Summary

This report presents TAC's current views on CGIAR priorities and strategies. TAC's previous report on these matters was finalized during 1986 and led to the request at the CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting in 1987 that TAC produce an updated priority report every five years. In addition to producing broad directions for the CGIAR, TAC's recommendations on CGIAR priorities and strategies are used to guide resource allocation in the System, and to evaluate possible new initiatives for their consistency with these priorities.

TAC's present approach to priority setting differs from that used in 1986. It has been modified to take into account the expanded mandate of the CGIAR, the need to give greater emphasis to sustainability issues, to ensure transparency and to develop mechanisms which will allow priority setting to become a continuing activity of TAC. TAC has also made use of a formal analytical framework as an aid to (but not a substitute for) informed qualitative judgement and decision making. It should be stressed that the framework used is not an optimizing procedure, but aims only at clarifying choices. It allowed TAC to make the process of arriving at priorities transparent so that a reasoned dialogue with other stakeholders, such as national programmes, Centre Directors, Board Chairs, and CGIAR members, was facilitated.

TAC started its analysis of CGIAR priorities with an analysis of the mission and goals of the CGIAR which is discussed in Chapter 2. The CGIAR mission statement reads as follows: "Through international research and related activities, and in partnership with national research systems, to contribute to sustainable improvements in the productivity of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in developing countries in ways that enhance nutrition and well-being, especially of low-income people".

The goals of the CGIAR have been formulated as follows: (i) effective management and conservation of natural resources for sustainable production; (ii) improved productivity of high priority crops; (iii) livestock; (iv) trees; (v) fish, and their integration into sustainable production systems; (vi) improved utilization of crop, livestock, tree and fish products through improved postharvest technology; (vii) progress towards equity (including gender equity) as well as improved diets, nutrition and family welfare, through better understanding of the human linkages between production and consumption; (viii) appropriate policies for the increased productivity of crops, livestock, trees and fish, and for the sustainable use of natural resources; (ix) strengthened human resources and institutions for greater research capacity in developing countries' research systems.

The level and nature of the CGIAR's future involvement with each of these goals will vary greatly, but all are recognized as essential concerns. The aim is to contribute to the nine goals through research and institution building. Through research, the CGIAR Centres also contribute to science. All goals converge on the central mission of the CGIAR through a number of CGIAR activities. A comprehensive list of these activities is presented in Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 reports on the framework for CGIAR priority setting. Several factors guided TAC in its consideration of CGIAR priorities: the CGIAR mission and goals; emerging trends in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors of developing countries; changes in science and the organization of research; the evolution of scientific capacity in developing countries; the relative importance of production sectors and commodities across regions and agroecological zones; the importance and international character of the development problem which generates the need for research; the opportunities for international research of a strategic nature and the potential for technical breakthroughs; and the comparative advantages of the CGIAR System to undertake such research and the complementarity of its efforts with those of other agencies.

The analytical framework used by TAC had three dimensions - activities, spatial, and product - each of which is described below.

An activities dimension, with five major categories of activities:

- conservation and management of natural resources including germplasm conservation (biodiversity);
- germplasm enhancement and breeding;
- production systems development and management;
- socioeconomic, public policy and public management research; and
- institution building (including training, information, organization/management counselling and networks).

TAC recognizes that there is no clear dividing line between these activities, and that a number of CGIAR objectives cut across several categories, such as strengthening of national research systems, and improvement of the sustainability of production systems.

A spatial dimension, with four geographical regions and nine broad agroecological zones (AEZs). The regions are Asia (which includes the Pacific); sub-Saharan Africa (SSA); Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); and West Asia-North Africa (WANA). The zones are:

AEZ 1:	warm arid and semi-arid tropics;
AEZ 2:	warm subhumid tropics;
AEZ 3:	warm humid tropics;
AEZ 4:	cool tropics;
AEZ 5:	warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall;
AEZ 6:	warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall;
AEZ 7:	warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall;
AEZ 8:	cool subtropics with summer rainfall; and
AEZ 9:	cool subtropics with winter rainfall.

Applying this AEZ concept to the four regions leads to a total of 23 regional agroecological zones (RAEZs): four in sub-Saharan Africa, three in West Asia-North Africa, seven in Asia and nine in Latin America.

A product dimension, with four main production sectors - crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries - and their corresponding commodities.

In Chapter 4 on problem identification and research emphasis, TAC began its analysis with an investigation of the challenges facing research and development in agriculture, forestry and fisheries between now and the year 2010. The analysis showed that food demand is increasing rapidly and its composition is changing in developing countries because of population growth, income growth, and urbanization. While the world produces more food per head of population today than ever before in human history, more than 1100 million people in developing countries still are identified as poor. The sustainability of agricultural production is at risk, the degradation of resources is accelerating, and poverty and malnutrition remain widespread in the developing world. During the next two decades, yields of staple foods in developing countries will need to more than double to maintain food production per caput at today's levels.

