Opening Session (Agenda Item 1)
Implications of the Centre Financing Plans for the 1998 CGIAR Research Agenda and Priorities and Strategies (Agenda Item 2)
Report from TAC on its Review of the 1998 Centre Financing Plans
Approach to Setting Research Priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean (Agenda Item 3)
Study of CGIAR Commitments in Latin America and the Caribbean (Agenda Item 4)
The Economic Returns to Agricultural R&D: A Review of the Evidence. A Progress Report by IFPRI (Agenda Item 5)
Specialist Panels dealing with Biotechnology, and Proprietary Science and Technology in the CGIAR (Agenda Item 6)
Strategic Issues (Agenda Item 7)
CGIAR Activity Classification (Agenda Item 8)
CGIAR Study on Marginal Lands Research (Agenda Item 9)
Future Reviews (Agenda Item 10)
Future Meetings (Agenda Item 11)
Other Business (Agenda Item 12)
1. The TAC Chair, Dr. Donald Winkelmann, opened the meeting by welcoming the 11 TAC Members present, Dr. Hubert Zandstra, Director General of CIP and Chair of the Centre Directors' Committee, Dr. Zafar Altaf, Chair of the IIMI Board of Trustees, Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General of IFPRI, observers from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands, Ivory Coast, South Africa, Spain, USA, the IAEG representative, and staff from the CGIAR and TAC Secretariats. (Also observing after the opening day were Drs. Bruce Alberts (President) and Michael Phillips of the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Mahendra Shah, Executive Secretary of the CGIAR System Review.) Dr. Winkelmann conveyed apologies on behalf of Dr. Keiji Kainuma, TAC Member, and the cosponsors who could not attend.
2. Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General of IFPRI, extended a warm welcome to the participants on behalf of the Centre hosting the meeting. He highlighted the ongoing activities of the Institute and expressed the satisfaction of IFPRI in hosting TAC 73. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen mentioned with more detail three issues which are of concern to IFPRI and to the CGIAR: (i) land degradation and policies; (ii) credit programmes to small scale farmers; and (iii) the situation in sub-Saharan Africa. He hoped that these themes will be discussed during TAC 73.
(i) At a recent IFPRI/DSE Regional Conference in Jordan Dr Per Pinstrup-Andersen reported that research results in the WANA region show that policies in most countries of the region are causing immense land degradation, despite the instruments being devised for achieving sustainable food security. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen stressed the urgency to address the policy issue.
(ii) He continued that IFPRI lately published a book on the design and implementation of small scale credit programmes addressing the rural population. The schemes reviewed showed both promising examples but also identified many failures. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen added that many programmes bypass farmers, consequently effective credit schemes for farmers are hard to find at the appropriate level. It is essential to give credit to farmers in order to avoid the degradation mentioned above so that they can invest in the CGIAR research outputs.
(iii) Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen informed the meeting that early warning reports from African countries demonstrate sharp fluctuations in several countries. He added that for developing countries little correlation is found between national producer prices and international market prices. He further expressed concern that the work on productivity increases, such as those of the Global 2000 Sasakawa Foundation has been able to increase yields in some countries but is unsustainable when external assistance ceases: Parts of bumper harvests rot while other portions are sold at low prices and villages nearby may even experience food shortages. Africa exhibits very little market integration. He pointed out at a possible dilemma of technology failure if new techniques are not able to feed population.
3. The report of TAC 72 was adopted without amendments.
4. Matters arising from the TAC 72 report which did not appear on the agenda of TAC were raised.
5. The agenda for TAC 73 was adopted with minor amendments.
6. On behalf of Mr. Alexander von der Osten, Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, Dr. Ravi Tadvalkar, Principal Finance Officer at the CGIAR Secretariat, reported on the major developments in the CGIAR since MTM'97, particularly the membership drive, funding trends. Centres Week '97, the evolution of the financial process, and staff changes at the CGIAR Secretariat.
7. Dr. Tadvalkar reported that the membership campaign to bring in supporters from the South has been going on exceptionally well. Since last May, two new Members have joined the CGIAR: Thailand (in May) and Peru (in July), increasing the number of Members from the South from 15 to 17. Efforts are underway to continue this campaign aggressively and are generating enormous interest. Member representatives are ensuring that the CGIAR's work is well publicised and understood. Dr. Tadvalkar mentioned also that there are good prospects that New Zealand and Portugal would join the CGIAR soon.
8. Regarding funding trends and the evolution of the financial processes in the CGIAR, Dr. Tadvalkar first referred to the public interest placed on the effectiveness of aid expenditure and to the increasing pressure to show impact. At ICW'96, the Finance Committee in consultation with TAC and Members put forward a planning figure of US$ 325 million for 1997. The prospects to reach that figure were excellent and Dr. Tadvalkar emphasised that based on the information received from the centres and the Members there were good chances even for exceeding that value. Dr. Tadvalkar mentioned that within the overall steady and comfortable financial situation there were five or six centres which were facing problems requiring staff retrenchment leading to major restructuring in the research programmes. At MTM'97, the Finance Committee alleviated most of these gaps and decided to release resources to these centres in need, namely ICRISAT, ILRI, ICARDA and one or two others. Nonetheless, based on what the centres have now submitted with their proposals it appeared that centres have managed to reach stability.
