Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Mail Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.
Office Location: 701 18th Street, N.W.
Telephone (Area Code 202) 473-8951
Cable Address - INTBAFRAD
Fax (Area Code 202) 473-8110
From: The Secretariat
July 1992
CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting
May 19-22, 1992
Istanbul, Turkey
CGIAR Priorities, Strategies and Resources¹
¹Extract from "Summary of Proceedings and Decisions", CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting 1992, Istanbul, Turkey.
Context and Consultation
At MTM92, the Group resumed discussion of TAC's proposals for priorities, strategies, structure and resource allocation in the CGIAR system.
Discussion began at ICW91 when the Group considered two documents prepared by TAC, A Review of CGIAR Priorities: Advanced Working Draft, which provided a framework for assigning relative priorities by activities, agroecologies, regions, production sectors and commodities; and a second paper which was a summary of the first.
After a searching discussion of TAC's draft proposals, the Group reached broad agreement on several themes, raised a number of questions that needed further examination and agreed that a final set of proposed priorities should be presented at MTM92.
These final proposals would be presented in the context of their translation into five-year resource envelopes, and their longer-term implications for the structure of the CGIAR system. Endorsement by the Group of the proposed resource envelopes would allow preparation of five-year program plans by the centers.
Also at ICW91, there was a strong feeling among all sections of the CGIAR system for working toward the redefinition of a system-wide strategy. There was a consensus that a synthesizing exercise by a small group could move the process along.
Consequently, the CGIAR Chairman convened a consultation at London in February 1992. A report on that consultation has been distributed within the system.
At MTM92, Mr. Walter Falcon who served as Moderator at the consultation, reported on its main outcomes.
Mr. Falcon said that he would summarize the major themes that emerged from the consultation under 10 points which focused on some organizational issues, some funding issues, some substantive issues and some communications issues. Most of them were actually talked about. Some were in the undercurrent and in the back rooms. Almost all start with the phrase "a concern about" or "a concern with".
· There was genuinely a concern at the London meeting that "business as usual" was not going to work any more.
This is because the CGIAR system was at a new point in its history that had to do with the proposed expansion, and with the fact that the system was facing new serious budget constraints of the kind that it had not dealt with for a very long time in its history. Adding to this, was the bureaucratization of the system and the maturity problems that arise when an institution such as the CGIAR moves from a first generation to a second generation of leadership, at all levels.
Under the same rubric of "business as usual won't work" is the need to come to grips with environmental and natural resource issues; and to define the system's most effective relationship with environmental groups.
The system also had to take note of the fact that with surpluses and declining real prices of commodities in the developed world, the CGIAR system with its emphasis on agricultural growth in developing countries is a "tough sell" among donors.
To deal with this concern, Mr. Falcon suggested that the CGIAR system badly needs a new crisp 15-page statement pointing the way to the future.
· There was a general concern that the success stories, of which there are many, had not been told well enough, widely enough and clearly enough.
The whole question of impact in telling that story better is a major conclusion of the London group, and it is probably a focus that external management and program review teams need to deal with much more than they have done in the past.
· There was concern about the administrative structure of the system. strategies, programs, fund raising, resource allocation and public awareness? That would streamline TAC and permit it to be more of a technical advisory group.
· There is a concern with International Centres Week, particularly with the size of this undertaking. It is not centers week any more, it is approaching centers month. In terms of participation, it is very hard to get above pro-forma set speeches. Given the growing importance of regional activities, and the growing importance, potentially, of the regional development banks, and the fact that some of the ecoregional activities are going to have to be done on a regional basis perhaps the answer is to hold a couple of parallel sessions running by region at ICW.
· There was great concern on funding levels, and on the need to develop processes that match supply and demand for funds.
Uniformly, the urgent need was recognized to match plans and budgets.
There was also a feeling, that it is not possible to cut center budgets or hold them constant in real terms or add centers, and expect the centers to do more on a net basis.
· There was concern about resource allocation processes.
It was hoped that the envelope system planned by TAC would move toward an equitable process. It was agreed, as well, that the continued role of the World Bank as "donor of last resort" is essential.
· The seventh point was the role of the private sector. There was general agreement that much could be learned from the private sector, and that this issue needed to be explored further perhaps with an in-depth discussion at ICW.
· There was concern about substantive focus.
There was absolutely no doubt on two fundamental points: germplasm is one pillar on which the system rests, and sustainability is the second. To be quite clear, it was understood that to talk about sustainability, without talking about productivity, was irrelevant.
Other matters discussed under substance included the possibility of including Eastern Europe and nations of the former Soviet Union in the CGIAR orbit. There was a long discussion about livestock, as well, and about the need for clarity in upstream/downstream issues.
