3.1. The Future Role of the CGIAR
3.2. Highest Priority Programmes in the Long and Medium Term
3.3. Systemwide Initiatives
3.4. Structural Options for the CGIAR
TAC's views of the medium and long-term visions of the CGIAR, its recommendations on CGIAR priorities and strategies, and its consideration of measures to improve Systemwide efficiency, provide the basis for discussions on structural options for the CGIAR. The challenges to research on food production and resource management for developing countries remain enormous. For example, over the next 30 years, yields of food grains will need to more than double if production is to meet minimum food and nutritional needs, and substantially contribute to reducing poverty. The scope for increasing the land area under cultivation in the coming decades is much lower than in the past. Further, a significant proportion of the currently cultivated land, including the intensively cultivated irrigated land, is already under severe threat of degradation. In addition to helping to increase food production and alleviate poverty and malnutrition, research will, therefore, also have to find ways and means to stop further degradation of the natural resource base, to improve the management of these resources, and to protect the environment as unprecedented higher levels of production are sought.
The CGIAR can play a prominent role in making a major contribution to meeting these challenges by concentrating on those research activities for which international efforts offer unequivocal advantages. In its limited capacity, the CGIAR should only do those things that it can do best and for which there is no other reliable source of supply.
The CGIAR should position itself with an effective organization so as to meet the challenges for the 21st century and to implement its long-term vision. Such a task requires a review of the structure of the System to:
· eliminate current overlaps in centre mandates; strengthen resource management research and its integration with commodity research;· delineate clear responsibilities for global and regional research activities;
· provide clear focal points for the coordination of decentralized activities;
· streamline relations with national and regional research systems; and
· provide a bridge with basic research efforts in advanced institutions.
Structural change is necessary in order to move the "System" towards a more effective organization. It is to be emphasized that the main aim of restructuring should be to improve the way research is conducted, rather than to change what research is done. In this respect, TAC would like to re-affirm the programmatic recommendations it made in the 1994-98 medium-term resource allocation process. Despite current funding shortfalls, TAC re-states that its recommendations on the US$ 270 million and US$ 280 million scenarios remain of high priority.
The success of the CGIAR will be dependent upon the development of efficient national research systems and transnational mechanisms of scientific collaboration. While the CGIAR is not well placed to be the lead agency for institution building, it can contribute substantially through collaborative research activities.
The long-term vision of the CGIAR provides clear indications of those elements of the current CGIAR which are of highest priority and need to be safeguarded. At the global level, these components include: genetic resource conservation (including the conservation of biodiversity); germplasm enhancement for 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 importance; and global information activities related to CGIAR research.
In practical terms, the programmes considered by TAC to be of highest priority at the global level and to be preserved in the long term are, first of all, germplasm conservation of CGIAR mandate commodities as well as the central mechanisms for supporting this work. Strategic germplasm enhancement research of an international character, including application of biotechnology, of the most important commodities such as rice, wheat and maize, which account for more than half the calorie intake in developing countries, should also be preserved. Some of the strategic resource management programmes at the CGIAR Centres are of long-term importance and address issues of highest priority such as the problem of yield decline of rice in intensive cropping systems, scarcity and mismanagement of water in Asia, or resource degradation problems in the high density semi-arid and highland areas of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. There would also be a continuing need for the CGIAR to be involved in public policy and public management research, and in catalyzing global information services related to CGIAR-related activities.
TAC re-affirms that it sees the CGIAR's principal contribution in strengthening NARS to be through its collaborative research and research-related activities and the technologies and knowledge it generates. The Committee has carefully assessed the CGIAR's future involvement in organization and management counselling of NARS and in other institution-building activities. It considers that the task is large and comprehensive, and that the CGIAR has inadequate resources to cater for all of the needs. Major efforts will have to be provided by other organizations.
The CGIAR should also provide continued support for ecoregional programmes of high priority and to high priority research endeavours targeted at particular regions. TAC has provided clear indications on those ecoregions which are of highest priority (see Section 2.3.3.), and it has recommended additional support for Systemwide initiatives to complement centres' ecoregional programmes and to strengthen partnerships.
