World Bank Document

Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Document of
The World Bank
Report No: 35815
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT
(CPL-41690 TF-25481)
ON A
LOAN
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$60.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT
TO THE
FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL
FOR AN
AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
June 29, 2006
ESSD
Brazil Country Management Unit
Latin America and the Caribbean Region
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective )
Currency Unit = Real R$
R$1.00 = US$ 0.428
US$ 1.00 = R$2.340
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 to December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARTDT
ARI
ATER
BE
CAS
CIAT
CGIAR
DU
EC
EMBRAPA
GIS
GOB
ICB
IDB
IERR
IPR
LABEX
NAC
NAFTA
NCB
NRM
OECD
OEPA
R&D
SNPA
WTO
Agricultural Research Technology Development and Transfer
Advanced Research Institutions
Agricultural Technology and Rural Extension
Bidding Events (Editais)
Country Assistance Strategy
International Center for Tropical Agriculture
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Decentralized Research Units of EMBRAPA
Executive Committee
Brazilian Agricultural Research Enterprise
Geographic Information System
Government of Brazil
International Competitive Bidding
Inter-American Development Bank
Internal Economic Rates of Return
Intellectual Property Rights
Foreign R&D Laboratory (USA and France) of EMBRAPA
National Advisory Council
North American Free Trade Agreement
National Competitive Bidding
Natural Resource Management
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
State Agricultural Research Organization
Research and Development
National Agricultural Research System
World Trade Organization
Vice President:
Country Director:
Sector Manager:
Task Team Leader:
Pamela Cox
John Briscoe
Laura Tuck
Jorge A. Munoz
BRAZIL
Agricultural Technology Development Project
CONTENTS
1. Project Data
2. Principal Performance Ratings
3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry
4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs
5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome
6. Sustainability
7. Bank and Borrower Performance
8. Lessons Learned
9. Partner Comments
10. Additional Information
Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix
Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing
Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits
Annex 4. Bank Inputs
Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components
Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance
Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents
Annex 8. Borrower Completion Report: Executive Summary
Page No.
1
1
2
6
17
19
20
23
24
29
29
31
34
42
43
44
45
46
Project ID: P043873
Project Name: Agricultural Technology Development
Project
TL Unit: LCSER
Report Date: June 29, 2006
Team Leader: Luis O. Coirolo
ICR Type: Core ICR
1. Project Data
Name: Agricultural Technology Development Project
Country/Department: BRAZIL
L/C/TF Number: CPL-41690; TF-25481
Region: Latin America and the
Caribbean Region
Sector/subsector: Agricultural extension and research (60%); Central government administration (30%);
Sub-national government administration (10%)
Theme: Administrative and civil service reform (P); Decentralization (S); Other rural development (S)
KEY DATES
PCD: 08/21/1996
Appraisal: 03/17/1997
Approval: 05/22/1997
Original
Effective: 08/24/1997
MTR: 05/05/2000
Closing: 12/31/2002
Borrower/Implementing Agency:
Other Partners:
STAFF
Vice President:
Country Director:
Sector Director:
Team Leader at ICR:
ICR Primary Author:
Revised/Actual
09/24/1997
05/05/2000
12/31/2005
Federative Republic of Brazil/EMBRAPA
Government of Japan
Current
Pamela Cox
John Briscoe
Laura Tuck
Jorge A. Munoz
Anna Roumani with Raimundo
Caminha
At Appraisal
Shahid Javed Burki
Gobind T. Nankani
Constance A. Bernard
Uma J. Lele
2. Principal Performance Ratings
(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely,
HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible)
Outcome:
S
Sustainability:
L
Institutional Development Impact:
SU
Bank Performance:
S
Borrower Performance:
S
QAG (if available)
Quality at Entry: S
Project at Risk at Any Time: No
ICR
S
3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry
3.1 Original Objective:
The project sought to increase the efficiency and sustainability of resource use in the Brazilian National
Agricultural Research System (SNPA) to address its deficiencies in the areas of competitiveness,
environmental sustainability and poverty alleviation. This would be achieved by: (a) Stimulating the
transition in the SNPA from its heavy reliance on public sector research carried out by EMBRAPA, to a
more integrated and diversified system of Agricultural Research Technology Development and Transfer
(ARTDT) led by EMBRAPA; (b) increasing the role of clients in the definition of research and technology
transfer priorities and implementation; (c) refocusing public sector research on quintessential public goods;
and (d) helping EMBRAPA to re-orient its structure to address issues of decentralization and
diversification of the SNPA.
3.2 Revised Objective:
Objectives were not revised.
3.3 Original Components:
The Project comprised three components whose associated activities are summarized below:
Component 1: Competitive Grants System (US$72.0 million total cost) The core mechanism was the
Competitive Grants System (CGS), designed to promote high quality research and technology transfer in
five priority areas: (a) Family Agriculture (25% of funds); (b) Natural Resources Management (NRM,
25%); (c) Advanced Technologies (including biotechnology, 25%); (d) Agri-business (15%); and (e)
Strategic Studies (10%, and included financing to prepare grant proposals). These five areas reflected
changing priorities in both global and national agricultural research with greater focus on poverty
alleviation, environmental sustainability, and increased productivity and efficiency through access to
advanced technologies and greater involvement of the private sector. The CGS would finance up to 75%
(as grants) of approved research subprojects, the remaining 25% being shared by EMBRAPA, Treasury
and beneficiaries.
Grants: (a) Grants for preparing research proposals were available up to US$10,000 but did not guarantee
a subsequent, larger project grant; each competitive grant proposal was reviewed on its own merit.
Preference went to institutions with relatively weak capacity to participate in general competition and large
multi-disciplinary research proposals requiring greater preparation in terms of methodologies and research
partners; (b) Small grants of US$25,000 to US$40,000 were available for stand-alone, single-discipline
projects with a relatively quick pay-off, and required a minimum of two reviews. Up to 30% of resources
in each priority area could be allocated to small grant proposals; and (c) Large Grants: for disciplinary and
multi-disciplinary research of over US$40,000 and up to US$500,000, required a minimum two reviews
from outside the immediate research sub-committee, covered periods of 1-3 years and supported ARTDT
projects with long gestation lags.
Eligibility: All Brazilian research and technology transfer institutions belonging to the SNPA were eligible
to compete. Non-members of the SNPA could compete in partnership with at least one SNPA member (
Footnote 1). In addition to grants, the CGS also financed operational costs, short-term training and small
investments in equipment. Multi-institutional partnerships in project formulation and execution, as well as
counterpart contribution, were absolute requirements. Each research project comprised a minimum of two
and maximum of five subprojects; subprojects defined targets, activities, responsibilities and resources of
each institution involved in the project.
-2-
Allocations of grant funds were based solely on the quality of proposals, ranked according to a defined
scoring system agreed between EMBRAPA and the Bank and included in the Operational Manual. A set of
criteria was established covering all proposals. All grants could include some short-term training and
some critical lab and other equipment. Targeted longer-term training was available under Component 2,
Institutional Strengthening.
Component 2: Institutional Strengthening (US$44.7 million total cost) This component was designed,
above all, to boost the capacity of weaker institutions – farmers’ organizations, state research and
extension systems - to participate in the CGS. It financed: (a) limited, direct and selective support to
members of the SNPA for essential equipment, works and vehicles; and (b) development of long-term
human and institutional capital strategies (including through studies for financing and investment) for a
financially and socio-politically stronger SNPA. EMBRAPA had already undertaken a major program of
administrative decentralization and thus the component financed mainly minimum essential civil works,
vehicles, laboratory equipment, training and technical assistance (TA) in priority research areas (Footnote 2).
The component had federal and state-level activities.
Federal level activities: These comprised: (a) Strengthening research management and ongoing
decentralization of EMBRAPA; (b) Local and international, short and long-term degree training and visits,
with priority for socio-economic research, intellectual property rights (IPR) issues, M&E and advanced
analytical methods (biotechnology, GIS) (c) Satellite communications including US$2.5 million in
communications facilities to integrate EMBRAPA’s geographically-dispersed research programs; (d)
Strengthening public/private partnerships to mobilize private sector resources through collaborative
research under the CGS; (e) training to EMBRAPA and state-level researchers and science managers in
issues related to IPR, biosafety guidelines, WTO rules and the Cartagena Protocol on biodiversity; (f)
international collaboration including CGIAR, LABEX (EMBRAPA’s “virtual” foreign R&D laboratory)
and Advanced Research Institutions (ARI)) in research, training and outreach programs; and (f) Strategic
studies and action plans supporting SNPA diversification, decentralization and sustainability.
State level activities: Strengthening state research centers included training, consultants, support for
management reforms and improved lab and office equipment to foster collaboration between EMBRAPA,
the states, universities and private sector. EMBRAPA was expected to significantly reduce its research
staff support to the states by end-project, shifting those resources upstream to strategic, pre-technology
problems and developing broader incentives for mobilizing additional resources for research.
Component 3: Administration, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$3.3 million total cost) Building and
modifying EMBRAPA’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system, to bring it up to the standards of the
US National Science Foundation and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), and to increase coordination with Project-financed activities under the SNPA. EMBRAPA had
already introduced an M&E system integrating institutional and individual dimensions and annually
evaluated results of its research centers and employees, but needed to extend this system to the state-level
bodies. A draft M&E design was a condition of Effectiveness.
3.4 Revised Components:
Components were not revised.
3.5 Quality at Entry:
The National System of Agricultural Research (SNPA), led by EMBRAPA and comprising a large number
of federal and state research institutions and universities, has been a dominant player in the highly
-3-
successful development and evolution of Brazilian agri-business in recent decades. At the time of project
preparation, EMBRAPA was principal coordinator of all research activities of the SNPA in agriculture,
agro-industry and forestry. The public sector has traditionally been and remains, the principal investor in
agricultural research in Brazil, financing about 70% of working capital, and EMBRAPA its principal
institutional player in both number of research projects and resources mobilized. However, with a mere 1%
of agricultural GDP being invested in agricultural research annually, Brazil was falling short of other
middle-income countries. With government facing a range of priorities, the tendency has been for public
resource allocations for research to decline, affected further by inadequate and irregular release of budget
resources to programs. The private sector has traditionally been the principal beneficiary of public
research, enjoying its benefits without commensurate cost-sharing. Increasing the level of private sector
involvement is a critical challenge in efforts to accelerate agro-research, increase innovation and promote
competitiveness. This was the context for the Project’s alternative strategy of resource mobilization,
decentralization and public/private, multi-institutional partnerships (de Souza, 2003) (Footnote 3).
The project was expected to play a catalytic role in stimulating further evolution of the SNPA through a
major, nationwide, competitive grants system (CGS) designed to: (a) develop technologies for high priority
and strategic areas (resource-poor family farms, natural resources management (NRM) and increased
international competitiveness within the MERCOSUR, NAFTA and WTO context); (b) involve a larger set
of institutions in collaborative arrangements (universities, farmers’ organizations, private sector and
NGOs); (c) mobilize additional funding for research from the private sector, thereby helping EMBRAPA
refocus its own research on public goods; (d) decentralize EMBRAPA’s research management to its 37
research centers; (e) strengthen the infrastructure and human resource capacity of public R&D institutions
in poorer regions of the country, e.g., North and Northeast; and (f) facilitate and develop collaborative,
international agricultural research and development (R&D) linkages.
Through three previous Bank projects (Footnote 4) dating back to 1976 (foundation of EMBRAPA), plus
other operations financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), EMBRAPA had acquired
generally high quality infrastructure and human capital and ranked both regionally and globally in
agricultural research. It had already undergone, under its 1995-1998 general strategy, significant internal
reorganization and restructuring to improve effectiveness and reduce costs. These included staff reductions
and re-deployment, introduction of a performance-related incentive system, divestiture of marginal
activities, and greater integration with other SNPA players. New resource mobilization mechanisms were
introduced to permit greater focus on public goods, research units were further decentralized and their
autonomy increased, and research centers became more specialized with increased incentives for more
performance-based, accountable processes of planning and evaluation. These changes positioned
EMBRAPA for the Project.
Demand for and commitment to the Project in Brazil was strong. The project targeted producers and
consumers of agricultural research and was to be client driven, entailing: (a) cost sharing among a much
broader set of research partners; (b) commercial application of research outputs; and (c) outreach links
with research beneficiaries from small farmers (through their federations, cooperatives and associations) to
large-scale agri-business. EMBRAPA proposed focusing on strategic, long-term and inter-disciplinary
research, while becoming a catalyst for more applied and adaptive research including by stimulating
research in the SNPA overall.
While innovative in specific characteristics, it should be noted that Competitive Grant Systems were not
unique to EMBRAPA or the Project, already being used by other public agencies/programs in Brazil. As
generally understood, CGS is a package of formal procedures for providing financial support to research
and development projects selected through competitive, open bidding events, with pre-defined rules, wide
-4-
dissemination and institutional participation, as well as transparent analysis, approval and decision-making.
What was innovative was the Project’s proactive promotion of partnerships (including cost-sharing),
multi-institutional and cross-disciplinary actions in strategic, critical areas of development of the
agriculture and food production system/chain, and the participatory definition of research priorities.
Priority areas of research were established for the Project: Family Agriculture, Natural Resources
Management (NRM), Advanced Technologies, Agri-business and Strategic Studies. Eligible institutions
would prepare and submit proposals reflecting technology priorities, defined in participatory consultations
with representatives of research and development (R&D) institutions and producer groups. Family
Agriculture and NRM would receive a greater percentage of Project financing. Monitoring and Evaluation
(M&E) was to test the hypothesis that CGS was the least-cost and most efficient option for carrying out
certain forms of research and technology transfer. Monitoring and Information Systems (MIS) would build
on existing systems in EMBRAPA. An Operational Manual defined all norms, standards, procedures,
conditions and criteria for participation.
The project was consistent with the CAS of the period (14569-BR, June 29, 1995 and Progress Report,
June 20, 1996), focusing on structural reforms, poverty reduction and environmental management and
seeking specific impacts in the rural areas of the poorer North and Northeast regions, as well as addressing
through appropriate research, some of the major resource management challenges of the Amazon, Southern
and Central regions. The Project’s execution and funding decentralization and diversification goals were
also directly consistent with the CAS.
Institutional arrangements for the CGS and Project were well-defined at appraisal and quite
straightforward. EMBRAPA would have overall responsibility for project planning, implementation and
M&E. CGS operations would use the existing physical, organizational and administrative structure of
EMBRAPA. A National Advisory Council (NAC) with broad representation of the SNPA, an Executive
Committee (EC) and sub-committees for the five priority research areas, would manage the CGS supported
by ad hoc expert reviewers. The key elements of the institutional configuration were quality, flexibility,
participation, transparency and diversification. While not mentioned specifically in the PAD, the Project
envisaged using private, professional financial management foundations – usually attached to academic
institutions – to increase the agility and flexibility of transferring project funds to involved research entities.
Project design reflected a strong social focus – special attention and funding were reserved for poorer
regions such as the North and Northeast, and actions which would have impact on under-privileged
producers. All research proposals submitted for financing were expected to contain estimated economic
impact and a social assessment. Project appraisal however, as reflected in the PAD, may have conveyed
the impression that the transfer of project-generated technology was part of project design and that poverty
reduction would be measurable in its lifetime. Dissemination and related activities were part of the project
strategy, but were not synonymous with transfer and adoption.
With hindsight, and notwithstanding other, major constraints which affected Project implementation, the
planned five-year period for project execution was too short. Evidence suggests that the Bank and the
Federal Government agreed somewhat arbitrarily that all projects in Brazil would have a standard duration
of five years, independent of the nature and complexity of their investments. This was inadequate time to
conduct an agricultural technology project involving successive, competitive events to bring new R&D
projects into the pipeline/portfolio, administer the massive contractual, technical and administrative
requirements for set-up and monitoring with multiple, geographically-dispersed partners, and to conduct the
research.
-5-
4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs
4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective:
Rated Satisfactory
The Project successfully achieved its development objectives. To substantiate this, the ICR draws on
several high quality studies conducted between 2000 and 2005, with special reference to the CGS
performance study by de Souza (2003) (Footnote 5) which assessed all 25 research projects (representing 76
subprojects) concluded by end-2002, a significant sample from which to make valid judgments. Most data
and many important observations were also derived from a Completion Report by EMBRAPA, which
updated/utilized key elements of de Souza's study (Annex 8) (Footnote 6).
Objective I - Stimulating the transition in the SNPA from its heavy reliance on public sector
research carried out by EMBRAPA, to a more integrated and diversified system of Agricultural Research
Technology Development and Transfer (ARTDT) led by EMBRAPA
The Project achieved this objective, demonstrating an impressive diversification - not only of the
Project-supported grants program but subsequently, all of its primary research programs - institutionally,
regionally and in terms of research partnerships and subject matter. Multi-entity partnerships were an
absolute requirement for participation, breaking sharply with the traditional, compartmentalized approach
of public research. The project exceeded or met all its principal targets (Annex 1) indicative of this
diversification, expressed in (a) participants’ contributions of human, financial and material resources, (b)
the share of resources allocated to non-EMBRAPA institutions/entities, (c) the share of non-EMBRAPA
entities leading approved research projects, (d) the huge number of public-private partnerships and
collaborations, and (d) the extent to which the Project was able to capture complementary resource
contributions – including private sector - far exceeding appraisal estimates. Importantly, this Project
benchmark of diversification and institutional partnerships essentially maintained Project momentum in a
period of acute fiscal austerity and constant budget shortfalls. Research projects came to be formulated and
executed in networks and thematic groupings, multi-institutional and cross-disciplinary. The confidence
promoted by and results of collective action, stimulating multiplier effects reflected in many
quasi-independent, spin-off research and partnerships with a horizon extending well beyond the life of the
Project, were especially striking. Private sector integration in this more fertile, diverse, research scenario
far exceeded expectations. This vast joint venture reduced institutional isolation and dependence on public
resources in research. As intended, EMBRAPA remained the leader of this process but no longer its
primary executor.
Objective II - Increasing the role of clients in the definition of research and technology transfer
priorities and implementation
The Project experience demonstrates that this objective was achieved. EMBRAPA conducted national
surveys of technology demand to serve as reference points for each bidding event. EMBRAPA also
publicized the nature and objectives of the Project and its eligibility requirements, and coordinated
participatory events – seminars, workshops and consultations – with broad engagement of academia,
producer federations, cooperatives and associations, agro-industrial firms, service providers, rural
machinery and equipment firms and NGOs. First exploring the real social, economic and environmental
issues in the agricultural economy, participants were then motivated to resolve them by submitting research
proposals for financing and contributing, physically, financially and materially, to their execution. Family
Agriculture was a top priority with research priorities being canvassed nation-wide. Clients, practitioners
and users of research were included in the CGS decision-making bodies. This public, transparent and
-6-
dynamic ritual led to research proposals selected competitively and based strictly on technical merit,
validating the approach adopted.
The participatory nature of research diffusion was also consistent with Project objectives shown by the
hundreds of demonstration plots on private land, some 600 training courses in the countryside and technical
excursions to experimental areas. The Borrower Report cites a project for cattle herd improvement
involving some three hundred properties, while another project in farming systems for family agriculture
directly involved a similar number of small-scale properties in the State of Santa Catarina, as well as
universities, local government and producer associations.
Objective III - Re-focusing public sector research on quintessential public goods
The Project achieved this objective, changing the mindset of the public research establishment in a genuine,
profound shift to quintessential public goods (QPG). The priority allocation of funds to types of
investments contemplating poverty reduction through better productivity and improved incomes, as well as
environmental conservation and global competitiveness, support the appropriateness and effectiveness of
this strategy for public research, as do the results being obtained from dissemination, validation and
adoption of typical research lines (see Annex 3). Within its resource limits, since clearly it could not
refocus all public research in Brazil on QPG, the Project established up front, a public research framework
within which research activities were defined by the demands of direct and indirect users, and funding
allocations favoring a majority representation of those public goods in the research mix. This represented a
dramatic and fundamental shift away from EMBRAPA’s traditional approach.
