Opening Session (Agenda Item 1)
CGIAR Responsibilities for Genetic Resources (Agenda Item 2)
Future Reviews and Dynamics of the Review Process (Agenda Item 3)
Centres' Medium-Term Plans 1994-98: Priorities Among Ecoregional and Systemwide Initiatives (Item 4)
Livestock Research in the CGIAR (Agenda Item 5)
Future Structure of the CGIAR (Item 6)
Other Matters (Agenda Item 7)
Future Meetings (Agenda Item 8)
1. The 63rd meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was held from 21 to 27 March 1994 at FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy. Dr. Alexander McCalla chaired the meeting. Among the participants were TAC Members, representatives of FAO, the World Bank, the CGIAR Centres and some donor agencies, as well as a number of consultants and resource persons including staff of the CGIAR and TAC Secretariats (Annex 1).
Opening Remarks
Adoption of the TAC 62 Report
Adoption of the Agenda
Report from the CGIAR
2. Dr. McCalla declared the meeting formally open and welcomed those TAC members and observers present. He also welcomed the Cosponsor representatives, Dr. Mohammed Zehni (FAO) and Dr. Gabrielle Persley (World Bank), and asked Dr. Zehni to convey to the Director General of FAO the Committee's appreciation of FAO support and assistance in hosting the meeting. When introducing two new TAC Members, Dr. Uma Lele and Dr. Hosny El-Lakany, Dr. McCalla stated that they were joining TAC at a time when many difficult decisions were facing the CGIAR as a result of the serious shortfall in funding. Finally, he welcomed donor representatives, Centre Board Chairs and Centre Directors and extended a special welcome to Dr. Meryl Williams, Director General Designate of ICLARM, attending her first meeting of TAC.
3. The Report of the 62nd Meeting of TAC was adopted without amendment.
4. Dr. McCalla suggested a change in the agenda for the first day of the meeting to accommodate sequential TAC/CDC discussions on the following topics: (i) CGIAR responsibilities for genetic resources, (ii) intellectual property rights; (iii) basic principles and processes for restructuring the CGIAR and (iv) information management, which would be followed by presentations on the subject from FAO and CABI. He proposed that the topic, 'TAC's Approach to Determining CGIAR Priorities for Systemwide/Ecoregional Initiatives vis-à-vis Centre Programmes', be deferred in view of its dependency on the outcome of the discussion on restructuring the CGIAR. The amended agenda was adopted.
5. Dr. McCalla then invited Dr. Bonte-Friedheim, Acting Chair of the Centre Directors' Committee (CDC), to co-chair the joint TAC/CDC session.
6. Mr. Alexander von der Osten, Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, reported on recent developments in the System, particularly the very difficult financial situation facing the centres and the attempts being made to address these difficulties. Funding pledges for 1994 indicated further budget reductions; core funds for 1994 were estimated at US$ 215 million compared with US$ 233 million in 1993. A number of donors had significantly reduced their contributions to core funds (e.g., USA by 26%), whereas only one donor (Denmark) had increased its contribution. It was hoped that complementary funding levels would be maintained at US$ 71 million, resulting in the total funding of the CGIAR in 1994 at approximately US$ 286 million.
7. Referring to the points raised by Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Chairman of the CGIAR, in his address to TAC, Mr. von der Osten brought the following issues to TAC's attention: (i) the need to maintain the centres research capacity and staff morale in these difficult and uncertain times; (ii) the need to demonstrate to donors 'value for money' invested in research and the realities and opportunities for more effective inter-centre collaboration; (iii) the importance of TAC's study of structural change within the CGIAR; (iv) the need to strengthen and streamline governance and management of the centres; (v) the importance of the role of the Oversight Committee, and its development, in consultation with TAC and the Public Awareness Committee, of a clear vision statement for the CGIAR in the context of mobilizing greater financial support for international agricultural research.
8. The major topic on the agenda of the Mid-Term Meeting, to be held in New Delhi from 23 to 27 May 1994, would be the financial crisis facing the System and TAC's report, "The CGIAR in the 21st Century: Options for Structural Change". Other important items would include: TAC's Stripe Study of Genetic Resources; the report of the Rockefeller Foundation, Implementing Agency for the establishment of a new livestock research centre, and the 1994 budget allocations to centres.
1 This item was considered during a joint session with Centre Directors.
9. Dr. McCalla recalled the decision at TAC 61 to conduct a Stripe Study of Genetic Resources in the CGIAR, with initial focus on plant genetic resources, as an input towards the formulation of a CGIAR strategy on genetic resources. At TAC 62 the scope of the study was widened to include animal genetic resources but the emphasis was still on plants. Among the reasons motivating TAC to commission the Study were: the recent Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies; the global endorsement of the Convention on Biological Diversity; and the need for a sustained funding mechanism for genetic resources activities in the CGIAR. These issues were considered important and in need of urgent attention. The Panel was selected to represent a broad spectrum of expertise and interests in germplasm conservation, accessibility and utilization.
10. There was also a strong TAC presence on the Panel and the review was conducted largely as a desk study. The Panel Chair, Dr. Henry L. Shands, Associate Deputy Administrator, Genetic Resources, US Department of Agriculture, was unable to come to Rome for the TAC meeting. Therefore, Dr. McCalla asked Sir Ralph Riley, who served as the TAC Member on the Panel, to present the report.
11. Sir Ralph Riley recalled the terms of reference for the Study, which were: to study ways in which the CGIAR discharges its responsibilities for genetic resources conservation, and as appropriate, to recommend options to TAC for a change in the CGIAR strategy to recognise its place in a global system of biodiversity. The Panel addressed a list of specific issues compiled from a set of questions provided by TAC and suggestions made by international agricultural research centres (IARCs), CGIAR Members and NARS.
12. The Panel had assessed the current state of genetic resources work at the IARCs and discussed inter alia, species coverage, in situ conservation; implications of the application of molecular biology techniques; ecoregional research; databases; networks; and training. It made recommendations and suggestions on how the work could be done more efficiently and effectively.
13. The Panel also considered legal matters of concern to the CGIAR such as the ownership of germplasm accessions, its accessibility, and intellectual property rights. It noted and encouraged the ongoing dialogue between the centres and FAO for placing existing ex situ germplasm collections at the IARCs, under the auspices of FAO.
14. In addition, the Panel looked at future governance, coordination and funding of genetic resources work within the CGIAR. It strongly recommended the integration of genetic resources work across the CGIAR and a separate funding mechanism for genetic resources conservation activities. With respect to governance, the Panel considered three options. Option 2, in which IPGRI would be reformulated to become the International Agricultural Genetic Resources Institute (IAGRI), was selected. The Panel also recognized the necessity for a single CGIAR voice in this area and a standardized system of information management. Furthermore, a need was perceived for close links with an inter-governmental body. The creation of Regional Advisory Boards was also suggested to represent the perspective of NARS and farmer communities in genetic resources conservation and utilization.
15. In the ensuing discussion there was broad consensus on the findings of the Study. It was considered excellent and it was agreed that such a Study was very much needed and long overdue. While Centre Directors were in full agreement with the diagnosis of the study and in particular the need for: a unified Systemwide programme and strategy; standardized information management, databases and documentation; and sustained long-term funding for genetic resources activities, they expressed concern with the proposed governance structure. They felt that it would undermine centre autonomy, cause problems with host countries with whom the centres had signed headquarters' agreements, and would be more expensive. The role of the Regional Advisory Boards was not clear. There was also a fear that the essential links between genetic resources conservation, germplasm enhancement and breeding activities at the IARCs would be weakened. Finally, concern was expressed that there had been inadequate interaction with centres, CGIAR Members and NARS.
