13.1. Introduction and Conceptual Background
13.2. Future Strategies and Structure for the CGIAR
13.3. Relationships between Global and Ecoregional Mechanisms
13.4. Implications for Mandates of Existing Centres
13.5. Concluding Remarks
13.1.1. TAC's Sequential Approach to Priorities, Strategies and Structure
13.1.2. Main Conclusions of the Priority Exercise
13.1.3. TAC's Medium/Long- and Long-Term Visions of the CGIAR
13.1.4. Key Strategic Principles
13.1.5. The Ecoregional Approach to Research
The approach taken by TAC in its analysis of priorities and strategies proceeded in three stages. The first step was to develop an analytical framework to address the question of what research should be supported by the CGIAR and what should be the relative emphasis attached to the identified activities. The determination of what to do in relative terms is the setting of priorities. The second step asked the question of how the identified priorities should be addressed. This is the issue of determining the appropriate strategy for the CGIAR to follow in implementing its priorities. The third step, once priorities and strategies were agreed upon, was to ask who should do the research and how should it be organized, by centre, network or consortium. This is the question of structure. Each step preceded the other.
The future structure of the CGIAR will evolve according to the collective views of the CGIAR, centres, and national partners. TAC sees that its role is to provide reasoned input to the debate, not to recommend a particular structure. This chapter does not, therefore, contain a single set of specific recommendations for the future structure of the CGIAR. Rather, TAC is sharing with the CGIAR how it analysed what is, in the Committee's judgement, a plausible set of alternatives. The Committee is also providing a coherent proposal on how it intends to undertake, during the next five years, a strategic analysis of different research activities and commodity groups supported by the CGIAR with the aim of recommending more cost-effective ways of organizing CGIAR efforts in those areas.
The analytical framework developed by TAC to translate the complex dimensions of the CGIAR mission and goals into an array of relative priorities among activities, agroecological zones, regions, production sectors and commodities has been described in Chapter 12 of this report. The results of the analysis are TAC's recommendations on future priorities. In this chapter, TAC addresses issues of strategy and structure.
In approaching its task, TAC drew on previous work done in the analysis of the potential CGIAR expansion ('A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR', AGR/TAC: IAR/90/24). In that analysis TAC developed medium/long and long-term visions of the CGIAR (Chapter 8) and discussed possible institutional (structural) options (Chapter 11)1. In addition TAC over the past four years has considered many centre strategic plans, external reviews, medium-term proposals and inter-centre commodity and other special purpose reviews.
¹To prevent confusion in terminology between medium-term programme and budgets (five years) and TAC's medium-term vision (2010), the term medium/long is used for the 2010 target.
Using these as a basis, as well as Chapters 1 to 12, TAC presents in this chapter some further thoughts on strategies and structure. The analysis reaches tentative conclusions with regard to strategies. For example, the issue of ecoregional approaches is addressed directly - which ecoregions merit CGIAR programmes, can priority ecoregions be combined to reduce the number of mechanisms needed, and how well do current centres match with ecoregional needs. Similarly TAC addresses more fully the medium/long-term needs for global mechanisms. The Committee also addresses issues related to restructuring the CGIAR.
This chapter proceeds as follows. TAC first reviews briefly the major conclusions of the priority exercise and updates the Group on its emerging medium/long-and long-term visions of the CGIAR. This is followed by a further elaboration of the ecoregional concept and a possible medium/long- and long-term model for the CGIAR in, say, 2010 and beyond. TAC then presents the key strategic principles it used in its analysis and updated views on the ecoregional approach to research. It proceeds by making a proposal on how the ecoregional approach could be implemented and presents current views on the organization of global activities. The chapter concludes with some thoughts on linkages between ecoregional and global entities, and on the implications for existing centre mandates.
TAC's analysis of CGIAR priorities, in Systemwide terms and by activity category, led the Committee to recommend a significant increase in the research efforts on natural resources conservation and management, and on socioeconomics, public policy and public management. It recommended that the current priority ranking of germplasm enhancement and breeding should be slightly increased. The Committee also recommended that CGIAR investment in research on the development and management of production systems and on institution building should be reduced because of increasing strength of national programmes and lack of special advantage for the CGIAR.
TAC considered that in the medium term the share of resources allocated to sub-Saharan Africa and to West Asia-North Africa should be modestly reduced, while the share allocated to Asia, in particular, and LAC should be increased. The Committee did not make a recommendation on the level of priority by production sector, but considered that the proposed new programmes in forestry, agroforestry and fisheries should not be funded at the expense of critical ongoing research in crops and livestock.
In the agricultural and forestry sectors, the analysis indicated that, relative to the baseline, emphasis should increase in the tropical AEZs 1-4 and, for agriculture, additionally in the cool sub-tropics with winter rainfall AEZ 9. In both cases, greater increases were suggested for the tropical AEZs of SSA relative to those of Asia and LAC. However, it is noted that TAC does not have adequate information on the current distribution of CGIAR efforts by AEZ and therefore did not make recommendations on the distribution of effort by agroecological zone.
TAC reaffirmed the priority currently given to the cereal and root and tuber crops. Among the food legumes, it proposes reducing the level of priority of phaseolus beans modestly, and that of pigeonpea significantly. The priority of groundnut and soybean should be increased, while that of lentil, chickpea and cowpea should be maintained. The current level of effort on banana and plantain should also be maintained.
TAC reaffirmed its views on the priority level for research on vegetables and coconut. With respect to livestock research, the balance of the CGIAR effort should be redirected from its current focus on sub-Saharan Africa to a more global programme.
In its report 'A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR', TAC outlined a medium/long (2010+) and long-term (2025+) vision for the evolution of the CGIAR System which was endorsed in principle by the CGIAR in 1990. Realization of that long-term vision would depend heavily on improvements in the capacity of national research systems and the development of effective regional and transnational mechanisms of cooperation. The long term was defined in terms of the period when most national research systems in developing countries would be strong enough to meet their own national research needs. The underlying assumptions are that, in the long term, the capacity of NARS would become stronger; that there would be strong and effective regional and transnational mechanisms for research collaboration; that research and information networks would become a major mode of operation; that sharing of research responsibilities as well as joint planning of research between NARS and IARCs would increase; and that the private sector would become an important alternative supplier of research. Consequently, the CGIAR System would be expected to be smaller and quite different from what it is at present. TAC, recognizes, however, the continuing particular needs of sub-Saharan Africa where, in general, national research systems continue to be weak, and in some cases are even getting weaker.
It is TAC's judgement, based on considerations of international public goods, economies of scale, and spillovers, that there would be a continuing need for international efforts in the long term in:
- germplasm collection, conservation, characterization, evaluation and enhancement, and basic genetic manipulation of plants and animals of transnational and/or global significance;- strategic research on global issues of natural resources conservation and management;
- strategic research on public policy and public management issues of global significance; and
- global information services related to research in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
Currently, many CGIAR Centres are involved in applied, and even adaptive, research on germplasm improvement and breeding and on the development and management of production systems. This type of research is properly the province of national systems in the long term. To get from where the CGIAR System is now to the long term, a transitional period is essential. The challenge confronting the CGIAR is how to manage the transition period in ways that ensure effective coverage of the spectrum of urgently-needed research, while helping to strengthen NARS' capacity. TAC has therefore developed a medium/long-term vision, in terms of concepts, activities and mechanisms. In Chapter 8 of the Expansion Report and in the elaboration papers 2/An Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR' (1991 b) and 'Relationships between CGIAR Centres and NARS' (1991 a), TAC attempted to define a possible evolutionary path from the present situation through the medium/long term to the long term, in the context of possible institutional arrangements.
In the medium/long term TAC envisages the CGIAR as having two major types of activities: global and agroecological, regionally defined (for which TAC has used the term 'ecoregional'). Global activities would comprise strategic research on selected commodities and subject-matter areas while ecoregional activities would focus on applied and strategic research on conservation and management of natural resources, the development and management of production systems, and on applied aspects of commodity improvement. These views provided the basic framework for what TAC called 'the ecoregional approach to research' which is elaborated upon in Section 13.1.5.
