Opening Session (Agenda Item 1)
Priorities and Strategies for Soil and Water Aspects of Natural Resources Management Research in the CGIAR (Agenda Item 2)
Strategic Study of Institution Strengthening Research and Services (Agenda Item 3)
Perspectives on Policy and Management Research in the CGIAR (Agenda Item 4)
Study of Roots and Tubers Research in the CGIAR (Agenda Item 5)
CGIAR Priorities and Strategies (Agenda Item 6)
Medium-Term Resource Allocation Process (1998-2000) (Agenda Item 7)
Proposals for Systemwide Initiatives (Agenda Item 8)
Future Reviews (Agenda Item 9)
External Review Process (Agenda Item 10)
ICLARM Research Agenda (Agenda Item 11)
Future Meetings (Agenda Item 12)
Other Business (Agenda Item 13)
1. The TAC Chair, Dr. Donald Winkelmann, opened the meeting and welcomed the 11 TAC Members present, including new member Dr. Keiji Kainuma; the representatives of FAO, Drs. Henri Carsalade and Stein Bie; the representative of UNEP, Dr. Carlos Zulberti; the Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, Mr. Alexander von der Osten; the Chair of the Centre Directors' Committee, Dr. Lukas Brader; the Chair of the Centre Board Chairs' Committee, Dr. Wanda Collins; a number of Centre Directors, Board Chairs and Observers; and staff of the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. Dr. A. Siamwalla, TAC Member, sent apologies due to prior commitments. ICRAF Director General, Dr. Pedro Sanchez, welcomed participants on behalf of the Centre which hosted the Meeting.
2. The report of TAC 67 was adopted without amendments. There were no matters arising from TAC 67. The provisional agenda for TAC 68 was adopted with the addition of several items under Other Business.
3. Mr. von der Osten reported on the outcome of ICW'95, the fifth and final milestone of the CGIAR's renewal process. The meeting was marked by expansion of the Group to include a number of new developing country members and by increased participation of allied organizations from the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and NARS. It was outward looking, reflecting the increased integration of the CGIAR with the international community, and its agenda focused on consolidation of the renewal process and planning of future priorities and strategies.
4. There were a number of developments of particular relevance to TAC's work, including formation of the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group which would work in concert with TAC on performance measurement; implementation of the System's programme funding matrix which had begun to ensure improved linkage between programmes and budgets, enhanced transparency, and protection of the agreed agenda; and improved financial planning resulting in more efficient approval, commitment, and dispersal of funds and increased programming predictability for Centres. The strengthening of relationships with NARS, as reflected in the Group's endorsement of the Outline Action Plan of the NARS Working Group, portended more systematic participation by the national systems in CGIAR priority setting and research. The series of forthcoming NARS regional fora culminating in the global consultation at MTM'96 reinforced this trend and would provide a basis for increased NARS interaction with TAC.
5. The TAC Chair's presentation at ICW'95 solicited the CGIAR's views on a range of issues pertaining to the framework, criteria, and parameters to be used in setting new priorities and strategies for the System. The Group's guidance was sought early in the process preparatory to the in-depth data collection and analysis required for drafting TAC's Report on Priorities and Strategies for consideration at MTM'96. This approach prompted an intensive debate of strategic issues, albeit with insufficient time to consider the topic of natural resources management. The Group endorsed the goals, framework, and process for priority setting proposed by TAC. Mr. von der Osten suggested two modifications in format to advance the discussion of priorities and strategies in the future, namely, and as TAC had indicated in its presentation, more attention to operational details and aggregated treatment of clusters of interrelated issues. He suggested consultation between the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats on these matters to maximize the benefit for all involved in future discussions of priority setting.
6. The CGIAR's 1995 funding level of US$ 271 million was reported to be in line with expectations of full funding for the agreed agenda. Full funding was also expected for 1996 at US$ 300 million; some 60 percent of this amount had already been confirmed.
7. Mr. von der Osten closed by saying that among the key challenges ahead for the new CGIAR with its more diversified membership, complex committee structure, and increased external linkages was the need to integrate and manage itself more effectively to meet expectations and produce "value for money."
8. The Chair thanked Mr. von der Osten for a detailed, carefully drawn report and opened the floor for comments by TAC Members.
9. One member inquired whether donors were satisfied with the funding matrix or were inclined to place restrictions on the research content of its individual cells. In reply, it was stated that, on the whole, donors were satisfied with the matrix and there had been no noticeable interest in restrictiveness, an attitude which was seen as key to maintaining research efficiency.
10. The Chair then recognized Dr. Lukas Brader, Chair of the Centre Directors' Committee (CDC), who reported that the CDC had noted the progress of the renewal process, but wished to draw attention to the practical implications of adjusting centres' programmes and budgets to the requirements of the matrix, and of balancing the time and resource requirements for expanding external linkages with the need to conduct research. The CDC also wished to record its appreciation for the time allocated at ICW'95 for centre presentations and hoped that a similar format would be used in the future, but the Committee was concerned about the efficiency of ICW given its growth in size and complexity. It hoped that the CGIAR Secretariat would give this matter consideration in planning ICW'96.
11. The Chair introduced this item by noting that this TAC-guided study, first considered by the Committee at TAC 67, had been slightly revised in light of comments received from representatives of the Group and the Centres with a view to finalizing it as input to the review of CGIAR priorities and strategies. Although time had not permitted its consideration at ICW'95, it had been placed on the agenda of MTM'96. Dr. Winkelmann then called upon Drs. Hans Gregersen and Ted Henzell, co-convenors of the study, to review its framework, content, and recommendations.
12. The joint presentation which followed provided an overview of the study's integrated natural resources management framework (INRM) which proposed criteria to evaluate Centres' proposals in this area of research in terms of their potential contribution to improved understanding of a range of productivity-enhancing, resource-conserving, spatial, temporal, and diffusion-adoption linkages. Criteria for judging the relative priority to be accorded to such research and alternative modes of implementing it were also presented. The study found, among other things, that there was no convincing argument for a new CGIAR Centre to deal specifically with INRM research. It recommended that the SWNM initiative and its four-member consortia be accepted as priorities subject to further consultation with TAC in 1996, and that a new initiative be developed focusing on research related to adoption, adaptation, and use of existing NRM technologies and knowledge.
13. Written comments received on the study related both to matters of presentation and substance. The latter included suggestions that the study deal with environment not only in terms of its functions in production but its intrinsic worth, that the research diffusion/adoption issue be linked explicitly to gender issues, that water resource management figure more prominently in the study, that the controversy surrounding the extent and production impacts of land and water degradation be addressed, and that the relationship between the ecoregional approach and INRM be made more explicit.
14. The Chair opened the floor for comments by TAC Members.
15. Several members remarked on the unusually broad, multi-disciplinary nature of the recommended activities which raised question as to whether research should address NRM issues holistically or, as currently conceived, in terms of their component parts. It was suggested in this context that the INRM framework might be better integrated by structuring it in terms of biotic and abiotic natural resource complexes rather than along traditional disciplinary lines. It was also observed that since the proposed activities were strategic in nature and the CGIAR was currently allocating substantial resources to location-specific NRM research, it would be necessary from the standpoint of priority setting to decide whether the proposed activities would be additional to current work or would substitute for some portion of it.
16. The comments of other participants pertained to a number of methodological issues. The CDC took the position that using the watershed as a unit of analysis was appropriate for some but not all aspects of natural resources management research. The Committee considered on-site/off-site and upstream/downstream effects to be important problems for research whether or not they occurred at the level of watershed. The CDC also thought that the CGIAR's factor-oriented Systemwide initiatives should be undertaken within the framework of specific ecoregional activities with their practical, on-farm emphasis on benchmark and demonstration sites.
17. In response, it was observed that it was difficult to characterize the extent to which centres' current NRM research was strategic or location-specific. Dr. Henzell suggested that a comprehensive survey of centres on this question comparable to TAC's institution strengthening and policy/management studies would shed light on the magnitude of international public goods research being done on NRM and serve as input to prioritizing future work in this area.
18. TAC endorsed the study's integrated natural resources management framework; its recommendations that the SWNM initiative and consortia be accepted as priorities subject to further consultation with TAC in 1996; the idea that a new initiative be developed focusing on research related to adoption, adaptation and use of existing NRM technologies and knowledge; its criteria for judging alternative modes of INRM research implementation; and its conclusion that there was no convincing argument for a new CGIAR Centre to deal specifically with INRM research.
19. The Chair brought the discussion to a close by describing the next steps to be taken with respect to the study: its main report would be finalized by the co-convenors incorporating comments received and elements of Annexes I and II, and other commissioned papers; the resulting report would be presented by TAC to MTM'96. Annex I would be issued as a separate paper, and TAC would decide later on its distribution.
20. The final report of the study panel on "The Future Role of the CGIAR in Development of National Agricultural Research Systems: A Strategic Study of Institution Strengthening Research and Services" was presented by panel member Dr. Seme Debela on behalf of the panel Chair, Dr. John Nickel.
