Opening Session (Agenda Item 1)
IRRI External Review (Agenda Item 2)
WARDA External Review (Agenda Item 3)
Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR (Agenda Item 4)
Inter-Centre Review of Rice (Agenda Item 5)
External Review of ICRAF (Agenda Item 6)
Interim External Review of CIMMYT (Agenda Item 7)
Centres' Medium-Term Plan Proposals for 1994-98 (Agenda Item 8)
An Elaboration of TAC's Views on Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR (Agenda Item 9)
Future Reviews (Agenda Item 10)
Future Meetings (Agenda Item 11)
Other Business (Agenda Item 12)
1 The 60th meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was held from 22 March to 2 April 1993 at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome, with Dr. Alexander McCalla in the Chair.
2 The meeting was attended by 14 TAC members, representatives of 2 of the cosponsors (FAO and the World Bank), by observers representing members and institutes of the CGIAR, and by staff of the CGIAR and TAC Secretariats. A number of other participants attended open sessions of the meeting (Annex 1).
Opening Remarks
Adoption of the TAC 59 Report
Adoption of the Agenda
Report from the CGIAR
3 Dr. McCalla, the TAC Chair, declared the 60th meeting of TAC formally open and welcomed TAC members, cosponsor and donor representatives, and observers. He noted that the meeting would probably be the longest in TAC's history and was filled with an intense array of items, including 5 reviews, 10 medium-term plans (MTPs), and 3 strategy papers.
4 A special welcome was extended to 3 new members who were attending their first TAC meeting; Drs. Ammar Siamwalla from Thailand, Maria Zimmermann from Brazil, and Peter Tigerstedt from Finland. He also welcomed 2 consultants; Dr. Michael Arnold, who had been a long-serving TAC member and was attending the meeting to provide continuity, and Sir Ralph Riley, who would become a TAC member after his responsibilities as Chair of the Interim External Review of CIMMYT had been discharged.
5 The Chair then introduced Dr. Hartwig de Haen, Assistant Director-General for Agriculture, who was representing FAO, and invited him to address the meeting
6 Dr. de Haen welcomed all those present on behalf of the Director-General of FAO. He noted that Mr. Philippe Mahler, Assistant Director-General for Environment and Sustainable Development and FAO's cosponsor representative, was in New York to attend the first inter-agency meeting of the new Committee on Sustainable Development, which was founded during the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992.
7 Dr. de Haen emphasized that FAO had always attached great importance to the role of TAC, especially in its priority-setting and review work. He felt that UNCED had highlighted 2 particular challenges to FAO and TAC; to develop effective tools for setting research priorities, and to make more efforts at truly multidisciplinary research. He reported that FAO was very much concerned with the follow-up to UNCED, and he noted that, like other organizations, FAO's agenda was overloaded relative to the available financial and personnel resources.
8 As part of its response to UNCED, FAO had established Special Action Programmes, which corresponded to the relevant portions of Agenda 21 with respect to agricultural and sustainable rural development, including fisheries and forestry. The Special Action Programmes were more than technical innovation packages and were linked to institution building and human resources development at the country, community and household levels.
9 Dr. de Haen also reported on the 1992 International Conference on Nutrition. The Conference had adopted a world declaration on nutrition which recognized the vital role of research and technology development, and emphasized that research and technology efforts should be further invigorated to improve nutritional quality and equity of access, in addition to production issues. The Conference had recommended that agricultural research should be strengthened at national, regional and international levels, to address the problems and prospects for diversification of food production, conservation, and the safe application of biotechnologies.
10 FAO had also recently hosted the biennial meetings of the Committees on Fisheries and Forestry. During the meetings, the Committee on Forestry had given strong support to the establishment of CIFOR, and the Committee on Fisheries had discussed a joint FAO, World Bank, EEC and UNDP initiative on international fishery research needs. Dr. de Haen reported that the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, in which IBPGR was involved, would meet in April. It was hoped that the Commission would endorse the plan for the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. The Committee on Agriculture would also meet in April, and the improvement of pasture, feed and forage for livestock was on the agenda as a special issue.
11 With regard to the business at TAC 60, Dr. de Haen noted that the discussions on the ecoregional approach to research and the methodologies in natural resources research were of particular interest to FAO. He hoped that TAC would take note of developments outside the CGIAR system in this area, particularly at FAO, which he felt could play a useful role in collaborating with the centres in this field. Dr. de Haen concluded his report by noting that while TAC was in session, FAO would meet with some of the centre directors to discuss projects for the UNDP-funded FAO/CGIAR cooperation on technology transfer.
12 The report of the 59th meeting of TAC was adopted without amendment.
13 In addition to the items listed on the agenda, 4 items would be considered as 'other business': a report from the CGIAR Task Force on Banana and Plantain; a status report on the establishment of CIFOR; a presentation from ECART; and a progress report from the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources.
14 Mr. Alexander von der Osten, Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, reported on the financial situation and trends in the CGIAR, the action taken to deal with the 1993 shortfall in funding, the longer-term issues, problems and prospects facing the system, and the upcoming Mid-Term Meeting.
Finances in the CGIAR
15 The estimate of 1993 core funding was US$241 million, which was not only lower than previous estimates, but lower than 1992 funding ($249 million), and the approved budgets of centres ($265 million). This shortfall in funds, would have to be distributed among centres according to the formula recommended by TAC in Chapter 14 of the 1992 report 'Review of Priorities and Strategies', and approved by the CGIAR, to ensure that the allocation of resources for 1993 was timely, in line with CGIAR priorities, transparent and equitable. Three steps had to be taken to apply the formula: first, the elimination of the provision for inflation from all approved programmes, which yielded $11 million; second, the calculation of programme reductions in line with the 1998 CGIAR-endorsed indicative planning envelopes; third, the application of the rule of a 25% limit in balancing donor funding and a reduction for those centres who had been at the top of the 25% range for more than 3 years.
16 The 13 pre-expansion centres had an aggregate reduction of approximately $10 million compared to 1992 (5% nominal or 9% real in purchasing power). The 5 expansion centres had a decrease of 4% in real terms. Mr. von der Osten stated that the system had already been eroded due to a nominal reduction of 11% of core funding (more than 20% in real terms) since 1990. He noted that core contributions in the CGIAR system were on a downward trend, and this reflected a general pattern in overseas development aid. The proportion of overseas development aid allocated to the CGIAR had fallen since 1990, and this was of great concern.
Resource Mobilization
17 Resource mobilization was being addressed by the Centre Directors' Public Awareness and Resources Committee and the CGIAR Public Awareness Association, both of which aimed to maintain the vitality of the CGIAR system. The matter was also given special attention by the cosponsors at their meeting at FAO prior to TAC 60. The cosponsors were fully aware of the situation faced by the CGIAR, but they felt that difficult decisions were needed sooner rather than later. They had noted that decisions would be made on the medium-term planning exercise and all the related issues at International Centres Week in October (ICW'93).
18 Mr. von der Osten reported that the CGIAR Chairman felt that 'business as usual' was inappropriate for the CGIAR under the present circumstances and that, following an informal consultation with the cosponsors, he was reviewing mechanisms which would ensure a more orderly and expeditious decision-making process in the system. He would therefore be seeking agreement on commissioning a panel of 2 or 3 members who, before ICW'93, could bring together the issues, and assess resource flows, mobilization strategies, and the size, structure, composition and management of the system.
Mid-Term Meeting
19 The CGIAR's Mid-Term Meeting (MTM'93), would be held in San Juan, Puerto Rico in May. Mr. von der Osten outlined the agenda for the meeting, which included 2 executive sessions in addition to the reports of 4 task forces, 5 external reviews and the MTPs of 11 centres. The agenda had been organized to consolidate discussions on particular issues, and these would be followed by separate decision-making sessions, in the manner of TAC.
20 In introducing this item, the Chair recalled that the main phase of the fourth External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) of IRRI was conducted in September 1992. He welcomed Mr. David Bell, Panel Chair, and the IRRI representatives; Drs. Walter Falcon (Board Chair), Klaus Lampe (Director General) and Kenneth Fischer (Deputy Director General, Research), and invited Mr. Bell to present the Panel's report.
21 Mr. Bell stated that the report was based on a careful review, which tapped a wide knowledge base due to excellent cooperation from the centre, developing countries, donors and the rice science community around the world. He felt that the world needed IRRI, not because the NARS are weak but because of major tasks emerging for rice research, including a stagnant yield ceiling and declining factor productivity. Without IRRI's involvement and leadership, these would not be organized, especially since rice is not a developed-country crop.
22 Mr. Bell reported that IRRI was in the later stages of a major programme and management transformation, which had been recommended by the last external reviews. IRRI was now more concerned with equity and unfavourable environments, but had maintained its focus on favourable environments and germplasm research. In achieving this transformation, IRRI had based its programmes on rice ecosystems so that productivity, sustainability and equity issues could be addressed effectively in terms of priorities without ignoring the unfavourable rice environments for which it had worked out a new consortia arrangement, with NARS as equal partners. A matrix management system had been introduced, with funds going into goal-oriented programmes in contrast to the old system. There had been a 50% turnover in scientific staff during the past 5 years, and the new staff was of high quality and trained in modern skills. There had also been a major reduction in the nationally-recruited staff, which had been conducted with great care. The physical plant and infrastructure of IRRI had undergone a major renovation, there had been a great improvement in the administration and financial management, and the Board Chair had presided over important changes in the Board. IRRI had therefore come through a successful period of major change and could now settle down to the business of scientific research.
23 The Panel made 2 main recommendations on IRRI's programme work. One dealt with the issue of lifting the yield ceiling and with the sustainability issue of the decline in factor productivity. The Panel suggested that a figure of US$5 million over a period of 10 years may be required to address the sustainability issue and that IRRI should help organize and lead the effort. The second recommendation dealt with the research management matrix in which the Panel felt there was too much emphasis on the output side and too little on the scientific quality and disciplinary excellence.
24 Dr. Falcon extended his thanks to the Panel, TAC and the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats, and noted that a combined programme and management review was sensible and cost-effective. He expressed his pleasure at the recognition given in the review report to the enormous changes at IRRI in the nature of research, management and partnerships with NARS. The Board was in agreement with the Panel's recommendations. The recommendations regarding the yield ceiling and factor productivity were addressed in the MTP, and the concerns expressed about the Board were being attended to.
25 Dr. Lampe stressed that the changes accomplished at IRRI had been made possible by hundreds of people and had not been easy. He pointed out that while issues of yield ceiling and factor productivity were important for irrigated systems, IRRI was also concerned about the balance between productivity and equity, and the allocation of resources between favourable and unfavourable environments. He recalled that IRRI had been comprised of 28 departments prior to the transformation, and the reduction of these into programme-led research had not been easy. IRRI would continue to use INGER as the vehicle for transferring its germplasm outputs. He stated that the review had done well to remind IRRI of the need for resources management, socioeconomics and gender work, and for an effective internal review and external peer review process.
26 The discussion was led by Dr. Ted Henzell (TAC Liaison Scientist for IRRI), who commended the Panel for their report. He asked whether there was a need to develop capacity to address the yield decline issues or whether the capacity was already available. He inquired whether IRRI, through its ecosystems orientation, was trying to do too much under restricted funding, and asked what priority might be given to INGER in the future. Dr. Henzell noted that, while the matrix structure for research management at IRRI was an innovative development, it was not yet a model for the system.
27 TAC members discussed the decline in factor productivity, the geographic dimension of the problem, and the relationship between the yield ceiling and factor productivity. It was pointed out that certain factors affect both yield decline and the yield ceiling, and that these factors should therefore be researched in common. Other issues raised during the discussion included the apparent lack of grain quality research, the changing relationship between IRRI and NARS and their relative roles in Asia, and the need to address equity issues more directly. There were also questions about how the Panel had derived a figure of $50 million for the estimated cost to IRRI of addressing sustainability issues.
28 Mr. Bell stated that the yield ceiling and factor productivity issues were related but different. The yield ceiling was an old problem and more urgent. The decline in factor productivity was a more recent problem and there was a lack of expertise in this area; there was a need for upfront work and for workshops before research could begin, since not enough was known about the problem to design the programme.
29 Mr. Bell reported that the figure of $50 million for sustainability research had been cited only to point out the seriousness of the issue. With regard to the future priority of INGER, the Panel solidly supported the network, since it was considered important in developing the international rice-science community, while it had not supported other networks such as those on farming systems or soil fertility. However, INGER would need to increase its efficiency. Mr. Bell noted that there was a big difference among NARS in competence, organization and support by national commitment, budget and leadership. He felt that the relationships between NARS and IRRI should be reviewed separately, and devolution handled cautiously. However, he noted that the old top-down approach was changing, and mechanisms such as consortia and special research networks, which involve joint planning and joint execution, were now being used. Internally at IRRI, matrix management allowed learning across disciplines and the integration of disciplinary depth into an ecosystems mode of operation. However, further extension of the matrix might dilute disciplinary excellence.
30 Dr. Lampe stated that causes of the decline in factor productivity were not known with certainty. In India alone, an area of 10 million ha was suffering declines and the total area in Asia could be 30 million ha. He reported that IRRI's relationship with NARS had changed; NARS capacity was being developed through new mechanisms such as the consortia, and the biotechnology and the simulation and systems analysis networks, in which responsibilities were shared, with IRRI also acting as a clearing house and providing research support. Grain quality research had been phased out because there were mechanisms for capturing quality in the breeding programme. However, IRRI had an agreement with the University of Philippines at Los Baños for conducting grain quality research.
31 According to Dr. Falcon, there was clear evidence that IRRI was on the right track, and he suggested that the next external review might be an interim one. On the question of productivity and equity, he noted that the concern for equity also included a role of irrigated ecosystems, and that the uplands have an interaction with favourable areas that has productivity and sustainability implications.
32 In bringing the discussion to a close, the Chair congratulated Mr. Bell for a clear report, and thanked the Panel for a job well done. He also commended and thanked Drs. Falcon and Lampe for their efforts and for a stimulating response to many of the issues raised, some of which would be taken up during the discussion of IRRI's MTP.
33 After further discussion, TAC prepared the following commentary with inputs on management aspects from the CGIAR Secretariat:
TAC COMMENTARY ON THE EXTERNAL REVIEW OF IRRI
34 TAC is grateful to the Chairman and members of the fourth EPMR Panel for a well-written and positive report. The Committee is pleased that, given the critical nature of the third External Programme and Management Reviews of IRRI in 1987, the Institute has undergone an in-depth institutional transformation and emerged as a very well-managed Centre, with clearly-defined and transparent priorities, a well-focused research programme of high quality, and a continued record of impressive achievements and farm-level impact. The management problems that were evident at the time of the 1987 reviews have been effectively resolved.
35 TAC has noted that the Panel's report, while lengthy, contains relatively few firm recommendations. However, in addition to the recommendations, the report contains many useful suggestions. TAC endorses, in general, the recommendations of the Panel and offers the following commentary to supplement the Panel's work.
Evolution of IRRI
36 TAC is impressed by the scope and extent of the transformation that IRRI has undergone, as an institution, with guidance from its Board and management, during the last 6 years. TAC sympathizes with IRRI and its staff for the hardship they have endured during this period of rapid change and institutional down-sizing. IRRI has found renewed vigour, is now substantially leaner and a more efficient research operation, appears to have in place a workable matrix research management system, and has able administrative and financial management. This is a credit to the outstanding leadership of the Director General and his senior managers. The directional changes of the Centre have a clear rationale, and most of the Centre's current research work is of a strategic nature. In addition, IRRI has developed effective mechanisms for strengthening national research systems, and is in the process of developing innovative consortia for collaboration with national programmes and other partners in conducting strategic research.
Research Programme
37 TAC shares the Panel's concern about the threat posed to food supplies by indications of decline, both in yield and factor productivity, in intensively-managed irrigated systems. TAC considers that these emerging sustainability problems in the most favourable rice-growing areas of Asia constitute one of the major issues that must be addressed through international rice research in order to meet the demand for rice. TAC encourages IRRI to make an effort to systematically collect additional information as to the extent and nature of this threat. In TAC's view, it would be premature to mount a 'man on the moon' effort on yield decline, as proposed by the Panel, until the nature and extent of the problem(s) have been defined more precisely. Nevertheless, the Committee endorses the Panel's recommendation that IRRI should organize and lead a commensurate research effort in this regard, in collaboration with partners in national programmes and advanced research institutes. TAC will consider the scale of resources required for research on this issue within the framework of its consideration of IRRI's MTP.