9. Referring to 1998, Dr. Tadvalkar stated that based on information from centres and several Members it was plausible that the financing target of US$ 335 million will be met in 1998. However, the overall target will mask some ups and downs for certain centres and actions may be required to assure that the overall CGIAR research is protected. Several Members have indicated that they will increase their contributions in 1998, although Japan will reduce its development assistance budget by about 10% but that there was pressure to avoid effects on the CGIAR.
10. Dr. Tadvalkar said that three main topics will feature at the Centres Week '97. One of these relates to impact and IAEG and centres will prepare contributions to that effect. Dr. Tadvalkar added that the theme is expected to be integrated into CGIAR evolution processes. He reported that the second item deserving attention was biotechnology in the CGIAR. After MTM'97 two Panels under the auspices of TAC were formed and are likely to begin their work. He mentioned that this topic will remain on the agenda for the next years.
11. He then turned to the third major theme of ICW, the CGIAR System Review, and gave some highlights on the review process. The third review is chaired by Maurice Strong who is an eminent individual with various backgrounds. The main Panel is supported by three Specialist Panels. The Panel held a meeting in Washington during August, at which the CGIAR Chair participated. Indications are that the review team will be able to make good progress on defining the broad parameters and the scope of work.
12. Dr. Tadvalkar subsequently reported on the evolution of the financing process in the CGIAR and confirmed that TAC's role remains central and paramount in its function of quality control of the System. The Committee's advisory role ensures that the work of the CGIAR maintains an international public goods character, produces results, is focused, and has identifiable outputs and outcomes. TAC, in consultation with centres, introduced the project planning framework last year which has produced good results. In its deliberations, the Finance Committee had endorsed this approach, thus TAC and the centres were encouraged to continue the development of a simple transparent path between resources and results.
13. In closing, Dr. Tadvalkar announced staff changes in the CGIAR Secretariat. Mr. Ernest Corea, having rendered distinguished service, is retiring, and will be succeeded by Ms. Shirley Gear, formerly with the World Resources Institute.
14. The agenda item was introduced by the TAC Chair who recalled that under the new financing arrangements agreed to at MTM'96, TAC would make its recommendations on the proposed research agenda of the centres at Mid-Term Meetings and that the Committee would subsequently review prior to ICW the financing plans of the centres in the light of implications for CGIAR priorities and strategies. Subsequently all centres had submitted their 1998 financing plans to the CGIAR Secretariat by 15 September. In order to facilitate the discussion at TAC 73, a small group comprising some TAC Members, the TAC Chair and staff from the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats, had met prior to TAC 73 to synthesize available information and to undertake the first analysis of the 1998 financing plans and their implications for the 1998 research agenda and CGIAR priorities and strategies.
15. The TAC Chair subsequently introduced the report of the sub-group which raised a number of both centre-specific and Systemwide issues. It had been found that the quality of centre submissions had improved substantially over those of the previous year. The TAC Chair also noted that centres, without exception, had been very supportive of this exercise and that the comprehensive information now available through the project management mode had greatly enhanced decision making and the transparency thereof.
16. In the ensuing discussion, careful attention was given to the implications of the financing plan for the allocation of CGIAR resources by activity, sector, and commodity. Overall, proposals were generally in line with early TAC recommendations on the medium-term plans and on priorities and strategies. It was noted that investments in research on livestock and water management were well below the recommended level. Several TAC Members noted that the information on how centres would cope with potential funding shortfalls was not always evident and that there was a need for a clearer definition of pre-breeding. Questions were also raised about the proposed new projects on technology transfer by both IITA and CIMMYT.
17. After further consideration, TAC developed the following report on its review of the 1998 Centre Financing Plans for submission to the CGIAR Finance Committee which would subsequently report to ICW'97.
Introduction
18. At TAC 73, which was held from 24-26 September 1997 at IFPRI, Washington D.C., the Committee reviewed the 1998 Financing Plans prepared by the centres. A Working Group, consisting of the TAC Chair, three TAC Members and TAC and CGIAR Secretariat staff, met on 21-22 September to undertake preliminary work to facilitate this review. Specific attention was given to the implications of these financing plans for CGIAR priorities and strategies, their consistency with the centre Medium-Term Plans (MTP), TAC and the Group's recommendations thereon as agreed at MTM97, and the programmatic implications of potential funding shortfalls. TAC also carefully screened new projects proposed by the centres, other than those already endorsed through the MTPs, as to their consistency with the general criteria for CGIAR support to the research agenda (international public goods nature of research and within the framework of CGIAR priorities and strategies).
19. Centres had submitted their Financing Plans to the Secretariats by the deadline of 15 September and this information was subsequently compiled and synthesized by staff of the CGIAR Secretariat. Where necessary, centres were contacted to provide additional information or clarifications. TAC was very pleased to note that centres, without exception, were very supportive of this exercise, that the quality of proposals had greatly improved compared to last year, and that the comprehensive information now available through the project management mode greatly facilitates decision making and the transparency thereof.
Overall Findings
20. A summary of investment proposals and implications for funding had been prepared separately by the CGIAR Secretariat so that information will not be repeated here1. The total investment for the 1998 Research Agenda as requested by the centres is US$ 378 million. On the basis of the Financing Plans submitted, centres estimate secure 1998 support to total US$ 329 million with another US$ 35 million still under discussion and not yet secured. If centre-earned income, estimated at US$ 14 million, is added, it would appear that CGIAR investment will possibly reach the aggregate level originally recommended.