In the 1994-98 medium-term resource allocation exercise, TAC recognized that the process of developing Medium-Term Plan (MTP) proposals at the centre level was limited in centres' ability to deal with concerns of importance at the System level, that transcend but complement the centres' own interests. As a result, such research issues considered important from a Systemwide perspective were not adequately treated in the individual centre MTPs. Also, several centres have research sites around the world that have characteristics which, in a coordinated effort, provide synergies in tackling important global themes. Further, such Systemwide perspectives are viewed by the Committee to be an essential dimension of any restructuring of the CGIAR in the medium term. TAC, therefore, recommended that the CGIAR allocate core funds to a number of programmes of particular importance to the System as a whole. Each of these Systemwide initiatives was to be undertaken by a consortium of partners consisting of CGIAR Centres, national programmes and other relevant institutions. For each of the initiatives TAC identified an IARC as a convening centre which would act as an initiator and facilitator. The convener would be a catalyst for the formation of a consortium and channel seed money to stimulate programme planning activities, but would not necessarily provide research leadership to the initiative concerned. It would also provide financial accountability to the donors.
In March 1994, TAC re-affirmed that it was assigning the highest priority to these Systemwide initiatives and that in a situation of funding shortfall such activities should receive priority over centre-specific programmes. TAC strongly believes that the Systemwide programmes would provide an innovative mechanism to promote partnerships among centres, national programmes and other actors in the global agricultural research system.
TAC recognizes that development of effective partnerships is a time-consuming process, but stresses that the payoffs of successful partnerships are very high. The Systemwide initiatives proposed by TAC for the current medium-term period relate to a set of ecoregional programmes, an inter-centre programme on the conservation of genetic resources, collaborative livestock research programmes, and a water management research programme. TAC considers that these programmes will also be of high priority in the long term. The Committee recommended that in total up to US$ 10 million (in 1992 dollars) could be allocated to these Systemwide initiatives as soon as appropriate projects are available.
On the premise that in the long term, NARS capacity in most developing countries will be adequate to meet their essential needs for agricultural research, and that there will be networks of regional/ecoregional mechanisms for transnational research collaboration, TAC believes that the future structure of the CGIAR should be based on two types of responsibilities; global and regional/ecoregional, with close ties and interactions between the mechanisms addressing each type. The absolute advantage of the IARCs should be in strategic or mission-oriented basic research given the alternative sources of research supply. The global mechanisms would focus on strategic research on germplasm enhancement of the important commodities or on subject-matter areas. These mechanisms would be highly focused and relatively smaller than current IARCs with global mandates. Regional/ecoregional mechanisms would concentrate on strategic and applied research on natural resources management, production systems, and commodity improvement, and provide an essential link to achieving the long-term vision.
In the medium term, TAC sees the need for at least eight global efforts: genetic resources, cereals except rice, rice, roots and tubers, livestock, aquatic resources management, forestry and agroforestry, and public policy and public management/services to NARS. In looking at institutional options for global mechanisms, TAC considered the following criteria:
· proven record and impact of research on particular commodities;· 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;
· use of advanced science;
· existing potential research links between CGIAR Centres; and
· governance and management costs associated with decentralized mechanisms.
With respect to regional/ecoregional thrusts, five are considered to be of highest priority. In reviewing options, TAC was led by the need to streamline research efforts targeted at the needs of particular regions and to encourage partnerships between the different actors involved in that research.
Genetic resources
Cereals
Roots and tubers
Livestock
Aquatic resources management
Forestry and agroforestry
Public policy and public management/services to NARS
Other options
(i) Global mechanism for research on natural resources management
(ii) Global information and training service centre
The aggregated efforts of the CGIAR in ex situ conservation of plant
genetic resources are the largest in the world. Yet, the centres involved act
as separate entities. The CGIAR efforts are, therefore, somewhat disjointed.
There is an urgent need for a unified CGIAR strategy and the coordination of
the centres' work on the collection and conservation of genetic resources. As
indicated earlier, TAC considers this issue to be of very high priority to the
System, and has conducted a Stripe Study of Genetic Resources in the CGIAR.
All work in the IARCs concerned with the conservation of genetic resources should
be integrated into a single Systemwide programme, although its activities would
be decentralized in each of the centres concerned. The coordination of the System's
effort would be ensured through a lead centre or a central mechanism.
Cereals research is currently conducted in seven separate commodity centres, which were established as independent entities in the region of origin of the crop and/or where it was a major component of the local farming system. New developments in molecular biology (e.g. biotechnology) present the possibility of much greater use of more sophisticated research techniques that have relevance across cereal crops. Most of the supporting disciplines that contribute to cereal improvement research are similar across these crops, and a number of advanced research institutions are also working on these crops. Furthermore, it is increasingly clear that each of these crops is only a component of a complex farming system and that a holistic approach to commodity improvement is essential for success.
