exist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Where Unsustainable Technologies Are Chosen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Where Sustainability Is Not Determined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conditions Internal to Development Assistance Organizations That Perpetuate Inappropriate

Technology Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conflicting Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Narrow Evaluations and Poor Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inappropriate Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structural and Procedural Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Too Little Permanent Staff Involvement at the Development Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Use of Consultants and Organizations With Inadequate Technical Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bureaucratic Procedures That Discourage Interdisplinary Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How to Change—Piecemeal Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● .......0 . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relieve the Overriding Pressure To Move the Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Improve Project Planning and Ensure Project Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Increase Personnel Motivation and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hire Enough of the Right People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Improve Use of In-house Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Improve Selection of Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How to Change—Holistic Approaches ● ..000.. ● ....00.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● .0...... ● 0..0.... . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Make Technology/Ecology Fit An Expressed Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Encourage Research and Cautious Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ... ... ...O. . . . . . .

Restructure Technical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Strengthening Technology Selection Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Workshop Participants and Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Box

E-1. General International Constraints That Inhibit Full Consideration of Environmental

Conditions in Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figures

E-1. The Role of Technology/Ecology “Fit’’ in Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E-2. Hierarchy of Criteria for Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E-3. Simplified Diagram of Proposed Restructuring of AID Technical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

73

73

76

76

76

76

77

77

78

78

78

79

81

81

82

83

83

84

84

84

85

86

86

87

87

88

88

88

88

89

90

92

79

74

75

90
Appendix E

Aid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit

CONCLUSIONS

Ecological compatibility of technologies with local site

conditions is fundemenental to success of development assistance: Development assistance organizations know that

the specific sociocultural political, economic and ecological conditions of a development site create the framework

into which their efforts must be integrated. Each of these

will affect the sustainability of the development project.

Regardless of the cause of resource degradation or damage, developing countries generally cannot afford even a

temporary decline in food or foreign exchange derived

from their natural resources, and they lack sufficient economic resources to implement reclamation or restoration

activities. Thus, selection of ecologically appropriate technologies becomes imperative.

Why unsustainable technologies may be chosen: Most

developing countries are located in tropical latitudes

where, at many sites, few if any sustainable technologies

exist to satisfy development needs. So technologies that

worked elsewhere under different conditions are chosen

and some of these prove unsustainable. When technologies developed for temperate areas are transferred without

appropriate modification to tropical areas, they tend to

disrupt ecosystem functions beyond natural regenerative

capabilities, thus reducing the land’s current and future

productivity. Sustainable technologies, in other cases, do

exist and have been demonstrated but are rejected in favor

of approaches that are expected to achieve other, overriding goals. Finally, no single individual is likely to have

adequate technical knowledge to assess thoroughly

whether a proposed technologywill be compatible with the

political, cultural economic and ecological conditions of

the development site. Experts responsible for informing

decision makers sometimes are unable to recognize which

technologies will be sustainable. Thus, technologies may

be promoted based on "best guesses,” which sometimes are

wrong.

Need for continued congressional oversight: Selecting

technologies expressly to fit ecological conditions is becoming an important component of development assistance strategy at the U.S. Agency for International

Development (AID). Similarly, the multilateral development banks (MDBs) have strengthened their capabilities

to foresee and mitigate adverse environmental impacts

from the projects they sponsor. These changes largely are

–7lreactions to pressure from Congress and other concerned

organizations. Several initiatives at AID, and the environmental goals recently articulated by the President of the

World Bank suggest that the importance of ecological

sustainability is becoming an accepted value for development assistance professionals. However, bureaucratic inertia seems to work against substantial improvement in the

agencies’ abilities in this regard. Therefore, continued

pressure from Congress is needed to assure progress

towards a goal of ecologically sustainable development.

Congress has a direct and profound influencc on AID.

Indeed, changes in AID’s authorizing legislation and appropriations have contributed to a proliferation of high

priority goals so numerous that they are widely perceived

as a serious constraint to the agency’s effectiveness. Thus,

Congress is faced with a dilemma. “Micromanaging” AID

by increasing the specificity of development objectives in

the Foreign Assistance Act and earmarking shrinking

development assistance appropriations for specific purposes may inhibit the agency’s ability to develop and carry

out efficient development assistance programs. Without

pressure, on the other hand, AID maybe slow to progress

in integrating an environmental perspective in agency

activities.

An alternate solution maybe modified use of congressional oversight. This could include enhancing the capabilities of committee staff by adding additional personnel

experienced in development assistance and technology

development, and fostering improved collegial and informal working relationships between committee staff and

AID personnel. Congress or AID could undertake a study

of how congressional pressures are perceived within AID,

and what mechanisms could improve productive interaction.

Attitudes at the top: Improvements to assure that promoted technologies are ecologically appropriate seem

unlikely to occur on the scale needed without high-level

management personally committed to this goal. Thus,

congressional confirmation hearings-in which a candidate’s capabilities and views are assessed-are an important mechanism to influence AID activities. Confirmation

hearings provide an important opportunity for Congress to

raise issues and to discern the depth of a nominee’s

knowledge of and concern for matching development

projects and technologies to local conditions in developing
72 . New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

countries, and are an appropriate place to reinforce the

guidance given in oversight hearings and legislation. Careful attention should be focused on the personal knowledge

and attitudes of a proposed AID Administrator, and on

his/her criteria for selection of Assistant Administrators.

Agency recruitment policies and practices, that ultimately

affect the agency's ability to perform its mandate effectively, largely are determined at the Assistant Administrator level.

Congress does not formally influence the choice of

officials in multilateral development banks, but it does

approve appointments of Treasury Department officials

who represent U.S. interests to the banks. Members of

Congress probably can have a significant impact on selection of the top bank officials through informal communication with the Administration.

Having enough of the right people: Environmental science is a technical field based on scientific principles,

knowledge, and tools that cannot be used effectively by

persons without appropriate training and experience. Neither AID nor the World Bank has a sufficient number of

environmental officers to assure agency wide guidance.

Just as a development agency needs the right set of economists to design a commodity pricing intervention, it needs

the right set of specialists to design and execute a successful

intervention in the use of natural resources. Further,

periodic accounting of natural resource conditions and

environmental quality indicators to accompany reports of

recipient country economic indicators prepared by development assistance organizations could provide a way to

motivate these people to address carefully the match of

technologies with ecological conditions.

Organizing technical skills: In addition to having an

adequate number of people with needed technical expertise and fostering their collaborative work, it is necessary to

ensure that these staff occupy appropriate positions in the

organization so that they can provide needed expertise at

the right times in the project cycle. Although environmental and natural resource expertise is integral to all

stages of project development and implementation particularly important stages are:

● problem/opportunity identification

● contractor identification and selection for project design and

• project monitoring and evaluation.

Thus, interdisciplinary teams might be established in

AID to link the U.S. science and technology community

with field activities, and to serve as a technical filter

assuring that AID would be unlikely to select and transfer

unsustainable technologies to developing countries. Each

team would be charged to assist with evaluation, redesigning or designing agency activities in one of several ecological zones common to developing countries (e.g., hot wet

lands, arid/semiarid lands, and high altitude lands). This

would increase the likelihood that technologies chosen

would fit the ecological setting of the development site.

Interdisciplinary analysis: The systems in which AID

projects intervene are complex and changes are likely to

result in cross-sectoral conflicts. Thus, the tasks of preproject analysis and project evaluation usually require the

knowledge of several types of specialists such as sociologists, ecologists, and soil scientists as well as the experience

and knowledge of local people who represent the sector to

be affected. The analytical methods for bringing this information together for presentation to engineers, economists,

and decisionmakers is the specialty of environmental analysts. Thus, adequate planning often necessitates use of

interdisciplinary teams guided by environmental analysts.

However, teams of consultants and staff fielded by development assistance agencies too seldom accomplish this.

Project officers generally have neither the correct technical

backgrounds nor ready access to sufficient inhouse technical personnel to facilitate adequate interdisciplinary environmental analysis.

Interdisciplinary cooperation seems unlikely to occur

without staff incentives and an organization structure explicitly designed to encourage such teamwork. The development assistance organizations might increase their

support for development of interdisciplinary planning and

analysis expertise, and expand support for development of

techniques that might facilitate and streamline interdisciplinary planning.

Improve project planningand increase project flexibility

Assistance projects that intervene in a developing country’s

natural resource base require careful and perhaps extensive planning. In most cases, the scientific knowledge base

is from temperate regions whereas the development site

often is tropical. Further, the recipient culture and economy tend to differ substantially from those of the project

designers, making it difficult to predict what types of

projects are likely to be adopted. Most development projects, then, are at least in part experiments and must be

designed to accommodate unidentified changes.

Risks to natural resource systems and development

assistance recipients may be reduced where projects include an extended technical planning phase, a gradual

phasing in period for adaptation of technology to the site’s
Appendix E--AID To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 73 — — —

ecological and social conditions, and have a length commensurate with achievement of results despite likely midterm project realignment. However, internal organization

goals, to keep funds moving and to achieve measurable

results quickly, operate against these approaches. Further,

short project duration makes it difficult to introduce technologies or implement projects gradually, and presents a

serious obstacle to making midterm corrections in response to monitoring and evaluations. Instead of today’s

common three to five-year AID projects, durations of 10 to

perhaps 20 years seem more appropriate.

Improved use of project evaluations: Midterm and

final project evaluations are little used to improve AID and

World Bank technology decisions. Even when evaluations

are broad enough to observe external effects, and are

conducted long enough after project completion to determine ecological sustainability, evaluations seldom address

faults with the original problem identification and project

design. Yet, this is the time when with the benefit of

hindsight sharpened by project experience, important lessons can be learned.

Analysis of existing evaluation reports could identify

important environmental and cultural interactions that

determine whether technology interventions will be maintained after the project is completed. Evaluation procedures could be modified to improve identification of causes

of development project success and failure and to assess

effectiveness of environmental mitigation proposed during

project planning and midterm evaluations. In addition,

evaluations could be designed to create a feedback system

for project officers and design teams.

INTRODUCTION

The question posed by Congress and addressed by this

study may be stated as follows:

How can international development assistance agencies

improve their ability to choose technologies that are compatible with biological and physical conditions at the sites where

tile technologies are to be implemented?

For the purposes of this study, technologies will be

considered compatible with biological and physical conditions if they support and prolong the contributions of local

natural resources to the provision of goods and services for

human consumption. Such technologies will be called

“ecologically sustainable technologies.”

Finding an answer, and instituting the solution or

solutions, does not imply eliminating or even minimizing

.

the potential for adverse environmental impacts from

development assistance projects. These can occur from the

failure to transfer the technology to the practitioners, and

from failure of the development projects for reasons other

than the ecological sustainability of the chosen technology

(see figure E-l). Even when choosing a particular technology, further questions are relevant, such as:

● Are the eventual practitioners likely to have cultural

aversions to the technology?;

● Is the technology within the means of these practitioners?; and

● Will governmental or other institutions provide the

necessary support to ensure continued operation of the

technology in a manner appropriate to local conditions?

Thus, to minimize the possibility of adverse impacts

from development assistance activities in general, one

must address a considerably broader arena of issues than

just technological/ecological fit. Such a study, however, is

beyond the request at hand, and the resources for this Staff

Paper.

The Ecological Underpinnings of Development

Assistance

Development assistance interventions commonly are

designed to facilitate development of human and natural

resources in recipient countries. Three general modes of

intervention are 1) tangible project intervention, 2) local

institution building and 3) policy assistance (see figure

E-2). In aggregate, these interventions are designed to

assist developing countries to establish institutions for

orderly improvement of the quality of life, to effect policy

changes needed for satisfactory project performance, and

to undertake investments that are properly engineered

financially feasible, and economically and environmentally

sound.