Priority setting was TAC's starting point in strategic planning for the CGIAR. The implementation of priorities by activity, region, agroecological zone, and commodity is a major consideration in developing the strategy for the CGIAR in the medium/long term. However, TAC is aware that the priority analysis covers a broad spectrum of research needs, and recognizes that the CGIAR, as only one relatively small actor in the international research system, must be very selective.
The strategic approach must take account of the important role of NARS, advanced institutions in developed countries, and other relevant research organizations. The role of the private sector must also be considered, particularly in the light of recent developments in biotechnology, postharvest technology, plant breeders' rights, and intellectual property rights. Such developments contribute to the complexity and dynamism of the task facing the CGIAR. Although TAC has taken these issues into account in developing the CGIAR strategy, it has to be recognized that major breakthroughs in particular fields, and dramatic changes in institutions or policy regimes, are unpredictable and cannot therefore be factored into the strategy.
It should also be noted that TAC has focused its consideration of strategic principles largely on research programmes and institutional matters. However the Committee has been cognizant of the limits in funding and has therefore preferred to recommend adjustments to existing institutions rather than proposing the creation of new ones in restructuring the System to achieve its goals.
Among the guiding principles for translating TAC's medium/long- and long-term visions into strategies and structures is the idea of building on the current strengths of the CGIAR. These include the System's:
- apolitical and international character;- decentralized management (independent centres, autonomous donors and a system of checks and balances through reviews);
- concept of critical mass;
- hands-on research capability;
- relationships with partners;
- stable but flexible funding; and
- sound experience in research with a commodity and subject matter focus.
However, the CGIAR System should also make every effort to overcome its own shortcomings, such as:
- overlapping commodity responsibilities;- overlapping resource-management mandates;
- lack of a clear designated responsibility for strategic research on resources management issues;
- uncoordinated decentralization of a variety of activities;
- lack of coordination of centres' capacity-building efforts and national research systems; and
- inadequate accountability to partners.
In the medium/long term, a major challenge for the CGIAR Centres will be to improve their collaboration with NARS, particularly their contribution to strengthening national programmes, devolution of activities to the stronger NARS, and development of transnational mechanisms for scientific cooperation. While there is wide recognition that the CGIAR is not equipped to play a direct and leading role in these types of activities, it should, in association with other actors, actively support efforts focused on strengthening NARS and transnational collaborative mechanisms. ISNAR is expected to play a major role through its research-based services in a restructured CGIAR.
Joint work between CGIAR Centres and NARS through networks, consortia and other collaborative programmes of the proposed ecoregional mechanisms will certainly help strengthen NARS' capacity at the scientific level. However, the CGIAR efforts should not be a substitute for institution-building or capacity-strengthening activities in national research systems by governments and development agencies.
Among the concerns expressed by NARS' leaders about the nature of CGIAR-NARS relationships are: the unbalanced resource endowments; the top-down priority-setting mechanisms; the stratification of tasks, resulting in frustration of NARS; competition between centres for NARS collaboration, which has at times overburdened national scientists and caused internal fragmentation of NARS programmes. There has also been a tendency for bilateral one-on-one initiatives between centres and NARS, which have sometimes been set up at the cost of integrated regional cooperation between NARS.
In TAC's judgement, some of the main weaknesses of the CGIAR could be overcome by a sharper delineation of responsibilities between CGIAR global and ecoregional mechanisms, and this is the key organizing principle in TAC's options for restructuring the CGIAR System. As pointed out in the 'Report of the TAC/Centre Directors Working Group on the Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR' (1993), the ecoregional approach will entail a deliberate move along the following lines:
- filling gaps and minimizing overlaps in the coverage of research relating to natural resources conservation and management;- rationalizing overlapping commodity responsibilities;
- providing focal points within an organized agroecological framework for coordinating decentralized research activities; and
- streamlining interactions between NARS and CGIAR Centres to avoid confusion at the national level, by coordinating institution-building efforts and other activities.
TAC notes that these principles are all consistent with the CGIAR mission and goals, but that given the current realities of the CGIAR System and its components, and the present and potential heterogeneity in the capacity of national research systems, they may not be easy to follow. A pragmatic rather than a doctrinaire approach must therefore be taken in applying them.
In approaching the delicate issue of recommending future structures for the CGIAR, TAC debated three possible approaches, all of which were aimed at achieving the medium/long- and long-term visions of the System. The first was the 'clean slate' approach in which a structure for the System at a funding level of US$ 240 million is devised, with no attention being paid to the current structure. The second approach suggests only the minimum necessary changes to the current structure in order to accomplish the inclusion of the specific new activities. The third 'pragmatic' approach was intermediate between the first and second approaches, in which the possibilities of restructuring were considered with respect to the existing structure.
TAC adopted the third approach, and emphasized that the CGIAR should:
- Build on the high-quality and efficiently-operated parts of the System.- Keep firmly in mind the medium/long-term vision and the objective of delineating responsibilities for activities and reducing the potential for conflict and confusion.
- Clearly distinguish between an activity and an institution. TAC is pressing for clear responsibilities for tasks but sees no particular reason why an institution could not undertake two activities, one global and one ecoregional. The guiding principle for a centre with dual responsibilities should be that each activity brings its own clear priorities and that neither activity should dominate the other, either intellectually or in terms of resource availability.
- Maintain the principle that an institution is an organizational form with governance, management and operational functions. There can be varying degrees of decentralization, both of decisions and the geographic location, of the management and operations.
- Use the most appropriate forms of decentralization to achieve a balance between maintaining a critical mass for the effective pursuit of particular research projects and the possible diseconomies of very large congregations at single sites.
- Ensure that scientists at all levels have opportunities to collaborate directly or indirectly with the ultimate partners, the national programmes, and have access to necessary global discipline and basic research links. The global centres must not become basic research enclaves isolated from applied and adaptive problems. Nor can the ecoregional mechanisms become provincial islands isolated from advances in science. Fostering effective collaboration is a key to the future success of the CGIAR.
The ecoregional approach to international research was first introduced by TAC when considering the possible expansion of the CGIAR System, within the context of the development of its medium/long and long-term visions of the evolution of the CGIAR. The ecoregional approach was proposed by TAC as a vehicle: (i) to achieve sustainable improvements in agricultural production by balancing commodity improvement research with increased research on natural resources management; and (ii) to rationalize relationships between CGIAR Centres and NARS. Since the ecoregional approach is a new, key organizing principle for the CGIAR, the main concepts and implementation considerations are reiterated here.
TAC had presented its views on ecoregional approaches to research and the priorities for a CGIAR involvement in this area at MTM'92. At that meeting, members of the CGIAR had expressed a strong desire for a mechanism that would assist in developing a coherent CGIAR approach. As a result, TAC and the Centre Directors' Committee for Sustainability and the Environment worked together to develop proposals for such a mechanism, and a joint TAC/Centre Directors Working Group was commissioned to prepare a discussion document¹. The report of this Working Group was submitted in February 1993 and was discussed by both TAC and the Centre Directors, who each issued a commentary on it. The report was also distributed to heads of national research systems and members of the CGIAR, and was further considered at a workshop on 29 May 1993 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and by heads of national research systems in sub-Saharan Africa at a meeting organized by the Special Programme for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) on 29-30 April 1993.
¹TAC Secretariat, 1993. The Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR. Report of the TAC/Centre Directors' Working Group. FAO, Rome.
The ideas presented in the remainder of this section are drawn from the various materials developed by TAC and the joint TAC/Centre Directors Working Group as the concepts evolved.
The TAC concept of an ecoregional approach is that of a strategy for bringing a new balance to international agricultural research in order to enhance the sustainable improvement of productivity, and for gradual transition in the organization of the global agricultural research system to meet the sustainability challenge.