· There was a concern about strategic research. This was most evident during discussions on the ecoregional concept. It was generally felt that clarity was needed on how the existing centers would and should take on the ecoregional resource and environmental systems questions.
· There was concern about communication.
The really good thing about the consultation at London was that 25 people around a table for three days in an information setting could really go at the issues. They found that a lot of apparent disagreements were simply due to the fact that they did not understand one another.
Extending this experience across the system, it is clear that in terms of impact analysis, in terms of ecoregional contact, in terms of organizing meetings and of external relations, much needs to be done. Communication within the system, and in external relations, is crucial.
Delegates commended the Chairman for convening the London consultation. They complimented Mr. Falcon both for his written report on the consultation (distributed in advance of MTM92) and for a succinct presentation at Istanbul.
In several interventions, support was expressed for restructuring CGIAR meetings, and for new approaches to disseminating information about the CGIAR.
Some delegates regretted the omission of relations with national research systems in the highlights of the consultation presented at the Mid-Term Meeting.
In this connection, it was emphatically said that several donors would be unable to continue contributing to the CGIAR system unless specific requests for funding were made by beneficiary countries.
Priorities
At MTM92 the Group adopted a comprehensive set of priorities arranged by activity, region, production sector and commodity. These priorities will guide the evolution of the system's programs over the next decade. As a by-product, the Group endorsed a new approach to priority setting developed by TAC and described in its report, Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part I. This section of the report covers TAC's analysis, conclusions and recommendations on priorities. Part II of the report deals with the impact of CGIAR priorities, structure and resource allocation.
A summary of TAC's analysis follows.
Activities. TAC's analysis showed that the current constellation of activities in the expanded CGIAR is largely congruent with present and future research and research-related activity needs, but that much greater emphasis still needs to be given to natural resource conservation and management.
TAC listed five clusters of activities and made recommendations for each.Conservation and Management of Natural Resources. TAC recommended an increase in this area, with approximately equal weight for ecosystem conservation and management, and germplasm collection, conservation, characterization and evaluation.
Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding. CGIAR centers have an established record of success in this activity, and TAC recommended a slight increase, particularly in Asia where research could help to raise the yield ceilings of food crops.
Development and Management of Production Systems. TAC recommended a reduction in these activities over the long term, as national research systems should take over much of this work which is location specific.
Socioeconomic, Public Policy and Public Management Research. TAC recommended increased priority for these activities for which there is an increasing need in all developing regions. Among the issues that need to be addressed are land use, sustainability, poverty alleviation and self-reliance in food.
Institution Building (including Training, Information, Organization and Management Counselling and Networks). TAC emphasized the need for supporting institution building in developing countries, but recommended a reduction in some of these activities, particularly technical assistance.
Agroecologies. TAC recommended an emphasis on tropical agroecological zones, and the cool subtropics. For forestry, priority was recommended for tropical zones.
Regions. For the long term, TAC's recommendation is that the emphasis be shifted from Africa to Asia. The shift will begin in the short term, and evolve to the proposed levels over time.
Production Sectors. TAC indicated that the magnitude of value of production is greatest in agriculture, followed by forestry, then by fisheries. New initiatives in forestry and fisheries should not be at the expense of agricultural research.
Commodities. A detailed analysis of commodity priorities was presented for agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This included increased emphasis on roots and tubers, oil crops, vegetables, bananas and plantain, and forestry research thrusts endorsed by the 1988 Bellagio Task Force on Forestry.
Reviewing this final version of TAC's recommendations presented for discussion at MTM92, Mr. McCalla said that they reflected views expressed by CGIAR members at ICW91 as well as calculations resulting from updated data.
The revised document was not very different from the version discussed at ICW91. The methodology and general approach are unchanged. Some numbers are different, however, partly because of new pricing data, but also because projections were made (in the revised version) for 17 centers, not 13 as before.
Mr. McCalla said that a major recommendation from TAC was that there should be a substantial increase in priority allocation to the conservation and management of natural resources including germplasm conservation, and an increased emphasis on socioeconomic, public policy and public management research. These emphases, he added, were endorsed by the Group at ICW91.
He reminded the Group that at ICW91 TAC had said that on the basis of its analysis it could not find compelling reasons for a continued adjustment of CGIAR resources in the direction of Africa and away from Asia. Further analysis had confirmed that view.
In the broad area of commodities research, TAC was not recommending major changes, he added. TAC's analysis suggested that there was overinvestment in livestock research. This issue would be re-examined, however, on the basis of the external program and management reviews of ILCA and ILRAD, and the livestock study led by Winrock International.