1 CGIAR Secretariat, 1997. Summary of 1998 Financing Plans Submitted by the Centres.
21. TAC was pleased to note that at the Systemwide level there was broad consistency between the Financing Plans and the Committee's recommendations on CGIAR priorities and strategies. As indicated in Table 1, the implications of the Financing Plans are an investment of 38% of CGIAR resources to increasing productivity (as compared to the 39% recommended by TAC at MTM97), 18% to protecting the environment (same as TAC's recommendation), 10% to saving biodiversity (as compared to 11 % recommended by TAC), 12% to improving polices (same as TAC's recommendation), and 22% to strengthening NARS (as compared to 20% recommended by TAC). The Committee is satisfied by the broad consistency of the Financing Plans with its recommendations on priorities for CGIAR activities. The difference between the TAC recommendation and the actual allocation to activities on strengthening NARS (20% versus 22%) is largely due to a projected increase in investment in institution building activities and in institution building networks (both from 3% to 4%). On the basis of the evidence available it would appear, however, that a number of research networks have been inadvertently classified under this category rather than under the research activity concerned. TAC is pursuing this question with centres.
Table 1: Allocation of CGIAR Resources by Activity (% of Research Agenda)
|
|
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1998 |
|
|
1. Increasing Productivity |
40 |
37 |
39 |
38 |
|
|
|
1.1 Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding |
18 |
17 |
18 |
18 |
|
1.2 Production Systems |
22 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
|
|
2. Protecting the Environment |
16 |
18 |
18 |
18 |
|
|
3. Saving Biodiversity |
11 |
11 |
11 |
10 |
|
|
4. Improving Policies |
12 |
13 |
12 |
12 |
|
|
5. Strengthening NARS |
21 |
22 |
20 |
22 |
|
|
|
· Training |
8 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
|
· Doc/Pub/Info |
6 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
· Inst. Building/Advice NARS |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
· Networks |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
TOTAL |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
Due to rounding, numbers do not always add up to 100.Source: CGIAR Secretariat
Sector Adjustments
22. TAC is necessarily concerned with the extent to which the aggregation of bilateral negotiations between centres and members is leading towards the balance among sectors endorsed by the Group at MTM96. Several concepts are relevant and are presented in the following table.
Table 2: Percentage of various budgets by sector
|
|
Mar '97 |
Oct '97 |
Identified |
Planned |
Endorsed |
|
Crops |
68.6 |
69.5 |
70.7 |
69.5 |
66.2 |
|
Fish |
4.2 |
3.7 |
4.0 |
4.5 |
4.9 |
|
Forest |
12.2 |
11.8 |
11.7 |
11.2 |
12.2 |
|
Livestock |
15.2 |
15.1 |
13.6 |
14.8 |
16.7 |
i/ Assumes only assured funding materializes for all centres
ii/ Assumes all funding planned by centres materializes
23. For now, the most relevant columns are the second, third (funding already identified), and the fifth (what the Group endorsed for 2000). The question is, how well are we progressing towards those goals? In making comparisons, recall that an increase in one percentage implies a decrease elsewhere because the sum must equal 100.
24. Fish is moving up as proposed - from 3.7% to 4.0% with a target of 4.9%. Forestry appears to have fallen back a bit rather than rising. Livestock has fallen back noticeably, from 15.1% to 13.6% while the plans call for 16.7% in 2000. Meanwhile, and we infer as a balancing effect rather than a designed effect, crops increased rather than decreased as projected to 2000.
Commodity Profile
25. Following the framework used in TAC's CGIAR Priorities and Strategies paper (29 April 1997 - see Chapter 6 and Annex II) and based on data there and in the centres' 1998 budgets, it is possible to compare changes between 1997 and 1998 in the relative allocations to individual commodities and assess their congruence with the recommended balance among commodities for 2000 (TAC, p.67). This analysis relates to crop commodities only.
26. At MTM97, TAC made recommendations on 19 crops (see TAC, p.67), with increases (of more than US$ 1 million) recommended for four commodities (banana/plantain, coconut, wheat, and yams), decreases (of more than US$ 1 million) for five commodities (beans, cassava, cowpea, millet, and potatoes) and little change in the remaining 10 commodities. Comparing the change between the 1997 and the 1998 (identified funding) proportions, with the trend required to achieve the proportions recommended for 2000, suggests the following conclusions:
1. Six commodities are essentially on trend.2. Eight commodities are below trend (are under-funded as compared with the adjusted goal for 2000 or counter trend.
3. Six commodities are above trend or counter trend.
27. Of special concern at this time are apparent shortfalls affecting banana/plantain, groundnut, millet, and sorghum; each is apparently moving away from the desired trend or is already well below its 2000 target. Also of concern at this time are cowpeas and potatoes - moving counter to the desired trend - as well as pigeonpeas and soya - already over-shooting their desired 2000 target.
28. Given that the MTP period has two more years to run, our concern need not suggest immediate action. However, it should orient member allocations among centres. (Note that three of the four under-supported commodities relate to ICRISAT.)
Specific Observations
29. Projected investment in livestock research and water management research will be well below the levels recommended by the Committee and hence not consistent with the high priority the CGIAR has assigned to these activities. Because of these concerns, TAC wants to bring the following thoughts to the attention of the Finance Committee. For the past few years TAC has made the case for increasing the proportion of the CGIAR investment in livestock and, more recently, in water as well. The Group has endorsed TAC's recommendations but individual members are not underwriting the endorsed levels of investment. At least three explanations fit this disappointing pattern. (1) TAC and others have not persuasively argued the case with individual members. (2) Individual members are not making evident their full views in Group discussions, so that Group support for these activities is more apparent than real. (3) Individual members agree that the two areas are important but some members do not feel that the centres involved will effectively meet the challenge. There might be other explanations for what TAC perceives to be an anomaly. TAC invites the Finance Committee's deliberation.