21. Dr. Debela summarized the report's conclusions and recommendations and responded to the questions raised by TAC when it considered the panel's interim report at TAC 67. The panel suggested, among other things, that there was need for research on the requirements of NARS' institutional development using techniques drawn from management science and for development and dissemination of methodological tools for research organization and management. ISNAR had a key role to play in this regard and the panel recommended an accelerated shift in that Centre's activities from services to research and development. The panel endorsed the principle of inter-centre collaboration for institution strengthening and encouraged TAC to explore the relative merits of a Systemwide initiative toward this end. However, ISNAR was seen as the sole agency for certain functions including research, training and/or advisory services for development of methodologies for prioritization of research, management of information systems, and financial management in research organizations. Regional groupings of NARS were seen as potential facilitators of institutional strengthening activities of the Centres and it was suggested that the CGIAR should explore how it could help strengthen such groupings. The balance between the CGIAR's research and service functions vis a vis NARS should be determined on the basis of NARS' needs and centres' mandates and comparative advantage. The panel also recommended that the CGIAR incorporate a gender perspective in its institution strengthening activities, gear its work to demand rather than supply considerations, and devote greater attention to specialized, higher degree training for NARS scientists in collaboration with universities. Clarification was needed in TAC's classification of institution strengthening activities. Particular concern was expressed that the "information" category overstated the centres' contribution to NARS by including information/documentation intended for other audiences (e.g., members) rather than for servicing NARS institutional development. Finally, the panel concluded that the CGIAR's reduced allocation for institution strengthening would only be a cause for concern if it became a long term trend and constituted a change in the System's priority to this activity.
22. The Chair thanked Dr. Debela for his presentation and opened the floor for comments from TAC members and other participants.
23. Dr. Muchnik, co-convenor with Dr. Hans Gregersen of the study, commended the panel for its efficiency and dedication and acknowledged that TAC's questions on the draft report had been taken into consideration in the final version. She noted that the report constituted a good starting point for TAC's priority setting on institution strengthening. Its suggestion that the emerging regional associations might facilitate NARS' capacity building held promise but the modalities were not self-evident; nor was it clear that this approach could substitute completely for centres' working directly with the national systems. Although the report developed criteria to assess NARS' strengths and weaknesses and the kinds of interventions they might warrant, TAC would have to address how such interventions should be prioritized. The suggestion that outside suppliers be more involved in institution strengthening was in line with TAC's thinking, but the issue of comparative advantage would now have to be addressed more explicitly, i.e., which activities the centres might relinquish to specific suppliers and which they should retain. Similarly, the concept of demand-driven services was a sound one but criteria would be needed to sort demands and determine which should be addressed given limited resources. The suggestion of a division of labour amongst the centres, with certain strengthening activities undertaken exclusively by ISNAR and others through inter-centre collaboration, would require an explicit assessment by TAC of the most appropriate allocation of responsibilities. Finally, although the panel did not make a recommendation on the overall level of resources for institution strengthening, neither did it perceive the recent reductions in certain categories of activities to be problematic - e.g., less funding for training was viable provided higher priority were accorded to specialized training; fewer resources for information and communication was acceptable given the availability of new, cost-saving technologies in these fields; less money for networks was consistent with the relinquishing of leadership in this area by the centres to the NARS. Perhaps most importantly, since less than half of the resources allocated to organization and management activities were expended by the lead centre, ISNAR, and the rest by other centres, it would be incumbent upon TAC to reconsider the role of the latter in light of this apparent anomaly.
24. Comments by other TAC members endorsed the recommendation to assist NARS in priority setting, a particularly important intervention not only in terms of building capacity for planning at the national level, but for helping NARS to participate more effectively in the CGIAR's priority setting and promoting South-South cooperation. The report's call for more involvement by farmers in priority setting was seconded with a suggestion that the CGIAR should encourage broader participation in this function not only by farmers but by other sectors serviced by agriculture, e.g., agro-industry. Question was raised as to whether NARS had actually assumed responsibility for specific strengthening activities that had experienced a decline in CGIAR funding.
25. In response, Dr. Debela noted that NARS were assuming responsibility for networks and that this process would be facilitated by continued guidance from the centres and the institutionalization of the leadership role of regional associations which, in turn, would promote South-South cooperation. The panel agreed with the concept of broader participation in priority setting and had emphasized the need for input from "other users" outside of agriculture in this process. However, at least in the African context, it was particularly difficult to involve policymakers in research planning. More generally, the panel found great variability in the capacity of NARS to undertake priority setting.
26. The Chair called upon Dr. Bonte-Friedheim to comment on the report under consideration.
27. Dr. Bonte-Friedheim indicated that, in general, ISNAR was very pleased with the report, considered it a major input to the forthcoming external review of the Centre, and fully supported its recommendations. However, a number of the latter required clarification. It was not evident, for example, whether the suggested shift in ISNAR's activities from services to research should be accomplished within the existing budget or with additional resources. The Centre had already initiated this shift but at the expense of a reduction in services to NARS. The report had implied that only weak NARS needed management advice. ISNAR's experience suggested that larger institutions were more complex and, therefore, continued to benefit from advice but of a different sort. A classification scheme was needed to categorize the relative strengths and weaknesses of NARS, as well as a method to evaluate the quality of their outputs. ISNAR was giving priority to these needs. The concept of strengthening weak NARS through regional associations required careful consideration; even strong NARS found it difficult to cooperate on certain crops owing to policy constraints. There was critical need for a master's programme in research management for NARS, an issue which ISNAR was also addressing. Finally, Dr. Bonte-Friedheim asked what steps TAC planned to take with respect to the report and how it intended to solicit and incorporate NARS comments on it.
28. The Chair thanked Dr. Bonte-Friedheim for his remarks and opened the floor for comments from other participants.
29. FAO welcomed the report and noted that the development of TAC's and the centres' thinking on NARS paralleled that of FAO which was working to facilitate concerted action by the international community in strengthening NARS and better utilization of the strengths of the CGIAR System in this context.
30. The ensuing discussion focused on a number of the report's findings and recommendations. The validity of the perception that NARS were developing into "holistic" national research systems was questioned in the case of sub-Saharan African where, it was argued, it did not seem to apply. Contrary to the report's implication, reduced funding for certain strengthening activities did not necessarily mean a reduction in services as centres had streamlined their training programmes and made them more cost-effective through inter-centre cooperation. The report would have been more accurate had it included data on centre outputs in relation to resource inputs. It was suggested that a logical division of labour for institution strengthening might involve ISNAR and IFPRI working with NARS on the methodologies for priority setting at senior management and policy levels, while the technology centres assisted at the level of scientific cooperation. The latter centres were said to be in a better position than ISNAR to identify gaps in research having the character of international or regional public goods and to undertake crop-specific joint impact assessments with NARS.
31. In bringing this discussion to a close, the Chair indicated the next steps to be taken with respect to this agenda item. TAC would prepare a commentary on the report. The report itself would figure prominently in TAC's priority setting for institution strengthening. It would also be tabled at the forthcoming NARS regional fora where NARS comments would be made on it. The report, together with the TAC commentary and NARS comments, would then be tabled at MTM'96.
32. After further consideration, TAC made the following commentary on the report:
33. TAC expresses its thanks to Dr. John Nickel and the Study Panel for its comprehensive report which addresses in depth the many broad-ranging and complex issues pertaining to the CGIAR and its role in institution strengthening research and services. The report was requested by TAC to provide a framework for assessing the strategic issues and priorities in institutional strengthening.
34. The report is clear and comprehensive in addressing CGIAR's role in the institution strengthening of the National Agricultural Research Systems, not only in the context of the currently changing nature of the CGIAR System, but also of the changing environment and status of the NARS. TAC is pleased to note that the report has been highly commended by the NARS at the ICW'95 NARS Meeting, Adopting an Action Plan on NARS-CGIAR Partnerships, 28 October 1995.
35. The Committee considers that the Panel's classification of criteria to describe the strengths and weaknesses of NARS is very useful. In this context, the survey and classification of the CGIAR Centres' institution strengthening services and research support to the NARS provides useful supporting material.
36. TAC regards the formulation of criteria for the classification of external interventions in institution strengthening as helpful in the context of visualizing the most relevant role of CGIAR support, vis-à-vis that of non-CGIAR research institutions, the bilateral or multilateral organizations, NGOs and private transnational corporations.
37. The Panel's observations on the respective roles and interface between ISNAR and the other CGIAR Centres in institution strengthening is also clearly presented, and the Committee endorses the Panel's recommendation that there is need for much closer collaboration between ISNAR and the Centres in all facets of institution strengthening support to the NARS. Likewise, the Committee supports the Panel's recommendation that ISNAR strengthens and expands the research dimension of its programmes to develop tools for application by others while still retaining a demand-led service role. TAC accepts that ISNAR's role in the area of policy and management research needs further discussion and that this should be undertaken as part of the forthcoming external review of ISNAR, scheduled for 1996.
38. As to the prioritization of future institution strengthening activities in the CGIAR, within the total programme of CGIAR commitments, TAC notes the difficulties faced by the Panel to address the complex set of issues that this task entails. This important issue will be further addressed by TAC and will also be discussed in the upcoming regional fora with NARS on future CGIAR priorities and strategies. TAC endorses the Panel's views that there is now a greater than ever need that CGIAR activities in institution strengthening should be more structured, firmly based on collaboration with other partners (internal and external) and strongly demand-driven to meet the more pressing needs of the NARS.
39. TAC also appreciates the Panel's discussion of the emerging regional NARS fora and the new opportunities this regionalization may offer to facilitate more effective institution strengthening support to NARS: on the one hand expanding the capability of the NARS themselves (the regional fora) to contribute to the institution strengthening of their weaker members and on the other hand, enabling the CGIAR to focus its institution strengthening support more sharply.
40. TAC will prepare a synthesis of the Institution Strengthening and Policy Management reports to identify strategic issues and options for the Committee's consideration and decision at TAC 69. TAC will communicate its views on these issues to the CGIAR at MTM'96 in the context of discussion of priorities and strategies. The synthesis paper will be made available to the Group at that time; the revised Policy/Management and Institution Strengthening reports will be made available separately as background papers.
TAC Commentary on Perspectives on Policy and Management Research in the CGIAR
41. The Chair called upon Dr. Gregersen, co-convenor with Dr. Eugenia Muchnik de Rubinstein of the stripe study of policy and management research in the CGIAR, to introduce the draft report of the study on behalf of its panel Chair, Dr. Alain de Janvry.