Mr. McCalla reminded the Group that they were engaged in a sequential process. They had to move on from setting priorities to defining strategies and structure and allocating resources.
The Chairman drew attention to this point as well, reminding the Group that because proposals for strategies, structure and resource allocation were based on priorities, it would be difficult to move ahead with further discussion until agreement was reached on a set of priorities.
Delegates commended TAC for the thoroughness of its approach, for its transparency and for establishing a priority-setting methodology which some CGIAR members might even wish to adopt in their own institutions.
They were living through a period of stringency in the availability of overseas development assistance funds. Efforts, such as those undertaken by TAC, to place ODA funding on a rational basis helped to bring about clarity in donor countries and institutions.
TAC's analysis was uniformly well received. TAC's recommendation for re-emphasizing natural resource management was fully endorsed. The need to devise new and concrete research methodology in this area was accepted. At the same time, it was viewed as a high priority for the CGIAR, perhaps requiring reorientation and innovation at centers.
Concern was expressed that livestock research might be downgraded in the CGIAR, despite its importance to the farming sector in many developing countries. The interaction of livestock with other aspects of farming should also be considered, in the view of some delegates.
There was general acceptance of the principles underlying TAC's approach to national systems. It was stressed, however, that linkages between CGIAR centers and national systems should not be weakened. More ways should be found - through networks, for instance - by which the centers could benefit from their interactions with national systems.
The importance of the relationship with national systems was emphasized by both the representatives of board chairpersons and center directors. The latter would be meeting with 46 leaders of sub-Saharan Africa for a two-day meeting in June.
Mr. McCalla took note of the views expressed, and said that TAC would continue its examination of some of these issues.
The Chairman observed that broad consensus had emerged on TAC's proposals. The priorities recommended by TAC and endorsed by the Group could, therefore, serve as the basis for a discussion of strategies and structure.
Strategies and Structure
The Group completed a first round of discussion on TAC's proposals for strategies and structure, contained in Chapter 13 of the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part II. The Group agreed that TAC's proposals should serve as the working basis for further elaboration, clarification and development. This will be done in consultation with the centers and other stakeholders.
TAC's approach to strategies and structure flows from its medium- and medium/long-term vision for the evolution of the CGIAR system which was presented to the Group when it was engaged in expanding the CGIAR system. TAC defines the medium term as covering five years, the medium/long terms as 20 years and the long term as extending toward a horizon about which detailed discussion is not practicable.
In the medium/long term, TAC envisions the CGIAR system undertaking two separate but complementary research activities - global and ecoregional.
Global programs will concentrate on strategic research on an agreed slate of commodities and subjects. Global research will be conducted with close attention to regional requirements and programs.
Ecoregional activities will cover strategic and applied research on natural resource conservation and management production systems and location-specific aspects of commodity improvement. TAC proposed the establishment of six ecoregional programs -two in sub-Saharan Africa, one in the West Asia/North Africa region, two in Asia and one in Latin America.
TAC went on to offer some preliminary ideas on the institutional and structural options for carrying out these activities; the capacities available and those required for the future. TAC stressed that the relationships between global and ecoregional mechanisms would be "entirely complementary".
The Chairman reminded the Group that TAC's proposals should be considered as being in the form of a draft. Vigorous and incisive comment would help TAC as it reviewed its own proposals and as it continued its dialogue with centers, the leaders of national systems and others.
Some centers have begun to play a stronger ecoregional role. They would benefit from the Group's endorsement of that role and from suggestions for how best it should be carried out. An important element of ecoregional activities at CGIAR centers should be interaction with national systems. Endorsement and clarification of this connection would be helpful, the Chairman suggested.
In a brief overview, Mr. McCalla said that an important characteristic of Chapter 13 was that it fleshed out with even greater detail than before the parameters of ecoregional research, particularly the specific range of expected outputs, the relationship to natural resource management and linkages with national programs.
The current iteration would not satisfy everybody, Mr. McCalla said, but it was a further step forward. The next set of responses would be from the centers which were closely examining the concept itself as well as the operational aspect of the concept. The centers, Mr. McCalla suggested, were better suited than TAC to provide definitions in detail.
Mr. McCalla also shared with the Group the process by which TAC selected a set of ecoregions for concentration. TAC's conclusions were based on a match between the needs of ecoregions and actual or potential activities in existing centers.
TAC had undertaken a careful analysis of institutional options for the activities it had recommended; in effect, exploring what structure was best suited to the strategies envisaged. TAC did not present a fixed set of recommendations on structure, however, because the relationship between strategies and structure would have to be carefully reviewed with the centers and others before a definitive set of options was presented.