Views of the relative importance of the three types of

development assistance are mixed. The Environmental

and Energy Study Institute (EESI) study and the Science

and Technology Committee’s request to OTA indicates

that the primary focus of development assistance-projects and programs-can visibly, tangibly affect the quality

of life and environment in developing countries. These

activities also have important interactions with developing

country environments. However, project interventions can

beneficially or adversely affect how renewable resource

systems are used the benefits derived from them, and the

impacts of their use on other communities or future

populations. Thus, while such activities probably should
74 ● New Oopportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

Figure E-l—The Role of Technology/Ecology “Fit” in Development Assistance

Sustainable resource

development

Development Project Institution Policy

assistance intervention building assistance

Project

4

identification of identification and Monitoring of Evaluation

determination site-specific +ass~~~~~~t ‘f + impacts ~ of

need/opportunity & project project

alternatives modification results

Technology determination

L

Identification of Assessment

may be only one Technology Transfer

component of project “pool” of +

relevant technology technology

technologies fitness

~</Of\<

~io~aifi~

Assessment of

technology “fit” institutional fit

=-‘;:;;:::::) ‘“

--- ---- . . . . . — SOURCE: Offlce of Technology Assessment, 1987,

continue to be a major focus, they should be designed

specifically to minimize the potential for adverse impacts.

A second view is that development assistance can

contribute only marginally to the damage or conservation

of natural resource systems, because the scope of resource

system abuse generally is so much greater than the scope of

development assistance projects and programs. Therefore, to promote resource conserving technologies effectively, assistance agencies must use their influence to

encourage governments to design and enact policies that

will reward resource conserving development and discourage resource-wasting development. The extent of influence is usually related more to the level of general support

funding an agency provides than to the specific development assistance projects it sponsors. Support for the second view is growing at the U.S. Agency for International

Development (AID) and the World Bank, where it is

thought to have a potential at least equal to that of

improving the environmental soundness of sitespecific

projects.

The third approach is based on the perception that,

while project interventions and support for policy development can have substantial impacts, the only means to

ensure that development be widespread and appropriate

to the local needs and conditions is for development

activities to be defined, planned, and implemented by the

assistance recipients themselves. Thus, proponents argue

that ensuring local participation in all phases of project

assistance and emphasizing local institution building projects is fundamental to longterrn development. Support for

this approach is well-based in U.S. nongovernmental organizations, and is growing in development assistance

organizations.

In practice, no clear lines can be drawn between the

three types of assistance: developing local institutional

capabilities may require and be accompanied by policy

assistance grants and loans, and projects may have institution-building components. Indeed, institution-building itself can be seen as a project. Thus, the three types are

complementary and the balance among them in development assistance can only be determined on a ease-by-ease

basis.

The purpose of the tangible project interventions usually is to improve the wellbeing of some target population

by causing a prolonged increase in production of goods or

services. Thus, many of these projects are related directly

to resource use and include activities such as agricultural

intensification or expansion, dam-building etc. Such interventions often include introduction of new technologies or

improvement and expansion of existing ones.
Appendix-id To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit • 75

Figure E-2—Hierarchy of Criteria for Sustainable Development

/

Political Acceptability

projects that fit the institutional

capabilities and power structures

of the host country/community

/

Economic Profitability

practices that fulfill essential needs or

provide income to satisfy those needs

/

Sociocultural Suitability

those practices that do not

conflict with societal taboos

satisfy societal needs or demands

/

Ecological Sustainability

those practices that do not reduce the provision of

environmental services or the renewability of

renewable resources at the implementation site

Technological Feasibility

anything that can demonstrably work \

/

The Realm of Possibilities

anything that can be imagined

\

\

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Clearly, selection of appropriate development interventions must be based on a number of development site

conditions. Development assistance organizations have

identified that the specific sociocultural, political, economic and ecological conditions of a development site

create the framework into which their efforts must be

integrated. Regardless of the cause of resource degradation or damage, developing countries generally cannot

afford even temporary decline in the food or foreign

exchange derived from their natural resources, and lack

sufficient economic resources to implement reclamation

or restoration activities. Thus, selection of ecologically

appropriate technologies becomes imperative.

Successful interventions depend on the existence of the

conditions necessary to support the new, improved or

expanded technologies. Compatibility of the technology

with local ecological conditions is prominent among these.

Development interventions sometimes have failed because ecological compatibility has not been assured. Consequences have included irrigation canals filled with silt,

rangelands degraded by expanded cattle herds, or settlements abandoned because of declining soil fertility. Thus,

the problem is to develop technologies that are ecologically

sustainable under the political, social and economic conditions that will prevail when assistance has ended.
76 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

The Agencies’ Response

Over the past decade, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) and the World Bank have

developed procedures designed to incorporate certain

environmental considerations in their assistance activities.

Despite progress, however, the agencies’ abilities to identify ecologically sustainable resource development interventions still are frequently criticized.

A 1975 lawsuit brought against AID by the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. culminated in Agency compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

As a result, AID established well-defined environmental

procedures and a small cadre of environmental officers to

screen projects for significant environmental effects and to

focus planning attention on likely negative impacts of

development projects.

Amendment of the Foreign Assistance Act in 1977

mandated that AID increase investments in projects and

programs explicitly intended to conserve as well as develop

the productivity of developing countries’ renewable natural resources. AID responded with numerous programs

designed to enhance client country abilities to manage

resource development, and projects addressing some immediate symptoms of resource deterioration. Examples

include the AID Country Environmental Profiles program, and the numerous AID projects that sponsor distribution of tree seedlings and technical assistance to farmers

on “fragile lands.”

The World Bank also developed a process to focus

planning attention on projects likely to have significant

environmental impacts (e.g., construction of large darns,

roads that penetrate forests, and extractive industries).

The Bank has had a small environmental office since 1970

to screen proposed projects and alert project officers when

detailed scrutiny of environmental impacts seems warranted.

Recently, Bank officers have begun to evaluate the

relationships between economic policies and resource use

practices in certain countries. If these analyses reveal how

national policies could be changed to enhance ecodevelopment, the Bank then may promote such changes in its

policy dialogues and offer support through sectoral loans

for natural resources. Finally, the Bank’s current reorganization is expected to strengthen the bureaucratic status of

its environment operations while establishing positions for

natural resource professionals in regional offices, thus

giving them a more direct role in project identification and

design.

WHY ECOLOGICALLY INAPPROPRIATE

TECHNOLOGIES MAY BE SELECTED

Introduction

Mismatches between ecological conditions and technologies promoted by assistance organizations is currently

receiving the attention of Congress and a number of public

interest groups. This concern is expressed in the EESI

report and summarized in the Committee’s request letter.

Therefore, no detailed review of evidence for the problem

is included here. In OTA’s interviews, no one denied that

the problem existed, although opinions differed on its

relative importance. The evidence, in fact, is largely anecdotal: few recent cause-effect analyses of development

project successes and failures have carefully investigated

the issue of matching technologies to environment.

Interviews for this study and the relevant literature

indicate that at least three broad factors contribute to the

use of ecologically inappropriate technologies. These are:

● Few, if any, sustainable technologies exist to satisfy

development needs at many sites. So technologies that

worked elsewhere under different conditions are chosen and some of these prove unsustainable.

● Sustainable technologies, in some cases, do exist and

have been demonstrated but unsustainable technologies still are implemented.

● Experts responsible for informing decisionmakers

sometimes are unable to recognize which technologies

will be sustainable.

Where Sustainable Technologies May Not Exist

Most developing countries are located in the tropical

latitudes. Here, the common problems of rainfall extremes

or irregularities, high temperatures, and lack of seasonal

reduction of insects and parasites make natural ecosystems

highly susceptible to self-reinforcing cycles of degradation.1 Such vicious cycles are easily triggered by attempts to

develop and use the local natural resources. Most technologies used to get high yields of goods and services from

I Degradation of ecosystems involves physical, chemical, and biological processes set in motion by activities that foster reduction in the system’s

inherent productivity. For example, hillside deforestation in the humid tropics commonly leads to accelerating soil erosion, decreasing soil fertility,

and disrupted hydrologic cycles. These changes, in turn, Mn promote further reduction in ecosystem productivity through decreased natural

plant regeneration, establishment of weedy plants that displace more desirable plant species, and increased hazards to public health.
Appendix Mid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 77

soil vegetation, animals and water resources have been

developed intemperate regions where natural systems are

generally more resilient. However, when transferred without appropriate adaptation to tropical area they tend to

disrupt ecosystem functions beyond natural regenerative

capabilities thus reducing current and future productivity.

Further, many technologies that could be ecologically

sustainable commonly require resources not readily available in developing countries. For example, the Near-East

and Pakistan have, although not tropical harsh environments for which ecologically sustainable technologies are

few. Although much western U.S. agriculture and water

management experience is relevant to development in

these areas, U.S. technologies often are not suitable within

their political social and economic framework.

Similarly, principles of science and logic often can be

used to make marginal improvements in long-sustained

traditional technologies or to adapt technologies that have

worked elsewhere. If the design is good and appropriately

applied such technologies can conserve the natural resource base. However, such adaptations of technology can

become unsustainable if cultural or financial factors prevent correct application.

In cases where ecologically sustainable technologies

suitable to the sociocultural framework do not yet exist,

development assistance options include: 1) support for

research to develop ecologically sustainable technologies,

2) definition of development goals that can be met with

technologies known to be ecologically sustainable (e.g.,

reducing risk or improving distribution of goods and services may be more appropriate goals than increasing production), and 3) gradual technology modification with

careful monitoring to reduce the risk to affected people

and natural resource systems. In practice, however, project

time frames and objectives often preclude such gradual

development.

Where Unsustainable Technologies Are Chosen

Sustainable technologies, in some cases, are rejected in

favor of approaches that are expected to achieve other,

overriding goals. Thus, technologies may be chosen for

which sustainability is unproven, or those known to be

ecologically, culturally, or financially incompatible with

local conditions. For example, although many traditional

technologies are ecologically sustainable, production gains

from these may not seem adequate to resolve the identified

development problem.

A variety of other reasons are given for support of

projects known to deplete renewable resources rapidly.

For example, an emergency condition may seem to necessitate immediate action using technologies which do not fit

the local environmental conditions. Similarly, short-term

economic or political goals may override ecological goals.

Examples include forests cleared for timber and cattle

exports to meet short-term foreign exchange requirements and settlements established to curtail nomadism or

to secure boundaries.

Choice of technology also can be skewed by economic

analyses which value immediate, although perhaps only

temporary, benefits more highly than distant costs and

benefits. 2 For example, the present value of temporary

production gains (e.g., from a reservoir) can be shown to

be higher than the worth of an unending stream of modest

benefits from current resource uses (e.g., subsistence agriculture). Or, for highly subsidized projects, the rationale is

either that the temporary effects will resolve a significant

development problem, or perhaps that foreign source

subsidies can be continued indefinitely.

Such decisions in favor of unsustainable technology can

seem rational. However, great care must be taken to assure

that:

● the development problem has been correctly identified;

● the benefits and costs, including cross-sectoral conflicts, are fully accounted;

● the lifetime of the project has been correctlyestimated;

● the project will be subsidized long enough to achieve its

intended objectives; and

• the project include a monitoring component to ensure

that recipients are protected from adverse impacts.