TAC recognized the inherent advantages of organizing research on the physical and biological aspects of the conservation and management of natural resources, including biodiversity, along agroecological zones. In contrast, the Committee recognized that the socioeconomic circumstances shaping such research, and the support needs of national programmes, are better differentiated by national and regional boundaries. TAC therefore developed the idea of regionally-defined agroecological zones, and coined the phrase 'ecoregional' to describe them.
There are three aspects of the ecoregional approach to research:
· conducting applied and strategic research on the foundations of sustainable production systems in the ecoregion;· improving productivity in the ecoregion by drawing in appropriate global research activities; and
· strengthening the cooperation with national partners and developing transnational mechanisms for collaboration.
The global community does not yet have an effective paradigm for the sustainable improvement of productivity. Identifying such a paradigm and making it operational is an urgent goal of truly international relevance and significance.
New modes of operation will be needed for both the implementation of the ecoregional approach and for closer collaboration with other international sources of expertise. These include expertise in the biophysical resource base of the ecoregion, in policy or institution-building capacity, and expertise in the improvement of crops, livestock and trees which do or could contribute to the production systems under research. The complexity of the task will demand a wider range of skills than currently resides in the CGIAR Centres, and thus the need for a wider range of partnerships, including other international and national institutions. The policy dimension of the approach will require not only strong sociopolitical understanding but political support in participating countries. Consortia of institutions are one possible mechanism for collaboration.
CGIAR success will continue to depend on close working relationships between centres and the NARS. TAC is aware of difficulties persisting in these relationships (many caused by the existence of global and regional mandates for the same commodity at different centres), and of their often one-sided nature. As the CGIAR restructures, TAC stresses the need to rationalize overlapping centre mandates, resolve the duplication of efforts in capacity building, and modify CGIAR-dominated planning processes, all of which have aggravated relationships and overburdened weaker NARS. Such rationalization will bring greater effectiveness to the global research system.
During the transition from the medium/long to the long term and as national systems become stronger, CGIAR ecoregional activities will be progressively replaced by work in national programmes and transnational mechanisms. As regional entities take on a greater share of responsibility, the winding down of its ecoregional initiatives will leave the CGIAR as a set of global activities, justified by the wide spillover of results throughout the developing world. The nature and pace of such change will depend on a strengthened political commitment to research in the developing countries and cooperation between the countries of a region. Such commitment will grow from a better understanding of the importance of new agricultural technology to human survival and development, and of the benefits of transnational collaboration in agricultural research.
No single organizational model will serve the needs of all ecoregions; the diversity in NARS' capabilities, the varying mandates of the CGIAR Centres and the location-specific manifestations of the degradation problem preclude uniformity. However, the following set of broad guidelines provides for a pragmatic, non-overlapping set of coordinated programmes, and a new dimension for the CGIAR. These programmes would: operate on a regional basis; focus on an important agroecological zone with a potential or actual sustainability problem; combine natural resources management and productivity objectives; employ a multidisciplinary approach; include both natural and social sciences; involve national research institutions and other partners in a synergistic way; adopt flexible systems of governance and priority setting; ensure global coherence in System strategies; and utilize flexible funding mechanisms.
(a) Operational mechanisms for the ecoregional approach
The mechanism adopted or preferred by the centres to implement natural resources management initiatives is the consortium, defined as the partnership of diverse institutions to accumulate critical mass and to jointly plan and implement an integrated research programme of common interest.
The formation of the consortium has to be catalysed and supported by a convening agency, sometimes a centre, which provides seed money to support early planning activities. Within the consortium, a steering committee could be established for priority setting, further fund raising and task allocation based on the inherent advantages of the respective partner institutions.
When a centre is convenor, it is usually because it is located in the ecoregion with a sound knowledge of the institutions of the countries in the region. It may or may not become the research leader. Since systems concepts drive the research approach, centres and institutes which have a major research role in the ecoregion are obvious candidates as consortium partners. Early diagnostic work bringing a closer understanding of the problem will be important in finalizing membership. The need to integrate the activities of a number of international collaborators at in-country sites requires innovative thinking on country agreements.
Collaborative programmes with NARS and other relevant research agencies are the obvious mode for implementation. The regional specificity of the research, and the necessary links with community organizations, national institutions and policy makers will demand political support at the highest national level, and funding support for both research and key complementary activities.
Ecoregional mechanisms should adopt organizational forms appropriate to the type and level of research needed and the strength of collaborating national systems. Where national systems are weak, the ecoregional mechanism will need to implement research through the full continuum, from strategic understanding of physical processes down to the introduction of technology on farms at the selected field sites in the region.
Each ecoregional mechanism will have the capacity to conduct research at only a limited number of sites. Each site should represent a defined area, often a watershed, and the unit of social cohesion, usually the community which manages it. The research approach will seek to understand the physical and biological processes critical to sustainability in this unit. It will also seek to understand the influence on the management of these processes from human decisions made at the farm, community, institutional and policy levels. These same human decision points will be fundamental to finding solutions for the sustainable management of the physical and biological resources. Research at each site will require close collaboration between CGIAR Centres, the national research system, national policy agencies and NGOs and farmers' associations working with local communities at the grassroots to cope with the many dimensions of the challenge of evolving sustainable production systems.
As well as contributing to the search for a research paradigm for the sustainable improvement of productivity, outputs from the research sites will be of immediate value at both the local and the AEZ level: at the local level, in the communities represented by the field sites, implementation of the approach will provide technology guidance on changes in social organization and policy needed for the sustainable improvement of productivity in the existing farming systems; at the same time the better understanding of the soil, water and biological processes from the representative field sites will be relevant to the whole agroecological zone beyond the immediate ecoregion. The need to share experiences from several locations demands coordination in site selection, collaboration in operation and the synthesis of results on themes common to these locations to provide aggregated research outputs.
The same sites will offer a training forum for scientists from the countries of the region, who will gain first-hand experience of the dimensions of natural resources management research including the national and transnational coordination required for its planning, implementation and the mobilization of the research outputs into farmers' fields.
(b) Future CGIAR/NARS relationships
Ecoregional mechanisms should build on the range of useful experiences already gained from the evolving relationships with national research systems across the world¹. A major aim in relations with NARS will be to move towards the implementation of priorities for research determined by regional or subregional associations of countries or scientists, organized in an appropriate way, enjoying support and approval from the relevant scientific communities and government. The aim is to achieve coherence in the CGIAR response to the needs of the countries in the subregion to replace individual and often duplicate initiatives by a number of different centres.
¹TAC thereby adopts ISNAR's broad definition of a national research system which is as follows: "A national agricultural research system comprises all of a country's entities responsible for organizing, coordinating, or executing research that contributes explicitly to the development of its agriculture and the maintenance of its natural resource base." Under this broad definition of NARS, non-governmental and private sector organizations would also be included in addition to governmental organizations and universities.
Contractual relationships, required either by ecoregional or commodity mechanisms to meet the needs of their own programmes, could be facilitated through the same consultative procedure. TAC suggests that existing mechanisms of transnational collaboration should be used where they are available, although there may sometimes be a need for modification of these mechanisms. Beyond the medium/long term, TAC's view is that CGIAR ecoregional mechanisms should pass greater responsibility to national systems and transnational collaborative mechanisms as these mature.
The major gain expected from restructuring the CGIAR into global and ecoregional dimensions is the greater coherence in the System's continuing roles of bridging and gap filling in agricultural research for developing countries. Bringing the concept of sustainable improvement of productivity to operational reality, and moving towards a closer integration of national needs with the global research agenda, will both add coherence to System strategies and streamline relations with national research systems. As noted, addressing national needs with a coordinated effort across subregions should mean more effective support and training and less burden on weak national systems from the continued interaction of each country with independent initiatives from several IARCs.
13.2.1. Ecoregional Activities
13.2.2. Global Activities
13.2.3. Structural and Delivery Issues
13.2.4. Timetable
13.2.1.1. Priorities by ecoregion
13.2.1.2. Institutional options
TAC approached the question of translating the ecoregional concept into operational structures in two stages: assessing the CGIAR priorities and activity needs in each ecoregion and, with results of that analysis in hand, assessing the institutional options for priority ecoregions.