38 The other major challenge is to lift the yield potential of rice, which has not increased significantly since IR8 was released in 1966. Several new approaches for raising the yield ceiling are being explored by IRRI. TAC recognizes that lifting the yield ceiling may possibly exacerbate the problem of sustainability, and does not therefore view the challenge of lifting the yield potential as being totally independent from the challenge posed by the decline in factor productivity.
Scientific Excellence
39 TAC concurs with the Panel's view that IRRI's future efficiency will depend, to a large extent, upon its current scientific excellence and the way in which it is maintained. The Committee agrees with the Panel that the emphasis placed on the programme side of the research management matrix may now need to be modified to help the divisions maintain and enhance their disciplinary strengths.
Ecoregional Activities
40 TAC notes the Panel's observation that IRRI must be cautious about assuming a major ecoregional responsibility for Asia beyond the ecoregional work for rice-based farming systems. The Panel's concern may have been based on its opinion regarding the risks involved in IRRI moving too far away from its central role of a global commodity institute for rice.
41 TAC is impressed by the attention given by IRRI to sustainability concerns and the extent to which research on natural resources conservation and management is integrated within IRRI's programmes. TAC further notes that centres with global crop mandates have an important role to play in increasing the understanding of the environmental requirements of their mandate crops and the implications for targeting germplasm enhancement and breeding activities. TAC will consider IRRI's ecoregional activities within the context of its MTP proposals and the systemwide discussion of ecoregional approaches to research.
INGER
42 TAC draws the attention of the CGIAR to the Panel's observations on the global importance and effectiveness of INGER. The Committee shares the Panel's concern about the 50% reduction in funding for INGER since July 1991. TAC would urge IRRI to aggressively explore options to ensure adequate funding for INGER, which plays a critical role in international rice research.
Relations with NARS
43 TAC appreciates IRRI's initiative in developing additional innovative relations with national programmes through collaborative research networks (such as those on systems simulation and analysis in rice production) and consortia to address constraints to rice production in rainfed systems. These appear to hold promise for effective collaboration in strategic research on a partnership basis.
44 The item was introduced by the Chair who recalled that this was the first external review of WARDA since it became a CGIAR centre in 1987. He welcomed the representatives of WARDA; Drs. Henri Carsalade (Board Chair), Eugene Terry (Director General) and Peter Matlon (Director of Research). He then invited Mr. Declan Walton, who had chaired the EPMR, to present his report.
45 Mr. Walton stated that the review was positive, and that WARDA was a well-run centre with an intelligent strategy. He recalled that the 1986 Mid-Term Review Panel had found WARDA to be highly politicized, low in productivity and oriented towards development rather than research. The 1986 Panel had recommended that the CGIAR should stop funding WARDA and create a new institution called the West Africa Rice Research Institute. However, a new deal had been worked out between WARDA, the CGIAR and the Member Governments, which had led to WARDA relocating to Bouaké in Côte d'Ivoire and the transfer of rice research, but not the resources, from IITA to WARDA. He stated that in a generally disorganized region, WARDA stood as an example of rebirth.
46 WARDA has a Council of Ministers, which is unique in the CGIAR system. The Panel found that the Council of Ministers was, on balance, an asset rather than a liability. WARDA's participatory approach to working with NARS was based on task forces and working groups which were well received.
47 Mr. Walton felt that the concept of the continuum was rather broad but provided a good intellectual programme framework. The Sahel Programme offered promise for impact in the shorter term. It was noted that the cutback of the Mangrove Programme and its conversion into a network was due to financial constraints as was the reduction in the Training Programme. The Panel thought that the scientific quality at WARDA was high, but considered that it was too early to judge the scientific impact of the new WARDA, although there was evidence of impact from the old WARDA on mangrove rice and in the Sahel. INGER was the only programme-related issue which was identified by the Panel in terms of how IRRI and WARDA could maintain INGER as a unitary network.
48 The Panel found that WARDA's management systems, including the financial systems, were functioning adequately. However, if resources were to decrease further, WARDA would lose the credibility necessary to retain able staff members. The Panel considered that WARDA had already been reduced to the level of critical mass, and that, for a viable programme, it would require 20 senior core staff. WARDA would therefore have to follow a two-pronged approach to achieve a viable programme; pushing the idea of an open centre and mobilizing non-CGIAR funding.
49 Mr. Walton stated that the issue of WARDA's future mandate could be viewed in terms of either an extension or a deeper role. However, at present, an ecologically-oriented WARDA was the best option. Sustainability was embedded in WARDA's current mandate, and the Centre was doing the right things and was closely linked to NARS. He felt that rice research in West Africa deserved special treatment for several reasons: rice was an important crop for the poor, particularly the urban poor; the NARS in the region were extremely weak and getting weaker; the sustainability problem was dramatic and required some form of environmental accounting (WARDA was addressing this); and the GDP per capita by 2030 was projected to be about US$430 in sub-Saharan Africa, compared to $1,000 and $3,000 in South Asia and East Asia, respectively.
50 As to the organization and funding of rice research in West Africa, Mr. Walton felt that no alternative arrangements by IRRI or IITA were currently worth considering because the penalties would be severe; while there could be minimal cost savings, there would be no funding from the region or support from NARS, and there would be additional setting-up costs. There would also be a betrayal of trust on the part of the Member States and their national programmes. In the particular case of WARDA-IITA relations, the Panel suggested a collaborative bottom-up approach, based on joint projects rather than on a consideration of mandates or on ambitious plans for large-scale joint programmes.
51 Mr. Walton concluded his presentation by stating that WARDA could mobilize funds from outside the CGIAR, if TAC and the CGIAR reconfirmed their support for its work. This would give WARDA a viable funding platform; otherwise, entropy would triumph.
52 Dr. Carsalade stated that it was a matter of pride that WARDA completed its transformation at a time when West Africa was facing major changes. These changes had to be guided, particularly in rice-based farming systems. He extended his thanks to Mr. Walton for a thorough review and expressed the Board's agreement with the Panel's assessments: that WARDA's partnerships with NARS and advanced institutions had a value beyond research; that WARDA was well governed and managed, with high quality staff; that the capacity of WARDA to adjust to financial hardships was high but was near its limit; and that CGIAR support should be reaffirmed.
53 Dr. Eugene Terry expressed his gratitude for a very participatory review, which had been particularly useful because it had coincided with the formulation of the MTP. He stated that WARDA's presence was justified by the rapidly-growing mismatch between rice demand and production in West Africa, the degradation of the resource base, and the importance of female rice farmers. The Panel's recommendations on collaboration and future joint initiatives with IITA, IFPRI, IIMI and with IRRI concerning INGER were all accepted. WARDA was already collaborating with IITA and would involve NARS through the inland valley task force, and would seek agreement with IRRI for a smooth transfer of INGER as a unitary network. WARDA was keen to promote its open-centre concept in the development of a regional rice science capacity, and would make it attractive for Member States to increase their contribution. He concluded by stating that the future of WARDA should be decided on its merits so that its strategy for mobilizing regional and bilateral sources of funds could succeed.
54 The discussion was opened by Dr. Bram Huisman, TAC Liaison Scientist for WARDA, who noted that, while rice could be produced at competitive farm-gate prices, a policy change was needed to make it competitive for consumers, and this was an area in which WARDA could help. He also noted that the continuum included the uplands, where the people were located, and the lowlands, where there was more potential for rice, and this led to an unclear focus of research.
55 Other TAC members requested clarification on WARDA's intended beneficiaries, how the concept of the open centre was related to the ecoregional concept, the reasons that resources to NARS were decreasing, the effect on upland rice farmers if rice moved into the lowlands, and the effect on land use of increasing lowland and mangrove rice. Other questions concerned the health problems associated with the lowlands, WARDA's advantage in accessing representative field environments and its involvement in extensive characterization work. One member pointed out that the concept of critical mass was important for 2 reasons; to keep the relative cost per scientist low, and to provide conditions for intellectual interaction.
56 In his reply, Mr. Walton agreed that there was a need for policy change to make locally-produced rice available to the urban consumers at a competitive price. He pointed out that CFA devaluation and the removal of subsidies by rice-exporting countries would increase the cost of import. There were no clear development paths being followed in West Africa, and WARDA would have to help the region to clarify policy and strategy. There were no land-use conflicts in the mangrove environment, and there were land-use complementarities in the continuum and inland valley ecosystems.
57 Mr. Walton pointed out that the Panel had drawn a distinction between critical mass and viable programme, the latter involving a relatively greater number of senior core staff. At present, there was not the critical mass for scientific interaction, but it could be achieved in an open centre. The open-centre and ecoregional concepts could be very compatible, depending on their structure. WARDA's work was intended to benefit both producers and consumers and, with demand for rice blossoming, issues such as problem-related production costs, the environment and transport costs all had to be addressed. Finally, he stated that NARS were in financial difficulty because of the structural adjustment in favour of cash crops.
58 Drs. Terry and Matlon stressed the strategic location of WARDA's facilities in Côte d'Ivoire and specifically at M'bé in the humid-subhumid transition zone, where the continuum ecosystem was readily accessible. Characterization work, being carried out with IITA, the University of Wageningen and Winand Staring Centre (Netherlands), was aimed at regional characterization as well as the characterization of key sites, to allow the selection of representative production regions and to conduct well-focused environmental work. The main health problems in the lowlands were malaria and bilharzia, and studies had so far been contradictory in explaining the differential responses of health problems and the exploitation of inland valleys.
59 The Chair drew the discussion to a close by recognizing the transformation WARDA has undergone. He thanked Mr. Walton for a clear presentation and WARDA representatives for their frank response.
60 After further discussion TAC offered the following commentary with inputs on management aspects from the CGIAR Secretariat on the external review of WARDA:
TAC COMMENTARY ON THE EXTERNAL REVIEW OF WARDA
61 TAC expresses its appreciation to Mr. Declan Walton and the members of the EPMR Panel for a clear, frank and forward-looking assessment of WARDA. The report highlights, in a pragmatic and positive way, the major strategic issues facing WARDA as an institution, and the rice research concerns in West Africa.
62 TAC congratulates WARDA for the remarkable and successful transformation that has taken place at the Centre - in line with the CGIAR recommendations - since the 1986 Mid-Term Review. TAC is pleased that WARDA was found by the Panel to be depoliticized and well managed, with a soundly-designed programme.
63 TAC recalls the circumstances in 1986 that led the CGIAR to facilitate the restructuring of WARDA so that it could receive full CGIAR support. This decision was not made only on the basis of priority for rice research in West Africa, but was a policy decision by the CGIAR to give financial support to a restructured WARDA. TAC also recalls that, in endorsing WARDA's 1989-93 MTP, the Committee had noted that the magnitude of the Plan could not be justified on the basis of a congruence analysis. The Committee further recalls that, in its 1992 review of CGIAR priorities, while noting the growing importance and complexity of the rice situation in West Africa, TAC had recommended that the CGIAR should maintain only a minimum effort that had a reasonable chance of success.
64 The Committee endorses in general the recommendations of the Panel, and is encouraged that the Centre's response indicates broad agreement with the Panel's findings and recommendations. TAC offers the following Commentary, which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat on management.
Transformation, Financial Hardship and Critical Mass
65 In transforming itself, WARDA has revised its constitution, established a new and effective governing structure, selected a new site near Bouaké, and signed a headquarters agreement with the Government of Côte d'Ivoire. It has successfully moved from Liberia, constructed a research facility and initiated new programmes that are strongly oriented towards collaboration with NARS. Yet WARDA has not been supported with the level of funding required to meet its objectives in full. Currently, WARDA has only 16 core senior staff, of whom 9 are scientists. Staffing has been reduced in administrative support functions and, the Panel contends, former levels should be restored in order to maintain effective financial, administrative and personnel management. TAC notes with concern that, in the Panel's opinion, WARDA as a whole has been reduced close to the level of critical mass, and that management will face a challenge in holding together the excellent team which it has assembled, if the funding trend is not reversed.
Operational Mandate and Focus
66 TAC commends WARDA for incorporating sustainability concerns into its current strategy, and for adopting a farming-systems approach to research with a strong ecosystems focus. However, TAC agrees with the Panel that there is a need to more clearly define the opportunities for impact in the different rice ecosystems, particularly in the 'continuum' environment. TAC notes that there are no clearly-identified development strategies for rice production in the region, and urges WARDA to help clarify how its NARS partners and beneficiaries in the region can best be served. In this context, the Committee endorses the need to include in the characterization studies a comprehensive assessment of the regional rice sector and the prospects for development.
Viable Programme and the Open-Centre Concept
67 While the Panel considered WARDA to be currently at critical mass, it suggested that 20 core senior staff would be required for a viable Centre. TAC believes that critical mass is a concept that also relates to each particular programme, and the number suggested by the Panel may not necessarily imply that all programmes in the institution are at the level of critical mass.
68 The Committee agrees with the Panel's view that, for WARDA to be fully viable, it is necessary to include expertise in the fields of hydrology, crop physiology and economics in the Continuum Programme, and of agronomy in the Sahel Programme. However, given the financial difficulties faced by WARDA and by the CGIAR system as a whole, TAC recognizes that the Centre would need to adopt an innovative and perhaps an opportunistic approach to strengthening its disciplinary research. In this regard, the Committee concurs with the Panel that WARDA's open-centre concept could permit the Centre to amplify the scope of its programmes and to enhance opportunities for intellectual interactions, provided that overall Centre priorities are not compromised.
INGER
69 The Committee is in agreement with the Panel recommendation that INGER-Africa should be maintained as a unitary network for the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, sponsored and managed jointly by WARDA and IRRI, taking into account the special requirements of NARS. TAC also agrees with the Panel that the timing of, and the definitive arrangements for the move to WARDA, should be worked out as part of an overall package that will guarantee the Network's future stability and effectiveness. The Committee is pleased to note that steps have already been taken by WARDA, IRRI and IITA to resolve the issues highlighted by the Panel.
Relationship with IITA
70 The Panel suggested that the most fruitful approach to WARDA-IITA collaboration should be based on feasible joint projects, rather than on the consideration of mandates, or on ambitious plans for large-scale joint programmes. The Committee is encouraged that the issue of the future relationship with IITA is under discussion in an open and constructive way between the parties concerned. TAC would like to commend both IITA and WARDA for having taken the first steps (with other partners) to develop a joint project/consortium for the inland valley ecosystems in West Africa.
Ecoregional Activities
71 WARDA has concentrated its efforts on rice-ecosystems which, in the African context, include rice as an integral part of farming systems. In its commodity work, WARDA has given considerable attention to the agroecological dimensions of the research, and the characterization studies may prove essential in retaining and sharpening the ecosystems focus. TAC believes that WARDA can make a significant contribution to ecoregional activities in the humid and subhumid areas, in close collaboration with IITA. For the irrigated areas of the Sahel, the Committee agrees with the Panel that WARDA should explore with IIMI the possibility of a joint initiative aimed at increasing the performance and productivity of irrigated rice cropping systems.
Collaboration with NARS
72 WARDA's model of partnership with NARS consists primarily of regional working groups that advise on collaborative activities, and thematic task forces that develop regional plans for sharing tasks based on an assessment of priorities and the particular strengths of collaborators. Research is decentralized into multidisciplinary teams involving WARDA and NARS scientists, and even training is organized through regionally-based itinerant courses.
73 It is too soon to judge the success of this institutional approach in terms of research outputs and impact. Early indications suggest that the model appears to promote positive relations with national programmes and should assist in building the capacity of NARS; increasing complementarity and thereby the efficiency of rice research activities throughout West Africa, and ensuring that research is relevant to the region's needs. In addition, such an approach increases the likelihood that WARDA's responsibilities can be transferred to NARS at some time in the future, and thus appears to be a model worthy of close examination within the CGIAR system.