Where Sustainability Is Not Determined

No single individual is likely to have adequate technical

knowledge to assess thoroughly whether a proposed technology will be compatible with the political, cultural, economic, and ecological conditions of the development site.

However, development assistance projects often have relied on technology choices made without adequate interaction among all the necessary types of experts.

Zl%e Congressional Research Service recently conducted a workshop reviewing the state of the art in incorporation of environmental

considerations into benefit-cost analyses. The draft proceedings are under review.
78 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

World Bank and AID consultants now used for planning generally are members of a multidisciplinary group.3

But whether such groups perform interdisciplinary analysis4—identifying the interactions between environment,

technology, culture, and financial conditions-is less apparent. Without interactive, interdisciplinary analyses, it is

unlikely that predictions of compatibility with local site

conditions can be made with assurance. Thus technologies

maybe promoted based on “best guesses,” which by definition sometimes will be wrong.

CONDITIONS INTERNAL TO DEVELOPMENT

ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATIONS THAT

PERPETUATE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY

CHOICE

Introduction

Some causes for inappropriate technology choices are

Perpetuated by development assistance agencies themselves. Other, generally more powerful causes for poor

technology decisions are problems of values, personnel

resources, economic and bureaucratic structures, and economic/financial constraints that exist in developing countries. However, technical, financial, and analytical

assistance profoundly influence policies and technology

decisions in developing countries. Thus, conditions internal to development assistance agencies can be significant

contributing causes of development successor failure.

Although perceptions differ as to appropriate modes of

development assistance, a remarkable consensus exists on

the major internal factors that constrain an assistance

organization’s ability to match technologies to development site environmental conditions. A major constraint

has been a lack of internal commitment to the concept that

renewable resource conservation is a necessary condition

for development success. AID, the World Bank and other

multilateral development banks (MDBs), and Federal

agencies with international activities, have individuals

strongly committed to the importance of integrating conservation and development. However, for most development officers this has not been a high priority. Policies and

procedures addressing environmental soundness generally have not come from intellectual consensus within the

agencies, but rather have been formed in reaction to

outside pressure, particularly from Congress. Internal factors inhibiting an aid organization’s ability to consider fully

environmental conditions in carrying out development

assistance are summarized in Box E-1.

Conflicting Goals

Several time-driven goals of development agencies

operate strongly against allocating the planning time necessary to determine which technologies are compatible

with ecological conditions of the development site. Prominent among these is the need to keep funds moving. For

AID, pressures to spend money come from the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, and

from the annual budgeting process-where large amounts

of money have to be obligated each year or else they are

“lost.” For the World Bank, pressure comes from client

countries and from organizations providing capital for

jointly financed projects.

The goals that influence personnel activities the most

are those with deadlines for clearly discernible achievements. Thus, the goal to commit and spend money within a

given year can be expected to receive greater attention than

the goal to develop a project likely to be successful within

the complex workings of the natural resource base, the

host economy, and the host society.

Another time-driven goal for development organization personnel, and as a result for their contractors, is to

achieve measurable results quickIy. For multilateral bank

personnel, the pressure arises from the fundamental fact

that banks must operate as banks. Even when loan rates

are highly concessionary, benefits from investments made

with borrowed capital must soon begin to match debt costs.

Final evaluations ultimately focus on a project’s economic

success as measured by the direct economic rate of return.

Even though project officers are strongly aware that

their performance on achieving the above-mentioned

goals largely will determine their career progress, related

goals also are important. In AID, for example, many

officers believe that career rewards accrue to those who

can design and initiate numerous projects each of which

outwardly addesses many of the agency’s many priorities.

Part of these motivations are perceived to come from

Congress, because AID personnel frequently are requested to enumerate projects with objectives that match

3Multidisciplina~ planning implies (hat specialists of several disciplines contribute (o the completed plan. However, it does not imply that they

work together to identify and resolve cross-sectoral conflicts between their separate analyses.

41nterdisciplinary planning and analysis implies that the specialists of several disciplines interact within the framework of a tested method to

assure that the overall analysis is internally consistent and that foreseeable conflicts are identified and resolved. ~pically such analysis requires

a team member trained in interdisciplinary analysis techniques.
Appendix Mid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 79

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Box E-l-General Internal Constraints That

Inhibit Full Consideration of Environmental

Conditions in Development Assistance

Agency policies shift often (AID).

Agency has too many high priorities (AID).

Few projects last long enough to accomplish

significant development goals (AID).

High staff turnover (AID).

No career path exists for environment and natural resource professionals (AID).

Heavy and increasing bureaucratic workloads

are compounded by inadequate staff support

services (AID).

Too few in-house staff have knowledge about

how technologies interact with ecological and

cultural conditions (AID; World Bank).

Inadequate numbers of staff are professionally

trained in environment and natural resources

(AID; World Bank).

Existing in-house expertise in environment and

natural resources is underused because of inappropriate assignments and job descriptions

(AID).

Selected contractors often lack strong expertise

which facilitates linking technology and environment indeveloping countries (AID; World

Bank).

Agriculture and environment are not clearly

linked by agency structures, procedures, and

practices; agencies provide little incentive to link

them (AID; World Bank).

SOURCE: Interviews.

current congressional and constituency interests. The officer who designs and initiates a project seldom sees it

through to completion and is unlikely to be recognized for

the ultimate success or failure of the project. Little incentive exists for recognizing mistakes and learning from

them.

The time-driven goals can directly preclude sound

technology choices. For example, because the ecology of

tropical estuary ecosystems is poorly known sustainable

interventions for port development usually cannot be designed without preliminary investigations covering an entire yearly cycle of seasons. But the time-driven goals

seldom allow such lengthy preliminary studies, so decisions

must be made with incomplete information. Commonly,

these decisions are based on the personal experience of the

engineer or other technical planner in charge. That experience too often is inadequate to assess correctly how the

technology, environment, and local society will interact.

Potential Oversight Questions:

●

●

●

Increased interdisciplinary planning might result in more

successful development projects. But it might also slow

obligation of an agency’s budget. What do you perceive as

the possible beneficial and adverse impacts on your

agency if your actions to improve the number of project

successes result in funds remaining at the end of the year?

To what extent does your agency use the environmental

plans developed under the auspices of the Organization

of Amen-can States (or other similar organizations) in

your project planning process?

What other mechanisms allow you to carry out adequate

planning without hindering timely expenditure of your

budget?

Narrow Evaluations and Poor Feedback

Development assistance banks’ criteria and procedures for evaluating projects also tend to perpetuate the

causes of poor technology choice. The overriding bank

criteria for project success are narrowly focused financial

and economic measures of project benefits and direct

costs. External costs may be noted in evaluation documents, but seldom are they weighed against benefits.

The World Bank has been a leader in development of

careful financial and economic post-project evaluations.

Project sustainability is assessed in financial terms: will

necessary continuing investments be made after the funding period ends? In this regard, the Bank’s evaluations

seem to be thorough with a significant proportion of

projects frankly assessed as either not sustainable or dubious at the time of the final evaluations However, Bank

evaluations seldom include thorough consideration of environmental or social impacts. Recently, Bank evaluations

have been self-critical in this regard. In addition, project

impacts on natural resource sustainability commonly are

not recognized in World Bank evaluations. A current

review of completed Bank-supported dam/reservoir pro5The economic implications of unsustainable projects for the client country, which remains liable for the debt, usually are not addressed.
80 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

jects may bring increased attention to this issue, as many of

the reservoirs are reported to be deteriorating rapidly.

AID objectives and criteria for project evaluations are

specified early in the planning process and commonly are

broadly stated in terms of institution building processes

(e.g., number of extension-agent visits number of students

educated), or direct measures of accomplishment (tree

seedlinga distributed gains in farm income). Thus, evaluations are not narrowly financial and economic. However,

the evaluations seldom are broad enough to identify external effects, or conducted long enough after project completion to determine ecological sustainability. Further, final

evaluations seldom address faults with the original problem identification and project design. Yet, this is the time

when with the benefit of hindsight sharpened by project

experience, important lessons can be learned.

In spite of their shortcomings, evaluation procedures

are institutionalized and the reports generated contain

many potentially valuable lessons which could be applied

to improve future projects. Also, end-of-project evaluations could be used in a motivation system that would

reward development success and provide accountability

for development failure. Even so, aid agencies have not

learned to use these evaluations effectively. Indeed, negative evaluations tend to disappear due to political pressures

and delay.

At the World Bank, post-project evaluations are conducted regularly by an office separate from the project

implementing office. Annual summaries of these evaluations are widely distributed in the Bank and used to train

Bank staff and client country trainees. Summaries are

available for official use in donor and client countries, but

are not widely distributed outside of the Bank. A rationale

for strictlylimiting circulation of evaluations is that, written

as frankly as they are, they might embarrass clients or

donor country individuals. This, in turn could hinder

efforts to foster policy improvements in client countries or

willingness to participate in development assistance. However, distributing the reports more widely might improve

the quality of guidance that nongovernmental organizations offer the Bank, directly and through Congress.

Nevertheless, feedback from the Bank’s evaluations to

its project design process seems to be inadequate; similar

types of project failure sometimes are identified in subsequent years. Livestock project failures in Africa are an

example. Contractors and client country nationals who

design Bank supported projects may not be encouraged to

study reports from past projects or warned of the economic

consequences of project failure to the recipient country.

End-of-project AID contractor reports, written by the

organization that implemented the project, commonly

contain a wealth of technical detail and often include

description of social and environmental causes of project

success or failure. Commonly these technical end-of-project reports are short on the analysis and synthesis needed

to derive lessons for future projects. Report drafts are

critiqued by the Agency's project officers and other interested parties and may be revised accordingly. The reports

then are filed with other project papers. Technically they

are available to host country personnel and outsiders in

addition to AID personnel and contractors involved with

current projects and preparing for future ones. In practice,

they commonly are distributed among technical managers

of similar AID projects within the country where they are

written but otherwise are an underused resource. Their

shelf-life is far shorter than their potential utility because of

narrow distribution, unwieldy length, unattractive format,

and lack of editing.

AID’s Program and Policy Coordination office

(AID/PPC) tracks agency projects, the nature of technologies used in various geographic regions, and many

other evaluation parameters. It produces syntheses of

project evaluations, drawing lessons from multiple experiences. The number of these syntheses now available not

only within AID but to the broader government and

nongovernment community is increasing steadily. However, these are another underused resource. Contractors

and host country counterparts generally have little time to

study evaluation reports or the unsynthesized end-of-project technical reports for projects in which they are not

personally involved. Thus, the agency continues to reinvent

some successes and repeat some mistakes. Finally, AID

has no formal program for reevaluating completed projects at a time long enough after completion to learn the

real determinants of sustainability.

Potential Oversight Questions:

● Does your agency conduct post-hoc evaluations of its

development assistance projects? If so, for what kind of

projects are such evaluations conducted? How long afler

project completion does such evaluation occur? What

have such evaluations revealed about how to change

development assistance to increase the likelihood of

interventions being ecologically, culturally, and financially sustained?

● How would an analysis of your existing evaluation reports benefit your ageney and Congress ’ability to cooperate in development of foreign assistance policy?
Appendix E--AID To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 81

● Does your agency conduct generic program evaluations?

On what subjects has it completed these evaluations

(e.g., irrigation, rural development)? What changes have

been made in subsequent programs as a consequence of

lessons learned?

Inappropriate Staffing

Development assistance agencies’ technical staffs

were comprised mainly of agronomists and engineers

during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1970s, technical

specialists decreased in number on agency staffs and

especially at the Banks economists began to dominate.

