AGRONOMIC RESEARCH AND PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES
IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC: OVERVIEW OF ROLES, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
Randy A. Hautea, Director
ISAAA-SEAsia Center
Manila, Philippines

Previous Chapter Table Of Contents Next Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The developing countries of Asia and the Pacific have been a major beneficiary of the wave of agricultural technologies that collectively characterized the "green revolution" – improved seeds, fertilizers, irrigation, and crop protection. It is estimated that almost half of the productivity improvements in the major staple crops, rice and wheat, during the last twenty to thirty years was directly contributed with enhanced genetic potential for higher yield, pest resistance, and adaptation to intensive cropping.

During the period 1970-92, cereal production in the region increased by an average of 3.3 percent per year and on a per capita basis by 1.3 percent per year. The dietary energy supply likewise increased from 2 160 calories per head per day in the early 70's to 2 444 calories by 1990-92 (FAO, 1996). As a result, chronic undernutrition in the region declined significantly during the two decades between 1970 and 1990.

1.2 Agricultural Research and Plant Improvement Programmes in Asia and the Pacific – the continuing needs

In spite of the progress made in increasing food supplies and reducing undernutrition, Asia and the Pacific remains home to the highest number of poor people. Some 700 million of the world’s one billion poor are in Asia, and about 500 million of them live in absolute poverty (ADB, 1995). A high proportion of the poor live in the rural areas, where the natural resource base is fragile and deteriorating. Moreover, a significant proportion of the population continues to suffer from micronutrient deficiencies – the so-called "hidden hunger", of various forms, with deficiencies in iodine, Vitamin A, and iron being the most important (Lofti et al., 1996).

The world’s population is projected to double to 11 billion by the year 2050. Ninety-seven percent of this population increase will occur in the developing world, mostly in Asia (Swaminathan, 1995). Thus, the challenges in meeting the current and future needs for food, feed, and fiber in Asia are immense. The region is seriously constrained by land degradation and water scarcity, land conversion to non-agricultural use, and environmental damage. The additional food will have to be produced on existing, and probably less, land. Thus, increases in food, feed and fiber production would have to come mainly through increases in yields and improved cropping intensity. Ensuring food security, and to do so in a sustainable manner, will be one of the biggest challenges that the region will have to face in the coming century.

Technological improvements in agriculture will continue to underpin any necessary increases in agricultural productivity. Such improvements may have to come from the application of new paradigms and innovations in agricultural research and development. From the biophysical perspective alone, a shift in research approach may be necessary – from one with a focus on broad adaptation to one that capitalizes on and captures the favorable and predictable genotype by environment interactions. In addition, it may entail redesigning the fundamental processes that determine plant growth and yield. Effective partnerships would also have to evolve – innovative participatory research and development approaches with farmers and farming communities, and creative partnerships between the public and the private sectors. Equally important, the issue of equity between and among the favorable and resource-limited environments would have to be addressed. Indeed, the multiplicity of needs in diverse biophysical, cultural, and socio-economic environments would require effective agricultural research and development to ensure sustainable food security for the peoples of Asia and the Pacific, and the world at large.

2. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT – AN OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES

2.1 Crop Research and Improvement Programmes and their Contribution to Increasing Productivity of Asian Food Crop Production Systems – with an emphasis on rice

The impact of research on the improvement of the food production systems in Asia is well described and documented (Pingali and Hossain, 1998). In rice, for instance, yields increased by only 1.3 percent per year during 1951-66, before the advent of the green revolution. From 1966 to 1996 the average rice yield in Asia increased from 2.1 tons per ha to 3.8 tons per ha, an increase of 2.0 percent per year. Since the mid-70s, the area harvested to rice has expanded very little. It has been estimated that without the green revolution, and the resulting productivity increases, rice cultivation in 1996 would need to have expanded by another 40 million ha – mainly into marginal, upland areas.