Governance, Organization and Management
74 TAC is pleased by the Panel's assessment that WARDA's Board is operating as a cohesive and effective governing body, which has highly positive relations with the management and staff. While TAC recognizes that the Board's Programme Committee has expertise that can contribute significantly to the conduct of WARDA's annual in-house review, it agrees with the Panel that any examination of WARDA's activities by the Programme Committee should be conducted in a manner that is clearly separate from the in-house review. In order to perform this and all other Board responsibilities successfully, greater attention needs to be given to the development and implementation of a systematic orientation of new Board members. This is an issue that has been raised in external reviews of other centres, as has the issue of the succession of Board leadership, which also requires careful thought and better planning by WARDA's Board.
75 TAC commends the strong and dynamic leadership of the Director General and his management team, and is pleased by the reported efficiency of the financial, administrative and personnel management units at WARDA. However, the Committee is concerned that the effectiveness of these units may be eroded due to the departure of key staff, and urges management to carefully review the situation to ensure the cost-effectiveness of alternative staffing levels.
76 The Committee wishes to highlight that, although the Panel commends WARDA for the high calibre of its international staff, there are no women among them. TAC agrees with the Panel that management should redouble its efforts to recruit qualified women, especially for senior positions.
Future of WARDA
77 In the Panel's view, only modest savings could be achieved by merging WARDA with IITA. However, the Panel did not provide the argument and assumptions which led to this conclusion. The Committee believes that its considerations with respect to CGIAR support for rice research in sub-Saharan Africa have been further complicated by the CGIAR's 1986 decision to support WARDA as an institution. The issue of WARDA's future is addressed in the TAC statement 'strategies for Rice Research in the CGIAR'.
78 The Chair recalled that, at the May 1992 CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting in Istanbul, TAC had presented its views on ecoregional approaches to research and the priorities for CGIAR involvement in this area. At that meeting, members of the CGIAR had expressed the desire for a mechanism that would assist in developing a coherent CGIAR approach. As a result, TAC and the Centre Directors' Committee for Sustainability and the Environment worked together to develop proposals for such a mechanism, and a Joint TAC/Centre Directors Working Group was commissioned to prepare a discussion document for MTM'93.
79 The Working Group was convened by Ambassador Robert Blake of the Committee for Sustainable Agriculture and was composed of individuals from centres, TAC, the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats, and national research and academic institutions. It met in early February at the University of California, Davis, to discuss the format and content of the report. Individual members of the Working Group then prepared draft sections of the report, which were circulated for comments and collated by Dr. Michael Collinson of the CGIAR Secretariat. The final editing, production and distribution of the report was done by Dr. Guido Gryseels of the TAC Secretariat.
80 The Chair informed the meeting that the report would be distributed to heads of national research systems and members of the CGIAR, together with a commentary from TAC and Centre Directors, and would be further considered at a workshop on 29 May 1993 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, immediately after MTM'93.
81 A brief overview of the report was given by Dr. Collinson. The report started by assuming the need to sustain natural resources while increasing agricultural production. The challenges involved in achieving this and the responses within the CGIAR to these challenges were then described. An annex to the report provided a synthesis of TAC's views on an ecoregional approach to research.
82 Dr. Collinson reported that, while many CGIAR centres had incorporated natural resources management concerns in their programmes, there was a clear need for greater coherence in the systemwide effort. A research model for sustainable agricultural production was presented in the report. The Working Group had cautioned against premature limitations on the type of new ecoregional initiatives from the centres, stressing that variety among early ecoregional initiatives would be a learning experience from which improved models would evolve. Geographical organization would be a key dimension of any model.
83 The Working Group had considered operational mechanisms for the ecoregional approach and had developed guiding principles and outlined the necessary characteristics of mechanisms for collaboration. There was felt to be a need for innovation in donor-funding mechanisms. Finally in the report, the Working Group had taken stock of centres' responses to the ecoregional initiative. Few of the centres' proposals had met all of the criteria stated in the guiding principles. Many lacked the mechanisms necessary to integrate a commodity perspective beyond that of their own mandate or to streamline relations with national programmes within the ecoregion. Other major gaps in the proposals were the lack of comprehensive treatments for either irrigated agriculture or livestock research.
84 The discussion was introduced by Dr. Michael Arnold, TAC Representative in the Working Group, who expressed his gratitude to Drs. Collinson and Gryseels for their contributions in preparing the report. He reported that the Working Group had made substantial use of the electronic mail system in its communications and that its working procedures had been very innovative. He expressed his satisfaction with the report, particularly in dealing with the ecoregional approach to research in the narrow sense. He considered, however, that the Working Group had not dealt adequately with the more sensitive issues which related to the need for redefinition of responsibilities among centres in order to avoid overlapping mandates.
85 Dr. Nasrat Fadda, Chairman of the Centre Directors' Committee, stated that he could only make personal comments since the Centre Directors' Committee had not yet had the opportunity to consider the paper. He felt that the Working Group had gone into too much detail in the paper and had tried to incorporate the opinions of too many people; he would have preferred that the discussion had been kept to a strategic level. He also asked about the time frame for devolving ecoregional responsibilities to NARS.
86 TAC's discussion was wide-ranging and related to specific comments made on the report as well as wider considerations of the ecoregional approach to research. Members considered that there was a need to incorporate forestry and fisheries perspectives in the paper, and that greater emphasis should be given to the impact of ecoregional activities.
87 Questions were raised as to how relations with NARS could be streamlined through an ecoregional approach and how the notion of consortia differed from that of networks. Attention was drawn to the need for improvement of the resource base, and about the human aspects of sustainability research. Members asked for clarification on how the general organizational principles had been applied to centre proposals, and noted that more analysis appeared to be necessary. It was generally accepted that there was a need for system coherence in implementing the ecoregional concept, and members stressed the need to present options on mechanisms to the CGIAR.
88 Donor representatives emphasized the necessity for an orderly implementation of the ecoregional concept and the need to address the problem of overlapping mandates. They also considered that the ecoregional approach offered substantial opportunities to integrate bilateral and multilateral research funding.
89 In concluding the discussion, the Chair expressed his appreciation for the work of the Working Group and stressed that the next step was to discuss the proposals with national research systems in order to incorporate their inputs into the process. To that end, the paper would be discussed with representatives of national research systems at a meeting organized by the Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) in Abidjan on 29-30 April.
90 After further consideration, TAC offered the following commentary:
TAC COMMENTARY ON THE ECOREGIONAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH IN THE CGIAR
91 TAC is grateful to the Convenor and Members of the TAC/Centre Directors Working Group on the Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR for their willingness to accept a most difficult and challenging task. The Working Group has produced a useful report that provides valuable insights into the topic and emphasizes the need for more effective approaches to research on sustainable agricultural production. TAC is pleased that the Working Group has endorsed the rationale behind TAC's proposal for an ecoregional approach to research. The report provides general principles for conducting research with an ecoregional perspective and describes what the Working Group terms 'organizational principles' to assist in developing specific ecoregional mechanisms.
92 TAC accepts the main findings of the report, and recognizes the progress made by the Working Group in sorting out ideas and principles for the implementation of an ecoregional approach. These provide a basis for wider discussions with national programme leaders and the CGIAR so that the broader strategic issues can be developed and clarified. TAC offers the following comments as an input into those further discussions.
Comments on the Report
93 Although the report provides general principles for carrying out research within an ecoregional context, it does not provide a complete view of the institutional responsibilities that could be assigned to the CGIAR centres to facilitate the development of a coherent, systemwide approach.
94 The report concludes that "no single organizational model will serve the needs of all ecoregions". This conclusion relates to the diversity of centre mandates, the capabilities of regional organizations and national research systems, and the social and biophysical conditions. TAC accepts this conclusion at this stage in the conceptual development of ecoregional approaches.
95 As one of its main conclusions, the Working Group states that "owing to the experimental nature of the research methods to be developed by the Working Group, we will have to learn from early experiences both within and outside the system, including those from the field of watershed management, or situations where ecoregional approaches have been used for many years". Again, TAC concurs with this conclusion.
96 The 'organizational principles' proposed by the Working Group as an aid to developing specific ecoregional activities and mechanisms were listed as follows: "operate on a regional basis; focus on an important agroecological zone with a serious degradation problem; combine natural resources management and production objectives; employ a multidisciplinary approach; include both natural and social sciences; involve national research institutions and other partners in a synergistic way; adopt flexible systems of governance and priority setting; and ensure global coherence and flexible funding mechanisms."
97 TAC is in general agreement with these 'organizational principles', but recognizes that no mechanisms have been proposed for achieving this 'global coherence'.
98 TAC raises specific questions concerning the report, related to:
· the need to broaden the current agricultural focus of the report in Section 3 to include consideration of the substantial experience available from forestry, watershed management and fisheries research;· the desire for greater clarity on how the consortium concept (the preferred mode of operation) differs from other modes of operation such as collaborative research networks;
· the greater complexity and increased transaction costs of operating with many national, regional and international partners;
· the increased complexity of incorporating sustainability and equity considerations into collaborative programmes involving national research systems;
· the potential over-emphasis of the suggested approach on the biophysical aspects of sustainability without due regard for the human elements; and
· the need to introduce, more explicitly, concerns for improving and enhancing the natural resource base.
Considerations in Addition to those Contained in the Report
99 TAC considers that the organizational principles listed by the Working Group need to be supplemented by considerations on operational mechanisms. In particular, TAC makes the following comments:
· The concept of 'agroecological zones' applies primarily to agriculture. The principles need to be extended to include ecological zones that are appropriate for forestry and fisheries.· There is a need to emphasize that ecoregional initiatives can be driven by concerns about productivity, and not solely by sustainability concerns as might be inferred from the Working Group's principles.
· There is a need for a complementary set of principles and criteria to guide the allocation of ecoregional and global roles, responsibilities and funding within the system as it moves towards ecoregional research approaches and modalities.
· Consideration of impact must be explicitly incorporated in the operating principles, both as a mechanism for accountability and as a means of learning how to improve the design and implementation of ecoregional initiatives.
· As part of the learning process described by the Working Group, there need to be systematic mechanisms for assessing the efficacy of different modes of operation and organizational structures.
· New review processes will be needed, which simultaneously take into account parts of the work of 2 or more centres and consider the work of NARS and other partners.
100 The report does not probe deeply into the broader principles of defining centre responsibilities in the context of ecoregional initiatives, as might have been expected from the Working Group's terms of reference. This rationalization is particularly needed for overlaps between commodity and resources management mandates, and between global and regional mandates for particular commodities.
101 TAC firmly believes that ecoregional initiatives should involve a real change in the basic operations of centres, rather than merely adding elements to existing programmes. In terms of funding, this means that ecoregional initiatives of the centres should involve both core activities and core funding. At the same time, consideration should be given to the opportunities for innovative funding mechanisms.
102 In TAC's view, the ecoregional approach will not be effective without the accumulation of a relevant and integrated pool of knowledge of each designated region and ecological zone. Such knowledge would probably be most useful if vested in a small group of researchers in each ecoregion in which the CGIAR effort is to be concentrated. Such a group would be extremely valuable in helping centres with global mandates to formulate their research objectives and to sharpen their research priorities. The organizational form that would allow such groups to develop needs more careful consideration.
103 The Working Group suggested that the Centre Directors Committee might be "the appropriate vehicle to identify convening centres for priority ecoregions, to reconcile overlapping mandates, and to place responsibilities for regional coordination in the generic activities which have been the other main source of duplication burdening national systems". TAC has reservations about the appropriateness of the Centre Directors Committee to perform this particular function, and recalls the limited success centre directors have had in resolving this type of issue in the past.
TAC's Suggested Options
104 Given the Working Group's report and the above comments, TAC suggests that the CGIAR might discuss the following options for implementing the ecoregional approach in the system. In each case, TAC provides its preliminary assessment of the advantages and disadvantages to the system as a whole. The options are not all seen as being mutually exclusive.
OPTION 1: The Ad Hoc Option
105 Centres would continue to develop their own collaborative ecoregional programmes, such as those described in Annex 2 of the Working Group's report.
Advantages:
· centres would build a stronger sense of ownership of the approach;· there would be no erosion of institutional identity;
· there would be no compelling need to redefine centre responsibilities;
· it would be flexible and responsive to changing circumstances.
Disadvantages:
· there would be no central coordination or governance, and hence no explicit safeguards against duplication of effort and overload on national research systems;· might not lead to a coherent systemwide plan for implementing the ecoregional approach as set out in Chapter 13 of the TAC 1992 document 'Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies', which could lead to competition among centres, lack of focus on real needs and lower cost-effectiveness.
OPTION 2: Coordinated Inter-Centre Model
106 In this model, the centre directors would develop explicit, systemwide mechanisms to avoid duplication of efforts and overload on national partners, as well as to ensure that all relevant production, sustainability and policy considerations were taken into account in a given ecoregion.
Advantages:
· there would be no need for additional system governance mechanisms;· centres would build a strong sense of ownership of the approach;
· there would be no erosion of institutional identity;
· there would be less chance of duplication of work and overlap in terms of relations with, and demands on, national research systems;
· centres themselves would assess the need to redefine responsibilities on a systemwide basis.
Disadvantages:
· there would be a heavier burden of work and responsibilities on the centre directors;· costs might be higher than in option 1;
· there would be no mechanism to resolve conflicts of interests among centres.
OPTION 3: Programme-Funded Model
107 Under this model, a limited number of ecoregional initiatives, recommended by TAC, would be funded on a programme basis by the CGIAR. These might become known as 'CGIAR ecoregional programmes' to distinguish them from other initiatives that constitute a normal part of centre programmes. The programmes would be selected by TAC from the submissions made by centres in their MTPs. These submissions would be made jointly by the participating centres indicating their individual contribution. Before endorsing them, TAC could call for modifications related to such considerations as coherence in the overall implementation of the ecoregional approach. Such programmes could be funded by reallocation of resources across centres, or by seeking to attract new project funding, or by a combination of both.
Advantages:
· it would ensure more systematic consideration of ecoregional research priorities;· it provides a means to test new mechanisms for coordinated funding of inter-centre activities;
· it could be more cost-effective than options 1 and 2;
· it avoids duplication of efforts and monitors the interaction with national systems;
· it might well be possible to begin implementation as part of the current MTP process.
Disadvantages:
· it would restrict considerably centres' freedom to plan and implement ecoregional activities on their own initiative;· centres might not develop a strong sense of ownership of the overall ecoregional approach.
OPTION 4: Systemwide Model
108 Under this model, TAC and the CGIAR would proceed along the lines proposed in TAC's 1990 paper 'A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR' to redefine centre responsibilities across the whole system. This would permit a more rational and structured implementation of the ecoregional approach, and would necessitate a much sharper delineation of global and ecoregional responsibilities. To this end, TAC would continue its process of analysis, and propose responsibilities for ecoregional modalities, taking into account the report of the Working Group, centre planning documents, and the CGIAR medium- and long-term visions of the future.
Advantages:
· clear division of responsibilities among centres;· a more transparent transition to the system's view of its future;
· a more cohesive vision of priorities for the system.
Disadvantages:
· there would be no short-term resolution of the issue of how to introduce ecoregional activities into the system, unless this option was combined with one of the others;· in a climate of continuing pressure on centres to adjust to serious funding constraints it could undermine morale and confidence in the system.
Conclusions
109 While TAC is convinced of the need for a strong input into systemwide strategies by the centre directors, it is also concerned about leaving the implementation of the ecoregional approach entirely to 'the market'. There needs to be an orderly evolution towards greater coherence and rationalization in the system as a whole, so that the route to the CGIAR's vision of the future is more clearly mapped. TAC sees merit in option 3 while recognizing the longer-term attractiveness of moving towards option 4. Whichever option is adopted, TAC believes that periodic monitoring of progress will be of the utmost importance.
110 TAC considers that it is important to get the views of the different stakeholders, particularly of national research systems, on the ecoregional approach to research. The implementation of the ecoregional concept is based on a highly participatory process and the early involvement of NARS will be crucial to the success of the ecoregional initiatives.