Objective IV - Helping EMBRAPA to re-orient its structure to address issues of decentralization and
diversification of the SNPA.
This objective was achieved. EMBRAPA had already instituted a set of structural and administrative
changes positioning the SNPA for the decentralized, diversified Project approach (see 3.5). EMBRAPA
further reformulated its management model in 2002 by institutionalizing the values and practices of the
Competitive System for all research planning and activities under its established Macro-Programs, ensuring
that the CS standards and methodologies would be sustained longer-term. Further, state research systems in
São Paulo, Pernambuco and Santa Catarina have adopted the Project research management model and
other states are in process of doing the same. Project-funded training programs and direct linkages to the
international scientific community and its standards supported this reorientation by increasing the capacity
of EMBRAPA, its Decentralized Units (DU) and state research bodies to keep abreast of rapid global
scientific advances including intellectual property issues, and to internalize the long-term wisdom of
integrated, collaborative approaches to research generation and execution. Managerial positions within
EMBRAPA’s research centers under the DU, as a direct result of the project philosophy, are now selected
by elections involving a broad spectrum of the agricultural scientific community. EMBRAPA introduced
standard procedures for “joint venture” contracts and agreements with partner institutions, including
private sector. Research managers are encouraged to capture diverse resources to develop agricultural
research of local-level interest.
4.2 Outputs by components:
Component 1: Competitive Grants (est. final cost US$54.05 million, 75% of appraisal)
EMBRAPA conducted seven bidding events (BE) between 1997 and 2002. An eighth was publicized in
2002 but did not proceed due to budget restrictions under government’s economic policy and a period of
fiscal adjustment. Some 754 research proposals were presented to EMBRAPA from which 139 projects
-7-
representing 470 individual research subprojects were approved and contracted – almost double the 250
expected at appraisal, and an approval ratio of 18.4%. Five research projects were canceled early due to
managerial and operational issues. The average cost of research projects was R$600,000 equivalent at
June 2006 rates of exchange to some US$270,000. Project cost ranged from a low of R$125,000 (about
US$57,000) to R$1.07 million (about US$490,000).
Some 58 research projects/175 subprojects were fully completed at Closing – the remaining 78
projects/282 subprojects are in final phase of execution with all required resources (EMBRAPA, IDB,
private counterpart) already released to the projects. Full completion is expected in a maximum of 12
months. Research projects are always a continuum and non-completion of the full CGS portfolio by
end-Project is considered unremarkable (Footnote 7). Of the 139 projects approved, EMBRAPA coordinated
67% and of the 470 subprojects, EMBRAPA participated in the execution of 220 (47%) compared to 30%
estimated at appraisal. In other words, and as intended by the Project, EMBRAPA was the R&D leader of
the CS program but not its primary executor.
Table 1: Bidding Events: Response and Approval Rates
Bidding Event
January 1997
January 1998
February 1998
January 1999
February 1999
January 2001
February 2001
Total:
Proposals
Submitted
Projects
Approved
% Approval
136
168
37
50
115
85
163
754
9
26
5
6
23
34
36
139
6.6
15.5
13.5
12.0
20.0
40.0
22.1
18.4
Low approvals under early BE (Table 1) resulted from EMBRAPA’s desire to set high standards in the
initial stages, lack of proper documentation for many proposals causing disqualifications, and limited
budget resources for the CGS. EMBRAPA tended to be conservative as the Project got underway – many
otherwise technically rigorous proposals had to wait for the next BE in lieu of simply providing the
missing/supplementary documents, although technical merit was also an issue in some. Evidence also
suggests that the number of proposals per BE was influenced by the quantity of resources available for
each – the greater the amount, the higher the number of proposals. Another factor was the initial lack of
experience of institutions and researchers with this innovative mechanism. EMBRAPA was quick to
respond, with stronger dissemination of Project rules including workshops and training in the preparation of
proposals for the CS. Selective relaxation of certain restrictive requirements under the final two BE also
increased rates of approval.
Project approvals were consistent with the Project’s and government’s priority emphasis on Family
Agriculture (poverty reduction) and Natural Resources Management (environment), as shown below (Table
2):
Table 2: Distribution of Proposals by Priority
Priority Area
Family Agriculture
Natural Resources
Advanced Technology
Agri-business
Strategic Studies
Total:
Proposals
Submitted
245
203
177
92
37
754
Projects
Approved
41
39
35
15
9
139
-8-
% Approval
30%
28%
25%
11%
6%
100%
Distribution of resources by priority area (Table 3) shows a somewhat different picture, with Natural
Resources Management and Advanced Technologies leading, in part because of the intrinsically higher cost
per project resulting from their complexity and need for greater investment, than simpler forms of research
under the Family Agriculture rubric. In some BE, the maximum value allowable for each project in these
two priority areas, including counterpart resources, was double the value of a research project in any one of
the other three priority areas:
Table 3: Distribution of Resources by Priority Area (R$m)
Priority Area
Family Agriculture
Natural Resources
Advanced Technologies
Agri-business
Strategic Studies
Total:
Total Resources
18.56
26.67
23.63
9.80
3.95
82.61
%
22.4
32.3
28.6
11.9
4.8
100.0
The Project targeted poorer regions (Table 4), with BE directing specific thematic lines to the North and
Northeast and specifically to land reform settlements, and to small-scale farming and agri-business. The
Northeast ranked second both in numbers of projects approved and in numbers of subprojects
resulting/executed. The North ranked last, with fewest submissions and approvals, although the South
ranked lowest in terms of rate of project approvals. In fact, the South, Southeast and Center-West regions
house a larger number of research institutions, research technicians and infrastructure, in addition to having
more dynamic regional economies with greater propensity to invest in cooperative research.
Table 4: Regional Distribution of Proposals and Projects
Region
Center West
Northeast
North
Southeast
South
Exterior
Total:
Proposals
122
157
58
222
195
754
Projects
Approved
30
30
9
48
22
139
Subprojects
83
104
25
173
84
1
470
The spatial distribution of research resources shows that the North ranked last and the Northeast region
third, but in resource terms this was consistent with the proportion of lower cost, Family Agriculture
research projects approved/financed in those regions. However, in general terms, the Northern region had
the lowest level of participation and overall performance (Table 5).
Table 5: Distribution of Resources by Region
Region
Center West
Northeast
North
Southeast
South
Total:
Total (US$ mill)
17.50
16.06
4.68
33.72
10.62
82.61
% Total Resources
21.2
19.4
5.7
40.8
12.9
100.0
-9-
Multi-institutional Partnerships: The Project’s partnership requirements were validated by the large
number of institutions and entities mobilized and involved. In terms of the budget contribution, 50% of all
funds went to EMBRAPA and its decentralized units. Universities and other academic institutions
received about 30%, with the balance for a range of other entities (Table 6).
Table 6: Distribution of Resources by Institutional Group
Institution/Group
EMBRAPA
State Research Institutions (OEPA)
Universities/Other
NGO
Public Institutions
Private Organizations
Other
Total:
% of Funds
50%
12%
30%
2%
2%
3%
1%
100%
These numbers do not convey the full picture of inter-institutional partnerships, collaboration, mobilization
of funds, in-kind contributions and especially personnel (not accounted in data) involved in the Project.
Each R&D project was expected to involve from 2-5 subprojects and at least two institutions, each of
which was to execute at least one subproject. Thus, the 470 subprojects implied a roughly equal number of
partnerships, compared to the Project target of 250, demonstrating full achievement of the goal to increase
inter-institutional collaboration. EMBRAPA and its research units coordinated about 67% of all projects,
but other partners outside EMBRAPA executed 57% of all subprojects. Since only the institutional
executor signed the legal agreement with EMBRAPA, in formal terms, only five institutions maximum
were partners. However, there were cases of up to five different institutions collaborating directly in
research, i.e. the entire technical team for the project was also involved in each individual subproject, with
other personnel acting as collaborators. Thus, the full range of participatory activity greatly exceeded
formally registered partnerships, and the counterpart contribution in funds, technical and administrative
personnel and materials/equipment was much greater than the data indicates, a factor already noted by the
Mid-Term Review in 2000.
Table 7: Institutional Participation in Competitive System
Institutional Group
EMBRAPA
State Agricultural Research Organizations
Universities/Other
Foreign Universities
Producers Cooperatives/Associations
Technical Assistance and Extension Entities
Other Public Entities
NGO
Private Organizations
CGIAR and other Foreign Entities
Other
Total:
No. Entities
35
23
73
16
66
10
56
25
112
19
29
464
A total of 464 individual institutions participated (Table 7) including 112 private entities (agro-livestock,
seed, food and processing companies, agricultural equipment firms and producer federations, cooperatives
and associations). Private entities acted primarily as research collaborators supplying financial resources,
technical personnel and materials and equipment. Significantly, annual reports indicate the widespread
- 10 -
tendency for additional private collaborators to join research projects/subprojects in process.
Demonstrating the multiplier effects of the CGS, collaboration stimulated the preparation of new research
project proposals for insertion in subsequent Project BE.
EMBRAPA data shows that among the state research and academic institutions, significant numbers of
projects were approved for fairly prominent “brand” institutions, including the State University of
Campinas (UNICAMP), Federal University of Viçosa and University of Brasília. State research
organizations included the Agro-Livestock Research and Extension Company of Santa Catarina and the
Campinas Agro-Economic Institute. Institutional capacity and economic status were not surprisingly,
important factors in ability to successfully compete in the CGS. However, strong competition was
registered by many state-level producer cooperatives including federations and associations representing
small-scale farmers, and these organizations had an important collaborative role especially in the provision
of research materials, manpower and locations for testing, validation and demonstration.
Dissemination. Many completed research projects are being analyzed by EMBRAPA and others are still
in the final stages of completion. While the preponderance of research was applied, studies were financed
based on fundamental science, building the knowledge base and providing the foundation for more applied
research with direct impact. A basic stocktaking indicates that the Project financed a large body of
innovations in new cultivars, hybrids, vegetation genotypes and clones, as well as herd animals with
superior characteristics in disease resistance and productivity. Also developed were cattle vaccines, animal
and plant disease diagnostic kits, machinery and equipment prototypes, software applicable to farm
management and to agro-livestock and agro-industrial production (see Annex 8).
A small sampling of other products of this research, with socio-economic, ecological and technological
importance include: more efficient methodologies for eco-system evaluation; increased knowledge of the
genetic diversity of plants and animals; development of molecular markers for characterizing genetic
improvements in plants; alternatives for sustainable exploitation of capoeira(brushlands) in degraded areas
of the Northeast and Amazon regions; diagnosis of processing conditions and definition of parameters to
improve the quality of milk, fruit and vegetable products; market information and cost, productivity and
profitability indicators for agricultural and agro-industrial ventures; and research and analysis supporting
public policy formulation in the agriculture sector.
Well under half of all research projects contracted had been closed for three years at end-Project, a
relatively short period for the dissemination of agricultural research innovations. Research projects which
were technically closed at end-Project, are being completed with the support of other resources and all
required funds have been released by EMBRAPA. Some have even expanded their activities, bringing in
specialized personnel and technicians. Intense efforts were made to divulge and disseminate knowledge
generated by completed research projects, the most common means being scientific congresses and
conventions, specialized journals and websites, and the most common audience being the scientific
community and academia. Some 500 publications targeted producers, livestock owners/managers and field
technicians, as well as two dozen books, several hundred technical articles and at least 500 short courses
for target populations/groups.
There was also widespread use of demonstration plots, seminars, observation units and training courses to
validate and diffuse information, including to small-scale producers (through their local federations,
associations, cooperatives and related rural NGOs and service providers). Products were also developed
and patented (this is ongoing), and are being used or further refined in an ongoing, longer-term process with
commercial objectives. Performance indicators and results demonstrate that the CGS exceeded its targets,
and much work has already been done to test and gauge the economic and financial impact of Project and
- 11 -
related/similar research projects (Annex 3). However, much greater time is needed for the maturation,
dissemination and validation of a wider range of the Project research outcomes to evaluate impact on the
ground, including poverty effects. Expectations expressed by the Mid-Term Review were overly-optimistic
in this regard.
Component 2: Institutional Strengthening (estimated final cost US$63.55 million, 152% of appraisal)
The Project envisaged a range of activities to develop research infrastructure and human resources, and
provide technical assistance to strengthen emerging areas of science as well as weaker institutions, both
federal and state. This component disbursed rapidly and its final cost greatly exceeded appraisal estimates.
The goals and objectives were achieved for EMBRAPA centers although progress was affected by
restrictions imposed by the Federal Government on the transfer and use of financial resources by public
institutions. The Project accordingly turned its attention to long-term training and the completion of the
Satellite Communications system. Lack of state counterpart funding slowed participation by state research
institutions (OEPAS) in the early years. Nevertheless, in physical terms and with great effort, this
component exceeded all its appraisal targets, financing training for 380 EMBRAPA research
technicians/specialists and researchers in the state research institutions (OEPAS), representing 184% of
appraisal.
By end-Project, about 419 researchers were finalizing training at the post-graduate level (PhD, Masters and
Post-Doctoral) both in national and foreign universities. Specialized areas of study included:
biotechnology, molecular genetics, cell and molecular biology, molecular markers, nuclear energy for
agriculture, database development, biological controls, phyto-technology, natural resources management,
precision agriculture, soil management and integrated pest management. Also financed were scientific
exchanges through national and international consultancies – some 433 consultants were contracted for
specific technical and scientific tasks (e.g., biotechnology, genetic engineering, integrated pest management
and institutional development). The Project also financed, under Component 2, significant investments in
goods, civil works and the completion of the Satellite Communications system designed to modernize,
renovate and upgrade EMBRAPA’s research infrastructure, and to link EMBRAPA more effectively and
efficiently with its dispersed DUs.
Foreign short and long-term training upgraded human capital in a period of rapid scientific change and
issues of intellectual property. Priority was given to long-term training for postgraduate and postdoctoral
studies. Trainees were selected by a national committee following set criteria. At the time of the MTR,
state institutions had fallen behind in participation but by end-Project, the appraisal target was exceeded.
Consultancies were coordinated in partnership with the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural
Cooperation (IICA) with which EMBRAPA signed a technical cooperation agreement for that purpose.
Consultant resources under the Project were demand driven and used flexibly by the Project in conjunction
with other sources of funds to meet priority needs. The ongoing challenge was to ensure that weaker
institutions, especially in the North and Northeast regions, could formulate proposals and access this
resource.
The Project successfully implemented Phase II of EMBRAPA’s Satellite Communications System on
schedule and the system was operationally effective, improving communication between researchers and
administrators throughout Brazil.
EMBRAPA enhanced its ability to develop partnerships with the private sector. Capacity to manage
intellectual property rights (IPR) was established at several levels, including a national office in
- 12 -
EMBRAPA headquarters for this purpose. EMBRAPA organized training in IPR for scientists and a
scientist was placed at Cornell under the LABEX program (see below) to work on IPR. Through this
capacity-building effort, EMBRAPA greatly increased its ability to negotiate access to proprietary
technologies from the private sector, and to protect its own inventions. Contracts were signed with private
companies for joint activities. This also resulted in an increasing share of the operating budget being
provided for cost-recovery and joint ventures.
EMBRAPA carried out a number of strategic studies to support development and evolution of the SNPA,
including sustainable financing of research and the actual and potential role of the states in the agricultural
research system. These provided valuable input into EMBRAPA’s strategic planning.
LABEX: EMBRAPA launched the successful “foreign virtual laboratories” system known as LABEX USA, initially with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the US Department of Agriculture and
subsequently, LABEX-France in collaboration with the major research institution Agrópolis in Montpellier,
successfully advancing diversification of the Brazilian SNPA. The dual goal was to improve agricultural
research cooperation between Brazilian and American institutions and to influence promising opportunities
and research trends with potential benefits for the agribusiness of both countries. The agreement was seen
as an extension of a natural partnership between two large countries, leaders in agricultural research and
technology, major trading partners and sharing many of the same agricultural pests and problems. The
year-round tropical climate of Brazil afforded US researchers opportunity to benefit from the expertise of
Brazilian microbiologists. Brazil, in turn, was able to adapt new US methods such as precision agriculture
and the use of DNA markers to address problems of small farmers and the issue of pests and disease as
trade barriers. Agronomists in both countries took advantage of the seasonal reversal to double their data
collections.
Prior to the advent of LABEX, EMBRAPA and ARS were characterized largely as domestic research
institutions focused primarily on research and technology development for country-specific objectives.
Researchers involved in LABEX were/are selected through public bidding organized by EMBRAPA,
similar to the CS. Senior EMBRAPA researchers were transferred to ARS laboratory locations in
Maryland, Cornell University and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, among others. Today, the 37
EMBRAPA research units, combined with the 100 ARS research centers – combining the two research
leaders in temperate/tropical agriculture - constitute the largest agricultural research network in the world.
This is recognized in the numbers of foreign scientific and policy delegations received annually to be
briefed on LABEX, and the annual volume of experiences and technical knowledge exchanged.
Among the many actions developed by LABEX-USA are the following: (a) sequencing the genome of the
bacteria which causes Pierce disease in grapevines, one of the most serious threats to the California wine
industry, causing damage to date exceeding US$30.0 million; (b) experiments in Precision Agriculture
simultaneously in Brazil and the US, exploiting climatic differences between the two countries and with
this, economizing on resources to measure soil conductivity, and use of sensors to detect nitrogen,
phosphorus and water stress; and (c) studies in Intellectual Property (IP) and Biotechnology, envisaging
formation of a process of “freedom of use” of patented or protected components under a different form of
IP known as “Freedom to Operate” or FTO.
The success of LABEX-USA prompted creation of LABEX-France, representing EMBRAPA’s presence
in Europe with extended contacts with research personnel in neighboring European countries. Through
LABEX-France, Brazil became the first southern hemisphere developing country with a virtual laboratory
in Europe working on applied technology in tropical agriculture with European counterparts.
- 13 -
Component 3: Administration, MIS, Monitoring and Evaluation (est. final cost US$1.0 million, 32%
of appraisal)
MIS: The Project upgraded and utilized a CESAR-based Management Information System (MIS)
throughout project execution, obtaining all data relevant to the financed research projects including tracking
the continuum from initial submission of proposals to research completion. The system also stored and
tracked the reasons for non-approval of proposals, supporting EMBRAPA follow-up to participating
entities to educate them to improve future research submissions to bidding events. The MIS also effectively
tracked financial management and all ongoing administrative elements. The Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB) accepted the Project MIS (SiPRODETAB) as its standard for its new Agrofuturoproject with
EMBRAPA (awaiting signature).
Monitoring and Evaluation: Project monitoring included sending members of the Executive Committee
with other scientists to each research project, and bringing together project coordinators, which proved
beneficial. Monitoring within the program was assessed by the MTR as superior to monitoring activities
within the US agricultural grants system. Evidence suggests however, that the sophisticated impact
evaluation capability appropriate to a CGS program, foreshadowed in the PAD and outlined by the MTR
report, remains a work in progress. While the primary goal of Project M&E was to determine whether the
Project had achieved its immediate objectives, i.e., an integrated, diversified and demand-driven SNPA
refocused on quintessential public goods, it also needed to establish the organizational structure for
institutionalized capacity to conduct ex post economic, social and institutional evaluation of its research
portfolio and the methodology itself. Given the Project’s diverse and geographically-dispersed projects,
rigorous impact assessment using baseline information and formal surveys was/is potentially expensive,
requiring cost-effective methods and systems. While the institutionalization of M&E as envisaged was not
achieved by end-Project, several high quality performance and preliminary impact studies were financed
and provided input to the ICR (see Project file).
