143. A progress report of the standing panel to conduct an Inter-Centre Review of Root and Tuber Crops within the CGIAR was presented by its Chair, Dr. David MacKenzie. The purpose of the review was to assist TAC in formulating a Systemwide strategy for research on these crops to meet global and regional needs, taking into account current and projected demand. Among other things, the Panel was charged with outlining priorities for root and tuber crops research within the CGIAR, paying particular attention to Systemwide aspects of research efficiency and impact potential. The Panel addressed six issues: global planning and organization within the CGIAR, germplasm and vegetative propagation, biotechnology research, post-harvest and market research, partnerships, and policy research. Following are highlights of the Panel's conclusions and recommendations.
144. Some Centre scientists felt that the priority to root and tuber crops relative to grain crops in the CGIAR's research agenda was unjustifiably low. This concern should be taken into account in the next round of TAC's priority setting.
145. The Panel judged that there was need for modest reduction in emphasis for yam and sweet potato research to permit increased research on cassava and potato. This downsizing could be accomplished through devolution of research on sweet potato to China and yam to Nigeria.
146. To achieve greater efficiency and synergy in root and tuber crops research a number of research activities were identified that may be susceptible to inter-centre collaboration across specific crops; these included postharvest technology and market research, biotechnology, policy analysis, vegetative propagation and conservation technology, and international germplasm exchange with phytosanitation. Opportunities for inter-centre research collaboration for certain root and tuber crops having similar characteristics were also identified; other dissimilar crops would not benefit from such collaboration and continued research independence was suggested for them. Alternative mechanisms to reorganize or reassign responsibilities for root and tuber crops were considered, but it was felt that major changes in research structure were not justified at this time.
147. To facilitate and coordinate inter-centre activities an inter-centre consultative committee on root and tuber crops research should be created. The proposed committee would commission various task forces to perform the following functions: rationalize international phytosanitation regulations and institutional arrangements for shipments of root and tuber crops as vegetatively propagated materials; recommend inter-centre collaboration in biotechnology research; explore possible research partnerships on the characterization of starch and flour, food processing technology, and market research; and develop a vision for root and tuber research in the CGIAR.
148. Finally, opportunities for expanded interactions with Advanced Research Organizations and National Agricultural Research Systems were identified.
149. The Chair invited comments on the progress report by TAC Members. These centred primarily on the question of Centre scientists feeling that root and tuber crops had a low priority and the sources of this attitude; the need for a quantitative analysis of demand for root and tuber crops, particularly potato, broken down by developing and developed countries; the rationale for and functions of the proposed coordinating committee; and the need for incorporating a NARS perspective into the study.
150. TAC's discussion was initiated by Dr. Andre Berkaloff, chairman of the TAC working group for this review. He began by distinguishing between the relative priority to be given to root and tuber crops vis-à-vis other crops, and priorities within the root and tuber category. He expressed uncertainty that the Centre scientists' perception of roots and tubers having a lower priority in TAC's thinking was a correct one. With regard to priorities within this commodity group, the report was not explicit enough on either the supply or demand for research on specific commodities. He noted in particular that it would be important to know the supply/demand parameters for potatoes broken down by developed and developing countries. The report did not address the question of constraints to production of roots and tubers and would benefit from an analysis of global prospects, as well as prospects for individual commodities. The report placed special emphasis on biotechnology, but did not address the differences in susceptibility of individual root and tuber crops to this form of research. Its suggestion for mechanisms for improving the international transfer of genetic materials addressed a problem which might not be discrete to root and tuber crops, but should perhaps be seen as a Systemwide problem for vegetatively propagated crops that required attention. Finally, Dr. Berkaloff questioned the feasibility of achieving coordination between the Advanced Research Organizations and the CGIAR Centres because the AROs were competitive amongst themselves, which would seem to pose problems for coordinating exchange of information, data, and collaboration in general. He considered the report an interim one and sought the views of other members as to whether additional input was needed from the Panel on these or other issues.
151. A number of TAC Members commented on the perception of Centre scientists that root and tuber crops were given inadequate priority in TAC's thinking. One member argued that research should be demand- rather than supply-driven and endorsed Dr. Berkaloff's request that the report should include data on the importance of these crops to developed and developing countries in order to have a clearer indication of the locus of demand. Other members pointed out that the rate of spread of new genotypes for root and tuber crops was much lower than for grains, perhaps accounting for the perception that these crops warrant less intellectual investment. However, the agronomy of roots and tubers was much more complex than for grains; this should perhaps be emphasized by TAC to help improve the morale of scientists who worked on these crops. One member endorsed the Panel's suggestion with respect to the need for postharvest technology. Inasmuch as this recommendation had been made to TAC in a number of different contexts, consideration should be given to conducting a strategic study on postharvest technology, the purpose of which would be to develop a broader recommendation including but not limited to root and tuber crops. On organizational matters, members generally felt that the benefits of the proposed coordinating committee were not obvious compared to the normal forms of inter-centre collaboration and questions were raised with regard to the authority and need for the budget of such a committee. Finally, TAC questioned the wisdom of omitting representation of NARS in the Panel's deliberations and asked how a NARS perspective would be incorporated into the final report.