111 The Chair recalled that, at the 1987 Mid-Term Meeting in Montpellier, the CGIAR had agreed with TAC's proposal to undertake a series of inter-centre commodity reviews. In pursuance of this accord, TAC had scheduled a review of rice research in the CGIAR to be conducted simultaneously with the IRRI and WARDA external reviews (late 1992 and early 1993), under the leadership of Professor Grant Scobie of the University of Waikato, New Zealand.
112 In introducing the report, Prof. Scobie noted that the task of the Panel had been daunting, given its mandate and the terms of reference of the Inter-Centre Review of Rice, and the limited amount of time available. He acknowledged the support of national research systems, the centres involved, the review teams of both IRRI and WARDA, the TAC Secretariat, and of several resource persons.
113 Prof. Scobie gave an overview of the rice situation. He stated that 3 central themes cut across considerations on allocating resources to rice research; efficiency, equity and sustainability. Rice was the most important crop in the world and the overwhelming share of the output was produced and consumed in Asia. Over the next forty years, rice output would have to more than double to meet demand, most of which would come from Asia. Increases in output would have to come from yield increases, since there was limited scope for increasing the area sown to rice. In many intensive rice-cultivating systems, factor productivity appeared to be declining and there were major threats to the long-term sustainability of rice-farming systems.
114 Past investments in rice research have had a major impact on rice production, particularly in the more favourable areas. The CGIAR was a significant but minor actor, accounting for only 6% of global public-sector investment in rice research in developing countries. The rate of return on CGIAR investment had been substantial. However, the increased stringency in funding required optimal allocation of the limited resources. Over 90% of the extra demand for rice by 2030 would come from Asia, from some of the world's poorest people; yet Asia accounted for only 65% of CGIAR core research expenditure for rice research, while more than 21% of CGIAR resources was allocated to sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which accounted for only 4% of total demand predicted for 2030. The effects of increasing rice production on poverty in Asia and West Africa had also been considered.
115 The major themes in rice research were raising the yield ceiling, closing the yield gap and sustaining current yields. The Panel had developed estimates of the increases in area and yield which would be necessary to ensure that future output matched projected need. The results were indicative only and were available on the regional, ecosystem and research-theme basis. The Panel had estimated research intensity in terms of CGIAR regional allocation per tonne of raw rice production. Overall, Asia received 6 US cents/tonne. West Asia-North Africa (WANA) 19 cents/tonne, Latin America 23 cents/tonne, SSA 110 cents/tonne of which West Africa accounted for 150 cents/ton. While the Panel acknowledged that there was no presumption that intensity of research funding should be uniform across all ecosystems and regions, it considered that disparities of the magnitude observed raised serious doubts about the current regional balance of CGIAR investments in rice research. The Panel had also analysed the growth in the annual rate of output in SSA which would be necessary to make the returns on investment from CGIAR funding equal to those currently achieved in Asia. The rate of growth needed would be impossible to sustain based on projected levels of demand. In addition to the regional imbalance, the analyses had suggested that the CGIAR was over-investing in research on upland areas and rainfed lowlands. The Panel therefore recommended that CGIAR resources should be reallocated in favour of Asia and irrigated areas.
116 The Chair thanked Prof. Scobie for a clear, well-written and analytical report. He recalled that the Panel had been asked to take a global look at CGIAR investments. He asked TAC members to limit their discussion to technical matters since considerations related to the efficiency of individual institutions were beyond the mandate of the Panel.
117 The discussion was opened by Dr. Ted Henzell, who complimented Prof. Scobie and his Panel for a very useful report and an excellent summary of the world of rice. He felt that the Panel could have given greater consideration to issues associated with the management of natural resources and environmental degradation in relation to rice-based farming systems. In referring to the Panel's statement that the CGIAR was over-funding research in the uplands, Dr. Henzell recalled that these areas were environmentally sensitive in that there were strong sustainability arguments for over-emphasizing their needs.
118 Dr. Henri Carsalade, Chairman of WARDA's Board of Trustees, stated that he appreciated the eloquent presentation and the economic analysis provided in the report, and the global importance given to rice research in developing countries. However, he expressed concern about the implications of the report for WARDA, which was operating in a climate of uncertainty. He recalled the CGIAR's decision in 1986 to support WARDA and drew attention to WARDA's very specific institutional organization based on an intergovernmental council. A change in arrangements could not be made without negotiations with the governments concerned. He also recalled that the WARDA EPMR had noted that the gains from a merger with IITA would be only marginal. Finally, he considered that the approach taken by Prof. Scobie's Panel was based too much on a simple congruence analysis.
119 Dr. Eugene Terry, Director General of WARDA, had provided a detailed written submission to TAC on WARDA's response to the review. WARDA felt that the Panel's analysis had placed too much emphasis on efficiency issues while other factors had not been adequately taken into account. In his view, the Panel had excluded considerations with respect to rice research expenditures by NARS and the availability of alternative sources of supply. He also noted that SSA would remain a major importer of rice for the foreseeable future and that, by the year 2015, there would be more Africans living in poverty than Asians. There was need to develop a capacity for rice research in national systems rather than creating dependency.
120 Dr. Walter Falcon, Chairman of the IRRI Board of Trustees, agreed with the Panel's report. He considered that it was a hard time for the CGIAR in the light of projected funding constraints and that tough decisions had to be made. He emphasized the Panel's calculation that no set of modifiers could justify the present allocation of CGIAR resources to rice research in West Africa. Consequently, IRRI supported the thrusts of the major conclusions of the report.
121 Dr. Gustavo Nores, Director General of CIAT, congratulated the Panel for a very well-written report. He acknowledged that it had been necessary for the Panel to take a global perspective, but from the regions, some of the issues looked different. In his view, future yield gains would be much larger in Latin America than in Asia, and recent evidence had shown that there were far more poor in Latin America than had been indicated in the Panel's report. He also cautioned against generalizations with respect to upland rice and he noted that the slash-and-burn production systems of Asia were very different to those of Latin America.
122 Dr. Pedro Sanchez, Director General of ICRAF, stressed the importance of rice in upland cropping systems. He felt that research on upland cropping systems was more important than just increasing the supply of rice, and he asked for more information on the future of flooded rice.
123 TAC members were generally complimentary about the report, but recalled the equity and sustainability arguments that could partly justify the apparent current misallocation of CGIAR resources. There was an appeal that the rice discussion should not degenerate into an Asia-versus-Africa debate, since research was needed in both regions. However, questions were raised as to how much of the CGIAR funds for SSA should be allocated to rice research. It was noted that WARDA's work was not confined to rice research but extended to the rice-based cropping systems. The difficulty of estimating investments in rice research rather than in integrated cropping systems was highlighted. In this respect, it was felt there was a need for an analysis of the capacity of the NARS to undertake rice research. It was noted that the CGIAR had to complement national funds rather than substitute for them and that the CGIAR's advantage was in conducting upstream research.
124 A donor representative raised a question on how much of the effort on rice research in West Africa should be paid for by CGIAR funds. It was noted that, historically, WARDA had tapped a diverse source of funds, but support from within the region had declined rapidly. Other donor representatives referred to the positive outcome of the EPMR of WARDA, the favourable experiences with WARDA's institutional model, and the need to improve inter-centre coordination. It was also noted that a global perspective could be different from regional perspectives.
125 In his response, Prof. Scobie reiterated that the Panel had been asked to take a global look at the allocation of CGIAR funds to rice research. Close attention had therefore been given to the opportunity costs, and the Panel had tried to identify where the CGIAR would gain the greatest payoff from investment of its limited resources. He recalled studies made at CIAT about the equity effects of investment in rice research, and which had shown that lower consumer prices of rice through technological innovations had led to substantial improvement in the welfare of the urban poor. He disagreed with the notion that the Panel's analysis was based only on a simple congruence analysis, and he reported that the Panel had carefully considered different factors involved in rice research and had used several approaches in their analysis.
126 In response to a criticism that insufficient consideration had been given to differences in investments by NARS in rice research, Prof. Scobie noted that such data were not available, and could not have been accessed within the time available to the Panel. He also raised the question of whether NARS in SSA were generally or specifically weak in rice research. If the objective of the CGIAR was to strengthen NARS, he considered that investment in rice research was probably not the most appropriate vehicle. Regarding the comment that the Panel should have looked at cropping systems rather than rice research only, Prof. Scobie recalled that, while from a resource management point of view it would have been a correct approach, this would have been beyond the Panel's mandate.
127 In closing the discussion, the Chair extended his compliments to Prof. Scobie and his Panel for an excellent review of CGIAR investment in rice research, which put the issues involved squarely on the table. He acknowledged that the global perspective was very different from the regional or centre perspectives, and each had a bearing on the debate.
128 Rather than providing a specific commentary on the report of the review, TAC prepared the following draft strategy statement on rice research in the CGIAR:
DRAFT STRATEGY STATEMENT ON RICE RESEARCH IN THE CGIAR
129 Rice is the most important food crop in the world and is the major staple for 2.7 billion people in Asia alone. Over 90% of rice is produced and consumed in Asia. Rice is a minor crop in developed countries which account for less than 5% of global production. International trade in rice is relatively insignificant as almost all the rice is consumed in the country in which it is produced.
130 Global demand for rice is projected to grow at rates at least equal to population growth rates and by the year 2030 the amount of rice needed will be more than double present output. At the same time, there is limited scope for increasing the net area sown to rice, especially in Asia. In most rice growing regions, the area of irrigated land cannot be expanded greatly, either because water resources are limited or the required investments in new schemes are not likely to be made. Productivity improvement, including more efficient use of water, will have to be the dominant source of output growth during the next 4 decades.
131 The rate of growth of rice yields in the highest yielding areas of Asia has slowed down, there is evidence of declining factor productivity in irrigated rice systems and in some intensively managed systems there is even evidence of yield decline. Yet, to meet the future global demand, yields will need to virtually double. This represents a major scientific and policy challenge.
132 Significant growth in research expenditures of national programmes, together with strong international and bilateral support, has been a major factor in increasing output in the last 3 decades. Modem varieties developed from focused research efforts have spread to more than 50% of the world's rice area and have allowed for an increase in rice production which was sufficient to feed about 600 million more people.
133 The CGIAR accounts for approximately 6% of public-sector investment in rice research for developing countries. Although the CGIAR is a relatively small actor, it has contributed significantly to the stock of knowledge and human capital in rice science. The rate of return on this investment has been substantial. The CGIAR currently allocates just under US$40 million annually to rice research, representing approximately 19% of the system's core resources allocated to commodity research. This share is largely congruent with the share of rice in the overall value of production of agricultural commodities. The growth of both national and international funding of research appears to have slowed down in the 1980s, and in recent years, real investment in rice research may well have declined. This reinforces the need for increased efficiency of resource allocation.
134 There are 3 major themes in international rice research to which the CGIAR must make a major contribution: (i) raise the yield ceiling, which has not increased significantly since IR8 was released in 1966; (ii) close the yield gaps between potential yields and those achieved in farming practice; and, (iii) sustain current yields - sustainability issues include the problems of the less-favourable rainfed environments where rice is an important component of cropping systems, as well as those of yield decline in intensive irrigated systems. In addition, the CGIAR should contribute to building national research capacity to complement its research activities.
135 Of the extra output of rice to be produced by the year 2030, 91.3% will be needed in Asia, 3.8% in sub-Saharan Africa, 3.8% in Latin America and 1.1% in West Asia and North Africa (WANA). The CGIAR currently allocates 65.6% of core expenditures for rice improvement research to Asia, 21.4% to sub-Saharan Africa (17.1% to West Africa), 10.7% to Latin America and the Caribbean, and 2.3% to WANA.
136 Rice is grown in 4 major production environments or 'ecosystems' which have been broadly defined on the basis of water regime: irrigated areas, accounting for 71% of rice output, rainfed lowlands for 19%, uplands for 7% and deepwater/tidal areas for 4%. By 2030, 70.1% of increased output will have to be generated by the irrigated areas which currently account for 42.7% of CGIAR core research expenditures, 20.8% by the rainfed lowlands which currently account for 24.9% of CGIAR core expenditures, 6.3% by the uplands which account for 21.5% of expenditures and 2.9% by deepwater/tidal areas which account for 10.9% of CGIAR core expenditures.
137 In view of the magnitude of the challenge faced by the CGIAR, and the high rates of return on its investments in rice research, TAC recommends that the global share of CGIAR funding for rice research should not be reduced.
138 TAC considered the wide variation between regions in intensity of rice research. On the basis of modified congruence, the CGIAR appears to be under-investing in priority areas of Asia and over-investing in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in West Africa. The relative allocation to Latin America and the Caribbean and to WANA appears to be about right. TAC believes that a congruence analysis provides a useful input into the process of setting research priorities but that other factors such as potential for payoff to research, differential capacities of NARS to complement the work of the CGIAR, chances of success, need for a minimum critical mass and advantage of the CGIAR also need to be taken into account.
139 TAC gave careful consideration to the future needs and opportunities for rice research in West Africa. While TAC reiterates its earlier views that on straight economic grounds, there is not a good case for the present level of CGIAR expenditures on rice research in West Africa, it also took into account the projected need for research on the environmental problems of important upland farming systems of West Africa in which rice is a significant component. TAC also reiterates its views expressed in the 1992 paper 'Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies' that, given the CGIAR's decision to support a major upland rice improvement effort in West Africa, it recommended a minimum effort in terms of senior staff years in order to have a reasonable chance of success. On the basis of a number of indicators, an appropriate programme level might be in the order of around $3 million in constant 1992 US dollars per year, which is substantially less than the amount currently being allocated. Such a programme would continue to provide core funding for research in West Africa to breed rice for local adaptation (with strong links to IRRI's work on germplasm improvement), and for the work on the sustainability of important rice-based farming systems. Given the increasing overlap in activities in West Africa between IITA and WARDA, TAC recommends an integrated programme of resource management research between these Centres covering at least the inland valley ecosystem of West Africa.
140 TAC supports the current regional mandates of CIAT for Latin America and the Caribbean, and WARDA for West Africa. In Asia, WANA, and in Eastern and Southern Africa (including Madagascar), IRRI has assumed regional responsibility. Coverage of regional rice research needs appears to be satisfactory.
141 TAC has also considered the apparent imbalance in allocation of resources by rice ecosystem. The Committee reiterates its earlier observation that a congruence analysis provides only one input into the priority-setting process, and that ecosystem, sustainability, equity and researchability arguments are also very important. Nevertheless, TAC considers that, at the system level, the CGIAR may be over-investing in the rainfed lowlands and uplands. This issue may, however, warrant further consideration.
142 The centres engaged in rice improvement research are IRRI, WARDA and CIAT. IITA has transferred its rice improvement activities to WARDA, and still provides a base for the International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice (INGER) in Africa, and for WARDA's lowland rice breeding, as well as having responsibility for resource management research in the inland valleys which is also a major focus of WARDA's work. Other aspects of rice research are carried out by IBPGR (genetic resources), IFPRI (policy research), IIMI (irrigation), and ISNAR (research management). IRRI plays a global role in germplasm conservation, enhancement and breeding (including INGER) and an appropriate regional role in Asia, WANA and Eastern and Southern Africa.
143 TAC notes with concern the weakened capacity of some NARS engaged in rice research, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. One of the basic assumptions of the CGIAR is that stronger NARS should take a greater complementary role in the global research system. The solution appears to have more to do with public policy, funding and research management than with the organization of commodity and ecoregional research. This could have important implications for the future role of the CGIAR centres in institution-building activities.
144 In its deliberations on the future of WARDA, TAC has faced a dilemma. The report of the Inter-Centre Review of Rice has served largely to reinforce TAC's own assessment of priorities for rice research. Consequently, if TAC applies the same rigour to rice research in West Africa which it has applied throughout its priority-setting exercise, the Committee could not support a case for funding WARDA at the level required to make it a viable rice research institute.
145 At the same time, TAC cannot escape the consequences of the policy decision taken by the CGIAR with respect to WARDA in 1986, a decision that was based on considerations in addition to priorities for rice research. Both TAC and WARDA have responded to the Group's wish to help WARDA to transform itself into a well-managed institute doing research of high quality. The report of the EPMR confirms that this has been achieved. Furthermore, as already indicated, WARDA will continue to play a major role in conducting research on the sustainability of important rice-based farming systems in West Africa. TAC is, therefore, not prepared to recommend any further reduction in core funding for WARDA.