More general types of development assistance began to

compete with technical project assistance.

Awareness of the potential for environmental conflicts

also arose in the early 1970s. Subsequently, the World

Bank and AID established small cadres of environmental

professionals and retained some technical specialists despite the continuing trend towards hiring generalists for

staff positions. While project officers often function as

generalists, technical experts are contracted for project

design, implementation, and evaluation. The generalists,

with some support from the small cadre of resource

professionals, are expected to have sufficient knowledge to

assure recruitment of appropriate specialists, who in turn

will develop the technical and social information and

conditions needed for development success.

To enable generalists to carry out this function, detailed guidelines and checklists for environmental evaluation have been developed at the World Bank other

MDBs and bilateral aid agencies. In AID, a sign-off

procedure to assure scrutiny of potential environmental

effects of projects considered likely to have negative impacts culminates with approval by an environmental officer. AID and World Bank environmental officers further

provide advice to project officers on consultant selection

and review contractor reports to identify significant environmental issues. However, neither organization has had a

sufficient number of environmental officers to assure

agency-wide guidance.

Potential Oversight Questions:

●

●

In your entire professional staff, what are the percentages

of officers with degree-level academic training in each

discipline, such as economics, agriculture, ecology, forestry, geography, anthropology, medicine, public health,

civil engineering etc. ?

How frequently have your officers been retrained in the

advances of their discipline or cross-trained to learn

●

●

about scientific advances in biological or physical sciences?

What percentage of each of these professional ups are

assigned to positions where most of their time is spent

applying their speciaJ training?

Can you provide a list of personnel assigned to environment or natural resourcefunctions that brifly indicates

each person's responsibilities and technical qualifications for that position ?

Structural and Procedural Constraints

The primary concept of “environmentalism” during the

1970s was that negative impacts of resource development

should be avoided. Thus AID, the World Bank, and other

development agencies did not organize their environmental offices to identify resource development opportunities. Rather their function was primarily to determine

which of the planned interventions were likely to have

harmful environmental impacts, and to insist on design

changes that would mitigate such impacts. Given the

compelling time-driven goals motivating most activity in

these organizations, it was probably inevitable that the

environmental officers would be widely viewed as adversaries and their involvement would be avoided when possible.

Most project or loan officers generally work within

well-established time constraints, and thus, various methods have evolved to avoid the in-house environmental

officers. For example, a project officer may not fund time to

cooperate in detailed review of a project’s environmental

aspects. Environmental staff input can be avoided when

recipient country officials, desirous of getting a project

started signify that there are no environmental implications requiring study. In the World Bank, the environment

office has had the responsibility to review all project

documents, but that office has operated from the sidelines

with a minuscule staff compared to its task. It has often not

been in a position to provide constructive input to project

design and operation.

Potential Oversight Questions:

● The heavy workload of your project officers, the deadlines for processing large amounts of money, and the

pressures from Congress and others to reach objectives

quickly must all discourage full investigation of the likely

environmental impacts of projects. Are the kinds of

projects likely to need full environmental evaluation

avoided to save time?

● What steps has your organization taken to encourage

officers responsible for project identification, design, and

*
82 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

implementation to seek paticipation of in-house natural

resource specialists and environmental analysts ?

Environmental procedures in AID, being a legal requirement, have had significantly more force than has

simple policy at the World Bank. Avoidance of environmental concerns today is difficult in AID. Some years ago a

simple statement denying that adverse impacts were likely

often could suffice. But the gradual increase in environmental officers with professional expertise has discouraged this practice.6

AID officers having environmental charges are located

in each geographical bureau and in Missions abroad as

well as in the central Bureau for Science and Technology

Bureau (AID/S&T). Professional environmental personnel in AID/S&T carry out a number of programs designed

to raise environmental awareness among AID personnel

and host country decisionmakers, and to encourage officers in AID bureaus and Missions to use environmental

analysis early in the formation of development assistance

strategies. Country Environmental Profiles sponsored by

AID, for example, go beyond the impact assessment level

of environmental concern to promote integration of development and resource conservation. Still with the present

structure, AID’s continuing progress in integration of

conservation and development depends on:

● the extent to which staff exhibit a commitment to

environmental analysis and programmatic investment

in environmental management as a necessary condition for development project success, or

● ID being “micromanaged” by Congress to force it to

consider impacts on the environment.

AID activities now seem to focus increasingly on incorporating natural resource considerations into regional and

sector strategies, suggesting that AID personnel are adopting the premise that environmental analysis is a necessary

element of economic development. The AID/S&T Agriculture Office is leading an effort to develop anew focus for

AID agricultural assistance, which explicitly includes

maintaining the productivity of the natural resources on

which agriculture depends. Another AID/S&T program

promotes a cooperative effort among Missions in Latin

America to focus development efforts on fragile lands.

AID/PPC is revising its guidelines for economic and

financial analysis of projects to take environmental impacts

into account. Finally, the Africa Bureau is working intensively on a development assistance strategy focused directly on natural resources. While some of this activity may

be a reaction to a perceived threat that appropriations will

be further earmarked for environment and natural resource purposes, the activities seem largely to be internally

motivated.

The causes of poor technology choice are perpetuated

not only by structure but also by agency procedures. The

weak feedback links between project evaluation and design

already have been noted. Other internal constraints on

sound technology decisions include:

● too little permanent staff involvement at the development site;

● use of consultants and organizations with inadequate

technical expertise; and

● bureaucratic procedures that discourage intterdisciplinary collaboration.

Too Little Permanent Staff Involvement at the

Development Site

At AID, the size of the bureaucracy is limited strictly in

order to control overhead on development assistance

spending and in response to a keen awareness of congressional and public concern regarding “bloated” bureaucracies. Thus, each project officer typically manages several

projects. These officers design development assistance

strategies, oversee project design, manage cash and paper

flows to and from contractors or host country organizations, and assure that evaluations and other procedural

steps for each project are on time and complete. These

heavy workloads typically prevent their active involvement

at the sites of development projects.

Further, AID project officers generally have weak

administrative support and restricted travel funds. AID

project officers stationed in Washington DC cannot use

project funds for project management activities, such as

travel or secretarial support. These constraints maybe less

severe in AID’s Mission.., but the existing bureaucratic

requirements of managing several projects can keep an

officer at his/her desk most of the time. Thus, the amount

of time project officers can spend onsite usually depends

more on their ability to capture office resources and

6’I’o avoid environmental regulations, some AID bureaus and missions are reported to have reduced investment in the tyPes of projects that

intervene in resource use, such as irrigation development. This results in increased funding for projects such as research and restitution building,

that are not required to include detailed consideration of environmental effects. Such reactions to environmental regulations, though difficult to

document, could have significant adverse impacts on activities needed to address certain natural resource problems.
Appendix E--AID To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 83

personal willingness to go into the field than on the

management needs of the project.

Potential Oversight Question:

● How would your organization's efficiency be affected if

expenses for staff management of projects, such as

direct-hire staff travel to project sites, could be charged

against the budgets of the projects?

Use of Consultants and Organizations With

Inadequate Technical Expertise

The procedures and workloads that severely restrict

the onsite activities of AID staff increase the likelihood of

project failures. Most technology decisions ultimately are

made either by contractors or host country personnel.

Even where technology decisions rest with host country

personnel contractors often have substantial indirect influence through the options they present. Staff officers

write terms of reference for contractors, influence the

choice of contractors, modify the terms (or decide not to do

so) per suggestions from contractors or host country officials, and approve the contractors’ activities. However,

with inadequate opportunity for field level involvement,

the staff are unlikely to be fully competent for these

functions.

The World Bank uses many consulting teams for

project identification design and evaluation, and Bank

officers provide lists of potential contractors to client

country officials for project implementation. The World

Bank maintains a formal consultant roster which can be

searched to develop lists of individuals and organizations

who seem to meet various criteria of disciplinary and

geographic area expertise and development project expe7

rience. AID/S&T has established similar computerized

rosters of environment and natural resource specialists

appropriate to design or implement projects for developing countries.

In practice, World Bank and AID consultants probably

are chosen more often from informal systems based on

project and loan officers’ experience than from rosters. No

mechanical system can be relied upon to judge the all-important personality factors that will determine whether a

consultant successfully completes the terms of reference.

From the project officer’s perspective, the selection of

contractors who will complete project design and evaluation jobs on time is critically important to achieving

bureaucratic goals. Coupled with the project officer’s

heavy workload this usually means using consultants

whom the officer or his/her close associates have used

previously, and ones that are not likcly to cause unexpected

delays in moving the project forward.

Officers without appropriate technical backgrounds

for selecting technical consultants need to have ready

access to in-house technical experts. In AID, this expertise

is provided by technically trained AID personnel, in-house

contractors and technical experts loaned to AID by other

government agencies through Participating Agency Service Agreements (PASAs). Further, officers are required

to seek assistance from the agency's environmental officers

where off-site environmental impacts are an issue. World

Bank officers also have used expert assistance routinely to

choose consultants, but have not been required to seek

such assistance from the environmental office. The Bank’s

reorganization is intended to increase the availability of

in-house natural resource and environmental specialists.

Often, local institutions can be identified and funded to

carry out planning and evaluation tasks. International

programs through which developing country nationals

with ecological qualifications can be located have been

sponsored by the United Nations Education, Science, and

Cultural Organization (particularly the Man and the Biosphere Program), by the United Nations Environmental

Programme, and by such nongovernmental organizations

as the World Wildlife Fund (U.S. and International),

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources (IUCN), and the Nature Conservancy.

Some of these, such as IUCN’s Conservation Data Canters

have rosters of experts in developing countries sorted

according to skills needed for particular types of development activity. But these mechanisms are now uscd mainly

by European (principally Scandinavian) bilateral agencies.

Bureaucratic Procedures That Discourage

Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Interdisciplinary planning seems necessary for improved matching of technologies to the natural resource,

social and economic conditions at development sites. This

depends first on the agency choosing the right group and

writing adequate terms of reference, and secondly on the

team leader’s capabilities. Integration of disciplines often

is not achieved because the team leader and project officer

have not been trained or lack experience in techniques of

7 World Bank consultant rosters favor individuals and firms in OECD countries. This does not seem to be in keeping with Bank policy developing

countq role in the development assistance process.
84 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

interdisciplinary team management and analysis, Wrong

consultants are chosen in some cases, and their interaction

is not facilitated; for example, the anthropologist, the

agronomist and the economist of a multidisciplinary team

may each visit the development site separately.

The need to develop interdisciplinary teams applies

just as much to development assistance agency staffs as to

consultants. Workloads, bureaucratic structures, and procedures all discourage integrated analyses of development

problems and projects. Thus, for example, cooperation

between agricultural and environmental personnel largely

is inadequate.

This is not just a problem of agriculturalists or economists having learned to view environmentalists as adversaries. University training in natural resource and

environmental sciences typically produces technical experts who cannot speak the language of economists and

who have only superficial knowledge of agriculture and

engineering issues. Thus, interdisciplinary cooperation

seems unlikely to occur without staff incentives and an

organizational structure explicitly designed to encourage

such teamwork.

Experience with AID’s Country Environmental Profiles, with Organization of American States’ (OAS) environmental studies, and with development of national

conservation strategies in several countries indicates that

interdisciplinary teams often can be recruited in the host

country. However, a shortage of persons trained in the

techniques of interdisciplinary team management, and in

cross-sectoral assessment methods (other than economics) is likely to be a significant constraint as development

assistance agencies seek to increase use of interdisciplinary

techniques.