30. As for centres, TAC is particularly concerned about the projected shortfalls in funding for ICRISAT, ICARDA, ILRI and IIMI (in particular for the 'Women and Water in Irrigated Agriculture' project), and about what activities will be reduced if currently unidentified funding is not attained. With respect to the other centres, TAC has been assured that each has a rationale consistent with CGIAR priorities for dealing with funding shortfalls (i.e., where funding is at present unidentified) should they arise. While TAC broadly certified proposed new projects for their consistency with the criteria for overall CGIAR support, TAC is concerned, especially with new projects on technology transfer from IITA and CIMMYT. TAC has identified the issue of optimal level of investment in technology transfer as a Systemwide strategic issue to which it will give particular attention in due course. The Committee has also carefully looked at the implications of the Financing Plans for project milestones. An effort should be made to improve the consistency of the definition of milestones across centres and TAC will endeavour to provide support in this direction. The Committee will also provide further clarification of its definition of pre-breeding activities to facilitate monitoring of investments in this activity.
Conclusions
31. While TAC noted the overall consistency of the 1998 Financing Plans with the discussions at MTM97 at the level of undertaking, the Committee expressed concern especially about the inadequate level of investment in livestock research and water management research and to changes emerging in the shares of some commodities. It re-affirmed its endorsement of projects already included in the MTPs and broadly certified new projects, but with impressions of concern for those of CIMMYT and IITA, for incorporation into the Agreed Research Agenda. Finally, TAC was greatly encouraged by the improved quality of the proposals and the thoroughness of the overall process, and applauds the centres for their efforts. The CGIAR Secretariat was commended for its excellent compilation and analysis of available information.
32. The item was introduced by Dr. Phil Pardey of IFPRI who gave a general introduction on the work done by IFPRI under its GRP1: agricultural research, extension and education policy. Dr. Pardey presented an overview of the state of global agricultural R&D, on financing and policy trends. It was thereby noted that for all regions growth in overall public investments in agricultural research had slowed substantially during the 1980s compared to the 1970s. The growth of investment in international agricultural research had slowed too. Developing countries as a group spent more on agricultural R&D than developed countries.
33. Dr. Pardey presented a proposal for the potential role of IFPRI in CGIAR policy and strategy deliberation. This proposal was based on a consistent, expanding conceptual approach, a database development capacity, IFPRI's comparative advantage, and the network partnership way of doing business. Dr. Pardey argued that substantial benefits could arise from an active and explicit liaison between IFPRI, TAC and other CGIAR bodies, on policy and strategic options for international agricultural research. He presented an overview of the evolution of the research scope and research evaluation in the CGIAR since its inception, before moving on to introducing a formal framework for evaluating agricultural research and development. This framework had two major components: first, the definition of issues and scenarios and subsequent definitions of markets and regions; second, the definition of research themes and the specification of technology characteristics. This model was being tested in the Latin America region. Dr. Pardey then gave the floor to Dr. Stan Wood of IFPRI who was outposted to CIAT to conduct this research.
34. Dr. Wood introduced IFPRI's collaborative research activities on research priority setting in Latin America. These were conducted in close collaboration with BID, IICA and CIAT. An example was given of how technology-specific agroecological zones could be constructed, using IPM for potatoes in the Andes as a case study. Tentative results were presented for several countries of the Andes and illustrations were given on the use of GIS to define spatial analysis units. This approach had led to the development of "Dynamic Research Evaluation Analysis for Management (DREAM)". Dr. Wood then presented data needs and expected outputs from the economic analysis resulting from DREAM. He showed some tentative results on producer benefits for Latin America associated with investment in rice R&D, and IPM in potatoes and maize. An overview was also given of selected national research themes of common interest at the sub-regional level. Finally, Dr. Wood presented some lessons learned from this IFPRI project in Latin America. He highlighted the tremendous demands for improved tools for R&D evaluation and priority setting but expressed concern about the very variable human resource capacity vis-a-vis more quantitative methods. A major constraint was the poorly developed or integrated regional data sets. He concluded, however, that the regional approach provided significant opportunities for realizing economies of scale and scope. A concerted effort was required in improving education and training on quantitative data.
35. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members asked a number of clarifying questions and voiced their appreciation for the approach. Finally, the TAC Chair thanked Drs. Pardey and Wood for their presentations and contributions and noted that TAC would be closely monitoring IFPRI's activities in this area of work with great interest.
36. The Committee received a draft report of the desk study for the Study of CGIAR Commitments in Latin America and the Caribbean conducted under the guidance of Dr. Eugenia Muchnik de Rubinstein, formerly of CEPAL. She highlighted the importance of the three IARCs located in the region in providing much of the research needs or products carried out by the System in the region and compared the amount of CGIAR investment with the public expenditures on research supported by some of the major national research systems of LAC.
37. Dr. Eugenia Muchnik posed six main questions for discussion in order to determine the right mix of efforts in the region: (i) What are the priorities for research in the region/sub-regions; (ii) Which is the best mix of international public goods on which the CGIAR can contribute; (iii) Which are the best partners to choose for collaboration; (iv) Which mechanisms are in place to reach the clientele; (v) How can CGIAR Centres associate in their research efforts; and (vi) How to monitor the research impact.