42. Dr. Gregersen summarized the main conclusions and recommendations of the report, emphasizing that it was an interim document; questions and comments were, therefore, welcomed and would be conveyed to the panel for its consideration in finalizing the report.
43. The study estimated that approximately 15-16 percent of CGIAR resources was allocated to socioeconomic research and 8 percent to policy and management research, or 1.6 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, of the global research effort in these areas. Policy/management research was seen as fundamental to the operation of the CGIAR, in particular to facilitating diffusion and adoption of the new technologies and to sharpening the focus of the CGIAR's efforts in the areas of poverty alleviation and protecting the environment. The quality of the System's policy/management research was satisfactory, made a significant contribution to the CGIAR's mission, and did not require a major overhaul. At the same time, the System's expansion into the areas of natural resources management, fisheries, forestry and environment, and the general "de-scaling" of the role of the state in development had implications for the focus and prioritization of policy/management research.
44. The report recommended, among other things, that priority setting for policy research be participatory and "bottom up," in the sense of having input from the centres and the developing countries, and proposed explicit criteria for judging priorities. It also stressed the need for ensuring the quality of policy research performed by the System's technology-oriented centres either through collaboration with IFPRI or independently; these centres should ensure that they had sufficient capacity to collaborate with IFPRI. The current level of investment in policy/management research should be maintained. Linkages with private sector entities undertaking such research should be strengthened. Priority to research on common property issues was affirmed. A Systemwide initiative in policy research was unnecessary. TAC was encouraged to develop mechanisms to provide inter-centre funding for development of proposals and collaborative modalities for policy research, although TAC's options were not made explicit.
45. The Chair recognized Dr. Muchnik who pointed out that the report's recommendation on ensuring centres' collaborative capacity did not imply developing the same level or breadth of disciplinary sophistication of that of the lead centres. The recommendation on maintaining the overall level of investment in policy/management research required clarification as to whether it referred to an absolute or relative share of System resources. The criteria and indicators proposed by the report to assist priority setting for policy/management research - relevance to international and System goals and efficiency, strategic nature of outputs for national programmes, comparative advantage, quality and impact assessment mechanisms - were considered useful for TAC and the System generally. Finally, the report raised a number of issues which should help to structure the forthcoming external programme reviews of IFPRI and ISNAR.
46. Dr. Muchnik congratulated the panel for the analytical quality of its report and for having covered so much ground in so short a period of time.
47. The Chair thanked Drs. Gregersen and Muchnik and opened the floor for comments by TAC Members and other participants.
48. One Member cautioned that the report's suggestion the CGIAR undertake research on research policy in both the public and private sectors could involve it in politically sensitive issues. Given the CGIAR's credentials as a non-political organization engaged in the production of international public goods, the question arose as to how the risks involved in implementing such a suggestion would be dealt with. Another Member thought that the number of recommendations was unusually large and should have been classified in relative importance to assist TAC in evaluating which should be given priority. It was suggested the final report compress the recommendations into more general statements, perhaps separately annexing those pertaining to the IFPRI and ISNAR external reviews.
49. Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director-General of IFPRI, expressed general agreement with the report's recommendations and suggestions, but stressed some of the subtleties involved in responding to them. The Centre preferred that any Systemwide initiatives within IFPRI's mandate deal with specific issues rather than with policy research per se. While a mechanism for inter-centre collaboration in policy research remained to be worked out, IFPRI could best contribute to other centres' commodity-specific or ecoregional-specific policy work by collaborating on methodologies for such research. IFPRI was open to collaboration but saw this as a means to an end rather than an end in itself, given the high transactions costs involved. The Centre planned to maintain its capacity for global and natural resource use projections as follow-up to its 20/20 Vision exercise. Input from other centres to IFPRI's medium-term plan, as proposed by the panel, was welcomed but final decision on the MTP submitted to TAC would remain with the centre's board. IFPRI noted the panel's distinction between capacity building and institution strengthening but saw its comparative advantage as lying with the former rather than the latter.
50. Dr. Christian Bonte-Friedheim, Director-General of ISNAR, commented that the title of the study was misleading. Although it purported to deal with "public management research," this term was not commonly used in management literature and was ambiguous. It could refer to research on public management or on management of public sector organizations and institutions. Thus, the focus of the study was unclear. Further, the report had characterized management as a subset of policymaking, a perspective not generally shared in policy and management circles. Policymaking should be seen as part of the broader public management process. Finally, the study's treatment of policy analysis was virtually synonymous with the discipline of economics, the dominant social science perspective in international agricultural research. However, economic tools were generally less useful for the analysis of management processes. With respect to the study's treatment of ISNAR's policy work, there was no factual basis for the report's characterization of its quantity and quality because ISNAR was excluded from the study's survey of the centres' policy activities. For example, the report did not recognize that some of ISNAR's advisory services - e.g., the development of a government's research, information, or training policies - involved policy research.
51. Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz, CGIAR Secretariat, noted in reference to the definitional issue raised above that, in recent years, management science had tended to use the term "public sector management" and its abbreviated form "public management" interchangeably. Both were concerned with the way public organizations set and pursued goals. Much of ISNAR's work could be subsumed under either rubric. A broader conceptual problem of the stripe review was the absence of a unified framework to capture the relationships between institution strengthening, public management, and public policy. A suggested solution was to broaden the scope of the policy/management study to incorporate policy implementation, a largely public management function intermediate to policy making and policy impact.
52. A number of participants observed that the study devoted greater attention to public policy than to public management research and that its coverage of IFPRI's work ought to have been balanced by more attention to that of ISNAR and other CGIAR centres.
53. In closing this discussion, the Chair noted that both the institution strengthening and policy/management studies had involved widespread consultation with the centres and would inform TAC's decision-making on priority setting.
54. After further consideration, TAC made the following commentary on the policy/management study:
55. TAC expresses it appreciation to Dr. Alain de Janvry, Chair, and the members of the Study Panel for their insightful report on the status of policy and management research in the CGIAR. The Panel's analysis places the System's work in these areas in the context of political and economic changes occurring at the global level. TAC considers this focus a timely and important one, given the CGIAR's renewal process and the need to strengthen Centres' linkages with the broader research community. The report also sensitizes TAC to the methodological changes underway in policy and management science, changes which the Centres must keep abreast of to ensure that their work is on the "cutting edge."
56. TAC considered the report in terms of the overall balance of its treatment of policy and management research, comprehensiveness of coverage of the activities of the lead and other Centres in these two areas, links to policy and management research elsewhere, and the relationship between this report and its companion on Institution Strengthening. TAC notes that while the Panel developed its analysis within a clear, logical framework and the report does a thorough job of covering policy research, its treatment of management research is less comprehensive due to time constraints and the composition of the study team. Related to the latter point, TAC notes an apparent imbalance in the report's treatment of IFPRI, on the one hand, and ISNAR, IIMI and the other Centres. These imbalances are acknowledged in the report itself.
57. The Committee observes that there are some factual statements about ISNAR's work, as detailed, for example, in the letter of ISNAR's Director-General to the TAC Chair, dated 30 November 1995, which need to be verified or clarified.
58. There is also need to clarify ambiguity in the report's recommendation that the overall level of support for policy/management research be maintained: it is not clear whether the recommendation pertains to the absolute level or the percentage of CGIAR resources invested.
59. The report's many recommendations and suggestions could be improved by consolidating them to better illustrate their relative importance and by ensuring correspondence between those contained in the text and the Executive Summary. Further, TAC prefers that the recommendations pertaining to the forthcoming External Programme Reviews of IFPRI and ISNAR be conveyed separately to the respective Review Teams as they are not intended for the broader CGIAR audience at this stage.
60. The report should clarify its continuum-of-research concept in terms of its implications for the pattern of resource allocation for the different dimensions of such research (micro to macro) so that the aggregate does not overstate how much is actually invested in policy research.
61. The report does not adequately address the "modality" issue to achieve better coordination amongst the Centres in setting policy/management research priorities (Recommendations 16-20).
62. Based on the foregoing observations, TAC requests that the Study Panel: (a) address matters of a factual nature, including those suggested by ISNAR in its letter of 30 November 1995 to the TAC Chair; and (b) address and clarify the ambiguities cited above in the points dealing with finance and TAC modalities for research coordination Systemwide.
63. TAC is of the view that the questions of coverage and balance in the report's treatment of policy and management research may well reflect a general lack of priority to public management research within the CGIAR System. This question should figure prominently in the forthcoming External Programme Review of ISNAR. To further probe this and other questions raised by the two studies in the context of TAC's priority setting, a synthesis of the Policy/Management and Institution Strengthening studies will be prepared to identify strategic issues and options for the Committee's consideration and decision at TAC 69. This paper will set the agenda for TAC's debate and address, among other things, such issues as the interface between public policy and public management research (e.g., whether one is a subset of the other), the place of institution strengthening in the larger context of public management research, the interaction and coordination between the technology/commodity-based Centres and the policy Centres, the best way to ensure the quality and consistency of policy/management research across the System, and the justification for the CGIAR's increased investment in policy research in terms of the criterion of international public goods and other considerations. TAC will communicate its views on these issues to the CGIAR at MTM'96. The synthesis paper, approximately 25 pages in length, will be made available to the Group at that time; the revised Policy/Management and Institution Strengthening reports will be made available separately as background papers.