TAC sees considerable advantages in exploring carefully the benefits and costs of integrating selected aspects of CGIAR research on all cereals (durum wheat, bread wheat, maize, triticale, barley, millet and sorghum), except rice, into a single Systemwide programme. This would allow for economies of scale, elimination of existing overlaps in responsibilities between centres, better focusing in relation to alternative sources of research supply, and better collaboration with advanced institutions. A central mechanism would be a catalyst in the development of global strategies and priorities for research, and could be responsible for genetic resource conservation. A substantial amount of field experimentation would have to be conducted using decentralized regional and ecoregional mechanisms.
Given the overwhelming importance of rice as a staple food in developing countries, and in line with the TAC strategy statement on rice research in the CGIAR, endorsed by the Group at MTM'93, there will be a continuing need for a Systemwide programme to conduct research of global importance on rice which includes both strategic germplasm enhancement programmes and resource management programmes.
A possible further option would be to also include an irrigation research component under this Systemwide rice programme. Rice is the most important crop in irrigated systems of developing countries, and economies of scale could be obtained by integrating the crop aspects of irrigation research within the rice programme.
TAC sees the need, in the long run, for the main beneficiaries of the CGIAR
efforts on cereals to contribute a greater share of the support of the resources
needed. This could be achieved through cash contributions and/or in kind inputs.
Research on roots and tubers (cassava, potato, sweet potato and yam) is currently
conducted in three separate centres. These crops are subsistence crops of critical
importance to low income producers and consumers. They also are subject to declining
demand as incomes rise. Biologically, these crops have many similar characteristics,
such as vegetative propagation, their susceptibility to similar pests and viral
diseases and their perishability which make post harvest work important. The
research disciplines that provide inputs into roots and tubers research are
therefore similar. Because of potential reduced priority of cassava, potato
and sweet potato in the future and the emergence of alternative sources of research
supply, the scale of future CGIAR efforts in research on these commodities could
be lower than it is today (see Section 2.3.). Therefore there is an urgent need
to define a CGIAR strategy for roots and tubers research in the medium term
and to explore alternative institutional mechanisms. To this end TAC is conducting
a stripe review of research on roots and tubers to further explore these issues.
Based on TAC's recommendations, the Group has agreed to the establishment of
a new global mechanism for livestock research in the CGIAR. TAC sees the role
of this mechanism to continue to be important in the long term. A draft strategic
plan of this new entity is currently under discussion and it is assumed that
activities should be planned as a global programme within a Systemwide framework
involving other CGIAR Centres whose work impinges on livestock development.
Research on feed resources would be conducted within the framework of ecoregional
initiatives, in close consultation with the global livestock mechanism.
Fisheries research remains a high priority to the work of the CGIAR, both in
its commodity and, more importantly so, its resource management aspects. Currently,
the scale of the resources available to the CGIAR is inadequate, however, to
support the full scope of fisheries research required which includes inland
and marine and involves both capture and culture fisheries. At present, the
CGIAR fisheries research programmes appear to be operating at resource levels
well below those considered necessary for an efficient programme. Under these
circumstances, the CGIAR contribution to fisheries research can only be marginal.
The optimal contribution of the CGIAR could take several forms. Should the CGIAR
spread its resources thinly or concentrate its support on one or two highest
priority programmes or possibly suspend all allocations until substantially
increased resources are available? One option would be to limit CGIAR support
to inland aquatic resource management programmes. The scope of CGIAR fisheries
research would be strongly focused and be expanded as experience is gained,
the impact of CGIAR investment in this sector is assessed, and more funds become
available. Important fishery policy research on the management of common property
resources and open access issues could also be conducted through the public
policy and management research mechanism (see below). If the level of CGIAR
support for fisheries research remains at the current level, the research programmes
supported should explore possible economies by sharing administrative and research
facilities with other CGIAR entities such as IRRI.
TAC considers that current CGIAR research on forestry and agroforestry contains
a high degree of complementarity and potential overlap. This is particularly
true in tree improvement and policy research programmes, as well as in research
on land use management of watersheds and forest margins. TAC recommends that
forestry and agroforestry research be closely linked to the work on sustainable
land use management. The close integration of forestry and agroforestry appears
to be logical both from the viewpoint of programmatic integration and in terms
of sustaining a critical mass in the effort. TAC believes that as a minimum
the CGIAR should explore the benefits and costs of a common, smaller Board which
would be responsible for both institutes. In the future means of economizing
on administration and management should be explored. In the section under 'Other
options', TAC discusses the possibility of a global Natural Resources Programme/Entity.
