Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.
Office Location: 701 18th Street, N.W.
Telephone (Area Code 202) 473-8951
Cable Address - INTBAFRAD
Fax (Area Code 202) 473-8110
From: The Secretariat
December 1993
International Centers Week
October 25-29, 1993
Washington. DC. USA
PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES/MEDIUM-TERM PLANS 1/
1/
Extract from "Summary of Proceedings and Decisions", International Centers Week 1993, Washington, DC
Background
Discussion of the revised Chapter 13 2/ of TAC's review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies and the centers' medium-term plans (MTPs) ranged over three days and several hours, in open session and at donor meetings. Debate centered on TAC's approach to research priorities and the validity of MTPs, because of the prospect that funding would be significantly below the level required to implement the plans; and the Group's strategy for coping with a major budget deficit for the system in the future.
2/
"Implications of TAC's Recommendations on Priorities for Future CGIAR Strategies and Structure", AGR/TAC:IAR/93/18 - Part II, Rev. 1, TAC Secretariat, September 1993, Rome
Programs of work and budget proposed by centers for 1994 through 1998 are based on priorities, strategies, and resource allocations approved by the Consultative Group at its 1992 meeting in Istanbul, and are derived from the twin objectives of natural resources management and germplasm enhancement and breeding. One of the strategies proposed by TAC for tackling natural resources management is ecoregional research -research conducted in an agroecological zone spanning several countries.
While enthusiastic about the concept in theory, members of the Group requested TAC to transform the concept into operational guidelines for centers, national agricultural research systems in developing countries (NARS) and donors. Consequently, a joint TAC/center directors working group met in Davis, California, and a discussion document was prepared. The document was widely distributed both within the system and externally. A special workshop was held in conjunction with the Group's May meeting in San Juan; after the document had been considered by NARS directors in sub-Saharan Africa at a meeting in April. Conclusions and ideas drawn from these meetings were incorporated into a revised Chapter 13 of TAC's paper on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. Because the new information on an ecoregional approach in the CGIAR influences how centers carry out their medium-term plans, the agenda items were considered concurrently.
Medium-Term Planning Process
Introducing the combined topic, TAC chair Alex McCalla paid special tribute to TAC members, international centers, and the TAC and CGIAR secretariats for their support and cooperation in the medium-term planning process. This is the second medium-term planning exercise centers have undergone, he pointed out, with the differences this time being that donors wanted a more transparent link between the system's agreed priorities and centers' work programs; as well as greater consideration for the supply side of funding in order to achieve a better match between approved programs and funds available to conduct those programs.
At MTM92, the Group endorsed the Systemwide priorities recommended by TAC, (See CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting 1992, Summary of Proceedings and Decisions, CGIAR Secretarial, May 1992) and approved a global working figure of $270 million (in 1992 dollars) for 1998, which TAC translated into tentative amounts for each center to reflect the new priorities. This global figure was based on no real growth in core resources from the 1992 estimated level of $255 million, except for an additional $15 million for forestry and fisheries.
The consultative process in arriving at the centers' medium-term plans was a long one, Mr. McCalla pointed out, noting in particular the usefulness of assigning a TAC liaison scientist and Secretariat staff to work with centers in the initial stages to ensure that there was full understanding of the guidelines and process. During ICW92 and MTM93, centers presented their plans to the Group. TAC took note of members' responses. Subsequently, at their last meeting, TAC members reassessed the MTPs in the light of points made by the Group, additional material provided by centers, and relevant information generated by external program reviews, the joint TAC-center directors working group on ecoregionality, issues related to Agenda 21, and sector reviews of rice, livestock, and bananas and plantains.
TAC Recommendations
Mr. McCalla outlined and emphasized the value of the very intensive deliberations TAC underwent at TAC61 (Colombo) to relate each center's plan to the system's new set of priorities. As a result of its deliberations, TAC was recommending increases over the minimum planning figure to the medium-term budgets of CIMMYT, IBPGR, IFPRI, IITA, and IRRI and decreases to the budgets of ICRAF, ILCA, and INIBAP.