16. On the governance issue Centre Directors suggested a fourth option, which combined some of the features encapsulated in Options 1, 2 and 3 in the Panel's Report. The main Option 4 were: appointment of a lead centre for genetic resources (GR) responsible for all strategy and policy formulation in the CGIAR and for its presentation outside the System; identification of an intergovernmental body responsible for endorsement of CGIAR policies on issues such as access to in-trust genetic resources' collections and intellectual property; full representation of all CGIAR Centres on the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources (ICWG-GR); upgrading of genebanks/genetic resources units within centres to a programme status; and the day-to-day management of genebanks which would remain the responsibility of the centres. The ICWG-GR comprising individual Genetic Resources Programme Leaders (GRPLs) would be responsible as a Systemwide 'faculty' for coordinating centre inputs with the development of policies and strategies and other matters of Systemwide concern. A mechanism would be needed for allocating resources among centres from the proposed Genetic Resources Fund.
17. The features stated above were considered to meet the key objectives identified in the report such as:
· transparency;· providing a role for intergovernmental endorsement of major policies;
· broader stakeholder input to decisions;
· a clear responsibility within the CGIAR for matters such as policy and strategy development, representation, public awareness, information and documentation;
· a mechanism to ensure that the CGIAR develops its genetic resources activities as a coherent programme;
· an appropriate status is given to genetic resources; and
· a mechanism to secure long-term funding support.
18. Sir Ralph Riley stated that the proposed Regional Advisory Boards were not expected to be part of the CGIAR's governance structure. He also confirmed that the genebanks would be closely linked to germplasm enhancement activities. In view of the urgency expressed by TAC and Centre Directors for finalizing the Study, before decisions were made on to future arrangements for the Global Environment Fund and the Convention on Biological Diversity (including its permanent Secretariat, and cost considerations), it had not been possible for the Panel to interact directly with all major stakeholders. However, there had been valuable responses by correspondence from a number of donors and national systems.
19. During further discussion TAC endorsed the alternative option proposed by Centre Directors. This would maintain the principle of autonomy among IARCs while ensuring a unified Systemwide strategy for genetic resources. TAC proceeded to give its commentary on the Panel's Report.
20. The Committee is grateful to Dr. Henry L. Shands and his Panel for their willingness to accept, at very short notice, the challenging task of conducting a Stripe Study of Genetic Resources in the CGIAR. The Panel was deliberately chosen to cover a wide range of experiences and interests in genetic resources collection, conservation, characterization, evaluation and utilization. TAC was particularly pleased to note that despite the time constraint the Panel was able to produce an excellent report which: provides valuable insights into the subject matter; emphasizes the need for a more coherent and unified CGIAR programme on genetic resources; stresses the importance of greater visibility of the CGIAR work on genetic resources; and calls for adequate and sustained funding of genetic resources activities. TAC is also pleased to note that the Panel included animal genetic resources and in situ conservation in its review.
21. It is now an appropriate time for the CGIAR to consider its responsibilities for genetic resources. The consequences of the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity are just becoming apparent. Moreover the newly-signed GATT Agreement requires signatories to introduce some form of legal property protection for genetic material, which emphasizes the monetary value of such resources. Furthermore, because of the initiatives of the Director Generals and staff there are considerable collections of germplasm in the genebanks of a number of CGIAR centres. At present each centre handles its collection independently of the System as a whole, yet in total the CGIAR holds more than half a million ex situ accessions of germplasm at 10 of its centres. This means that in it has the largest collection of germplasm in international terms. Moreover the CGIAR donors spend in excess of US$ 16 million annually on genetic resources conservation.
22. TAC now considers it appropriate, as recommended in the report, that there should be a Systemwide Programme on Genetic Resources. This will enable overall policies to be formulated and implemented. It also accepts that there should be a Genetic Resources Programme Director with overall responsibilities for the principles of CGIAR involvement in genetic resources. He/she should also have an important representational role and be able to speak for the whole System on its responsibilities in genetic resources.
23. The Report proposes three alternative arrangements for the management and governance of a Systemwide Programme.
(i) The first option proposes that the Programme Director should be the person who is at any time the chair of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources. This is a body which presently enables centres to exchange views principally at a technical level. If upgraded as proposed it would formulate policy and its Chairperson would take on representational responsibilities. If the Chairperson were taken away from his/her home centre while acting as Programme Director, the genetic resources work at that centre would be weakened.(ii) The second option would reformulate IPGRI as a centre (possibly called the International Agricultural Genetic Resources Institute or IAGRI) with overall administrative, policy and representational responsibilities for Systemwide activities in genetic resources. This option implies that the staff of the Genetic Resources Unit in each centre would become members of the IAGRI staff and that these individual units would be funded from the budget of IAGRI. The Director General of IAGRI would be the System's Genetic Resources Programme Director.
(iii) Under the third option a new and separate Genetic Resources Board would be created with a new Director responsible for all the components described above in (ii) but with additional responsibility for the work of IPGRI. A budget covering the entirety of the System's genetic resources programme would be allocated by the new Genetic Resources Board.
24. The Report also recommends that all the System's genetic resources work should be funded by a Genetic Resources Fund which would provide financial resources to all participants in the Programme. It would be supplied to centres and earmarked for work on genetic resources. This recommendation envisages that the Genetic Resources Fund would initially be supported by present donors' grants to CGIAR Centres, but would be earmarked for genetic resources. Over time new donors with special interests might wish to assist with the CGIAR genetic resources work through contributions to the Fund. These arrangements would protect all the CGIAR genetic resources activities from budget fluctuations which might reduce commitments to some other work.
25. There was an open and constructive discussion of the Report at a joint session of TAC with Centre Directors, Cosponsors and observers, during which a fourth organizational option was proposed unanimously by the Centre Directors. This had the following features: there would be a lead centre appointed from among the existing centres to ensure that appropriate policies and strategies were formulated for genetic resources; it would perform the representational role, would coordinate and, as necessary, centralize documentation and information services, and be the principal fundraiser for the Genetic Resources Fund. In addition, the lead centre would provide the permanent secretariat for the ICWG-GR. Director Generals of other centres agreed that they would accept the leadership in all respects from the lead centre. All IARCs would have membership of the ICWG-GR. The Centre Directors agreed that the Genetic Resources Units in their centres would have programme or equivalent status where this was not already the case. In addition, day-to-day management of the Genetic Resources Units would remain with the centres in which they were located. At the same time the responsibilities of the Genetic Resources Units would extend beyond merely servicing the centres' breeding programmes.
26. TAC was pleased to note the Director Generals accepted that there should be a Genetic Resources Fund providing earmarked financial contributions to all centres for their genetic resources activities. It also noted that, under this proposal, responsibilities for allocating the Fund should be independent of the lead centre. TAC considers that recommendations on the allocation of the Fund would be its responsibility. However advice from the ICWG-GR could be sought if necessary on budget allocation. The TAC/CD Committee on Genetic Resources could be responsible for ensuring that earmarked provisions for genetic resources were used appropriately throughout the System.
27. TAC commends this report to the CGIAR and indicates that, if approval is given for a change in the governance of genetic resources work in the System, it would favour the adoption of the proposals in paras. 24, 25 and 26 above. It proposes that the lead centre should be IPGRI and that its Director General should be the Genetic Resources Programme Director. This will require IPGRI to have some policy and representational responsibilities for fish and livestock. TAC was, however, pleased to note and acknowledge the leadership being provided by FAO for animal and forest genetic resources. During the resource allocation process in 1993, applying to the financial years up to 1998, a sum of US$ 1 million was set aside for Systemwide activities on genetic resources. TAC recommends that this Systemwide resource should be used to enable IPGRI to meet its wider responsibilities, to facilitate some upgrading of the capacities of the Genetic Resources Units in other centres, and improve information management for genetic resources.