TAC Commentary on the Inter-Centre Review of Root and Tuber Crops Research in the CGIAR
64. The final report of the Inter-Centre Review of Root and Tuber Crops Research in the CGIAR was presented by the Chair of the study panel, Dr. David MacKenzie. He summarized the report's conclusions and recommendations and also addressed TAC's comments made on the draft tabled at TAC 67. The purpose of the study was to assist TAC in formulating a Systemwide strategy for research on roots and tubers in the CGIAR to meet global and regional needs, taking into account current and projected demand. It focused on issues of global planning and organization, germplasm and vegetative propagation, biotechnology research, postharvest technology research, partnerships, and policy research. The study's overarching recommendation was that the CGIAR create an Inter-Centre Consultative Committee for Systemwide planning, coordination, and operation with respect to root and tuber crops. The committee would, among other things, explore the possibility of rationalizing international shipments of root and tuber crops as vegetatively-propagated materials, recommend inter-centre collaborations in biotechnology research, explore partnership opportunities in post-harvest technology research, and prepare a comprehensive vision for root and tuber crops research. Owing to time and data constraints the panel was unable to fully respond to TAC's request for quantitative information on the production and utilization of root and tuber crops and on the priority status of research on these crops in relation to other commodities. The panel addressed the issue of possibilities for devolving research on sweet potato to the national systems, proposing specific criteria centres might use in decision-making for such transfers: science quality, cost effectiveness, adequate resources, scientific leadership, programmatic commitment, and accessibility to results. Dr. MacKenzie concluded by providing, in response to TAC's commentary on the interim report, a number of supplemental recommendations. These included, among others, that the CGIAR revise its policies to encourage more private sector partnerships and more IARC technology transfer, and continue System investments in root and tuber crops research at least at current levels.
65. The Chair called upon Dr. Andre Berkaloff, Chair of the TAC Working Group for the study, to comment on the report.
66. Dr. Berkaloff, referring to the report's recommendation that the centres collaborate jointly with external partners in biotechnology and postharvest technology research, noted that the modalities of public/private sector interaction needed to be addressed more concretely. He asked for clarification on the need for the proposed consultative committee, noting that inter-centre coordination could also be achieved through informal collaboration. Finally, he was not persuaded by the panel chair's view that devolution of yam research was unwarranted in light of the small size of the CGIAR's investment in it; high research efficiency in this commodity might make it a candidate for transfer to the national systems. Dr. MacKenzie responded that there were opportunities in biotechnology for collaboration in genetic engineering across species which could involve inter-centre collaboration with advanced institutions and sharing of the materials created. While this would involve negotiations with ARIs, the centres would achieve efficiencies in their work by avoiding duplication of effort amongst themselves. With respect to the committee, Dr. MacKenzie emphasized the informal nature of the mechanism being recommended. Finally, he clarified that the panel's initial recommendation to devolve yam research was reversed by the chair in the final version of the report not only because the gains to the System from doing so would be small, but because political conditions in the recommended host country had adversely affected its national research system.
67. The Chair opened the floor for comments by other TAC members and participants.
68. In the ensuing discussion, a number of technical questions with respect to the report's recommendations in the areas of technology transfer, biotechnology, and postharvest technology research were raised and answered. One TAC Member suggested that since the proposed postharvest work had an industrial processing component which, in turn, raised questions about infrastructure, labour, and investment requirements, it might be appropriate for the CGIAR Secretariat to ask donor countries having sophisticated food processing industries to form a small commission from the processing industry to meet with TAC to discuss the feasibility of the centres undertaking joint ventures with private sector firms engaged in this activity.
69. After further consideration, TAC made the following commentary on the report:
70. TAC extends its appreciation to the Chairman, Dr. David MacKenzie, and members of the panel for their report. The panel completed its work within a tight time schedule and was able to draw on experiences gained from the external reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA. The panel is commended for employing a participatory workshop forum which was attended by representatives of five centres (CIP, CIAT, IITA, IPGRI and IFPRI), and outside specialists to identify key issues of importance to root and tuber crops research in the CGIAR.
71. TAC considers that despite the unforeseen difficulty encountered by the panel due to the lack of generally accepted production and consumption data, the panel has done a commendable job of identifying issues relevant to priority setting, and to Systemwide planning, coordination and operations.
72. TAC offers the following comments to bring this review to a close, and to facilitate the follow-up action on future inter-centre collaboration as well as on TAC's work on research priorities and strategies for root and tuber crops.
73. Inter-Centre Committee on Root and Tuber Crops Research. The external reviews of CIP, CIAT, and IITA highlighted the positive history of collaboration among the centres, and the benefits and recognitions that have been derived from such collaboration. TAC therefore welcomes any move which would further improve the coherence of CGIAR's research on roots and tuber crops, and make greater use of complementarities among the three centres concerned. TAC supports the panel's recommendation that an informal Inter-Centre Committee on Root and Tuber Crops Research be formed provided that the centres remain convinced that it adds value to root and tuber crops research in the CGIAR. TAC notes that the centres are in agreement with the recommendation and the proposed terms of reference, and considers that the Inter-Centre Committee mechanism should certainly be tried out and a genuine effort made for it to work effectively.
74. TAC notes the recommended agenda of work for the Inter-Centre Committee, including the development of a Systemwide strategy for root and tuber crops research. TAC looks forward to receiving reports of the recommended studies and inquiries under the aegis of the Inter-Centre Committee, and will see their effects through the normal process of annual programme and budget submissions, centre commissioned external reviews, and external programme and management reviews.
75. Postharvest Technology. TAC agrees with the panel that the pattern of consumption can be altered (e.g., via price effects) through the development of new technologies in areas such as food processing. TAC considers that the recommendation regarding partnership with AROs, NARS and the private sector on the characterization of starch and flour, on food processing technology and on market research needs to be followed up through the proposed postharvest technology and market working group. TAC requests the relevant centres to interact with the broader TAC study currently being conducted on postharvest technology research in the CGIAR.
76. Research Partnership with the Private Sector. TAC concurs with the panel that considerable opportunity exists for the development of improved cultivars for processing and for new products based on genetically-enhanced root and tuber quality and storage potential. As the panel points out, this is not a trivial consideration but one that demands considerable evaluation, analysis and strategy. Moreover, it is likely to require strong cooperation between the public and private sector, while at the same time the protection of the intellectual property rights of CGIAR's investments. The committee therefore endorses the spirit of the recommendation to encourage more private sector research partnerships, and requests that the recommendation be considered by the CGIAR Private Sector Committee, as well as by the broader TAC study on postharvest technology research.
77. Technology Transfer Activities. TAC considers that there is a convincing case for the three centres concerned with root and tuber crops research to engage in technology transfer activities aimed at overcoming constraints to the dissemination of improved cultivars. The external reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA have shown that such activities are needed before extension can proceed, and cannot be supplied by other sources. TAC is of the opinion that the three centres concerned are aware of the need to engage in such technology transfer activities, but would caution the centres not to become a provider of technical assistance for which there exist more effective international and national development agencies.
78. Passing the CGIAR Sweet Potato Programme to a Strong NARS. TAC considers that the six guideline criteria provided by the review to judge the merits and demerits of passing a particular research programme or activity to a NARS are sound and useful but incomplete (e.g., whether national systems should be expected to use national funds to generate international public goods). Moreover, the criteria apply in the context of seeking new partnerships rather than seeking alternative suppliers, and there are additional considerations such as cost efficiencies, funding availability, geographical priorities, etc. that must be taken into account before a firm decision can be reached. Nonetheless, in the case of sweet potato, CIP should continue to explore opportunities for strategic partnerships with the Chinese Agricultural Research System, based on the proposed criteria and other considerations. Such a partnership, if successful, might permit a reduction in the commitment of CIP to sweet potato research.
79. Biotechnology. TAC considers that the use of advanced biotechnology research on potato is currently well developed in AROs, and care needs to be taken not to duplicate this research. The Committee considers that within the CGIAR the development of technologies for safe and economically viable vegetative propagation, especially for cassava, is an important area for inter-centre cooperation.
80. Data. The review has highlighted the need for generally accepted data to assist in setting future priorities for root and tuber crops. This deficiency needs to be put right and TAC would request the Inter-Centre Committee to take the responsibility of reconciling the available data from the different sources. TAC is pleased to note that CIP has taken steps to reconcile its database on potato with that of FAO through a joint publication, and would request that other root and tuber crops be covered in a similar fashion.
81. The Chair introduced this item by noting that the timeframe for the next round of CGIAR priorities and strategies was 1998-2000, a year earlier in the medium-term planning cycle than originally foreseen, because the redefinition of System goals resulting from the renewal process required a reassessment of the criteria by which TAC would evaluate the next set of centres' MTP proposals. In consultation with the Group, TAC had identified the major decision criteria for priority setting. The point of departure for TAC's recommendations on a new pattern of resource allocation for 1998-2000 would be the 1997 allocations, adjusted to address the new priorities reflected in the Lucerne consensus.
82. TAC proposed to base the current priority setting framework on four dimensions: production sectors, commodities, undertakings, and Systemwide programmes, i.e., on the four dimensions of the CGIAR research and resource allocation matrix. Further, the analysis of priorities would rest on four primary concerns (criteria), namely: people-centred; efficiency; poverty alleviation; and conserving natural resources; and four derived research efficiency considerations, namely: international public goods; alternative suppliers; future needs for products; and probabilities of success through research.
83. Dr. Winkelmann then opened the floor for comments on the approach as outlined and requested advice from participants on, among other things, the kinds of data and analysis TAC would need to operationalize it.
84. The ensuing discussion began with consideration of the efficiency criterion as it might be applied to inter-centre activities and to relationships with alternative suppliers. There was particular attention to the issue of the relative priority to be accorded to Systemwide versus centre-based programmes. Various views were expressed on this question. There was consensus among TAC Members that Systemwide initiatives should not be considered ends in themselves but potential means of achieving greater efficiency in research through inter-centre collaboration. However, it was also agreed that TAC should continue to give priority to such initiatives by providing incentives for them, perhaps through earmarking of funds at the System level and/or within centres' MTP budgets for the 1998-2000 plan period.