152. Before asking Dr. MacKenzie to respond, the Chair recognized Dr. Gryseels who explained that when this review was commissioned by TAC the plan had been for the TAC Secretariat to prepare a desk study with quantitative analysis on supply/demand for root and tuber crops. Owing to the illness of the responsible staff member, the Secretariat had been unable to complete this work before the Panel issued its draft report. The desk study was now being finalized and the data would be appended to the final draft.
153. In response to TAC's questions and comments, Dr. MacKenzie made a number of points, highlights of which follow. He emphasized that there was need for opening up communication between TAC and Centre scientists working on root and tuber crops. The feeling that these commodities had been assigned a lower priority was very strong. On the related question of the rate of propagation of these crops he noted that Centre scientists believed there was a technology gap and not a yield gap. While the agronomy for these crops was satisfactory, the genetics were poorly understood compared to grains. Hence there was need for work in this area. The question of propagation was properly understood as one of technological transfer, and there was question whether the IARCs should undertake this or devolve it to NARS. In any case, there was scope for inter-centre collaboration on the propagation issue. The Panel's suggestion of devolving certain crops to NARS was based on the assumption that resources would be flat for the foreseeable future and that savings achieved could be reallocated to cassava research and postharvest technology research. In this sense, the Panel was suggesting a reprioritization to TAC so that limited resources could be used where needed most. Amplifying the Panel's recommendation on biotechnology research, priority should be given to developing biotechnology solutions to pest and pathogen problems related to root and tuber crops. Dr. MacKenzie reiterated the need for facilitating the international transportation of R&T genetic materials, particularly because of stringent phytosanitary regulations that were currently constraining their movement. However, this suggestion appeared to relate more to the physical mechanism needed rather than to the scientific aspects. He agreed that there was need for analysis of supply/demand projections for R&T in terms of developed/developing countries, but sought TAC's guidance on the modalities of producing it. He acknowledged that the postharvest technology issue was a broader one but re-emphasized the Panel's conclusion that it was particularly relevant to roots and tubers, adding that since women figure largely in the production and processing of these crops, the proposed research would efficiently incorporate the gender dimension. Finally, Dr. MacKenzie sought TAC's further guidance on next steps envisaged for the study before responding on the question of incorporating a NARS perspective.
154. The Chair brought this discussion to a close, indicating that Dr. Berkaloff and his working group would address the issues raised in this exchange and make recommendations on the next steps. He thanked Dr. MacKenzie and the members of the Panel for their efforts in conducting the review and looked forward to further interaction when the report was finalized.
155. After further consideration, TAC commended the Panel for the significant work it accomplished in such a short timespan. TAC also recognized the constraints faced by the Panel because of the need to adhere to an extremely tight time schedule, and the delay in the preparation of the TAC Secretariat desk study. The Committee requested the Panel to continue its dialogue with the Centres, and, if possible, to seek the views of NARS and other relevant sources of information on root and tuber crop research; it asked that the final report on the study be submitted for consideration by TAC at its next meeting, i.e. TAC 68. TAC suggested that the Panel should pay particular attention to the following issues.
156. (1) Further elaboration and discussion of past and current trends in the production and utilization (food, feed and industrial uses) of root and tuber crops, globally, across the developing countries and by region. (2) More thorough analysis of ongoing research programmes at the CGIAR Centres, including the estimated expenditure on each programme (by crop), together with an overview of what relevant research is being conducted by non-CGIAR research centres. In this context, the relevance and application of research results emanating from the industrial and developing countries should be addressed. (3) Based on the outcomes at (1) and (2) above, argue and articulate the priority status of root and tuber crops research within the CGIAR, together with the relative priorities that should be attached to each of the major crops; viz., potato, cassava, sweet potato, yam and aroids. (4) The suggested devolution to the NARS of research on sweet potato (China) and yam (Nigeria) should be more fully discussed and justified, and accompanied by tentative guidelines and criteria on which to judge the merits and demerits of the proposed devolution. (5) The niche and anticipated evolution of root and tuber crops within the farming systems should also be more fully addressed. (6) The importance and priority of postharvest research on roots and tubers was widely recognized, but further justification of CGIAR involvement in this area, vis-à-vis private sector interests, was needed; also more specific justification of the relevance and priority attached to the characterization of starch and flour, should be brought forward. (7) Terms of reference for the proposed inter-centre consultative committee on root and tuber crops research should be drafted together with clear justification as to how the committee can foster greater Systemwide efficiency in the conduct of research on root and tuber crops.