38. Furthermore, she raised several other questions to the System relating to: (i) The low commitment of the CGIAR to fisheries and irrigation research in the region; (ii) The increased importance given by some NARS to germplasm enhancement; (iii) Combating the institutional crisis in many countries with new models for institution strengthening and capacity building; (iv) Targeting the right kind of CGIAR research to small countries of the region; (v) The modalities of operation, co-ordination, linkages and interaction between NARS and IARCs; (vi) A need for better understanding of NRM research efforts in LAC; and (vii) Policy analysis needs to pay more attention to issues of poverty alleviation and environmental impacts in the region.
39. The Committee discussed these issues as well as the planning and implementation of the assessment phase of the Study, whose Panel will be chaired by Dr. Lucio Reca of Argentina, who presented a proposal for the implementation of the assessment phase. He reported that the Panel will concentrate on the issues raised by the desk study report and will monitor the effects of the changes influencing the environment of the CGIAR in LAC in the recent past. The Committee revised and endorsed the Terms of Reference of the Study and appreciated the opportunity to interact on these with the Panel Chair before the main phase of the Study. It further approved that Dr. Reca works with a team of consultants from the region which will include expertise on forestry, high science, as well as the Caribbean region. The draft report will be submitted to the TAC Secretariat in April 1998 for sharing with Centres before discussion at TAC 75.
40. The discussion was introduced by the TAC Chair who recalled TAC's 1995 work on priorities and strategies for natural resource management research (NRM) in the CGIAR. In that study a recommendation had been made that past impact of research on NRM be reviewed. Subsequently, TAC requested IFPRI to carry out a literature review of studies of rate of returns to research on NRM. The Centre proposed to undertake a more general study of the literature on rate of returns to agricultural R&D, in which studies of NRM would be incorporated. TAC had agreed to this approach and had provided the appropriate support.
41. Dr. Pardey introduced the study and reported on progress to date. The study had been undertaken by the Institute in close collaboration with the University of California at Davis and was expected to reach completion by February 1998; an incomplete report was, however, already available. The study consisted of a review of the evidence on the economic returns to agricultural R&D. Some of the questions to be answered related to the evolution of rate of returns over time, whether there were differences in the returns by region or whether there was a variation between crop and livestock research or among different crops. It was understood that TAC was particularly interested in the rate of returns to environmental or natural resources research or how it compared to that of more traditional agricultural research. In order to achieve the aims, a comprehensive list of the empirical literature on the rate of returns to agricultural R&D was compiled. Over 135 publications reporting on a total of 629 rate of return studies were carefully reviewed. These publications were in the form of refereed journals, books or chapters of books, discussion papers, or other types of reports. Most of the publications dated around the period 1990 to 1997 with most of the others published during the 1980s. Each study had been characterized into particular profiles and the analysis had been disaggregated on that basis. These profiles dealt with research orientation, research focus, research performer, commodity focus, economic sector and institutional orientation. Geographical labels were also given to each study so as to report on the location of users and performers. Notably few studies on NRM were found. For the rest, a wide spread had been found in the rates of return to research. Tentative results indicated that in general across all studies the average rate of return amounted to 59.5%. The rate of return to crop research averaged 56%, to livestock 35%, to tree crop research 60%, and resource research 27%. The rate of return to general agriculture/unspecified was 75%. There was some evidence that rates of return were increasing over time.
42. Dr. Pardey noted that the factors accounting for the variation in measured returns to agricultural R&D could be grouped into three broad categories: (i) characteristics of the analysts performing the evaluation; (ii) characteristics of the research being evaluated; (iii) features of the evaluation. In some instances it was possible to identify a particular explanatory variable as being associated only with the true part, or only with the error part, of the measure, but in many cases, a particular explanatory variable could be expected to play multiple roles.
43. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members expressed their appreciation for the timeliness of study and the way it was being conducted. It was noted that the information generated through this study would be extremely useful for impact assessment and for making assessments of the benefits associated with investments in particular types of research. A number of clarifying questions were also raised. In conclusion, the TAC Chair thanked Dr. Pardey and his team for the work already conducted and voiced the hope that the report would be completed in time for TAC 74.
44. The Committee was informed about a decision at MTM'97 by the Group that the CGIAR will move to assess the level of biotechnology research carried out by the centres. TAC Chair elaborated on the CGIAR plans to address the major issues in Biotechnology in order to assist the system in developing a medium and long-term strategy. The proposed policy framework will be flexible yet enable the centres to manage biotechnology within their programmes. The Group also took the decision to create two specialist panels, under the auspices of TAC. The panels were expected to review biotechnology issues and to deal comprehensively with intellectual property rights. The terms of reference for the two specialist panels, one on General Biotechnology, and the other on Proprietary Science and Technology, were highlighted. Issues in ethics and biosafety are being treated elsewhere.
45. TAC discussed the issues motivating the formation of the two panels and considered a suitable mechanism for implementing what the CGIAR expects from the panels by ICW'97 and MTM'98. Since July 1997, the TAC Chair, in consultation with various TAC Members, particularly Sir Ralph Riley, Keiji Kainuma, Magdy Madkour, interacted with the stakeholders in recommending a slate of 45 names from among the list of 180 submitted by the Members. On a no objection basis from the Members the two panels consisting of 22 persons were selected. In arriving at the final list various considerations were taken into account. These ranged from identifying heavy hitters in biotechnology, ability to translate molecular biology into plant/animal improvement, consumer apprehension, NGO/private sector interplay, North-South balance to people with experience in making decisions about applications of biotechnology.