Potential Oversight Questions:

● OAS, AID, and other organizations supported by U.S.

foreign assistance have developed techniques for interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral analysis of development

problems, intervention options, and technology soundness. What part of your oganization's assistance strategies, projects, and programs are designed by using these

new interdisciplinary techniques?

● What Participating Agency Service Agreements that are

intended to enhance AID’s environmental expertise remain in force? How has the usefulness of these PASAs’

been evaluated? Is AID investigating creation of similar

PASAs with agencies not currently participating with

AID? Which might be most beneficial and Why?

HOW TO CHANGE-PIECEMEAL APPROACHES

Introduction

Congress and aid organizations could make broad

institutional changes to foster sound technology decisions.

A second alternative would be actions to incrementally

eliminate the constraints to sound technology decisions

that are internal to the development assistance organizations. Such piecemeal approaches include:8

• relieve the overriding pressure to move money,

● improve project planning and ensure project flexibility,

• increase personnel motivation and accountability,

● hire enough of the right people,

● improve use of in-house expertise, and

● improve selection of consultants.

Relieve the Overriding Pressure To Move Money

Congress normally requires AID funds to be spent

within one fiscal year. However, other approaches have

been tried. For example, Congress has already has acted to

make funds “available until expended” for the Sahel Development Program. Reportedly, the experiment has been

only somewhat successful. Some agency personnel still

believe that, even though unspent funds from the current

year will not be “lost;’ the next year’s funding is likely to be

reduced by at least the unspent amount. Legislation has

now been introduced to broaden the experiment by keeping other development assistance appropriations for

Africa available until expended.

To reduce the force of AID’s “spend the money’

syndrome, Congress might have to complement such legislation by extending the budget cycle for development

assistance. However, evaluation of this topic is beyond the

scope of this paper.

Potential Oversight Questions:

● How has keeping project funds available until expended

affected project quality in AID's Sahel Development

Program ?

● Remembering that MDBs arc banks, and that the first

function of a bank is to assure timely return on its capital,

8The following potential changes in development assistance agencies are not presented in order of priority or as a suggested strategy. All seem

likely to improve aid agency abilities to match technologies to the ecological conditions of development sites.
Appendix E--AID To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 85

how does one manage the tradeoff between cautious

decisionmaking and expanding the scaleup of technology

interventions to get the flow of benefits started?

Improve Project Planning and Ensure Project

Flexibility

Assistance projects that intervene in a developing

country’s natural resource base require careful and sometimes extensive planning. In most cases, the scientific

knowledge base is from temperate regions while the development site often is tropical. For example, U.S. experts in

soil and agriculture may be unfamiliar with the behavior of

certain developing country soils or with local crops and

cultivation practices necessary to ensure their satisfactory

growth. Further, the recipient culture and economy tend to

differ substantially from those of the project designers,

making it difficult to predict what types of projects are

likely to be adopted. Most development projects are, in

part, experiments.

Projects that rely heavily on the technology/ecology fit,

therefore, must be designed to accommodate expected but

unidentified changes. Short project duration makes it

difficult to introduce technologies or implement projects

gradually, and presents a serious obstacle to making midterm corrections in response to monitoring and evaluation.

And, too, measurement of the project’s ecological and

social soundness may take much longer than AID’s typical

three- to five-year project allows. Where the research

element of a project is particularly prominent, adequate

project length is essential.

Risks to natural resource systems and development

assistance recipients may be reduced where projects include an extended technical planning phase, a gradual

phasing-in period for adaptation of technology to the site’s

ecological and social conditions, and a length commensurate with achievement of results despite mid-term project

realignment. Yet, many constraints work against these

approaches. Means to address these needs include:

• lengthened budgetary cycle and legislative language

fostering improved project planning

• increased investment in development of resource development planning techniques that can be used by

project officers to ensure consideration of technology/ecology fit,

●

increased projects with natural resource assessments

and resource development plans as their goals, and/or

● longer project periods with gradual technology introduction and increased project monitoring fostering

mid-term corrections in objectives and methods as

necessary.

A major constraint to increasing investment in planning is the impatience of client country governments the

U.S. Congress, and other donor country institutions. Already, many developing country officials perceive development assistance project planning as too lengthy and costly.

Such critics probably are not aware that the standards of

haste common to industrial countries maybe inappropriate in developing countries. The annual budgeting process

further inhibits extended planning: the need to move

money commonly requires that project planning be substantially shorter than one fiscal year, while determining

ecological compatibility may require an understanding of

natural system behavior over at least an entire cycle of

seasons.

Similarly, contractors and aid organization staff are

keenly aware of the urgency for each project to produce

substantial, quantifiable results by the end of its period.

Production targets stated at the beginning of three- to

five-year projects often necessitate rapid scale-up of technology interventions and therefore, major project realignments may be viewed as counterproductive. Further,

managers of short projects cannot easily accommodate

major unexpected changes in their projects. Instead of

today’s common three- to five-year AID projects, durations of 10 to 15 or perhaps 20 years seem more appropriate.

These problems exemplify the drawback of piecemeal

approaches. If more projects were designed specifically to

produce resource development plans for target areas but

the plans do not become the basis for subsequent development assistance projects, nothing has been gained. Similarly, if projects were given longer periods for planning and

implementation, but continued to move rapidly into fullscale operation and disallowed mid-term corrections, then

damage from ecologically unsustainable technologies still

might result.

Potential Overnight Questions:

● What is the average length of your projects? are projects

generalty expected to be selfsustaining after this period?

which kinds of projects are appropriate for gradual

development and phase-in of technologies and which are

appropriate for rapid scale-up of operations?

● What is the typical ratio of investment in project planning

to investment in project implementation for various

kinds of projects (agtcultural industrial, institution

building research, etc.)?
86 . New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

● What would be the advantages and disadvantages of

increasing=

a) the general lengths of projects?

b) the ratio of project planning expense to investment in project implementation?

Increase Personnel Motivation and Accountability

The World Bank and AID have few mechanisms to

reward officers responsible for developing successful technology interventions, or to induce improved decisionmaking for those who have made poor technology choices.

Project officers commonly move on to new projects or

geographic regions prior to the termination of the initial

project. This management problem will become more

difficult, particularly in AID, as they shift increasingly to

policy and economic support interventions where cause

and effect may be obscure. In these, technology suitability

is even less likely to become apparent before the officer

responsible has moved out of range of accountability.

Nevertheless the level of effort invested in developing

information for sound technology decisions could be made

a prominent feature in periodic personnel evaluations. The

World Bank AID, and other development organizations

could experiment with methods for assessing quality of

development work. Such factors could be given at least

equal weight to quantity of tasks accomplished and total

funds obligated in personnel evaluations. Determination

of adequate criteria for evaluating and attributing development success, however, is problematic.

Individuals generally behave so as to perpetuate their

bureaucratic unit. Thus, it should be possible to facilitate

good technology decisions by monitoring the technology

development success/failure ratio for the various bureaus,

departments, and offices, and then by rewarding successful

units of the bureaucracy, perhaps with increased funding.

The World Commission on Environment and Development has recommended that periodic accounting of

natural resource conditions and environmental quality

indicators accompany reports of host country economic

indicators prepared by development assistance organizations. This could provide a way to motivate the development assistance community to address the match of

technologies with ecological conditions more carefully.

Potential Overnight Questions:

● How is quality of work weighed against quantity o f tasks

accomplished in your personnel evaluation procedres?

• How does your project evalutiation procedure give feedbacktoareward/accountability system that gives officers

or ofjices credit or blame when projects are or fail to be

sustainable?

Hire Enough of the Right People

Development organizations need to include increased

numbers of staff trained and experienced in the development and management of natural resources as well as staff

with expertise in the techniques of environmental analysis.

This conclusion has been stated repeatedly at Congressional hearings. Gradually, the aid organizations have

responded. Most of them now have some foresters and

ecologists or environment planners in positions that employ their technical expertise. Still most aid organizations

seem to add environmental professionals only in reaction

to outside pressures. A substantial part of new personnel

could be selected from people having demonstrated expertise in natural resources development or environmental

analysis at the direction of high-level AID and MDB

management. The continued low numbers of such experts

on agency staffs indicate that their importance is not yet

appreciated by high-level agency personnel.

Currently, development assistance organizations rely

on consultants and contractors for nearly all technical

expertise needed to develop sustainable projects. Meanwhile, evidence favors hiring and placement of natural

resource and social science experts where they will form

development strategy, identify project, program, and policy interventions, and support project implementation and

evaluation. Each development organization could analyze

its past evaluations and project records to obtain clearer

evidence for or against this proposition.

Potential Oversight Questions:

● Over the past decade, what hasbeen the trend of the ratio

of numbers of positions for technically trained staff to

numbers of positions for generalists in your organization ?
Appendix E--Aid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit . 87

●

●

What evidence exists, or could be developed to indicate

whether your organization's current reliance on consultants for technical expertise is sufficient for successful

development assistance operations?

What is your organization’s current policy on recruitment

and hiring of personnel with training and experience in

natural resource sciences versus personnel with training

in economics?

Improve Use of In-House Expertise

The World Bank and AID operate in countries having

a wide variety of cultures and environments. These organizations regularly rotate personnel among country and

regional assignments to foster broad experience and career development. Few officers probably would be satisfied with an entire career tied to one country.

Concurrently, however, the AID rotation system constrains development of in-depth staff expertise on the

cultures, languages, and environments of the recipient

countries. This is compounded by lack of incentives for

staff to investigate local people’s knowledge of development opportunities and constraints, by heavy bureaucratic

workloads, and by project funding procedures that inhibit

staff participation in field activities.

The MDBs and AID have staff who have technical

knowledge developed through academic training professional experience, and self-education. Considerable

knowledge-particularly regarding ecological conditions-remains relevant long after staff have rotated out of

an assignment. Yet these people often are placed in positions which make little use of their expertise.

Without abandoning the rotation system, procedures

for assignment of personnel could be adjusted to facilitate

improved use of existing in-house technical expertise. For

example, computer database techniques similar to those

used to manage consultant rosters could be used to match

staff technical backgrounds to agency assignment opportunities.

Further, AID and the World Bank could improve

project design by developing in-house review boards made

up of personnel experienced in the given geographic area.

At present, few officers are called on to assist in designing

projects that will be implemented at their previous posts.

Some of these individuals probably would be interested in

tracking proposed new projects and serving as a member

of ad hoc review boards. Abstracts of proposed new

projects could be sent to the boards for critical evaluation

of likely impacts. Their reviews would be used by project

officers to confirm or revise their technology choice.

Through such a procedure, in-house expertise could be

expanded without adding new positions. However, in AID

at least, this is unlikely to be feasible without broader

changes to streamline project design procedures and reduce agency workloads.

Potential Oversight Question:

● Recognizing the good reasons for rotating staff among

country assignments, how do your organization assignment and communication procedures assure best use of

the technical and geographic area expertise of your staff?

Improve Selection of Consultants

Donor agency consultants and personnel of host country organizations probably will continue to provide most of

the technical information and technical decisions for project design implementation, and evaluation, even with

expanded in-house expertise. AID consultants commonly

are recruited in the United States or other industrialized

countries. However, U.S. academic and government institutions generally have not encouraged development of

expertise relevant to tropical developing countries. Similarly, consultants experienced in managing interdisciplinary teams to analyze development problems and

interventions are scarce. Consequently, the combination of

developing country experience and interdisciplinary technical expertise is rare; recruiting technically competent

consultants for such teams will bc difficult.

