1.1. Background
1.2. Evolution of the CGIAR and its Priorities
1.3. Implementation of the 1986 Recommendations
1.4. Outline of the Report
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has several responsibilities with respect to the assessment of CGIAR priorities. It makes recommendations on priorities to guide the allocation of resources across the System, allowing an appropriate balance among centres, activities, commodities and regions. It also evaluates possible new initiatives or activities for their consistency with these priorities. Lastly, TAC monitors the implementation of approved CGIAR priorities through its consideration of centres' medium-term plans and related budget proposals.
At its mid-term meeting in Montpellier in 1987, the CGIAR agreed that TAC would produce an updated report on CGIAR priorities and strategies every five years (TAC/CGIAR, 1987a). The last such report (TAC/CGIAR, 1987b) was completed in 1986, and previous reports had been prepared in 1973, 1976 and 1979. The preparation of the present report was initiated at TAC 50 in 1989. Drafts of the report were discussed with representatives of national research systems in Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, West Asia-North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa and also with Centre Directors, Board Chairs, members of the CGIAR and other stakeholders.
TAC's recommendations on priorities are made at the broad System level. The Committee does not make recommendations at the programme level as this is the responsibility of the centres. TAC considers the programme priorities of the centres when it assesses their strategic and medium-term plans. It also evaluates mechanisms for priority setting at the centres through its periodic external reviews.
The CGIAR System is only one component in the global agricultural research system and commands only a fraction of its resources. The System has to be very selective in choosing among the many demands for agricultural research, those it will help to meet. The CGIAR has played primarily a gap-filling and bridging role in agricultural research. Centres fill gaps that cannot be filled by national systems and provide a bridge to institutions active in basic and strategic research. As a publicly funded international entity, the CGIAR tries to identify themes and opportunities where individual national programmes have little incentive to make a major commitment, either because of economies of scale or because the spillover effects are so large that they cannot be captured by them. The principal role of the CGIAR is to strengthen the work of national programmes by undertaking activities that are complementary and non-competitive. TAC has therefore made substantial efforts to seek the views of national research systems in each of the regions with respect to CGIAR priorities and strategies, prior to finalizing this report.
The CGIAR was established in 1971. In its early years it focused on improving the productivity of crops important in the diets of low-income people in developing countries. Initially, highest priority was given to research on cereals, particularly rice and wheat, which are the most important food staples. Attention was also given to food legumes and ruminant livestock for their potential to improve the quality of diets, and to starchy foods for their potential in terms of energy supply per hectare. Gradually, the commodity base was broadened. Besides commodity-oriented research, the need for policy research and for strengthening national research systems was recognized. Between 1971 and 1980, the CGIAR grew from four institutions initially to thirteen, and the scope of activities broadened considerably (TAC Secretariat, 1973, 1976 and 1979).
Research has traditionally received the largest share of CGIAR resources, accounting for 50 to 62% of core expenditures between 1971 and 1990. The remainder was allocated to training and institution building, documentation and information, and administration. Table 1.1 shows how CGIAR research priorities by commodity and major activity have evolved over the years. Rice is the crop that still receives the largest share of core resources for research, although this share has declined from 21.5% in 1971/75 to 17.2% in 1986/88. The share allocated to cereals as a whole has declined from almost 58% to less than 39%. Although the share of resources allocated to research on cereals has declined in relative terms, the amount spent has grown in real terms, tripling from a constant US$ 10.1 million per annum during 1971/75 to US$ 32.5 million in 1986/88.
The share allocated to roots and tubers has remained relatively constant at around 11%, that to legumes has steadily increased from 8% to about 13%, while the share of livestock has doubled from 10% in 1971-75 to nearly 20% in 1986-88. The dominant recipients of resources for non-commodity-specific research have been farming systems, food policy, genetic resources and capacity building of national research systems.
TAC's review of CGIAR priorities and strategies in 1986 identified a number of issues that required further elaboration: sustainability, resource management and environmental degradation, income generation, employment and equity, evolving partnerships with national research systems and the sluggish progress in food production in less favoured areas. The review also identified vegetables, fish and coconut as new commodities to be considered for inclusion in CGIAR research at some future date. TAC recognized that the CGIAR needed to give special emphasis to strategic research, and that a farming system perspective should be adopted for formulating and implementing research programmes. It was further noted that the location of the most urgent food problems had shifted from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa. TAC reiterated its long-standing perception that the need for factor-oriented research was best met through the multidisciplinary commodity approach.