46. Members were informed that the Panel on General Biotechnology, consisting of 11 persons, was being chaired by Richard B. Flavell of U.K., while Mike Arnold of U.K. would serve as the Panel Secretary. The one on Proprietary Science and Technology consisted of 11 persons and was being chaired by Timothy Roberts of U.K., while Donald Plucknett of USA would serve as the Panel Secretary. One resource person for each Panel had also been identified. Each Panel would work by E-mail but was also expected to hold meetings prior to ICW'97 and MTM'98. At ICW'97, each panel would deliver a concept report on what they consider to be the main issues, with a proposal of the planning process they intend to follow.
47. The TAC Secretariat would provide logistic arrangements and had already, in conjunction with the CGIAR Secretariat, provided the Panel with a number of background documents pertaining to biotechnology in the CGIAR.
48. The TAC Chair further explained that after ICW'97, the panels will continue their work, with a second round of meetings being planned for January/February 1998 in order to come up with a second report to be tabled at TAC 74, on the basis of which a commentary will be prepared in readiness for MTM'98.
49. In opening the discussion, the TAC Chair noted that despite the careful planning, there were some areas which were not represented on the panel. Another challenge for TAC was how to prepare a commentary based on broad consultation beyond the competence of TAC.
50. In responding to the question on how socioeconomics would be covered in the two panels, TAC Chair explained that the panels have licence to go out for expertise where necessary. Other Members expressed concern for lack of representation in the area of livestock biotechnology. It was concluded that TAC Members were encouraged to comment and exchange ideas by E-mail among themselves and with others in order to ensure that the implications for the CGIAR goals are not compromised.
51. The Chairman introduced the discussion recalling that among the tasks assigned to TAC, one pertains to identifying and analysing strategic issues of importance to the System. He also noted that through the course of the past two years, and motivated by the needs of the System's renewal, TAC's work on strategic themes has concentrated on issues emerging from its role in framing priorities and recommendations for resource allocations. Included in this were the efforts to clarify CGIAR's goal, a consequent emphasis on alternative suppliers, and such specific recommendations as that to increase the resources committed to 'pre-breeding'.
52. TAC considered a number of strategic issues on which it would like to focus its attention over the next two years. These issues were solicited from TAC Members, Centres, Members of the CGIAR and others. The list rested on the premise that strategy has to do with where the System is going and whether or not a theme is important relates to its implication for the established CGIAR goals. The Committee distilled the initial long list to 17 items, which after further discussion was reduced to 11. TAC also prioritized the different issues in terms of their importance and the extent to which the Committee was well placed to address them.
53. At the Group level, the issues were identified as:
i. What will be in the international public goods (IPG) portfolio in 2010? In which elements will the CGIAR have potential comparative advantage over other "international" providers? Should the CGIAR stay with IPG?ii. Given goals and IPG, do we have the "right" portfolio of work? should the commodity list change? Should subject matter themes change? Should global warming influence this portfolio? Or human health? Or plant health issues?
iii. Is the current model of cause-and-effect relationships (productivity/conservation oriented research through to poverty alleviation/protecting natural resources) adequate to planning needs? do measurement problems (especially on locus and level of poverty) threaten credibility?
iv. Is the role of CGIAR in strengthening national work appropriately defined, e.g. diffusion/extension issues? Should the CGIAR be more oriented to information dissemination than to information generation? What about the client vs. partner stance of the NARS?
v. Do implicit assumptions which orient the CGIAR work hold up to scrutiny, e.g., do NARS adequately represent opportunities/challenges faced by the producers? How to combine the subsidiary principle with desirable economies of scale of CGIAR research? Do diffusion mechanisms work? Will policies become more neutral?
54. At the TAC level the issues entailed:
i. How to improve monitoring of quality and relevance of science?ii. How to better assess benefit/cost relationships of research on biodiversity? Of research on land management issues? Of research on water management issues?
iii. How to better assess alternative sources of supply? Under current circumstances, is it a useful element in TAC planning?
iv. Would it pay to better assess the advantages/disadvantages of alternative collaborative arrangements - i.e. under what circumstances is it effective to adopt a particular vehicle (e.g., network, informal co-operation, collaboration, partnership, contracting)?
v. How effectively do centre priorities reflect System priorities? Are differences large enough to warrant new mechanisms?
vi. How much should TAC invest in monitoring the CGIAR's external environment (e.g. changes in science and changes in information technology) in order to improve priority setting?
55. After discussion, the Committee distilled seven issues relevant to both the Group and itself. It will draw the Group's attention to those issues most relevant at the system level, which were identified as the right portfolio of IPG (first and second issues at Group level combined), the role of the CGIAR in strengthening NARS (fourth issue at Group level), the issues of the most effective collaborative arrangements (identified previously as fourth TAC level issue). Background papers will be prepared on each of these themes and be the subjects of discussion by TAC.
56. Additionally, the Committee identified four issues with great significance for TAC's decision making and will pursue these as a matter of course as part of its ongoing responsibilities. These four themes are monitoring science (first TAC level issue), the assessment of alternative sources of supply (third issue), the effectiveness of centre priorities reflecting System priorities (fifth issue), and monitoring of the external environment (sixth issue).