Agricultural research played a key role in developing the packages of green revolution technology – based mainly on input-responsive varieties, nitrogen fertilizer, water, and crop protection. An immediate output of the crop improvement programs was the development of high yielding cultivars that were photoperiod-insensitive. Cultivars such as IR8, the prototype of many other modern rice cultivars, shifted the yield frontier of rice production not only by improved yield potentials per se but also by allowing intensification of rice cropping systems (Fischer and Cordova, 1998).

The development, release and adoption of the modern rice varieties have been widespread. Evenson and Gollin (1997) studied variety releases of rice from 1962-91, classified by releasing country and release date. Of the 1 741 varieties listed, India had the highest number of variety releases with 643. During the early green revolution period, about 20 varieties per year were released. This number increased to about 80 per year during the period 1976-80, and has remained at a level of about 75 releases per year since then. From the late 1970s up to 1993, adoption of modern rice varieties had increased to about 100 percent in East Asia, 57 percent in South Asia, and about 54 percent in Southeast Asia (Hossain and Pingali, 1998). These levels of adoption have paralleled the increases in rice yield levels in these regions over the same period.

It is well known that the short-duration, nutrient responsive modern cultivars of rice were most successful in irrigated ecosystems. However, growth in rice production in irrigated ecosystems has been declining over the last decade. As adoption of modern varieties had already reached very high levels, it has become difficult to sustain growth in productivity despite increasing use of fertilizers and other inputs (Pingali et al., 1990). This slowdown in yield increases was more apparent in countries where irrigated ecosystems predominate, and as farmers’ yield levels are already approaching the yield potentials of the new varieties.

Notwithstanding the criticism that the modern varieties disproportionately benefited farmers in favorable areas, a major benefit arising from the widespread adoption of modern varieties of rice has been the reduction in the unit cost of production and the real prices of rice. This has effectively spread the gain from improved rice production to the society at large, and particularly benefited the poor who spend a higher proportion of their incomes on food. This fact, perhaps more than any other, has demonstrated the tremendous value of technological improvements for food and agriculture on the social welfare of the poor.

2.2 Crop Research and Improvement Programs – some emerging challenges and opportunities

Sustaining the gains made from the early decades of growth in agricultural production is the key challenge to ensuring food security in Asia and the Pacific, particularly to the less developed countries. Empirical studies have provided indications of declining productivity in intensive cropping systems, even when nutrient input levels are used to achieve maximum yields. The reasons for this observation are not very clearly understood, although the data might indicate a decline in overall soil quality.

Prime lands devoted to agriculture are also declining due to conversion to non-agricultural uses as a result of urbanization and industrialization. In South Asia, for instance, the uncropped cultivable area is projected to be halved from about 0.05 ha/person to 0.03 ha/person in 20 years (FAO, 1996). Moreover, soil degradation is significantly reducing the area and quality of prime agricultural lands, and Asia already has more than 40 percent of the world’s total degraded soils. In unfavorable ecosystems, both edaphic and climatological constraints limit the potential yields of important crops. Water scarcity is increasingly becoming more acute. Little headway has been made so far in developing technologies, including crop varieties, which could successfully raise the yield levels in these environments.

The biological potentials for higher yields of the new crop cultivars also have not increased significantly since the early days of the green revolution. Though crop improvement programs have successfully fortified the newer varieties with multiple pest resistance, improved their quality, and adapted them to more intensive cropping systems, the biological limits of the current plant types have apparently reached a plateau.

Groundbreaking research has been initiated at IRRI to "redesign" the rice plant (Vergara, 1998; Khush, 1995) and create a new plant type capable of producing about 13 tons per hectare of grain. Considerable progress has already been made in developing the new plant type, and the first prototypes are being further improved with multiple resistance and quality traits. Other plant types, suited to the different ecosystems, are also being designed. These next generation plant types offer tremendous potential to raise the yield plateau of rice in all the major growing environments.