4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate of return:
The PAD acknowledged that agricultural research is an inherently unpredictable activity, with uncertain
outcomes. Many benefits are long-term and are not easy to quantify or measure, especially ex ante, e.g.,
NRM. The new approach to research through the Competitive System – essentially a demand-driven
mechanism – meant ex-ante rates of return for research projects were unquantifiable for the project as a
whole. The PAD evaluated representative projects in the three priority areas (family farms, natural
resources management and advanced technologies) based on then-recent experience, and estimated IERRs
of 26.7%, 30% and 146% respectively, for the three areas. For methodological, data and other reasons,
this ICR has not attempted to replicate/update the PAD analysis.
Instead, a summary is presented of the main findings of an excellent EMBRAPA study (Footnote 8)
essentially a standardized compilation of selected research projects by specialist authors (available in the
Project file) of the ex-post economic and environmental impact of a sample of 12 technologies generated in
the last 10-15 years, some with the direct and/or indirect support of the Project. Most of these technologies
are already being adopted and fall within three of its priority categories: Family Agriculture, Agribusiness
and Environment (NRM). The analysis uses EMBRAPA’s “economic surplus” methodology, analyzing
societal well-being over a period of 15 years for annual crops and 25 years for perennials. In terms of
economic benefits to society, the study focuses on productivity gains, reduced production costs, expansion
into new agricultural areas, and value-added to production. This study is unusual for integrating an
environmental analysis of the same 12 technologies, based on EMBRAPA’s Ambitec index of
environmental impact (see Annex 3).
- 14 -
Overall Results: Analytical outcomes vary markedly and technologies cannot be compared to each other,
dealing with different production chains - annual crops, perennial crops, animal production and
agro-processing. Clearly however, these technologies generate economic and financial rates of return
which cover the costs of research generation and costs of production for final users. Internal Economic
Rates of Return (IERR) range from 12.7% to 345%; Net Present Value (NPV) ranges from R$2,182.00 to
R$722,817.00; and Benefit-Cost ratios go from 3:1 to 166:1. See table below:
IERR (%)
12.69
14.00
64.00
109.00
26.37
34.00
44.00
51.20
60.40
77.00
345.00
76.00
Technology
1. Eucalyptus Benthamii - Frost Tolerance
2. Pimenta Longa for Essential Oils (Saffrol)
3. “Primavera” Highland Rice
4. Red “Niagara” Grapes for Tropical Regions
5. Slaughter of Lambs in Confinement
6. Embrapa 051 – Poultry/Eggs
7. Maciel Pears
8. Integrated Fruit Fly Management
9. Brasilia Carrot
10. Intensive Milk Production on Family Farms
11. Integrated Mango Production
12. Mini-plants for Cashew Nut Processing
NPV (R$)
6,116
284,227
264,275
24,044
722,817
4,385
2,182
3,460
54,668
486,783
13,200
17,767
Ben/Cost
1.5:1
1.9:1
52:1
59:1
3:1
7.9:1
166:1
4:1
94:1
156:1
18:1
11:1
Environmental Impact
The project was intended to make agricultural research more responsive to issues of environmental
responsibility and have net positive effects on the environment, and was rated Category B. However, given
that new technologies when widely adopted can create negative or positive environmental impacts, it was
expected that research proposals would take this into account and they did, as standard practice. The
Operational Manual specified environmental screening procedures. The EC had responsibility for proper
environmental screening of research proposals submitted and had members with appropriate expertise. As
cited in the 2005 study of 12 EMBRAPA technologies, and based on EMBRAPA’s Ambitec index of
environmental impact, the outcomes are almost entirely positive, suggesting that these innovations can be
recommended for field application and, that they satisfy defined standards for minimizing negative
environmental impacts. The highest values were registered by the mini-processing plants for cashew nut
(5.55) and integrated mango production (4.34) on an Ambitec scale from 1-15. The only technology to
raise some concerns was the intensive milk production technology for family farms, but by applying
Ambitec Animal Production methodology complemented by Ambitec Agro to factor in pasture and silage
elements of these operations, the technology registered as environmentally positive.
Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability
Estimation of whether the CGS is the least-cost, most efficient and sustainable option for agricultural
research – as called for in the PAD - awaits formal study. However, the following tend to support this
view: (i) Under the CGS, key criteria for winning bids included strong cost-benefit estimates for the
proposed research; (ii) Institutional partnerships established to execute the research tended to apply their
highest capacity elements (experienced specialists, materials and equipment) to each research project; (iii)
Direct management of project resources by researchers promoted more efficient use due to the commitment
to achieve targets within available resource limits (cost controls, purchasing of less expensive equipment,
seeking partners to spread/reduce costs); (iv) Diverse R&D players were ready to contribute in financial,
- 15 -
material and human resource terms to a competitive system of research generation and financing, based on
their perception of direct/indirect benefits; (v) Formal adoption of the CS mechanism within EMBRAPA
for its Macro-Programs and outside, by State research entities in São Paulo, Pernambuco and Santa
Catarina, suggests that its medium to long-term advantages are understood and internalized; (vi) The CS
demonstrated capacity to generate important multiplier effects, reflected in new lines of research initiated
by Project
partnerships; (vii) Partnership-based research promotes a more rational use of
existing and new resources; and (viii) EMBRAPA was stimulated to interact and establish productive
dialogue with the private sector and the clients of research, and to standardize this approach across the
spectrum of its research and related activities.
Finally, the IDB is about to sign a new Loan of US$33.0 million (total cost US$60.0 million) with
EMBRAPA , which includes a Competitive Fund component designed explicitly to sustain the methodology
and impact of the Bank-supported Project. The IDB operation, known as Agrofuturo,will finance virtually
all activities established by the Project including LABEX and competitively-generated research projects.
4.4 Financial rate of return:
Benefit-cost ratios are exceptionally high albeit highly variable among the technologies studied - ranging
from 3:1 through 166:1. The analysis suggests that these investments are financially sustainable. The
caveat is that as with any technology, further innovation, market shifts and consumer preferences can, over
time, reduce returns and cause obsolescence.
4.5 Institutional development impact:
A notable aspect of the Project’s Competitive System has been its capacity to function as an agent of
change in the institutional and scientific culture of agricultural research, due to its structure and operations.
The Project extracted, incorporated and refined mechanisms and instruments with potential for replication
in other agencies, institutions and the private sector. The Competitive System has already been internalized
by EMBRAPA in its broad management planning and operations. The EMBRAPA Management System
(SEG, Sistema EMBRAPA de Gestão) formally adopted the principles and practices of the Competitive
System for the Macro-Programs – its broad lines of research. Annual, competitive bidding events are
publicized, as with the Project. Scientific programming in EMBRAPA is increasingly focused and shaped
by major national needs/themes – confirming the reorientation to quintessential public goods - and by new
demands and opportunities from social and economic players, due to the intense process of diversification
of demand and participation developed by the Project. The important National Coffee Research and
Development Program for example, embraced the Competitive System as its planning and operational
model. Human capital was enhanced through the development of the competitive program by providing an
opportunity for researchers to participate in the peer review process either as panelists or ad hoc reviewers.
On the other hand, and not surprisingly, partnerships were not always smooth due to institutional
asymmetries between public and private entities, and their management methods. Research project
coordinators had varying degrees of influence on private partners’ institutional comportment (de Souza
2003). Some reported the time consuming process of finding research partners and felt that partnership
should not be obligatory since it created more bureaucracy and delays in signing agreements and contracts.
Others felt that the Operational Manual should have included guidance on how to build institutional
partnerships to avoid unnecessary bureaucratization of the process.
The MTR and studies praised the financial management foundations (see Footnote 9) as highly beneficial
- 16 -
institutions, a view supported by a wide spectrum of participants. They reduced administrative burdens for
investigators at the application stage and for the financial management of awarded grants. Foundations
conducted financial and performance reporting while researchers were responsible for technical reporting.
The use of foundations greatly improved accountability for Project funds and provided researchers with
needed flexibility.
5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome
5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implementing agency:
Evidence suggests that characteristics inherent to agricultural R&D projects meant that they were likely to
take longer to implement than was estimated at appraisal – the timetable was overly conservative. The
MTR report noted in 2000 that significant additional time would be required to complete the project, citing
possible over-sizing of Component 1, slow disbursements and other causes, but not openly acknowledging
that the nature of agricultural R&D was a key factor.
5.2 Factors generally subject to government control:
The Project was implemented in a period of acute fiscal adjustment and austerity. As noted in section 7.5,
Federal Government policy designed to reduce the fiscal deficit by inter alia, withholding as contingencies
a sizeable portion of public institutions’ annual budget allocations, as well as delayed release of available
budget resources, affected the pace and quality of project implementation throughout. However, this policy
impacted all areas of government and did not single out EMBRAPA or the Project. Resource scarcity did
not indicate lack of commitment of either the Federal Government or EMBRAPA. Even with substantially
reduced resources, the Project was one of the Bank-supported operations which received comparatively
more resources during this period. Funding shortages were most severe from 2001 through 2003. From
2004, Federal Law prohibited the practice of contingencies for budget resources allocated to research (Law
of Budgetary Directives). The Fiscal Responsibility Law also took its toll by increasing the bureaucratic
burden on the Project stemming from EMBRAPA’s conservative stance on compliance. Finally,
progressive devaluation of the Real meant that on average, double the number of Brazilian Reais was
needed to implement one US Dollar of the Project.
5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control:
Private financial management of research projects was a core project innovation under the CGS and the
project envisaged the use, inter alia,of private foundations to handle this responsibility (Footnote 9).
EMBRAPA’s coordination of this complex Project could be inflexible and raised the ire of research
partners who needed mechanisms for the smooth transfer of research funds, administrative, financial and
material elements more consistent with the needs of an innovative research program. For example,
EMBRAPA categorized the foundations as beneficiaries of the Project in their capacity as recipients and
professional managers of resources, limiting their participation. In fact, the foundations managed the
disposition of resources for approved projects as a remunerated service which was valued by participating
entities (Footnote 10).
5.4 Costs and financing:
Total project cost over five years was estimated at appraisal as US$120.00 million, with the Loan
providing US$60.0 million equivalent (50%), the Federal Government US$42.0 million (35%) and
beneficiaries (e.g., research institutions, private firms, NGOs) another US$18.0 million (15%). Financial
cost-sharing to research proposals, apart from contributions in kind, were to be determined by capacity to
- 17 -
pay, with an overall target of 15% by end-project. At end-Project, the results were close to expectations
(see Annex 2, Table C).
Among Project categories however, the outcome diverged from appraisal estimates. The Project estimated
US$72.0 million (60%) for the CGS, US$42.0 million (35%) for Institutional Strengthening and US$3.1
million (2.5%) for Administration, MIS, Monitoring and Evaluation (with 2.5% for contingencies). In
practice, US$54.05 million (45.6%) went to the CGS, US$63.50 million (53.6%) went to Institutional
Strengthening and US$1.0 million (0.8%) supported Administration, M&E and MIS. (Annex 2, Tables A
and B show estimated and actual distribution of project costs and financing). In terms of actual percentage
cost per component versus appraisal estimates, the difference was even sharper: the CGS came in at 75%
of appraisal, Institution Strengthening was 152% of appraisal, while Administration and Monitoring was
32% of appraisal. Component 1 Competitive Grants shed some US$9.9 million through reallocations.
The initial allocation of funds for the CGS may have been over-estimated, demonstrated by the virtual
doubling of projects/subprojects compared to appraisal estimates, using fewer resources. Devaluation
clearly also played a role. Further, budget uncertainty limited EMBRAPA’s willingness and capacity to
more aggressively publish bidding events and even further increase the numbers of partnerships. On the
other hand, given the overall pace of project execution, this may not have been a negative (Footnote 11).
Reallocation of Funds
(a)
August 2001: US$6.3 million were reallocated from Category 1 (Research Grants) to Category 2
(Institutional Strengthening) activities including to: (i) update laboratories and information technology
equipment to expand research activities especially in the North and Northeast regions not covered by an
existing IDB loan; (ii) finance external PhD courses for 10 additional technical personnel; and (iii) include
new research lines in LABEX-USA, and create LABEX-France.
(b)
July 2005: To speed the use of remaining Loan funds, US$4.7 million comprising US$3.6 million
from Category 1 (Research Grants), US$700,000 from Category 2(b) (Works) and US$400,000 from
Category 4 (Unallocated), were reallocated as follows: US$1.4 million to Category 2(d) Training,
US$250,000 to Category 2 Incremental Operating Costs and US$700,000 to Category 3 Satellite
Communications Systems. The Borrower also sought changes to the Bank’s cost-sharing percentages in
Categories 2(a) Goods, 2(c) Consultants’ Services, 2(d) Training and 2(e) Operational Costs. The
proposed changes applied the Bank’s new expenditure eligibility policy to help speed up/complete
disbursement of the Loan in the limited time remaining to Closing. Changes in disbursement percentages
for operating costs did not relate to recurrent costs of the overall Project but rather to the variable costs of
specific research subprojects.
As previously mentioned, end-project estimates suggest that the contribution/cost-sharing of private sector
partners and participants was much higher than estimated or sought at appraisal and much higher than has
been formally accounted. De Mata (2000) assessed ten research projects from the first four BE
(1997-1999), finding a formal, direct private sector contribution of 11% to total counterpart resources and
about 6% of then-total costs. However, when all monetary inputs contributed indirectly were computed, the
effective private contributions rose to 44% (33% higher than formally registered in project budgets,
considering the value of counterpart) and 29% (23% higher in terms of total project cost), respectively.
Further, the average informal financial contribution of the private sector to each research project analysed
was R$183,500, corresponding to an additional amount of close to R$1.2 million (Footnote 12). De Souza
(2003) also comments on this phenomenon.
- 18 -
Of the total budget resources available, the Project provided 58% and partner institutions contributed an
estimated 42%. The partner contribution was close to three times the 15% anticipated at appraisal – the
42% includes expenditures for personnel. Benefits for the Project included higher overall investment;
achievement in key indicators greatly exceeding appraisal estimates; and participation in and demand for
the Project exceeding all expectations. Financial participation of collaborating institutions is almost
impossible to estimate due to the diversity of forms of participation and the dispersion of data. Further,
research project annual reports register the bringing in of additional partners during project execution with
resources to increase the level of activities, motivated by preliminary evidence of technical advances and
the prospect of business opportunities.
Disbursements: The Project disbursed fully over a period of eight years, with two extensions of the Closing
Date. Disbursement was affected by the following: (i) Approval of budget resources for the Project by the
Federal Government at levels below EMBRAPA’s annual estimates of need, and delayed release of
approved resources; (ii) Government’s policy of contingenciamento,withholding in reserve a significant
portion of an agency’s annually-approved budget; (iii) Devaluation of the Real required about twice the
level of expenditures in local currency to disburse a dollar of the Loan, compared to when the Loan was
signed; and (iv) Slower than expected gestation of the research projects/subprojects themselves, which
averaged about three years but in well over half of all cases, took significantly longer.
Japanese Trust Funds
The Project benefited from a Japanese Trust Fund grant of US$492,000 (TF-025481) effective in the
period from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000. Its original objective was to support Project
preparation, including studies. Protracted negotiations resulted in the grant funds not becoming available
until 1998, i.e. after Effectiveness, and financing mainly activities under Category 1 Competitive Grants.
These included workshops to define research priorities for Family Agriculture and NRM, organization of
technical visits, meetings and seminars to reach potential grant applicants, training for CS personnel and
publications and operational manuals of procedures for the priority grant areas.
Item
1
2
3
4
TOTAL:
Category
Consultant Services
Travel costs and per diems
Goods
Training
Value (US$)
201,000.00
76,500.00
114,500.00
100,000.00
492,000.00
6. Sustainability
6.1 Rationale for sustainability rating:
Sustainability is rated Likely
At appraisal, sustainability was predicated on: (a) diversifying sources of funding for research given the
assumption that growth in government support for research was expected to slow; (b) increasing client
participation in setting research priorities and monitoring impact to ensure relevance and broad,
socio-political support; (c) increasing participation of diverse research organizations to establish upstream
(basic sciences) and downstream (users) linkages. These goals were successfully achieved by the Project.
Institutional: The generalized adoption of the CGS by EMBRAPA demonstrates that the Project
experience has taken root. The CGS is consolidating in EMBRAPA, and has already expanded to other
- 19 -
research institutions including in the States of Santa Catarina, São Paulo and Pernambuco. For the vast
majority of researchers involved in the project, the CGS’ selection of the most competitive proposals,
establishing thematic research networks, and integrating the capacities and strengths of diverse institutions
in the same project, is the principle attribute of this Project’s success. The clustering of competencies in
thematic research groupings is leveraging scientifically advanced projects (e.g., genome mapping) and new
financial support. Multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary integration is evidence that this is a more
efficient research model, whether for its complementary use of scientific knowledge, its more consistent
results, and for the mutual growth in competitive skills. Economic efficiency is demonstrated in the
division/sharing of costs, more effective use and sharing of existing, often idle, research infrastructure and
materials in diverse institutions.
Institutional sustainability is also supported by the better research infrastructure which participating
entities now have as a result of the project. The Project financed the renovation and expansion of physical
plant and equipment in laboratories and research fields, and purchase of computers, software, books and
other goods. Project coordinators called attention to the high value of these investments and link to new
research projects coming on line. Multiplier effects are demonstrated in spin-off and complementary R&D,
in expanded target populations, expanded geographic areas and sources of financing.
Financial: The scaling-up of the CS to cover EMBRAPA’s mainstream research programs and the strong
evidence that diverse institutions and entities are willing to contribute in financial, material and
human/personnel terms, including well beyond the Closing date, is a positive signal. Nevertheless, this does
not substitute for a well-crafted strategy for long-term financial survival. The new IDB project
Agrofuturo, will sustain continuity of the CS in the short to medium term. Research led by EMBRAPA is
likely to always require public funding and total financial independence is not a realistic goal.
6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations:
The Project created a large (and still expanding) body of research results, much of which has already been
the subject of dissemination activities by EMBRAPA and other institutions. However, no formal
arrangements were made to guarantee this process beyond the Project. The extent to which this research is
validated, transferred, adopted, patented or remains essentially potential is not predictable. However, the
fact that the research projects in all cases were the result of a participatory process stressing genuine social,
environmental and commercial research needs enhances the likelihood that they will make their way into the
economic mainstream over time.
7. Bank and Borrower Performance
Bank
7.1 Lending:
Project preparation and appraisal benefited from the involvement of agricultural research specialists. The
Project was prepared rapidly, internalizing key lessons from earlier research projects in Brazil and
elsewhere and consciously seeking a break with traditional approaches. Initial allocation of funds for the
CGS were probably over-estimated. The preparation team did not consider the possibility that an
innovative system for agricultural research might need to be implemented more gradually as a pilot and that
its absorptive capacity was less, or slower, than expected. The Project execution period was
under-estimated but a longer period was probably not negotiable at the time. The short-term poverty impact
of funded research was over-emphasized, and the Project was not designed to actually transfer the new
technology developed to poor, small-farm clients in the Northeast and similar regions, although there was
- 20 -
space for proactive dissemination activities to intermediate agents/users.
7.2 Supervision:
The Project received 16 supervision missions over eight years; a total of 94 staff weeks were expended on
supervision. The Mid-term Review (MTR) took place on schedule. Aide Memoires indicate the consistent
efforts of the supervision team to work with EMBRAPA on chronic, critical budget availability and
contingency issues, as well as constructive ways of reducing bureaucracy. Supervision focused heavily on
accelerating disbursements and resolving bureaucratic and other constraints on project execution. Funds
were reallocated twice to more accurately reflect spending pressure points/need. As noted earlier, the Bank
agreed to extend Project financing to EMBRAPA’s mainstream Macro-Programs, importantly to scale up
its use given the general consensus that it worked well and was achieving its objectives, but also to speed
the absorption of Loan funds. The Bank sought solutions to EMBRAPA’s approach to aspects of
contracting and financial management, especially its legalistic approach to the transfer and management of
funds by the independent foundations.