146 On the basis of the above analysis, TAC finds no compelling reason at this time to adjust the level of the resource envelope which it assigned to WARDA in the medium-term planning process for the period 1994-1998. During this next quinquennium, WARDA should be encouraged to explore ways of widening its sources of funds for research on major components (including, for example, vegetables) of rice-based farming systems in West Africa. Attention should be given to sources outside the CGIAR, especially from countries in the region. Over the ensuing 5 years (1999-2003), CGIAR funding would be determined on the basis of the next review of CGIAR priorities and strategies, the report of which is due in 1997, and should be at a level appropriate to WARDA's contribution to CGIAR priorities.
147 The implications of TAC's recommendations on CGIAR priorities and strategies for rice research for resource allocation will be considered within the framework of the medium-term resource allocation process. TAC agrees in principle with an increased allocation of resources for rice research in Asia, as it had already indicated in the 1992 review of CGIAR priorities and strategies. The Committee hopes that such a resource shift can be obtained partly by transferring a greater share of responsibilities currently assumed by IRRI to national research systems in Asia.
148 The Chair recalled that this was the first external review of ICRAF since its admission to the CGIAR in 1991. He noted that the review was commissioned by TAC in June 1991 and was led by Dr. Bernard Tinker of the United Kingdom. He welcomed Dr. Tinker and the delegation from ICRAF; Dr. George Holmes, Chair of the Board, Dr. Pedro Sanchez, Director General, and Mr. Bruce Scott, Deputy Director General, before asking Dr. Tinker to present his report to TAC.
149 Dr. Tinker praised the cooperation of ICRAF's Board, management and staff at all levels during the review. He stated that ICRAF was in a state of rapid change; since 1991 many positive changes had occurred in the structure and orientation of research, staffing and the overall strategies of the Centre, and some of these changes took place while the review was in progress. In the Panel's view, there was a distinct difference between the old and the new ICRAF; promotion of agroforestry philosophy had been replaced by penetrating research.
150 In spite of the impressive progress made, Dr. Tinker said that the Panel was not altogether happy about ICRAF's priority-setting procedure, the monitoring and evaluation of programmes, a lack of clarity in the management structure, the insufficient documentation of research guidelines and the lack of emphasis on publications in refereed journals. The Panel felt that, if further expansion of ICRAF was too rapid, the quality of science would be endangered.
151 Dr. Tinker gave a brief summary of ICRAF's programmes. He highlighted the need for additional socioeconomic expertise in Programme 1: Environmental and economic characterization of land use systems. He reported that high quality research was in progress in Programme 3: Component interactions. ICRAF's training and information services enjoyed a very good reputation among NARS, though increasing emphasis should be given to the dissemination of technologies developed by the Centre.
152 Dr. Tinker reported that the Panel had been impressed by the management and governance of the Centre. There was, however, a need for greater delegation of authority in decision making. Although the Panel had recommended that the position of Director of Research be upgraded to Deputy Director General, Dr. Tinker reported that he was aware of the financial constraints which might impede the immediate implementation of that recommendation. The Panel had also recommended that the research support service should be strengthened by the recruitment of an additional biometrician. Other recommendations concerned the need to develop a financial strategy and investment policy for the Centre, devolution of country-level agroforestry research to NARS, and the need to develop a mechanism for collaboration between CIFOR and ICRAF as soon as possible.
153 In concluding his presentation, Dr. Tinker stated that ICRAF had a good programme, maintained active contacts with NARS, was doing well in transforming itself into a science-oriented organization and had a good chance of success.
154 Dr. Holmes expressed his gratitude to the Panel for a good report. In spite of the high demands placed on ICRAF's Board, management and staff, the review exercise had been enjoyable and steps were already being taken to implement many of the recommendations. He felt that the report was positive and helpful. Contrary to anxieties and foreboding prior to the exercise, the review had given strong support for the Centre's collaborative programmes, had particularly commended the relationships with NARS, had raised the staff morale, and had reinforced the credibility of ICRAF as an international research centre.
155 Dr. Holmes agreed with the comments on the planning process and indicated that the system of priority setting, monitoring and evaluation was being reviewed. He stated that ICRAF was taking great care to ensure that there would be no erosion of scientific quality during the period of expansion, and agreed that the development of a sound science culture was very important. Complementarity with CIFOR was being actively pursued; the Boards and the Directors General of both Centres had initiated contacts, and joint programmes were under consideration.
156 The discussion was opened by Dr. Hans Gregersen, TAC Liaison Scientist for ICRAF, who applauded ICRAF's joint programme with NARS. He asked for clarification on ICRAF's involvement in the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiative, with special regard to its relationships with the core programme of the Centre.
157 Another TAC member welcomed the emphasis on indigenous tree species, but cautioned that ICRAF should not expect rapid results in its breeding programmes. Other TAC members sought clarification on ICRAF's cooperation with ILCA on fodder tree species, the types of databases being developed, ecoregional initiatives in the East African highlands, site-specificity of agroforestry technologies, ICRAF's strategy in avoiding overlaps with the tree research programmes of older centres like IITA, ICARDA and CIAT, and the cooperation between ICRAF and ILCA on the development of fodder banks.
158 In his response, Dr. Pedro Sanchez stressed that ICRAF was determined not to compromise the quality of its research by making hasty appointments. He indicated some of the measures already taken to implement the recommendations of the Panel, including the setting up of a Research Coordination Committee comprising programme leaders, the development of research implementation guidelines, the establishment of a project register for monitoring purposes, the employment of a coordinator for Programme 1 and the redesignation of the former Director of Research as Coordinator of Programme 4. The search for a new Director of Research was underway.
159 Dr. Sanchez stated that a committee which had been set up to review alley cropping had found that agronomic improvements occurred only in a few cases and stringent conditions were required for success. He stated that ICRAF was eager to work with other centres to avoid a duplication of effort, and he gave several examples of collaborative projects in progress or under preparation. He stated, however, that ICRAF was very selective in signing memoranda of understanding with prospective collaborators.
160 After further consideration, TAC offered the following commentary with inputs on management aspects from the CGIAR Secretariat:
TAC COMMENTARY ON THE EXTERNAL REVIEW OF ICRAF
161 TAC is grateful to the Chair and members of the EPMR Panel for a comprehensive evaluation of ICRAF. The Committee is pleased with the forward-looking nature of the report; it is balanced, critical and yet constructively positive. The Panel identified a number of crucial issues facing ICRAF in the management of its transformation from an information to a strategic research centre. TAC is generally in agreement with the Panel's recommendations and offers the following commentary to supplement the Panel's report.
Scientific Quality
162 TAC reiterates the Panel's concern that the rationalization and consolidation of ICRAF's existing work programmes in Africa, and the expansion into Latin America and Southeast Asia under the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiative will involve a heavy input of staff and management time. Hasty staff recruitment may lead to a dilution of scientific quality at a time when ICRAF needs to maintain the momentum in developing high-quality science in its research programmes. TAC also agrees with the Panel that the relative lack of extensive and dependable experimental results and fully-proven technologies has become a handicap in agroforestry. There is a need for research to validate agroforestry technologies before wide dissemination.
Collaboration
163 TAC concurs with the Panel's view that ICRAF should seek and maintain collaboration with other relevant centres and NARS to ensure complementarity and avoid duplications, particularly in its multipurpose tree germplasm research. The Committee notes that ICRAF is selective and confines its collaboration to organizations which provide mutual advantages in the context of ICRAF's mandate and goals. TAC agrees with the Panel that such collaboration should include arrangements with advanced institutions to measure and analyse the indirect costs and benefits of agroforestry technologies, especially their impact on downstream activities. The Committee will follow with interest ICRAF's plans for developing links with scientists in national institutes and universities. ICRAF should also consider the potential impact of its expansion in collaboration with other organizations. TAC feels that ICRAF should be careful not to build up an image of being aggressive and expansionist, which the Panel cautioned against.
164 TAC supports the Panel's recommendation that ICRAF should establish early collaboration with CIFOR with the aim of clarifying responsibilities in areas of potential overlap. TAC notes the initial steps taken in this direction and will be monitoring the progress. The Committee also notes the assurances given at TAC 60 by the Directors General of ICRAF and CIFOR that their collaboration is progressing in a constructive fashion.
Tree Improvement and the Germplasm Resource Centre
165 TAC agrees with the Panel's suggestion that, since species evaluation and breeding activities involve expensive, long-term experiments, ICRAF should confine its work to priority problems and ensure that all experimental procedures, management and monitoring are of the highest quality. In particular, ICRAF should explore new rapid methods and experimental designs to evaluate tree traits of particular interest to agroforestry. It should consider limiting the number of species with which it will deal and decide how far its activities should be extended into fully-fledged tree breeding programmes. Moreover, TAC shares the Panel's concern about the high maintenance and operating costs of a large germplasm resource centre. ICRAF needs to consider carefully the implications of long-term funding, and should rely wherever possible on the cooperation of other relevant centres that already have an installed capacity. In this connection, TAC supports ICRAF's strategy to link up with germplasm acquisition and conservation in other CGIAR centres and NARS in order to achieve optimal utilization of resources. The mechanisms envisaged for effecting this collaboration need to be clarified.
Research-Planning Process
166 TAC agrees with the Panel's view that ICRAF should be more transparent in its priority-setting process and more systematic in programme planning, monitoring and evaluation. The Committee notes that ICRAF is in the process of developing a mechanism for implementing this recommendation. TAC supports the Panel's suggestion that ICRAF should produce a clearer statement of its perceived advantage.
Capacity in the Social Sciences
167 Development of viable agroforestry technologies and systems will depend on an understanding of both biophysical and socioeconomic constraints. It is not clear how ICRAF will achieve and maintain a balance and complementarity between the biophysical research and the socioeconomic and policy research. TAC supports ICRAF's action to increase its capacity in the social sciences. This will strengthen ICRAF's overall research and increase its ability to undertake strategic research on priority issues at both the policy and household level.
Research Output and Impact
168 In the long run, ICRAF will be judged by the impact of the quality of its research in alleviating poverty and improving the capacity of resource-poor farmers to function without degrading the environments, by the application of the agroforestry technologies developed.
Ecoregional Role
169 TAC finds the highlands and the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiatives to be interesting variations of the ecoregional approaches being developed within the CGIAR system and commends ICRAF's enterprise in these collaborative activities. TAC would like further clarification on how ICRAF will align and coordinate its activities with other programmes aiming at the same objectives (CIAT's forest margin initiatives and ILCA's East African highlands initiative, for example).
Training and Information
170 TAC commends ICRAF for the success of its training and information programmes, particularly its pioneering efforts to establish useful agroforestry databases. TAC agrees with the Panel's suggestion that the training and education programmes might be combined within the next 5 years.
Financial Management
171 TAC notes with satisfaction the reforms initiated by the Centre in the management of its finances.
172 The Chair introduced this item by recalling that, at MTM'91, the CGIAR had authorized TAC to experiment with external reviews with the objective of improving the review process. One of the approaches proposed by TAC was to mount an interim external review (IER) when there was a good case for extending the interval between successive external reviews of a centre. An IER panel would be much smaller than for a regular review and would be supported by a resource person from each of the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. CIMMYT was the first centre to undergo an IER.
173 Sir Ralph Riley, Chair of the IER Panel, presented the Panel's findings to TAC, in the presence of Drs. Burton Matthews and Donald Winkelmann, Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Director General of CIMMYT, respectively.
174 The IER Panel consisted of Sir Ralph Riley, who had also chaired the 1988 External Programme Review of CIMMYT, and one member. Its mandate was to undertake an independent appraisal of CIMMYT, focusing particularly on changes in strategic din ion, programmes, impact and management since the 1988 External Programme and Management Reviews. The Panel spent 10 days at CIMMYT's headquarters in Mexico and 4 days in Washington to complete its report.
175 Sir Ralph reported that the Panel found CIMMYT to be vigorous, well organized and efficiently managed. There had been a significant reduction in financial and human resources since the 1988 reviews, but management had handled the downscaling of activities and staff in a manner which maintained CIMMYT's reputation as an effective research and training institution. However, the Panel felt that further reductions in CIMMYT's budget would affect the Centre's viability.
176 The Panel found that CIMMYT had implemented most of the major recommendations made in the 1988 reviews, and had also given serious consideration to the few recommendations it had not fully implemented or accepted. The Panel noted that CIMMYT had adequately addressed problems pertaining to local staff, but was concerned that issues concerning international staff still required attention. Like other institutions, CIMMYT had to achieve a balance between the enthusiasm and fresh approaches of younger staff and the experience of older staff.
177 The quality of research at CIMMYT had improved significantly in the past 5 years, as demonstrated by the large number of publications, particularly from the Economics Programme, in refereed journals. CIMMYT had introduced a system of regular internally-managed external reviews in response to a recommendation in the 1988 reviews. The Panel found that these peer reviews had made a major contribution to CIMMYT's work, scientific quality and the relevance of the research programmes.
178 The research emphasis in CIMMYT's Wheat Programme was on yield potential and durable disease resistance. Sir Ralph reported the Panel's concern over the large proportion of research resources devoted to maintenance breeding in wheat. In the Maize Programme, greater attention had been given to germplasm development for hybrids and the production of genotypes with resistance to a range of insect pests, diseases and drought. The Economics Programme had oriented its activities towards strategic research, with the main focus on technology design and evaluation, priority setting and impact studies. The Panel had noted that structural changes in the programmes meant that decisions were now being made at a level nearer the hands-on researchers.
179 In the Panel's view, the state of CIMMYT's experiment stations continued to be a cause for concern, particularly for the long term, due to the shrinking water table and urbanization at El Batan, inadequate irrigation water and Karnal bunt at Cindad Obregon, and soil problems and declining yields at Tlatzapan. The Panel noted that the cause for yield decline at Tlatzapan had been successfully diagnosed and corrective measures were being implemented, and that water-use efficiency had been improved significantly at both El Batan and Cindad Obregon.
180 The effects of CIMMYT's research and related activities were now being monitored through impact studies conducted by the Economics Programme. The Panel found the impact of the Maize and Wheat Programmes to be impressive: about 50% of the area under maize and over 75% of the wheat varieties grown in developing countries include components of germplasm developed by CIMMYT.
181 The Panel had made 2 recommendations: that the Applied Molecular Biology Laboratory should be accorded the status of a programme, and that CIMMYT should make its commitment to the creation of a natural resources research (NRR) unit as soon as possible.
182 In his response, Dr. Matthews stated that the Board had not yet considered the report and had not, therefore, formulated a formal response. An interim response reflecting the view of management and staff was later presented by the Director General.
183 Dr. Matthews recalled that the Board and management had carefully considered all of the recommendations in the 1988 reviews. Subsequently, significant changes had been made in CIMMYT's research orientation, and the operations of the Board. The Board and management would consider the 1993 IER recommendations carefully. He stated that he found the internally-managed external reviews at CIMMYT to have also been very effective and useful. He welcomed the idea of an interim external review as a useful mechanism for centres like CIMMYT. He considered that the review had been very successful: not only was it shorter and less demanding on CIMMYT's Board, management and staff time, it was also much cheaper and almost as effective as a full review. He also felt that, given the positive outcome of the IER, the period before the next full review of CIMMYT could be extended.
184 Dr. Winkelmann reported that CIMMYT management and staff were greatly impressed by the IER team and its work and felt that the IER mechanism should be extended to other CGIAR centres. He stated that CIMMYT was generally in agreement with the report.
185 With regard to CIMMYT's relations with other organizations, Dr. Winkelmann reported that, in CIMMYT's view, there were good institutional relationships with IITA and IRRI. CIMMYT was aware of the diversity in NARS' capabilities and needs, and did not consider NARS' strength in its breeding strategies, though this is a departure from what is stated in the 1988 strategy document. CIMMYT still considers public-sector NARS as its main clients, but recognizes the importance of private sector and non-governmental organizations as collaborators in technology transfer.