All ecoregions have areas in which population levels have exceeded the ability of communities to sustainably manage their natural resource base according to traditional knowledge. While TAC acknowledges the importance of sustained production from the high potential lands, particularly the irrigated ecosystems forming the breadbaskets of Asia, it also notes that many countries must depend on inherently less productive resources to ensure food security.
The assessment of CGIAR priorities by ecoregions involved three steps:
- first, combining ecoregions for purposes of programme definition, since the individual ecoregions were considered to be too fine a classification for defining operational research programmes;- reviewing the relative priority index generated by the priority exercise for combinations of ecoregions;
- reviewing the intensity of research needs in each ecoregion (or combination of ecoregions) as outlined in Chapter 4, and assessing whether each combination of ecoregions resulting from the analysis should have a formal CGIAR programme.
Once the priorities and activity needs had been assessed, TAC explored institutional options that might be used to deliver a CGIAR ecoregional programme. TAC's assessment included comparing identified ecoregional needs with existing centre capacity to determine if centre programmes might be adjusted to meet future needs.
TAC's priority analysis was based on nine agroecological zones (AEZ) and four regional groupings of developing countries: sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), West Asia-North Africa (WANA), Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and Caribbean (LAC). Ultimately, 21 ecoregions were used in the priority-setting exercise. As TAC reviewed research needs, centres' strategic plans and commodity distribution across ecoregions, it was noted that CGIAR Centres do not normally distinguish between the tropics and subtropics in programme definition since there are great similarities in cropping patterns in both. TAC concluded, therefore, that the tropical and subtropical ecoregions with similar moisture regimes should be considered together. Thus, the pairs of AEZs 1 and 5, 2 and 6, 3 and 7, and 4 and 8 were combined for further analysis. The result of this first strategic choice was to reduce the number of consolidated ecoregions from 21 to 14: 4 in Asia, 4 in SSA, 5 in LAC and 1 in WANA.
TAC then reviewed the relative priority index for each of the 14 consolidated ecoregions. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 13.1. The values in the table add up to a total of 1000 which results from the application of nine modifiers to the composite base line.
Table 13.1. Distribution of relative priority indices by AEZs and geographic regions, within agriculture*
|
Consolidated AEZs |
SSA |
WANA |
Asia |
LAC |
|
Warm arid and semi-arid tropics and sub-tropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 1+5) |
136.8 |
- |
121.1 |
23.7 |
|
Warm sub-humid tropics and sub-tropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 2+6) |
68.2 |
- |
64.4 |
39.9 |
|
Warm humid tropics and sub-tropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 3+7) |
98.6 |
- |
148.2 |
73.7 |
|
Cool tropics and sub-tropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 4+8) |
33.1 |
- |
63.6 |
42.0 |
|
Cool sub-tropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9) |
- |
81.1 |
- |
5.8 |
*Derived from Table 9.15 (all modifiers weighted 0.5)
TAC also reviewed the distribution of values of commodity production across ecoregions to determine whether commodity production patterns crossed boundaries between consolidated ecoregions (Table 13.2). An analysis of Table 13.2 suggested that there was merit in consolidating ecoregions on the basis of similarity in cropping patterns and commodities produced. Clearly, many commodities such as rice and maize are grown in most ecoregions, while others such as pigeonpea and barley, are relatively important to particular ecoregions. This information was useful in analysing whether a particular ecoregion would be better served by a commodity-focused as opposed to a full ecoregional programme.
Table 13.2: Values of commodity production, modified by the relative priority index, of CGIAR commodities (modifiers at 0.5) across ecoregions (values as a proportion of a total of production of 10,000)
|
commodity |
ECOREGIONS |
TOTALS (%) |
|||||||||||||
|
SSA |
WANA |
ASIA |
LAC |
||||||||||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
9 |
1+5 |
2+6 |
A 3+7 |
8 |
1+5 |
2+6 |
3+7 |
4+8 |
9 |
||
|
RICE |
57.7 |
38.8 |
79.8 |
0.6 |
24.7 |
499.2 |
309.5 |
846.1 |
22.0 |
11.9 |
20.9 |
56.6 |
8.3 |
0.9 |
19.8 |
|
WHEAT |
12.4 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
15.1 |
158.7 |
117.1 |
27.3 |
37.9 |
178.7 |
10.2 |
2.0 |
11.3 |
21.4 |
7.8 |
6.0 |
|
MAIZE |
106.5 |
51.4 |
36.7 |
37.7 |
21.1 |
34.6 |
21.1 |
69.7 |
121.3 |
20.5 |
28.1 |
52.7 |
31.4 |
2.5 |
6.4 |
|
BARLEY |
0.6 |
* |
* |
12.5 |
55.2 |
3.5 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
10.2 |
0.7 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
3.1 |
0.3 |
0.9 |
|
SORGHUM |
115.0 |
34.0 |
7.4 |
10.0 |
2.9 |
26.6 |
8.1 |
0.1 |
* |
7.8 |
4.6 |
0.6 |
11.1 |
0.1 |
2.3 |
|
MILLET |
115.3 |
42.2 |
4.8 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
30.7 |
9.4 |
0.3 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
* |
0.1 |
* |
2.0 |
|
CASSAVA |
148.8 |
109.6 |
241.3 |
6.5 |
* |
11.6 |
26.4 |
72.3 |
* |
7.4 |
21.3 |
32.0 |
* |
0.0 |
6.8 |
|
POTATO |
7.1 |
8.6 |
5.2 |
20.5 |
56.5 |
36.5 |
13.3 |
27.7 |
86.2 |
5.1 |
1.4 |
5.4 |
40.2 |
4.4 |
3.2 |
|
SWEET POTATO |
24.5 |
21.2 |
12.6 |
16.3 |
0.2 |
39.2 |
20.6 |
73.5 |
* |
2.4 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
0.6 |
0.1 |
2.1 |
|
YAM |
5.8 |
125.5 |
153.1 |
0.1 |
* |
* |
* |
0.9 |
* |
0.4 |
0.5 |
1.9 |
* |
* |
2.9 |
|
BANANA & PLANTAIN |
8.8 |
144.6 |
119.4 |
66.8 |
2.1 |
0.4 |
27.9 |
58.4 |
0.0 |
18.5 |
20.4 |
51.8 |
23.9 |
0.1 |
5.4 |
|
CHICK PEA |
1.7 |
1.3 |
* |
3.0 |
8.8 |
32.8 |
9.0 |
1.1 |
1.7 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0.1 |
0.6 |
|
COW PEA |
77.9 |
30.5 |
22.5 |
* |
0.1 |
* |
0.4 |
0.3 |
* |
0.7 |
* |
0.0 |
* |
* |
1.3 |
|
PIGEON PEA |
2.7 |
4.0 |
* |
* |
* |
19.6 |
5.4 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
* |
* |
0.3 |
|
BROAD BEAN |
6.7 |
1.4 |
* |
10.7 |
12.3 |
2.5 |
1.3 |
3.4 |
16.8 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
1.0 |
* |
0.6 |
|
LENTIL |
0.2 |
0.1 |
* |
0.9 |
13.7 |
7.1 |
1.8 |
2.9 |
2.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
|
BEANS |
32.8 |
36.5 |
21.8 |
42.4 |
11.5 |
13.2 |
5.8 |
5.8 |
3.6 |
10.2 |
15.1 |
28.1 |
12.8 |
1.6 |
2.4 |
|
SOYBEAN |
4.4 |
2.2 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
2.8 |
16.9 |
10.6 |
27.0 |
* |
17.6 |
43.1 |
81.6 |
17.1 |
1.0 |
2.3 |
|
GROUNDNUT |
218.9 |
57.0 |
66.1 |
5.2 |
2.8 |
121.8 |
48.7 |
24.5 |
* |
4.0 |
4.5 |
0.6 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
5.5 |
|
COCONUT |
12.1 |
5.9 |
13.7 |
* |
* |
21.6 |
13.7 |
131.9 |
* |
2.8 |
2.7 |
5.9 |
* |
* |
2.1 |
|
BEEF & BUFFALO MEAT |
215.8 |
51.6 |
55.6 |
58.0 |
55.5 |
28.9 |
17.2 |
52.0 |
30.4 |
49.8 |
54.3 |
102.9 |
103.4 |
10.0 |
8.9 |
|
SHEEP & GOAT MEAT |
121.9 |
18.2 |
19.6 |
25.2 |
64.8 |
30.3 |
6.4 |
14.3 |
27.2 |
2.3 |
1.9 |
3.7 |
6.6 |
0.9 |
3.4 |
|
MILK |
386.8 |
30.4 |
9.1 |
66.8 |
128.7 |
358.8 |
88.9 |
25.2 |
49.9 |
46.9 |
55.2 |
107.9 |
87.5 |
10.8 |
14.5 |
|
TOTALS (%): |
16.8 |
8.2 |
8.7 |
4.0 |
6.2 |
14.5 |
6.7 |
14.8 |
5.5 |
2.2 |
2.8 |
5.5 |
3.7 |
0.4 |
100 |
* value < 0.5
While TAC did not adopt a minimum value for the relative priority index, it did carefully review those ecoregions with a relative priority index less than 50.0. At this stage, TAC ruled out, on the basis of low-priority ranking, separate programmes for LAC-AEZ 9 and LAC-AEZs 1+5. In other cases, TAC considered that further amalgamation of ecoregions could be necessary to justify a formal programme.