Recommended resource allocations for the remaining 10 centers involved no change from the planning figure, bringing the collective budget to $257 (in 1992 dollars) by 1998. In addition to modest reserves for external program reviews and fisheries, TAC designated $10 million by 1998 for new initiatives of Systemwide importance. These include ecoregional programs - $ 4 million; inter-center genetic resources program - $ 1 million; water management program - $ 1 million; livestock program - $ 4 million.
Elaborating on how ecoregional research would be carried out by centers, Mr. McCalla referred to TAC's revision of Chapter 13, The mechanism preferred by centers is the consortium, he explained, which is a partnership of diverse institutions that jointly plan and conduct an integrated research program. However, TAC recognized the need for a catalyst and developed the concept of a "convening" center to take the initiative in starting a program. A convening center would be expected to channel seed money to stimulate planning activities and would provide financial accountability to the donors. It need not necessarily provide research leadership. TAC further envisaged that within each consortium, a steering committee would be established to set priorities, raise additional funds, and allocate research tasks based on the comparative strengths of each partner in the consortium.
The goal of ecoregional research will be to investigate and promote sustainable production systems in a given ecoregion through both strategic and applied research. This will require analyses of the physical and biological processes critical to sustainability in the area, as well as of the social and policy decisions that influence the management of these processes. Research will require close collaboration among CGIAR centers, national research systems, national policy agencies, NGOs, and farmers' associations to address the challenge of developing sustainable production systems.
Under ecoregional programs, TAC further identified eight specific projects for the following ecoregions:
· Warm humid and subhumid tropics of sub-Saharan Africa, including the inland valleys of West Africa, Convening center - IITA.· Semi-arid tropics in sub-Saharan Africa. Convening center - ICRISAT.
· East and Central African highlands. Convening center - ICRAF.
· Subtropics of West Asia and North Africa with winter rainfall. Convening center - ICARDA.
· Warm arid and semi-arid tropics and subtropics of Asia. Convening center - ICRISAT.
· Warm sub-humid and humid tropics and subtropics of Asia. Convening center - IRRI.
· Sub-humid and humid tropics and subtropics of Latin America and the Caribbean. Convening center - CIAT.
· A project on Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn, which is relevant to similar ecoregions on several continents. Convening center - ICRAF.
New Systemwide Initiatives
Mr. McCalla noted that a study of genetic resources work in the CGIAR was underway. This would help accelerate TAC's development of a Systemwide strategy for plant genetic resources. To support activities arising from the strategy, TAC proposed that $1 million be allocated to IBPGR as the convening center.
To facilitate the start-up of new livestock research programs of both a global and ecoregional nature, TAC reserved $4 million for the new global livestock entity once it is established. This is in addition to core funding proposed for ILCA and ILRAD, Appropriate programs from both centers will be integrated into the new livestock research entity being planned. The start-up funds are intended to build and strengthen links with plant-oriented centers to develop integrated programs on feed and production systems.
Another high priority issue of Systemwide magnitude is water management research. Therefore, TAC recommended an allocation of $1 million for IIMI as the convening center to initiate programs with centers in Asia, West Asia and North Africa (WANA), and sub-Saharan Africa.
Funding Constraints
Turning to the realities of the resources needed to finance the centers' MTPs, Mr. McCalla pointed out that the Official Development Assistance (ODA) environment had worsened significantly since the Group endorsed its projection of $270 million (in 1992 dollars) for 1998. Based on expected 1993 funding, 15 percent real growth in core funding would be necessary to achieve the 1998 levels reflected in the MTPs, in addition to the $15 million for forestry and fisheries. Rather than delay the entire process by going back to the drawing board, and because it is unclear whether present low levels of core funding will persist until 1998, TAC decided to proceed at the level of $ 270 million, with necessary adjustments to be made from that basic figure.
As suggested by donors at MTM93, TAC members considered how they would allocate resources to centers if there was a $30 million shortfall in financing by 1998. They decided that a budgetary solution was not appropriate or productive in the long run and that radical structural changes would be necessary.