186 Dr. Winkelmann emphasized the global importance of wheat and maize and contrasted this with the decline in CIMMYT's budget in recent years. CIMMYT was anxious to maintain the momentum of its past achievements while protecting the natural resource base, but a declining budget would make it very difficult to realize these objectives. He noted that the investment per senior staff year at CIMMYT had declined from US$250,000 during 1988-90 to $243,000 during 1991-93, and he asked for clarification of TAC's role in safeguarding productive centres.
187 Dr. Doris Calloway opened the debate by stating that the CGIAR should resolve its thinking about proprietary rights on genetically-manipulated germplasm. She considered that it may be possible for some basic breeding work to be contracted out to developing-country institutions, who would then hold proprietary rights on the products. Dr. Calloway also expressed concern about the condition of CIMMYT's experiment stations, which she felt reflected some of the problems being faced by farmers.
188 In the ensuing discussion, TAC members commended CIMMYT's record in plant breeding and its regional training programmes in crop management, which was considered to be an excellent example of centre-donor-regional cooperation and organization. Many of the questions from other TAC members and observers concerned the recommendations of the Panel; participants sought clarification from the Panel Chair on the rationale for promoting the Applied Molecular Biology Laboratory and expressed concern over the creation of an NRR unit. Some participants felt that, in establishing such a unit, CIMMYT might be distracted from its primary work, and they expressed their concern about the implications for other global centres. Others endorsed the idea of creating an NRR unit, since they felt that CIMMYT would be able to further its work on characterizing maize and wheat environments, which would enhance the targeting of its germplasm improvement work, but cautioned against a major involvement in this area. Further questions arose about the operational aspects of setting up an NRR unit, and whether the unit would be doing substantially different work, since it would be made up of staff already serving at the Centre.
189 Other questions raised during the discussion were concerned with whether CIMMYT's publications were reaching the public or the scientific community; the staff profile and the balance between experienced long-serving staff and enthusiastic younger staff; the management of outposted staff; and the need to address issues concerned with intellectual property rights, both inside and outside the CGIAR. One member questioned whether breeding maize hybrids which required higher levels of nitrogen was appropriate in the light of sustainability concerns.
190 Comments from the donors included the reflection that the interim review mechanism looked promising, thanks to a well-selected panel. One of the donors requested information on the status and future of CIMMYT's wheat genebank.
191 Sir Ralph responded to the questions raised, first addressing the concerns expressed by TAC members over the Panel's recommendations. With respect to the recommendation for the promotion of a separate biotechnology programme, he reminded TAC that CIMMYT's Economics Unit used to be small, but had been given the status of a programme. The Panel had felt that the promotion of the Applied Molecular Biology Laboratory was important on 2 counts; it was recognition of the excellent work being carried out by the Laboratory, and could enhance CIMMYT's image, since CIMMYT is known as an excellent crop improvement institute, but has less of a reputation as a scientific institute. The Panel had felt that the creation of an NRR unit would also be good for the Centre's image and that it would refocus some of the Centre's activities. He reported that CIMMYT was already looking at natural resources management in relation to breeding in the megaenvironments where maize or wheat dominate. He felt that the NRR unit would be carrying out substantially different work, despite being made up of staff from already-existing programmes, since the objectives of their research would have altered.
192 With respect to proprietary rights, Sir Ralph responded that the route of new maize hybrids to the farmer should be through parastatal organizations or private companies, and that the use of this route might reduce the demands on the Maize Programme. He reported that the general attitude to plant patents is that patented materials may be used in developing countries so long as there is no commercial conflict with the industrialized countries in which they were developed.
193 Addressing the deterioration of the experiment stations, Sir Ralph reported that improvements had been made at one of the stations and that, though the problems faced at the other stations were diverse, attempts were being made to rectify them.
194 With regard to staffing at CIMMYT, Sir Ralph stated that there were currently fewer opportunities for offering tenure to young staff due to the general cut-backs at the Centre. However, CIMMYT was conscious of the need to maintain a balance between its younger and more experienced staff. He reiterated that CIMMYT's support services had been trimmed back as much as possible. He stated that the Economics Programme was doing very pertinent work and that the amount of publication in the biological and social sciences had greatly increased since the last review, reflecting an increase in the disciplinary work.
195 As far as the breeding of maize hybrids with greater nitrogen requirements was concerned, he reported that the hybrids were targeted for favourable environments, much as the varieties developed and grown during the 'green revolution' had been. With respect to the wheat genebank, he reported that CIMMYT had accepted responsibility for spring wheat and triticale base collections, as per the recommendation of the 1988 Review Panel.
196 Dr. Winkelmann then responded to points raised in the discussion. With respect to the NRR unit, he reported that CIMMYT had invested years of research into the alleviation of environmental stresses on crops and therefore felt that they were well-placed to address issues alleviating the effects of crop management on the environment. He also recognized the complementarity for wheat and maize in NRR. He reported that CIMMYT's maize-breeding efforts were being conducted in the context of 28 out of the 35 maize megaenvironments, and the Centre felt that any advantages gained by addressing maize breeding in the last 7 megaenvironments would be lost in the dilution of research on the first 28.
197 As to whether the creation of an NRR unit would bring about substantive changes in the research, Dr. Winkelmann asserted that, although staff for the proposed NRR unit would be drawn from the current programmes, their scope would be broadened since they would be orientated and motivated by questions of natural resources rather than by crop management. The unit would not try to develop technology for every ecological niche, but would develop processes that were efficient in generating technology and become involved with demonstrating the new technology. He mentioned that the NRR unit would require GIS, and environment- and crop-modelling expertise, and would focus on natural resources management in collaboration with NARS. He stated that a task force was assessing the possible structure and management of an NRR unit.
198 Dr. Winkelmann was concerned that the condition of the experiment stations reflected badly on CIMMYT's attention to NRR. However, he reported that the problems at the stations were being addressed, and each station was using less-intensive farming methods.
199 With respect to staffing issues, Dr. Winkelmann reported that CIMMYT was aware of the need to maintain a balanced mix of older and younger professional staff, and that the average age of senior staff had remained fairly constant (44.1 in 1992/93 as compared with 43.6 in 1988). The Centre was also concerned about the lack of involvement of outreach staff, and the need to find opportunities for male and female staff, which was difficult in Mexico due to restrictions on employment for foreigners. The Centre was reluctant to rush into new solutions until it had assessed the problems properly, but had a system of staff groups which addressed such issues.
200 Dr. Winkelmann reported that CIMMYT was concerned about proprietary issues: while it was hoped that any improvements in plant germplasm benefit the farmers, there was disagreement over whether intellectual property should be freely given over to other institutions to develop, distribute and reap the financial benefits from, or whether the monies earned would be better spent if ploughed back into research at the institutes which had the intellectual property rights. He felt that the CGIAR needed to come to terms with the extent to which the system is willing to forgo income from centres for the benefit of national programmes who are in a position to sell it. He stressed that the issue of intellectual property rights was not confined to the CGIAR, but that the CGIAR could help clarify thinking on the matter by defining its stand.
201 On the issue of maize hybrids with higher nitrogen requirements, Dr. Winkelmann recalled that CIMMYT was also paying attention to increasing the efficiency of nitrogen utilization in improved maize germplasm. He also reported that an internally-managed review of the Wheat Programme had assessed the requirement for a wheat genebank, and CIMMYT was working with IBPGR on its design and development.
202 Following Dr. Winkelmann's response, the Chair invited comments on the IER process. He stated that external reviews should be achieved at a minimum cost to the system. Interim reviews were relatively cheap (about one-fifth to one-tenth in cost and time burden to a centre as a full review) and, he felt, could be used alternately with major reviews.
203 Dr. Selçuk Özgediz, from the CGIAR Secretariat, reported that this interim review would cost $30-40,000, excluding resource persons. He noted, however, that due to the limited scope of the review, certain aspects of CIMMYT's work had not been adequately covered. He stated that the success of this particular review had depended on the familiarity and extensive experience of the Panel Chair, the transparency of the Centre and the good, concise documentation it provided, a feeling that was echoed by Sir Ralph.
204 Dr. Winkelmann said that he felt that TAC, the CGIAR and CIMMYT had been well served by the interim review. Although he thought that CIMMYT could have learnt more and been more reassured by a larger and more in-depth review, he was not convinced that such an exercise would be worth the cost. He stated that he was more comfortable about the idea of an interim review for centres that had a good internal review process, and he recommended the use of interim reviews for other centres, unless there were particular circumstances which dictated that a full review was necessary. Dr. Matthews added that, in his opinion, a full review every 5 years was unnecessary for well-established and stable centres such as CIMMYT. However, he cautioned that interim reviews should be commissioned on a case-by-case basis.
205 The Chair concluded the item by thanking the participants and reporting that he would ask the CGIAR for advice with respect to extending the timing of CIMMYT's next major review.
206 After further discussion, TAC offered the following commentary:
TAC COMMENTARY ON THE INTERIM EXTERNAL REVIEW OF CIMMYT
207 In preparing its commentary on the Interim External Review (IER) report, TAC wishes to express its gratitude to the Panel Chairman, Sir Ralph Riley, and his team for an excellent report. The report provides a good appraisal of the Centre's strategy, programme achievements, impact and management. The Committee also thanks the management and staff of CIMMYT for facilitating the work of the Panel through their well-prepared and concise documents, spirit of collegiality and openness. Since the Board of Trustees of CIMMYT had not yet discussed the report, only an interim response of the Centre had been presented by the Board Chair and management.
208 TAC is pleased to note that CIMMYT has implemented most of the recommendations of the 1988 External Programme and Management Reviews. The Centre has provided convincing arguments in the cases of the few recommendations which it did not accept or implement in full. TAC offers the following comments, which incorporate the views of the CGIAR Secretariat on the management aspects.
209 CIMMYT has continued its commendable record of research achievements and impact. Disciplinary research has moved forward and scientific quality has improved, as demonstrated by the findings of the internally-managed external review panels and the large number of scientific papers published in refereed journals during the past 5 years. TAC fully endorses the positive assessment given by the IER Panel on the research programmes, and commends CIMMYT for the improvements made in scientific quality.
Strategy and Priorities
210 TAC notes that the strategic direction of CIMMYT has remained essentially unchanged, despite a significant decline in funding which necessitated a major reduction in the number of staff. TAC commends the Board and management for the way in which they handled the downsizing; by reassessing priorities within the context of CIMMYT's strategy. Changes were planned and evolutionary in nature, and CIMMYT has emerged with a more focused programme and streamlined organization. Overall, the staff support the decisions made. However, morale is somewhat shaken and there is anxiety over CIMMYT's future. Gaining strong commitment from staff during this time of change is a major leadership challenge.
Maintenance Breeding
211 TAC notes with some concern that, despite the recommendations in the 1988 External Programme Review that CIMMYT should increase strategic research on germplasm enhancement and reduce efforts in maintenance breeding, the Centre's MTP for 1994-98 projects a major investment of research resources in the bread wheat programme for maintenance breeding. The Committee endorses the suggestion made by the IER Panel that CIMMYT should consider contracting the research on maintenance breeding to some of the stronger NARS in developing countries. However, caution should be exercised to ensure that such contracts do not, in the long term, result in reduction of the national budgetary allocation to the NARS own, ongoing research.
Biotechnology and Natural Resources
212 The IER Panel made 2 recommendations relating respectively to the status of applied molecular biology and natural resources research at CIMMYT. Like the IER Panel, TAC commends the staff of the Applied Molecular Biology Laboratory for their high quality research and innovative approach to the application of molecular biology and tissue culture techniques to maize and wheat improvement. The Committee agrees with the IER Panel that research in molecular biology should be given greater visibility and a more prominent role within CIMMYT.
213 While TAC recognizes the need for CIMMYT to give due weight to its capacity in natural resources research, the Committee is also conscious of the need to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlap with the work of other institutions. In this context, TAC sees the need for CIMMYT to have the 'in-house' capacity to build bridges with other institutions in relation to the ecoregional approach, as well as to pursue those aspects of natural resources research that relate directly to its crop improvement programmes. TAC does not see a case, however, for CIMMYT to develop a major programme in natural resources research.
214 TAC urges the Board and management to determine how best to organize research on molecular biology and natural resources within the organizational structure of CIMMYT.
Research Management
215 CIMMYT has modified its research management structure and systems since 1988 in ways that appear well suited in general to its needs. The introduction of internally-commissioned external reviews and the development of 'milestone reviews' for scientists should add rigour to the planning and review of research. TAC encourages CIMMYT to maintain the practice of internally-managed external reviews, which are seen to be effective and useful. Research leadership and teamwork among scientists appear to be effective, although greater attention is needed to incorporate outreach staff into 'the team', particularly in areas of planning and review. TAC concurs with the Panel that management should include Programme Directors more in Centrewide priority-setting and resource-allocation processes, and that these processes should entail greater consideration of financial and cost-benefit analyses.
Financial and Human Resources Management
216 CIMMYT is in the process of introducing new financial and human resources information systems which should enhance management's decision-making capacity in diverse aspects of centrewide resource planning and management. CIMMYT's progress and innovative use of these systems should be of interest to the next external review of the Centre. That review may also revisit developments in the Personnel Office at CIMMYT. The Centre has given serious attention to concerns expressed in 1988 regarding national staff, but not all concerns of internationally-recruited staff have been satisfactorily resolved as yet.
Board of Trustees
217 The 1988 External Management Review recommended changes aimed at strengthening the Board's committee structure, operating procedures, and performance of its role and responsibilities. Based on a review of minutes and interviews with easily-accessible Board members, the IER Panel reported that improvements had been made in these areas and that the Board is providing effective governance. The next external review should pay additional attention to Board matters since the compressed IER schedule did not include participation by the Panel in a Board meeting.
The IER Process
218 The coverage of this IER of CIMMYT was more limited than a regular external programme and management review. However, in TAC's view, the broad issues facing CIMMYT have been identified and captured in the Panel's report. The direct cost of the review was about one-fifth of a regular review, and the indirect cost, in terms of time of Centre personnel, was also significantly lower. TAC would therefore encourage the CGIAR to continue experimenting with interim reviews for those centres that do not appear to require a major reorientation in their programmes or management.
CIMMYT's Next CGIAR External Review
219 CIMMYT's next regular external programme and management review is scheduled for 1995. Based on the outcome of this IER, TAC considers that the next full review of CIMMYT can be delayed until about 1998, unless there are major developments at the Centre to make an earlier review necessary. That review should follow up the recommendations, suggestions and issues raised in the 1993 IER, and should refer to the more comprehensive 1988 review reports.
IBPGR
ICARDA
ICLARM
ICRAF
IFPRI
ILCA
ILRAD
INIBAP
IRRI
WARDA
220 The IBPGR MTP proposals were introduced by the Board Chair, Dr. William Tossell, and presented by the Director, Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin, who was assisted by Mr. Dick van Sloten, Deputy Director, Dr. Masaru Iwanaga, Deputy Director-Programme, Mr. Chris Thurlow, Deputy Director - Finance and Administration, and Ms. Ruth Raymond, Public Awareness Specialist. Prof. Lauritz Holm-Nielsen, the Vice Chair of the Board, and Dr. Don Marshall, Chair of the Programme Committee, were also present at the meeting.
221 Dr. Tossell began his introduction by stating that the MTP had been written for the new International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), which IBPGR would become, and the new environment for plant genetic resources, which IPGRI would be positioned to deal with. The Plan had received the approval of the Board, management and staff, and was supported by a revised strategy.
222 In his presentation, Dr. Hawtin stressed that a global strategy for the sustainable conservation and use of plant genetic resources would require the commitment of the world community to safeguard the total diversity of useful plants. Conserved material had to be evaluated for the characteristics users wanted, and accessions had to be widely available. However, a trend was emerging towards greater restrictions on germplasm accessibility, and Dr. Hawtin felt this would ultimately benefit no-one. A key challenge was to assure cooperation at the national, regional and international levels, and to secure the resources required to develop and maintain an adequate conservation system. IBPGR recognized the importance of national programmes in a coordinated global effort that drew on IBPGR's advantage in providing scientific and technical expertise and information derived from a global overview of plant genetic resources, and a direct involvement in research.