Finally, TAC's analysis of research priorities showed that more research on the conservation and management of natural resources was needed in every region and agroecological zone, although the size of the increase and the type of research needed differed across the regions as discussed in Chapter 4. TAC recognized the need for greater CGIAR ecoregional involvement in applied research on production systems development and management in the areas where NARS are weaker, despite the general recommendation that activities in this category should be reduced.
Based on all these analyses, TAC's assessment of the need for ecoregional activities in different ecoregions is as follows:
(i) Sub-Saharan Africa - An ecoregional programme in the warm arid and semi-arid tropics appeared to be justified by the analysis which resulted in a priority ranking of 136.8 for this ecoregion. The combined priority index for the warm humid tropics (AEZ 3) and the warm sub-humid tropics (AEZ 2) is 166.8, which would also justify an ecoregional programme. The cool tropics (AEZ 4), basically the East African Highlands, has a priority index of only 33.1 which is less compelling for a stand-alone programme. However, TAC considers that the research needs in this ecoregion are important and that national programmes in this area are particularly weak with respect to resources management research.(ii) West Asia-North Africa - The cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9) in this region has a priority index of 81.1. The geographic contiguity of the region and its pressing resources management needs justify a continuing ecoregional research programme. TAC noted that irrigated systems are important in this region and suggested that, where appropriate, irrigated ecosystems could constitute specific research domains of ecoregional programmes.
(iii) Asia and the Pacific - The Asian region is large and diverse in all respects. The warm semi-arid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 1+5) have a relatively high priority index (121.1), which reflects the major issues in resources management, population and poverty which, in the short term, would suggest a continued CGIAR effort in this ecoregion. TAC notes, however, that virtually all of this ecoregion is contained in two countries, India and Pakistan, both of which are judged to have relatively strong national programmes. In the longer term, this ecoregion would be an early candidate for the transfer of CGIAR efforts to regional mechanisms or national programmes. The warm humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 2, 3, 5, 7) have a combined priority index of 212.6, dominated by AEZ 3 (120.7) and AEZ 2 (43.0). This is a vast area with serious resource degradation problems and a burgeoning population.
Although the major crop is rice, upland crops, agroforestry, forestry and coastal ecosystems are also important, suggesting a need for ecoregional approaches to research. Institutional options for this area are discussed in the next section. The cool tropics and subtropics (AEZ 8) has a lower priority index (63.6) and is almost all contained in China and the adjoining border areas. TAC concluded that a major CGIAR ecoregional programme was not justified in this area.
(iv) Latin America and the Caribbean - The warm arid and semi-arid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 1+5) of LAC have a low relative priority index (23.7), are widely dispersed geographically and are sparsely populated with a limited number of commodities; maize, wheat and cattle. There could be spillovers from ecoregional programmes in SSA and Asia that could partially serve this region. In TAC's judgement, a separate ecoregional programme was not justified. TAC considered an amalgamation of ecoregions 2, 3, 6 and 7 because of geographic proximity, overlapping cropping patterns and similar natural resources management problems. The combined priority index of 113.6 for such an amalgamation suggests justification for one CGIAR programme to cover the important research domains. TAC did not consider RAEZ 9 because of its low priority index (5.8) and its concentration in two relatively advanced countries, Chile and Argentina. The remaining aggregate is AEZs 4 + 8, the cool tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (the highlands of Latin and Central America) which, like the highlands of Africa, has a relatively low priority index (42.0) and is geographically diverse. However resources management issues are particularly acute in mountainous regions and poverty is pervasive. In TAC's view, the CGIAR would be well advised not to ignore highland ecosystems, though the establishment of separate major core funded programmes in Latin America and Africa is probably not justified. Institutional options are discussed in the following section.
In summary, TAC concluded that six ecoregional programmes were justified: two in SSA in the warm arid and semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1) and the warm humid and sub-humid tropics (AEZs 2+3); one in WANA in the cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9); two in Asia in the warm arid and semi-arid region (AEZs 1+5), and the warm humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics (AEZs 2, 3, 6 + 7); and one in LAC in the warm humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics (AEZs 2, 3, 6 + 7). In addition, there may be justification for programmes in the cool tropics in LAC and SSA if either inter-regional mechanisms were possible or if the programmes for each region were institutionally combined with other mechanisms.
At the special workshop on ecoregional approaches in San Juan on 29 May 1993, members of the CGIAR requested that TAC develop a proposal for the implementation of the ecoregional approach that would ensure the orderly evolution of the System towards greater coherence and rationalization. The CGIAR was supportive of TAC's proposal to select a limited number of ecoregional initiatives for funding on a programme basis. During the medium-term resource allocation process, TAC formulated a comprehensive proposal in this regard, and funds have been allocated to several ecoregional programmes in order to promote inter-centre collaboration and partnership with national research systems and other institutes. A convening centre has been identified for each initiative but as discussed in Section 13.1.5.2, this would not be necessarily the research leader. The 'convening' role is essentially a servicing and initiating role. The convener would be a catalyst for the formation of a consortium and channel seed money to stimulate early planning activities, and provide financial accountability to donors. In all cases the research would be conducted by relevant CGIAR Centres, NARS and other institutions or agencies. TAC's institutional recommendations for each region are as follows¹:
¹It is assumed that global subject matter centres such as ISNAR (institution building) and IFPRI (policy research) will be involved in most of these initiatives.
Sub-Saharan Africa: TAC considered that support for two ecoregional programmes would be justified in the warm semi-arid tropics, and the warm humid and sub-humid tropics.
- In the warm humid and sub-humid tropics of sub-Saharan Africa, IITA would be the convening centre through its continuum, moist savanna, and forest zone programmes in West, Central and Eastern Africa. IITA would work collaboratively with WARDA within the framework of a consortium arrangement for the inland valleys in West Africa, in which WARDA currently plays a lead role.- In the warm arid and semi-arid tropics, ICRISAT would be the convening centre, both through its Sahelian programme and its programme in Bulawayo in collaboration with the Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR).
ICRAF is currently leading an initiative on integrated natural resources management for the highlands of eastern and central Africa, in close collaboration with national programmes and several CGIAR Centres. TAC noted that while the cool tropics of sub-Saharan Africa was not considered to be a high-priority ecoregion, this highlands initiative merited support because of its innovative approach, which involved centres and NARS from the outset, and because of the weakness of national research systems in the region. This highlands initiative is currently supported with complementary sources of funding, but would be a candidate for CGIAR System programme support. ICRAF would be the convening centre for an ecoregional programme.