28. TAC accepts the Report's recommendation that an intergovernmental authority should be responsible for the endorsement of policies on some issues. Further discussion will be necessary as to which policies should be taken to the intergovernmental authority for endorsement.
29. TAC appreciates the value that could be derived from the creation of Regional Advisory Boards for Genetic Resources. It believes, however, that the financial responsibility for such Boards should not fall on the CGIAR. Contributions in support of the Boards may be eventually possible from the proposed Genetic Resources Fund.
30. TAC accepts the recommendation that IARCs should not seek to benefit financially from the commercialization of germplasm but should, on the other hand, help NARS to obtain financial benefits should opportunities occur.
31. TAC wholeheartedly endorses the recommendation to improve and standardize information management, in relation to genetic resources in particular, so that databases become more accessible to NARS.
2 This item was considered during a joint session with Centre Directors.
IIMI
CIP
CIAT
IITA
Mid-Term Review of ICLARM
External Reviews in 1996
Inter-Centre Reviews
Progress on Improving the External Review Process
32. Dr. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee on External Reviews, reported progress on: External Reviews of IIMI, CIP, CIAT and IITA; external reviews planned in 1996; Mid-Term Review of ICLARM; Inter-Centre Reviews; and the development of proposals for improving the external review process.
33. The main phase of the First External Review of IIMI had been conducted from 17 February to 8 March 1994. The Review Report would be discussed at TAC 64 in June 1994, and by the Group at ICW'94.
34. The Fourth External Review of CIP would be conducted by a panel of four persons and chaired by Dr. David MacKenzie (USA). The panel would be supported by one or two consultants and would have expertise in: crop/resource management (1 member); crop improvement/protection (1 member); socioeconomics/policy (1 member); and management (1 member). Mr. Gordon MacNeil from the CGIAR Secretariat would serve as resource person, with Dr. John Monyo from the TAC Secretariat serving as panel secretary. The selection of the panel members and consultants was in progress.
35. The initial phase of the Review would coincide with a meeting of the Executive Committee of the CIP Board from 5 to 10 September, followed by field visits to countries in Latin America. The panel secretary and the CGIAR Secretariat resource person together with the management consultant, would attend the CIP Board meeting from 25 to 29 April 1994. The main phase was scheduled from 23 January to 12 February 1995 at CIP Headquarters. The panel report would be discussed at TAC 66 in March 1995, and at MTM'95.
36. The Fourth External Review of CIAT would be conducted by a panel of five persons and chaired by Dr. Grant Scobie (New Zealand). The panel would have expertise in: crop improvement/management/protection (2 members); natural resources management (1 member); socioeconomics/policy (1 member); and management (1 member). The panel would be supported by 1-2 consultants and a resource person from the CGIAR Secretariat, with Dr. Vivian Timon from the TAC Secretariat serving as panel secretary. The selection of the panel members and consultants was in progress.
37. The initial phase of the Review and field visits would be conducted sometime during the second half of 1994. The main phase is scheduled from 1 to 20 February 1995. The panel report would be discussed at TAC 66 in March 1995, and at MTM'95.
38. The Fourth External Review of IITA would be conducted by a panel of five persons and chaired by Dr. Eduardo Venezian (Chile). The panel would have expertise in: crop improvement/protection/management (2 members); natural resources management (1 member); socioeconomics/policy (1 member); and management (1 member). The panel would be supported by 2-3 consultants, with Ms. Elizabeth Field from the CGIAR Secretariat serving as resource person, and Dr. Amir Kassam from the TAC Secretariat acting as panel secretary. The selection of panel members and consultants is in progress.
39. The initial phase of the Review would be conducted to coincide with the IITA Board meeting from 28 November to 1 December 1994, followed by field visits to countries in West and East Africa. The main phase of the Review would be conducted from 10 to 30 April 1995. The panel report would be discussed at TAC 67 in July 1995, and at ICW'95.
40. The planning of the Mid-Term Review of ICLARM had begun in consultation with the Centre. The Review would be conducted sometime during March/April 1995 by a panel of two people, one to cover management aspects and the other programme aspects, as well as two staff members, one each from the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. The panel would be supported by a consultant in either aquaculture or marine fisheries, depending on the area of expertise of the programme panel member. The report would be discussed at TAC 67 in July 1995, and at ICW'95. The Standing Committee discussed the list of potential candidates but decided to wait until TAC 64 to agree on a shortlist of chairs. This was because the decisions at MTM'94 may need to be taken into account when deciding the type of panel chair required.
41. It was noted that the External Reviews coming up in 1996 were those of IFPRI, IPGRI, ICRISAT and ISNAR. The Committee endorsed the suggestion that all four Reviews should be regular full ones, and that planning be initiated at TAC 64 in June 1994, subject to the discussions at MTM'94.
Roots and tubers research
42. It was recalled that at TAC 61, the Committee decided to undertake an Inter-Centre Review on CGIAR's work on roots and tubers to study how it could be organized more effectively and conducted more efficiently. The Review would be conducted by a Panel of three persons, chaired by Dr. Mike Arnold (UK). The Review would be implemented simultaneously with the External Programme and Management Reviews of CIAT, CIP and IITA. The proposed terms of reference for the Review were as follows:
(i) To assess CGIAR's organization and work on roots and tubers, considering them both as commodities and as components in production and farming systems.(ii) To explore alternative institutional mechanisms for carrying out this work.
43. The Panel Report would be discussed at TAC 67 in July 1995, and at ICW'95.
Public policy and public management research
44. It was recalled that at TAC 61, the Committee had decided to undertake an Inter-Centre Review on CGIAR's work on public policy and public management research. At TAC 62, the Committee endorsed the proposal that this study should be TAC led/guided, with external inputs as appropriate, which would be similar to the Stripe Study of Genetic Resources (i.e., a panel of two to four persons; involving mainly a desk study; and significant input from the centres). The proposed terms of reference were:
(i) To study the ways in which the CGIAR identifies, plans and carries out public policy and public management research.(ii) To suggest a System strategy and alternative structural options for such research.
45. The Review would be implemented in four phases:
· In the first phase (February to April 1994), the TAC Secretariat would undertake a desk study to catalogue relevant, ongoing activities both in the CGIAR and outside, and formulate some options for possible alternative roles for the CGIAR.· In the second phase (April to July 1994), a panel, consisting of a chair and two to four members, would use the desk study as a basis to formulate further options and recommendations on the CGIAR's role and responsibilities in this area and how they can best be organized, taking into account the important contributions made by other, non-CGIAR organizations.
· In the third phase (July to August 1994) there would be solicitation of comments on, and input to, the draft panel report from stakeholders, including national systems, centres and donors.
· In the fourth phase (September/October 1994) the panel would finalize the panel's finalization of the report in the light of stakeholder input.
46. The Standing Committee recommended that the Review be deferred due to lack of funding until TAC 64, at which time the decisions taken at MTM'94 would also be considered in the implementation of the Review. TAC endorsed the recommendation.
CGIAR regional commitments: A case study on West Africa
47. It was recalled that at TAC 61, the Committee had decided to undertake a study of CGIAR commitments in different regions, starting with West Africa. During TAC 62 the Committee endorsed the proposal that this study should be TAC led/guided, with external inputs as appropriate, as well as with inputs from sources such as NARS, World Bank, FAO, and Donors.
48. The objectives of the case study were to: identify overlaps; find gaps in current operations; assess NARS' views on the efficiency and effectiveness of CGIAR operations; and suggest strategies/options to increase their cost-effectiveness. The proposed terms of reference were:
(i) To make an inventory of, and assess CGIAR facilities, personnel, programmes and activities, programme expenditure and level of capital investment in the West Africa region.(ii) To identify and propose: (a) cost-effective options for organizing and operating the future CGIAR presence in the region; and (b) whether the study should be expanded to other regions, based on the assessment of usefulness of the West Africa study to the System.