Increasingly, hybrid seed technology is being developed by international and national programs for most of the major crops, including rice. Hybrid rice, for instance, can have a yield advantage of between 15-20 per cent over conventional modern varieties (Virmani et al., 1993). Hybrid rice is now widely adopted in China, and hybrid varieties have been released to farmers in India, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

Similarly, hybrid maize has been increasingly adopted by most developing countries in Asia (Vasal, 1998), with significant and immediate impact on increasing maize productivity and production. Many of the national programs are in the process of shifting from the open-pollinated to 3-way cross/single cross maize varieties, encouraged in no small part by the availability of improved cultivars coming out of public and private sector maize improvement programs.

Even in crops that are largely considered as small-farmer crop, such as pigeon pea and pearl millet, hybrid seed technology has provided significant boosts in productivity and has been widely adopted by commercial as well as small-scale farmers (ICRISAT, 1996).

To broadly capture the benefits and potentials of hybrid seed technology, intensive research is being pursued to exploit the phenomenon of apomixis for applications to a wider array of crops and to further spread the benefits of the technology to limited-resource farmers.

Clearly then, meeting the target yields and production of the most important food crops, and to do so in an environmentally sustainable manner, would require new approaches and new perspectives in agricultural research and development. Such approaches would include, among others, both conventional and recent advances in gene technology, information technology, and natural resource management; as well as new modalities of partnerships – participatory approaches to research and development, strengthening research networks with and among national programs, and public-private sector collaboration in agricultural research and development.

3. PARTNERSHIPS IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

"… at a time of rapid advances in modern science and technology, the persistence of hunger and extreme poverty is indefensible. Our challenge is to create a new public-private compact that respects intellectual property rights but also brings the benefits of modern science to the poorest" (Strong, 1998).

3.1 Participatory Research and Development

During the last decade, there was increasing recognition that research and development activities had to be more closely linked with the needs of farmers in specific agro-ecological and socio-cultural environments. Although the agricultural research efforts by the formal sector have resulted in tremendous gains and improvements in yields and production, a significant number of technologies have not proved effective nor utilized by the target farming sectors. Moreover, the multiplicity of needs by diverse environments and users could not be effectively addressed by the formal research sector alone.

Participatory research approaches have evolved, and are continuously being refined, exploiting the farmers’ and the farming communities’ invaluable knowledge systems in the development of technologies appropriate to their circumstances. With participatory approaches, farmers cease to simply be recipients of new agricultural technologies. On the contrary, they become active partners in the research process itself. The relatively brief experience with participatory approaches has demonstrated their value and effectiveness in developing useful and appropriate agricultural technologies such as improved varieties with specific adaptation to resource-limited production systems and better acceptability by farmers (ICRISAT, 1996). The participation of development NGOs is also crucial in this regard, as effective links between the researchers and the farming communities.

3.2 Agricultural Research - Public Sector Investments

The developing countries of the South, including those from Asia and the Pacific, have principally depended on public sector research, both from national and international organizations, for most of their agricultural technology needs. However, this situation is changing in a significant way. Indeed, to meet the continuing challenge of ensuring food security there is an increasing need for creative partnerships between the public and the private sector, to integrate and optimize the comparative advantages of each partner.

Public sector investments in agricultural research and development have declined significantly during the last two decades. It has been reported, for instance, that the proportion of official development assistance allotted to agriculture decreased from 20 percent in 1980 to 1 percent in 1990 (Brown and Haddad, 1994). Other estimates indicate that between 1987 and 1997 official development assistance for agriculture actually declined by 50 percent. It is noteworthy that total public sector Official Development Assistance (ODA) for all sectors is estimated at about US$60 billion annually, whereas private sector investments in developing countries are estimated at more than US$170 billion, almost three times the public sector ODA (Serageldin and Sfeir-Younis, 1996).

Looking at public sector investments in agricultural research and development in terms of percent of agricultural GDP, the underinvestment by developing countries is also apparent (Pardey and Alston, 1995). The average public sector investment by developing countries of the Asia-Pacific (excluding China) increased from about 0.14 percent to about 0.32 percent of agricultural GDP during the period from the early 1960s up to the mid-1980s. However, they were only about one sixth of the average investments in agricultural research and development in developed countries. By the 1980s, average investments in agricultural research and development by developed countries was about 2.03 percent of agricultural GDP, with Australia investing a significant 4.52 percent of GDP.