223 For the MTP, IBPGR had translated its mission into 4 operational objectives which would be pursued in collaboration with partners:
· to assist countries, particularly developing nations, to assess and meet their needs for plant genetic resources conservation and to strengthen links to users (30% of core resources);· to strengthen and contribute to international collaboration in the conservation and use of plant genetic resources (20% of core);
· to develop and promote improved strategies and technologies for plant genetic resources conservation (30% of core); and
· to provide an information service on plant genetic resources (20% of core).
224 IBPGR would implement a coherent programme to fulfil these objectives through 5 regional and 3 thematic programme groups. The regional groups were; sub-Saharan Africa (with 26% of core resources), West Asia and North Africa (WANA) (22%), Asia, the Pacific and Oceania (26%), the Americas (22%) and Europe (4%). The thematic programme groups were; genetic diversity, germplasm maintenance and use, and documentation, information and training. Since plant genetic resources cross national and regional boundaries, their conservation had to be a truly global activity, and could not be confined to developing countries alone. In this context, IBPGR intended to allocate about 4% of its core resources to a regional programme in Europe in order to strengthen links and facilitate technology transfer between the extensive ex situ germplasm collections in Europe and the developing world, and to assist the management of plant genetic resources in Eastern Europe and the CIS. It was noted that IBPGR's regions were not entirely congruent geographically with those of TAC, except with respect to WANA and sub-Saharan Africa.
225 A detailed picture was presented of how IBPGR's regional, country and species/genepool priorities were set using aspects related to people and development, to technical aspects of genetic resources, and to global partnership as the major guiding principles. Collaborative arrangements with other CGIAR centres, FAO and other UN agencies, national and regional plant genetic resource programmes, NGOs and the private sector were also described.
226 The MTP was presented at a proposed core budget of US$9.2 million, i.e. 110% of the base envelope. This funding level would permit IBPGR to continue its 1993 programme. Three additional proposals were presented: forest genetic resources, biodiversity, in situ conservation, and ethnobotany (for $1.9 million per year); activities on crops of ecoregional importance ($1.2 million per year); and a coconut genetic resources network ($0.4 million per year).
227 A breakdown was given of resources by regional and thematic groups and by category of activity at funding of 110% of the base resource envelope. The budget for complementary activities would be approximately 50% of the core budget, and most of the special project funding would be utilized for contracting research out, for training, and for funding network activities. The basis for differentiating core and complementary activities was indicated.
228 The ensuing discussion was wide ranging, with the participation of many TAC members and observers. It was noted that the MTP proposals were clear and responded well to the recommendations of the 1991 EPMR. However, little progress was visible with regard to the recommendation of the EPMR concerning a CGIAR systemwide strategy for plant genetic resources and inter-centre collaboration. Clarification was sought on the critical mass for IBPGR, how enthusiasm, quality and credibility could be maintained, legal barriers to germplasm movement, and why the additional proposals on forest genetic resources and ecoregional crops were not included in the core base envelope. Questions were also raised on the policy and training role for IFPRI and ISNAR, IBPGR's role in forestry relative to the role of CIFOR, ICRAF and FAO, and the rationale for activity classification.
229 In their response, the IBPGR Board and management indicated that their activity classification incorporated dimensions of germplasm use and was a fair assessment of what IBPGR was trying to do. IBPGR was not sure how donors would react to the 4% of the core resources allocated to Europe, and TAC's endorsement would help donors who may be unsure about CGIAR's role in this area. It was IBPGR's strong expectation that new and additional core resources could be raised to support specific activities on biodiversity and genetic resources conservation, and to contribute to the implementation of Agenda 21. IBPGR was involved in an ongoing dialogue with FAO and other interested parties on forestry genetic resources, but it was not yet clear what its role would be in this area. The details of its research on socioeconomics and policy were being worked out in collaboration with IFPRI and others. Knowledge of the relationships of plant genetic resources with people was considered to be central to the effective management of the genetic resources, and IBPGR did not expect to intervene in any area without knowing the socioeconomic context. A member had been added to the Board to strengthen its capability in socioeconomics.
230 It was noted that the issues of critical mass and credibility were being addressed in several ways, including the recruitment of good scientists, and the location of regional staff in the field at CGIAR centres where work in strategic areas could be conducted in collaboration with the genetic resource units. With regard to the legal barriers to germplasm exchange, IBPGR was collaborating with UNEP to define the implications of the Biodiversity Convention, with the Centre Directors' Committee on Intellectual Property Rights to examine issues related to movement of genetic material, and with other CGIAR centres to address the implications of international collections held in trust.
231 During further discussion, TAC was provided with supplementary information on the implications of funding at 90 and 100% of the base resource envelope.
232 TAC then prepared the following interim commentary:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON IBPGR'S MTP
233 TAC commends IBPGR for the clarity of its MTP. IBPGR's proposals reflect the implementation of its strategic plan and its response to the recommendations of the third EPMR of IBPGR.
234 The MTP describes IBPGR's vision of the minimum core programme required to implement its revised strategy, as well as the additional work that would be undertaken under a number of more favourable funding scenarios. IBPGR proposes a core programme at the funding level of base +10%. The MTP contains 3 additional proposals: forest genetic resources, biodiversity, in situ conservation, and ethnobotany, which would require $1.9 million per year; activities on crops of ecoregional importance, for $1.2 million per year; and a coconut genetic resources network, for $0.4 million per year. TAC would like an elaboration of the implications of these additional proposals at the base envelope.
235 Because national boundaries are not relevant in the context of genetic resources, TAC supports IBPGR's policy of stimulating relevant activities throughout the world. In this context, TAC notes IBPGR's proposal to include in its core programmes a coordinator for activities in Europe. While much of the work in Europe would continue to be undertaken through resources provided by the participating countries, IBPGR considers that one core position, with appropriate support, will be essential to provide a base for developing this networking approach. IBPGR is particularly considering collaboration with countries in Eastern Europe and the CIS, where historic germplasm collections are under threat, and is interested in developing complementary programmes in this context.
236 TAC notes that, in the near future, IBPGR expects to work out the details of the research it intends to conduct on socioeconomics and policy. TAC would appreciate receiving these details as soon as they become available.
237 TAC notes that IBPGR's role in forestry relative to the role of CIFOR, ICRAF and FAO is under discussion by the parties concerned, and the Committee expects IBPGR to provide an elaboration on the issue in the near future.
System issue
238 TAC asks whether there is a case for considering a separate funding mechanism to facilitate action on a systemwide programme on plant genetic resources, what form it could take, and what role could IBPGR play in it.
239 Dr. Enrico Porceddu, Chair of the Board of Trustees of ICARDA, introduced the 1994-98 MTP document by recalling that ICARDA's current MTP was approved by TAC and the CGIAR in 1989. The Centre had hardly been halfway through the implementation of its MTP before it had to initiate preparations for the second round of MTPs. ICARDA had also been obliged to revisit its 1989 strategic plan because of recent changes in the CGIAR, West Asia and North Africa (WANA) and Central Asia, the most important of these changes being the expansion of the CGIAR; the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States from the former Soviet Union; the current political and economic climate in WANA; the 1992 TAC review of CGIAR priorities and strategies; and financial constraints in the CGIAR. ICARDA was faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, there was an exciting opportunity for ICARDA to widen its geographic scope and play a fuller ecoregional role. On the other hand, if the current financial constraints in the CGIAR, persisted, ICARDA may have to curtail its activities substantially.
240 Dr. Porceddu reported that ICARDA had developed its MTP proposals using planning workshops, among other approaches, to facilitate consultations with its major stakeholders, particularly the NARS of WANA, and establishing staff task forces to deal with specific thematic themes in which board members and outside research persons took part.
241 Dr. Nasrat Fadda, Director General of ICARDA, presented the MTP with the assistance of Dr. Aart van Schoonhoven, Deputy Director General of Research, Drs. Mohan Saxena and Michael Jones, Leaders of the Food Legume Improvement and the Farm Resources Management Programmes, and Mr. V. J. Sridharan, the Internal Auditor. Dr. Fadda gave an overview of the MTP proposals, stating that, while ICARDA had operated largely in an ecoregional mode from its inception, it had also pursued its global mandate for barley, lentils and, in earlier years, faba beans. If ICARDA were to assume a greater ecoregional role, it would not have to make major adjustments to its programmes and strategy.
242 Dr. Fadda briefly outlined the strategic context underpinning ICARDA's future activities by explaining the concept of self-sufficiency versus self-reliance in WANA; the ecoregional dimension of ICARDA in relation to agroecologies, activities, commodities, socioeconomics and links with other institutions; the impact on ICARDA's strategy, mandate and mission; and ICARDA's priorities and their resource implications. In setting its priorities, ICARDA first reviewed TAC's assessment of CGIAR priorities and resource allocation for the WANA region. This was followed by an internal exercise at the programme level. There was broad agreement between the ICARDA and TAC assessments of priorities. On the basis of identifiable SSY operations in the region, ICARDA felt that it should have received a greater share of the CGIAR resources allocated to WANA.
243 The MTP was structured along the major categories of CGIAR activities, as defined by TAC, with cross-references to ICARDA's programmes. The MTP proposals follow a project-budgeting approach based on a matrix of projects defined by CGIAR activities within ICARDA programmes. A total of 23 projects were proposed for the MTP period: 3 in conservation and management of natural resources; 9 in germplasm enhancement and breeding; 6 in production systems development and management; 3 in socioeconomics, public policy and public management; and 2 in institution building. The MTP proposals were presented at 2 levels of funding; the TAC-recommended base resource envelope (US$17.6 million) and 110% of the base resource envelope ($19.4 million).
244 The discussion that followed was led by Dr. Ken-Ichi Hayashi, TAC Liaison Scientist for ICARDA. He noted that ICARDA had incorporated into its MTP document the suggestions made by the TAC Working Party which had visited ICARDA in January 1993. He requested elaboration on the internal priority-setting exercise, with particular reference to priorities among programmes, ICARDA's perceived role in the Central Asian Republics, its concept of minimum critical mass, and the classification of core and complementary activities.
245 Other TAC members complimented ICARDA on the clarity of the MTP document and on the procedure used for setting priorities within programmes. They noted, however, that resource allocation for research support had not been indicated for each programme. Clarification was requested on how the project teams would work within the current programme structure, the role of ICARDA in irrigated agriculture relative to IIMI, and the implications for ICARDA's programmes and resources of a broadened geographical focus. Further questions were raised about the role of feed legumes in rotation, relations with the Central Asian Republics, the scope and funding of outreach activities, and the implications of playing a fuller ecoregional role in WANA. One TAC member wondered why, in spite of the TAC recommendation that ICARDA should phase out breeding for lentils, there was no mention of devolving this activity to NARS during the MTP period.
246 One of the observers wanted to know how ICARDA would assess the impact of its work. Another observer noted that, when ICARDA was established, there had been an expectation that it would attract substantial financial support from the region. Unhappily, this expectation had not been fulfilled and he was concerned about the low level of complementary funds which ICARDA was planning to raise during the MTP period. Given the projected financial constraints in the CGIAR, he wanted to know ICARDA's future financial strategies and the rationale for the low proportion of complementary activities in ICARDA's programmes. One member expressed concern that ICARDA appeared to have used scale, rather than the nature of activities, as the basis for distinguishing between core and complementary.
247 In response to the issues raised in the discussion, Dr. Fadda expressed his appreciation for the positive remarks and support by TAC members on the clarity of the document and the process followed in preparing the MTP proposals. He stated that the current programme structure would be maintained for administrative purposes. Priorities among programmes were predetermined by the Board and management. Links between ICARDA programmes would be achieved through the projects, many of which would draw on expertise from the programmes. The projects were seen as the mechanisms for change. He reported that the allocation of research support was proportional across the programmes, but was not shown for each programme in the MTP.
248 With respect to irrigation, ICARDA would collaborate with IIMI, but would limit its activities to water-saving techniques and conservation strategies, with the possibility of some work on water salinity. ICARDA would not work on water-home diseases since it had no particular advantage in this area.
249 Dr. Fadda reported that ICARDA had already collaborated with individual scientists and institutions in the Central Asian Republics, and would continue to do so. The Centre could make major contributions, through complementary activities, to the new republics which share similar ecologies with WANA. However, ICARDA had no plans for a physical presence in completely new areas.
250 Dr. Fadda stated that, in the longer term, ICARDA would devolve its lentil breeding activities and some aspects of the barley and durum wheat breeding activities to NARS, assuming the right conditions were satisfied. In this case, ICARDA intended to phase out its lentil germplasm enhancement and breeding activities in the long term, as recommended by TAC, but would maintain its germplasm collection and provide technical support.
251 ICARDA was fully committed to the ecoregional approach to research and was already working largely as an ecoregional centre. Dr. Fadda felt that, carried to its logical conclusion, ecoregionality implied that regional centres would act as executing agencies for other CGIAR centres.
252 All activities in ICARDA's MTP had been classified as core in the 1990-94 MTP. In this context, there was no sharp distinction between core and complementary. Any core activity which could not be funded under core had been transferred to the complementary category.
253 Regarding outreach activities, Dr. Fadda stated that the barley network for Latin America was hosted by CIMMYT, operated on core funds, and was unlikely to be expanded during the MTP period. ICARDA mostly supported collaborative activities with NARS in the WANA region from complementary funds, and sometimes advised NARS knowledge on where they could obtain funding. Some of these funds were held in trust by ICARDA for the NARS. In the light of the current and projected funding constraints, ICARDA would have to withdraw some of its staff in outreach to ensure critical mass at headquarters.
254 With respect to impact assessment, Dr. Fadda stated that over 130 improved varieties released by NARS in WANA and Latin America had been derived from ICARDA's germplasm improvement work. Impact studies conducted in Syria had shown that ICARDA-derived varieties, together with crop management practices and improved infrastructure, were contributing an income of over $250 million per year. ICARDA had also greatly influenced the policy environment for research and priority setting in the countries of WANA. Impact studies were continuing and should result in a more complete assessment of the contributions of the Centre's research.
255 Dr. Fadda ended his presentation by reporting that ICARDA had good relations with other CGIAR centres and organizations working in WANA, particularly with CIMMYT, ICRISAT and ISNAR. Cooperation during the MTP period was also envisaged with IFPRI on policy research and with IIMI on irrigation management.
256 In concluding the discussion, the Chair thanked ICARDA for a good MTP document which had generated a lot of discussion. He highlighted that ICARDA faced 3 main issues: the balance between decentralizing research through outreach activities and maintaining critical mass at headquarters under the projected financial constraints; the balance between core and complementary activities; and the inter-centre activities under resource constraints. He noted that activities which had been earmarked for reduced effort at low funding tended to be those for which ICARDA had joint responsibility with other centres.
257 In the light of the discussion, TAC prepared the following interim commentary on ICARDA's MTP:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON ICARDA'S MTP
258 TAC is pleased with the clarity of ICARDA's MTP proposals and the interactive process followed by ICARDA to develop the MTP. TAC notes that ICARDA has made significant reductions in senior staff positions since 1990 and will have to make further cuts during the MTP period, even if it were to be funded at 110% of the base resource envelope ($19.4 million). TAC would appreciate further clarification on whether the proposed staff cuts refer to approved positions that have remained vacant or to currently-filled positions. ICARDA should also elaborate on the programmatic implications of the projected cuts.
259 Recent developments in WANA and in the Central Asian Republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States, are likely to increase the demand for ICARDA's services and could broaden its geographical coverage. TAC would appreciate further clarification on the programmatic and resource implications for ICARDA of an expanded geographical focus.
260 TAC notes ICARDA's proposal to make a modest increase in the resources allocated to irrigation. In this regard, TAC would like to know the projected role of ICARDA in irrigation research relative to that of IIMI.
261 TAC recalls that, in its 1992 review of CGIAR priorities, it requested ICARDA to undertake an in-depth assessment of the potential payoff from further research on lentils. TAC had expected to consider the outcome of the assessment along with ICARDA's MTP, but when ICARDA presented its MTP it did not include the report of the study on lentil research. While the Committee notes that ICARDA has accepted phasing out of its work on lentil breeding in the medium term, it would still welcome an opportunity to discuss the report.