49. The review was being implemented in four phases: the first phase involved the preparation of an inventory by the Secretariat, and then an assessment by a panel. This would be followed by a phase to solicit comments on the analysis of the inventory from NARS, centres and other agencies in the region. The final phase would involve panel preparation of options for the future, including whether the study should be expanded to other regions.
50. The Standing Committee reviewed a progress report on the first phase of the study. The report, an inventory of CGIAR investments in West Africa, was prepared based on the analysis of returns from fourteen CGIAR Centres.
51. The main findings to date were summarized by Dr. Philip Kio, Senior Forestry Research Officer at TAC Secretariat, as follows:
(i) In 1992 a little over 2,000 senior staff months involving an expenditure of US$ 50.3 million, were devoted to operational programmes in West Africa. About 75% of the human resources were employed in research and institution-building.(ii) Deployment of the human resources in the humid/sub-humid zone accounted for 74% of total research effort compared to 26% in the semi-arid zone.
(iii) Research activities in Nigeria and Niger deployed 785 and 258 senior staff months (or 54% and 17%) respectively of the total research effort in the sub-region.
(iv) Although at least 11 centres are actively involved in the region, four Centres (IITA, ICRISAT, WARDA and ILCA) accounted for 85% of the total human resources deployed, with IITA contributing about 50%.
(v) Taking these four major Centres together, 49% of their human resources were devoted to Production Systems Development and Management Research (CGIAR Activity Category 3); 20% to germplasm enhancement and breeding research (Category 2); 14% and 10% to conservation and management of natural resources (Category 1) and institution-building (Category 5) respectively.
(vi) The net book value of the System's fixed assets in West Africa amounted to about US$ 64 million with IITA, ICRISAT, WARDA and ILCA accounting for 99% of these assets.
(vii) Buildings and infrastructure made up 76% of the fixed assets in 1992); while laboratory equipment (8%), vehicles (4%) and office equipment (4%) together accounted for just over 15% of the net book value of the assets.
(viii) A review of Systemwide training activities in sub-Saharan Africa in 1989 showed an average annual number of trainees (1985-89) of 1,764, of which at least 1,123 (or 64%) were from West Africa. IITA accounted for over half of the total trainees.
(ix) Group training a short duration made up 88% of all training courses.
(x) Issues on training and information highlighted at recent meetings of the Centres' Training Officers (Nairobi, Kenya, November 1993) and the Centres' Director Generals (ICW'93), which are of relevance to West Africa, merit serious consideration.
(xi) Networks constitute a major instrument of collaboration between centres and NARS. There may be a need for rationalization and coordination of networks in the sub-region.
(xii) A large number of other international and regional research organizations support agricultural research in West Africa. Similarly, a number of advanced countries, particularly France, have established special research institutes or agencies within their home countries to facilitate effective cooperation in agricultural research and development in Africa, with a particular focus on agricultural research in West Africa.
(xiii) CGIAR Centres appear to have good working relationships with the international and regional research organizations operating in the region, engaging them in collaborative research and network activities.
(xiv) On the basis of the desk analysis it was not possible to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the total CGIAR effort in the sub-region.
52. TAC endorsed the Standing Committee's recommendation that: (a) the Secretariat proceed to have the figures in the draft report verified by the centres concerned; (b) the study continue on to the next phase of appointing a panel of two persons, plus consultants, as appropriate, while the TAC Chair and Secretariat recruit the panel; and (c) the panel interact with NARS in Bouaké at TAC 64. TAC noted that because of the opportunity of interacting with NARS at Bouaké and the long-term value of the study to the System (e.g., for the regional studies), it should be managed within the current budget of the TAC Secretariat.
Information
53. The Committee endorsed the decision of the Standing Committee on External Reviews to defer further deliberations on this topic until TAC 64. This would enable TAC to have the benefit of the outcome of an inter-centre meeting in June, in order to draft a strategy on information for the CGIAR System, and prepare a work plan for joint action in key strategic areas.
Cereals
54. The Committee was informed that deliberations on a proposal for an Inter-Centre Review of cereals would be deferred until TAC 64.
55. The Committee was informed that the Standing Committee had received a Progress report from the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on External Reviews. This Report included documents on: (i) the revised Terms of Reference and Guidelines for External Reviews; (ii) Options on External Reviews; and (iii) Notes on NARS/IARCs Interface and the Role of External Reviews. The Working Group had met in Washington in October 1993 to have a brainstorming discussion on the review process. At that time it benefited from an External Review Focus Group, and the outcome was reported to TAC 62. The Working Group had had a second meeting in Rome in February 1994, and the agenda covered: Terms of Reference and Guidelines; Review Options; and NARS' Issues. A further meeting of the Working Group was held in Rome on 18 March to discuss the progress made.
56. It was recalled that the last time the Terms of Reference and Guidelines were revised was in 1991. The proposed revisions by the Working Group now included a section on purpose, explicitly defining the charge; a list of amended general questions in the form of a checklist, and a reduced document list.
57. The Working Group had identified three models which could serve as alternatives to one, or both, of the current models for regular and interim reviews.
Option 1: Issue-Driven Review
58. The distinguishing characteristic of this model is that the main issues to be covered in the review, and the specialists needed to conduct it would be identified during a review planning phase attended by the panel chair and two secretariat staff. The model would work best if this planning phase coincided with a comprehensive internal self-assessment by the centre, so that the external review could be linked with the internal review process.
59. The whole panel would make only one visit of about two weeks duration to the centre. Visits to selective field operations, if needed, would take place immediately preceding this phase. The report would focus mainly on the identified issues. The panel would agree on the main conclusions and recommendations and prepare a rough summary report before departing, but would leave the preparation of the final report to the panel chair and the staff from the secretariats.
Option 2: Rapid Strategic Appraisal
60. This option (which is an alternative mainly to the current interim review model) involves carrying out a review of a centre with 2-3 broadly-based persons, who are not necessarily disciplinary experts. The review would focus on: (1) the centre's overall performance and strategic directions; and, (2) the adequacy of the existing mechanisms for effective performance in processes such as strategic planning, priority setting, peer reviews, quality control, financial and personnel management. The review could be facilitated by commissioning a background paper from the secretariats or outside consultants on the adequacy of some of the centre's internal mechanisms. The review would be conducted in a single visit to the centre of about two weeks duration.
Option 3: Template-Based Review
61. This model would use a standard set of indicators and criteria for reviewing each centre, including a rating of the centre's overall performance along a uniform scale. Akin to standard project supervision reports prepared by the World Bank and other lending organizations, it would provide comparability across institutions. The main objective of the review would be to rate the centre along the lines of the quantitative and qualitative criteria that are part of the template. But, in addition to filling out the pro forma assessment form, the panel would write a narrative report supporting the assessment made.
62. A template-based review could be used as a substitute for either a regular review or an interim review. The difference would be in the size of the panel and the level of effort. It is assumed that, if at all, this model would first be tried as an alternative to an interim review, before it was considered for a regular review. A 2-3 person panel would make a ten-day visit to the centre, accompanied by two staff from the secretariats. At the conclusion of the review, the panel would leave behind a copy of the summary evaluation report (i.e., a filled out template) at the centre. The chair of the panel would complete the report accompanying the template subsequent to the review, with assistance from secretariat staff.