The role of forestry/agroforestry in such a mechanism would need careful consideration.
The CGIAR currently supports a wide range of research and service activities relating to public policy, public management and institution building. There also is a large body of socioeconomic research, some of which is policy oriented, in both global commodity and regional centres. Further, all centres engage in research related activities which contribute to strengthening national programmes. There are several ways one could approach the categorization of these activities. The dominant disciplines in these activities are the social sciences and, in particular, economics. Public policy research involves analysis of policy options for food security which obviously includes research policy. All policy involves mechanisms for the management of policy implementation which is often as important in successful policy as the policy choice itself.
Thus the current organization of CGIAR efforts in public policy and public management research needs careful review. TAC is proposing a stripe review in this area which will be asked to explore appropriate research strategies, and alternatives for its organization. One option to be explored would be to organize the work on the basis of similar research issues. Many of the important research issues (e.g. common property resources) are common to agriculture, forestry and fisheries and an integration of efforts could increase efficiency. The integration of policy and management research would allow for development of synergies in the programmes, reduction of institutional overhead, and the elimination of overlap in centre responsibilities. An outcome could be well-focused programmes which integrate research on policies, policy delivery mechanisms and policy implementation. The Systemwide programme could provide effective support to regional efforts associated with both public policy analysis and policy implementation.
Under this integrated research approach, services to national programmes could
either be included as a service division of the centralized mechanism or decentralized
to regional/ecoregional entities.
As described in Section 2.2., there will be a continuing need for sustained
international efforts in strategic research on global issues for natural resources
conservation and management, and for global information related to CGIAR activities.
TAC believes that a move towards rationalizing these activities should be considered
in the medium term. This would lay the foundation for further changes in line
with the long-term vision. TAC therefore sees a need to explore two additional
options as presented below.
One option for conducting global research on natural resources management within the CGIAR would be the creation of a new global programme/mechanism that would establish strategies and priorities for such research. The establishment of such a mechanism would be consistent with the medium- and long-term visions of the CGIAR. It could also conduct global strategic research on the conservation and management of natural resources, within the context of sustainable production systems.
A global effort could allow for considerable economies of scale and the elimination of overlap between resource management programmes of other institutions. Much of the current resource management research of the CGIAR with global attributes could be integrated into these activities. The programmes would focus on issues and problems which transcend production systems and geographical regions. It should be emphasized that the nature of these research issues would have to be international and strategic.
These global efforts would of necessity include an important research programme on common property resource management where the issues are similar for public lands and forests, fisheries, shared river basins and water environment. A further option would be to incorporate global agroforestry/forestry policy research as well as a broader approach to natural resource management policy into such a mechanism. Five major research thrusts could be (i) water and irrigation management, (ii) ecosystem management (e.g., watershed, coastal areas and river basins), (iii) ecological foundations of sustainable production (soil/water/nutrient/plant/animal relations and support of ecoregional activities), (iv) ecosystem conservation and restoration, and (v) common property resources.
TAC has not reached unanimous consensus with respect to the potential need
for a global mechanism for research on national resources management. Further
discussion would be required before the Committee would be in a position to
make specific recommendations, particularly with respect to the delineation
of global and ecoregional responsibilities in natural resources management research.
As indicated in the earlier sections of this paper, there is considerable overlap in the organization of training, information, and publications activities among CGIAR Centres. One possible alternative would be to create a central service centre which could provide the focal point for, and have a catalytic role in the organization of, CGIAR activities in this area. This mechanism would also provide service activities in organization and management counselling, but CGIAR core support for these activities would be gradually reduced as they become financially self-sustaining. Clearly, this mechanism would not centralize all of the System's activities in training and information, but would provide the focal point and take the lead responsibility for seeking inter-centre economies of scale. Alternatively, service functions could be integrated into regional entities. In the long run, the service function would evolve into a mechanism responsible for managing the CGIAR's global information services.
West and Central Africa
East and Southern Africa
Latin America
Arid and semi-arid Asia/WANA
Humid and sub-humid areas of Asia
In ICW'93, the Group endorsed TAC's recommendations regarding the implementation of the ecoregional approach to research, and TAC identified convening centres to facilitate the development of ecoregional programmes. The organizing principle for these proposals was an ecoregion or combination of ecoregions. An alternative way of organizing CGIAR activities would be a geographic sub-region where most ecoregions are represented, or a combination of geographic regions which have a common and overriding ecological constraint. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, West and Central Africa, and East and Southern Africa form two logistical regions for the organization of research activities of most centres. The semi-arid areas of Asia and of WANA form an ecological region with a common problem of moisture shortage and major use of irrigation to overcome it. Cropping systems in West Africa provide a continuum of commodity combinations that cut across all agroecological zones. Consider for example the distribution of sorghum, cowpea, maize and groundnuts in West Africa. Consequently, TAC believes that an alternative that should be considered is to use different combinations of geographical regions, sub-regions and agroecological zones, for programme organization.