WANA: TAC proposes an ecoregional programme for the subtropics with winter rainfall, with ICARDA as the convening centre. It is assumed that the new programme on water management in the WANA region, for which IIMI has been designated the convening centre, will also be closely involved in this initiative.
Asia and the Pacific: TAC proposes two ecoregional programmes in Asia, one in the warm semi-arid tropics and subtropics, and another one for the warm humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics.
- In the warm arid and semi-arid tropics and subtropics, ICRISAT would be the convening centre. Elements of the CIMMYT-IRRI rice-wheat cropping system would also be included in this initiative.- In the warm sub-humid and humid tropics and subtropics, IRRI would be the convening centre for an ecoregional programme particularly through its upland farming systems consortium and upland rice research programme.
Latin America: TAC considered that a programme would be justified for the humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics of Latin America. CIAT would be the convening centre and the programme would include relevant parts of CIP's Andean programme. TAC considered whether CIP's proposed ecoregional programme for the Andean region would merit separate support. The Committee considers that the resource-management research aspects of the proposed Andean programme would more appropriately fit in CIP's complementary programme. TAC recognizes the importance of the Andean region and the need for research to overcome the urgent problems of poverty and resource degradation in the area. The Committee supports CIP's research on genetic resource conservation of lesser known roots and tubers as a core element under the Andean programme and hopes that relevant parts of the Andean programme can be integrated in the proposed ecoregional programme for Latin America. That programme may also incorporate relevant parts of CIAT's ecosystems programmes on hillsides, forest margins and savannas.
Cross-ecoregional: TAC considered there was justification for programme support to the 'alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture' initiative which already exists and in which several centres and national programme partners are actively involved. The initiative addresses a major cross ecoregional issue. ICRAF would be the convening centre and work in close collaboration with IITA, CIAT, CIFOR, and IRRI.
TAC is prepared to receive concrete proposals through the convening centres for implementing the ecoregional programmes, with specific roles outlined for each contributing partner. The Committee stresses the importance of involving national programmes and relevant other non-CGIAR partners in these initiatives from the outset.
13.2.2.1. Global commodity/production sector research
13.2.2.2. Global non-commodity research
13.2.2.3. Inter-centre/global initiatives
In section 13.2.1, TAC presented key strategic principles in approaching the question of strategy and structure of the CGIAR. These principles were applied to the consideration of both ecoregional and global strategies and structures. In approaching the issue of ecoregional activities, an intermediate step of determining which ecoregions merited CGIAR programmes was necessary before institutional options could be discussed. In the global context, such a step is unnecessary because the priority exercise has already highlighted which proposed commodities and activities merit CGIAR support and their relative priorities.
In discussing institutional options for the System's efforts on commodities research, TAC continued to aim at achieving the medium/long- and long-term visions of the CGIAR. TAC argued that research with a global perspective should be strategic and sharply focused on selected commodities and subject matters of global significance. In analysing future strategies and structure, TAC addressed a number of strategic issues: the evolving role of the CGIAR in priority-ranked commodities; the way in which form and magnitude of their research effort should develop; and the possibility of aggregating commodity activities. The nature and scope of non-commodity global activities and the links between global activities and ecoregional mechanisms were also discussed. Finally, TAC carefully considered the optimal future structure of the CGIAR, with respect to the current shortfalls in funding to the CGIAR. As discussed elsewhere, if the situation of budget stringencies persists, the CGIAR may not be able to sustain current structures. TAC therefore discussed structural changes at the institutional, activity, regional, commodity, production sector and programme levels.
TAC considered several alternative institutional possibilities for global commodity/production sector research responsibilities in the CGIAR, taking into account the preceding analysis and the recent decisions by the CGIAR with respect to institutional forms for livestock, rice, and banana and plantain. Among the criteria considered by TAC in looking at institutional options were:
- proven record and impact;
- economies of scale and existing infrastructure for research;
- possibility of spillover effects;
- centres of origin/biodiversity of the commodities;
- compatibility of research approaches among commodities; and
- existing research links between centres.
TAC considered that recent developments in CGIAR policy on intellectual property rights, plant genetic resources and biotechnology should be taken into account in the formulation of institutional strategies. The facilities needed for genetic resource conservation and for research using some molecular biology techniques are very costly, and more cost effective use of such facilities and techniques should constantly be sought.
Subsequent to the decision by the CGIAR at MTM'87 that evaluation of CGIAR priorities should be a continuing activity, TAC initiated a series of strategic analyses of CGIAR commodities. However, the process was interrupted during 1988 and delayed to allow time for the assessment of the non-associated centres.
In TAC's view a reasoned, sequential approach is likely to be more manageable than an across-the-board consideration of options despite the obvious merits of a comprehensive review. The clarification on global commodity organization provided by CGIAR decisions regarding livestock and banana and plantain research at the Mid-Term Meeting of the CGIAR in Puerto Rico in 1993, provides a useful example.
As TAC continued its analysis it considered, in a stepwise approach, options for the following groupings of commodities: cereals, roots and tubers, legumes, vegetables, coconut, banana and plantain, trees, large and small ruminants, and fish, each of which is discussed in turn below.
Cereals: The allocation of CGIAR responsibilities for rice research was largely resolved by the inter-centre review of rice, and the most recent TAC strategy statement on rice research in the CGIAR, which was generally endorsed at MTM'93.
Recent external reviews such as those of CIMMYT and ICARDA in 1993, and discussions associated with the second round of the MTP process, have highlighted the need to revisit issues related to shared responsibilities among CGIAR Centres for wheat, maize and barley, as well as the role of the CGIAR in research on other cereals specifically sorghum and millets. TAC intends to conduct strategic analyses of these commodities during 1996 in order to continue the process initiated in 1988 with maize, and in 1993 with rice, to determine whether there is a basis for re-allocating the primary responsibility for these cereals among centres. These analyses will also serve as an input into the next major revision of CGIAR priorities and strategies in 1997.
Roots and Tubers: Current responsibility for production improvement programmes in roots and tubers is dispersed across several institutes: potato and sweet potato - CIP; cassava - CIAT and IITA; and yam - IITA. Each of these three centres will be subject to an external review during 1995. At the same time, TAC will organize an inter-centre review to assess the possibilities of a more optimal organization of roots and tubers research in the CGIAR.
Legumes: Current CGIAR activities in legume research are dispersed across four centres: chickpea, pigeonpea and groundnut - ICRISAT; beans - CIAT; cowpea and soybean - IITA; and lentil and chickpea - ICARDA. As a result of its priorities analysis, TAC recommended a reduction in effort in pigeonpea and phaseolus bean, the maintenance of effort for lentil, chickpea and cowpea in the short term, and increased emphasis on groundnut and soybean. The number of species involved, the localized importance of some food legumes (see Table 13.2), the relatively low total CGIAR effort in food legumes and the integral importance of legumes in complex farming systems have led to the current situation of dispersion. TAC considers that there are no strong arguments to centralize legume research within a single global entity and there is, therefore, no need to change current arrangements for legume research. Much of legume research will continue to be conducted within an ecoregional framework.
Vegetables: TAC's recommendation on vegetables is unchanged from that made in the Expansion Report. Vegetables are considered to be a priority commodity for a CGIAR involvement, but currently there is no acceptable institutional mechanism through which CGIAR support could be organized.
Banana and plantain: As agreed at MTM'93, the CGIAR is placing highest priority on Musa germplasm improvement and related activities and a second priority on information and communication. Germplasm improvement activities will be conducted through a consortium, facilitated by INIBAP, under the governance and administrative structure of IBPGR. IITA will also continue its work on banana and plantain.
Coconut: TAC's recommendation of 1990 for a global programme on coconut germplasm conservation and improvement did not contain a parallel recommendation for a new institution. Rather, the emerging efforts to form a coconut germplasm network (coordinated by IBPGR) and the inclusion of coconut as a multipurpose tree in the mandate of ICRAF seems appropriate. TAC has recommended core support for IBPGR's coconut germplasm network.