85. The Chair shifted the discussion to priority setting for the CGIAR's five undertakings, namely, increasing productivity, protecting the environment, saving biodiversity, improving policies, and fortifying NARS. The task before TAC was to determine whether changes in the pattern of allocation were necessary for 1998-2000 in light of the Group's priorities, trends in centres' activities, and the views of NARS and other stakeholders. In this context, the TAC Chair reviewed changes in resource allocations for CGIAR activities from 1991 to 1996. Within the productivity category, production systems had declined from 33 percent to 22 percent, while germplasm enhancement had remained even at around 20 percent; fortifying NARS had declined from 24 to 18 percent; protecting the environment and improving policies had increased, respectively from 7 to 16 percent and 9 to 13 percent. The Chair noted there was doubt as to whether the 1996 allocations for the last mentioned activities reflected the amount of actual work in these categories and the expectation that the project format being developed would throw more light on the matter.
86. In the discussion which followed, questions were raised regarding the precision of the categories used to delineate activities for purposes of resource allocation. TAC took under advisement a number of centres' suggestions for clarifying the categories, particularly in the areas of production systems research and protecting the environment where, it was argued, there existed a means-ends relationship which made it difficult to classify activities under only one rubric. This prompted an extended debate over interpretation of the CGIAR's mandate with respect to protecting the environment. Some argued that this objective was limited to the interface between food production and natural resource management. Others opined that the members took a less instrumental view of the rationale for the CGIAR's research in this area, basing it on ethical values and considerations of the intrinsic worth of natural resources rather than sustainable production systems alone. This, in turn, raised the question of how to weight extra-production concerns (e.g., off-site effects of degradation of agricultural lands) in setting the level of investment in this arena. Given the CGIAR's comparative advantage and the existence of alternative suppliers of environmental research, it was suggested the centres' might best contribute through research which protected the environment for/from agriculture and/or enhanced production and reduced poverty with positive environmental externalities. There was consensus that TAC would weight research proposals in this area in terms of their contributions to present and future productivity gains and potential consequences for off-site costs and benefits and that other values (e.g., amenity and intrinsic worth) would be integrated into the analysis after the initial conditions had been satisfied. The utility was also acknowledged of adopting a systems approach to research planning which would permit projects whose primary focus was productivity enhancement and poverty alleviation to be located in regions where other, intrinsic benefits for the environment could be maximized.
87. The questions of how TAC might incorporate into its priority setting framework the Group's concerns with marginal and favoured ecoregions and with rural over urban and female over male poverty were also addressed. A number of sources of information to guide TAC's decision-making on these and other issues were identified. The Chair reminded the TAC of the long November note interpreting the ICW'95 discussion on those themes. The TAC Secretariat had updated the quantitative indicators for the criteria used for priority setting in 1992, including value of production for commodities, incidence of poverty, and the like. An analysis of the data was pending; centres would later be asked to comment on the framework and data and provide additional input. TAC would review previously planned allocations that had not been realized with a view to explaining any discrepancies. It would also consult reports and recommendations of TAC stripe reviews and strategic studies, CGIAR task forces, centre-generated studies on specific commodity and resource issues, the results of the NARS consultations, and other pertinent literature.
88. Turning to the sector and commodity dimensions of the priority setting framework, one approach considered was to evaluate ex-ante the potential contribution of CGIAR commodities to relative and absolute poverty reduction, estimated in terms of future value of production weighted by population and poverty factors. This prompted an extended debate over the issue of gearing CGIAR research more to rural than to urban poor. In view of the alarming rate of increase in urban poverty in some developing countries, there was consensus that TAC's analysis should be balanced, developing options that projected the benefits of different research strategies for both groups and the implications for resource allocation. While geographic regions were no longer an explicit dimension of priority setting but an outcome of the other dimensions, it would be necessary to factor agroecological zone into the analysis given its impact on probabilities of success of research. The TAC Secretariat was upgrading its AEZ database for purposes of incorporating this criterion into its quantitative indicators for priority setting. It would welcome additional input of such data from the centres as the exercise proceeded.
89. In bringing this discussion to a close, it was concluded that, while there was advantage in further encouraging centres to engage in Systemwide activities, there was a sense that centres themselves were in the best position to judge the advantages of the further partnerships that might be formed, that the System needed to review the apparent or likely impacts of the programmes already underway, and that TAC should continue to encourage such efforts by recommending financial support for the design and planning phase. TAC decided it was necessary for the Committee to obtain quick feedback from centres as to how well Systemwide programmes were meeting TAC's approval criteria so that the latter might be refined for the next MTP cycle. This information would also permit TAC to develop a strategic view of the future role and magnitude of such programmes in the CGIAR. The Secretariat would follow-up directly with centres for information on programme purposes, accomplishments, funding, partnership, efficiency, value-added, impacts, and the like.
90. With respect to activities, TAC concluded that while recent changes in the profile of activities were in the right direction, current estimates of System commitments to the various activities might well change as new information about projects became available. While taking that into account, TAC laid out a process for moving immediately in setting suggested future directions for activities. (Work here and progress on other themes would be discussed with the Joint CBC/CDC/TAC Committee in January 1996.) Beyond this, discussion further clarified the relationship between poverty alleviation and natural resource conservation. In further work, TAC would consider environmental benefits that fit within the mission and goals of the System. (TAC noted that its joint meeting with ASARECA was consistent with its orientation in this regard.) There was the sense that more attention (perhaps major renovation) needed to be given to the activity categories of natural resource management and production systems research for further rationalization of demarcation between the two and a format for doing so was tabled.
91. In dealing with sector and commodity balances, TAC reaffirmed the direction of its efforts, in particular that the appropriate point of departure for priority setting was congruence analysis followed by the application of modifiers. TAC concluded that its formal analysis of sectors and commodities would involve only a few well defined modifiers. In this context, TAC noted the pilot analyses undertaken by the Secretariat on the influence of the poverty weight. More generally, TAC noted with approval the progress in the Secretariat's work in updating data sets. Work was underway to further sharpen the measurement of the primary modifiers and TAC would be working with centres, FAO, and others to add precision to its assessment of alternative sources of supply and probabilities of success. It was concluded that the two would have their greatest impact as TAC reviewed the elements contained in centre MTPs.
92. An outline of the MTM'96 document on future CGIAR Priorities was endorsed and work underway on drafts for some chapters was noted. TAC continued to recognize the System's emphasis on participation by important stakeholders, and, in particular, noted the need for participation and careful attention to the NARS regional fora occurring from December through February. TAC believed that it was well on schedule for its March and subsequent deadlines.
93. This item was introduced by Mr. Gordon MacNeil of the CGIAR Secretariat who tabled a draft proposal prepared by the CGIAR Secretariat and reviewed by the TAC Chair to shift the medium term budget and resource allocation process of the Centres to a three-year, rolling cycle starting in 1998. The plan was first presented to the Committee at TAC 67. Mr. MacNeil highlighted the advantage of its multi-year budgeting feature as a means of flexibly linking resources to shifts in System priorities. Under the proposal, Centres would no longer have ex-ante funding envelopes and the baseline for Centre budgets would be the 1997 approved level. Centres' medium term plans would be linked specifically to CGIAR priorities and strategies. There would still be annual budget updates to adjust flexibly to changes in priorities. However, very low priority would be accorded to non-Agenda activities. The plan would be financed by a combination of unrestricted and restricted funding.
94. The Chair thanked Mr. MacNeil for his presentation and opened the floor for discussion to TAC Members and other participants.
95. Members noted that the proposal made little reference to Systemwide programmes; there was need to give this high consideration if the Group were to support the new allocation process. It was observed that few members of the Group had thus far committed themselves to multi-year funding, seemingly weakening the rationale for the proposed process. Concern was expressed that the suggested procedure for review of programmes by TAC implied cost-benefit analysis of individual projects; preference was expressed for ex-ante review of centre proposals at a more aggregated level.
96. The Chair of the Centre Directors' Committee reported that its members had expressed a preference for allowing current MTPs to run their course and beginning the new cycle in 1999 in order to permit time for programme consolidation after a period of fiscal restraint.
97. In summarizing this discussion, the Chair noted that TAC was favourable to the proposal, but thought that it essentially responded to budgetary considerations; planning for scientific research normally required a longer time horizon than three years. The Committee would, therefore, continue to issue a major report on CGIAR priorities and strategies every five years. With regard to the CDC's preference for delaying implementation of the new process, TAC opined that slippage in the timetable would be inconsistent with the Lucerne consensus on new directions for the CGIAR, but encouraged the CDC to bring its concern to the attention of the CGIAR Chairman.
TAC Commentary on Development of the Systemwide Livestock Initiative (SLI) and Funding Proposals for 1996: Feed Resources and Utilization
TAC Commentary on ICLARM Proposal on Coastal Environments - A CGIAR Inter-Centre Initiative
TAC Commentary on Systemwide Initiative on Water Management
Livestock
98. This item was introduced by Dr. Hank Fitzhugh, Director General of ILRI, the convening centre, who reported on progress in developing the Systemwide Livestock Initiative in 1995 and proposed a programme of SLI research and related activities for 1996. Following TAC's endorsement of ILRI's submission at TAC 67, an Inter-Centre Livestock Programme Group developed recommendations for three ecoregionally-based proposals for improvement of production and utilization of livestock feeds in tropical Latin America, WANA, and the East African Highlands, respectively. ILRI sought TAC's endorsement for the recommended activities in 1996 at US$ 2.8 million, and for funding of a second round of proposals in 1997 at approximately US$ 1.4 million, the balance of annual funding allocated to SLI.
