U.S. - Mexico:
University Partnerships for Prosperity
| |
U.S. - Mexico: University Partnerships for Prosperity |
|
||||||||
| |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Facilitated Discussions: Developing Linkages: Where Do We Go From Here? While the concurrent sessions held on the first two days of the conference presented specific partnership results, the facilitated discussions held on the final day of the conference brought together participants with common interests in eight broad partnership areas to advance and continue the dialogue on the future role of TIES activities in each specific development area. The goal of the discussions was to generate suggestions on the integration of TIES partnerships into the larger development objectives for Mexico represented by programs such as the Partnership for Prosperity. The discussions provided a forum for participants to identify critical issues and challenges in each area and to examine the opportunity for collaboration and coordination that TIES partnerships provide in addressing these challenges. The following discussions were held:
Participants in this discussion agreed that successful partnerships in natural resource management face challenges in three major areas: communication, project sustainability, and project impact. Open communication and more interaction among partners are critical to project success. Participants suggested that USAID and ALO should direct resources to training communicators linked to TIES so the results of the partnerships may be better known in local areas, by governments, and other users. Project sustainability is more likely when projects are pertinent and have clear links with productive sectors of society. A shared goal must also be built between partners. Participants mentioned that project impact is a result of good planning and requires participatory project design processes and increased co-management of projects between Mexican and U.S. universities. Discussion 2: Agriculture & Rural Development Gerry Schmaedick, Chief of Party for USAID’s rural prosperity program
in Mexico, led this discussion, which focused on the future of TIES initiatives
in agriculture and rural development. He challenged the group to think
of strategies and vehicles to “scale up” partnerships, both
horizontally and vertically, to ensure sustainability. Discussion 3: Trade and Business Development Jerry Mitchell of the International Center of Austin facilitated the
session and opened it by proposing the broad objective of seeking concrete
suggestions on ways that the trade and business development partnership
activities developed under TIES could be integrated with the Partnership
for Prosperity program, other TIES activities, security initiatives and
other relevant economic development efforts. Discussion 4: Health Participants in this session discussed ways to gain synergies among TIES programs to break the vicious cycle of bad health and bad nutrition in border regions. They also wanted to better understand the challenges in this area and to generate ideas for the next round of TIES partnerships. Participants agreed that TIES formalized the role of academic institutions in addressing health issues, and that partners now need to think of themselves as a TIES constituency to advocate for the role of higher education in public health and in health policy. They also supported the idea of forming networks to help develop a common curriculum and a policy coalition to strengthen coordination and priority issues. Participants recommended that mechanisms be found to capture the experiences, challenges, lessons learned, and results of TIES partnerships. The Global Learning Portal was suggested as possible means to help with this process. Discussion 5: Water Resources Management Raúl Pineda López began the discussion with an introduction
and addressed three key questions in the area of water resources management.
This session focused on the strengths and weaknesses, critical issues
and “best practices” of the TIES partnerships. With regard
to strengths, the participants expressed that there is a tremendous pool
of knowledge and skills in both countries facilitating rich interaction
with many possibilities for success and mitigating chances for setbacks.
Significant issues included the need for producing an analysis of critical
geographic areas, mainly where water resources are scarce (for instance
Guanajuato, Sonora and the Bravo river basin) and evaluating emerging
conflict areas regarding water use and suggesting viable alternatives.
With respect to “best practices”, participants recommended
that interdisciplinary and interinstitutional work be explored, that study
results be diffused at the academic and social level by nongovernmental
associations, professional articles and the Internet and that conservation
efforts become a priority.