Livestock: TAC and a CGIAR working group have recently considered future priorities and strategies for livestock research. On the basis of these, the CGIAR concluded that:
- Livestock research should be planned as a global programme within a Systemwide framework involving those CGIAR Centres whose work impinges on livestock development.- A global livestock research centre should be established into which relevant components of ILCA and ILRAD would be integrated, in a manner and timeframe that will cause minimal disruption to the priority research areas of the two centres. The major components of the global livestock research programme will include: animal health, animal nutrition and physiology, animal genetics, feed resources, livestock production systems, natural resources management and policy analysis. Priority will be given to integrated crop-livestock systems, the exploitation of the adaptability and disease tolerance of indigenous livestock breeds, and expansion of the livestock feed base. CGIAR research will focus exclusively on ruminant livestock, although research on livestock feed resources may have relevance to monogastric species. The global livestock research programme will include increased collaboration with research institutes in Africa, Asia and Latin America and will foster and exploit the complementarity natures of, and synergy between, the global and ecoregional programmes.
A CGIAR steering committee on livestock research has been set up in order to follow up on these recommendations and to further efforts to integrate livestock related research across the CGIAR.
Trees: Two major tasks have been undertaken by TAC since the admission of ICRAF into the CGIAR System in 1991 and the creation of CIFOR in 1992: the external programme and management review of ICRAF, and the assessment of the Medium-Term Plans (MTPs) of both centres. These have provided fresh opportunities to critically appraise the direction of forestry/agroforestry research in the CGIAR.
The MTPs of the two Centres showed a high degree of complementarity and potential overlap. Common ground was evident in their tree-improvement and policy-research programmes. Both Centres emphasized the need to undertake research in agroforestry: and both are involved in global initiatives aimed at rehabilitating Imperata grassland in South East Asia; forest margins of Latin America, and finding alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture in Africa, Latin America and South East Asia.
Both CIFOR and ICRAF have found it expedient to consider integrating some of their field activities and envisage sharing facilities in Bogor (CIFOR Headquarters) and Nairobi (ICRAF Headquarters). There is also cross-representation at Board level.
ICRAF's External Review Panel carefully considered the form which the relationship between ICRAF and CIFOR should take, in terms of the appropriate balance in the 'trees-in-land-use' research activities, and the resolution of the differing views concerning which part of the forestry-agriculture continuum should appear in the mandate of each centre; since both are committed to the same target group, i.e., 'poor people', with emphasis on non-timber, non-market output from secondary forests or reclamation of degraded lands. The Panel's prescription was that ICRAF should take the global lead in developing and disseminating agroforestry technology, while CIFOR should take on the same role for those activities that clearly fall within the forestry domain. Both centres would collaborate in activities falling towards the middle of the continuum with ICRAF focusing more on Africa and CIFOR focusing more on Asia.
At TAC 61, the Committee addressed the ICRAF-CIFOR relationship at length, both in considering the MTP proposals of the Centres and as part of the Systemwide analysis of the implications for CGIAR structure of different funding scenarios. While the viability of ICRAF and CIFOR may be assured at higher funding levels, there was a consensus that separate institutional existence could not be justified at the lowest funding scenario. If the current low level of resources were to be sustained, the logical development would be towards greater Systemwide integration of agroforestry and forestry research. The planned collaborative activities specified in the MTPs of ICRAF and CIFOR can be widened to effect a complete integration of research programmes which already exhibit many basic similarities in terms of strategic objectives and operational modalities. As an example, CIFOR's forest margin research, its strategy for the control and reclamation of Imperata grasses in southeast Asia, and the multipurpose tree improvement as well as policy research, share many commonalities with ICRAF's parallel programmes. The integration of forestry and agroforestry research appears to be logical, in this segment of land use continuum, both from the viewpoint of resource savings and in terms of sustaining a critical mass and research advantage for the CGIAR System as a whole. TAC therefore respectfully suggests a careful reconsideration of the two-centre model if funding levels continue to stagnate or decline further.
Fisheries: Research on fisheries has been integrated in the work of the CGIAR through the incorporation of ICLARM in the System. As indicated in Chapter 8 of this report, fisheries research is of high priority to the CGIAR. A strategic plan for fisheries research in the CGIAR was endorsed by the Group at MTM'92, and a medium-term plan for ICLARM was endorsed at ICW93.
TAC considered several institutional and operational mechanisms for addressing global strategic and methodological issues in plant genetic resources, socioeconomics, public policy and public management research including irrigation and research management. The suggestions ranged from mechanisms for closer working relations among centres to mergers between centres with overlapping of responsibilities.
(a) Genetic resources
Genetic resources is the primary responsibility of IBPGR and a significant scientific activity in at least 10 of the 18 CGIAR Centres. In 1992 the CGIAR allocation for germplasm collection, conservation, characterization and utilization activities was US$ 23 million in core funds, supporting 63 SSY, of which IBPGR's share was US$ 9 million and 22 SSY. TAC's long-term vision of the CGIAR foresees a continuing need for an international effort in the collection, conservation, characterization and utilization of genetic resources and there is therefore an urgent need for a CGIAR Systemwide strategy and programme for plant genetic resources. TAC is undertaking a strategic stripe review of the issues and activities at the CGIAR Centres during 1993/94 to facilitate the development of a Systemwide strategy and programme for plant genetic resources.
(b) Institution building, public policy and public management research
The major research issues in CGIAR public policy and public management activities are addressed by several centres. Public policy research is the major activity of IFPRI but also an important area of work of ISNAR, ILCA, ICLARM, ICARDA, CIAT, CIFOR, ICRAF and other centres. Research on common property attributes of resources management is shared by IFPRI, IIMI, ICRAF, CIFOR and ICLARM. ISNAR and IIMI are the lead centres for research on institutional structure and public management. IFPRI, IIMI, CIFOR and ISNAR all conduct research on production and input policies.
These research fields have major areas of overlap and are addressed by CGIAR Centres both at the global and the ecoregional level. In order to assist TAC in defining a System strategy and structural options for issues relating to research on institutional structure, public policy and public management, a strategic stripe review of public policy, public management and institution building activities in the CGIAR will be undertaken during 1994. This review will have to be conducted within a broad perspective of other related global commodity and subject-matter activities at the CGIAR Centres.
(c) Water management research
Several centres are currently involved in different aspects of water management research. While research on irrigation management is addressed mainly by IIMI, important aspects of irrigated cropping systems in Asia, Africa and West Asia-North Africa are included in the work of IRRI, WARDA, CIMMYT and ICARDA. Similar research is likely to be needed on irrigated agriculture in Latin America where the need will have to be met by cooperation with NARS using special project funding. However, there is a need to study the efficiency with which increasingly scarce irrigation water is used for crop production, along with resource degradation issues such as salinization and waterlogging. Also, several centres, through cooperative arrangements with external agencies, have found the need to take into account watershed management, human health and downstream environmental considerations related to irrigated and wetland farming systems.
There may be a need to bring all these different elements together through an inter-centre programme so that the capacities and interests that already exist in other CGIAR Centres, including CIAT, CIFOR and ICLARM can be integrated. The first external review of IIMI as a CGIAR Centre will be conducted in early 1994 and will assist in highlighting some of the inter-centre issues related to irrigated cropping systems research as well as those issues that may be addressed through cooperative arrangements with external agencies. This could be a firm step towards a Systemwide strategy.