63. It was tentatively inferred from the above that the important issue was perhaps not so much a matter of choosing one review model over the other, but rather identifying desirable features of the various models so that they could be incorporated into the existing model. For example, linking external and internal reviews (a feature of the issue-driven model) could be integrated into the current regular review model without the other aspects of the issue-driven model being included. Similarly, a template could be developed to replace an executive summary and to provide uniformity across several reviews, without necessarily sacrificing the breadth and depth of the current reviews. Furthermore, the NARS-IARC interface still remains an issue for further elaboration.
64. Dr. Gregersen then introduced a background draft paper entitled 'Improving the Review Process in the CGIAR System', which he had prepared in collaboration with Dr. Amir Kassam, Senior Agricultural Research Officer, TAC Secretariat, on the basis of: the Standing Committee's deliberations; the outcome of earlier discussions by the Committee, Centre Directors' and Centre Board Chairs in October 1993; and proposals by the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on External Reviews.
65. It was pointed out that the review process in the System is neither stagnant nor broken, but rather it rather is dynamic and in a constant state of evolution. Additional changes were being sought based on effectiveness, efficiency and credibility criteria, keeping in mind that the CGIAR external review process is part of a much larger process involving donor reviews, internal reviews, peer reviews, etc. Dr. Gregersen specified that the main challenge was reducing cost while maintaining effectiveness and credibility. He stated that four issues needed to be addressed to improve the review process. These are:
(i) What are the purposes of the reviews? What should they contain besides credibility? Since there were so many views on both issues there was therefore a need to ask donors, centres and other key stakeholders what they saw as the purposes of reviews and the criteria for judging their credibility.(ii) There was a need to do more work on the impacts of research within the System. Impact assessment is more important to policy makers and politicians than to donor representatives, who are more interested in quality and relevance, issues which the former take for granted.
(iii) There was a need to find out what is going on in the centres' with respect to their internal review processes; their reliability and quality, how they could be improved, and how their results could be better utilized during the review. A better understanding of centres' internally-managed external review processes could also help to improve understanding of the NARS-centre relationships.
(iv) How can the NARS' input into the review process be improved? A number of operations have been proposed for improving NARS' input into the review process and, and at the same time, cutting the cost of this contribution. These operations need to be discussed further so that we can move ahead with those that are worth pursuing.
66. In the ensuing discussion most speakers expressed agreement with the suggestions and proposals made by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Secretariat Working Group Several Director Generals stated that panel members should not be expected 'to learn on the job' but should be already competent to undertake it. Where panel members needed training, they should play a secondary role in the review. In the case of a small panel, it must be constituted properly to mitigate any risks of performance failure by panel members. It was pointed out that panel members are potential candidates for Boards and vice versa. In this regard, the Candidate Information System of the CGIAR had an important role in ensuring that the quality and performance of people on reviews was of the highest calibre.
67. The Committee endorsed the proposal that the Inter-Secretariat Working Group should collect information on internal review- and impact assessment processes used by the centres. At the same time, the Working Group should develop information about donors' and centres' views on the purposes of external reviews. The TAC Chair suggested that the report on this and other aspects of the review process should be discussed at TAC 64, with a view to finalizing it for presentation to the Group at ICW'94.
68. The topic was introduced by the Chair who recalled that at ICW'93 members of the CGIAR expressed concern that TAC's recommendations on medium-term resource allocation could be interpreted as implying that Systemwide initiatives were of the lowest priority and would be affected substantially in a situation of reduced funding. Therefore, he had asked the Standing Committees on Resource Allocation and Priorities and Strategies to consider the issue. Dr. McCalla referred to a paper prepared by the TAC Secretariat on the progress made by each centre in implementing the ecoregional approach to research.
69. Dr. Eugenia Muchnik de Rubinstein, who had chaired the joint meeting of the Standing Committees, opened the discussion by noting that the issue should also be seen as part of the overall discussion on the need for structural change in the CGIAR. The Standing Committees had reviewed the reasons for TAC recommending Systemwide initiatives and had concluded that those initiatives were of the highest priority, regardless of funding constraints. The Committees therefore strongly recommended that the priority assigned to Systemwide initiatives should remain very high, even at lower funding levels. She recalled briefly the proposals made by TAC for each of the Systemwide initiatives, i.e., implementing the ecoregional approach to research; for genetic resources, livestock research, and water management research.
70. The Standing Committees had noted, however, that TAC considerations of priorities had been very much based on demand factors, and that it had not yet seen concrete proposals from the convening centres. Before finalizing its recommendations on resource allocation for the Systemwide initiatives, TAC would have to wait until it had first considered the actual proposals and the institutional capacity of the partners involved. Dr. Muchnik de Rubinstein indicated that with respect to the ecoregional proposals, the Standing Committees agreed with the initial priority-ranking of resource allocation to ecoregions based on demand considerations, but indicated that TAC would only finalize its views when the proposals from the convening centres were submitted.
71. In the ensuing discussion, clarification was requested for the timing and process of submitting proposals through the convening centre. Questions were also raised on the use of seed money and whether TAC would be willing to consider other initiatives as well. It was requested that funding be made available as early as possible, rather than waiting until 1997, as was the case for some initiatives.
72. Dr. Hubert Zandstra, Director General of CIP, stressed the importance of mountain agriculture, pointing out that it was included in UNCED's Agenda 21. He informed the Committee that CIP had represented the CGIAR at a meeting organized by FAO, at which all the participants had called for a world convention on the needs of agricultural development in mountain areas. CIP had proceeded to implement its Andean Programme and had already conducted five programme planning meetings. A total of 40 institutions would be collaborating with CIP in this venture. Dr. Zandstra indicated that CIP would continue to implement the ecoregional approach to research even if it did not receive seed money from TAC. He expressed the need for the CGIAR to indicate that the higher priority allocated to resource management research was genuine.
73. Other questions were raised relating to the core and complementary components of the ecoregional approach to research and whether NARS would also be recipients of seed money.
74. After further consideration, TAC endorsed the recommendations made by the Standing Committees. TAC also re-affirmed its recommendation with respect to the level of core resources to be earmarked for Systemwide and ecoregional initiatives, i.e., US $ 10 million by 1998 regardless of the level of overall CGIAR core funding.
75. In concluding the discussion, Dr. McCalla clarified the process to be followed in submitting proposals for Systemwide initiatives. These would be considered at the same time as the 1995 annual budget proposals, but the process of preparing them was currently on hold until after the Mid-Term Meeting in New Delhi. The CGIAR Secretariat would then issue guidelines for the preparation of the 1995 annual budget proposals, which would then be considered by TAC. Proposals for Systemwide initiatives would be discussed at the same time.
TAC Commentary on the Draft Strategic Plan for a New CGIAR Global Livestock Research Institution
76. The TAC Chair recalled that the CGIAR had invited the Rockefeller Foundation to serve as Implementing Agency for the establishment of the new livestock research centre. The Rockefeller Foundation appointed Mr. Robert D. Havener as its representative and set up two groups to facilitate the establishment of the new centre, namely, an Implementing Advisory Group (IAG) under the chairmanship of Dr. Neville Clarke, and a Strategic Planning Task Force (SPTF), chaired by Dr. Patrick Cunningham. Dr. McCalla suggested that the discussion would focus on the draft Strategic Plan, as the draft Medium-Term Plan was still under preparation and would be discussed at TAC 64. He then welcomed the members of the IAG and invited Mr. Havener to present the report.
77. Mr. Havener introduced the members of the Group and then reported on the progress made to date in implementing the CGIAR decision to establish a Centre for International Research on Livestock (CIRL)3. He stated that the Group had consulted with a broad range of stakeholders including FAO, IFAD and the CGIAR Centre Directors. IAG held its first meeting from 14 to 15 March 1994 in Washington D.C. He also indicated that the Group proposed to name the new Centre, The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), suggesting that the term 'Institute' more fully embodies the multi-dimensional nature of the new entity in terms of the breadth of its mandate (global and ecoregional), and its multi-institutional modus operandi. Mr. Havener then invited Dr. Neville dark to outline the main schedule of events and the Group's implementation plans for the establishment of the new Centre.
