Climate change has also forced a shift in the direction of research, partly in response to the El Niño phenomenon and its effects on the spatial and temporal distribution of water. This has affected weather patterns, with increasingly frequent reports of extreme events related to maximum and minimum water flows and changes in ocean currents (Obasi, 2000; IDEAM et al., 2001; MMA and IDEAM, 2002). Networking has been an important factor in mitigating the impact and designing policies at the regional and global level through bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
     One of the most recent trends in water use planning centers around advanced research centers and water treatment laboratories. Outstanding examples include the Network for Water Management in Agriculture, Irrigation and Ferti-irrigation (Red para la Gestión del Agua en Agricultura, Riego and Fertirriego); the Ibero-American Water Quality Laboratories Network (Red Iberoamericana de Laboratorios de Calidad de Agua); and the project known as “Indicators and Appropriate Technologies for the Sustainable Use of Water in Ibero-America’s Drylands” (Indicadores and Tecnologías Apropiadas de uso sostenible del agua en las tierras secas de
Iberoamérica) (Fernández, n.d.).
     Activities include the desalinization of seawater to extract potable water, the use of water as a source of energy (either from hydrogen or kinetic energy from water and tides), the study of ground waters and their decontamination, geothermy, and research on the estuaries of large Latin American rivers like the Amazon, the Río de la Plata, and the Orinoco. Major efforts and progress have also been made in the field of limnology. These new strategies increase our knowledge base and—with the help of case studies, best practices, partnerships between organizations, and the exchange of experiences—constitute essential actions to enhance the capabilities of national statistics institutes and their management of water resources (UNESCO, 2006).

2.4.2 Biodiversity
LAC is an exceptionally rich territory in terms of agrobiodiversity because it spans important cultural centers for domestication and agriculture: Meso-America, Amazonia, and the Andean region. Approximately 10,000 years ago, the original settlers domesticated scores of native species, originating agriculture in the New World and leading to the rise of highly developed pre-Hispanic civilizations involving extensive empires based on the success of autochthonous agriculture, its genetic and agronomic diversification, and its broad geographical diffusion.
     The inter- and infra-specific diversity of these native crops constitutes a rich heritage of genetic resources and an enormous comparative advantage, since this agrobiodiversity contains the elements (unique genes) that are essential for plant genetic improvement and the long-term sustainability of agriculture.
     However, in spite of the enormous value of genetic resources in the region, the institutional and political capability of most countries is too weak to conserve such assets properly and use them rationally.      The conservation of genetic resources is achieved through two different but complementary strategies: ex situ (in germplasm banks) and in situ. In LAC, germplasm banks are typically associated with public agricultural research in

  institutions
and agronomic improvement programs. Germplasm collections conserved ex situ at these banks are well documented and catalogued, with information regarding their place of origin, agronomic characteristics, and other information that can facilitate their direct use by farmers, in improvement programs as a source for desirable characteristics, or for their eventual repatriation to the communities of origin should they have been lost for any reason and there is a desire to bring them back.
     Advantages of ex situ conservation include the assurance provided by banks that the materials will survive, their availability for research and improvement, and comparative studies of different strains to test, for instance, for resistance to a given pest or disease. Disadvantages of this strategy include the cost of the facilities and technical staff needed to regenerate, characterize, and document the conserved materials, and the fact that samples are relatively small with regard to the genetic diversity found in wild populations. In addition, the process of evolution—of natural selection— pretty much stops while the materials are stored in the bank, where they are regenerated no more frequently than 5, 20, or more years in between.
     In situ conservation refers to preserving various species or varieties in their natural field conditions in the places where they developed their particular characteristics. In the case of domesticated plants, in situ conservation is carried out “on-farm”, in the fields of the farmers who have traditionally grown these crops or varieties. For the in situ conservation of wild plants (such as the wild relatives of common crops), efforts are made to preserve the ecosystems where the natural populations of such species are to be found, whether in national parks, protected areas, or other ecosystems that have not been intervened. The advantage of in situ conservation is that evolutionary processes continue, thanks to large populations of individuals with wide genetic variability. The disadvantages of this strategy include the difficulties of monitoring and protecting wild or cultivated populations in remote areas, the relative lack of documentation and characterization of the genetic materials, and the logistical difficulties of accessing those materials easily to apply them to research or genetic improvement.
     Neither in situ nor ex situ conservation by themself are enough to safeguard the survival and integrity of genetic resources in the long terms. Each strategy has its strengths and weaknesses, which makes it necessary to rely on both mechanisms (in situ and ex situ) so that they can function together in an integral strategy known as “complementary conservation”. Thus, if for some reason farmers lose their seed in the field they may reclaim it from the bank, while if due to some accident a bank loses some of its materials it will know where to go to once again collect them in the field and restore them to their germplasm collection. It may also make sense to encourage the exchange of seeds among farmers in the same region, or even different regions and countries. An AKST challenge would be to improve national institutional and technical infrastructure for safeguarding and making good use of the agrobiodiversity (genetic resources) that make up the heritage of each country.
     The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) acknowledged the sovereignty of each country over the genetic resources to be found within its borders. But with soverfromCK