In summary, in-country public sector research and development investments in developing countries are, by and large, inadequate to meet the national requirements, while at the same time external sources of research and development are significantly on the decline.

3.3 Agricultural Research Investments by the Private Sector

Estimates of private sector investments in the USA could provide some indication of the trend of private sector expenditures on agricultural research and development (James, 1997; USDA, 1995). Private sector funding increased significantly over a period of 30 years, from about US$177 million dollars in 1960 to US$3.3 billion dollars in 1992. During the 1960s, private sector agricultural research and development expenditures was about 5 percent less than that of the public sector, whereas by 1992 the private sector expenditure was estimated to be already about 27 percent or about US$700 million more than that of the public sector. Indications are that the trend in private-public sector investments in agricultural research and development in the USA is also paralleled in other industrial countries. Increasingly, the private sector is investing significantly in research and development, often more than the public sector.

In the case of developing countries, there is little comprehensive information on the scale of private sector investments in agricultural research and development. However, they are much lower than in industrial countries and are concentrated in a few relatively advanced developing countries such as Argentina, Mexico, India and Brazil. Generally, private sector investments are increasing relative to public sector expenditures, as more developing countries have adopted policies that promote and encourage the participation of the private sector in agricultural research and development.

3.4 Major Agricultural R and D Activities of the Private Sector

Private sector research and development covers a broad range of activities, and could be broadly classified according to product types, as follows (James, 1997):

Increasingly, many of the larger transnational private corporations are involved in several of these activities. A major trend in the last few years has been the series of major mergers, acquisitions, and/or joint ventures among the key players in the private sector, which has resulted in greater consolidation of major activities both in business operations and agricultural research and development (James, 1998).

The extent of private sector research and development investments can be gleaned from data on selected corporations. For instance, James (1997) compiled data on research and development expenditures by selected crop protection and seed corporations. On average, the ten biggest crop protection corporations spend about 9.8 percent of total revenue on research and development. Amongst eight selected seed companies, research and development expenditure averaged 11.5 percent of total revenue.

3.5 Towards an Effective Public-Private Partnership

Given that total resources for agricultural research and development are inadequate to address all the pressing problems related to meeting the demands for increased food, feed, and fiber, the necessity of complementary and synergistic partnerships between the public and the private sectors is evident. These partnerships should seek to capitalize on the comparative advantage of each sector, and optimize the use of research and development resources for broader and wider impact.

The public sector, both at the national and international levels, can bring its resources to bear on strategic research and development efforts where the others would have no comparative advantage or capacity to invest. key research agendas would include genetic resources conservation and enhancement, natural resource management and improvement of staple non-cash crops, among others. The public sector should also continue to provide the critical role of addressing broad policy issues and guiding programs that optimize public welfare benefits from technological innovations in agriculture. The private sector, on the other hand, is expected to focus their substantial research investments on commercially important commodities. The private sector has significant comparative advantages in terms of knowledge and expertise in distribution systems, large research and development and scientific resources, and access to global markets that allow them to generate self-sustaining research activities.

The newer tools of agricultural research and development, such as agri-biotechnology, are also almost exclusively proprietary and in the hands of the private sector. These tools are no longer considered as just desirable but are essential in the quest to upgrade global agricultural production and ensure food security. At the same time, the raw materials and products of crop improvement programs are also increasingly becoming proprietary. Developing countries have asserted their sovereign rights over biological resources originating from their territories and are expecting an equitable share from the utilization of such resources. Without new modalities of partnerships between the public and private sectors, intellectual property issues could hamper rather than stimulate technology development and dissemination to the detriment of both and the farmers at large.

There is no more compelling reason for greater and effective collaboration between the public and the private sector than the challenge to provide for the needs of present and future generations. In the light of declining external resources for the requisite technological advancements in food and agriculture, the comparative advantages of both the public and private sector must be brought to bear on the key issues of food security and sustainability.

