3.1. Priority Setting at the CGIAR System Level
3.2. Guiding Factors in the Consideration of CGIAR Priorities
3.3. A Three-Dimensional Framework
3.4. Agroecological and Regional Characterization
TAC seeks three major outputs from its review of CGIAR priorities:
· a report on CGIAR priorities and strategies that reflects the major recommendations to the Group regarding its future;· the development of a transparent analytical process that enables TAC to adapt CGIAR priorities and strategies to changing circumstances (including those revealed through impact assessment) on a regular basis, while still maintaining sufficient continuity in commitments;
· a framework to assist TAC in considering resource allocation in the CGIAR System. This framework is in the form of a matrix with broad target values for the relative distribution of resources across categories of activities, agroecological zones, regions, production sectors and commodities for the System as a whole.
The process of priority setting is necessary to steer the resource allocation process, to assist centres in programming and budgeting and to guide institution building in the CGIAR. It does not involve setting the research agenda of particular centres, or second guessing the results of strategic and operational planning at the centre level.
Priority setting is an interactive process in which each stakeholder of the CGIAR has had the opportunity to make inputs and to respond to evolving proposals.
The current approach to the review of CGIAR priorities differs from the analytical framework used by TAC in the previous review of 1986. A different approach was necessary because of the changes in the CGIAR mandate, which now includes forestry and fisheries, gives greater emphasis to sustainability issues, and stresses food self-reliance rather than self-sufficiency. In pursuing its new approach TAC has also made substantial efforts to ensure transparency in the priority setting process, and to develop mechanisms that allow priority setting to become a continuous interactive process, as requested by the CGIAR at its 1987 mid-term meeting.
In considering CGIAR priorities, TAC has made use of quantitative analysis. It is important to stress that TAC considers quantitative analysis to be an aid to but not a substitute for informed qualitative judgement and decision making. Priority setting cannot be done mechanically. As Cetron and Johnson (1972) point out, "Data plus analysis yield information. Information plus judgement yield decisions".
The main factors that guide TAC in the consideration of CGIAR priorities are:
1. The CGIAR mission and goals. In setting priorities, the relative contributions of alternative activities to the mission and goals of the CGIAR must be explicitly evaluated.2. Emerging trends in developing countries in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
3. Changes in science and the organization of research.
4. The evolution of scientific capacity in developing countries.
5. The relative importance of production sectors and commodities across regions and agroecological zones. The more economically significant the production sector or commodity, the greater the expected economic return from research resulting in a given productivity gain or cost reduction.
6 The importance and the international character of the development problem which generates the need for research.
7. The opportunities for international research of a strategic nature and the potential to achieve technical breakthroughs in improving the productivity of major commodities
8. The comparative advantages of the CGIAR System and the complementarity of its efforts with those of other research and development agencies, especially national research systems.
The analytical framework used in the current approach to CGIAR priority setting has three dimensions
· an activities dimension, with five categories of activities: conservation and management of natural resources: germplasm enhancement and breeding, production systems development and management; socioeconomic. public policy and public management research; and institution building. These categories have been discussed in Section 2.2· 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: warm arid and semi-arid tropics: warm subhumid tropics; warm humid tropics; cool tropics; warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall; warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall; warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall; cool subtropics with summer rainfall; and cool subtropics with winter rainfall.
· a product dimension, with four main production sectors - crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries - and their corresponding commodities. These four sectors are closely linked and frequently integrated in production systems. Their relative importance, and that of their corresponding commodities, is further discussed in Section 4.6 and in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8.
The first dimension reflects the spectrum of activities that must be supported if the CGIAR is to achieve its broader goals. The second dimension forms the basis for setting geographical priorities. The third dimension provides the basis for setting priorities in the productivity context.
Agroecological conditions largely determine the production potential and the population supporting capacity of developing countries. The characterization of these conditions allows farming systems and production alternatives to be compared and research spillovers to be assessed. Agroecological characterization also permits a quantitative assessment of the biophysical resources upon which agriculture and forestry depend. It is essential for the improvement of resource management and for the development of sustainable production systems to meet future demand.
TAC has adapted the agroecological characterization originally developed by FAO (FAO, 1978-81). In the FAO classification, a distinction is made between tropical regions, subtropical regions with summer or winter rainfall, and temperate regions. These major ecological regions are further subdivided into rainfed moisture zones, using standard lengths of growing period, and into thermal zones, using the temperature regime prevailing during the growing period. Soils and landform also form important components of agroecological zones in the FAO characterization, but to keep the number of subdivisions to a manageable level they were excluded from the framework used by TAC. Instead, soil and terrain characteristics, as well as other climatic aspects, are taken into account in Chapters 4 and 9.
At the highest level of aggregation, the following nine basic agroecological zones have been distinguished for the review of CGIAR priorities:
1. Warm arid and semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1);
2. Warm subhumid tropics (AEZ 2);
3. Warm humid tropics (AEZ 3);
4. Cool tropics (AEZ 4);
5. Warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 5);
6. Warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 6);
7. Warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 7);
8. Cool subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 8); and
9. Cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9).
Zones 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 include some temperate areas.
TAC is aware that, for the purposes of research planning at the centre level, variations within the above broad agroecological zones must be taken into account. Furthermore, in the case of forestry, the current framework might well benefit from further refinement, while in the case of fisheries a quite different approach would be necessary.
To link the socioeconomic database (which is organized by political units or national boundaries) with the natural resource database (organized by agroecological zones) it was necessary to reconcile agroecological boundaries with political boundaries. For some of the smaller countries with relatively uniform terrain this presented few problems. Larger countries or countries with non-uniform terrain were mostly assigned to more than one agroecological zone. Zone boundaries were then reconciled with provincial or regional boundaries. Data on population and arable land area were available at this national/subnational level and provided the basis for the disaggregation of other socioeconomic data.
The four major developing country regions that are being considered are sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and West Asia-North Africa. Applying the above classification of agroecological zones 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 and the Caribbean (Figure 3.1). Because two out of the three zones in West Asia-North Africa are relatively unimportant, for reporting purposes the results of the analyses for the three zones have been aggregated. Throughout the report, results will, therefore, be presented for 21 regional agroecological zones, although the analysis covered 23.
The definitions of each agroecological zone framework and the data and the classification of countries by regional agroecological zone are found in Annex I.
It is to be noted that TAC's geographic coverage was limited to developing countries of sub-Saharan Africa, West Asia-North Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, and excluded the countries of Eastern Europe. TAC recognizes the substantial need for development assistance and collaborative research efforts in these latter countries. However, TAC's background analytical work on the review of CGIAR priorities and strategies was undertaken prior to the occurrence of political events in Eastern Europe that led to a dramatic change in the outlook and perspective of these countries.