Mr. McCalla pointed out that the linkages between ecoregional and global activities were complementary in terms of concept and must be complementary in terms of operation. That critical set of linkages would be the core of TAC's future consultations.
Mr. Eugene Terry, Chairman of the Center Directors Committee (CDC), said that his colleagues would be proactive in meeting the challenges posed by the need for ecoregional research. He said that some of the issues that confronted them as they moved forward with this task were the need to define clearly partnership mechanisms with national systems; the need for additional resources; the need to maintain a judicious balance between crop research and natural resources management research; and ensuring maximum flexibility in putting together the institutions required.
TAC's proposals formed the basis of a vibrant discussion, covering conceptual issues as well as matters of operational detail. TAC's proposals represented a "first cut", and it was felt that the Group had a long way to go before reaching finality on some of the issues. For that reason, the opportunity to participate in the development of TAC's proposals was welcomed. Overall, the Group supported TAC's approach, while suggesting areas in which further elaboration or clarification are required.
The following major subject areas were covered in the discussion.
Ecoregional Research. The ecoregional concept was overwhelmingly re-endorsed, with both TAC and CGIAR centers being encouraged to move from concept to operations. The need for the CGIAR system to intensify research into the management of natural resources was deemed to be crucial. There was general appreciation of the series of efforts that had been made to add substance and working detail to the concept as originally presented. At the same time, it was acknowledged that the responsibility for defining more specifics would continue to challenge the system because there were no established guidelines for natural resources management research. Elaborating the specifics would necessarily involve working out measurements by which the impact and success of ecoregional research could be determined.
National Systems. While acknowledging that ecoregional research presents the CGIAR system with a strategic research challenge of international significance, there was general agreement that the tasks facing the system could be effectively carried out only in full collaboration with national systems. A range of responsibilities that might fall on national systems was described. They included participation in setting out the agenda for natural resources management research, elaboration of criteria governing ecoregional research and full participation in research activities. Capacity building in national systems would have to proceed concurrently with collaboration in research. Innovative forms of collaboration would be required. In this connection, the use of networks was supported. Some national systems had proposed that CGIAR centers should work through nationally managed substations. TAC was encouraged to review these issues in consultation with national system representatives as well as within the system.
Selectivity. In several interventions, the CGIAR system was cautioned against attempting to do too much. There are many actors in the arena of agricultural research, and the CGIAR should not seek to accomplish more than what its resources and its critical mass of expertise permitted. In this connection, TAC's suggestion that, at least initially, the system should concentrate on a few agroecological regions was commended. TAC could rethink the regions it selected - based on suggestions at MTM92 or at other consultations - but the principle of selectivity should remain paramount. TAC and the system were urged to choose carefully what activities should actually be undertaken; and to choose scientifically. These activities, it was felt, should be transferable in terms of concepts, principles and methodology. Similarly, the selection process should be transparent, and related to the mission of the CGIAR.
Commodities. The emphasis on ecoregional activity should not detract from commodity activities, an area in which the CGIAR has had great success and in which it has a well-established comparative advantage. Moreover, commodity improvement remained so significant a factor in food productivity that its neglect would mean a loss to the international community. There was a clear sense that natural resources management research and commodity research were not mutually exclusive. They had already been accepted as twin pillars of the system that would foster increased food productivity through sustainable agriculture. It was pointed out, as well, that sustainability concerns should not be restricted to marginal or fragile areas. High potential areas were of equal importance because they would be the source of increased productivity in the foreseeable future.
Structure. Streamlining the CGIAR system was seen as, potentially, a positive development. The point was made, however, that proposals made so far appeared more likely to preserve the status quo than to usher in changes. If a large number of options were presented to existing institutions it was likely that each would pick an option with which it felt comfortable; usually, an arrangement closest to its existing method of operations. The question of structure, therefore, needed further scrutiny on the basis of practicality and systemic judgement. Where changes were required, they should be real and not cosmetic. Old wares should not be repackaged. Many variations were possible as the system sought the most appropriate structure to work on agreed priorities. Some centers might be able to conduct both ecoregional and global research. Existing experience with intercenter collaboration should also be reviewed for any institutional options it might suggest. Notions concerning the amalgamation of existing centers should be cautiously evaluated. Final proposals should be based on a re-examination of options by TAC and the centers.
Mr. McCalla, taking note of the points made, said he interpreted the thrust of the discussion as an authorization to move ahead into the next phase of consultation. He will report back to ICW92 and again at ICW93.
