At INTA the Costs Are Part of the Budget, But the Revenue Stays Out
<p><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">It’s the National Institute of Agricultural Technology or INTA (for its acronym in Spanish). While the watchdog highlighted the existence of a Strategic Plan and its presence throughout the country, they also said that the Institute should stop doing some of the extra-budgetary programs and start claiming benefits because the entity invests but most of the time doesn’t receive any profits.</span></p> <div> </div>
The General Auditor's Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish) called the National Institute of Agricultural Technology an important entity in Argentina because, among other reasons, they have adequate funding, the highest level of compliance with their projects, an ability to adjust to each region of the country, financial resources available, and because they have a comprehensive Strategic Plan. Therefore, the watchdog recommendation is for adjusting some nuts and bolts to "improve the quality of information and goals for the coming years."
The AGN detected in several cases that the INTA "conducts programs that require extra money not contemplated in their budget, therefore it’s very difficult to get an accurate performance measurement." This is mainly in the activities that the entity performs along with other institutions or foundations. According to the Auditors, "the Institute should repair this irregularity so their activities can be reflected more effectively thus demonstrating that management is so thoroughly planned and scheduled as is written in their Strategic Plan."
One of the cases cited in the report is the PROHUERTA program that is developed jointly with the Ministry of Social Development (MDS, for its acronym in Spanish) whose main objective is for "families under the poverty line to have access to fresh meat, promote healthier, balanced, and diversified eating habits".
The Ministry in question "provides funds to ensure the operation, buying supplies, staffing, and other issues." That money comes from the National Treasury. INTA, meanwhile, pays human resources, infrastructure, and vehicular mobility out of their own budget, just to name a few".
The company ArgenINTA and INTEA SA form the "INTA Group". The first "is responsible for managing the MDS economic contributions to this program." To determine the goals the technical teams of each area take a survey of the needs of families and analyze spontaneous demands being made in INTA agencies or municipalities ". The goal is considered to have been met when the producer receives the seeds.
On this project, the AGN observed that "the planned and approved goals don’t explain INTA’s total budget accurately." Therefore, we can only estimate a level of compliance. "Informal data says that the effectiveness of this program is 82%."
With INTEA, which is a state enterprise, something similar happens. First AGN emphasized that although "in advance should perceive pautar results after each program, fees and royalties revenues of this firm will never enter the INTA National budget". Also, another point is that auditors highlighted Salaries scientist belonging to INTA out of budget for this entity. The fact that, as already mentioned, after the works do not enter the Institute makes no profit is generated "a mismatch between the resource and spending."
Cooperative
Since 2007, the INTA firm promotes mutual aid agreements with cooperatives "in order to multiply and market improved seeds." The AGN stated in their report, adopted in June this year, that "the benefits to achieve a cooperative are treated extra-budgetary in the INTA regional unit." This situation not only makes it extremely difficult to measure achievements but also "violates the principles of the Public Administration budget."
Moreover, the staff of the Institute of Agricultural Technology "is expressly forbidden to participate in the accounting aspects of the cooperatives." However, auditors analyzed some of the work done in 2010, and found, for example, a case in the State of Salta where "the dividing line between the units of the institute and the cooperative can’t be determined". Specifically, it was at the Agricultural Experimental Station where "the staff of various entities acted in an integrated manner."
Under INTA’s Skin
Another relevant observation is related to ArgenINTA (link to our note). According to the AGN, "the foundation signed agreements with companies or institutions when such responsibility does not really belong to them." The INTA is the only one who can perform these types of operations.