Although donors gave TAC the license to consider structural adjustments to the CGIAR through reorganization, and streamlining of phasing out of entire programs, Mr. McCalla said he did not think at that point that it was TAC's mandate to tell the Consultative Group how to restructure the CGIAR. "We were also cognizant of the fact that we had given you lists of options for restructuring twice before in Chapter 11 of the expansion paper and Chapter 13 of the first draft of the priorities paper, and not much time was spent talking about these options," he reminded the Group.
However, in May 1993, the CGIAR did make significant decisions to restructure two components of the system - livestock and banana and plantain. In each case, the decision was preceded by a comprehensive analysis of priorities and strategies by TAC and an analysis of institutional options by a donor working group. Mr. McCalla noted, too, that the medium-term proposals of ICRAF and CIFOR contain potential for overlap, and therefore if funding levels continue to stagnate or decline, TAC was suggesting that a re-examination of the two-center approach might be appropriate.
To help the Group decide how to contract its programs in the face of continued underfunding over the short and medium term, TAC proposed a series of stripe reviews. Over the long term, the Group would need to reach decisions on the evolution of the system. The proposed stripe reviews are the following:
1. Genetic Resources: 1993-19942. Public Policy and Public Management Research: 1994
3. Efficiency of CGIAR Delivery Mechanisms (organization of centers' physical presence) in West Africa: 1994-1995
4. Roots and Tubers: 1995
5. Cereals: 1996
6. Review of Priorities and Strategies: 1997
Mr. McCalla said that he would welcome comment on the proposed reviews and their timing.
Discussion
On behalf of all CGIAR members, Mr. Rajagopalan thanked TAC for a superb job. He expressed the hope that discussion of TAC's proposals by the Group would lead to confirmation that the ecoregional concept is clear and understandable; endorsement of the priority ecoregions and programs and of the respective convening centers; and endorsement of TAC's recommendations on programs and MTPs as the basis for system and center planning for the next five years.
TAC's proposed approach to and funding for ecoregional research led to a spirited discussion. Most speakers agreed on the approach, although views differed as to the "modalities" for achieving the desired objectives. Several speakers expressed satisfaction that TAC's approach to ecoregional research called for greater cooperation with national research institutions, and suggested that the convening center did not necessarily have to be an international center. Some donors argued that TAC was not investing enough in ecoregional research, and thought this would lead to difficulties in leveraging additional funds from bilateral sources.
A regional representative commented on the importance of a project in the WANA region to address the critical use of water resources, drawing on both Israeli and Palestinian institutions. Another expressed concern over reductions in funding to sub-Saharan Africa. Several speakers said that they did not want to see ecoregional research dominate the system's agenda at the expense of important upstream strategic activities. In particular, the system should carefully consider the future role of commodity research. This would probably continue to be the chief source of impact, since natural resources research is longer term and costly. IRRI's organization of programs combining both strategic commodity research and ecoregional activities was considered a good model for all centers.
In the discussion of MTPs and future funding, most donors agreed that TAC's plan offered a vision or framework for the system, but were doubtful that the resources needed to carry out the plans would be forthcoming. Funding has been declining for the past three years, and this trend was likely to continue. To some members, mechanistic reduction models seemed more efficient and less painful than reopening the medium-term planning process. Others argued against this, noting that centers had responded quite differently to budget cuts. Some had radically restructured activities and cut deeply into programs, while others had responded by drawing on reserves and postponing appointments. Thus, an across-the-board cut would lead to serious inequities.
Most donors felt that structural adjustments were imperative to maintain operational capacity and strength in those programs warranting highest priority. "Our concern is for a smooth and consolidated evolution of the system based on concerted action, rather than steps taken by individual actors in the system," one donor said.
Another suggestion for reducing budgets was to identify activities that centers could turn over to national research programs and universities in developing and developed countries. Several speakers felt that a precondition for such a process of devolution would be accurate assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of NARS.
Concern was raised that new initiatives would be penalized if the system had to contract. Several speakers requested more information from TAC about how centers had been coping with funding shortfalls. TAC's decision to increase resources for the centers focussing on cereals was questioned.