Meeting the demand for more food will remain the central challenge facing research by the CGIAR System. Producing more food will increase pressures on the natural resource base. It will therefore become necessary to pay greater attention to research on resource management. Examples of research topics at the global level include the substitution of renewable for non-renewable resources, the conservation of genetic resources, and studies of possible or actual changes in global atmosphere and climates. Greater attention will also need to be paid to issues of poverty, malnutrition and equity, especially gender equity.

The strength of national research systems in developing countries will greatly affect the scope and quality of research and its impact. The different capacities and resource endowments of national programmes will alter their collaborative relationships with centres. This must be taken into account in planning future strategies at the international level. While there has been a considerable increase in trained human resources, many national research systems remain weak or are constrained by a shortage of operational funds.

The remainder of Chapter 4 presents a discussion of the challenges to research and development by production sector in each of the regions and agroecological zones. It also gives an overview of the importance of each production sector and of the corresponding commodities in each of the regions.

The challenges facing the CGIAR have thus intensified since its inception in 1971. Population growth continues at high rates, particularly in Africa, poverty and malnutrition remain pervasive, the need for increased productivity grows more acute as the opportunities for area expansion diminish, and long-term issues of sustainability have become both more prominent and more severe. Thus TAC finds that the need for applied and strategic research at the international level focused on productivity improvement and sustainable resource management for agriculture, forestry and fisheries, is more pressing now than it was when the CGIAR was founded.

Chapters 5 to 8 subsequently analyze the research issues faced in each production sector (crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries) and their respective commodities in greater detail.

A description of TAC's comprehensive quantitative analysis based on regionally defined agroecological zones is given in Chapter 9. A modified congruence approach was taken using a composite baseline made up of value of production, number of poor people and total usable land area. This composite base was then modified by a series of variables (modifiers) to take into account issues of efficiency, equity, sustainability, strength of national programmes, self-reliance and potential for agroforestry. The results provided a basis for priority setting by agroecological zone, region, production sector and commodity. They also provided insight regarding the priority need for particular activities.

In Chapter 10, TAC presents its views on institution building activities in the CGIAR. The CGIAR was established primarily as a mechanism for funding technological research, but as it evolved, increasing emphasis has been placed on collaboration with national systems in research and institution building. TAC believes a balanced approach to research and institution building to be appropriate.

TAC notes that the CGIAR System has provided training to large numbers of scientists from national systems (approximately 25,000 during 1985-89). TAC believes that the training programmes at the CGIAR Centres need to change to take account of the progress made. Group training, especially production-oriented training, should be reduced in favour of individual postgraduate training and visiting scientist arrangements. Greater emphasis is needed on training in the areas of research management, fisheries, forestry, agroforestry, and the management of natural resources. In addition, advances in information technology will offer the CGIAR Centres new opportunities to collect, analyze and disseminate research information.

TAC believes that institutional weaknesses still place major limitations on the generation and adoption of technology in the national systems of many countries. In the past, the CGIAR Centres have played important roles in institution building, including the organization of research networks, the provision of consulting services and the forging of institutional links. Furthermore, ISNAR provides a comprehensive, integrated and systematic approach to organization and management counselling. TAC believes that, in the future, collaborative relationships between CGIAR Centres and national research systems will increasingly augment the traditional institution building activities.

Research needs in socioeconomics, public policy and public management research are discussed in Chapter 11. The mission and goals of the CGIAR are unlikely to be achieved without a conducive policy environment. The CGIAR acts primarily as a catalyst in the field of food policy research. Its main tasks are to understand the interactions between government action and human behaviour in relation to agriculture, technology, natural resources, and consumption, and to collaborate with national systems in identifying policy options. The broadening of CGIAR goals to embrace self-reliance extends policy research so as to include cash crops as well as the reduction of staple food costs and the more efficient use of inputs. More policy research on sustainability issues is also needed. The role of policy in influencing human behaviour at the farm and community level will be a key component of multidisciplinary research on forestry and natural resources. Continuing attention will be paid by the CGIAR to research on human linkages, particularly in relation to human nutrition and gender issues. The management of public organizations, such as national research agencies and irrigation management institutions, is another important topic for research in the CGIAR. Research on national research systems is needed to accumulate and analyze a knowledge base on these systems and to develop improved management concepts and tools.

The results of these analyses assisted TAC in formulating its views on priorities in Systemwide terms by: (a) category of research activity; (b) by agroecological and regional agroecological zone; (c) by region; (d) by production sector; and (e) by commodity. These are discussed in Chapter 12.