Therefore, it seems appropriate for the MDBs and

AID to focus a significant part of their in-house training on

methods of interdisciplinary analysis. AID has supported

programs in U.S. universities and other institutions to

develop in-house expertise relevant to its needs. For

example, AID/S&T Forestry, Environment, and Natural

Resources Office has supported development of interdisciplinary planning methods at the International Institute

for Environment and Development and elsewhere, and

has held seminars to train in-house staff in their use. Other

S&T Offices similarly could increase support for development of interdisciplinary expertise. This might be particularly relevant to the Bureau’s Agriculture office as part of

its new focus on conservation of agriculture’s natural

resource base.

A longer-term approach maybe to increase the pool of

U.S. technical expertise in the development and management of tropical resource systems. For example, certain

Land and Sea Grant institutions are located in tropical U.S.

areas and conduct research and development activities
88 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

relevant to tropical developing countries. However, these

institutions are few and generally have small numbers of

personnel and financial resources for such research. Development of a significant tropical component in other

such institutions could increase the pool of U.S. experts

from which development organizations could choose consultants, and concurrently assist resource development

efforts in tropical U.S. areas. Congress could explicitly

identify development of tropical resource system curricula

in certain Land and Sea Grant institutions as a goal,

perhaps in the Foreign Assistance Act. Additional institutions that have developed specialized programs related to

temperate resource systems may be induced to follow this

example and enhance their own curricula in tropical resource development and management.

HOW TO CHANGE-HOLISTIC APPROACHES

Introduction

Budget cuts, declining technical staff, shifting priorities, and a proliferation of congressional mandates may

adversely affect the likelihood of development successes.

Thus, without clear expression of Congress’ recognition of

the importance of matching technologies to local conditions, piecemeal efforts may have only short-term beneficial effects.

Make Technology/Ecology Fit an Expressed Priority

Congressional concern about transfer of inappropriate

technologies can be expressed in new or modified legislation and at hearing convened for oversight, authorization,

appropriation or confirmation. Through these mechanisms, Congress can identify ecological compatibility as a

priority, or even a necessity, for U.S. development assistance efforts. To improve the effectiveness of this guidance, it may be necessary to provide some clarification,

ranking or consolidation of the other myriad priorities in

development assistance expressed by Congress.

Congress often can stimulate improvements in development organizations’ handling of issues such as technology selection without creating new legislation. Informal

meetings between Members and AID or MDB officials

and followup cooperation between congressional and

agency staff, reportedly had an important role in the

changes in development assistance priorities that occurred

during the 1960s and 1970s. This kind of cooperation

seems less common today.

A goal of identifying the ecological attributes of a

recipient country and basing selection of development

assistance interventions on those established parameters

could be specifically identfied in the Foreign Assistance

Act. Such a measure would definitively establish integration of environmental considerations into development

assistance efforts as a priority.

Legislation and congressional views strongly expressed

at hearings certainly affect priorities’in the development

agencies. But these priorities are likely to be internalized

only if they are views shared by the heads of the agencies.

Actions and decisions of high-level agency officials, particularly AID’s Administrator and Assistant Administrators, may bring about changes affecting the entire agency.

Many past AID Administrators have not had backgrounds

that equipped them to recognize the importance of the

links between technologies and developing country ecological settings. Thus, confirmation hearings provide an

important opportunity for Congress to raise issues and to

discern the depth of a nominee’s knowledge of and concern

for matching development projects and technologies to

local conditions in developing countries.

It is during these confirmation hearings that the candidate is first exposed to congressional concerns that relate

to his/her new responsibilities, and also a time when

he/she may be looking for new ideas. Thus, confirmation

hearings are an appropriate place to reinforce the guidance given in oversight hearings and in legislation. Questions at confirmation hearings can indicate clearly what

Congress will expect from him/her later on. Similarly, it is

a time when Congress can assess the likelihood of its

concerns being addressed, should the official be confirmed.

Encourage Research and Cautious Innovation

Even under optimum conditions, development problems are difficult to solve. To find ways to improve the fit of

technologies to local conditions, Congress could encourage the AID Administrator to support related research

and to foster innovation and experimentation in cases

where sound theory and gradual implementation can protect technology recipients from the consequences of failure. Experiments would of necessity, be small scale

activities such as on-farm research and demonstration and

would be carefully monitored until their suitability for

expansion is clear.

Such small efforts, in aggregate, could have considerable impacts. Today, fewer U.S. foreign assistance dollars

are assigned to development assistance activities than in

past years. However, international development institutions monitor the activities of similar institutions and
Appendix E--Aid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 89

where successes occur, they commonly copy them. Therefore, if U.S. supported development assistance were to

take a clear leadership role in assuring that technologies fit

developing country ecological settings even these diminished funds could have a far reaching impact on other

organizations conducting development assistance activities.

Restructure Technical Resources

A key factor in assuring that development assistance

promotes ecologically sustainable technologies is effective

use of the technical staff with professional training experience, and interest in applying technology to developing

country needs. Although AID and World Bank have such

people, they do not seem sufficiently integrated into all

aspects of development assistance (e.g., problem definition project design implementation, evaluation and redesign) to assure the highest development project success

to failure ratio. This seems particularly true for those

projects which involve technology transfer to address developing countries’ environment and natural resources

problems and opportunities.

Notwithstanding AID may have the technical staff

collectively in its Missions and in Washington to increase

its overall successes. If AID were to concentrate its knowledge on the various ecological settings in developing countries and on matching technologies to these settings, it

seems likely that the physical and biological conditions

necessary for sustained development could be maintained.

AID could accomplish this by developing in-house, interdisciplinary specialist teams to help screen host country

problems and AID-proposed solutions, and to assist field

staff in locating technical assistance appropriate to the

recipient country’s ecological characteristics.

One possible categorization of developing country ecological zones in which AID and the MDBs operate is 1) hot

wet lands, 2) arid/semiarid lands, and 3) high altitude

lands. Although differences obviously exist between the

environments and resource systems within these zones

(e.g., the Brazilian rainforest is somewhat different than

Zaire’s rainforest), they are similar enough that technologies compatible with the environment of a given ecological

zone are likely to be sustainable when adapted for the same

zone in another area. (Of course, political, cultural and

economic factors may vary greatly among between areas,

potentially rendering technologies incompatible in other

ways.)

These ecological teams should include, for example,

participation of other technical specialists like agronomists, soil scientists, foresters, hydrologist anthropologists, geologists, geographers and ecologists. Grouping

AID personnel in this fashion would have the immediate

beneficial effect of linking specialists in a close working

relationship (e.g., agriculturalists with other environment/natural resource specialists), thus resolving a wellidentified communication problem.

A fourth team or office with expertise that overlaps the

three ecological zones, such as engineers, economists,

health specialists, educators and demographers, would

work with the ecological teams on projects. This fourth

team would take the lead on technical design and evaluation projects unlikely to have strong interactions with the

natural resource base (e.g., projects to improve text books

for primary education).9

AID could assemble teams from AID/S&T1° technical staff having appropriate professional training, experience, or interest in the various aspects of natural resources

and environment in each ecological zone. So, for example,

an agronomist from this Bureau having professional training in dryland agriculture could become part of the team on

arid/semiarid lands; a geographer having many years of

experience in Guyana and the Philippines could join the

hot, wet lands team; and anew staff member with a general

background in hydrology but a strong interest in erosion

control might move into the high-altitude lands group.

Where certain specialties might be missing AID could

draw qualified persons from regional bureaus, or from

Mission staff. Such an arrangement might not require

additional AID staff if agency personnel were screened

carefully for their appropriate professional training experience and interest. However, these offices should not be

depleted of technical specialists or environmental analysts.

A hiring policy aimed at filling vacancies in each ecological

team as well as maintaining basic strength in regional

bureaus and Missions could mitigate potential staffing

deficiencies.

Ecological teams could serve as environment/natural

resource falters for all proposed projects coming in from

gAn additional team, less directly related to issues of ecological compatibility, might specialize in projects relevant to urban problems and

opportunities.

10 Some technical specialists view this Bureau as having the largest number of technical staff with the greatest number of years of relevant

experience.
90 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

the field or arising in AID Washington (figure E-3). Each

ecological team could examine mission-identified problems and assist in project response development, or review

previously prepared plans for their suitability to the development site conditions. The team also could help Missions

identify relevant outside technical expertise and technologies with a strong likelihood of fitting the local environmental conditions and thus of achieving the development

goal.

The ecological teams (perhaps within a reorganized

Science and Technology Bureau) also would be in direct

line between the Missions/regional bureaus and U.S.

technical expertise (e.g., universities, private sector,

PVOs/NGOS, and executive agencies’ technical resources) further assuring that AID would be unlikely to

select and transfer unsustainable technologies to developing countries. Although AID and MDBs structures differ,

such teams could fulfill a similar function in MDBs, operating as a “technical filter” between bank regional technical

departments and outside technical resources.

This restructuring might be strongly resisted by AID

management or the Foreign Service Union because it

would require a significant reorganization of AID technical staffs. If this reorganization became untenable, the

ecological teams could be implemented (perhaps on a

simplified level) in each geographic bureau.

Suggested Oversight Questions:

● What do you see as advantages and disadvantages of

oganizing your technical staff into interdisciplinary

teams with separate teams for each major ecological

zone?

● Please provide a listing of existing personnel with technical qualiifications for these ecological teams. Please

indicate technical areas for which no qualified personnel

are currently available.

Strengthening Technology Selection Expertise

Increasing developing country capabilities to determine which technologies will lit their own particular ecological setting probably will do more to foster sustainable

development activities and help to stem degradation of

their natural resources than simply having development

assistance agencies ensure the ecological compatibility of

technologies used in development assistance projects.

AID/S&T, eight years ago, began a few special projects to

assist Mission and bureau staff as well as developing

country planners and natural resource specialists to imFigure E-3—Simplified Diagram of Proposed Restructuring of AID Technical Resources

U.S. scientific and

technological community Technology Bureau Regional

bureaus

Universities

Hot, wet lands

Consortia team Africa Bureau

Private voluntary Arid/semi-arid lands Asia/Near East U.S. AID

organizations

team Bureau country LDCS

missions

Federal agencies

High altitude lands Latin America/

Consulting firms team Caribbean

& individuals Bureau

SOURCE: Office of Technology of Assessment, 1987.
Appendix E--Aid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 91

prove their understanding of interactions between technology and ecology. These projects led to the creation of

Country Environmental Profiles (CEPs).

CEPs describe the status of a country's natural resource base and associated problems and potential opportunities for development of the resources. They are used by

specialists from developing and developed countries alike

in project and strategic planning.

CEPs involve several stages of writing review and

rewriting. Phase-one profiles are desk studies prepared by

U.S. experts mostly through library research followed b y

Phase-two reports that are supported by AID but largely

prepared by host-country experts using outside expertise

when necessary. Fifty Phase-one versions are complete;

one-fifth as many Phase-two profiles exist. The process

provides an opportunity to improve the knowledge base of

AID staff, contractors, and host-country counterparts, as

well as to increase and strengthen the analytical skills and

involvement of developing country environmental/natural

resource experts.

Additional AID projects produced comprehensive,

individual reports on various ecological settings common

to many developing countries; several of these have been

published in book format. The reports were produced

primarily by teams of U.S. environment/natural resource

experts and included separate analyses on: the humid

tropics, arid/semiarid lands, the coastal zone, environment/natural resource planning methods, and case studies

of development technologies drawing directly on the natural resource base. Generally, these reports were intended

for use by AID bureau and Mission personnel involved

with project design. However, followup training associated

with certain topics has been held in developing countries.