57. Dr. Guido Gryseels of the TAC Secretariat reported on progress in developing a CGIAR logframe and improved classification of CGIAR activities since the Feldafing report was discussed at TAC 72. The report presented by Prof. Uwe Nagel at that meeting had subsequently been circulated for comments to all centres, but only a few responses had been received. It had been the intention to bring together a smaller group during the summer to further refine the logframe and develop a draft proposal on indicators but due to the unavailability of suggested participants, it had not been possible to schedule such a meeting at that time. Preparations were underway, however, to organize a small meeting in December with a number of experts to review milestones as used by the centres in their medium-term planning, and to make suggestions on how their formulation could be improved. At such a meeting, some preliminary work on indicators needed in the proposed CGIAR logframe could also be undertaken. The suggestion was made that more in-depth work on indicators could be carried out by a consultant.
58. It was decided that a second major workshop on the CGIAR logframe, involving broad participation from the CGIAR community, would be held from 17 to 19 February 1998, again at Feldafing. Professor Nagel had already indicated his willingness to serve as facilitator to this workshop too. Dr. Gryseels also stressed that the work on developing a new CGIAR logframe and improved classification of activities was done in close collaboration with the CGIAR Secretariat and the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group. He also expressed appreciation for the continuing support of the German Government in this exercise. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members voiced their satisfaction with the progress to date.
59. The TAC Chair requested Dr. Ted Henzell, the TAC member most closely involved with the Study on behalf of TAC, to introduce this agenda item. Dr. Henzell recalled that at TAC 72, the Committee decided to broaden the analytical process through two separate studies: (i) a study on the relationship between land types and poverty; and (ii) a study on the relationship between poverty and land degradation. Since TAC 72, there had been little progress on these two studies.
60. Dr. Henzell then proposed that the Committee prepare two documents to which TAC agreed. The first would be a paper on marginal lands issues outlining TAC's response to the Nelson Report, which incorporates also the two recommendations from the TAC's Soil and Water Study. This would set the stage for the three other papers for the second TAC document. The three papers would be on: (1) the six-celled matrix as a framework for discussion of land development issues; (2) the relationship between poverty and land type; and (3) the relationship between poverty and land degradation. The Committee agreed that the drafts of the proposed two documents should be ready for consideration at TAC 74.
61. Sir Ralph Riley, Chair of the Standing Committee for External Reviews, reported on (a) the implementation of the external reviews of Centres: CIMMYT, IRRI, IFPRI and CIFOR; (b) further planning of the external reviews of Centres: ICRAF, ICLARM and ILRI; (c) planning of the external review of the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme; (d) the proposal to review CGIAR's Systemwide ecoregional approaches to research; and (e) Follow-up responses of ICRISAT and ISNAR to their respective external reviews
Centre external reviews: CIMMYT, IRRI, IFPRI, CIFOR
62. The Fourth External Review of CIMMYT was being chaired by Graham Jenkins (UK). The Panel was composed of Antonio Bahia (Brazil), Kenneth Cassman (USA), Barrie Keenan (New Zealand), Don Marshall (Australia) and Vijay Vyas (India). The Panel was being supported by two consultants, one on Board matters, John Griffith (Australia), and one on biotechnology, Ralph Quatrano (USA).
63. The Panel Chair and the Consultant on Board matters attended the Board meeting in April 1997 to observe the Board performance and to interact with the Board on key strategic issues for the Review.
64. The initial phase took place at CIMMYT from 23-27 June 1997 when the Panel was joined by the Consultant on biotechnology. Thereafter, the Panel split into two groups to carry out field visits; one to India and Nepal and the other to Zimbabwe and Swaziland. Both groups interacted extensively with NARS and CIMMYT's outreach staff. The main phase will be conducted at CIMMYT from 12-28 November 1997.
65. The Fifth External Review of IRRI was being chaired by Dr. Bernard Tinker (UK), University of Oxford. In addition to the Chair, the Panel was composed of Don Plucknett (USA), G. S. Bhalla (India), Michael Gale (UK), H. Hibino (Japan), Louis Paul (Netherlands), and Roger Smith (US). The Initial phase was conducted from 9 to 18 September 1997 at IRRI and coincided with the meeting of IRRI's Executive Committee. The main phase will take place from 26 January to 13 February 1998. In the light of the fact that IRRI had not conducted a Centre Commissioned External Review, the Committee agreed that the panel should be strengthened by an addition of two consultants.
66. The Third External Review of IFPRI was being chaired by Samuel Paul (India), Chairman, Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore. The Panel comprises Gerald Bourrier (Canada), Jean-Marc Boussard (France), Hans Gregersen (USA) and Ammar Siamwalla (Thailand). The Panel was being supported by two consultants, one on Board matters, Maureen Robinson (USA), and one on consumption and nutrition research, Catherine Geissler (UK). The initial phase will be conducted at IFPRI from 6-10 October 1997 and the main phase will take place in 1998 from 12-27 February.
67. The First External Review of CIFOR was being chaired by Dr. Jeffrey Burley (UK), Director of the Oxford Forestry Institute. In addition to the Chair, the Panel was composed of Christine Padoch (US), Manuel Rodriguez (Colombia), Hans Gregersen (USA) and John Griffith (Australia). One more panel member is yet to be appointed. The initial phase will take place from 2 to 11 December 1997, and the main phase from 2 to 18 March 1998.
