Key Messages

1. Latin America has a rich tradition of individual and institutional efforts in agricultural science, knowledge and technology (AKST). While these have made significant contributions to food security and the agroexporting sector, they have not taken full advantage of the existing potential for agriculture-driven development. LAC’s different sub-regions have a heterogeneous AKST system structure involving public, private, local, national, regional, and international institutions and organizations of varying sizes and capabilities, as well as major differences between countries and subregions. Recently, innovative alternatives have emerged for the management of relevant bodies with the participation of civil society. However, the way the systems are put together does not respond to this diversity and potentiality—which has impeded optimizing the use of the regional AKST system, and blocked its technical spill-over effects. The needs that have been detected are the following: Strengthening AKST system institutions, particularly in the relatively less developed countries; Improving linkages and cooperation within the AKST system, including public- and private-sector users; Promoting the participation of civil society to ensure greater social oversight and moral, political, and economic support.

2. Priorities on the AKST system agenda in the past were food security, the production of agroindustrial commodities, and low-cost foods for local consumption and export. While these remain significant, the challenge today is to develop technologies, innovations, and systems aimed at addressing the environmental and social dimensions and the specific demands of indigenous, traditional, and agroecological systems. The lines of research prioritized before were directed at boosting productivity in the primary sector. Fewer efforts were made to produce technological developments geared to the competitiveness of the agrifood chains, the production of non-agricultural goods and services in rural areas, and other activities that reflected agriculture’s multifunctionality. More attention must be paid, in all three main productive areas, to social, cultural, and environmental aspects often neglected in the past. Not enough importance, moreover, has been attached to the sustainable use of the region’s enormous resources with regard to biodiversity, fresh water availability, and marine resources. Not enough concern has been shown, either, for the direct impact of productive systems on water and soil resources and tree cover, or the impact of deforestation, the expansion of the agricultural frontier, and climate change. It is to be hoped that the AKST system will manage to reconcile conflicting goals such as competitiveness, on the one hand, and environmental, economic and social sustainability on the other.

3. In response to social demands, the AKST system agenda has become more diverse and complex. In its efforts to address problems like poverty, food security, environmental degradation, deforestation, biodiversity

loss, natural disasters, and global climate change, it has incorporated social, economic, and environmental considerations as well as the notion of working with all the links in production chains, from primary production to marketing. Yet few AKST system institutions can, by themselves, respond to such diverse and complex demands in a holistic manner. Strengthening cooperation through global, regional and national networks, with proper strategic planning, execution and follow-up, is essential. Such networks should be more systemic and incorporate more broadly the various social actors. This will put to the test the solidarity and coresponsibility between countries and institutions.

4. The AKST agenda has not paid enough attention to the problems that affect the nutrition, health, and wellbeing of the urban and rural poor. There is a need to design, fund, and implement an agenda in favor of the poor at the global, regional and national level.

5. The AKST system has made significant agronomic contributions that have mostly benefited large producers and well-organized medium producers. Traditional, indigenous, and agroecological producers, who share a limited availability of resources and are less organized, have not benefited as much. Their equitable participation in defining the AKST agenda has not yet been achieved. There is a need to develop a participatory innovation and development system that can meet the needs of these three groups, take into account their capabilities, and help them fulfill their potential.

6. Investment in agricultural research and development (R&D) in LAC varies among countries and subregions but in all cases is lower than in industrialized nations, and even developing countries in other regions. There is a need to increase government funding of AKST systems, since for developing countries it remains the best investment.

7. In spite of AKST’s contributions to agricultural production and productivity, recent decades have ironically seen a decrease in public funding. Regulations governing relevant institutions, moreover, are not conducive to research. This generates uncertainty as well as the inefficient use of resources. There is a need to provide public institutions with sufficient funding and establish mechanisms to reduce uncertainty and improve the efficient use of resources.

8. Private-sector R&D focuses on the development of appropriable technologies that have benefited from patent and intellectual property legislation. It has also played an important role in the local adaptation of technologies coming from industrialized nations. However, AKST contributions by the private sector do not meet development needs, particularly among traditional and indigenous producers. LAC needs an increase in private investment on agricultural research and development. This, in turn, entails public policies that will encourage such research. In certain countries, political, economic and institutional problems have limited policies of this nature. The hope is to achieve