In addition experimental computer models were investigated that might facilitate natural resource and environmental planning and research definition in developing

countries. Such efforts by AID and cooperating agencies

are important in the process of improving the fit of development technologies to particular ecological settings.

These efforts, though small in comparison to AID’s

overall activities address congressional concerns about

matching technologies to developing country environments. However, since these are individual projects, they

have a defined lifetime. Yet, learning to link the most

appropriate technologies to the local ecological conditions

of development sites is certainly an ongoing process for

U.S. development assistance agencies as well as for developing countries themselves. Expanding strengthening and

building such activities into the ongoing development

process rather than dealing with them as finite projects

may be a promising opportunity to improve technology/environment linkages.

Suggested Oversight Question:

● What efforts has your agency made to strengthen technology selection expertise? What results have been obtained?

What further actions are being planned?
92 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS AND PERSONS INTERVIEWED1l

Workshop Participants

David Bathrick

U. S. AID/S&T/AG

Peter Freeman

Consulting Geographer

Alexandria,VA

John Gaudet

Regional Office for Eastern

and Southern Africa

U.S. AID

Nairobi, Kenya

MollyKux

U. S. AID/ST/FNR

Stephen F. Lintner

U. S. AID/ANE/PD/ENV

Christopher Russell

U.S. AID/S&T

Bob J. Walter

Department of Geography

Ohio University

Athens, OH

Persons Interviewed

Steven Berwick

International Institute

for Environment and Development

Robert O. Blake

International Institute for

Environment and Development

Warren Brockleman

Mahidol University

Bangkok, Thailand

Kjell Christophersen

International Resources Group

Jon Clark

Environmental and Energy Study Institute

John Cleave

World Bank

Diana Crowley

World Bank

Paul Lightfoot

Thai Bank for Agriculture and Cooperatives

Bangkok,Thailand

Andrew McGuire

World Resources Institute

Kathleen McNamara

World Bank

Wllliam J. Nagle

World Resources Institute

Raymond Noronha

Consulting Sociologist

Alexandria, VA

J. Kathy Parker

Office of Technology Assessment

Steve Parcells

Natural Resources Defense Council

Sheridan Pluckett

U. S. AID

Mit Pramuanvorachat

U. S. AID

Bert Printz

Neill & Co.

Bruce Rich

Environmental Defense Fund

Jeff Romm

University of California

Berkeley,CA

Richard Saunier

Organization of American States

Stephen Schwartzman

Environmental Defense Fund

Ben Severn

U.S. AID

Chamlong Tohtong

Thai Bank for Agriculture and Cooperatives

Bangkok, Thailand

Jeremy Warford

World Bank

Paul Weatherly

Biomass Users Network

llUnless otherwise noted, the listed institutions and individuals are located in Washington, DC.
Appendix E--Aid To Developing Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit ● 93

Francis Weber David Wirth

National Audubon Society Natural Resources Defense Council

Phyllis Windle

Office of Technology Assessment

Montague Yudelman

World Resources Institute
Appendix F

‘References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Ahmad, Muzaffer, “Role of U.S. Universities in

Development in the 1990s: A Third World View,”

working draft of paper presented at the Midwest

Universities Consortium for International Activities, Inc./Johnson Foundation Wingspread Conference on “Role of U.S. Universities in the Development Task in the 1990s,” Racine, WI, Mar. 10-12,

1988.

Apple, J.L., Office of International Programs, North

Carolina State University, Raleigh NC, personal

communication, April 1991.

Apple, J. Lawrence, ‘‘The AID-University Partnership: Supporting Long-Term Linkages with Third

World Institutions,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, October,

1989.

Apple, J. Lawrence, Popenoe, Hugh, and Meiman,

James, “The USAID/University Partnership: Issues

Identified by USAID Mission Directors that Reflect

upon University Performance and that Universities

Must Address,” draft report based upon a BIFAD

review of the responses to the 1986 McPherson

Survey, 1987.

Association of U.S. University Directors of International Agricultural Programs, “Agricultural Assistance To Developing Countries: Market Development,’ brochure adapted from Kellogg, E.D.,

“Agricultural Development in Developing Countries and Changes in U.S. Agricultural Exports,”

Consortium for International Cooperation in Higher

Education, March 1987.

Barber, Elinor G. (cd.), Foreign Studant Flows,

report on the conference held by the Institute of

International Education in Wayzata, MN, Apr.

13-15, 1984.

Bernstein, Joel and Taggart, Glenn L., “The Institutional Development Agreement: A New Operational Framework for AID and the Universities,”

report of a Joint Committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges

and the Agency for International Development,

1970.

Berry, L. “The Role of U.S. Universities in

Development Assistance: Technical Support for

Natural Resources and Environment,” paper contracted for the Office of Technology Assessment,

1989.

Bertrarn, R., “University-International Agricultural

Research Center Links,” paper contracted for the

Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

Bittner, Gary W., U.S. Agency for International

Development, Bureau for Science and Technology,

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Center for University Cooperation in Development,

personal communication, April 1991.

Blanks, N., Save the Children, Ashville NC, personal communication, May 1991.

Blase, Melvin G., Institution Building (Columbia,

MO: University of Missouri Press, 1986).

Britan, Gerald M., “Innovative Approaches to

Agricultural Extension: An Overview of AID Exper

i

ence,” CDIE/PPC/Agency for International Development, May 1987.

Brown, Marshall D., Counselor to the Agency,

Agency for International Development, memorandum to M. Peter McPherson, Administrator,

Agency for International Development, Oct. 10,

1986.

Carter, Harold O., “A Hungry World: lessons from

a Land-Grant- School Perspective, ’ American

Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 67, December 1985, pp. 916-927.

Cashman, K., and Persons, E., “Improving the

Relevance of Formal Education and Training in

Preparing International Students as Change Agents

for Low-Input Agriculture,” Journal of Alternative

Agriculture, vol. 3, No. 1, Winter 1988, pp. 35-40.

Collom, J., “University-University Linkages in

International Development,” paper contracted for

the Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research, “Sustainability Research in the

CGIAR-Its Status and Future,” Agenda Item 9,

Washington, DC, May 28, 1989.

Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR), Summary of International

Agricultural Research Centers:A Study of Achievements and Potential (Washington, DC: CGIAR,

1985).

Dwyer, Don D., “The Role of the University in

International Development,” paper presented at the

Fifth Annual Wood Memorial Lecture at Texas

Tech University, Lubbock TX, Feb. 16, 1989.

Eicher, Carl K., Sustainable Institutions for African

Agricultural Development, International Service for

National Agricultural Research (Washington, DC:

ISNAR, 1989).

Evenson, R.E., “The IARCs: Evidence of Impact on

National Research and Extension and on Productivity” (Washington, DC: World Bank, Consultative

Group on International Agricultural Research,

1987).

Farrar, Curtis, “The CGIAR: An Overview,” in

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Col-

–94-
Appendix F--References . 95

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

lege of Agriculture, International Agriculture Update, vol. 4, No. 2, 1989.

Freeh, L. “University-Agribusiness Cooperation in

Development Assistance,” paper contracted by the

Office of Technology Assessment,” 1989.

Furtick, William R., “New TooIS for World Leadership: Science, Education and Information,” unpublished, Feb. 25, 1991.

Furtick William, “Options for Developing Effective Food and Agriculture Development Programs,” draft working paper, U.S. Agency for

International Development, Bureau for Science and

Technology, Office of Agriculture, 1989.

Gardner, J.W., ‘AID and the Universities,’ Report

to the Administrator of the Agency for International

Development (Washington DC: Agency for International Development, 1964).

Gray, Clarence C., III, Desk Top Evaluation of the

Program Support Grant-Single Memorandum of

Understanding, report prepared for the Agency for

International Development, March 1988.

Guither, H.D. et al., U.S. Farmers’ Preferences for

Agricultural and Food Policy in the 1990s, North

Central Regional Extension Publication 361, North

Central Regional Research Publication 321, Illinois

Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 787, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, November 1989.

Hansen, Gary, “Universities for Development:

Lessons for Projects in Agricultural Higher Education,” prepared for U.S. Agency for International

Development, Bureau for Program and Policy

Coordination, January 1989.

Hansen, Gary, “AID Evaluation Highlights-The

Impact of Investments on Agricultural Higher

Education,” prepared for U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for program and Policy

Coordination, 1989.

Hansen, Gary E., “Beyond the Neoclassical University: Agricultural Higher Education in the Developing World,” paper prepared for the Center for

Development Information and Evaluation, Agency

for International Development, Washington, DC,

May 1989.

Henson, J. B., Director of International Programs,

Washington State University, U.S. Congress, Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA), workshop summary: “U.S. Universities and Foreign Aid: Assistance for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment,” 1989.

Hogan, Edward B., Rachie, Kenneth O., and Robins, John S., Collaborative Research Support Program Review Study, report prepared for the Agency

for International Development, 1986.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

Humphrey, R.A. (cd.), Universities. . . and Development Assistance Abroad (Washington, DC:

American Council on Education, 1967).

Jordahl, Brian, “Universities and AID: A History of

Partnership and Problems in Their Collaboration to

Provide Technical Assistance for Developing

Countries,” Master’s thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, March 1991.

Koppel, B., “Networking Agriculture and Natural

Resources Universities and Research Institutions in

Developing Countries,” paper contracted for the

Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

Koppel, Bruce, East-West Resource Systems Institute, “Report of a Workshop on Linkages Between

the International and Domestic Functions of the

Land-Grant System,” report of a NASULGC workshop, Washington, DC, June 29, 1981.

Lele, Urea, “Agricultural Growth, Domestic Policies, The External Environment, and Assistance to

Africa: Lessons of a Quarter Century,” paper

presented at the World Bank Eighth Agriculture

Sector Symposium, January 1988.

Long, Erven J., Bureau of Science and Technology,

Agency for International Development, memorandum to the Senior Assistant Administrator, Bureau

for Science and Technology, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, Sept. 29,

1986.

Long, E.J., and Campbell, F., “Reflections on the

Role of AID and the U.S. Universities in International Agricultural Development (Rockville, MD:

Statistic, Inc., 1989).

Mertens, Frank Bureau of Science and Technology,

Agency for International Development, personal

communication with OTA, Apr. 11, 1989.

Miner, W.R., “A Study of the Responses of Title

XII Universities to AID Administrators’ 1986

Survey of Performance of Title XII Institutions”

(Washington, DC: Board for International Food and

Agricultural Development, 1988).

Montee, Ralph P., “An Initial Study of PVOUniversity Collaboration” (Collowhee, NC: Center

for PVO/University Collaboration in Development,

Western Carolina University, 1984).

Morgan, Robert P. et al., Science and Technology

for Development: The Role of U.S. Universities

(Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press Inc., 1979).

Moser, T. and Elmer, L., “Review of Participant

Training Evaluation Studies,” AID Evaluation

Occasional Paper No. 11, USAID, May 1986.

Multinational Environmental Outlook, “AID Extends Forest Conservation Funding, vol. 17, No. 6,

Mar. 19, 1991, p. 46.

National Association of State Universities and

Land-Grant Colleges, International Committee on

Organization and Policy, Division of Agriculture,
96 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

“Assuring Global Competitiveness of United

States Agriculture: An International Agriculture

Program Initiative,” Washington, DC, 19900

National Research Council, A Review of the AID

Research Grants Program for the Historically

Black Colleges and Universities, report prepared for

the Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, December 1988.

National Science Foundation, “Federal Support to

Universities, Colleges, and Select Non-Profit

Institutions: FY 1988,” NSF 89-325, Washington,

DC, 1989.