The Project benefited from an especially thorough MTR which among other things, interviewed a large and
diverse group of researchers, coordinators, scientists, NGOs, academics and beneficiaries involved in the
research projects. The MTR concluded that not only was the Project far ahead of its mid-term indicators at
that point – despite serious counterpart funding and disbursement challenges - but it was an example of
Best Practice in CGS management and monitoring in relation to similar systems in other countries.
7.3 Overall Bank performance:
The Bank’s support for this Project was crucial, providing access to resources additional to EMBRAPA’s
normal budget through a flexible project design – a collaborative effort of the Federal Government and the
Bank - enabling EMBRAPA to undertake important innovations in the management of the agricultural
research system, fostering broad-based partnerships to address practical problems defined by the clients of
research, and introducing flexibility in the use of funds.
Borrower
7.4 Preparation:
Project preparation was completed in record time with high levels of borrower participation. The
long-standing operational relationship between EMBRAPA and the Bank promoted rapid preparation.
EMBRAPA contracted national and foreign technical assistance from advanced research institutions (ARI)
as inputs to complex elements such as biotechnology, public-private partnerships and NRM. EMBRAPA
took a giant stride in committing to an innovative research model where it was but one player – albeit a
powerful one – among many, and required to change its traditional vision of how research could/should be
done. This commitment acknowledged that a more participatory system could have massive pay-offs for
Brazil and for EMBRAPA itself and that fostering private involvement was essential for long-term survival
of the SNPA. EMBRAPA worked effectively with the Bank team, and adopted major administrative
reforms consistent with Project objectives and activities, and greater decentralization, autonomy and
accountability of its research units.
7.5 Government implementation performance:
Federal Government policy designed to reduce the fiscal deficit by inter alia, withholding as contingencies
a sizeable portion of public institutions’ annual budget allocations, affected the pace and quality of project
- 21 -
implementation throughout. This policy impacted all areas of government and did not single out
EMBRAPA or the Project. Nor did resource scarcity indicate lack of commitment of either government or
EMBRAPA. To the contrary, even with substantially reduced resources, the Project (and EMBRAPA
itself) was one of the Bank-supported projects which received comparatively more resources during this
period of austerity. Funding shortages were most severe from 2001 through 2003. From 2004 on, Federal
Law prohibited the practice of contingencies for budget resources allocated to research (Law of Budgetary
Directives).
7.6 Implementing Agency:
The placement of the Project within EMBRAPA, with its well-established infrastructure, enabled the
development of a credible CGS with processes and standards in place equivalent to those of other major
competitive grants programs in countries such as the United States. EMBRAPA’s capacity in financial,
administrative and science management enabled the Project to meet or exceed its objectives. Application
processes were carefully prepared with relatively simple directions; the review process, albeit cumbersome,
was generally viewed as fair; the system was transparent with control over potential conflicts of interest;
applicants were confident that proposals were treated impartially and professionally; the review process
helped unsuccessful applicants design better proposals; and importantly, non-EMBRAPA applicants did
not feel that EMBRAPA had undue advantage in the competition.
The Executive Committee (EC - Comitê Diretor) was created for the Project, with a majority of its
members from outside EMBRAPA. It defined thematic priorities for research, accompanied the BE and
issued final approvals of winning proposals. Thematic research lines for individual BE were defined
through broad-based consultation in seminars and workshops with the agricultural community, including
organizations representing small-scale producers – rural labor federations, producer cooperatives and
associations - and were submitted for analysis by the EC for final definition of priorities. Members of the
EC participated in monitoring missions supervising the progress of individual research projects in the field,
always accompanied by specialist consultants.
The EC rapidly came to have final approval authority rather than the National Consultative Committee
(NAC) due to logistical difficulties of getting NAC members together in a timely fashion. Its performance
was transparent and fair. Technical Programming Commissions (CTPs) with most members
non-EMBRAPA, represented producer demands meriting priority in research. This institutional
arrangement functioned well. The heterogeneous, multi-institutional composition of the EC and the CTPs
was recognized by participants as a positive force in promoting successful, diversified participation and
facilitating partnerships with other institutions.
The National Consultative Committee (NAC) pre-existed the Project, representing the interests of
producers, consumers, unions and scientific organizations, and met annually to define program policies and
assess results. Intended at appraisal to be the Project’s policy oversight and governance body, it never
developed that role. It was eclipsed by a new Administrative Council instituted by Presidential decree in
1997, which assumed responsibility for EMBRAPA policy formation and oversight of the CS, to increase
EMBRAPA’s accountability within government and to the public. The MTR recommended that
longer-term, a NAC-type governance body remained valid to institutionalize transparency, stakeholder
input and overall accountability.
In this period of severe cut-backs, EMBRAPA was especially important due to the large number of formal
partnerships established under the CGS and the unexpectedly high levels of counterpart resources
(financial, material and human) which these partnerships leveraged from private sector participants (Mata,
- 22 -
2000 and Section 5) enabling the project to maintain continuity of the research efforts in EMBRAPA, other
institutions and universities. Notwithstanding the stresses of this period, it demonstrated unequivocally that
the Project was attaining its objective of making EMBRAPA less dependent on public funds.
Audit and Procurement
The Project was audited annually by the Secretaria Federal de Controle (SFC), the Federal audit authority.
All instances of Qualified-Exception opinions were discussed between the Bank, EMBRAPA and SFC.
Auditors’ operational reservations were mostly bureaucratic issues mentioned in the Management Letter (
Carta Gerencial) and were followed-up and resolved to the Bank and SFC’s satisfaction. Audits gave
special attention to procurement and compliance with Bank rules. The few, minor issues which arose
stemmed from the sometimes conflicting demands of Bank rules and Brazilian law. There were no
indications of deviation from Bank rules, or of fraudulent use of Loan resources. In 2002, the Bank
conducted a special audit of the financial and procurement aspects of the Project. EMBRAPA managers
were routinely assisted by FMS and Procurement specialists located in Brasília, all proposals of
US$40,000 or more were reviewed ex-post by the Bank on a random basis, and supervision missions
verified documentation for all acquisitions of higher value without finding any irregularities. The majority
of acquisitions under the Project were processed through Local Shopping and National Shopping. There
was only one instance of ICB, for the purchase of Satellite Communications equipment, which was
monitored closely by the Regional Procurement Office in Washington.
7.7 Overall Borrower performance:
The Borrower’s commitment to the Project was consistently strong, but within the reality of overriding
national fiscal priorities and constraints, the Project was obliged to strive, along with many
programs/projects in this period, to maintain counterpart funding levels and momentum.
8. Lessons Learned
The following are the main lessons with operational implications for future, similar projects:
The public, competitive selection of research projects was the principal strength of the Project from
which all else flowed. The competitive format, the thematic structure of strategically and socially relevant
research areas, and the multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary mechanisms for initiating and
consolidating a fundamental shift in how agricultural research was done and by whom, fostered a more
dynamic, organized focus on real needs of society, the economy and the environment, i.e., quntessential
public goods. The design motif promoted institutional integration, higher quality research and expanded
research horizons.
Confidence in and effective social control of participatory R&D investments was ensured by the Project’s
straightforward institutional arrangements. These involved an Executive Committee with predominantly
external membership, and Program Technical Commissions which analyzed the scientific and technical
merit of research project proposals and participated in performance monitoring and technical evaluation
missions.
The thematic configuration of the bidding events resulted in research projects with convergent themes
and activities, creating valuable opportunities to exchange experiences and define joint strategies,
formulate new lines of research in partnership and conduct evaluation and wider dissemination of results.
These kinds of opportunities should be exploited fully.
- 23 -
Surveys showed widespread support for private foundations managing project/subproject funds as
opposed to their direct management by EMBRAPA and its DUs. Benefits were seen as: greater agility and
operational efficiency; less bureaucracy and documentation; more flexibility in use of the resources;
increased autonomy for the project coordinator in resource control; and, immediate availability of resources
when needed.
The schedule and timing of agricultural research projects must be realistically assessed and calibrated
in project design. CGS bidding, approval, contracting and research project set-up are time-consuming in
their own right, while execution timing can be unpredictable. Fewer bidding events but higher approval
rates for each BE (while maintaining quality), could keep a critical mass of research projects moving in
tandem, over a potentially shorter, overall period.
Competitive Systems of research funding require a regulatory and institutional framework which
promotes agility and efficiency of financial managementto administer the multiple, diverse partnerships
and large numbers of projects/subprojects.
Systematic, collaborative oversight and supervision are called for in programs with significant
volume of R&D resources and numbers of projects/subprojects, with frequent visits to interact
with research coordinators and executors, evaluate progress and consider adjustments.
Formal monitoring and evaluation (M&E) with the organized, regular collection and analysis of data to
determine performance, and as the basis for measuring socio-economic and environmental impacts, must
support CS projects. While this was recognized at appraisal, and a design for M&E was a condition of
Project Effectiveness, M&E systems did not reach the level of structural and operational sophistication
envisaged and required.
Complexities of the CS require strong information dissemination to partners, seminars on the objectives
of the project and the methodology, on the requirements of the Operational Manual, on how projects and
subprojects play out and especially on the chain of command and responsibility. Front-end training in the
basic elements of the project is fundamental and should cover proposal quality, proposal review committees
and technical analysis of proposals, and the critical path disciplines – objectives, targets and results.
CS projects need to ensure a balanced focus on financial control and contractual aspects with partner
institutions along with technical management and oversight. Understandably, the chronic budget
contingency situation and irregular flow of resources occupied EMBRAPA's energies, but technical
elements must remain at the forefront of project coordination and management in such projects.
9. Partner Comments
(a) Borrower/implementing agency:
The Borrower's comments on the Bank's draft ICR are contained in the letter below:
- 24 -
- 25 -
- 26 -
(b) Cofinanciers:
Not available
(c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector):
Not available
10. Additional Information
For technical reasons, textual footnotes are presented below:
Footnote 1: Participation was open to agricultural research organizations, universities and other tertiary bodies,
technical assistance and rural extension entities, rural development organizations, agricultural cooperatives and
rural producer associations, private entities and NGOs active in agriculture, forestry and agro-industry.
Footnote 2: Criteria were defined for resource allocation to EMBRAPA centers and to the states, e.g., priority to
needs directly relevant to project objectives; centers or states located in the most strategic areas and with problems
and incapacity to participate, e.g., centers in the Northeast wanting to develop small farm programs for semi-arid
areas; centers needing capacity to compete in natural resources management; or centers requiring biotechnology
development to resolve specific, small farm problems.
Footnote 3: Dinâmica e Performance do Sistema Competitivo do Prodetab: Análise Preliminar de Impactos,
Renato Argôllo de Souza, EMBRAPA, September 2003. This study analyzed all 25 Project research projects (some
76 subprojects) completed through May 2003, and assessed the general performance of the CGS. Research data
was collected through data searches and review of progress reports; questionnaires applied to all 25 project teams,
leaders of technical committees and members of the EC; interviews with research workers, rural extension
technicians, producers and other segments of the public. At least two projects were sampled per region of the
country. See study Section 2 for methodology.
Footnote 4: Agricultural Research I Project (1249-BR); Agricultural Research II Project, (3130-BR); Science,
Research and Training Project (3269-BR).
Footnote 5: See Dinâmica e Performance do Sistema Competitivo do PRODETAB: Análise Preliminar de
Impactos,Relatório de Consultoria, Renato Argôllo de Souza, Secretariat for International Cooperation,
EMBRAPA, September 2003.
Footnote 6: EMBRAPA intends to submit a more comprehensive final report on the Project by September 2006.
This will be inserted in the Project record and IRIS4.
- 27 -
Footnote 7: The Bank has been financing EMBRAPA R&D since the mid-1970s and continuous outgrowth of
new, related research means that some of those original projects are still ongoing.
Footnote 8: See Avaliação de Impacto de Tecnologias EMBRAPA: Uma Amostra de 12 Tecnologias,Technical
Editors: Magalhães, Vedovoto, Ávila, Irias and Vieira, EMBRAPA, 2005.
Footnote 9: The foundations are private organizations often linked to universities, and who capture and manage
resources for projects. They have their own staff and are regulated by law. Their advantage is greater flexibility
and experience in contracting the acquisition of goods and services, and the importation of equipment and inputs.
In view of the wide dispersion of R&D institutions in Brazil, foundations were seen at the time of appraisal as
financial managers with capacity to maintain flexible, efficient and less bureaucratic processes.
Footnote 10: The Loan Agreement defined “beneficiary” exclusively as entities participating in the Competitive
System as executors of research subprojects. They could be public or private and included EMBRAPA’s
Decentralized Units.
Footnote 11: Execution of CS is complicated by the need for hundreds of contracts spread country-wide under the
responsibility of multiple agencies. Under the prevailing budget conditions and delayed, inadequate provision of
resources, repeated adjustments were needed to a large number of contracts.
Footnote 12: See Analise da Participação do Setor Privado na Execução dos projetos do PRODETAB, Henrique
Tomé da Costa Mata, Secretariat for International Cooperation, EMBRAPA, September 2000.
Footnote 13: See Avaliação de Impacto de Tecnologies EMBRAPA: Uma Amostra de 12 Tecnologias, Technical
Editors: Magalhães, Vedovoto, Ávila, Irias and Vieira, EMBRAPA, 2005.
Footnote 14: Frost tolerance in Eucalyptus benthamii; Cultivation of “Primavera” Highland Rice; Pimenta Longa
for production of essential oils, rich in saffrol; Chicken EMBRAPA 051; Red Niagara Grapes for Tropical
Regions; Slaughter of lambs in confinement; Cultivation of Maciel pears; Mini-facility for processing of Cashew
Nut; Integrated production of mango; “Brasilia” Carrot; Technology for intensive milk production on family farms;
and, Integrated management of fruit fly: population monitoring and hydro-thermic treatment.
Footnote 15: Avaliacão dos Impactos Economicos, Sociais e Ambientais da Pesquisa da Embrapa: Metodologia
de Referencia,Antônio Flavio Dias Avila, EMBRAPA/SEA, 2001.
Footnote 16: Many such mini-facilities are financed in Rio Grande do Norte and other Northeast states by the
Bank-supported Rural Poverty Reduction Projects, using participatory, community-driven development (CDD)
mechanisms.
- 28 -
Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix
Table 1a. Key Performance Indicators
Project Development Objectives
1. % financing for Competitive Grants
System coming from beneficiaries
2. Number of public/private partnership
contracts signed
3. State Research contributions to
competitive grants in funded projects (R$m.)
4. % of EMBRAPA’s non-budget revenues
through sale of products, processes and
services, including collaborations and grants,
allocated in the CGS
5. % of resources from Competitive Grants
System allocated to institutions other than
EMBRAPA (base period 1997)
6. Increase in the % of projects led by
institutions other than EMBRAPA through
competitive grants (base period 1997)
7. Percentage of subprojects coordinated by
non-EMBRAPA institutions
8. Increase in the % of projects implemented
by two or more institutions through
competitive grants
9. No. of universities collaborating with
EMBRAPA
10. No. public agencies participating as
executors or collaborators
11. No. of cooperatives participating in R&D
activities
12. No. of farmers’ organizations
participating in R&D activities
13. No. of NGOs participating in R&D
activities
14. No. private organizations participating as
executors or collaborators in R&D
15. No. technical assistance and extension
entities participating in project R&D
16. No. CGIAR and other foreign institutions
participating in project R&D
17. No. scientific and extension publications
originating from supported grants
18. Books generated
19. Academic theses approved
20. Training courses for target public
21. No. patents registered or in process,
resulting from project-supported R&D
22. Annual operating budgets to research on
small farm development programs (R$m) by
EMBRAPA for SNPA over its 1996
allocations for small farm development
23. Annual operating budgets to research on
natural resource management (R$m) by
Base
Period
(1996)
0
Estimated
Actual
(end-project) (end-project)
14
42
175
250
470
0
7
4
7
15
17
16
33
50
0
30
33.1
na
30
53.2
0
30
100
40
60
na
na
89 (incl.
foreign)
56
93
186
66
53
106
90
32
64
25
--
--
112
--
--
10
--
--
19
0
400
604
-----
-----
18
116
507
4
1.2
4.8
6.2
3.0
9.6
8.5
- 29 -
EMBRAPA for SNPA over its 1996
allocations for natural resources program.
24. Annual operating budgets to research on
1.6
5.2
13.9
advanced technology development (R$m) by
EMBRAPA for SNPA over its 1996
allocations for biotechnology program.
25. % of EMBRAPA’s national operational
0
30
26
budget allocated to competitive grants
26. EMBRAPA’s staff support to state
9
2
1
research systems (R$m).
Note: Columns marked – are indicators added by EMBRAPA, not originally included at appraisal
and for which baseline target not established.
Table 1b. Performance Indicators - Training and Equipment
Project Outputs
Base
Period
(1996)
Estimated
Actual
(end-Project) (end-Project)
1. No. EMBRAPA staff trained
- Foreign PhD
0
- Local PhD
0
- Post Doctorate
0
- Local M.S.
0
2. Number of DUs supported with
0
infrastructure/equipment
3. No. DU and SRC staff given long-term
2
training in IPR
4. No. scientists placed on long-term
0
assignments in advanced foreign research
institutions
5. No. SRC staff trained
- Foreign PhD
0
- Local PhD
0
- Post Doctorate
0
- Local M.S.
0
6. No. SRCs supported with infrastructure and
0
equipment
DU: EMBRAPA’s decentralized research units (state level)
SRC: State Research Centers
- 30 -
18
18
15
13
20
36
184
46
88
40
6
na
6
7
5
13
2
80
10
2
33
0
30
23
Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing
A. Project Costs by Component (US$ million equivalent)
Actual/Latest
Estimate
(US$ million)
54.05
Percentage of
Appraisal
1. Competitive Grants System
Appraisal
Estimate
(US$ million)
72.00
2. Institutional Strengthening
41.88
63.55
152%
3. Administration Monitoring
and Evaluation
3.09
1.00
32%
Total Baseline Cost:
- Physical Contingencies
- Price Contingencies
116.97
1.76
1.27
118.55
----
Total Project Cost:
120.00
118.55
99%
Project Component
75%
B. Estimated Project Financing by Component (US$ equivalent)
Project Component
1. Competitive Grants System
Local
Appraisal
Foreign
Appraisal
54.00
18.00
Total
Appraisa
l
72.00
Local
Actual
Foreign
Actual
Total
Actual
49.98
4.07
54.05
21.91
63.50
-
1.00
2. Institutional Strengthening
25.34
16.54
41.88 41.59
3. Administration, Monitoring
and Evaluation
2.24
0.85
3.09 1.00
Total Baseline Cost:
- Physical Contingencies
- Price Contingencies
81.58
1.44
0.05
35.39
0.32
1.22
116.9792.57
1.76
1.27
25.98
118.55
Total Project Cost:
83.07
36.93
120.0092.57
25.98
118.55
C1. Sources of Financing (% total Project costs)
Financing Sources
IBRD
EMBRAPA
Beneficiaries
Govt. of Brazil
Govt. of Japan
TOTAL:
Appraisal
Estimate
Actual
50%
10%
15%
25%
--
50%
12%
13%
25%
<0.4%
100%
100%
- 31 -
C3: Japanese Trust Fund Financing (TF-25481)
Item
1
2
3
4
TOTAL:
Category
Consultants’ Services
Travel costs and per diems
Goods
Training
Value (US$)
201,000.00
76,500.00
114,500.00
100,000.00
492,000.00
(a) Project Costs by Procurement Arrangement - Appraisal/Estimate (US$m equiv.)
Expenditure Category
ICB
NCB
72.0
(36.0)
Total Cost
(incl.
