an appropriate balance in this area between the interests of producers and society, on one hand, and on the other a fair retribution for private investment.

9. International cooperation and NGOs have also engaged in efforts to supplement the role of government bodies in AKST, mainly in the environmental, cultural and social fields. But such efforts have been scattered, insufficient, and lacking in continuity. It will be necessary to increase such investments and promote their integration into the AKST system.

10. Several factors, external to agricultural technical development, condition AKST’s potential to build more productive, sustainable, and equitable systems that contribute to food supply, food security, and poverty reduction. AKST has not been taken into consideration as much as it should have when formulating macroeconomic, commercial, and financial policies and those related to access to markets, education, and information. It will be necessary to find mechanisms to better link the AKST system with policy-makers and implementers.

11. In the region, the lack of strategic plans, and the poor participation of the AKST system in their formulation, has prevented an integral response to complex rural issues. The AKST system must be an integral part of the promotion, design, and execution of strategic plans.

12. Although society has a good perception of the AKST system, there is a certain ignorance of the importance and impact of agricultural technology, hence little social support for AKST, and adverse reactions to technology that are often baseless or negatively influenced by prejudices. Improved communication on the importance and potential positive effect of agricultural technology, based on a strategy of transparency and accountability, is a must.

13. Research institutions benefiting from public funding lack balance in their human resources, in terms of the variety of disciplines and cultures represented, and in terms of gender. Moreover, their researchers and support staff are growing older and few institutions have a program to renew their personnel. Programs must be developed that contemplate the training, updating, and diversification of scientific and technical cadres through incentives that encourage research in priority fields.

14. The AKST system has contributed to improving production and productivity (with subregional differences), but mainly within the conventional or productivist system.

15. The AKST system has not interacted sufficiently with traditional or indigenous systems, nor has it taken advantage of their capabilities and potentialities.

16. The agroecological system has emerged as an option for finding solutions to environmental, economic, and sociocultural problems. It has arisen as a result of the interaction between

the AKST system and producers who share such concerns.

17. Technological development has sometimes had its environmental and social costs. The balance of agricultural, economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts has not been studied thoroughly enough. Neither have strategies been developed to mitigate the negative effect of various technologies and production systems. There is a need to assess the results of AKST in a holistic manner, bearing in mind not only their economic and productive impact but also their environmental, social, cultural, and political implications.

2.1 Inventory, characterization and evolution of the AKST system and its interactions

Latin America has a rich tradition of individual and institutional efforts in science, technology, and knowledge regarding agriculture. They have made significant contributions to many countries in the region. LAC’s different sub-regions have an abundant but heterogeneous AKST system structure, with major differences between countries involving numerous institutions and organizations—public, private, local, national, regional, and international—as well as bilateral and multilateral cooperation programs, sometimes with contrasting agendas and capabilities.

          The AKST system in LAC has gradually incorporated different institutions, programs, and other cooperation mechanisms—the aim having been to provide the needed geographical and thematic coverage. It has also sought to take advantage of, coordinate, and integrate the efforts of various types of public and private stakeholders at different levels (local, national, regional, and international). As a result, it has become a complex weave of institutions, programs, and cooperation mechanisms involving (1) local and third sector organizations; (2) National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs), universities and other national organizations; (3) regional centers; (4) cooperative programs; (5) consortia and specialized networks; (6) international centers such as Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR); (7) Regional Fund for Agricultural Technology (FONTAGRO); and (8) Regional Forum for Agricultural Research and Technological Development (FORAGRO) (Figure 2-1).

2.1.1 Local and third sector organizations

The complex and intricate network of local organizations, each with its own links to and interactions with the AKST system, generates opportunities but also constraints that have expressed themselves in different ways, especially in the last three decades. There is a rich and varied experience in the creation and successful operation of civil society institutions that support publicly funded AKST system programs. In Mexico, for instance, studies have been made of “interest groups”—in this case, farmers—who have voluntarily
organized themselves in Patronatos to provide moral, political, and economic support to research programs of interest, implemented in INIFAP’s experimental fields (Box 2-1).

The main constraints on the interactions between NGOs