Further planning of centre external reviews: ICRAF, ICLARM, ILRI
68. The Committee was informed that the planning of the Second External Review of ICRAF, the Second External Review of ICLARM and the First External Review of ILRI was progressing in consultation with the respective Centres. The proposed tentative dates for the initial phase of the ICRAF Review are 15 to 24 April 1998 to coincide with the ICRAF Board meeting. The proposed tentative dates for the main phase are 24 June to 10 July 1998. The ILRI Reviews of ICLARM and ILRI will be conducted between September 1998 and March 1999. TAC considered a short list of panel chairs for each of these Reviews.
External Review of the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP)
69. TAC considered a draft proposal, including the terms of reference, panel profile and review process, for the First External Review of SGRP. The proposal was prepared in close consultation with the Centre Directors Committee and with the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources. The Review would begin in January 1998 and be completed in time for the report to be considered at TAC 75 in September 1998. The Review would be conducted by a panel of five to six people including the chair, and would be supported by consultants and resource persons. TAC considered a short list of panel chairs for the Review.
Review of CGIAR's Systemwide ecoregional approaches to research
70. The Committee considered a proposal to conduct a review of CGIAR's Systemwide ecoregional approaches to research. It was agreed that the review would concentrate on the sustainability component of the ecoregional approach, and examine how well the ecoregional approach has performed in linking strategic and applied research on natural resources conservation and management with that on production systems, including location-specific aspects of global commodity/subject matter research activities.
71. The review will be chaired by Dr. Ted Henzell (Australia), and will be conducted in two phases. Phase I will be conducted during 1998 and phase two during 1999. Phase I would be done without any Panel visits, with written reports on each of the 8 ecoregional programmes being sought from: the Centres involved; the national agencies involved; and the non-government agencies involved. Phase II would involve selective visits by Panel members and report writing.
Follow-up responses of ICRISAT and ISNAR to their respective external reviews
72. TAC considered the follow-up responses of ICRISAT and ISNAR to their respective EPMRs.
73. ICRISAT submitted a written response to only recommendations 6 and 8 of the EPMR. The Committee accepted the response and requested that ICRISAT provide a full response to TAC at its meeting in March 1998. ISNAR presented a preliminary draft of its revised strategic plan, and the Committee requested that ISNAR provide the full response, including any revisions of its medium-term plan in the light of its new strategic plan, to TAC at its meeting in March 1998.
74. TAC confirmed and/or amended dates and venues for the following meetings:
|
TAC 74: |
22-28 March 1998 |
ICRISAT, Patancheru, India |
|
TAC 75: |
20-26 September 1998 |
CIMMYT, Mexico, DF, Mexico |
|
TAC 76: |
22-27 March 1999 |
FAO, Rome, Italy |
|
TAC 77: |
20-26 September 1999 |
ISNAR, The Hague, The Netherlands |
75. The Committee discussed collaboration with the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group in the light of the deliberation at MTM'97 which endorsed strengthening the level of consultation between the IAEG, TAC, Centres and Members. It was noted that TAC and the IAEG have mechanisms in place to ensure close co-operation between the two groups, including regular interaction between the two Secretariats. TAC has been working closely with the IAEG in the development of a CGIAR Log-Frame which could provide the basis for activity classification and evaluation purposes. The Chair of TAC and the IAEG have scheduled discussions during ICW'97 and TAC 73 was attended by Carlos Zulberti who is on secondment from UNEP to the IAEG. Dr. Zulberti informed the Committee on the progress being made on the IAEG work programme such as the Annual report on the CGIAR impacts; methodological review and synthesis of existing CGIAR ex post impact assessment and impact of CGIAR germplasm improvement on food production. Some of the projects are being implemented by various CGIAR centres, others by institutions including the Universities of Arizona and Florida. It is anticipated that UNDP and USAID will participate in the future.
76. In contributing to the discussions, Dr. Hubert Zandstra emphasized that centres have some capacities in evaluation, a point noted at MTM'95. There is a challenge in how best to use these centre-based resources while maintaining credibility for the studies. As well, there is a lot to learn from one another.
77. TAC was appraised on the progress made on the work being carried out on its behalf by UNEP/GRID-Arendal on mapping of poverty in West Africa and identifying databases for future studies. TAC commissioned this pilot study in late 1996 in an effort to come to grips with the locus of poverty. The results reported were based on 11 countries in West Africa for which UNDP Human Development Index would be applicable and GIS as well as TAC's data could be tested. Preliminary findings indicate that lack of data limits definitive conclusions on the locus of poverty although there were some correlations between adult female literacy and degradation.
78. The Committee was also informed that upon invitation of the organizers, Dr. Bram Huisman, a former TAC Member, was representing TAC at a European Colloquium on Agricultural Research for Development, held in Montpellier, France, on 25-26 September 1997. The activity was organized under the auspices of the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD).
79. In resonance to the Global Forum on Agricultural Research, the Colloquium concluded that:
i. Research has a major contribution to make to food security, poverty alleviation and conservation of natural resources;ii. Europe has much to offer in this field but there is a need to better co-ordinate the response of European Research;
iii. Research must be driven by development needs and opportunities;
iv. ARD must be supported by appropriate actions to sustain and build capacity in Europe and the South;
v. Europe needs a platform for interaction with partners in development;
vi. Europe needs to enhance the contribution of European research to ARD;
vii. Collaboration must be driven by common interest, mutual benefit and added value.
80. The objective of the Colloquium was to improve partnerships with Europe and with other key players conducting agricultural research in developing countries.
81. The full report prepared by Dr. Huisman has been circulated to TAC Members on 25 September 1997.