99. The Chair thanked Dr. Fitzhugh for his presentation and opened the floor for comments by TAC Members.
100. Members' comments and questions centred primarily on clarifying the role of NARS in the proposed consortia, prospects for leveraging non-CGIAR funding, the details of the competitive bidding process used to select the recommended projects, and mechanisms in place for quality control, delivery and accountability.
101. After further consideration, TAC made the following commentary on the initiative and proposed programme:
102. TAC reviewed the ILRI convened proposal A Systemwide Livestock Initiative: Feed Resources and Utilization, and recommends ILRI's request for a 1996 allocation of US$ 2,804,790 to support its implementation. The Systemwide proposal comprises three projects which were selected from a set of eight candidate proposals, submitted on a competitive bid basis, to the Inter-Centre Livestock Programme Group (IC-LPG). The development, evaluation and final selection of the projects that now comprise the 1996 tranche of the Systemwide Livestock Initiative, began in March 1995, in response to the TAC 66 request for the establishment of a Systemwide livestock initiative that would harness and strengthen linkages between CGIAR Centres and their NARS partners to address the priority research needs of livestock feed resources in integrated crop/livestock production systems.
103. The three proposals endorsed for 1996 funding are as follows: (i) The CIAT-led project: Improved Legume-based Feeding Systems for Smallholder Dual-Purpose Cattle Production in Tropical Latin America: 1996 SLI budget, US$ 770,000; (ii) The ICARDA-led project: Production and Utilization of Multi-Purpose Fodder Shrubs and Trees in West Asia, North Africa and the Sahel: 1996 SLI budget, US$ 837,530; and (iii) The ICRAF-led project: Utilization of Forage legume bio-diversity for dairy production and natural resource management in the East and Central African Highlands: 1996 SLI budget, US$ 847,260. TAC wishes to reiterate the high priority it attaches to integrated crop/livestock systems and consequently strongly supports the proposed Research Planning Workshop on the Enhancement of the value of residues in sustainable crop/livestock mixed farming systems, to be held at the ICRISAT Asia Centre, April 1996. The Committee looks forward to the next tranche of project proposals that will emerge from the workshop discussions on this most important component of farming systems in Asia, and indeed across all of the developing regions.
104. TAC is encouraged by the process through which ILRI and its IC-LPG partners (CIAT, CIP, ICARDA, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IFPRI, IITA and IRRI) initiated and developed the Systemwide Livestock Initiative, in a spirit of openness and institutional cooperation involving extensive consultations with NARS and other partners within the framework of the already established ecoregional consortia. TAC has followed with interest the project invitation, evaluation and competitive bidding procedures used in assessing the candidate proposals, including the use of external panel expertise and a set of clearly defined evaluation criteria.
105. The Committee is also reassured that the ILRI Board of Trustees has agreed to provide oversight for the programme, and that clear lines of responsibility and demarcation have been agreed with the Boards and Managements of the three lead centres, i.e., CIAT, ICARDA and ICRAF. In conclusion, TAC commends the participatory and constructive manner in which ILRI and the IC-LPG have developed the Systemwide Livestock Initiative, and will monitor closely progress in the implementation and outputs of the Systemwide programme.
Coastal Environments
106. This item was introduced Dr. Meryl Williams, Director General of ICLARM, who outlined for TAC the rationale for an inter-centre initiative on coastal environments. Its objectives were to provide new methodologies for integrated coastal zone and aquatic resources research, management and planning; policy insights to facilitate management of interacting terrestrial and aquatic environments; assessments of the environmental impact of key stresses and of management interventions; and software to facilitate integrated management of coastal systems. The research programme would focus on characterization of catchment and coastal areas, modelling of catchment and coastal processes, environmental carrying capacity, and policy analysis. ICLARM sought TAC's endorsement for preparatory activities in 1996 for US$ 300,000, including recruitment of a programme coordinator to develop background papers, gather data, and organize workshop to identify issues and prepare a programme proposal for submission to TAC in December 1996.
107. The Chair thanked Dr. Williams for her presentation and opened the floor for comments by TAC members.
108. While welcoming the initiative in general terms as consonant with TAC's and the CGIAR's priorities, Members' comments and questions centred on the need to identify the specific problem and sites to be researched under the initiative. The analytical work required for these tasks was regarded as being prior to the methodological activities thus far proposed for TAC's consideration. Questions were also raised regarding the extent to which the initiative was distinct from the Centre's regular programme; it was not clear what value would be added by the proposed initiative.
109. After further consideration, TAC made the following commentary on the proposed initiative:
110. After careful consideration of the proposal and taking into account TAC's criteria for Systemwide Initiatives, the Committee concludes that, in general terms, the proposal is in line with TAC's thinking on the importance of coastal environments and is "well placed" as a priority activity within the CGIAR System. However, TAC observes that the proposal in its present form emphasizes broad concerns and methodological issues, and lacks specific focus as a Systemwide research initiative. Further, the proposed activities are closely related to ICLARM's regular research agenda and the proposal lacks evidence of commitments of participation from CGIAR Centres and other potential partners such as NARS and NGOs.
111. In view of these findings, TAC requests ICLARM to develop a much more focused proposal based on a specific research problem. The new proposal should include, among other things, a problem analysis, indication of suitable benchmark sites, assessment of previous research, and concrete expressions of interest in participation by other CGIAR Centres and potential partners outside the CGIAR System. ICLARM is encouraged to develop this proposal either as part of its Programme 2 or as a Systemwide Initiative. TAC expects ICLARM to advise it of the pros and cons of these alternative approaches. Its analysis of these options should include, in addition to the aspects noted earlier in this paragraph, an indication of the value-added by adopting a Systemwide approach compared to undertaking the research as part of Programme 2 in collaboration with other partners.
112. While the 1996 ICLARM research agenda endorsed by the CGIAR included a tentative allocation of US$ 300,000 for coastal environments research, TAC recommends that no more than US$ 50,000 be allocated at this stage to develop a proposal along the lines identified above. TAC encourages ICLARM to submit the new proposal at its earliest convenience, if possible in time for consideration by the Committee at TAC 69.
Small Countries
113. This item was introduced by Dr. Gryseels of the TAC Secretariat on behalf of Dr. Bonte-Friedheim. Responding to TAC 67's request that ISNAR develop an informal proposal to facilitate a CGIAR dialogue with small country NARS at the regional level, a plan was tabled for a "Workshop for Developing Caribbean States," to be held in Port of Spain, Trinidad, 9-11 January 1996. The meeting would be convened jointly by ISNAR, CARDI, and UWI and would involve representatives of NARS from the region and CGIAR centres. The agenda focused on exchange of information and identification of research priorities, as well as activities in which the CGIAR might participate and improvement of modalities for strengthening small country NARS input to CGIAR priority setting and decision-making. TAC's endorsement was sought of ISNAR's plan to allocate US$ 74,900 of its resources to the workshop as part of the Centre's agreed agenda.
114. The Chair requested the CGIAR Secretariat to clarify whether the proposed initiative had any financial implications for the CGIAR. Mr. Ravi Tadvalkar indicated in reply that there were none.
115. TAC Members' comments were supportive of the initiative but caution was expressed that expectations could be raised on the part of small country NARS in this and other regions (e.g., South Pacific) for the CGIAR to undertake activities having financial implications that could not now be foreseen.
116. After further consideration, TAC endorsed the initiative and indicated that it would be considered as part of ISNAR's agreed agenda. TAC would be represented at the workshop and make a written input on its priority setting.
Water Management
117. This item was introduced by Dr. Randolph Barker, Deputy Director General of IIMI, who summarized a proposal for an Inter-Centre Initiative on Water Management. The proposal, which was developed by an inter-centre workshop, was structured in terms of three themes - inter-sector competition for water, productivity of water, and improved water use in a watershed perspective - that addressed a range of issues from sector to farm level. Since a major focus of the programme would be on agricultural returns per unit of water, a common methodology for measuring water use and its value in different sectors would be developed. IIMI would convene the programme and take the lead for a project on water accounting standards; three other centres, IFPRI, ICARDA, and IRRI, would participate and take leadership, respectively, for projects on policies for efficient and environmentally sustainable water allocation, efficient use of water in agriculture, and improved water utilization in a watershed perspective. TAC's endorsement was sought for an allocation of US$ 1 million to establish the programme and initiate collaborative research activities in 1996.
118. The Chair thanked Dr. Barker for his presentation and opened the floor for comments by TAC Members.
119. Members' comments and questions centred on the conceptual linkages between the themes/projects identified in the proposal and how the programme related to other Systemwide activities; the need to clarify the focus on water as a factor of production, a commodity, and a habitat; the relevance of treating upstream as well as downstream effects of water use and the implications for environment and biodiversity; the importance of covering rainfed as well as irrigation water sources; and the need to involve NARS directly in the research and not just the diffusion stages of the programme.
120. Dr. Barker clarified or amplified details of the proposal in response to these points, taking them under advisement.
121. After further consideration, TAC made the following commentary on the proposed initiative:
122. Summary of proposal. The proposal requests a sum of US$ 1 million to establish a Systemwide Programme on Water Resource Management, and to initiate collaborative research activities in 1996. A major focus of the programme is on agricultural returns per unit of water. The proposal is the result of a five day workshop held from 29 September to 4 October 1995 and attended by representatives from 10 centres and a range of national partners, international experts and donors.
123. The proposal consists of a cross-cutting project on the development of a common, mutually acceptable, way of measuring water use and its value in different sectors; and four other projects under three themes. The cross-cutting project on the common accounting procedure, is to be led by IIMI in coordination with IRRI, ICARDA, ICRAF, CIAT and CIMMYT, and will link with the four other proposed projects.