Contingencies)
72.0
(36.0)
5.0
(1.5)
7.2
(2.2)
3. Goods (other than goods under
Research Subprojects and including
vehicles and equipment)
13.1
(3.4)
13.1
(3.4)
4. Satellite Communications System
2.5
(2.5)
5. Consultant Services
6.1
(5.3)
6.1
(5.3)
6. Training
14.1
(10.6)
14.1
(10.6)
1. Research Subprojects (Competitive
Grants System)
2. Works (other than works under
Research Subprojects)
7. Operational Costs
TOTAL:
2.2
(0.7)
2.2
(0.7)
- 32 -
Other
na
112.8
(59.3)
NBF
5.0
(0.0)
5.0
(0.0)
7.5
(2.5)
na
120.0
(60.0)
(b) Project Costs by Procurement Arrangement - Actual/Estimate (US$m equiv.)
Expenditure Category
ICB
NCB
1. Research Subprojects (Competitive
Grants System)
Other
NBF
54.05 (a)
(27.39)
Total Cost
(incl.
Contingencies)
54.05
(27.39)
2. Works (other than works under
Research Subprojects)
3.29 (b)
(1.1)
3. Goods (other than goods under
Research Subprojects and including
vehicles and equipment)
12.36 (c)
(5.08)
4. Satellite Communications System
2.40 (d), 0.43
(c)
(2.83)
2.40, 0.43
(2.83)
6.65 (f)
(4.97)
6.65
(4.97)
6. Training
19.89 (g)
(16.86)
19.89
(16.86)
7. Operational Costs
19.48 (c)
(1.78)
118.55
19.48
(1.78)
118.55
5. Consultant Services
TOTAL:
3.29
(1.1)
5.00 (e)
(0.0)
12.36
(5.08)
ICB: International Competitive Bidding
NCB: National Competitive Bidding
NBF: Not Bank-financed
Figures in parentheses are amounts financed by the Bank Loan.
(a)
Three quotations for civil works, local or international shopping for goods, and Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by
World Bank Borrowers, for services.
(b)
Three quotations
(c)
National or International Shopping
(d)
Limited international bidding
(e)
IDB Financing under separate loan (as expected at Appraisal)
(f)
Services procured in accordance with Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers
(g)
Ibid
- 33 -
Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits
The PAD acknowledged that agricultural research is an inherently unpredictable activity, with uncertain
outcomes. Many benefits are long-term and are not easy to quantify or measure, e.g., natural resources
management, especially ex ante. The new approach to research through the Competitive System –
essentially a demand-driven mechanism – meant ex-ante rates of return for research projects were
unquantifiable for the project as a whole. The PAD evaluated representative projects in three priority areas
(family farms, natural resources management and advanced technologies) based on then-recent experience,
and estimated IERRs of 26.7%, 30% and 146% respectively, for the three areas.
For methodological, data and other reasons, the ICR does not attempt to replicate that analysis. Instead, a
summary is presented of the main findings of an EMBRAPA study (Footnote 13) - essentially a compilation
of specific agricultural research projects by specialist authors - of the ex-post economic impact of a sample
of 12 technologies (Footnote 14) generated by EMBRAPA with other partners, some of which with the direct
and/or indirect support of the Project. These technologies are being validated and adopted, and fall into
three of the Project’s priority categories: Family Agriculture, Agribusiness and Environment (NRM).
However, since most of these technologies are new and make projections in keeping with the longer-term
benefits of agricultural research, the evaluations combine ex post and ex ante elements. The study is
unusual for integrating a complementary environmental impact analysis for each of the 12 technologies.
The economic analysis uses EMBRAPA’s “economic surplus” methodology – explained in detail in the
study - for all 12 cases, analyzing benefits to society over a period of 15 years for annual crops and 25
years for perennials (Avila 2001) (Footnote 15). All cases factor in the costs of research and of extension
services to accelerate adoption. The 12 technologies represent different types of economic impact on
society whether through productivity gains, reduced costs of production, expansion of production into new
areas, value-added to production or increased exports. The environmental analysis utilizes EMBRAPA's
Ambitec system (Environmental Impact Evaluation System for Agro-livestock Technology Innovation), an
Index of Environmental Impact based on a set of indicators for which data is gathered by
survey/questionnaires and from which changes are measured based on variations in management
methodologies within technologies grouped as agro-livestock, agro-industry or animal husbandry (Stachetti
and Irias 2003).
The following summarizes the critical elements of each technology and its results in terms of Internal
Economic Rate of Return (IERR), Net Present Value NPV), and Benefit-Cost ratio.
(a) Eucalyptus benthamii – Frost Tolerance
While many species of eucalypts in Brazil are adaptable to different conditions, few can tolerate severe
frost. EMBRAPA-Forestry research sought to find alternatives for commercial plantation for production of
fuel biomass and for timber in areas subject to frost, such as the Southern region. Eucalyptus benthamii
grows rapidly, has superior wood productivity and timber quality, higher seed production and frost
resistance, qualities of major importance to industry and to small and medium rural holdings requiring a
multi-use, locally-grown raw material for energy generation and other uses. The technology resulting from
EMBRAPA’s research silviculture and genetic improvement is an important advance, already representing
a new forest species with high productivity and frost resistance. Productivity of this species averages 240
cubic meters of timber in six years compared to 180 cubic meters in alternatives. Principal beneficiaries are
small and medium-scale rural producers of wood for fuel usage. Its environmental impact is positive and
desirable. No negative impacts were found in any applicable Ambitec Agro indicators. Its higher
productivity means it requires less land per unit of production.
- 34 -
Results: IERR is estimated at 12.69%, significantly higher than the 8.75% per annum financing of BNDES
for its Commercial Forestry Planting Program, or of PRONAF Forestry financed by the Bank of Brazil and
others for small rural producers, at 4% per year with a 25% discount for timely payment. NPV was
R$6,116.00 and Benefit-Cost ratio, 1.5:1. The net economic benefit to producers averaged around
R$1,080.00 per hectare/year. Benefits for community construction, landscape and protective screens were
also registered due to more secure production (frost resistance) and higher productivity. EMBRAPA’s
technology generation and transfer costs, both direct and indirect, totaled an estimated R$124,396.00 at
December 2002 prices. (Rodigheri, Shimizu, Silveira, 2005)
(b) Highland Cultivation of “Primavera” Rice
Rice production in Brazil is either irrigated, with high technology and productivity or highland with lower
productivity. The latter constituted 80% of all rice produced in Brazil by 1960 but by the 1980s was
overtaken by irrigated rice in a ratio of 1:3. Even with the complementarity of the two systems, Brazil
remains import dependent. EMBRAPA sought to resolve problems facing highland rice in its adaptability
to new production systems and in consumer quality issues. Primaverawas developed by EMBRAPA in
collaboration with research partners, developing new genetic material with superior disease resistance and
grain quality and testing them in ten separate States. Other activities included genetic seed production,
phyto-technical aspects, technology transfer and marketing, and performance evaluation. Primaverarice
was found by the International Food Policy Research Institute (Alston et al. 2001) to constitute some 60%
of total highland rice area in the important rice growing States of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul,
Goias, Tocantins, Rondônia, Maranhão, Piauí and Bahia, or some 830,000 ha. of the 2000/2001 harvest
rsing to 80% by 2001/2002. It has many competitive qualities for producers, industrial users, and
consumers and is highly adaptable to different growing conditions and systems. Its market price
differential is 15% over comparable rice. Yields average 3,100 kg/ha compared to around 2,600 kg/ha for
formerly prominent types. From an environmental perspective, Primaverasaves water because it is planted
in higher rainfall areas, uses less insecticide, and less energy due to not requiring irrigation. Since
Primavera is cultivated partly on degraded lands, it gets high marks for soil recuperation.
Results: Economic benefits for Primavera total R$1.9 billion in the period 1999-2003 of which R$1.3
billion is attributed directly to EMBRAPA research. This cultivar is creating jobs, generating profits,
reinvigorating rice production in the Center-West region, and adding value. Primary benefits stem from its
higher productivity (20% of which is attributed directly to the variety and the rest due to better production
systems technology). EMBRAPA research costs over ten years represented an investment of some R$6.6
million. Financial benefits obtained by producers show an IERR of 64%, NPV of R$264,275 at a discount
rate of 12% and Benefit-Cost ratio of 52:1. (Ferreira, Lanna, Neves, Barrigossi, 2005).
(d) Cultivation of Pimenta Longa for Essential Oils (Saffrol)
Prohibition in the 1990s by the Federal Government of the exploitation in the Mata Atlantica of Sassafras
as a primary source of natural saffrol, led major industrial chemical firms producing fragrances and
insecticides to seek alternative sources of phenol-ether. Discovery of saffrol in Pimenta Longa in the
Amazon State of Acre, where it is native, created strong interest both in Brazil and externally, in its
domestication for industrial purposes. EMBRAPA conducted research and validation from 1998 to 2000
(earlier work was conducted in the 1970s and 80s). Research is ongoing in the production and processing
cycles, as is assessment of national and international markets for saffrol and derivatives, and of its
reproductive structure and characteristics. EMBRAPA research, validation and transfer in the period
- 35 -
1998-2000 involved its cultivation from seedlings, planting in appropriate areas, cutting, drying, and
distillation to obtain saffrol, with activities focusing in the Amazon States of Acre and Para. From a
socio-economic perspective, this product is important in areas where land/soils have become unproductive
or under-utilized, e.g., Amazonia., and where alternative, viable crops are needed, which are
environmentally sustainable. Given the ease with which the oils from Pimenta Longa can be stored – a
major, perennial problem for agricultural producers in Acre – and in simple containers at ambient
temperatures, this product represents a major breakthrough.
Results: Principal beneficiaries of this technology are small, subsistence-level family farmers,
medium-scale commercial producers, associations distilling the oils, and industries working with saffrol as
raw material for other products. Pimenta Longa has the following benefits: it is an agro-industrial activity
which provides additional income for small rural producers; as a natural resource of high value, still
relatively unexploited in the Amazon region, it represents a model of sustainable development; its
adaptability to acid soils means it can increase the productivity of degraded and abandoned lands;
processing of saffrol can de done on-farm, converting the small producer to higher-value, agro-industry;
and, it requires group economic activity, beneficial for social capital formation. EMBRAPA’s research
costs (projected through 2021) include the costs of extension are estimated at R$1.2 million. The
estimated IERR is 14%, above the opportunity cost of capital in Brazil and interest rates for bank
agricultural credit; the NPV is R$284, 227 and Benefit-Cost ratio is 1.9:1. (de Sá, Gomes, 2005).
(e) Chicken “Colonial” EMBRAPA 051
Strong potential exists in rural areas for generation of employment and income for small farm families from
poultry production and especially eggs, produced under environmentally acceptable systems. Demand is
high but poultry lines have been unable to supply that demand. Research initiated in 1995 sought to
identify and develop lines of birds suitable for ecologically appropriate egg production. EMBRAPA 051,
launched in 2000, is a hybrid bird, lower-weight, ideal for small-scale farm production and with capacity to
produce brown eggs, and suitable for domestic consumption at the end of its reproductive life. It can
survive on a more varied, natural diet, as well as some balanced rations/feed. The advantage is greater egg
production capacity and profitability of the activity. Egg consumption has been growing rapidly in Brazil –
84 per person/year, well above many countries. Investments have been made to attract consumers through
greater Omega 3 content and lower cholesterol. In the niche market for agro-ecological products,
EMBRAPA 051 has increased the supply and consumption of eggs and enabled producers to add value to
their property, and to stay on the land. The Ambitec environmental index is quite low for this technology,
but still positive based on energy usage, natural resource elements and impact on atmosphere.
Results: The regular production of eggs is 80 eggs/80 weeks, while EMBRAPA 051 produces 280 eggs in
the same period. Required investments in facilities are generally low, as are overall costs of production.
EMBRAPA’s total cost to develop this technology was around R$1.7 million. The IERR is 34%, NPV
R$4,385.48 and Benefit-Cost ratio is 7.9:1. (Girotto, Palhares, Figueiredo, 2005).
(f) “Niagara” Red Grapes for Tropical Regions
Red Niagara grapes, cultivated traditionally in the South, are popular in Brazil with production
concentrated in the months from December to February. Attempts to cultivate them year round had failed.
Prices were relatively low, as were returns. EMBRAPA-Grapes and Wine sought to provide a longer
season for this fruit and provide greater returns to its family farm producers. Research developed a
production system for tropical regions of the country. Intensive efforts were made to develop seedless
- 36 -
cultivars of this grape in tropical areas, to be marketed in the months from August to November. The
technology has been specifically targeted at increasing the incomes of small-scale family producers and at
the domestic market. It is environmentally superior to other types of grapes due to its rusticity and disease
resistance, and thus low requirements for chemical treatment.
Results: Production in the normal period was generating returns of R$2,364/ha in 2003 – net returns
under the alternative, “off-season” system have generated a massive R$28,071/ha. Obviously, such returns
will decline over time as supply increases, a benefit which will be transferred to consumers. The economic
impact assumes that prices will fall by 20% from 2011 and 30% from 2015, stabilizing thereafter, and that
additional income from use of this technology will fall to R$25,652/ha by 2010, R$10,652 in 2011 and fall
again to R$3,152 by 2015. EMBRAPA’s investment participation is estimated at 70%. EMBRAPA’s
research cost is estimated at around R$554,000. IERR is estimated at 109%, NPV is R$24,044 and
Benefit-Cost-ratio is 59:1. (de Mello, Gebler, 2005).
(g) Cultivation of Maciel Pears
The Southern portion of the State of Rio Grande do Sul concentrates about 90% of national pear
production. Production began to fall sharply in the 1970s, caused in part by producers’ reluctance to
maintain the groves in face of low returns from processors, resulting in turn, from reduced consumption of
pear products prompted by reduced purchasing power under government’s economic policies. EMBRAPA
research sought to develop new varieties with new characteristics for processing and eating, resistant to
effects of transport and better natural conservation after harvest. Dual purpose pears became the objective,
permitting producers to direct production to whichever market paid better. Industry was benefited by better
quality fruit, reducing operational and processing costs. Agro-chemical usage declined since Maciel pears
are resistant to disease and pests. Consumers were benefited with a generally higher quality fruit in taste
and appearance. EMBRAPA’s participation in research and development is estimated at 90%, with 10%
being the producers’ responsibility for launching the product.
Results: IERR is estimated at 44%, well above rates of interest in financial markets and other bank
resources available, NPV is R$2,182 and Benefit-Cost ratio is 166:1. Traditionally, 99% of producers
were linked to specific industries. This has changed due to Maciel introduction and is now some 80% with
20% of production being sold for direct consumption. Producers have increased incomes by 60%,
considering the average differential of prices received from industry as R$0.50/kg and market price for
natural fruit of R$2.00/kg in the 2001/2002 harvest, and maintaining this differential to the present. With
production averaging 6 tons/ha, total production was 15,600 tons. If total production went to industry
which pays about R$0.50/kg, this would imply a total value of R$7.8 million. Since 80% is sold to
industry, the total is R$6.24 million. Sales to both markets totaled R$12.5 million. EMBRAPA’s total
cost of technology development is estimated at R$23,000. (Madail, Raseira, Nakasu, Pereira, de Melo,
2005)
(h) Slaughter of Lambs in Confinement
The market for lamb meat is increasing sharply, especially in the Northeast region. Refrigerated abattoirs
have also increased, reflecting the market growth of this product. Lamb meat produced by traditional
farms in the Northeast does not conform to consumer standards. Animals are slaughtered in open fields
and at an advanced age, compromising quality. Sheepskins sent to market are similarly of low quality.
The industry has been operating at around 50% of capacity. Termination of lambs in confinement is a
practice consisting of selection and confinement of young animals - males and females - to prepare them for
- 37 -
slaughter in a short period, even during the period when pasture is scarce. Costs are reduced from
confinement in the dry season. Slaughter age has been reduced from 10-12 months to 5-6 months; more
feed is available for other members of the herd; returns on capital are more rapid; meat quality is much
better, regardless of the season; skins are vastly better quality and attract good prices; and, market access is
guaranteed for both meat and skins. The technology can be adopted in all regions of the country, but is
more suitable for regions where feed is scarce at certain periods such as in the Northeast Semi-arid zone.
The technology is recommended only for the dry period in the Semi-arid regions. The research is aimed at
producers ready to adopt higher levels of technology and permits more intensive production especially
where land is scarce. The principal economic benefit is reduced costs of production from reduced mortality
and greater weight gains of animals slaughtered in the dry season, when natural pasture is scarce. In
environmental terms, the technology has desirable impacts such as reduced area for feed production and
less soil compaction. However, the need for feed rations and treatments increases, as well as the need for
water to clean holding pens.
Results: It is estimated that some 100,000 animals were slaughtered in this manner in 2001, about 1% of
all lambs slaughtered, and this has been rising. Economic impact estimates assume that growth of 10% per
year will persist until 2015. Thereafter, other new technologies will intervene in this growth rate. Gross
margins vary per lamb, between R$5.00 and R$12.00 per confined animal depending on sales
opportunities. The study states that in calculating economic benefits, indirect benefits such as more rapid
return on capital invested, improved quality of the skins, and release of pasture to other animals, were not
considered. IERR is estimated at 26.37%, NPV is R$722,817 and benefit-Cost ratio is 3:1.(Wander,
Barros, 2005)
(i) Small-Scale Cashew Nut Processing Facility
Cashew nut production is widespread in Brazil but the Northeast States of Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte,
Piauí, Pernambuco, Maranhão and Bahia concentrate around 99% of the area devoted to cashew nut in
Brazil. Production and processing employ around 75,000 people and exports in 2003 generated some
US$144.0 million, but performance and returns had been declining, importantly because of lack of proper
processing and low product quality in relation to market standards. EMBRAPA-Agro-Industria Tropical
accordingly developed in the 1990s, with private sector participation, processing facilities and equipment (
mini-fabricas)for small-scale, on-farm processing of cashew nut. Requiring only a small investment, this
technology has resulted in 85% of nut remaining intact after processing, with good quality in taste, aroma
and color. The technology adds value and promotes job creation for associations and cooperatives of small
farmers (Footnote 16). Formerly sold in unprocessed form for R$423.00 per ton, the improved processed nut
now sells for R$1,077.00/ton, a value-added of 155% and incremental gross profit of R$654.00/ton of
processed cashew. These small-scale facilities have environmental benefits in greatly reduced gas
emissions, release of particulates and noise
Results: IERR is estimated at 76%, Net Present Value is R$17,767.03 and Benefit-Cost ratio is 11:1
based on flow of benefits over 15 years from 1994-2013. (Pessoa, Mattos, Rosa, de Figueiredo, Paiva,
2005).
(j) Integrated Production of Mango
To remain competitive in export markets for mango, Brazil needs to look beyond seasonality to all aspects
of quality including health, related to use of agrochemicals residues and overall environmental impact of the
industry. From 2003 on, the European Community began to accept only fruit from integrated systems of
production. Integrated production comprises a package of practices which ensure quality and
- 38 -
sustainability. Use of biological and chemical methods must take account of the consumer, economic
viability and environmental aspects. The benefits include improved international competitiveness, reduced
costs of production compared to traditional methods, and improved environmental conditions in the
production area. All elements of the production chain gain from this methodology. Integrated production is
suitable for virtually any area where mango is grown but especially important in the fruit-growing “polos”
of the Vale do São Francisco, Vale do Parnaíba, Vale do Açu and Southwest Bahia. Brazil is now the
world’s second largest exporter of mango.
Results: This methodology has positive social, economic and environmental impacts. The economic impact
– chiefly in reduced costs - is related to lower use of pesticides, fertilizers, water and diesel fuel. Other
important benefits are: greater penetration of the international market, increased value-added due to higher
prices for a healthier product. EMBRAPA’s cost of developing and transferring this technology is
estimated at R$1.15 million in the period 2000-2004 plus an additional R$17,500 per year through 2025
for costs of extension and administration. Estimated IERR is 345%, NPV is R$13,200 and Benefit-Cost
ratio is 18:1. The Ambitec Agro index for this technology is a positive 4.34. The technology does not
register any negative impacts compared to the traditional methods, demonstrating reduced use of
agro-chemicals, and conservation of soil productive capacity and use of natural resources. (Araújo, 2005).