As an outcome of the review, TAC made recommendations on CGIAR priorities and the level of resources to be allocated to eight distinct programme thrusts and to each mandate commodity. In 1988, while these recommendations were being implemented, the CGIAR asked TAC to examine a possible expansion of the CGIAR by considering whether and how to incorporate the so-called non-associated centres, or important elements of their programmes. One year later, the CGIAR also recognized the need to further expand research on natural resource management by incorporating forestry research into its mandate.
At ICW'90, members of the CGIAR considered TAC's analyses and recommendations regarding the non-associated centres and the incorporation of a forestry initiative. TAC's proposals to redefine the mission statement and to expand the goals of the CGIAR were endorsed. The new CGIAR mission and goal statements introduced the notion of food self-reliance and added improved productivity of fisheries and forestry. It was also decided that IIMI and INIBAP would be incorporated into the CGIAR, while ICLARM would be invited to become a member if certain conditions were fulfilled. The subject matter covered by AVRDC was considered to be appropriate for CGIAR support. At the CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting in May 1991, another two entities were added to the CGIAR, namely ICRAF and a new institution for forestry. TAC was requested to elaborate on its initial proposals to restructure the CGIAR, while the Group constituted a task force to formulate proposals on how to proceed with a forestry and agroforestry initiative. ICLARM was requested to develop a strategic plan for fisheries research in the CGIAR and a proposal on those aspects it intended to emphasize.
Table 1.1. Allocation of CGIAR core research resources by commodity (1971-88) 1/
|
|
1971-75 % |
1976-80 % |
1981-85 % |
1986-88 % |
|
Rice |
21.5 |
17.2 |
17.3 |
17.2 |
|
Wheat, barley and triticale |
13.8 |
10.9 |
10.3 |
9.1 |
|
Maize |
19.5 |
9.3 |
7.2 |
7.3 |
|
Sorghum and millet |
3.1 |
3.3 |
4.8 |
5.0 |
|
Subtotal, cereals |
57.9 |
40.6 |
39.6 |
38.7 |
|
Potatoes |
4.6 |
7.0 |
6.1 |
6.8 |
|
Other roots and tubers |
6.8 |
5.4 |
4.8 |
4.5 |
|
Legumes |
8.1 |
11.4 |
11.2 |
12.9 |
|
Subtotal, crop research |
77.4 |
64.4 |
61.7 |
62.9 |
|
Livestock |
10.2 |
19.8 |
19.1 |
19.7 |
|
Subtotal, commodity research |
87.6 |
84.2 |
80.8 |
82.6 |
|
Fanning systems |
12.2 |
11.7 |
9.9 |
8.5 |
|
Food policy 2/ |
0.1 |
2.0 |
3.1 |
3.7 |
|
Genetic resources |
0.1 |
2.0 |
4.2 |
2.8 |
|
NARS capacity building 3/ |
|
|
1.9 |
2.4 |
|
Subtotal, other research/activity |
12.4 |
15.8 |
19.2 |
17.4 |
|
TOTAL |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Source: Gryseels and Anderson, 1991
1/Core operating expenditures for research only
2/IFPRI only. Other socioeconomic research is included in commodity research
3/ISNAR only
Between 1971 and 1991, the CGIAR has thus grown from a System which was selective and exclusive to one which is broader and more inclusive. Mandates of CGIAR Centres now cover more than 25 commodities and a wide range of farming systems, agroecological zones and activities.
With respect to programme thrusts, available evidence suggests that the most important shifts of emphasis recommended by TAC in 1986 have been implemented. This is illustrated in Table 1.2. The decrease in the level of total core resources allocated to crop productivity research is noticeable, while the share allocated to research on resource management is increasing, in line with TAC's recommendations. The share of resources to be allocated to strengthening national research capacities has increased well beyond the target level.
With respect to particular commodities, the recommendation to reduce the resource allocation to rice research has not been implemented, largely because activities in sub-Saharan Africa have increased significantly. The proposed increases to roots and tubers research (mainly cassava) have not materialized, while the share of resources allocated to livestock research appears to be significantly above target. The resources allocated to grain legumes have been reduced more sharply than requested by TAC. Recommended and actual resource allocations by commodity are shown in Table 1.3, which also gives a regional breakdown.