The objectives of these regional/ecoregional mechanisms would be to strengthen
the CGIAR efforts that aim to benefit particular regions and ecoregions, to
streamline relations with NARS, strengthen partnerships and eliminate overlap
of responsibilities by narrowing the focus of CGIAR efforts. It is expected
that greater regionalization would allow for development and exploitation of
different research complementarities between centres, national programmes and
other research efforts benefiting the particular region. Each of these regional
mechanisms could integrate a number of ecoregional programmes and could have
a service wing and a natural resources management wing. Legume research would
be integrated into regional/ecoregional research mechanisms, because, as also
noted in Section 2.3.5., the nature of the integration of legumes in complex
farming systems and their localized importance. A minimum of five regional/ecoregional
mechanisms, as described below, would be possible. Each of these mechanisms
could be governed by a common Board of Trustees.
An alternative to an agroecological approach to research in West Africa would consist of a decentralized network of the CGIAR activities. One possible model would comprise a coordinated set of decentralized but focused programmes which could include the Onne Substation in Nigeria (to cover the humid zone and banana and plantain), the Substation in the Cameroon (for the humid forest zone), the Kano Substation in Nigeria (to cover the semi-arid zone), and the Cotonou facility with its work on IPM; these four would be linked with the ICRISAT Sahelian Centre in Niamey, which is located at the drier end of the semi-arid zone, the IITA Ibadan Centre which is located at the drier margin of the humid zone, and WARDA which is located in Bouaké in the Côte d'Ivoire in the sub-humid transition zone. Such a mechanism would allow for a CGIAR presence in all the major agroecological zones of West and Central Africa, a better integration of CGIAR research activities, and for a coordinated network programme in both the francophone and anglophone countries of the sub-region. The mechanism could be governed by a single Board of Trustees for CGIAR activities. A possibility would also exist for a Council of Regional Participants as is now a part of WARDA's governance.
The alternative would be to proceed as now planned on an ecoregional model
where programmes for the humid and sub-humid tropics would span East, Southern,
Central and West Africa as would those for the semi-arid tropics.
A similar model could be developed here and would work in close collaboration
with SACCAR and other regional entities, and integrate the activities of the
CGIAR Centres specifically focused on the needs of the East and Southern Africa
region, and the highlands ecoregional initiative. A highland programme could
also be developed on an inter-regional basis.
TAC is already recommending a single ecoregional programme for Latin America
which would integrate the current ecoregional activities for Latin America particularly
with respect to hillsides, forest margins, savannas and the Andes. CGIAR core
support for this mechanism could be reduced gradually in anticipation of increased
regional funding from the benefiting countries. The Andean programme could also
be integrated into an inter-regional highlands initiative.
TAC has recommended separate ecoregional programmes for WANA and the semi-arid areas of Asia. An alternative possibility worthy of consideration would be to think of a mechanism that would operate as a decentralized network of research activities in the arid and semi-arid zones of both Asia and WANA. The centres currently involved have the arid and semi-arid agroecosystem as their organizing principle, and have similar research thrusts. The regions also contain the bulk of irrigated ecosystems. The argument for combining arid and semi-arid Asia and WANA in a single ecoregional mechanism would be the commonality of their research needs. TAC recognizes that there is substantial similarity in their ecologies as they both suffer from drought stress and wide swings in temperatures, but notes that the Asian sub-region has summer rainfall and WANA has winter rainfall. The dynamics of the research programmes would therefore be somewhat different.
A range of options with respect to CGIAR efforts in the arid and semi-arid areas of Asia/WANA could, therefore, be considered including: to keep Asia and WANA semi-arid ecoregions as separate sub-regions supported by separate ecoregional programmes and expand CGIAR efforts in water management; or to consider a single entity with the principal responsibility for research on water management and the arid and semi-arid ecoregions of WANA and Asia.
TAC expects that core support for work in these regions could be gradually
reduced in anticipation of regional funding from the benefiting countries.
TAC proposes no new alternatives to the recommendations contained in revised Chapter 13 of the Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. The recommendation was to develop a consortium approach for the humid and sub-humid areas focusing on upland farming systems.