3 CIRL was the name proposed earlier by the CGIAR Steering Committee on International Livestock Research, chaired by Dr. Lucia Vaccaro.
78. Dr. Clarke stated that SPTF had submitted the draft Strategic Plan to TAC on 1 March 1994 and that IAG had considered the draft at its first meeting. The draft Plan was also discussed with the Centre Directors on 23 March 1994. The post of Director General for the new Centre had been advertised with a closing date of 30 April 1994. Consultations on the formation of a Board of Trustees for the new Centre were also underway. Reporting on the first meeting of the IAG and the meeting with the Centre Directors, Dr. Clarke suggested that there should be a general consensus for emphasis on the strategic principles of the draft Plan, allowing the new Board freedom to elaborate the specific programme foci and modus operandi.
79. When Dr. Cunningham introduced the draft Strategic Plan he reported that the SPTF, consisting of Dr. Tacher and himself, was also supported by Drs. C. Devendra (Malaysia), Ron Leng (Australia), Carlos Sere (Uruguay) and Ahmed Sidahmed (Sudan) as resource persons. In a brief review of the work of the Task Force he listed the salient features of the reports on earlier CGIAR discussions on the subject; highlighting the importance attached to livestock research in TAC's 'Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies', and drawing attention to the marked decline in donor support to ILCA and ILRAD in recent years.
80. Dr. Cunningham stated that in preparing the Strategic Plan the Task Force was closely conscious of the CGIAR guiding principles relating to research focus, internationality and comparative advantage. A central feature of the Strategic Plan was an evaluation of CGIAR's comparative advantage, in terms of competence and expertise, in each of the seven programme areas identified by TAC in the report, 'Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR'. Comparisons were made with research institutes in developed and developing countries, and with sister CGIAR Centres engaged in livestock or livestock-related research in feed resources, production systems, natural resource management and policy analysis. Dr. Cunningham then presented an outline of the SPTF's broad proposals for future livestock research within the CGIAR, and also commented on the importance of monogastric species (e.g., pigs and poultry) in contributing to the expanding demand for animal products, particularly in Asia. Priority rankings (High, Medium and Low) were presented for each of the seven programme areas.
81. The ensuing discussion was opened by Dr. Muchnik de Rubinstein, Chair of the Standing Committee for Priorities and Strategies. She commended the SPTF for its clear presentation of the Strategic Plan for ILRI and raised a number of questions. Further clarification was required on the scope and balance of the proposed global programmes in relation to the size and focus of the ecoregional research agenda, and the criteria used to establish priorities among programmes should be more fully explained. More explicit information was also needed on those current programmes to be phased out of ILCA and ILRAD's work, and an indication given of the extent to which the new Centre should invest in research outside Africa. Clarification was also needed as to how the new Centre would undertake research on policy and socio-economic issues which have primarily regional dimensions.
82. Several TAC Members echoed the need for further clarification of a Systemwide strategy for livestock research within the CGIAR, in addition to, but also encompassing, a statement of the Strategic Plan for the new Centre. There was a general consensus among a number of Members that, whereas the draft Plan clearly outlined specific scientific goals for livestock research in the CGIAR, it was less explicit on the expected outputs and cost-benefits in terms of their global and/or regional implications. Repeated reference was made to the importance of feed resources and in particular to the priority need for research on crop-livestock interactions. Specific questions were also raised on the following issues: the need to establish milestones to measure impact; the importance of taking into account the role of other research organizations, particularly the NARs; the modes of inter-centre collaboration and programme funding among CGIAR Centres and consortia-based/contract research with institutes outside the System; and the role and modus operandi of interacting with the private sector, particularly in the area of vaccine development and pharmaceutical products.
83. Responding to the questions raised, Dr. Cunningham stated that the Strategic Plan was drafted on the premise that the US$ 4 million earmarked by the CGIAR for Systemwide initiatives on livestock research, (cited in TAC's report 'CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation 1994-98'), would meet the cost of the new initiatives to be undertaken outside Africa - the SPTF envisaged a maximum of five to six new research activities across Asia and Latin America. Much of the socioeconomic work would be at the microlevel in the context of production systems research. Dr. Tacher stressed that the Task Force strongly endorsed the importance of crop-livestock research, but considered that the soil and agronomy components of this work should be conducted by the collaborating CGIAR crop research centres. In this context, the Task Force were proposing that current research on soils and plant sciences at ILCA should be phased out. Dr Tacher also supported the suggestion that research on endoparasites (helminths in particular) should receive high priority within the animal health programme of the new Institute.
84. Dr. Hank Fitzhugh, Director General of ILCA, welcomed the IAG's report on the progress made in establishing the new livestock research Institute. He recognized the difficult nexus the SPTF encountered in attempting to reconcile differences in land-use fragility with questions of equity and market demand, particularly in the area of policy research and socioeconomics. He emphasized the importance of impact assessment not only for measuring achievement but as a tool for establishing research priorities.
85. Dr. William Scowcroft, Deputy Director General (Research) of CIAT, accepted the potential contributions of research on animal health and genetics, and emphasized the paramount importance of research on feed resources. Following a short presentation of CIAT's work on animal production, he stressed the importance of livestock/pasture/crop production systems research.
86. Dr. Ross Gray, Director General of ILRAD, generally welcomed the general thrust of the draft Strategic Plan but expressed reservations about using core funds to support contract research, except on very specific problems and on a limited scale.
87. Dr. Nasrat Fadda, Director General of ICARDA, also welcomed the report but stated that he would like to see much greater emphasis on integrated crop-livestock research. He recognized that there was good opportunity for livestock scientists and plant geneticists to work in close collaboration, and cited ICARDA's success in integrating straw-digestibility parameters into their cereal-breeding selection indices.
88. Dr. John Dillon, Chairman of the Centre Board Chairs' Committee, stated that he would like to see a more rigorous analysis of the opportunity costs of research on diseases such as trypanosomiasis and East Coast fever when developing the Strategic Plan for the new Centre. Ex-ante, cost-benefit studies of all high technology research proposals for the new Centre would help to establish priorities on a solid footing.
89. The donor representatives attending the meeting made the following comments: the restructuring of livestock research within the CGIAR should not be merely the merger of ILCA and ILRAD; proposals to expand livestock research beyond Africa must be tempered by the potential availability of funds; proposals in the Strategic Plan should be more explicitly justified and linked to the major global and regional constraints on livestock production.
90. Mr. Havener, responding to the comments, stated that all of the points raised were very constructive and will greatly assist the IAG in the further development of the Strategic Plan, and the interim Medium-Term Plan for the new Institute which is also under preparation. Further consultations with the ILCA and ILRAD Board of Trustees have been arranged and it plans to have the revised proposals prepared by mid-May 1994. The Group also hopes to have made significant progress by that time in establishing the international status of the new Centre and the location of its headquarters. A meeting of the Director General Search Committee is scheduled for July, by which time it is also hoped that the establishment of the Board of Trustees for the new Centre will be well advanced.
91. In concluding the discussion, Dr. McCalla thanked Mr. Havener and his colleagues for their very clear and open presentations, stating that the discussion was very comprehensive and informative. He also acknowledged the many useful contributions from the centre and donor representatives, and thanked TAC and the other participants for their constructive dialogue.