Patterson, G.O., “Final Evaluation: Program Support Grants/Joint Memorandum of Understanding-Agriculture,” Clapp & Mayne, Inc., Dec. 14,

1989.

Pielemeier, John, “Strengths and Weaknesses of

Title XII Programs: Analysis of Mission Responses,’ report prepared for the Agency for

International Development, Washington, DC, 1986.

Pragma Corp., Evaluation of the Collaborative

Research on Special Constraints for International

Agricultural Research Centers Project, report prepared for the Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, June 1989.

Rich, B., and Schwartzmann, S., “The Role of

Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological

Diversity In-Situ in Developing Countries,” paper

contracted for Technologies To Maintain Biological

Diversity, OTA-F-330, March 1987.

Roskens, Ronald W., “Statement of the Honorable

Ronald W. Roskens, Administrator Agency for

International Development, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Foreign

Operations,” Mar. 12, 1991.

Roskens, Ronald W., Administrator, U.S. Agency

for International Development, memorandum for

the senior staff, “Establishment of a Center for

University Cooperation in Development,’ Sept. 20,

1990.

Roth, Jane, “BIFAD: Title XII Programs and

Evaluations,” (Washington, DC: Board for lnternational Food and Agricultural Development, August

1985).

Stairs, Gerald, “The View of A U.S. University

Administrator, “ in Proceedings of the West Africa

Conference, PatriciaPaylore and Richard A. Haney,

Jr. (eds.), sponsored by the Council for Scientific

and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the University

of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, Apr. 11-15, 1976.

Stovall, John G., “The Role of U.S. Universities in

Development Assistance: What Have We Learned

From Experience?” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, August

1989.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

Stowe, Robert C., “U.S. Universities and Constituency Building for Development Assistance,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, August 1989.

Suttor, R., Muscato, P., Winchester, L, and Lee, J.,

“Agriculture and Rural Development in Asia and

the Near East: AID Programs and Strategies,”

August 1988, prepared for the AID/ANE/TR/ARD

Strategy Symposium “Agriculture in the 1990s.”

U.S. Agency for International Development, “The

Environment Initiative--Progress Update,” Washington, DC, April 1991.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “Toward Strategic Management,” Washington, DC,

December 1990.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “The

Democracy Initiative,” Washington, DC, December 1990.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “The

Partnership for Business and Development,”

Washington, DC, 1990.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “Family and Development,” Washington, DC, December 1990.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “The

Environment Initiative,” Washington, DC, May

1990.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “Congressional Presentation FY 1990: Main Volume,”

1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “Congressional Presentation FY 1990, Annex II, Asia

and Near East,” 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “Congressional Presentation FY 1990, Annex III: Latin

America and the Caribbean,” 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “AID

Handbook 13,” May 26, 1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development,

“Congressional Presentation FY 1988: Main Volume,” 1987.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “U.S.

Assistance Strategy for Africa, 1987-1990,” June 4,

1986.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “Blueprint for Development: The Strategic Plan of the

Agency for International Development,” 1985.

U.S. Agency for International Development, “Title

XII: Policy Determination,” PD-4, Washington

DC, Oct. 5, 1982.

U.S. Agency for International Development, AID

Washington Technical Personnel, and Chemonics,

International Consulting Division, “Agriculture,

Rural Development and Nutrition Portfolio Review: Analysis and Recommendations,” prepared

for AID’s Working Group of the Joint Sector
Appendix F--References ● 97

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

Councils of Agriculture, Rural Development, Natural Resources, and Nutrition, Dec. 30, 1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Board

for International Agriculture and Development,

“The Collaborative Research Support Program

(CRSP),” Washington, DC, Apr. 12,1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Board

for International Food and Agricultural Development, Environment and Natural Resources: Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture, Occasional Paper

No. 12, Washington, DC, February 1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Board

for International Food and Agricultural Development, ‘Summary of Active Title XII Type Projects

During 1988,” April 1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Board

for International Food and Agricultural Development, “Staffing of University Contracts for Title

XII Country Projects,” Occasional Paper No. 8,

Washington DC, May 1986.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Board

for International Food and Agricultural Development, Guidelines for the Collaborative Research

Support Program Under Title XII of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of

1975, Washington, DC, June 1985.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Board

for International Food and Agricultural Development, “A Guide to Title XII and BIFAD,” Washington DC, November 1983.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Board

for International Food and Agricultural Development, Budget Panel, ‘‘Annual Report of the BIFAD

Budget Panel Fiscal Year 1991,” June 15, 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Board

for International Food and Agricultural Development, Budget Panel, “Recommendations of the

Budget Panel of the BIFAD: Apportionment of

Funds, AID for FY 89 and FY 90,” 1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, “U.S. Assistance for Africa, The

Development Fund for Africa (DFA): An Action

Plan for FY 89-91,” May 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, “Africa Bureau Strategic Plan,”

Apr. 19, 1984.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Office of Technical Resources,

“The Development Fund for Africa and AID

Support for Agricultural Development in Africa:

Performance and Prospects,” 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Office of Technical Resources,

“Plan for Supporting Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan Africa,” February 1987.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Office of Technical Resources,

Agriculture and Natural Resources Division,

“Agricultural Research and Faculties Briefing

Paper: April 1989 Congressional Presentation,”

Apr. 5, 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Office of Technical Resources,

Agriculture and Natural Resources Division,

“Progress in Implementing the Plan for Supporting

Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan

Africa (PNRM),” Mar. 31, 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Office of Technical Resources,

Agriculture and Natural Resources Division,

“Briefing Paper,” October 1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Asia and Near East, Office of Technical

Resources, Agriculture and Rural Development,

“A Rural Economic Growth Strategy for Asian and

the Near East Countries in the 1990s,” Draft,

January 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, “Environmental and Natural Resource Management in

Central America: A Strategy for AID Assistance,”

June 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, “AID

Assistance to Agricultural and Rural Development

in Latin America and the Caribbean,” December

1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, ‘Recommendations for Supporting Agricultural Research

Institution Building in Latin America and the

Caribbean,” 1987.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for program and Policy Coordination, unpublished analysis prepared for the Administrator,

1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, “Environment and Natural Resources,’ AID Policy Paper

PN-AAV-464, April 1988.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, “Food

and Agricultural Development,” AID Policy Paper

PN-AAM-322, May 1982.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Science and Technology, “Central Program Strategy Statement FY 1987-1991,” August

1986.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Science and Technology, Office of Agriculture, “Sustainable Agriculture CRSP,” 1990.
98 ● New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Science and Technology, Office of Agriculture, “Statistical Overview of S&T/AGR Project

Portfolio FY 77-FY 88,” 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Inspector General, Audit of International Agricultural

Research Centers, Audit Report No. 9-000-86-4,

Washington, DC, Feb. 25, 1986.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Office

of International Training, unpublished paper provided to the Office of Technology Assessment,

Washington, DC, 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Office

of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, Bureau for

Food for Peace and Voluntary Assistance, “Accelerating Institutional Development,” Institutional

Development Evaluation Series, 1989.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Sector

Council for Food and Agriculture, “AID Food and

Agriculture Strategy,” November 1983.

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Foreign

Aid: Issues Concerning U.S. University Participation, GAO/NSIAD-89-38, report to the Chairman,

Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, April

1989.

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “AID

and the Universities Have Yet to Forge an Effective

Partnership to Combat World Food Problems,”

GAO/ID82-3, 1981.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer

Policies for the 1990s--A Special Report of OTA’s

Assessment on Emerging Agricultural Technology:

Issues for the 1990s, OTA-F-448 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches

To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of

Groundwater, OTA-F418 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, November 1990).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role of U.S.

Development Assistance, OTA-F-356 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September

1988).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

“Aid to Developing Countries: The Technology/

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

Ecology Fit,” staff paper (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, June 1987).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

“Continuing the Commitment: Agricultural Development in the Sahel,” OTA-F-308 (Springfield,

VA: National Technical Information Service, August 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technology, Agriculture, and U.S. Foreign Aid, OTA-BP-F-31 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service,

December 1984).

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Foreign Affairs, “Report of the Task Force on

Foreign Assistance,” Dec. 101-32 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February,

1989).

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Foreign Affairs and U.S. Senate Committee on

Foreign Relations, “Legislation on Foreign Relations Through 1979-Volume I: Current Legislation and Related Executive Orders,” Joint Committee Print, February 1980.

Webster, Barbara, Chairperson, National Research

Council, letter to Curtis Jackson, Director, Office of

Research and University Relations, Agency for

International Development, Feb. 17, 1989.

Whitaker, M.D., “Implications of the Decentralization of AID’s Programming System for BIFAD,”

draft paper prepared for U.S. Agency for International Development, Board for International Food

and Agricultural Development, Oct. 11, 1985.

York, E.T, Jr., Fox, R., and Smith, N., “S&T/AGR

Research Strategy for the 1990s,” paper prepared

for the Agency for International Development,

Washington, DC, February 1989.

York, E.T., Jr., “An Assessment of Title XII of the

Foreign Assistance Act-’ Famine Prevention and

Freedom From Hunger’,” contractor paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,

December 1988.

York, E.T., Jr., “Remarks at the Annual Meeting of

AUSIDIAP,” In: Proceedings of the Association of

U.S. University Directors of International Agricultural Programs Conference: The Decade Ahead,

Athens, Georgia May 29-31, 1985, pp. 137-145.
Appendix G

Contracted Papers

The Aid-University Partnership: Supporting LongTerm Links With LDC Agriculture and Natural

Resources Universities and Research Institutions

Larry Apple

North Carolina State University

The Role of U.S. Universities in Development

Assistance: Technical Support for Natural

Resources and Environment

Len Berry

Florida Atlantic University

University-International Agriculture Research

Center Links

Robert Bertram

Bureau for Science & Technology

U.S. Agency for International Development

University-Private Consulting Firm Cooperation in

Development Assistance

Scaff Brown

Chemonics Corp.

University-University Linkages in International

Development

Jim Collum

Consortium for International Development

The Relevancy of Training/Education of LDC

Students at U.S. Colleges& Universities in the

Fields of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and

Environment

Don Dweyer

New Mexico State University

Possible Responses of U.S. Universities to Sustainable

Agriculture as a Development Assistance Goal

Clive Edwards

Ohio State University

Opportunities for Expanding University Development

Assistance Programs Beyond USAID

Bill Flinn

Midwest University Consortium for

International Agriculture

University-Agribusiness Cooperation in Development

Assistance

LaVern Freeh

Land O’Lakes, Inc.

The Role of U.S. Universities in Development

Assistance: Implications for Internationalization of

Universities

Jim Henson

Washington State University

Networking Agriculture and Natural Resources

Universities and Research Institutions in

Developing Countries

Bruce Koppel

East-West Center

Integrating Gender Issues in Agriculture and Natural

Resource Development: Implications for

Universities Engaged in Foreign Assistance

Kathy Parker

The Oriskany Institute

University-PVO Cooperation in Development

Assistance

Darl Snyder

University of Georgia

The Role of U.S. Universities in Development

Assistance: Lessons From AID-University Program

and Project Evaluation

John Stoval

Consultant

U.S. Universities and Constituency Building for

Development Assistance for Foreign Affairs

Robert Stowe

Citizens Network

U.S. Universities and Development Assistance: Role of

USAID-University Partnership

Woods Thomas

Purdue University

An Assessment of Title XII of the Foreign Assistance

Act

E.T. York

University of Florida (emeritus)

–99–

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1991 - 297-909 QL 3