4. THE IARCs – GEARING UP TO THE CHALLENGES OF THE 2000s

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was founded in 1971 and established an international agricultural research system to combat hunger, principally in the developing world. The CGIAR today operates a system comprised of 16 international agricultural research centers (IARCs) that have established a record of success and accomplishments in international agricultural research.

A recent review of the CGIAR undertaken by an international and independent panel summed up the accomplishments of the CGIAR system as follows, "investment in the CGIAR has been the single most effective use of official development assistance, bar none" (CGIAR Secretariat, 1998).

The accomplishments of the CGIAR are broadly categorized as follows (CGIAR, 1998):

The continuing relevance of the CGIAR system can be summed up in the CGIAR review panel’s recommendation for a new mission statement for the CGIAR (CGIAR Secretariat, 1998), viz.:

"To contribute to food security and poverty eradication through research promoting sustainable agricultural development based on the environmentally sound management of natural resources. This mission will be achieved through research leadership, partnerships, capacity building and policy dialogue."

In spite of the unqualified success of the CGIAR system over the last three decades, the challenges of food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainable agriculture remain enormous. The fundamental mission of the IARCs remains as relevant today as in the beginning. If anything, the mission has only gained a greater sense of urgency.

Towards this end, the CGIAR and its system of IARCs were enjoined to pursue strategic priorities in the following areas: global initiative on integrated gene management, integrated natural resource management, capacity to provide coordination and service to enable the latest developments in biotechnology to be responsibly and effectively applied for the benefit of the poor, a global information system on food security, and capacity to handle the new proprietary regimes on agricultural technologies.

5. CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Agricultural research and technology innovations have underpinned much of the improvements in yields and production of important agricultural crops in Asia and the Pacific. Such improvements have resulted in increases in food supplies and decline in chronic undernutrition in the region over the last 30 years.

In spite of these, Asia and the Pacific remains home to the highest number of poor people. Some 700 million of the world’s one billion poor are in Asia, and about 500 million of them live in absolute poverty. A significant proportion of the population continues to suffer from various forms of malnutrition. Moreover, the region is seriously constrained by land degradation and water scarcity, and declining cultivable land per capita. Most of the predicted population increase in the next 50 years will occur in the developing world, mostly in Asia. Ensuring food security, and to do so in a sustainable manner, will be one of the biggest challenges that the region will have to face in the coming century.

Technological improvements in agriculture will continue to underpin any necessary increases in agricultural productivity. Such improvements will have to come from the effective application of new approaches and innovations in agricultural technology, sustained investments in research and development and, new and strengthened partnerships between and among the national programs and the international community, the formal and non-formal sectors, including the private sector; and favorable policies conducive to enhanced agriculture and increased food security.

6. REFERENCES

ADB. 1995. The Bank’s Policy on Agriculture and Natural Resources Research, Manila, The Philippines.

Brown, L. & L. Haddad. 1994. Agricultural growth as a key to poverty alleviation. Brief 7, 2020 Vision of IFPRI, Washington, DC.

CGIAR. 1998. Report of the third system review of the CGIAR. CGIAR Secretariat, Washington, DC.

Evenson, R.E. & D. Gollin. 1997. Genetic resources, international organizations, and improvement in rice varieties. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 45(3): 471-500.

FAO. 1996. World Food Summit: Food Security Situation and Issues in Asia and the Pacific.

Fischer, K.S. & V.G. Cordova. 1998. Impact of IRRI on rice science and production. In: Impact of Rice Research, P. Pingali and M. Hossain, eds. IRRI.

Hossain, M. & P.L. Pingali. 1998. Rice research, technological progress, and impact on productivity and poverty: an overview. In: Impact of Rice Research, P. Pingali and M. Hossain, eds. IRRI.

ICRISAT. 1996. Annual and other technical reports. ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India.