92. TAC offered the following commentary on the draft Strategic Plan for a new CGIAR Global Livestock Research Institution:
93. TAC expressed its appreciation of the Strategic Plan Task Force, commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation, for the speed with which it had developed a draft Strategic Plan for a new CGIAR Global Livestock Research Institution. The draft Plan is concise, clearly-written and makes a useful contribution to the planning of research on animal agriculture in the CGIAR. The Plan is consistent with recent TAC discussions and recommendations as outlined in the report, 'Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR', it is compatible with the Group's basic principles of research focus, internationality and special advantage. However, a number of issues require further discussion and elaboration.
94. The draft Plan focuses primarily on the major components of a global strategy for the new International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). However, TAC would like to see further elaboration of a Systemwide Strategy for livestock research within the CGIAR, as distinct from, but encompassing, the strategy statement for the new Institute. A statement of the goals, outputs and expected benefits of research on each of the seven programme areas identified by TAC is also needed. The Committee would like to see a more explicit articulation of the arguments for priority setting, not only among the seven programme areas, but also between the global and ecoregional research programmes and the necessary linkages between the two research agendas. The Plan should also identify those areas of research currently ongoing in ILCA and ILRAD which would be incorporated into the new Institute, as well as those areas which would be phased out.
95. The Committee would encourage the Implementing Agency to widen its consultations with NARS and other major stakeholders of the System, particularly the relevant CGIAR Centres, in its development of the Systemwide strategy statement. These inter-centre consultations will encourage broad ownership of the Systemwide strategy and help to identify modes of programme funding and inter-centre collaboration when implementing the new research agenda, particularly the Systemwide and ecoregional initiatives.
96. The time sequence and urgency required in the further development of the Strategic Plan and the preparation of a Medium-Term Plan for the new Institute were also discussed. In view of the tight time schedules, TAC recognizes that it may not be feasible to plan some new areas of research, such as livestock production systems in Asia, as thoroughly as those areas in which ILCA and ILRAD currently have greater experience. TAC also emphasized that an early resolution of the future direction of the new Institute was critically important for the retention of skilled staff at ILCA and ILRAD. Maintaining the current momentum may also be a key factor in regaining donor support for livestock research in the CGIAR and in meeting budget deadlines for 1995.
97. This topic was first discussed in open session in a joint meeting with Centre Directors. It was introduced by the Chair who recalled that in the report on the medium-term resource allocation process, TAC had stated that the implications of a scenario with significant, sustained funding shortfall could not be adequately addressed by marginal budgetary procedures such as across-the-board reductions, and that sustained underfunding would require structural adjustments of the CGIAR. TAC had concluded that the resource allocation process did not constitute the appropriate framework for making adjustments of a structural nature. At ICW'93, the Group requested TAC to initiate a critical examination of the present coverage of activities, programmes and regions because the current funding levels in the medium term would require a repositioning of programmes and institutions. TAC was requested to develop a paper containing options for restructuring in time for discussion at the Mid-Term Meeting in May 1994 in New Dehli. The TAC Chair had proceeded to develop a draft of such a document in collaboration with TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. The Chair had also written a letter to Centre Directors and Board Chairs outlining the process which TAC would follow in the preparation of the paper. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, the paper would be handled with the utmost discretion.
98. The draft paper consisted of two parts. Part I contained Chapters 1 to 3 which presented the guiding principles and the analytical framework for discussions on structural change. This section was a public document which had been circulated to TAC Members, Centre Directors and observers. Part II contained the institutional implications of structural options. In view of the sensitivity of its contents, this part of the document was considered highly confidential and given in strictest confidence to TAC Members the day before its discussion by the Committee. The Chair indicated that TAC would be guided in its discussions by: its views on CGIAR priorities and strategies; the medium- and long-term visions of the CGIAR; and opportunities for achieving greater efficiencies at both the centre and System levels.
99. TAC's recommendations would be prepared in the form of a paper which would be submitted to the Mid-Term Meeting in New Delhi. It had been originally intended that the paper would be tabled at that meeting because of its confidential nature. However, the Chair of the CGIAR had indicated that, in order for consensus to be reached and decisions to be taken, the CGIAR Members would require time in advance to consider and discuss the paper with their superiors before leaving for New Delhi. Furthermore, Centre Directors and Board Chairs had requested that TAC would maintain transparency throughout the process and that they would receive a copy of the proposals at the same time as the CGIAR Members. The TAC Chair therefore agreed that the paper would also be shared with Centre Directors and Board Chairs. Dr. McCalla expressed the hope that this would not lead to negatively-affected centreds organizing a lobbying campaign with donors, as this would result in no decisions being made in New Delhi, and therefore a continued erosion of the centres' core programmes.
100. In opening the discussion, Dr. Bonte-Friedheim, who was acting as Chair of the Centre Directors' Committee suggested that, in order to discourage centres from lobbying with the donors, TAC should also make sure that the centres were given speaking rights at the CGIAR meeting in New Delhi. Furthermore, he suggested that if TAC wanted to revisit priorities, it would need to consult with NARS and other stakeholders in the process.
101. Dr. John Dillon, Chair of the Centre Board Chairs' Committee, agreed with the process proposed by the TAC Chair for handling the paper. He expressed the hope that the discussion on structural change would not be a long-winded affair and that quick action would be taken. He also suggested that in trying to achieve Systemwide efficiencies in governance and management, reference should also be made to the central structures of the CGIAR, and that questions should be raised about the need for such a large TAC, as well as for two Secretariats.
102. In the ensuing discussion there was general recognition of the need to restructure the CGIAR in the light of current and projected financial constraints. In the process, TAC might have to reconsider its views on CGIAR priorities given the new situation of severe resource constraints. It was argued that this should be undertaken with careful judgement and intuition rather than a mechanistic approach, as there were gaps in the quantitative analysis. One Centre Director requested caution and extreme sensitivity in exposing proposals which could dramatically affect centre operations to the public, and stated that TAC had to give careful consideration to the potential impact of its proposals on stakeholders.
103. Centre Directors suggested that the centres themselves should be asked for suggestions on how savings could be made and cautioned against over-expectations in saving opportunities for governance and management, as there was a need for minimum management density. It was also suggested that savings could be made by classifying all funding as core.
104. Several questions were raised about how the System should interact with NARS in the restructuring process. One Centre Director pointed to the new dynamism in developing relationships between the CGIAR and NARS, and noted that new mechanisms for collaboration were emerging, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. A restructured CGIAR would have to be compatible with these new mechanisms. He briefed the audience on the outcome of a recent SPAAR meeting in Banjul on the regionalization of research in sub-Saharan Africa, which had been attended by NARS, CGIAR Centres and donors.
105. Clarification was requested as to which funding vector would be used by TAC in its deliberations, and whether the baseline should be the 1994 actuals or the 1998 medium-term targets. A question was raised as to what the CGIAR would look like if one were to take a 'clean slate' approach, and it was suggested that many savings could be made by greater use of contracts with currently underutilized scientists in developing countries.
106. The TAC Chair expressed his satisfaction with the constructive way the discussion had proceeded. He agreed that it would be essential for Centre Directors to be heard at the Mid-Term Meeting although this would require a change from the current practice. While the issue of potential savings in the central structure of the CGIAR was beyond the current mandate given to the Committee for restructuring the CGIAR, he agreed that centres had already gone a long way in rationalizing expenditures and there were no longer any easy cuts to be made.
107. With respect to the funding vector, TAC found itself in a dilemma because if the funding figure used was too low donors would then be tempted to say that this amount was all the CGIAR needed. Dr. McCalla noted that a structural change to the System could not happen overnight and that lead time was essential. During that lead time, the operating cost of the CGIAR may go up rather than down. Finally, Dr. McCalla agreed with a suggestion made by the Centre Directors that a letter should be written immediately to CGIAR Members informing them of the progress made in the restructuring exercise.