124. The three themes - (1) inter-sector competition for water; (2) productivity of water; and (3) improved water use in a watershed perspective - aim at addressing a range of concerns from sector to farm level. The two projects under Theme 1 are: Policies for efficient and environmentally sustainable allocation, to be led by IFPRI with IIMI as partner; and Inter-sector competition at the local level, with IIMI and IFPRI. Under Theme 2, there is one project: Efficient use of water in agriculture, to be led by ICARDA with contributions from CIMMYT, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IIMI, IRRI and WARDA. Under Theme 3, there is one project: Improved water utilization in a watershed perspective, to be led by IRRI, with CIAT, IIMI and IITA as partners.
125. The proposal envisages a working group consisting of around 15 to 20 persons, including the Director of the Systemwide Initiative, representatives of each of the participating CGIAR centres, and two NARS/NGO representatives from each of the planned or ongoing projects, to approve projects for funding; set policies and priorities; and review past performance and accomplishments.
126. The requested budget for US$ 1 million is allocated as follows: seed money for four project proposals at US$ 150,000 each; Secretariat services and Working Group meetings, US$ 300,000; workshop to develop research proposal for the project proposal on Inter-sector competition at the local level, US$ 50,000; and contingency, US$ 50,000.
127. Evaluation. IIMI has made considerable progress at preparing sound and productive proposals for development of a Systemwide activity in water management. Nonetheless TAC found it difficult to reach a decision in light of the still-evolving nature of this Systemwide proposal. More specifically TAC notes the following:
· The proposed projects have not been prioritized, so that there is a lack of focus. There is also a need for a much clearer identification of problems in water resource management, in terms of CGIAR priorities, and for a definition of expected research outputs and benefits.· TAC considers that the development of common standards as proposed in the cross-cutting project may not be the most pressing problem in the area of water resource management. TAC would like to see a more convincing definition of the problems to be addressed by the Systemwide programme, including issues related to salinization and waterlogging.
· There is no explicit effort to integrate the four proposed projects under the three themes into the cross-cutting project, so the exact role of IIMI in each of the five projects is not always clear.
· It is not clear what commitments have been made by the participating centres, national institutions, NGOs, etc.
· The proposed Systemwide programme needs to explain explicitly how it intends to link up with and add value to ecoregional activities that deal with water management, including: the IRRI/CIMMYT-led rice-wheat programme for the Gangetic plains; IFPRI-led programme on property rights and collective action; CIAT-led programme for Latin America; IRRI-led programme for subhumid and humid Asia.
· There is also a need to explain how the proposed Systemwide programme will link up with the SWNM initiative.
128. The Committee expects strong synergies with the ecoregional activities and other complementary initiatives, as well as clearly spelt out collaborative links agreed to by all partners in the programme.
129. Recommendation. TAC requests IIMI to submit a revised proposal for consideration by the Committee in March 1996. The revised proposal should:
· address issues of problem definition, prioritization and integration, and spell out collaborative linkages;· elaborate the functions and responsibilities of all partners, including national institutions, specified and related to expected programme outputs and benefits at the global, ecoregional and local levels; and
· describe milestones for expected achievements as implementation proceeds, and a reporting process which will be used to inform TAC at the time of the annual P&B process.
130. After reviewing the revised proposal in March 1996 which fully addresses the above issues, TAC will make a recommendation for seed money for this proposal for 1996.
131. This item was introduced by Dr. Gregersen, Chair of TAC's Standing Committee on External Reviews, who provided the following summary of planning for centre reviews and strategic studies to be conducted in 1996-97:
132. The external review of ICRISAT would be chaired by Dr. Ronnie Coffman of Cornell University. The initial phase of the review would be conducted in September 1996; the main phase in November-December 1996. The review would incorporate a number centre-commissioned external reviews (CCERs) and thus was transitional in format to that of the new CGIAR external review process. (See Agenda Item 10 below.)
133. The IPGRI review was in the planning stage, the initial phase being tentatively scheduled for September 1996 and the main phase sometime in early 1997.
134. The initial phase of the IFPRI review will be conducted in December 1996, with the main phase tentatively scheduled for January/February 1997.
135. The ISNAR review would be chaired by Dr. Samuel Paul, India. The initial phase would be conducted in September 1996 and the main phase by December 1996.
136. The IRRI review would be conducted during 1997 under the revised terms of reference for external reviews. No further TAC action was required at the present meeting.
137. The natural resources management, institution strengthening, and policy/management studies had been completed and were considered by TAC at the present meeting. (See Agenda Items 2, 3 and 4 above.)
138. A postharvest technology study had been initiated and would be completed in two phases: a preparatory and a main phase. The first was being conducted by Dr. Mike Arnold, United Kingdom, to delineate the scope of the study and its terms of reference. This would be complemented by a survey of the CGIAR centres and members by the TAC Secretariat. The results, including a suggested modus operandi for the main phase, would be considered by TAC 69 in March. Phase two would be designed subsequently.
139. The previously TAC-approved study on ICRISAT's investment in the West African semi-arid tropics had been cancelled because the Centre would conduct a CCER on this topic as part of its external programme review.
140. A proposed terms of reference, study process, and timetable for a study on marginal lands had been prepared by the TAC Secretariat and would be considered by the Committee in closed session. Two phases were envisaged: (1) a refinement of the basic questions to be addressed and the definitions to be employed in the analysis; (2) the linkages of marginal lands issues to those of poverty, common property, migration, off-farm employment, deforestation, and marginalization of good lands.
141. The floor was opened for comments from TAC Members and other participants.
142. In the course of its discussion of strategic studies, the Committee reviewed the timing of the planned study of CGIAR investments in Latin America and decided to scheduled it during 1996 subsequent to the NARS regional fora for Latin America so that the latter's results might be factored into designing the study.
143. In the discussion of the marginal lands study, reference was made to the need to look also at infrastructure issues, the success or failure of CGIAR technologies that had been previously introduced into marginal areas, the potential role of subsidies to remove production constraints facing marginalized populations, and policy constraints that may prevent improvements in affected areas. There were also a number of suggestions of completed or on-going research which the study might draw upon, particularly in the area of desertification.
144. This item was introduced by Dr. Gregersen in his capacity as Chair of TAC's Standing Committee on External Reviews. He provided background information on a discussion note prepared by the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on Improving the Quality and Consistency of the CGIAR's External Centre Reviews which had been presented at ICW'95 and endorsed by the Group.
145. The note was summarized for TAC by Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz of the CGIAR Secretariat. The essence of the proposal was that the CGIAR move towards a single, integrated system for evaluating centres comprised of centre commissioned reviews, CGIAR external reviews, and a mechanism linking the two. The rationale for this change was the perception that there was unevenness in the focus, scope, and analytical basis of external reviews. The intent, therefore, was to modify the existing review process to ensure minimum standards of quality and rigor. In doing so, it was judged to be advantageous to integrate into the process centre commissioned external reviews (CCERs). Appropriately conducted, CCERs would complement and facilitate the normal review process through timely, in-depth, targeted evaluations of programme and/or management issues which would provide input to the CGIAR's periodic, larger scale review of centres' strategy, efficiency, quality of science, and impact. The principal implication for TAC's role would be the need to evaluate the substance and adequacy of centre commissioned reviews and their implications for CGIAR reviews. The next steps would be to refine the proposal in light of comments by TAC and the centres, interact with the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group to explore ways of integrating information on centres' impact into the review process, and work with centres to develop specific guidelines, timetables, and arrangements for commissioning of CCERs.
146. The Chair opened the floor for comments by TAC Members and other participants.
147. In the ensuing discussion, it was noted that while all centres used CCERs, they were highly variable in purpose and format. It was observed that the perceived unevenness of reviews might be ameliorated by having review reports edited to a standard format and level of quality. One problem with integrating internal with external review processes was that while centres needed to ensure that sensitive issues were treated in confidence and hence with candour, TAC needed to retain the ability to access the information it required to identify problems and issues in a timely way.
148. With the above caveats, TAC responded positively to the proposal but cautioned that it would retain its responsibility for ensuring the quality and relevance of the Centres' science.
149. This item was introduced by Dr. Williams who presented an ICLARM proposal to conduct additional research into living aquatic resources management for Africa and West Asia from the existing facilities of the Central Laboratory for Aquaculture Research (CLAR) in Abbassa, Egypt. She provided TAC with information on the background to the proposal, consultation by ICLARM on the development of the proposed research agenda, and the financial implications.
150. Two factors, among others, gave impetus to the development of the proposal: the Lucerne Declaration's recommendation that the CGIAR give greater emphasis to international issues of aquatic resources; and the Government of Arab Republic of Egypt's offer to make available the facilities of the CLAR to ICLARM. Based upon the proceedings of a workshop convened by ICLARM in Cairo in September 1995 involving international and regional experts, a draft research agenda was developed and subsequently considered by the Programme Committee of ICLARM's board which, in turn, decided to recommend to TAC the following nine priority researchable issues: determination of linkages in integrated coastal area management systems, genetic characterization of aquaculture species and protection of aquatic biodiversity, integrated aquaculture-agriculture systems, macro-policy settings, development of cost-effective data acquisition systems for marine coastal aquatic systems, trade and living aquatic resources, fish health and disease, evaluation of the status of coral reef resource systems, and development of cost-effective data acquisition systems for great lakes resource systems.
151. TAC was requested to note the research planning process undertaken to date and endorse the nine priority researchable issues and various activities to foster NARS partnerships as additional to ICLARM's present approved work programme.
152. The Chair thanked Dr. Williams for her presentation and opened the floor for comments by TAC Members.
153. In their comments, Members emphasized the crucial importance of aquaculture research in CGIAR priorities and hence the significance of ICLARM's proposed activities in this context. Questions were raised regarding the ownership of the proposed research agenda by the research systems in the regions concerned, the extent to which the activities to be undertaken related to ICLARM's agreed research agenda, and whether the climatic conditions of the facility were such that the results of the research would be relevant to the region as a whole.