Finance Committee chairman Michel Petit, acknowledged the Group's dilemma in seeking to approve a medium-term plan for which the financial resources might not be forthcoming. He recommended, however, that the Group adopt the plan in an indicative sense, as providing objectives and strategies for reaching those goals. Since, he submitted, members did not have enough information to deal decisively with the implications of future funding shortfalls, TAC should be requested to develop further options for the Group to consider. He endorsed the stripe reviews in concept but doubted that they could be completed quickly enough to influence the Group's decisions.
Strong support was expressed for the stripe reviews, although many members doubted whether stripe reviews were the best tool for facilitating timely decisions by the Consultative Group on strategic changes to the system. It was hoped, however, that the reviews would eliminate any potential overlap in the centers' work on natural resources. Several donors urged the Group to make sure that the stripe reviews adopted a truly broad perspective, reflecting not only activities within the CGIAR but outside the system as well, so that the CGIAR's appropriate role in the global context could be verified. A speaker questioned TAC's decision to focus on commodities rather than themes in the stripe reviews, noting the CGIAR's new preference for looking at research tasks in a more integrated manner.
Responding to the many points raised, Mr. McCalla recognized the range of views expressed. He said that the situation faced by the CGIAR required a careful and deliberate choice from among various options for adjusting to lower funding levels. He agreed that arresting all new research that has not been started was not the solution to a short-run budget problem. "We must be prepared," he said, "to undertake those new initiatives which are of high priority."
Addressing concerns that the proposed sequence of stripe reviews was not fast enough to address the issue of a short-term budgetary shortfall, Mr. McCalla said that the reviews had multiple purposes, and were not intended to look exclusively at how the CGIAR should adjust resources. For example, the development of a coherent and explicit policy on plant genetic resources was needed regardless of funding levels.
In response to several requests for information about how centers were coping with current funding restraints, he said that centers had cut about 110 senior scientist (about 10 percent) and 2000 host country positions, and reduced training by 45 percent. There have been drastic reductions in research programs, he went on, citing the virtual disappearance of the mangrove program at WARDA, and substantial contractions in the irrigated rice program in the Sahel, productions systems work at CIMMYT, virology work at CIP, trypanosomiasis research at ILRAD, and all rice ecosystems at IRRI. "If any of us are entertaining the notion that this is 25 percent fat and it is business as usual; it is not. I think we should be very up front and say that very forcefully," he stressed.
Mr. McCalla reassured those donors who were concerned that the CGIAR was not putting enough stress on ecoregionality and natural resource management. It is inappropriate to suggest that the only thing in the MTP document that deals with ecoregionality and natural resource management is the $4 million in the new initiatives, he maintained, pointing out that 23 percent of total resources are allocated to management and conservation of natural resources, including germplasm preservation, compared to 11 percent prior to the MTP exercise.
Dealing with comments on the proposed increase for the centers working on cereals, Mr. McCalla underscored what IFPRI director general Per Pinstrup-Andersen pointed out in his presentation on food security. Of the 8 billion people who will inhabit the earth in 2025, about half will live in cities in developing countries and eat principally cereals. "This means doubling and even tripling the productivity of these major commodities. We ignore that at our peril," he warned.
Conclusions
Outlining the consensus that emerged from the discussion, Mr. Rajagopalan announced that the Group:
· Endorsed the principles underlying the revised Chapter 13 of TAC's Priorities and Strategies paper and encouraged the implementation of the ecoregional approach as clearly laid out by TAC;· Approved in principle the proposed program funding approach which requires partnership among centers, NARS and NGOs to undertake high priority initiatives;
· Approved as medium-term directions, TAC's 1994-1998 program and financial recommendations which will be implemented at the levels proposed by TAC when funds are available:
· Agreed with TAC's proposals for a set of stripe reviews and that the CGIAR Secretariat should seek funding from members for these activities;
· Requested TAC to initiate a critical examination of the present coverage of activities, programs and regions because the current funding levels in the medium term will require a repositioning of programs and institutions; and to present MTM94 with options for restructuring.