This discussion focused on the state of the microfinance sector in Mexico’s rural areas and the role that TIES partnerships might play in developing this sector. Participants agreed that Mexico has strong financial systems overall; however, with a few exceptions, microfinance institutions do not currently reach rural populations. Claudio Gonzalez-Vega of Ohio State University pointed out the need to instill the idea of credit in clients to create a demand for credit services. Fernando Fernández mentioned that USAID is currently working with 12 microfinance institutions that serve 500,000 clients; however professionals in this sector are lacking. Isabel Hanson of Penn State suggested that the TIES program must work to involve students who are interested in working in rural areas in microfinance. Vivien Romeo of Ohio State concluded that if there is a need to increase the human resources to meet economic needs, it appears that there are not enough institutions for a country as large as México and not enough professionals to run these institutions. Therefore, both issues must be addressed simultaneously. Discussion 7: Public Policy and Community Development Participants in this discussion identified several challenges to public policy and community development in Mexico, including a lack of transparency, weak civil society organizations, and a lack of academic specialization in these fields in Mexican universities. They also pointed out the need to develop in Mexican citizens the wider view that public policy includes government, civil society, and the private sector. They recommended that public services must be professionalized and the management of NGOs and PVOs improved. Participants suggested that TIES partnerships should identify specific and realistic objectives that can be evaluated to ensure sustainable impact and results. They also agreed that TIES partners should explore the possibility of adding a “social engagement” component to each TIES activity, which would include community involvement. Discussion 8: Technology and Information Transfer The discussion on technology and information transfer revealed a number of challenges and opportunities for TIES partnerships. Participants noted the need to integrate technology development, technology tailoring, technology evaluation, and applied research across community, producers, and universities in the United States and Mexico. They also saw an opportunity to leverage Mexico’s geographic location and unique relationship with the United States to enhance business development and business and technology collaboration. Higher education institutions can be a source of continuity and provide forums for productive and sustainable collaboration. Participants suggested the need to help producers evaluate the worth, value and appropriateness of technologies and help support better decision-making regarding technology transfer, development, application and investment. Also mentioned was a need to take advantage of the transnational work force in Mexico and the United States to draw U.S. experts and technology practitioners to Mexican businesses and institutions. The discussion yielded many recommendations to address these challenges including the suggestion that every TIES program, portfolio, and initiative be linked to practical outcomes and applications, that the involvement of community users be ensured when defining such practical objectives, and that technology transfer possibilities should be explored through and with the maquilas, including both internships with technology-leading maquilas and replication of such model experiences as the BOSE factory.
Gerry Schmaedick, Chief of Party for USAID’s rural prosperity project in Mexico, led this discussion, which focused on the future of TIES initiatives in agriculture and rural development. He challenged the group to think of strategies and vehicles to “scale up” partnerships, both horizontally and vertically, to ensure sustainability. Scaling up horizontally, for example, could be done by expanding the reach of existing partnerships within the Mexican and U.S. communities, while scaling up vertically might be accomplished by reaching higher levels of government and academic institutions. Francisco Rosado May of the Universidad Quintana Roo agreed that it was a serious challenge to get more people from partnership universities (and beyond) involved in the program. He cited a number of programs that were working to include indigenous communities and students in agriculture and rural development programs. Manuel Collado of the Universidad de Guanajuato cited recently created extension programs at his university that are designed to close the gap between the university and the producers in his region. Juan Rivera from the University of Notre Dame described six projects that are part of his university’s TIES partnership, which are working with producers. David Hansen of Ohio State University pointed out the need to recognize the impact of a transnational workforce and remittances on communities in Mexico and the United States. His institution, and others in Ohio, need guidance on how to work effectively with the large Mexican immigrant population that provides agricultural labor in Ohio. Isabel Hanson of Penn State University described an agricultural extension program at her institution that implements projects in Spanish and often includes Mexicans living in the United States so that they can eventually return to Mexico with this valuable training. Kenneth Shapiro, University of Wisconsin, suggested linking U.S. and Mexican university students in agriculture and rural development fields to rural communities by establishing a service component in their academic programs. Guillermo Rios, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, explained that Mexican universities had attempted such a program in the past but it had floundered under burdensome administrative procedures. Other group members mentioned successful programs on their campuses that placed students in extension programs. At the conclusion of the discussion, participants made four recommendations: 1. There must be cross-semination among TIES programs.
Jerry Mitchell of the International Center of Austin facilitated the session and opened it by proposing the broad objective of seeking concrete suggestions on ways that the trade and business development partnership activities developed under TIES could be integrated with the Partnership for Prosperity program, other TIES activities, security initiatives and other relevant economic development efforts. He framed seven challenges that participants might address during the session: 1. Continuity and sustainability During the two hour discussion, participants highlighted the following points, ideas, and suggestions:
|
||||||||||||||||
ALO collaborates with USAID through Cooperative Agreement: HNE-A-00-97-00059-00 This publication was made possible through support provided by USAID. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID. © 2002-2006 Send questions to ALO. |
||||||||||||||||