With respect to the assessment of priorities by activity category, TAC recommended a substantial increase in the priorities allocated to the conservation and management of natural resources including germplasm conservation, and to socioeconomic, public policy and public management research. The Committee recommended a reduction in the priority allocated to development and management of production systems and of institution building, and the maintenance of current priority ranking of germplasm enhancement and breeding. This is illustrated in the following table which shows the proposed shifts among activity categories and an indication of the differential efforts by region relative to the new proposed level of activity.

Priorities by activity category by region (core resources only)

Activity Category	1991 base	2010 Rec.	Region1/
			SSA	WANA	Asia	LAC
1. Conservation and Management of Natural Resources including Germplasm Conservation(Biodiversity)	13	17-19	+	+	-	+
2. Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding	21	21-23	-	-	+	0
3. Devpt. and Mgmt. of Production Systems	33	28-30	+	0	-	-
4. Socioeconomic, Public Policy and Public Management Research	9	10-12	-	-	+	+
5. Institution Building (incl. Training, Information, Org./Mgt. Counselling and Networks)	24	19-21	+	+	-	-
TOTAL	100	1002/

1/	+ = more than the new System level priority but possibly lower than current allocation
	0 = equal to new System level priority
	- = less than new System level priority but possibly higher or lower than current allocation

2/ the mid points of the ranges add to 100

N.B. This table can be found in Chapter 12 of Part I (Table 12.1).

TAC subsequently considered CGIAR priorities by region. At present, 43% of the CGIAR's core resources are allocated to sub-Saharan Africa, 13% to West Asia-North Africa, 29% to Asia and 15% to Latin America and the Caribbean. The rapid population growth rates, coupled with declining per caput food production in sub-Saharan Africa, make a compelling case for that region. The fragility of its tropical agroecological zones, the generally limited national research capacities and the slow rate of progress in productivity improvement to date add to the apparent urgency. Many of Africa's development problems are also political in nature, however, and cannot be solved through research alone. In Asia, on the other hand, the magnitude of population numbers, the extent of the poverty problem, the narrowing yield gap and the limited scope for land expansion all argue strongly for more long-term strategic and applied research. On balance, TAC considered that, in the medium term, the current share of resources allocated to sub-Saharan Africa and to West Asia-North Africa should be modestly reduced, while the share allocated to particularly Asia and Latin America should be increased. TAC recommends that in the medium term, CGIAR resources would be distributed with a share of 39% to sub-Saharan Africa, 11% to West Asia-North Africa, 33% to Asia and 17% to Latin America.

The Committee did not make a recommendation on the level of priority by production sector, but noted that the proposed new programmes in forestry and fisheries should not be funded at the expense of critical research needs in crops and livestock.

TAC reaffirmed the priority it is currently allocating to the cereal and root and tuber crops. Among food legumes, it proposes a modest reduction in the level of priority of phaseolus bean, and a significant reduction in that of pigeonpea. The priority ranking of groundnut and soybean should be increased, while that of lentil, chickpea and cowpea should be maintained. TAC recommended that the current level of effort on banana and plantain should be maintained, and it reaffirmed its views on the priority level for research on vegetables and coconut. Finally, the priority analysis led TAC to note that the CGIAR is currently overinvesting in livestock research, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

Part II of this report presents TAC's views on the implications of revised priorities for future CGIAR strategies and structure, and for resource allocation in the CGIAR. This sequence reflects the approach taken by TAC in its analysis of CGIAR priorities, strategies, and resource allocation. The first step was to develop an analytical framework to address the question of what research activities should be supported by the CGIAR, and what the relative emphasis of these activities should be. The determination in relative terms of what to do is the object of priority setting. This was discussed in Chapters 1 to 12 of Part I of the report.

The second step relates to the question of how the identified priorities should be addressed. This relates to determining the strategy appropriate for the CGIAR to implement its priorities. The third step, once priorities and strategies are agreed upon, is to explore which institutional entity should do the research and how it should be operationally organized. This is the question of structure. This discussion of strategy and structure is provided in Chapter 13.

The final step of course is to link priorities to available financial resources in the context of current thinking on strategies and structures. This is the subject of Chapter 14.

Part I of the report has been shared previously with the members of the CGIAR and its stakeholders, and the information contained in Chapters 1 to 12 is therefore considered definitive. Chapters 13 and 14 have been produced since then and are new.

Therefore TAC recognizes that their content will benefit from further inputs by the Group and centres, while the medium-term resource allocation process is being implemented.