Table 1.2. Comparison of 1986 TAC recommendations on priorities by programme thrust with actual allocations (% of total core resources)
|
|
Basis 1986 |
TAC Recommendations Long-Term 2010 |
Actual 1991 |
|
Resource management and conservation |
7.0 |
13.0 |
10.9 |
|
Crop productivity |
57.1 |
48.0 |
50.0 |
|
Livestock productivity |
13.4 |
15.0 |
16.7 |
|
Food policy |
2.3 |
3.0 |
2.7 |
|
Strengthening national research capacities |
18.1 |
15.0 |
19.7 |
|
Commodity conversion |
0.7 |
2.0 |
N/A |
|
Human nutrition |
0.9 |
2.0 |
N/A |
|
Integration of efforts |
0.5 |
2.0 |
N/A |
|
TOTAL |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Source: CGIAR Secretariat, 1991 and TAC/CGIAR (1987b)
Table 1.3. Recommended and actual CGIAR resource allocations by commodity, category and region, 1983, 1986 and 1991 (%)
|
|
1983 Base |
1986 TAC Rec. |
1991 Share 1/ |
SSA (%) |
Asia & Pacific2 (%) |
LAC (%) |
WANA (%) |
|
Rice |
25 |
18 |
26 |
28 |
63 |
8 |
0 |
|
Wheat and barley |
10 |
9 |
9 |
21 |
14 |
20 |
44 |
|
Maize |
9 |
10 |
8 |
43 |
18 |
34 |
6 |
|
Sorghum and millet |
6 |
9 |
6 |
53 |
42 |
5 |
0 |
|
Potato |
6 |
5 |
6 |
30 |
15 |
45 |
10 |
|
Other roots and tubers |
7 |
13 |
8 |
45 |
0 |
55 |
0 |
|
Legumes |
16 |
15 |
13 |
18 |
30 |
27 |
25 |
|
Subtotal, crop research |
|
|
|
30 |
33 |
24 |
13 |
|
Livestock |
19 |
20 |
25 |
68 |
0 |
21 |
11 |
|
Fanning systems |
N/A |
= |
8.5 |
43 |
28 |
0 |
29 |
|
Food policy |
N/A |
+ |
3.7 |
42 |
55 |
2 |
1 |
|
Genetic resources |
N/A |
= |
2.8 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
|
NARS capacity building |
N/A |
+ |
2.4 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
|
Information, communication, library and documentation |
N/A |
+ |
8.4 |
47 |
22 |
18 |
13 |
|
Training and conferences |
N/A |
- |
5.6 |
40 |
30 |
21 |
9 |
|
Total operating expenditure |
|
|
|
39 |
26 |
21 |
14 |
Source: CGIAR Secretariat, 1991
1/ For commodities, data refer to share of resources allocated to commodity research, while for activities the data refer to share of core research resources.
2/ Includes China
Note: + refers to a recommendation that the share of resources allocated to this activity should be increased; - refers to a recommendation that this share should decline; while = refers to a recommendation that the share be kept constant.
This report on CGIAR priorities and strategies has four major components. Component 1 provides the context of the priority setting exercise (Chapters 1-3), Component 2 identifies the research problems and gives background information on issues related to the crop, livestock, forestry and fisheries sectors (Chapters 4 - 8), Component 3 contains the TAC analysis (Chapters 9 - 11), and Component 4 considers the implications of the TAC analysis for CGIAR priorities, future strategies and resource allocation (Chapters 12, 13 and 14). Chapters 13 and 14 are presented separately in Part II of this report.
Chapter 2 reviews the mission, goals and activities of the CGIAR. The framework for priority setting is discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides background information, and evaluates the constraints to agricultural, forestry and fisheries research and development at the global, sectoral, regional and agroecological zone levels. An overview of the important factors determining CGIAR priorities and a discussion of the information base available to TAC with respect to crops, livestock, trees and fish follow in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. The analytical process leading to the allocation of priorities by region and agroecological zone is discussed in Chapter 9. Chapter 10 analyses the perceived role of the CGIAR in institution building. In Chapter 11 the important factors determining CGIAR priorities in socioeconomics, public policy and public management research are discussed. Finally, Chapter 12 discusses the implications of TAC's analysis for CGIAR priorities.