108. During further discussion TAC developed proposals for restructuring the CGIAR. TAC considered that the CGIAR had first of all to increase the efficiency of operations by: reduction of costs through drastic cuts in expenditures on governance and management; rationalization of training and information activities; and greater use of contractual arrangements. It also reaffirmed the high priority it had assigned to Systemwide initiatives (i.e., ecoregional research, genetic resources conservation, water development and livestock research). The funding assigned to those initiatives would be sustained even at lower funding levels.
109. TAC proceeded in developing two scenarios for structural change. The first scenario conformed with TAC's long-term vision of the CGIAR which it had outlined in its 1990 report on a possible expansion of the CGIAR. It would reorganize the work in enterprises with global responsibilities (i.e., genetic resources, rice, other cereals, roots and tubers, livestock, aquatic resources, forestry and agroforestry, and public policy and public management/service to NARS), and those with regional and ecoregional responsibilities. A second scenario would pave the way for the implementation of this first scenario, by a process of integrating and merging particular centres.
110. TAC also considered a third scenario which looked at the implications of no structural change. Under this scenario, funding shortfalls would be dealt with through a combination of proportional cuts and programmatic adjustments, while safeguarding programmes of the highest priority or those that could not be reduced below their current size due to critical mass considerations. TAC considered that this scenario would not provide a viable and sustainable solution beyond the very short term.
(i) Progress Report by the Centre Directors on Intellectual Property Rights
(ii) Information Management: Progress Report by the Centre Directors' Sub-Committee on Information and Documentation
(iii) Information Management: Presentations by FAO and CABI
111. Dr. Bonte-Friedheim, co-Chair of the joint TAC/Centre Directors session, invited Dr. Lucas Brader, Chair of the Centre Directors' Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, to report on the progress of the Centre Directors' deliberations on intellectual property rights. Dr. Brader informed the meeting that considerable progress had been made towards the finalization of the Centre Directors' discussions on intellectual property rights; a report would be presented to TAC 65 and the CGIAR at ICW'94. He pointed out that recent developments such as the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, the UPOV (Union Internationale pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales) Convention and the Biodiversity Convention had clear implications for intellectual property rights; and the Centre Directors were currently developing a centre-wide consensus on the issues involved. The Committee had initiated studies on plant breeders' rights and material transfer agreements; these were at an advanced stage and a report would be presented at TAC 65 and ICW'94. The Committee had reached broad agreement with FAO on protocols for base collections, but some details still need to be clarified.
112. Responding to questions from TAC Members, Dr. Brader stated that the Centre Directors were fully aware of the implications of the directives on patent rights embodied in the recently signed GATT agreement and were keeping this matter under review. Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin stated that the Centre Directors' Committee (CDC) was launching a 'crucible' project to collect the views of all parties, including NGOs, who were interested in intellectual property rights in the context of genetic resources conservation.
113. Responding to a question from Dr. McCalla, Dr. Brader stated that the CDC hoped to complete its work and produce a final centre-wide policy statement on intellectual property rights within twelve months.
114. Dr. Bonte-Friedheim called on Dr. Roberto Lenton, Chair of the Centre Directors' Sub-Committee on Information and Documentation, to report on the progress made by the Centre Directors in their discussions on information management and documentation. Introducing the report, Dr. Lenton stated that the Centre Directors' Sub-Committee on Information and Documentation held a preparatory meeting over the weekend and had developed an outline of their work plan. There was general consensus on the need to develop a Systemwide CGIAR statement of policy and strategy on information management and it was proposed that an inter-centre meeting be held at ISNAR in June 1994. A report on the meeting would be presented to TAC 64. Three components of information management were being considered, namely, (i) electronic communications; (ii) a central CGIAR publications database on CD-ROM; and (iii) modes of interaction with information organs outside the CGIAR. The CDC strongly advocated the development of a systemwide E-mail conferencing facility, particularly to underpin inter-centre communications in the planning and implementation of Systemwide and ecoregional research initiatives. In their discussion of a centralized CGIAR publications database, they considered a number of options such as vesting management responsibility with one CGIAR centre or out-contracting to an organization such as the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI). The Committee sees considerable potential benefits in a joint (inter-centre) approach to external information management organizations.
115. In opening the discussion. Dr. Bonte-Friedheim indicated that in his view there could be significant cost saving in a Systemwide approach to publications and information management. He also suggested that the discussions should embrace information management linkages between the IARCs and NARS, and among the NARS themselves.
116. TAC Members raised a number of questions including: (i) the centres' views on consolidation versus coordination of centre activities in information management, (ii) cost-benefit analysis of the options being considered and (iii) the risk of information overkill. In response. Dr. Lenton stated that the centres strongly favoured the coordination of centre activities on a voluntary basis that would not interfere with centre autonomy. The question of information overkill had not been addressed and the Committee was not in a position as yet to estimate, or even guess at, the potential cost savings of the inter-centre collaboration modes being discussed. These issues will be addressed at the ISNAR workshop.
117. In closing discussion on this topic Dr. McCalla thanked Dr. Lenton, and stated that he very much welcomed the recent CDC attention to this very important topic which had been on TAC's agenda for some time.
118. Following the discussion of the CDC report, presentations on information management were made by FAO and CABI outlining the protocols and procedures in information collection, processing and dissemination of the two organizations. Dr. Emile Samaha, Director, Library and Documentation Systems Division, FAO, presented a comprehensive outline of FAO's information systems and databanks in his paper, 'IARCs partnership in AGRIS and CARIS to serve national and international research systems'.
119. The FAO paper was followed by a broad-ranging presentation of CABI's programmes and services in information management, dissemination and publications. Presentations were made by Mr. Jim Gilmore, Acting Director General of CABI, along with his colleagues Drs. Colin Ogbourne and Rob Williams. In addition to their description of CABI's products and services, a number of suggestions were put forward as to how the CGIAR Centres might collaborate more closely with the organization.
120. Following the two presentations, TAC Members offered comments and raised a number of questions. There was a general consensus on the potential benefits to all parties of further and closer collaboration between the IARCs and both FAO and CABI. Specific questions included: (i) the need for mechanisms to screen information for specific clients, (ii) the cost of information transfer and publication, (iii) the importance of speed, quality and distribution costs and (iv) the problems faced by NARS in paying for publications, particularly those NARS in the least developed countries (LDCs).
121. Responding to the discussion, Dr. Samaha pointed out that FAO offers publications free of charge to all developing countries and that the Organizations' strategy on the difficult subject of information screening was to train the NARS scientists gradually to do their own screening of on-line systems such as AGRIS and CARIS. Dr. Gilmore then explained CABI's pricing arrangements for services and publications. The organization is non-profit making but must recover cost. It deploys a number of facilities to subsidize services and products to those LDC's that fall within their mandate region, including bilaterally-funded project support. CABI was interested in discussions with the CGIAR Centres about discount-based pricing arrangements, particularly with the aim of providing a better service to NARS in the LDCs.
122. Dr. McCalla thanked Dr. Samaha, Mr. Gilmore and his colleagues for their very informative presentations and stated that a number of interesting suggestions had emerged in the discussion.
123. The following dates and venues for future TAC meetings were considered and approved:
|
TAC 64 |
20-26 June 1994 |
WARDA, Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire |
|
TAC 65 |
17-22 October 1994 |
IFPRI, Washington D.C., USA |
|
TAC 66 |
14-25 March 1995 |
CIP, Lima, Peru |
|
TAC 67 |
10-16 July 1995 |
ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya |
|
TAC 68 |
11-17 March 1996 |
IRRI, Manila, Philippines |
124. As and from next year TAC will meet twice yearly; both meetings will be held at CGIAR Centres. Further joint meetings with the Centre Directors are planned during TAC 64 and TAC 65, after which it is proposed to examine the function, conduct and effectiveness of these joint discussions.