(k) “Brasilia” Carrot
Carrot production in Brazil has traditionally been problematic, until introduction of Brasiliacarrot.
Cultivation was restricted to small areas and short periods of the year. Seeds were imported and of low
productivity. High applications of agrochemicals, most imported, were needed against specific pests.
Carrot was only for wealthier consumers. EMBRAPA organized research to develop a more productive
variety, resistant to the usual pests. The new cultivar Brasilia, is perfectly adaptable to all regional
conditions and has been rapidly disseminated. It is now available year-round and nation-wide.
Locally-produced seed is also available. The main socio-economic outcome is regular supply throughout
the year; and all levels of society now consume it. Adoption of this product in the poorer North and
Northeast regions is now 100% and similar in other regions of the country. The 2002 harvest collected
755,000 tons from an area of 27,400 ha. This crop employs some 410,000 rural workers – most
production is concentrated on land holdings of <20 ha, making it essentially a family farming crop.
However, some 30% of producers are concentrated on holdings exceeding 100 ha. Around 150,000 jobs
were created in the carrot production chain – the crop has high demand for specialized labor. The crop also
has important health benefits for consumers in consumption of Betacarotine and Vitamin A, and it is widely
consumed in school lunch programs, hospitals and restaurants. Vilela et al (1997) the impact of the carrot
research has been its massive inter-regional transfer, and confirms the advantages of concentrating efforts
on research which has national reach. EMBRAPA’s costs to develop and transfer this technology were
around R$870,000 over six years.
Results: In the rainy season, Brasilia has significant impact on production, expanded area, reduced
production costs and higher incomes in States of Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo and Parana. Productivity
increased 27% and use of agrochemicals declined 8%. In the States of Bahia, Pernambuco and Goias,
year-round production is feasible with impressive socio-economic benefits. Employment rose 14% in
growing areas and net income of carrot producers rose 72%. In the Center-West, net benefits of R$12.3
million were registered in a four-year period. Benefits are profitability of the crop, high productivity,
reduced costs, increased net incomes and increase regional income. Estimated IERR is 60.4%, NPV is
R$54,668 and Benefit-Cost ratio is 94:1. (Vilela, Moreno, 2005)
- 39 -
(l) Intensive Production Technologies for Family Milk Producers
This research project covered the Southeast region of Brazil, which has some 300,000 family milk
production units. The hope was that the technology, if successful, could be applied to the over 1.5 million
similar units throughout Brazil. Opening of markets and competitive pressures in recent years have put
small-scale family milk production operations in a precarious position, unable to compete in quality or cost.
Low levels of technology and organization, lack of technical assistance, resistance to collective action and
lack of information, have depressed this economic activity. A package of technology – improved feed
rations, management techniques, herd health and reproduction - was provided by EMBRAPA Pecuaria
Sudeste to sample producers selected by region and level of technology utilized. Producers were taught to
collect their own data and the efficiency of the treatments was measured based on qualitative and
quantitative changes in various indices – managerial, environmental, economic and zoo-technological.
Upon Closing in 2001, the subject properties became Demonstration Units to validate the technology, with
diffusion following through various means. Intensive measures to conserve soil and water as part of the
technological package resulted inter alia, in large reduction of erosion, gains in soil organic materials,
drastically reduced loss of nutrients, and cleaner water bodies due to restrictions on animal contact.
Results: Over a three year initial period of technological adjustment following adoption, annual milk
production rose from 21,000 liters/year (about 58 liters/day) to 77,000 liters/year (about 211 liters/day).
Over a projected 25-year period, this EMBRAPA technology demonstrates high capacity to aggregate
value to family agriculture. The IERR is 77%, NPV is around R$487,000, and the Benefit-Cost ratio is
156:1. (Tupi, Manzano, 2005)
(m) Integrated Fruit-Fly Management
The Brazilian system for fruit fly control is heavily dependent on pesticides, with strong impact on the
population of natural enemies, the environment and final quality of fruit. The principal import markets are
closed to countries which adopt conventional systems of fruit fly control. For this reason, Brazilian exports
of mango for example, are restricted to regions which adopt monitoring and hydro-thermal treatment to
control this pest. Population monitoring permits establishment of levels of control and to identify critical
periods of fruit fly occurrence, permitting adoption of control measures at appropriate times.
Hydro-thermal treatment post harvest complements monitoring and provides quarantine protection. Fruits
are immersed in water at 46 degrees Centigrade for 75-90 minutes for fruits weighing 425 to 650 g
respectively. This technology was instrumental in opening the North American market to Brazilian mango
in 1991. The technology has been used in states with export fruit sectors (including many states of the
poor Northeast region), and especially for mango, papaya and grapes. The major benefits are reduced
costs of production and access to North America, increased exports and generation of higher returns, plus
increased availability of healthier fruit with lower pesticide residues. The major environmental benefits
include reduced use of agrochemicals; in atmospheric terms, reduced emissions of pollutants; and,
improved biodiversity through reduced loss of natural enemies from more rational use of insecticides.
EMBRAPA’s research and technology transfer costs are estimated at R$2.1 million over a 16 year period.
Results: The cost-benefit flow shows that increased access of mango to North America generated
additional receipts of US$33.3 million. IERR is estimated at 51.2%, NPV around R$$3.5 million, and
Cost-Benefit ratio 4:1. (Cardoso, de Almeida, do Nascimento, 2005)
- 40 -
Overall Results
Results of the analysis vary markedly and technologies cannot be compared to each other, referring to
different production chains - annual crops, perennial crops, animal production and agro-processing.
Clearly however, these technologies generated economic and financial rates of return which cover the costs
of their generation and costs of production for final users. IERRs range from 12.7% to 345%; NPV from
R$2,182.00 to R$722,817.00; and Benefit-Cost ratios from 3:1 to 166:1. See table below:
IERR (%)
12.69
14.00
64.00
109.00
26.37
34.00
44.00
51.20
60.40
77.00
345.00
76.00
Technology
1. Eucalyptus Benthamii - frost tolerance
2. Pimenta Longa for essential oils
3. “Primavera” highland rice
4. Red “Niagara” Grapes for tropical regions
5. Slaughter of lambs in confinement
6. Embrapa 051
7. "Maciel"pears
8. Integrated fruit fly management
9. “Brasilia” carrot
10. Intensive milk production on family farms
11. Integrated mango production
12. Mini-plants for cashew nut processing
NPV (R$)
6,116
284,227
264,275
24,044
722,817
4,385
2,182
3,460
54,668
486,783
13,200
17,767
Ben/Cost
1.5:1
1.9:1
52:1
59:1
3:1
7.9:1
166:1
4:1
94:1
156:1
18:1
11:1
Environmental Impact
Indices of environmental impact are almost entirely positive, suggesting that these innovations can be
recommended for field application and that they satisfy defined standards for minimizing negative
environmental impacts. The highest values were registered by the mini-processing plants for cashew nut
(5.55) and integrated mango production (4.34) on the Ambitec scale from 1-15. The only technology to
raise some concerns was the intensive milk production technology for family farms, but by applying
Ambitec Animal Production methodology complemented by Ambitec Agro to factor in pasture and silage
elements of these operations, the technology registered as environmentally positive.
- 41 -
Annex 4. Bank Inputs
(a) Missions:
Stage of Project Cycle
Month/Year
Identification/Preparation
04/27/1996
Count
No. of Persons and Specialty
(e.g. 2 Economists, 1 FMS, etc.)
Specialty
3
2
Ag. Economist
Ag. Research Specialist
2
4
6
Ag. Research Specialist
Ag. Economist
Consultant Specialists
09/29/1997
12/14/1997
1
2
06/05/1998
01/25/1999
11/01/1999
05/05/2000
1
1
1
4
11/30/2000
06/29/2001
12/10/2001
04/24/2002
06/12/2003
10/01/2004
04/01/2005
06/10/2005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ag Economist
1 Ag. Economist, 1 Ag. Research
Specialist
1 Ag. Economist
Ag. Economist
Ag. Economist
1 Ag. Econ, 1 Econ, 1 FMS, 1
Comp. Grants Specialist
Agric. Specialist
Agric. Specialist
Agric. Specialist
Legal Specialist
Agric. Specialist
Ag. Economist
Agric. Specialist
Agric. Specialist
Agric. Specialist
Agric. Specialist
Agric. Specialist
05/16/2006
1
Agric. Specialist
Appraisal/Negotiation
01/21/1997
Performance Rating
Implementation Development
Progress
Objective
Supervision
10/02/2002
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
U
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
ICR
(b) Staff:
Stage of Project Cycle
Identification/Preparation
Appraisal/Negotiation
Supervision
ICR
Total
Actual/Latest Estimate
No. Staff weeks
US$ ('000)
23.9
99.5
5.1
27.2
93.8
174.4
5.0
11.3
126.8
312.4
- 42 -
Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components
(H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA=Not Applicable)
Macro policies
Sector Policies
Physical
Financial
Institutional Development
Environmental
Rating
H
SU
H
SU
H
SU
H
SU
H
SU
H
SU
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Social
Poverty Reduction
Gender
Other (Please specify)
Private sector development
Public sector management
Other (Please specify)
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
- 43 -
Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance
(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory)
6.1 Bank performance
Lending
Supervision
Overall
6.2 Borrower performance
Preparation
Government implementation performance
Implementation agency performance
Overall
Rating
HS
HS
HS
S
S
S
U
U
U
HU
HU
HU
S
S
S
S
U
U
U
U
HU
HU
HU
HU
Rating
HS
HS
HS
HS
- 44 -
Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents
Project Appraisal Document (PAD), Report No. 16520-BR
Project Supervision Reports (PSR and ISR)
Supervision Aide Memoires
Mid-Term Review documents
Implementation Status and Results Reports (ISR)
Annual Progress Reports (EMBRAPA)
PRODETAB: Projeto de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento de Tecnologia Agropecuária para o Brasil,
Relatório Final (Versão Preliminar), EMBRAPA, June 2006
Análise da Participação do Setor Privado na Execução dos Projetos do PRODETAB, Henrique
Tomé da Costa Mata, EMBRAPA 2000.
Dinâmica e Performance do Sistema Competitivo do PRODETAB: Análise Preliminar de
Impactos, Renato Argôllo de Souza, EMBRAPA 2003.
Avaliação de Impacto de Tecnologias EMBRAPA: Uma Amostra de 12 Tecnologias,Edited by
Magalhães, Vedevoto, Ávila, Irias and Vieira, EMBRAPA 2005.
Competitive Grants in the New Millenium: Global Workshop for Designers and Practitioners,
proceedings of workshop pub. by EMBRAPA, IBRD and IDB, May 2000.
Strategies for Financing Agricultural Research in Brazil: Sustainability and Diversification for a
Competitive Future, F. J. B. Reifschneider, U. Lele and A. D. Portugal, 2002.
Making Competitive Grants Programs of National Agricultural Research Systems Work:
Learning from the Brazilian Experience, F. J. P. Reifschneider and U. Lele, 2003.
- 45 -
Additional Annex 8. Borrower Completion Report: Executive Summary
EMBRAPA prepared a 43-page Borrower Report on the Project in Portuguese, of which the following is a
selective summary. Most of the performance data/tables in the ICR main text are derived from the
Borrower Report (updating de Souza, 2003) and therefore the Executive Summary below focuses on other
aspects. The full Borrower Report is in the Project file and IRIS 4.
PRODETAB: Projeto de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento de Tecnologia Agropecuária para o Brasil Relatorio Final
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária - Embrapa, Coordenadoria de Cooperação
Internacional - CCI, June 2006.
I. Concepção e contextualização do Prodetab
A Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) é a maior organização de pesquisa
agropecuária da América Latina. Criada em 1973, vinculada ao Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e
Abastecimento, possui atualmente quarenta unidades descentralizadas, localizadas em diversos pontos
do território brasileiro, e duas unidades avançadas (laboratórios virtuais) no exterior. A empresa
coordena o Sistema Nacional de Pesquisa Agropecuária (SNPA), que congrega dezenove organizações
estaduais de pesquisa e dezenas de unidades integradas, principalmente universidades. As pesquisas
científicas e tecnológicas desenvolvidas por essas instituições e pela Embrapa, desde o seu início e
ainda hoje, com o SNPA, foram e são financiadas principalmente pelo setor público, ou seja, pelo
governo federal e governos estaduais. O Estado brasileiro participa com mais de 70% do custeio da
pesquisa agropecuária no País.As conquistas científicas e tecnológicas logradas por essas instituições
têm justificado plenamente os investimentos realizados e deram impulso ao agronegócio brasileiro, que
tem crescido de forma consistente nas últimas décadas.
As disponibilidades do Estado brasileiro para investimento na pesquisa agropecuária têm sido,
no entanto, limitadas. E têm sido afetadas por outras prioridades políticas e econômicas do País e
outros fatores conjunturais, o que tem levado o Estado a fazer contingenciamentos e a não garantir um
fluxo regular de recursos para a pesquisa. Ao mesmo tempo, crescem as pressões por maior eficiência
e produtividade do sistema agroprodutivo, em face da competitividade acirrada com a globalização, e se
elevam os custos da pesquisa, em decorrência do refinamento metodológico e da sofisticação das
técnicas e dos instrumentos de pesquisa. Parte dessa dificuldade foi contornada em anos passados
com empréstimos internacionais feitos pelo Governo brasileiro junto ao Banco Mundial (BIRD) e ao
Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento (BID) e com acordos de cooperação técnica com outros
organismos estrangeiros. Esses recursos foram aplicados em infra-estrutura, em custeio de projetos de
pesquisa e em capacitação de pessoal da Embrapa. Havia pouca disponibilidade para repasse direto às
demais instituições do SNPA. Estas se beneficiavam apenas com a parceria em projetos de P&D
coordenados por unidades da Embrapa ou com a cessão temporária de pessoal da Embrapa. Mas não
eram muitas as parcerias, menos ainda com as universidades. Com poucos recursos para tocar projetos
de pesquisa, muitas instituições de P&D (universidades, inclusive, e a própria Embrapa) nos anos 90
começaram a reduzir pessoal e a sua programação técnica, a cortar gastos com a pós-graduação de
pesquisadores e a subutilizar sua infra-estrutura física e operacional.
Marginalmente, o setor privado agroprodutivo, que é o principal beneficiário dos resultados da
pesquisa financiada com recursos públicos, sempre (com poucas exceções) investiu muito pouco em
pesquisa agropecuária no Brasil, seja diretamente ou patrocinando programas e projetos de inovação
científica e tecnológica em centros de P&D. Enquanto na Inglaterra e nos Estados Unidos da América as
empresas privadas e organizações de produtores chegam a participar com até 60% do financiamento da
pesquisa agrícola, em países da América Latina, como o Brasil, o percentual de participação não vai
além de 10% (Echevarria, 1996). Essa aparente apatia pode ser explicada, em parte: i) pela própria
estratégia empresarial de apenas usufruir dos bens gerados pelo Estado, reconhecidos como públicos;
ii) pela falta de política e programa que contemplasse a co-participação do setor privado no
- 46 -
financiamento da pesquisa; iii) e pela falta de imaginação e disposição de instituições de pesquisa e de
pesquisadores de se articularem com as organizações privadas para negociar apoio a projetos de
pesquisa de interesse comum e/ou inovadores. Foi com essa realidade que a Embrapa, em 1996,
começou a negociar, com o Banco Mundial, um novo empréstimo para financiar um novo projeto de
investimentos na pesquisa agropecuária brasileira – o Projeto de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento de
Tecnologia Agropecuária para o Brasil (Prodetab).
Caracterização e objetivos do Projeto:
O Prodetab foi idealizado como um projeto de
indução e apoio à execução de pesquisas em áreas consideradas críticas e estratégicas para o
desenvolvimento nacional, tendo por referência demandas identificadas junto ao sistema produtivo e à
comunidade científica e tecnológica. De abrangência nacional, mas com ênfase nas regiões menos
desenvolvidas e nas áreas mais carentes do País, o Projeto se caracterizava também pelo estímulo à
ação cooperativa multiinstitucional, com abertura à participação do setor privado, e pelo apoio a ações
capazes de promover o aumento da eficiência e a sustentabilidade do Sistema Nacional de Pesquisa
Agropecuária (SNPA). Em termos específicos, a implementação do Prodetab, particularmente com um
sistema competitivo de financiamento de projetos de P&D, deveria produzir as seguintes transformações
no âmbito do SNPA: (a) transição para um sistema diversificado de pesquisa e transferência de
tecnologia; (b) maior participação do setor privado, universidades e organizações de agricultores, com o
estímulo à formação de parcerias público-privadas e ao aumento da cooperação internacional com
instituições de pesquisa de países avançados; (c) implementação de programas que aumentem os
benefícios da pesquisa para pequenos agricultores e para o manejo dos recursos naturais; e (e) maior
participação dos clientes e usuários de pesquisa na definição de prioridades de pesquisa e na sua
implementação.
Componentes e público-alvo: O Prodetab constituía-se de três componentes principais: i)
Sistema Competitivo de apoio a projetos de P&D, ii) Fortalecimento Institucional e iii) Gerenciamento e
Avaliação. A distribuição original dos recursos totais do Projeto, por componente, teve os seguintes
percentuais: 60% (US$ 72 milhões) para o Sistema Competitivo; 35% (US$ 42 milhões) para
Fortalecimento Institucional;e 2,5% (US$ 3 milhões) para Gerenciamento e Avaliação;outros 2,5% (US$3
milhões) foram alocados como reserva técnica. Posteriormente, na revisão de meio-termo do Projeto,
mediante entendimento entre a Embrapa e o Banco Mundial, fez-se uma recomposição desses
percentuais. O Sistema Competitivo foi o componente principal, não só pela quantidade de recursos,
mas, principalmente, por se constituir uma iniciativa pioneira de apoio à pesquisa científica e
tecnológica no âmbito da Embrapa e do SNPA. Os projetos deveriam se enquadrar em cinco temas
gerais: Agricultura Familiar, Recursos Naturais, Agronegócio, Tecnologia Avançada e Estudos
Estratégicos. Temas e linhas de pesquisa específicas para cada área e projeto foram definidas a cada
edital, a partir de consulta a entidades representativas do sistema agroprodutivo sobre as suas
demandas tecnológicas e, também, a instituições de P&D. Maior parcela dos recursos e maior
percentual de apoio financeiro deveriam ser direcionados para Agricultura Familiar e Recursos Naturais
e para as regiões Nordeste e Norte e outras áreas geográficas menos desenvolvidas e mais carentes do
País.
O público-alvo do Sistema Competitivo compreendia: instituições de pesquisa agropecuária em
geral e de pesquisa em áreas afins; universidades e outras instituições de ensino superior; entidades de
assistência técnica e extensão rural; organizações de desenvolvimento rural; cooperativas
agropecuárias e associações de produtores rurais; empresas produtoras de sementes, de agroquímicos,
de máquinas e implementos e outras com atuação no setor agropecuário, florestal e agroindustrial; e
organizações não-governamentais (ONGs) com atuação em P&D no setor agropecuário, florestal e
agroindustrial. Um Comitê Diretor, apoiado por uma Secretaria Executiva e pela estrutura física,
organizacional e administrativa da Embrapa, foi constituído como principal órgão gestor do Sistema
Competitivo do Prodetab, cabendo-lhe especialmente a definição das linhas temáticas prioritárias de
cada edital, a deliberação quanto à aprovação dos projetos de P&D selecionados e o acompanhamento
e avaliação dos projetos.