In its consideration of the medium-term resource allocation process, TAC noted that this process was limited in its ability to appropriately deal with concerns of particular importance at the System level, but transcending centres' own interests. Recognizing that the CGIAR was only one component of the global agricultural research system for developing countries, and that enhanced collaborative efforts would allow for greater efficacy of CGIAR activities, TAC considered that there was a need to promote further collaboration not only among CGIAR Centres but also with national programme partners and other relevant institutions and agencies. TAC, therefore, recommended programme funding to support inter-centre initiatives in several important areas of work: implementing the ecoregional approach to research, water management research, global livestock research, fisheries research and genetic resources conservation. TAC considers that the proposed programme funding is an effective mechanism to facilitate inter-centre collaboration, and represents a new but experimental approach to funding in the CGIAR. The approach raises additional issues which will need to be addressed as experience is gained, such as those related to accountability.
13.2.3.1. Study of CGIAR delivery mechanisms
13.2.3.2. Other structural issues
The comprehensive and simultaneous review of 18 MTP proposals has given TAC and the CGIAR a complete snapshot of the CGIAR in all of its dimensions. One of these dimensions is geographic and one of the things that stands out is the growing number of CGIAR activities, facilities and programmes that exist side by side in many regions. Each taken separately no doubt can be explained rationally by the centre involved. However, looked at from a System perspective one must ask the question as to whether there are not more cost-effective ways of organizing the CGIAR presence in many regions.
Therefore TAC has proposed to undertake a regional inventory of CGIAR facilities, personnel, programmes and activities in West Africa. This type of study, if found useful, could be conducted for other regions as well. There is nothing ominous about the selection of West Africa. TAC chose it because many centres have a physical presence in the region - IITA, WARDA, ICRISAT, ILCA, CIMMYT, IFPRI, CIP, IIMI and ICRAF, to name only some. The study would identify physical locations of facilities, personnel resident in the region, programme expenditure and level of capital investment. In a period of sustained resource shortfall, all possible avenues of sharing and cost saving need to be explored. TAC proposes to initiate the study in 1994.
TAC may also undertake further reviews of the System's capacity to sustain current CGIAR efforts by region, activity, commodity, production sector and programme if funding levels continue to stagnate or decline. TAC stands ready to advise on other institutional options as it has already done in Chapter 11 of its report on the Expansion of the CGIAR System, and in the draft Chapter 13 of the 1992 Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, Part II.
As indicated in previous sections, TAC will conduct a comprehensive review of research on several commodity groups and CGIAR activities between 1994 and 1996, according to the timetable shown below. TAC believes that this sequential component approach may be a more fruitful way to proceed, in terms of both decision-making and implementation, than through complete System reviews. These reviews should provide options for a more cost-effective organization of CGIAR research in those areas. The outcome of these reviews will also be used as an input for the next review of CGIAR priorities and strategies scheduled for 1997.
Timetable for Commodity, Activity and Other System Reviews
|
Review |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
|
Genetic resources |
X ------- X |
|
|
| |
|
Public policy and public management research |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
CGIAR delivery mechanisms |
|
X ------ X |
|
| |
|
Roots and tubers |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Cereals |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
CGIAR priorities and strategies |
|
|
|
|
X |
TAC considered that, programmatically, the commodity-specific activities of the global programmes and the production-system and resource-management activities of the ecoregional mechanisms are entirely complementary. Placing commodity-specific research entirely at a global commodity centre in the past has sometimes isolated the work from the broader agricultural and socioeconomic context of the real world of the farmer. This is not to say that the multidisciplinary commodity approach has failed, but rather that it may have been adopted in too narrow a form, neglecting important aspects such as conservation and management of natural resources and user considerations important to the acceptance of technology by small farmers. It is important that centres learn from their experience in dealing with these problems, as the framework of ecoregional and global operating procedures evolve across the CGIAR System and in collaborative partnerships with NARS.
TAC sees a need for very close ties between global and ecoregional mechanisms. Ecoregional entities should develop and build the store of knowledge of the natural resource base in their regions and human interactions with that base, including a detailed understanding of the important biotic and abiotic stresses constraining productivity and sustainability of production in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This understanding would be shared with global commodity centres which would factor it into their genetic enhancement and breeding programmes. To complement these programmes, ecoregional entities would serve as the major sites for testing, evaluation of methodologies, and technological packages generated by the global centres.
The development of clear modes of collaboration and material transfer will be particularly important for research on germplasm enhancement and breeding and there is a good case for outposting plant breeders employed by the global commodity entity at strategic locations in the ecoregions. In this way, experienced breeders would gain from exposure to the problems at the field level. The ecoregional entities/mechanisms could also host scientists from the global centres working on specific problems in the ecoregion with transnational or global significance. IBPGR might, for instance, outpost staff at ecoregional entities which could be used as a base to collect germplasm and organize in situ conservation of genetic resources. This issue is addressed in more detail in recent TAC/CGIAR policy and strategic papers on genetic resources and intellectual property rights1. In its medium-term plan, IBPGR has also made specific suggestions on its proposed modes of operation.
¹"The Role of CGIAR in Plant Genetic Resources: Towards a System-wide Strategy" and "Changing Responsibilities and Roles of PGR within the CGIAR System".
ISNAR staff based at ecoregional entities could help NARS in the region to define their needs in research management and assist them in priority setting and programme planning. IFPRI could also outpost staff at ecoregional entities to conduct collaborative research on key policy issues.
Research on production/farming systems that cut across production sectors would, by necessity require a multidisciplinary team, requiring inputs from more than one global centre. TAC considers that the best approach is a joint programme with a task force involving the main actors: global centres, the ecoregional mechanisms, and the participating NARS.
Consultation between centres and NARS should be based on a continuing dialogue on collaborative research with, where appropriate, involvement from other partners. As stated earlier, centres and NARS scientists should be given every opportunity and encouragement for greater interaction and collaboration. In the medium/long term, this is likely to occur mostly through the ecoregional mechanisms. However, NARS scientists should have unimpeded contact with other scientists at those institutions dealing with global activities. Where ecoregional and global activities are combined in one institution, relations with NARS should not present any particular problem in terms of coordination. This mix of both global and ecoregional responsibilities should evolve as a common institutional approach in some CGIAR Centres in the medium/long term.
Finally, TAC notes that research on natural resources management research is both ecoregional and global in nature. As pointed out in Section 13.1.3, the Committee sees in the long term a continuing need for strategic research on global issues of natural resources conservation and management.
The formal mandates of CGIAR Centres have been incorporated into their constitutions. These legal charters have in many cases required an act of parliament in the host country of a centre's headquarters. Changes in the formal mandates of current centres, which may be brought about as a result of the restructuring exercise, would therefore involve extensive legal processes. As the CGIAR System and its centres evolved over the last two decades, the operational mandates of most of the centres have also changed, and this process of change should be encouraged. The CGIAR already has an informal but effective process of supporting only those activities which have been collectively ranked as high priority.
With the encouragement of TAC, a number of centres with overlapping mandates (particularly between regional and global mandates) have in the past been able to agree on how to delineate responsibilities among themselves. TAC has been monitoring the implementation of agreements reached between centres on the sharing of responsibilities. The proposed inter-centre commodity and activity reviews will provide another mechanism to advise on unnecessary overlaps between centres. A further mechanism is the external review process.
This chapter has provided an update of TAC's views on the ecoregional approach to research and how progress can be made in its implementation. The Committee has re-emphasized the twin objectives of expanding the CGIAR research on natural resources conservation and management to increase sustainable production, and at the same time streamlining CGIAR collaboration with national programmes. TAC has also made proposals on how the ecoregional concept can be implemented including institutional and funding mechanisms. The Committee is prepared to receive proposals from the participating institutions on the various initiatives that have been assigned programme support if the CGIAR endorses its recommendations. It has also outlined the process by which TAC will consider global activities and structural adjustments in the CGIAR.
The CGIAR and its institutes have always adopted a dynamic approach to meeting the CGIAR mission and goals. The strategic approach proposed by TAC in assessing major groups of commodity and subject-matter research offers further possibilities for constructive change. The pace at which this change occurs will depend on the rate at which individual centres, in dialogue with their donors and NARS, can change their programmes and institutional structures to meet the challenges. TAC has not developed a masterplan or blueprint for the restructuring of the Group but will formulate over the next three years further options to assist the CGIAR in this process.