In developing its views on future CGIAR strategies and structure, TAC drew on work done previously in the framework of assessing potential expansion of the CGIAR ('A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR' AGR/TAC:IAR/90/24). In that document TAC outlined a medium/long and long-term vision for the evolution of the CGIAR System. For the medium/long-term, TAC considered that the CGIAR would have two types of activities: global activities, and regionally defined agroecological activities. For the latter type of activity, TAC has described them as 'ecoregional'. This approach was confirmed and elaborated upon in TAC's recent deliberations. Global activities would comprise strategic research on selected commodities and subject matter areas, while ecoregional activities would focus on applied and strategic research on natural resource conservation and management, the development and management of production systems, and on applied aspects of commodity improvement. Global activities would either have a commodity focus, or a focus on subject matter or discipline. These concepts are further elaborated in Chapter 13.

The ecoregional approach was proposed by TAC as a vehicle for increasing research on the conservation and management of natural resources, needs which were strongly confirmed by the analysis of CGIAR priorities, and for greater rationalization of CGIAR Centre contacts with NARS. Although it recognizes that the primary responsibility for conducting ecoregional research would be with national programmes, TAC notes that the global research community does not yet have an effective paradigm for natural resource management research. Identifying a conceptual framework for conducting such research was a goal of truly international relevance. Thus, TAC carefully defined the nature of the outputs to be expected from CGIAR supported ecoregional research.

TAC proceeded with the translation of the strategic concepts in operational terms. With respect to the ecoregional concept, an assessment was made of the need for particular activities in each regional agroecological zone (RAEZ). TAC considered that six ecoregional programmes were justified: two in sub-Saharan Africa (one on AEZ 1, and one combing on AEZs 2 and 3), one in West Asia-North Africa (AEZ 9), two in Asia (one combing for AEZs 1 and 5, and one that would combine AEZs 2, 3, and 7), and one in Latin America (combining AEZs 2, 3, 6, and 7). In addition, TAC noted the condition to be met for justifying a programme for the cool tropics in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.

TAC then considered the institutional options for priority ecoregions. This included comparing identified ecoregional needs with existing CGIAR Centre capacity in order to determine if centre programmes could be adjusted to meet future needs. With respect to global activities, TAC first considered a number of strategic questions, and then explored a number of particular structural options. Both for ecoregional and global concepts, TAC discussed a number of options but did not make firm recommendations pending further consideration by the CGIAR of their feasibilities, advantages, and disadvantages.

TAC also considered the relationships between global and ecoregional mechanisms, which programmatically are entirely complementary. Finally, Chapter 13 briefly discusses the possible implications of TAC's view on strategies and structure for mandates of CGIAR Centres.

Chapter 14 describes the background, process and outcome of TAC's deliberations on linking medium/long-term priorities and strategies to medium-term resource allocation. In its analysis, TAC proceeded in two steps: first at the System level, and then at the centre level.

At the System level, data on 1991 core resource distribution among the priority parameters (categories of activity, regions, production sectors and commodities) constituted the point of reference for TAC to identify the change in direction needed (and the scope thereof) to ensure a gradual implementation in the medium term of medium/long-term priorities. This required the setting of intermediate targets by 1998 in a manner that provided a satisfactory degree of compatibility among the various priority parameters. Following a series of iterations, TAC arrived at a consistent set of recommendations of relative distribution of resources among the priority parameters.

Throughout this analysis, TAC has assumed that core funding in 1998 would be essentially maintained, in real terms, at its current 1992 level, but with incremental core funding for expansion of new CGIAR activities - fisheries and forestry in particular. This funding assumption may be considered too conservative. It should not be seen as an indication by TAC that the current level of resources is adequate to fully meet the challenges and tasks faced by the centres. It is a conservative approach at this stage of the planning process to ensure that the System has the opportunity to explore the operational implications of zero real growth.

Once the relative distribution of core resources was determined, it was translated in absolute core funding terms for 1998, i.e., US$ 270 million (in 1992 values). This amount is consistent with the funding assumption described above: it consists of the level of 1992 core funding (US$ 251 million), augmented by ICLARM's 1992 core funding (US$ 4 million) and an assumed increment of core funding of US$ 15 million for fisheries and forestry.

A financial spreadsheet provided for an initial mechanical translation of recommendations on System level priorities into centre allocations. This was the beginning point of TAC's development of individual centre resource envelopes, taking into account other factors such as the need for minimum critical mass, stage of maturity and recent development in centre programmes, and relevant information from strategic plans as well as programme and management reviews. TAC also considered the need to have sufficient flexibility at completion of the medium-term resource allocation.

Therefore TAC recommends, on the one hand, that centres' resource envelopes be discounted to set aside a US$ 20 million reserve which could be allocated either following the review of all centres' MTP proposals, or during the period of implementation of the MTPs. On the other hand, centres are requested to present their MTP proposals in a range of 10% above and below the indicative resource envelope, thus allowing them to disclose their programme potentials at higher levels of core funding as well as the impact lower core funding would have on the programmes.