O ciclo do projeto começava com a articulação intra e inter-institucional para a construção da
proposta, de conformidade com os editais, e seguia o seguinte fluxo: submissão da proposta á
- 47 -
Secretaria Executiva do Prodetab para os devidos registros, verificação das condições de habilitação e
encaminhamentos; análise de mérito técnico-científico por Comissões Técnicas de Programas (CTPs),
instâncias operacionais da Embrapa compostas por maioria de membros externos á Empresa; análise e
julgamento pelo Comitê Diretor; divulgação de resultados do julgamento; assinatura de convênio com as
instituições que tiveram projetos aprovados; liberação dos recursos; execução; acompanhamento
técnico, supervisão e avaliação da execução; elaboração e encaminhamento de relatórios de missões
acompanhamento e supervisão; elaboração e encaminhamento de relatórios técnicos anuais; análise de
relatórios anuais; elaboração e encaminhamento de relatório final; análise de relatório final; e
encerramento do convênio. Nesse fluxo, naturalmente, estão comportadas ações de tratamento das
informações dos relatórios e dos resultados de pesquisa e de divulgação e difusão das inovações e
outros produtos gerados.
Diferentemente do Sistema Competitivo, o componente Fortalecimento Institucional restringiu-se
às unidades da Embrapa e das Organizações Estaduais de Pesquisa Agropecuária (OEPAs). Os
recursos deste componente foram destinados sobretudo a gastos com treinamento especializado de
pesquisados no País e no Exterior, à assistência técnica e a pequenos investimentos em equipamentos
e serviços, visando promover o aumento da eficiência e sustentabilidade do Sistema Nacional de
Pesquisa Agropecuária (SNPA), particularmente em áreas carentes de infra-estrutura (regiões Norte e
Nordeste). Por sua vez, o componente Gerenciamento e Avaliação compreendeu, além das
responsabilidades de gestão financeira de todo o Prodetab, ações de auditoria e supervisão do Projeto,
todas sob a responsabilidade da Secretaria Executiva do Prodetab (Unidade Técnica do Projeto),
localizada na Secretaria de Cooperação Internacional da Embrapa, na sede da Empresa, em Brasília.
A execução do Prodetab, coordenada pela Embrapa, teve início efetivo em setembro de 1997,
com término previsto para 2002, mas foi prorrogada por mais dois anos. No período previsto para a
execução do Projeto, a Embrapa, assim como todos os órgãos da administração pública federal no
Brasil, sofreu restrições orçamentárias, ditadas pela política econômica do governo. Houve
contingenciamentos que, em conseqüência, geraram atrasos no cronograma de desembolso do Projeto.
Uma nova prorrogação tornou-se inevitável e o prazo foi estendido até dezembro de 2005.
11. Resultados e Análise do Desempenho do PRODETAB
Diante dos parâmetros e indicadores de desempenho, um dos aspectos que se sobressai é o
número de 470 subprojetos de P&D apoiados financeiramente pelo Prodetab, concernentes ao
componente Sistema Competitivo,que é quase o dobro do fixado como meta. Como os projetos (e
subprojetos) se distribuem entre as regiões geográficas e múltiplas linhas de pesquisa compreendidas
na temática dos editais, essa quantidade de subprojetos também exprime a grandeza da mobilização
institucional e de pessoal para construir parcerias, pois cada projeto teria de ser executado de forma
cooperativa, por pelo menos duas instituições.
A. Sistema Competitivo
O sistema competitivo do Prodetab tinha como uma de suas características a indução de
demandas de projetos de P&D a partir de editais de seleção pública. Os editais encerravam os temas
aos quais deveriam ater-se as propostas de projeto e as condições e procedimentos requeridos das
instituições que quisessem participar da seleção. Os temas dos editais deveriam corresponder às
prioridades de pesquisa ensejadas pela problemática envolvendo o setor agroprodutivo brasileiro,
particularmente as áreas de agricultura familiar, recursos naturais, agronegócio e tecnologia avançada,
apoiadas pelo Prodetab. Na definição de prioridades deveria haver a participação efetiva de clientes e
usuários, de modo a obter maior identidade com as suas demandas tecnológicas. Essa participação
deveria estender-se à execução da pesquisa e a ações de transferência de tecnologia, com vistas
principalmente a facilitar a adoção de inovações técnicas.
Tão logo foi assinado o Acordo de Empréstimo e autorizado o início da execução do Prodetab,
foram feitas amplas consultas, de abrangência nacional, para o levantamento de demandas
- 48 -
tecnológicas que serviriam de referência para compor o conjunto de linhas temáticas do primeiro edital
de seleção pública de propostas de projeto. Ao mesmo tempo da consulta foram feitas as primeiras
divulgações abertas do sistema competitivo do Prodetab, informando a disponibilidade de recursos para
financiar projetos de P&D e quais as instituições elegíveis ou que poderiam candidatar-se aos recursos.
As consultas foram dirigidas principalmente a entidades representativas de segmentos do agronegócio
(agroindústrias de insumos, máquinas e equipamentos para o campo; companhias de sementes;
agroindústrias de alimentos e/ou de processamento de matéria-prima de origem animal e vegetal;
cooperativas rurais; associações de pequenos produtores e de empresários rurais); e também a órgãos
de assistência técnica e extensão rural, públicos e privados; outros órgãos públicos governamentais com
atuação no setor agropecuário; organizações não-governamentais com atuação no meio rural; e
instituições de ensino e pesquisa. As demandas identificadas foram ranqueadas (por índice de
freqüência) e analisadas pelo Comitê Diretor do Prodetab, que definiu as prioridades. A cada edital,
repetia-se esse ritual, com o número de consultas sempre ampliado, em razão da repercussão da
divulgação, também ampla, dos editais e da participação institucional.
A participação de clientes e usuários de pesquisa também esteve de fato materializada na
composição e na atuação do Comitê Diretor (CD) e das Comissões Técnicas de Programas (CTPs). A
maioria dos membros do CD era de representantes do setor agroprodutivo privado, de universidades, de
organizações estaduais de pesquisa e de órgãos públicos governamentais. O CD definia as prioridades
e analisava e decidia quanto à aprovação das propostas de projeto, sempre apoiada em análises
técnicas realizadas pelas CTPs, igualmente integrada por maioria de membros de instituições
não-Embrapa. Também na formulação e execução de projetos de P&D a participação foi efetiva, seja
como instituições executoras (em menor número) ou como colaboradoras apenas (em maior número) de
subprojetos. Houve projetos em que a participação de organizações privadas foi efetiva e destacada,
inclusive com responsabilidade direta pela execução de subprojetos e aporte de recursos "in cash". A
forma de participação, principalmente das instituições colaboradoras, foi predominantemente
não-financeira e naturalmente diversificada, dada a natureza diversa dos projetos. Inclui: mão-de-obra
unicamente para operações de campo, disponibilização de plantas ou animais para estudos,
fornecimento de matéria-prima industrial, infra-estrutura física de produção, colocação de pessoal
técnico à disposição durante toda a execução do projeto ou apenas transitoriamente, pagamento de
despesas com combustível para deslocamentos e outras.
A participação em atividades de difusão de tecnologia pode ser dimensionada pela implantação
de centenas de unidades demonstrativas em propriedades rurais privadas, mais de seiscentos cursos de
capacitação e mais de uma centena de excursões técnicas a áreas de experimentação e demonstração.
Finalmente, mas não menos importante, membros do Comitê Diretor, acompanhados de consultores ad
hoc externos à Embrapa, participaram regularmente de missões de acompanhamento e supervisão de
projetos, quando verificavam in locoa marcha da execução e os resultados obtidos, exercendo assim
controle social das ações.
Divulgação de editais de seleção pública de projetos: Para a divulgação dos editais, a
Secretaria Executiva do Prodetab preparou e publicou avisos de editais em jornais de circulação
nacional e no Diário Oficial da União, disponibilizou a íntegra dos editais e do Manual Operacional via
Internet em seu “website” e expediu “mala-direta” para instituições elegíveis em todo o território
nacional. Para a expedição de “mala-direta”, organizou um banco de dados de instituições elegíveis,
onde se encontram registros de mais de 1.700 entidades. O índice de aprovação mostra uma alta
variação entre os editais, mas deixa evidente que houve progresso se for tomado como base o primeiro
edital. Problemas foram aos poucos superados mediante intensificação de divulgação das regras do
Projeto e a provisão de palestras e treinamentos sobre elaboração de propostas de financiamento de
pesquisa sob regime competitivo. A abrangência temática dos sete editais, e por conseguinte dos
projetos, compreendeu 61 linhas de pesquisa ou demandas tecnológicas, com algumas sendo repetidas
em mais de um edital.
Prioridade para Agricultura Familiar e Recursos Naturais: Um dos valores acordados com a
contratação do Prodetab foi o de atender prioritariamente às áreas de Agricultura Familiar e de Recursos
- 49 -
Naturais, em sintonia com o PAD e com a política dominante do governo federal de redução da pobreza
e de preservação ambiental. Se for tomado o número de linhas temáticas dos sete editais divulgados,
ver-se-á que a área de Tecnologia Avançada foi a que teve mais inserções de temas, seguida da área
de Recursos Naturais. Se forem tomados os percentuais de financiamento do Prodetab e de
contrapartida fixados os editais, as áreas de Agricultura Familiar e de Recursos Naturais foram de fato
melhor contempladas: até 75% de financiamento e 25% de exigência de contrapartida contra 60% e
40%, respectivamente, para as demais áreas. Deste ponto de vista, houve alinhamento com o propósito
de tratamento privilegiado para essas duas áreas. Em termos físicos, o número de propostas
submetidas e o número de projetos aprovados foi efetivamente maior para Agricultura Familiar e
Recursos Naturais, correspondendo ao planejado. Juntas, as duas áreas abarcaram quase 60% do total
de propostas e de projetos. Também, projetos de Estudos Estratégicos, na linha de assentamento rural,
tinha como público direto beneficiário agricultores de base familiar.
Parcela de recursos do Prodetab foi destinada para financiar projetos de P&D selecionados no
âmbito de três Macroprogramas da Embrapa. Essa dotação, não prevista no Project Appraisal
Doccument (PAD),foi autorizada pelo Banco Mundial, atendendo solicitação da Embrapa, tendo em vista
a convergência de objetivos, de linhas temáticas, de procedimentos e do modelo operacional dos
macroprogramas com o sistema competitivo do Prodetab. O pleito da Embrapa foi alicerçado no fato de
que os macroprogramas passaram a adotar sistema competitivo de seleção de projetos exatamente em
função dos resultados positivos do Prodetab quanto à integração inter-institucional, à cooperação de
parceiros externos e de clientes e beneficiários no processo da pesquisa e à melhoria da qualidade dos
projetos de P&D. Foram preparados e divulgados cinco editais, em termos similares aos dos editais do
Prodetab. Foram aprovados e contratados 441 projetos, compreendendo 473 + planos de ação,
distribuídos por cinco áreas, as mesmas do Sistema Competitivo do Prodetab. O maior número de
projetos foi de Recursos Naturais (155), vindo a seguir a área de Agronegócio (144).
Prioridade para as regiões Nordeste e Norte e áreas carentes: Foi também acordado que
o Prodetab deveria privilegiar as regiões e áreas menos desenvolvidas. Essa orientação foi atendida,
com editais direcionando linhas temáticas específicas para as regiões Norte e Nordeste e para áreas de
assentamento rural, além de temas específicos voltados para a pequena propriedade e/ou para
empreendimentos de pequeno porte. Também foram realizados treinamentos sobre elaboração de
projetos para pesquisadores das duas regiões. A performance da região Nordeste correspondeu às
expectativas, posicionando-se em segundo lugar em número de projetos e em terceiro lugar em volume
de recursos orçamentários, principalmente se se considerar que a maioria dos seus projetos foi de
Agricultura Familiar, que têm menor custo médio entre as cinco áreas de apoio. Com a região Norte, as
iniciativas parece não terem sido suficientes para se conseguir melhor nível de resposta. Foi a região
que menos encaminhou propostas e a que teve o menor número de projetos aprovados. A região dispõe
do menor número de instituições de P&D (incluindo universidades) e de pesquisadores do País, seus
principais centros urbanos estão distantes entre si e dos grandes centros urbanos das outras regiões e
abriga a menor parcela de empreendimentos mais dinâmicos do agronegócio, que estão concentrados
exatamente nas regiões Sudeste, Sul e Centro-oeste. As instituições de P&D existentes na região Norte
têm uma longa história de conquistas e realizações, mas uma nova estratégia para ampliar a pesquisa
agropecuária na região teria de dar mais peso àqueles fatores.
Parceria multi-institucional: O número de 470 subprojetos executados significa pelo menos
470 parcerias em P&D, superando a meta estabelecida, que foi de 250 subprojetos, e atendendo
plenamente aos objetivos do Prodetab de ampliar a interação institucional em pesquisa. Do total de 139
projetos, as unidades da Embrapa coordenaram 93 ou 67% do total (Gráfico 5) e participaram da
execução de mais outros 30 projetos, coordenados por outras instituições. Os números refletem a
liderança da Embrapa na pesquisa agropecuária brasileira. No entanto, as demais instituições ficaram
com a responsabilidade de execução de 250 dos 470 subprojetos, ou seja, 53% do total, demonstrando
que houve efetiva desconcentração da pesquisa. Do montante de recursos orçamentários totais dos
projetos, 50% corresponderam ao conjunto de unidades da Embrapa. As universidades e outras
instituições de ensino ficaram em segundo lugar, com 29,5%. Os percentuais guardam, pois, relação
direta com o número de projetos e de subprojetos que as instituições coordenaram e/ou executaram.
- 50 -
Essa distribuição, embora realce a posição da Embrapa, não comprometeu a meta de que 33% dos
recursos do Sistema Competitivo deveriam ser aportados a instituições não-Embrapa. A meta foi
superada com folga.
Sobressai-se no conjunto a participação de mais de cem entidades privadas, atendo plenamente
à orientação do Prodetab de buscar o maior envolvimento desse segmento institucional. (Não foi fixado
um número indicador como meta para essa categoria). As entidades privadas atuaram sobretudo como
colaboradoras, com aporte de recursos financeiros e/ou materiais e/ou humanos; sete delas atuaram
efetivamente como responsáveis pela execução de subprojetos. A participação "in cash" foi em torno
de 10% dos custos de pesquisa.
O número de 35 unidades da Embrapa efetivamente participando da execução de projetos de
P&D corresponde exatamente ao número estabelecido como meta. As unidades da Embrapa com maior
envolvimento, em termos de projetos coordenados e de subprojetos executados, foram: Embrapa
Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia (10 projetos e 20 subprojetos), Embrapa Agroindústria Tropical (9
projetos e 20 subprojetos), Embrapa Milho e Sorgo (8 projetos e 19 subprojetos) e Embrapa Gado de
Leite (6 projetos e 12 subprojetos).
No grupo de cooperativas e associações de produtores encontram-se duas grandes
organizações estaduais de cooperativas (de Santa Catarina – OCESC e de São Paulo – OCESP),
cooperativas centrais e regionais, uma confederação nacional de trabalhadores rurais, duas federações
e duas centrais estaduais de associações de pequenos produtores, um sindicato estadual de indústrias
de arroz, uma associação de produtores e exportadores de frutas tropicais do Nordeste, quatro grandes
associações brasileiras de criadores de gado e outras de médio e pequeno porte. Como essas
organizações agregam dezenas de filiadas, pressupõe-se naturalmente um maior envolvimento de
entidades desse grupo do que o número (66) registrado na tabela 12. O mesmo raciocínio pode ser
aplicado às organizações não-governamentais (ONGs), que também agregam entidades filiadas
atuando em rede ou em associação, muitas com capilaridade em vários estados do território brasileiro.
Esse panorama demonstra que houve uma grande mobilização institucional para a formação de
parcerias e uma forte desconcentração da pesquisa agropecuária no âmbito do SNPA, com a
participação de outros setores da sociedade no processo da pesquisa agropecuária, com a Embrapa
mantendo a liderança desse processo, atendendo plenamente a objetivo do Prodetab. Essa interação
foi decisiva para romper o isolamento histórico de instituições brasileiras de P&D e para reduzir custos e
melhorar a qualidade das pesquisas, na medida em que as instituições passaram a compartilhar as suas
competências intelectuais e seus recursos físicos, estruturais, laboratoriais, técnicos e materiais. Era
esperada também maior interação com organizações de assistência técnica e extensão rural (ATER),
principalmente pela perspectiva de maior relevo na difusão e adoção de inovações técnicas geradas
com os projetos. É possível que o número pequeno de entidades de ATER seja reflexo da situação de
freqüentes mudanças estruturais e organizacionais dessas entidades no âmbito do poder público, nas
duas últimas décadas.
Inovações técnicas, outros produtos gerados e divulgacão: Há projetos cujos resultados
ainda estão em fase de processamento e análise e outros que ainda estão em fase final de execução.
Portanto, faltam ainda informações para contabilizar. As informações já processadas mostram um
acervo considerável de inovações técnicas e outros produtos:
- 51 -
1. Family Agriculture
No.
Innovation/Product
Production system
3
Fertilization method
1
Method for phyto-sanitary control 1
Cultivars
13
Clones
2
Animal Lines
2
Chicken Charque (new food
product)
1
Agricultural machinery prototype 9
Planning model
1
Technical and operational system 1
Software
5
Databases
3
Description
Impacts/Benefits
1&2: Increased demand for technology of
organic chicken production; expansion of
small-scale producers especially in land
reform settlements; increased market supply
2: System for raising of laying hens in
of organic poultry; employment and income
colonies
effects.
3: System for producing palm trees in NE São 3: Alternative for economic exploitation and
incomes of São Paulo producers;
Paulo (outside the Amazon region)
preservation of natural palm reserves, and
more viable cultivation in other areas.
Method for organic-phosphate fertilization
Reduced costs of production; increased
of vegetables
productivity
Method for natural control of insects in
More efficient and economic control of
vegetables
insects and disease; lower production costs
1: Selection of 8 vegetable cultivars
1: Expanded production of organic
(carrot, cucumber, beans, cabbage) for
vegetables, reduced production costs;
organic cultivation.
increased incomes.
2: Selection of 5 cultivars of manioc with
2: Increased productivity; higher quality
superior characteristics.
final product; higher incomes.
1. High productivity palm
100% increase in palm production in the
Agreste region with better plant
2: Palm resistant to cochineal beetle
management; increased area planted;
reduced need to buy animal feed; reduced
COP.
1: Selection of a line of chicken corte
1&2: Greater productivity, better quality
(Embrapa Colonial 04) appropriate for
meat and higher incomes.
organic raising.
2: Selection of laying hens (Embrapa 051)
appropriate for organic raising.
Meat product obtained from laying hens in Value-added to product; reduced food
final stage of cycle, through salting and
wastage and potential ecological problems,
conservation, with 40-50% of mineral
by using meat of discarded/end-cycle birds.
residues, 30% protein and 3.0% lipids.
1 crusher, 1 seed/fertilizer dispenser, 4
Increased work capacity and lower
threshers, 3 winnowers
production costs.
Mathematical model for family farm
Supports decision-making and planning
activities on family farms; envisages
planning in cerrado region
economic growth of family farms.
Manual of Best Practice for manufacturing Increased market participation of small
regionally-derived milk products, from
producers; establishes standard product
Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte.
identity and quality; increased income.
1: System for management information for 1: Growing use of technical-financial
family farm including costs accounting,
management system by small farmers;
stock control, financial control and results
economic growth of small farmers.
analysis.
2-5: Adoption of management accounting in
2: Rural accounting (CONTAGRI)
over 800 small properties in State of Santa
3: Rural property planning (PLANAGRI)
Catarina; redefinition of activities; increased
4: Planned cow-raising based on low cost
area planted; employment; greater
diet.
profitability of factors of production.
5: Plan for calculating financial borrowing
capacity of pig-herders.
1: Inventory of wood in Amazon region.
1: Survey of wood and non-wood products
2: Inventory of the dynamism of biological in brushwood areas (capoeiras);
conversion factors of Amazonia
preservation of biodiversity.
brushwood, in goods and products.