154. In response to these points, Dr. Williams clarified or amplified details of the planning process ICLARM had followed and addressed the technical issues raised. Although the Centre had not canvassed workshop participants on the proposed research agenda, feedback at the meeting had been good. The nine researchable issues had not been prioritized against the Centre's agreed research agenda. While the climate of the Abbassa facility would necessitate off-site research, temperature control within the facility would make the laboratory serviceable for some forms of research.
155. After further consideration, TAC made the following commentary on ICLARM's proposal:
156. ICLARM's proposal to conduct additional research into living aquatic resources management for Africa and West Asia from the existing facilities of the Central Laboratory for Aquaculture Research in Abbassa, Egypt, was presented by the Centre's Director General, Dr. Meryl Williams. TAC commented on the proposal, expressing support for the idea of increasing fisheries research in sub-Saharan Africa but questioning how it fits ICLARM's agreed agenda and how the Abbassa site would be used. The proposal was timely, given the CGIAR and TAC interest in the issue and that the CGIAR has consolidated a renewed research agenda. After careful consideration of the planning mode, and programmatic, management, and related issues, TAC made the following commentary:
157. The proposal identifies nine "researchable issues" (p.33, Table 8) which ICLARM has recommended to TAC for CGIAR support. While the issues contained in the proposal are categorized in terms of existing ICLARM programme areas, TAC notes that these are not prioritized against the Centre's current agreed research agenda. They appear to be strictly in addition to ICLARM's existing research programme and not evidently within the agreed research agenda.
158. TAC notes that of the nine issues formalized, only two require a specialized site for their implementation and that for those two, the Abbassa site is not evidently representative of most of the target area.
159. Although ICLARM was systematic in the development of the nine researchable issues, TAC questions whether ICLARM has taken the necessary steps to ensure ownership of the proposed workplan by NARS and other potential partners and stakeholders in the WANA and sub-Saharan African regions, particularly in view of the apparently limited participation thus far by NARS in the planning process outlined in the proposal.
160. Moreover, the Committee expresses its concern that, at the time that its existing programme needs strengthening, ICLARM has proposed an additional and expanded programme that, with its demands on management, would jeopardize its capacity to maintain its existing programme of work.
161. The scale and breadth of the work described in the proposal is not presented as an integral part of ICLARM's current research agenda, is threatening to their current agenda, and includes the use of facilities that are not representative of most of the region to be served. TAC, therefore, concludes that the proposal, in its current form, is not consistent with ICLARM's research agenda.
162. TAC reconfirmed and/or amended dates and venues for the following meetings:
|
TAC 69: |
25-30 March 1996, IRRI, Manila, Philippines (to be followed by an optional visit 1-2 April to Tskuba Agricultural Research Complex, Tskuba City, Japan) |
|
TAC 70: |
30 July-6 August 1996, CIAT, Cali, Colombia |
|
TAC 71: |
25-30 November 1996, ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia |
|
TAC 72: |
20-28 March 1997, FAO, Rome, Italy |
|
TAC 73: |
14-19 July 1997, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India |
163. The Chair thanked Dr. Kainuma for his kind offer to arrange a visit by TAC Members to the Tsukuba Agricultural Research Complex.
Cotton Research
King Baudouin Award
IIMI Research Agenda: Request for Increase in IIMI Core Funding
IPGRI Request for CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Support
Reports on Meetings
Other TAC 68 Activities
164. The Chair introduced for TAC's consideration a proposal by the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) that the CGIAR establish an international cotton research organization to undertake a range of activities from maintenance of cotton germplasm to technical research and training in support of cotton production in developing countries. TAC Members' views were sought on this proposal.
165. In their comments, Members noted that cotton was a commodity outside of the CGIAR's agreed research agenda for which there were alternative sources of research supply. Cotton was nevertheless considered important to income growth as a foreign exchange earner for low-income countries. It was suggested that the CGIAR might best be able to contribute to the ICAC's objectives through existing CGIAR processes rather than by incorporating cotton into the agreed agenda. It was noted that the System's ecoregional approach provided for a wider range of commodities to be serviced - for example, through the management of genetic resources under the aegis of IPGRI - via funding by outside consortia.
166. The Committee recommended that the System respond to ICAC's proposal by offering to cooperate through the same processes used for other non-agenda commodities. It was noted that such cooperation could be mutually beneficial in such areas as management of water scarcity and integrated pest management.
167. TAC considered and approved the following criteria for judging candidates for the 1996 King Baudouin International Agricultural Research Award (not listed in order of priority):
· Direct or indirect, actual or potential impact on resource-poor farmers and low-income people. This criterion covers the contribution made to poverty alleviation and improving food security, lowering costs of food production, improvement in quality of products and nutritional status of beneficiaries, with special emphasis on the equitable distribution of research results, particularly to women.· Direct or indirect, actual or potential impact on sustainable production systems. This criterion covers the contribution made to the successful management and utilization of resources for agriculture, forestry, or fisheries to satisfy present or future human needs without degrading the environment or the natural resource base.
· Innovation in science. This criterion covers aspects such as the degree of innovation and scientific achievement with regard to problem identification, research methodology, generation of new knowledge and impact of research outputs on other areas of research and development.
· Partners and collaboration. This criterion covers collaboration with NARS, IARCs and other partners with respect to problem identification, conduct of research, and achievement of outcome.
168. A call for proposals will be issued by the TAC Chair and a selection made at TAC 70.
169. This item was introduced by Dr. Barker who presented a request from IIMI for additional core resources of US $ 2 million in 1996 to support 10 new senior scientist years (SSYs) needed for its four Global Programme Groups, and to fund and strengthen IIMI's Senior Research Associate Programme. The request was made in the context of the Centre's desire to initiate implementation of its new vision which involves: (1) broadening the scope of IIMI's mission; (2) emphasizing high quality, high quantity outputs of intellectual and practical value to a global audience of water professionals; and (3) consolidating and simplifying its management and organizational structure to perform its work more effectively and efficiently.
170. The Chair thanked Dr. Barker for his presentation and opened the floor for comments by TAC Members.
171. In the ensuing discussion, questions were raised as to precisely how and for what kinds of research the additional resources would be allocated and expended. Dr. Barker indicated that the funds would be used to strengthen research and/or capacity in the social, environmental, hydrological, information technology, and statistical areas, as well as the country programmes in Africa and the Middle East.
172. After further consideration, TAC made the following commentary on the
request:
173. TAC recognizes the importance of IIMI's new vision and the need to strengthen IIMI's strategic research capacity, and considers the proposed changes to be broadly consistent with IIMI's approved MTP and the recommendations of the 1994 IIMI external review. While TAC commends IIMI for the revised objectives, it finds that the proposal does not provide sufficient information on programme priorities for the Committee to formulate a firm judgement. IIMI's current scientific strength is 16 SSYs of which 8 SSYs are in the four Global Programme Groups. Adding 10 SSYs in 1996 to the Global Programme would therefore constitute an extraordinarily large relative increase which IIMI management may not be able to achieve while maintaining scientific quality.
174. TAC recognizes that IIMI is in the process of rationalizing its country activities and creating a unified programme structure capable of addressing major issues and challenges of the next century. TAC notes that the process of programme rationalization has led to a staff shortage which must be overcome in order to strengthen IIMI's intellectual and strategic research capacity, and to assist the development of the Systemwide Initiative on Water Resource Management.
175. TAC therefore recommends that IIMI resubmit a revised request for additional staff along with the required programmatic information in March 1996 in the context of its 1997 budget. At that time TAC will make a recommendation to the Group on the extent to which the requested additional staff should be funded in 1996 to enable IIMI to overcome its staff shortage.
176. TAC considered an IPGRI request presented by its Board Chair, Dr. Wanda Collins, to increase its 1996 agreed research agenda by US$ 300,000 and by US$ 275,000 for 1997 and 1998 to strengthen its capacity for CGIAR genetic resources policy support. The Committee was unable to comment on this request without a full sense of the other activities in the portfolio. If IPGRI considered the proposal to be of relatively high priority, it could be funded from its own current core resources. TAC also noted that it reviews and approves Centres' programmes and budgets on an annual basis in March. It was, therefore, unable to respond favourably to IPGRI's request.
177. Dr. Gryseels reported on the Conference on Hunger and Poverty held in Brussels which he had recently attended at the request of the TAC Chair. It was organized by IFAD in collaboration with other international organizations and NGOs. A major theme of the meeting was technology generation and diffusion and the implication for agricultural research of giving greater weight to poverty. The CGIAR was criticized, particularly by NGO participants, for allegedly investing more in research for high potential areas to the neglect of small-scale marginal agriculture. This pointed up the need for TAC's stripe study on marginal lands to clarify the facts with respect to the CGIAR's work, the number of poor people concentrated in these areas, and related issues. The conference also recommended that the CGIAR study the effects of privatization of agricultural research for poverty alleviation.
178. Dr. Andre Berkaloff and Dr. Saydil Touré reported on a CIRAD-sponsored meeting on the Doubly Green Revolution which they had attended on behalf of TAC. The CGIAR was substantially involved. The meeting made a particular contribution in advancing methodological aspects of ecoregional approaches. Regional NARS fora meetings were held in conjunction with the conference. Discussion stressed the need for increased cooperation between the international centres, national systems, and advanced institutions to solve the problems of poverty and hunger.
179. In the course of TAC 68, the Committee met with representatives of the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa and exchanged views on priority setting and future cooperation. TAC also visited research facilities at ICRAF, ILRI, and ICIPE.