James, C. 1997. Progressing public-private sector partnerships in international agricultural research and development. ISAAA Brief No 4-1997, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY.

James, C. 1998. Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 1998. ISAAA Brief No. 8-1998. ISAAA, Ithaca, NY.

Khush, G. S. 1995. Breaking the yield frontier of rice. GeoJournal 35(3): 329-332.

Lofti, M., M.G.V. Mannar, R. J. H. M. Merx & P. Naber-van den Heuvel. 1996. Micronutrient fortification of foods: Current practices, research and opportunities. The Micronutrient Initiative, International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen.

Pardey, P.G. & J.M. Alston. 1995. Revamping Agricultural R and D. Brief 24, 2020 Vision of IFPRI, Washington, DC.

Pingali, P.L., P.F. Moya & L.I. Velasco. 1990. The post-green blues in Asian rice production. Social Sciences Division Paper Series 90-01. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines.

Serageldin, I. & A. Sfeir-Younis, eds. 1996. Effective financing of environmentally sustainable development. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development, Washington, DC. World Bank, pp. 11.

Strong, M. 1998. CGIAR system review. CGIAR, Washington, DC.

Swaminathan, M.S. 1995. Population, Environment and Food Security. Issues in Agriculture, No. 7. CGIAR, Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1995. AREI Updates: Public and private research and development in agriculture through 1992. Economic Research Service. April, Washington, DC.

Vasal, S. 1998. In: Proceedings of the Asian Maize Regional Workshop, PCARRD, The Philippines.

Vergara, B.S. 1988. Raising the yield potential of rice. Philippine Tech. J. 13:3-9.

Virmani, S., M. Prasad & M. Kumar. 1993. Breaking yield barriers of rice through exploitation of heterosis. In: New Frontiers in Rice Research. K. Muralidharan and E.A. Siddiq, eds. Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad, India.

Table 1. Population at risk of and/or affected by micronutrient malnutrition (in millions)

 

WHO
Region

Iodine deficiency disorders

Vitamin A deficiency

Iron deficient or anemic (population affected)

At risk
of IDD

Affected by
Goiter

Population affected

Prevalence
(%)

Africa

181

86

53

49

206

Americas

168

63

16.1

20

94

SE Asia

486

176

126.5

69

616

Eastern Med.

173

93

16.1

22

149

Western Pacific

423

141

42.1

27

1 058

Total

1 572

655

254

  

2 150

Source: Lofti, M., M.G.V. Mannar, R. J. H. M. Merx & P. Naber-van den Heuvel. 1996. Micronutrient fortification of foods: Current practices, research and opportunities. The Micronutrient Initiative, International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen.

Table 2. Investments in agricultural research and development (as percentage of agricultural GDP)

Region or Country

Number of Countries

1961-65

1971-75

1981-85

Most recent year

Developing Countries

          

Asia and the Pacific (excluding China)

15

0.14

0.22

0.32

  

China

1

0.57

0.44

0.42

0.42a
           

Developed Countries

18

0.96

1.41

2.03

  

United States

1

1.32

1.36

1.93

2.22b

Australia

1

1.54

3.56

4.52

4.42c

a 1993 estimate; b 1992; c 1998.

Source: Pardey and Alston, 1995

Table 3. Private sector investment on agricultural research and development in the US (millions of dollars)

 

 

Year

 

Input-Oriented

Post-harvest and food processing

Total

Chemicals

Ag.
Machinery

Veterinary

Plant
Breeding

    

1960

9.7

  

75.9

  

6.0

  

5.6

  

80.0

  

177.2

  

1970

126.0

  

89.1

  

45.0

  

26.3

  

206.1

  

492.5

  

1980

1 390.0

  

287.0

  

111.0

  

96.7

  

456.1

  

1 340.8

  

1992

1 123.0

  

394.0

  

306.0

  

399.7

  

1 088.0

  

3 310.7

  

Source: James, 1997. Data adapted from USDA (1995)

Go Top Previous Chapter Table Of Contents Next Chapter