Resource Allocation
The Group accepted a recommendation from TAC which links priorities to resource allocation. It endorsed a set of 1998 resource envelopes as the starting point to guide the centers as they draft new five-year plans and for budget-related discussion among TAC, the centers and the Group.
TAC's recommendations are based on a translation of priorities into program efforts across the system, and on an assumption of constant funding with some additionality for agroforestry, forestry and fisheries.
These recommendations are presented as indicative ranges of 1998 core funding for the centers in Chapter 14 of Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part II. An indicative resource envelope is presented for each center, and centers were asked to submit to TAC budget proposals and program plans at both 10 percent above and below the resource envelope figure.
Opening the discussion, Mr. McCalla outlined the process by which TAC had moved from a system-level review of funds, with 1991 as a point of reference, to individual recommendations for each center, consistent with the priorities adopted by the Group.
In defining resource envelopes, he said, TAC was mindful of the fact that they were dealing with real well-established institutions (the centers), each with its own programs. The question, therefore, was how to establish the most reasonable interface between a new set of priorities and functioning centers. Mr. McCalla commended his colleagues for the effort they had put into the exercise.
Mr. McCalla pointed out that the resource envelopes represented only an overall number. Translating those numbers into specific programs and budgets, within the framework of established strategies, would be up to each center. The next steps would, therefore, have to be taken by the centers in the context of their medium-term planning. TAC will present its final funding recommendations to the Group at ICW93.
At this point, he said, TAC sought preliminary general endorsement of the resource envelopes. That would trigger the next phase of planning, and TAC-center consultations. Each center could argue its case for more, and TAC would consider these submissions in relation to the criteria on which resource envelopes are based as well as the overall funding situation.
The Chairman reminded the Group that what was expected from them was a close scrutiny of TAC's proposals, and a preliminary response. This would help both TAC and the centers to move the process along.
TAC was commended for its systematic effort to move sequentially from priorities through strategies and structure to resource allocation, and for providing guidelines with which the centers could proceed with the task of reconciling TAC's calculations with their requirements. The centers were living institutions and should not be expected to approach this responsibility in a mechanistic way.
In this connection, there was a sense among some donors that the guidelines provided should be amplified and made more explicit. Unless that was done, it was felt, the centers would find it difficult to move from Chapters 12 and 13 of the TAC paper to Chapter 14.
It was acknowledged that the resource allocation process was evolving, and that the situation would become more clear as consultations progressed between TAC and the centers. There would be converging coherence from this process. Nevertheless, further clarification was considered appropriate by some delegates.
Among the questions raised on matters of detail were the reasons for a holdback by TAC, the perception that "older" centers would suffer most, the need to find a place for networks within the CGIAR system and the danger that centers would play off "core" against "complementary" programs and could thereby subvert the allocation process.
A very strong preference was expressed for the continued role of the World Bank as "donor of last resort".
On behalf of the centers, Mr. Terry said that centers viewed the issues relating to the reduced funding envelopes in terms of a broader problem, that of declining contributions to the CGIAR system. Center directors are sensitive to this problem. They want it to be known that they will be proactive in terms of their efforts to mobilize more resources.
He pointed out, too, that the centers have "many masters" such as donors, boards and partners in national programs. In whatever direction the centers move -whether it be in terms of resource allocation or any other activity - their actions have to be sanctioned by boards relevant to the needs of partners, attractive to donors and consistent with CGIAR priorities and strategies.
As the discussion evolved, two issues were raised for response and action:
· the specifics for ensuring that TAC and the centers would move in tandem toward a final definition of allocations;· mechanisms by which program thrusts could be reported both by budgetary categories and program categories, thus making it possible for the CGIAR to present a strong external profile on, for instance, its environmental activities.
In response to the first point, Mr. McCalla outlined the following schedule: center directors, the TAC Chairman and others will hold preliminary discussions in June; a TAC-nominated panel would conduct a system-wide review between June 1992 and May 1993 of existing ecoregional activity; and an open workshop will be held at Puerto Rico immediately after MTM93. These arrangements would provide for a high degree of interaction and input.
On the second issue, Mr. McCalla undertook to examine methodologies at the World Bank and at USAID that could facilitate such a reporting mode.
Reviewing the discussion, the Chairman said that convergence was achieved on three broad fronts.
(1) The Group endorsed the financial assumptions for the 1994-98 planning period, which maintains core funding at the current level in real terms, augmented by additional resources for agroforestry, forestry and fisheries.(2) The Group endorsed the resource envelopes recommended by TAC as starting points for five-year planning by centers.
(3) The Group agreed that extensive interactions among TAC, the centers and others should precede final decisions at ICW93.