2: reduced pressure to destroy secondary forest
3: Systematized database for rural
with more sustainable, economic use; new
properties in 107 geo-environmental units incomes sources; economic utilization of
in the Northeast region.
vegetable species which were once burned.
3: Increased knowledge of family agricultural
activity in semi-arid areas.
1: System for organic raising of corte
coloniais chickens
- 52 -
2: Natural Resources
Innovation/Product
No.
Description
Hybridization
5
1: Maize hybrid (BRS-3060) efficient in
use of phosphorus
2: 4 triple hybrids with superior
agronomic characteristics
Genotypes
51
Plant Lines
21
Vegetable access
250
1: 50 genotypes of Capsicum resistant to
disease.
2: 1 genotype of forest species selected in
scrubland areas with potential for tannin
production.
1: 15 lines of Capsicum resistant to
Phytopthera and other diseases.
2: 6 lines of standard maize, with
knowledge of profile.
New access for Capsicum
Animal progeny
18
Testing of Gir and Guzera bulls with high
genetic potential
Processing methods
Management method
1
1
Method for minimum processing of palm
Method for managing cultivation of palm
Inoculation
1
Inoculation for caupi in dryland areas
Molecular markers
1
Biochemical markers for maize
Database
1
Database on animals/cattle of the Gir and
Guzera races
Impacts/Benefits
Advances in scientific knowledge of new
adaptive mechanisms, important for
developing transgenics and gene cloning;
reduced costs of production; higher
productivity and profitability.
Increased knowledge of variability of
Capsicum and its occurrence in Brazilian
regions; increased potential for genetic
improvement and obtaining new cultivars
with superior characteristics.
1: Expansion of genetic base for research,
important for making improvements.
2: Advances in methods of selection.
Expanded collection of germplasm and
genetic material for research, important for
improvements.
Increased productivity and production of
milk of better quality; reduced costs for
veterinary medications; value-added;
exportation of semen and embryos; higher
incomes for farmers.
Value-added to product
Increased productivity; crops grown
year-round and perennially, avoiding
elimination of plants.
30% productivity increase in caupi grain
relative to non-inoculated; more efficient use
of soild nutrients; reduced dependence on
industrial fertilizer.
More efficient evaluation of lines; synthesis
of primers to detect species of potivirus.
Expanded scientific and technical
knowledge; monitoring of Zebu milk herds
nationally.
3: Agri-business
Innovation/Product
No.
Genotypes
8
Technical-operational
process/system
3
Methodological process
1
Description
Impacts/Benefits
Genotypes of maize resistant to Fusarium
subglutinans
Organic control of insects in stored grains
Reduced use of agro-chemicals; lower costs
of production.
More efficient control of insect pests with
products non-toxic to man; ecological
alternative to toxic synthetic insecticides;
reduced use of agro-toxics; lower costs of
production.
Determination of economic damage in
stored grains; more efficient management of
maize pests.
Demonstration system for guiding
decision-making in regard to combating
pests.
4: Advanced Technologies
Innovation/Product
Vaccines
No.
2
Description
1: Pitium Vac vaccine (curative) against
equine pitiosa
2: Vaccine anti-Boophilus microplus
- 53 -
Impacts/Benefits
1: Used in horses with clinical pitiosis as an
immunotherapy, with 85% cure effectiveness;
control of a grave health issue previously with
no cure.
2: Reduced illness and mortality in animals;
lower use of anti-biotics; lower costs of
production; better sanitary quality of meat;
increased productivity of meat and milk
Diagnostic kit
3
Animal progeny
1
Line of buffalo for cellular hybridization
Automatic soil collection
1
Equipment for automatic soil collection
Molecular marker
39
1: 37 unpublished markers STRS for
bubalinos
Software
2
Methodological process
1
Technical-operational
process/system
4
Database
3
1: Kit for diagnosing Xanthomonas based
on PCR.
2: Kit for determining paternity in bubalinos.
3: Kit for diagnosing disease in Maize.
2: 2 hybrid panels for buffalo genome.
1: System (SisGen) for automatic
annotation of biological sequences for
serving clients.
2: System for predicting, visualizing and
analysis of 3D structures in membrane
proteins.
Methodology for evaluating resistance to
grain stunting by molicutes.
1: Agro-climatic monitoring system
2: Agro-meteorological monitoring
system
3: System of technical recommendations
for precision agriculture (SisRAP) for
region of Campos Gerais, PR.
4: System of remote sensing by air
transported videography.
1: Genomic library on bubalinos.
2: Bank of random mutations with 1,330
citrus clones.
3: Database of genes on the pathogenicity
of Xanthomonas
production.
1: Greater efficiency in detecting and
controlling pathogens; reduced use of
agro-toxics and lower costs of production.
2: Geneological control of animals; genetic
improvement of herds; increased animal
productivity.
3: Better disease detection and control;
reduced use of agro-toxics; lower costs of
production.
Advances in selection and improvement of
animal genetics.
Greater precision in collection and analysis
of soil
Creation of a genomic research unit
(Genetic and Molecular Biology) in
Northeast Brazil, with international
connections; improved herd genetics.
1: Improved processes for annotating
genomes.
2: Increased efficiency in genomic analysis.
More efficient management of pest
populations resistant to insecticides.
1: Intelligent systems for guiding
decision-making; operational database for
rural producers; installation of
agro-meteorological monitoring; reduced
production risks, reduced production losses.
2: Production of multi-spectral images of
high resolution for use in precision
agriculture; maximization of use of
ecological resources with fewer risks.
1: Systematization and advances in knowledge
of bubalino population in Amazon; prospects
for genetic improvement of herds;
2: Availability of new potential hybrids;
3: Increased efficiency in phytosanitary
controls; reduced use of agro-toxics and lower
costs of production; increased productivity.
5: Strategic Studies
No.
Innovation/Product
Description
Diagnostic kit
1
AFLATOXKIT – kit for multiple PCR
diagnosis
Hybridization
1
Methodological processes
1
Tupã Melon, a hybrid in process of
commercial validation.
Method for isolating evaporants (volateis)
from juice by suction/aspiration, for three
fruits.
Impacts/Benefits
Rapid diagnosis of detected micro-toxins;
reduced contamination and improved
quality of cashew nut; reduced risks to
human and animal health; increased cashew
exports; reduced production costs.
Better quality melons; higher exports;
increased incomes of producers.
More optimal processing of fruits;
preservation of natural characteristics of the
aroma of the raw material; improved juice
quality; development of new products with
high quality of aroma and flavor; generation
of jobs and income.
Validação e difusão de inovações: Os meios mais usados para divulgação foram os
congressos e publicações científicas, patrocinados por agremiações ou sociedades de pesquisadores,
que têm público mais definido e mais restrito. Mas há também publicações técnicas, redigidas em
linguagem simplificada, voltadas para técnicos de campo, criadores, produtores e, portanto, com público
mais abrangente. Há boletins técnicos com tiragem de 6.000 exemplares. E é expressiva também a
divulgação para o grande público nos meios jornalísticos. Coordenadores de projetos criaram "websites"
- 54 -
próprios para divulgar as realizações de suas equipes. Entre os livros editados, um (Capsicum:pimentas
e pimentões do Brasil) ganhou, no ano 2000, um dos prêmios "Jabuti", concedido pela Câmara Brasileira
do Livro.Nesses casos em que a comunidade científica é a grande destinatária das informações, o
público mais atingindo é o beneficiário final das informações e inovações, ou seja aquele que vai
efetivamente incorporá-las aos sistemas produtivos. Destaca-se, no conjunto, a quantidade de cursos
de capacitação, mas, também de excursões técnicas e de unidades de validação e demonstração,
demonstrando o envolvimento dos beneficiários finais da pesquisa nos esforços de difusão.
B. Fortalecimento Institucional
Este componente teve como foco o aumento da capacidade das instituições de P&D,
particularmente as mais frágeis estruturalmente, de participar do Sistema Competitivo e de assumir mais
responsabilidades de pesquisa, que estavam sendo descentralizadas pela Embrapa. Basicamente
compunha-se de dois sub-componentes, voltados exclusivamente para as unidades de pesquisa da
Embrapa e as organizações estaduais de pesquisa (OEPAs) que integram o Sistema Nacional de
Pesquisa Agropecuária (SNPA): i) apoio financeiro para investimentos em obras, veículos e
equipamentos indispensáveis à pesquisa; e ii) financiamento de programa de capacitação de pessoal e
de estudos estratégicos para fortalecimento do SNPA.
Entre as ações programadas, destacavam-se: o fortalecimento da cooperação institucional entre
a Embrapa e centros de pesquisa que integram o Sistema CGIAR (Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research); a implementação de um projeto de cooperação técnico-cientifica com centros de
excelência em países de mais avançada tecnologia agropecuária, que ficou conhecido como LABEX ou
Laboratórios Virtuais da Embrapa no Exterior; e a implantação do Sistema Embrapa de Comunicação
por Satélite (EmbrapaSat). A programação de atividades do componente foi afetada pelas mesmas
restrições orçamentárias e financeiras que prejudicaram o desempenho do Sistema Competitivo.
Contudo, há realizações e resultados importantes a relatar. No conjunto das ações, foram investidos
US$ 63,07 milhões em obras, bens, treinamento, consultoria, implantação de satélite e custos
operacionais. Do total, 51,7% foram financiados pelo Prodetab e 48,3% foram constituídos de recursos
de contrapartida. Os recursos do Prodetab foram investidos sobretudo em treinamento, enquanto os
recursos de contrapartida foram alocados principalmente para cobrir custos operacionais.
C. Gerenciamento e Avaliação
A divulgação do primeiro edital de seleção pública de projetos de P&D, no âmbito do
componente Sistema Competitivo,foi o marco inicial da execução do Prodetab. Como se tratava de
iniciativa pioneira, a Secretaria Executiva do Prodetab analisou a repercussão e os procedimentos
operacionais adotados, visando incorporar aperfeiçoamentos. Foram feitas consultas, cujo "feedback"
resultou imediatamente em medidas que se mostraram pertinentes e apropriadas. Primeiramente,
registrou-se demanda de unidades da Embrapa e de outras instituições por mais informações e
orientações sobre como participar da seleção de projetos. Em atendimento às solicitações, foi feita uma
videoconferência, de abrangência nacional, e criado um mecanismo de resposta às questões
formuladas ("Frequently Asked Questions" – FAC), usando a Internet e a "website" da Embrapa. Esse
mecanismo passou a ser atualizado e operado rotineiramente. Atendendo a solicitações de unidades de
pesquisa da Embrapa e de outras instituições e com o intuito de contribuir para a elaboração de
propostas de projetos adequadas ao perfil do Prodetab, foram ministradas palestras sobre o Prodetab e
treinamentos sobre elaboração de projetos em várias localidades do País, com a participação de
pesquisadores da Embrapa e de entidades parceiras e potencialmente parceiras. Como resultado,
registrou-se melhoria da qualidade e elevação dos percentuais de aprovação de propostas de projetos
nos editais subseqüentes.
- 55 -
Em sintonia com a preocupação do governo brasileiro e do Projeto de conferir especial atenção
à área de Agricultura Familiar, realizou-se um "Painel de discussão sobre prioridades e estratégias para
a pesquisa m apoio ao desenvolvimento da Agricultura Familiar", que teve por objetivo discutir e definir
prioridades de ações de P&D que seriam apoiadas pelo Prodetab nessa área.
Em cumprimento à sistemática de acompanhamento e avaliação dos projetos de P&D,
elaborada pela Secretaria Executiva do Prodetab, foram realizadas missões de acompanhamento e
avaliação técnica de projetos em todas as regiões geográficas e junto a instituições executoras de
projetos, com a participação de membros do Comitê Diretor e de consultor ad hoc. A avaliação foi feita
por amostragem, dado o grande número de projetos e a dispersão geográfica dos subprojetos. Não foi
encontrado desvio, e pequenas dificuldades, dúvidas e pendências foram resolvidas com a freqüente
interação das partes envolvidas, particularmente com o especialista do Banco Mundial lotado em
Brasília. Os coordenadores e executores de projetos recebiam "feedback" dessas missões, que
produziam relatórios consubstanciados. Além das missões técnicas e da análise dos relatórios, foram
realizadas regularmente missões de acompanhamento operacional e financeiro junto às instituições
executoras dos projetos, para avaliação da performance e solução de eventuais gargalos que pudesse
estar dificultando a sua execução satisfatória.
De conformidade com o estipulado no Contrato de Empréstimo, missões de supervisão foram
realizadas sistematicamente pelo Banco Mundial, e auditorias anuais foram efetivadas pela Secretaria
Federal de Controle Interno – SFC. Também a Embrapa, por meio de sua Assessoria de Auditoria
Interna – AUD, realizou auditorias periódicas pertinentes às ações do Projeto, junto às unidades de
pesquisa da Embrapa e às instituições participantes do Sistema Competitivo do Prodetab. Registre-se,
ainda, a preocupação permanente da Embrapa com a divulgação do Projeto e a transparência de suas
ações, colocando em disponibilidade todos os seus documentos operacionais no "website" da Empresa,
divulgando amplamente os resultados dos editais de seleção de projetos de P&D, realizando
vídeo-conferências e tornando públicos os principais resultados obtidos pelos projetos de P&D por meio
de um informativo de cunho jornalístico – Prodetab Informa – distribuído entre as instituições
participantes e outras que atuam no setor agroprodutivo e, também, aos meios massivos de informação.
IV. Observações conclusivas
Os indicadores de desempenho e os resultados descritos demonstrem, de modo geral, que a
performance do Sistema Competitivo do Prodetab superou o planejado. É possível afirmar-se que, do
elenco de objetivos do Prodetab, foi alcançado progresso no "aumento da eficiência e sustentabilidade
do Sistema Nacional de Pesquisa Agropecuária (SNPA); no fomento de atividades de pesquisa e
desenvolvimento, com o envolvimento de universidades, de organizações de agricultores, de
organizações não-governamentais (ONGs) e do setor privado; no estímulo a demandas tecnológicas dos
setores agropecuário, florestal e agroindustrial, com ênfase na agricultura familiar e nas pequenas
unidades de processamento agroindustrial; e no alargamento da base financeira para pesquisa."
O Sistema Competitivoe a sustentabilidade da pesquisa: A avaliação de coordenadores e
executores de projetos de P&D, das comissões técnicas de programa que analisaram tecnicamente os
projetos e de membros do Comitê Diretor do Prodetab, não obstante as dificuldades relativas à gestão
financeira, é francamente positiva. A seleção pública (competitiva) de projetos por mérito técnico da
proposta foi considerada o principal ponto forte do Prodetab. A competição em si mesma e, mais, a
temática de assuntos estratégicos, atuais e de relevância social, e o enfoque multidisciplinar teriam
contribuído para o enfoque sistêmico dos problemas, a maior integração institucional, a ampliação de
horizontes e a melhoria da qualidade dos projetos.
A exigência de parceria multiinstitucional e de enfoque multidisciplinar nos projetos de P&D
promoveu uma grande articulação dentro do meio científico e acadêmico com vistas à construção de
parcerias e à formação de equipes técnicas de trabalho, já que nenhum projeto poderia ser aprovado
sem atender a esse critério. O Prodetab, com sete editais em cinco anos, promoveu intensa
- 56 -
mobilização institucional e tornou efetiva a cooperação entre quase 500 instituições, atuando em
parceria multiinstitucional e complementar.
Deve ser destacada a parceria com as organizações privadas. A participação de organizações
privadas cresceu ainda nos projetos iniciais, à medida que se vislumbravam os resultados, e se
acentuou em novos projetos. Mais empresas privadas estão-se dispondo a co-financiar projetos,
estimuladas pela atitude de suas pares. Esse interesse crescente pode ser encarado como fator de
sustentabilidade da pesquisa, valor que está na gênese do Sistema Competitivo do Prodetab. De fato,
os custos de execução de pesquisa estão sendo compartilhados. Empresas privadas estão mobilizando
e disponibilizando recursos físicos (terra, instalações), animais, plantas, matéria-prima e pessoal, que,
numa situação de pesquisa isoladamente, as instituições de P&D teriam de pagar por isso.
Um outro fator de sustentabilidade é a melhoria da infra-estrutura de pesquisa das instituições
que tiveram projetos apoiados pelo Prodetab. Para a execução dos projetos de P&D foram admitidos e
realizados investimentos em reforma e ampliação de instalações físicas de campo e de laboratórios e na
compra de veículos, máquinas, equipamentos de laboratórios e de informática, livros e outros bens. Ou
seja, o Sistema Competitivo contribuiu para o fortalecimento institucional, e não somente pela melhoria
da infra-estrutura de pesquisa, mas, também, pelas oportunidades de compartilhar experiências com as
instituições parcerias, de capacitação em treinamentos rápidos, de participação em congressos e de
convivência com consultores especializados. A ampliação da programação de pesquisa e do número de
parcerias é também conseqüência dessa conquista.
A experiência positiva do Prodetab levou a Embrapa a expandir o sistema competitivo em toda
a programação de pesquisa da Empresa. Os fundamentos dos macroprogramas que compõem o atual
Sistema Embrapa de Gestão (SEG) são os mesmos do Sistema Competitivo do Prodetab. Os
macroprogramas adotam os mesmos procedimentos de competição na seleção de projetos, permitem a
participação de outras instituições, estimulam as parcerias, limitam o tempo de execução de projetos e
adotam mecanismos de avaliação de projetos similares ao do Sistema Competitivo do Prodetab. Essa
incorporação de valores é talvez o maior atestado de sustentabilidade do Projeto. Em 2001, o
Consórcio Brasileiro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento do Café (CBP&D/Café), que reúne 44 instituições,
também usou o Prodetab como referência para introduzir mudanças no modelo institucional do
Programa Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento do Café (PNP&D/Café). É fato também que o
sistema competitivo do Prodetab igualmente influenciou mudanças no planejamento e gestão das
organizações estaduais de pesquisa agropecuária do Estado de São Paulo, que passou a adotar esse
sistema, e que outras OEPAs estão começando a incorporá-lo.
Liçôes aprendidas:
(i) A gestão financeira dos projetos por fundação privada foi considerada uma das principais
inovações introduzidas na sistemática operacional de pesquisa pelo Sistema Competitive. A Embrapa
viu-se obrigada, por força da Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal, a limitar a aplicação da medida no que diz
respeito aos recursos para investimentos, uma mudança considerada um retrocesso pelos executores
dos projetos e que afetou cronogramas de execução.
(ii) O Sistema Competitivo por si só não seria suficiente para garantir sustentabilidade às instituições
públicas de P&D. Sempre se fará necessário o aporte de recursos oficiais ou de fontes regulares para
assegurar o pagamento de pessoal e a atualização e manutenção da infra-estrutura.
(iii) Alguns projetos produziram resultados voltados à orientação de políticas públicas. É necessário
criar e promover discussões em torno desses resultados e encaminhar as deliberações para as esferas
de planejamento e decisão política, de forma a assegurar a implementação de medidas que atendam
aos interesses de comunidades que foram objetos de estudo.
(iv) São necessárias ações para ampliar o alcance dos resultados obtidos e o número de beneficiários
das inovações e conhecimentos. Enquanto os projetos dispuseram de recursos, a elaboração e difusão
dos conhecimentos e inovações teve andamento. E há resultados de projetos que envolvem programas
computacionais (softwares) e equipamentos que requerem investimentos em capacitação técnica para
serem adotados. Os projetos talvez devessem conter obrigatoriamente ações e provisão de recursos par
- 57 -
a difusão dos resultados após a sua finalização.
(v) Direcionamento de linhas temáticas e de recursos para as regiões prioritárias como o Norte e
Nordeste, não é suficiente. Outros mecanismos deverão ser pensados para ajudar a promover o
desenvolvimento daquelas regiões e reduzir as desigualdades regionais.
- 58 -
- 59 -