Coffee technology transfer

The project is being implemented by the private sector Salvadoran Coffee Research Foundation (PROCAFE). Mid-term evaluation covers the period 1991-11/95. PROCAFE is becoming a capable, permanent coffee research and extension organization, focusing on applied research and practical solutions to major production problems. It has highly effective budget planning and management capacities, but the Board of Directors is too involved in day-to-day activities. TA by the International Research Institute (IRI) is expensive but cost-effective. However, if project achievements are to be consolidated at the termination of the IRI contract, additional international TA will be needed. PROCAFE"s goal of assisting 11,000 small farmers during the period 1993-1997, while below the project goal of 15,000, is not likely be met because extension agents serve only a limited number of farmers; slow delivery of vehicles and computers has also constrained extension. Further, the areas targeted for coffee rehabilitation will not be reached since the decision to rehabilitate depends on economic factors outside PROCAFE"s control. It is too early to quantify the project"s impact on production and productivity. Though somewhat concentrated, the coffee marketing network is becoming more competitive; on average, coffee growers have enjoyed a 25% greater share in the price spread between producer prices and export prices under private marketing than under state marketing. While PROCAFE is financially strong at present, future financing depends on adoption of a permanent check-off charge on coffee, which looks likely, but with no guarantee. Towards the goal of privatizing coffee research, PROCAFE has incorporated key players from the coffee sector into its Board of Directors and Advisory Council, providing the private sector a forum for participating in coffee research, but it has not fully shifted from the type of research it performed as the public sector Salvadoran Institute for Coffee Research (ISIC) to the type it should be performing as PROCAFE. Its research focuses on problems, not solutions, on components of the production process rather than on the farm enterprise, and does not differentiate between technologies appropriate for low and high-resource producers. More emphasis should be put on economic and environmental criteria. PROCAFE"s extensionists need more information from researchers to better define producers" options; one-size-fits-all recommendations will not work in the highly diverse coffee sector. Further, PROCAFE does not monitor the impact of its recommendations on small farmers. Nor have PROCAFE"s technical offices grasped the importance of the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for research and transfer activities. Demand for the GIS, primarily for mapping services, has come from individuals in the coffee sector. In the area of organic coffee, there is little collaboration between PROCAFE and the Cooperative League of the United States (CLUSA), another USAID-supported initiative, which will soon end and whose shoes PROCAFE could fill. Technology transfer assistance provided by PROCAFE has been highly regarded and recipients would like to receive more. However, PROCAFE"s performance measures use intermediate level targets and gauge process (e.g., small group formation) rather than outcomes or impact. Female extensionists are more effective than males in working with female farmers; they should be used in greater numbers. Lessons learned are as follows. (1) Given the overriding need for institutional development in the transition from public institution to a private organization, the project design should have put more emphasis on PROCAFE"s management and organizational development. (2) The small producer group methodology has proven successful, and has attracted women extensionists in proportion to the number of women coffee producers. (3) The near exclusive focus on new small coffee producers as clients has occurred at the expense of established clients. To achieve the unrealistic targets established in the Cooperative Agreement, PROCAFE has adopted a strategy of a rapid turnover of its client base, which is clearly not in the best interest of the coffee sector. (4) In working with small producers, PROCAFE has learned that: (a) they have compelling social needs which go well beyond technical recommendations concerning coffee production; (b) the most appropriate strategy for small producers is diversification; and (c)and small producers have difficulties obtaining credit and adopting recommendations that require purchased inputs.