262 The classification of core and complementary activities at ICARDA appears to be based on the scale of the activity and sources of funding rather than on the nature of the activity. TAC would appreciate knowing the rationale for this and an indication of the proportion of complementary activities in ICARDA's total programme.
263 TAC notes that ICARDA holds a substantial amount of funds-in-trust, and derives a relatively large income from this as well as from special projects funds. It would be helpful if ICARDA could elaborate on the implications of these for its core programmes. TAC also notes that the World Bank's balancing contribution to ICARDA is being reduced. TAC would appreciate an indication of the consequences of this reduction for ICARDA's programmes. Finally, TAC would suggest that ICARDA presents its financial tables in 1992 constant dollars to be consistent with those of other centres.
264 ICLARM's MTP was presented by Dr. Ken MacKay, Director General, in the presence of Mr. Sten Sverdrup-Jensen, MTP Coordinator and Acting Head of Social Science, and Dr. Chua Thia-Eng, Director, National Research Support Programme. Dr. MacKay apologized for the absence of Dr. Peter Larkin, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, who could not attend the meeting.
265 In introducing the MTP, Dr. MacKay noted the importance of fisheries in developing countries and the challenges faced by research. He recalled the priority-setting mechanisms used to formulate ICLARM's strategic plan, which had been discussed at TAC 57. The guiding principles outlined in that strategy; sustainability, equity, gender, user participation and the systems approach had been applied in all research areas in the MTP. Dr. MacKay stated that ICLARM could play a major role in the implementation of the ecoregional approach to research.
266 ICLARM proposed 3 major research programmes: the Coastal Resource Systems Programme (CRSP); the Coral Reef Resource Systems Programme (CRRSP); and the Inland Aquatic Resource Systems Programme (IARSP). These programmes would be supported by the National Research Support Programme (NRSP) and the Information Division. The CRSP would focus on integrated coastal fisheries management, the dynamics of multispecies resources and the socioeconomics dimension of coastal fisheries. The CRRSP would aim at improving resource management and improving reef productivity. The IARSP would work on both fish productivity and integrated resources management. The NRSP was dealing with human resources development and activities related to strengthening national institutions. The Information Division had the responsibility for technical publication and dissemination, information services and information research (impact assessment). Substantial attention would be given during the MTP period to obtaining feedback on the impact of ICLARM's work on partners, clients and beneficiaries.
267 The proposal made by ICLARM required resources of US$10.7 million, 224% of the level of the base resource envelope assigned by TAC. ICLARM considered that TAC had under-estimated the level of the Centre's planned resource envelope, since the Centre's funding had been well above the level anticipated by the CGIAR Secretariat. Furthermore, because fisheries was a new activity in the CGIAR, TAC had not been able to make a rigorous priority analysis for fisheries similar to that made for agriculture.
268 The discussion was opened by Dr. Ted Henzell, TAC Liaison Scientist for ICLARM, who reported on the TAC Working Party's visit to the Centre. He expressed his appreciation for the goodwill and openness of the management and the Board during the visit, and complimented ICLARM on substantially clarifying the draft proposal since the visit. He asked how the proposed activities in the MTP differed from the Centre's current activities. Dr. Henzell noted that the challenge facing ICLARM was to demonstrate capability in international strategic research and to establish its credentials. ICLARM had to transform itself from what had been largely a donor-driven, compartmentalized research centre into an integrated international organization conducting strategic research. He asked how ICLARM could establish such credentials with the proposed rapid growth rates and front-end loading. He also asked for clarification on ICLARM's relations with advanced research institutes and the extent to which these were involved in the planning of collaborative research and in peer reviews.
269 In the lively discussion that followed, several TAC members noted that ICLARM was perhaps too ambitious and that its proposed growth rates were unrealistic. Endorsing the MTP at the proposed level, would mean that ICLARM alone would account for more than one third of the reserve fund available in the planning process for the entire CGIAR. It was also noted that relatively little information had been provided on activities at 100 and 110% of the resource envelope.
270 One TAC member considered that the discussion of links with NARS and other regional organizations was very weak. Clarification was requested on ICLARM's priority-setting mechanisms; the choice of Sierra Leone as a site for the establishment of an ICLARM subcentre; the importance of research on fish diseases and postharvest technology; collaboration with FAO, WARDA and IFPRI; the need for capital investments; and the opportunities for ICLARM to bring new sources of funds to the CGIAR.
271 The FAO representative pointed to a few problems of inconsistency in the MTP. He reported that, while in the past there had been a lot of overlap between the work of ICLARM and FAO, there was now closer collaboration, and FAO had been invited to be represented on the Board of Trustees.
272 In responding to the issues raised, Dr. MacKay explained the priority-setting mechanism which had been used in the strategic-planning exercise. The proposed MTP reflected the implementation of its strategic plan and involved a major transformation of ICLARM. He noted that ICLARM had a long history of collaboration with advanced research institutes. He acknowledged the current good relations with FAO, and the fact that the organization had been invited to appoint a member to ICLARM's Board. Collaboration with WARDA and IFPRI was under discussion. He noted that ICLARM particularly needed new capital facilities for research on inland aquaculture. For the time being, ICLARM would work with AIT (Asian Institute of Technology) in Bangkok, but in the longer term, there was no alternative but for ICLARM to have its own facilities. Sierra Leone was a project site only, and had not been considered for the establishment of a subcentre there. ICLARM was not involved in research on fish diseases and postharvest technology because it had no advantage in these areas.
273 In concluding the discussion, the Chair asked for the realistic minimum level of resources required for ICLARM to be viable, and he referred to TAC's recommendation that fisheries research should not be funded at the expense of ongoing agriculture research.
274 After further consideration, TAC developed the following commentary:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON ICLARM'S MTP
275 TAC considers ICLARM's MTP to be very ambitious but to reflect the implementation of its strategic plan, which was developed at the time of its admission into the CGIAR. The basic proposal would require resources at a level of 224% of the resource envelope assigned by TAC.
276 TAC requests additional information in time for consideration at TAC 61. The Plan should be accompanied by a summary of ICLARM's priority-setting mechanism and its results. TAC also requires greater clarity about how programme scenarios at different funding levels are linked to ICLARM's priority-setting mechanism. TAC would require more definitive, Board-approved information about ICLARM's programme at the level of the resource envelope and at 110% of this level. Additional confidential information is also sought on the 90% funding scenario.
277 The programmatic impact of different rates of staff growth needs to be considered by ICLARM. TAC is concerned about the rapid expansion of staff in the first few years of the MTP period, in terms of management of human and physical resources and the need for building high-quality research capacity. TAC requires additional information about the strategic context of the proposed research activities of both the Coral Reef and the Coastal Area Management Programmes, as raised in its commentary (paragraph 79 of TAC 57 report) on ICLARM's EPMR.
278 TAC notes that ICLARM intends to allocate approximately 27% of its resources to research on socioeconomics and policy research. TAC would require greater clarity about the nature, scope and content of this work. Greater clarity is also required with respect to the nature and content of the proposed collaboration with WARDA and IITA in the West African inland valleys. ICLARM should also provide additional information about the nature and modalities of its working relations with advanced research institutes.
279 TAC would appreciate an updated assessment from ICLARM of the prospects for increased core funding for CGIAR research on fisheries, in view of TAC's concern that fisheries research should not be funded at the expense of agricultural research. TAC requires additional information on ICLARM's financial strategies and on how the Centre intends to raise its funds.
280 ICRAF's MTP proposals were introduced by Dr. George Holmes, Chair of the Board of Trustees, and presented by Dr. Pedro Sanchez, Director General, in the presence of Mr. Bruce Scott, Deputy Director General, Dr. Ester Zulberti, Director of Training and Information, Mr. Michael Klass, Director of Finance and Administration, and Mr. David Brett, Public Affairs Officer.
281 Dr. Holmes stated that the Board had participated in the deliberations leading to the formulation of the MTP proposals and had provided comments on successive drafts. The planning process had involved all ICRAF scientists and had been consolidated by a working group comprised of the senior management staff of the Centre.
282 Dr. Sanchez noted that ICRAF had taken advantage of the presence of the members of the TAC Working Party and the EPMR Panel in refining various aspects of the MTP. Consultations for the planning process had been widespread, involving donors, NARS and other stakeholders. The MTP had been influenced by the recently-approved CGIAR priorities and had taken account of the global mandate assigned to the Centre on its admission into the CGIAR system.
283 ICRAF was proposing 23 projects organized in 7 programmes, which addressed characterization and impact; multipurpose-tree improvement; component interactions; systems improvement; training; education; and information. The MTP included details of the objectives, major activities, milestones and anticipated impact for each project, and provided justification for the allocation of resources. A major focus during the planning period would be the transformation of the agroforestry research networks for Africa (AFRENAs) into a component of ICRAF's worldwide ecoregional initiatives to include activities in Latin America and Southeast Asia. The Centre also proposed the establishment of a germplasm resource centre for multipurpose tree species, and would continue to lead the 'Integrated Natural Resources Research for the Highlands of East and Central Africa' and the 'Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Agriculture' initiatives. ICRAF's high rate of growth would continue up to 1994, but would level off during 1995-98.
284 In response to the issues identified in Agenda 21 of the UNCED, ICRAF had added a new dimension to its research agenda by spearheading major initiatives on integrated natural resources management research for the highlands of East and Central Africa, and on a global effort to seek alternative land-use practices for slash and bum agriculture. Dr. Sanchez stated that the MTP built on the foundation and philosophy set out in its strategic plan, with a clear emphasis on strategic research and the link between environmental and human equity issues.
285 In developing the programme of work, ICRAF had taken care to preserve the highly practical and collaborative approach which had worked well in the past, and had given special attention to continuing close working relations with NARS, NGOs and other CGIAR centres.
286 Financial tables were presented at 110% of the resource envelope and full budget details were provided for the Centre's 'preferred' scenario at 125% of the base envelope. Verbal information was given on the implications of funding at 90% of the resource envelope. Two alternative scenarios were presented for the base resource envelope (US$15.6 million), in which, either research in the semi-arid lowlands of West Africa (SALWA) and one education project would be phased out, or the core projects on research and dissemination, which are financed with unrestricted funds would be reduced.
287 The discussion was led by Dr. Hans Gregersen, TAC Liaison Scientist for ICRAF. He commended ICRAF for its lucid, concise and coherent document. He requested clarification on the mode of budgeting for the East and central African highlands and the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiatives. He also asked for information on how ICRAF had arrived at the alternative funding scenarios.
288 Other TAC members asked for clarification of the policy issues to be addressed in agroforestry, the contributions expected from collaborators in the alternatives to slash-and-burn initiative and ICRAF's research quality control mechanisms. Other questions were raised in relation to the timetable for the breeding research, the major changes from the 'old' to the 'new' ICRAF, how ICRAF would accomplish the numerous publications specified in its dissemination programme, and the low priority given to fuelwood in the selection of species for on-farm trials. One member wanted to know the criteria used for selecting fruit trees for on-farm trials, since some indigenous fruit trees such as Parkia biglobosa for the subhumid zone and Cola acuminata for the humid zone had been left out. Dr. Sanchez was asked whether any study was being undertaken on the Faidherbia/Rhizobium association, which might be of interest to ILCA and to NARS in the semi-arid zone of sub-Saharan Africa.
289 Caution was expressed that past claims for the efficacy of alley cropping were probably exaggerated and information was requested on ICRAF's arrangements for validating other well-known agroforestry technologies. One member was concerned that the results expected from the competition and nutrient management projects were optimistic in view of the fact that elucidating component interactions in single species trials was difficult, and the problem would be far more complex in multispecies trials. Another member referred to the elaborate nursery structure required for temperate fruit tree breeding and asked whether ICRAF had considered the nursery requirements for its tree breeding programme.
290 In his response, Dr. Sanchez stated that no special budgets had been earmarked in the MTP for the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture or the African highlands initiatives, since ICRAF's participation had been built into the 7 existing programmes. He argued that slash and bum agriculture was sustainable at low levels of production, but that migrants often destroyed large tracts of forest. With reference to the question on policy issues, he said that ICRAF's approach was to integrate policy with technology development. He then gave a brief explanation of how the alternative funding scenarios for 1998 had been derived.
291 With regard to the status of fuelwood, Dr. Sanchez said that priorities for agroforestry studies were determined by interaction with farmers, and fuelwood had not been ranked highly during the evaluation of multipurpose tree species. Referring to the question on the transformation of ICRAF, Dr. Sanchez reiterated that most of ICRAF's work was geared towards what was best for its client NARS; the emphasis was therefore on improving farming systems rather than inventing new systems. A big change in ICRAF's direction was the conversion from a regional to a global centre for agroforestry.
292 Dr. Sanchez believed that there would be no difficulty in meeting ICRAF's targets for publications. Many publications concerning the work of outposted and headquarters scientists were in the pipeline.
293 In response to comments on alley cropping, he said that many lessons were being learnt from the controversy generated by that technology. Although alley cropping had merits under special environmental conditions, it was not a panacea. However, with the strategic plan and an MTP in place, there would be greater scientific support for any future candidate agroforestry technology.
294 With respect to the expected results from the competition and nutrition management projects, Dr. Sanchez claimed that ICRAF scientists were even more optimistic than management, and the original list of milestones had in fact been scaled down. With regard to nursery requirements for the tree breeding programme, he stated that ICRAF was aware of the vital importance of nurseries. Nursery development and technology were major aspects of the project on characterization and impact.
295 In rounding up the discussion, Dr. Holmes said that ICRAF had gone through a detailed cross-examination. He asked TAC and the CGIAR to trust the Centre to deliver what was promised. He was confident of considerable pay-offs in ICRAF's work.
296 In concluding the discussion, the Chair said that a proven track record helped the credibility of a Centre and he stated that the onus was on ICRAF to demonstrate impact.
297 After further consideration, TAC offered the following commentary:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON ICRAF'S MTP
298 TAC commends ICRAF's Board and management for a well-written, concise and coherent MTP which reflects the transition of the Centre from one focused on information collection and dissemination to one involved in strategic and applied research.
299 The basic proposal that ICRAF submitted to TAC is based on 110% of the resource envelope. In addition, alternative scenarios were provided for funding at the base envelope level. The first 'Option A' would involve phasing out one agroecological zone (SALWA) and one education programme. The second 'Option B' would involve reducing the core programmes on research and dissemination which are funded with unrestricted funds. TAC notes that ICRAF prefers Option A, and the Committee agrees with this choice. ICRAF suggested that it would adopt a combination of options A and B to reach the 90% level of funding.
300 ICRAF has grown rapidly since its inception, and the MTP proposes to maintain this growth rate through 1994. During 1995-1998, a constant level of funding is planned. TAC is concerned about rapid expansion at a time when there is an urgent need for building depth and quality into ICRAF's existing research programme. There should be a relatively slow rate of growth in conformity with TAC's guidelines.
301 TAC agrees with ICRAF that there is need for research to validate agroforestry technologies. TAC also agrees that there should be a critical review of alley or hedgerow intercropping. Other technologies should be looked at in a similar fashion. This assignment should be given priority in ICRAF's work.
302 ICRAF's definition of core and complementary activities, and the division between restricted and unrestricted core funds require further clarification. For example, ICRAF needs to indicate more clearly how the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiative, particularly ICRAF's global coordinating role in this work, fits into the funding picture. At the same time, TAC would like to have more details on the initiative and the expected role of ICRAF in it over the medium term.
303 Recognizing that a fully-fledged breeding programme is a long and expensive undertaking, TAC is concerned about Project 2.3 (Tree Improvement), which includes all phases of tree breeding. TAC concurs with the EPMR Panel's suggestion that ICRAF's role in breeding should be to undertake strategic research on genetic variation, reproductive biology and vegetative propagation to assist NARS in devising strategies to produce good-quality germplasm for diffusion into farming systems. TAC notes that ICRAF is going to reconsider its promised milestones or outputs in this area. It may also need to give the same consideration to milestones indicated for other programmes.
304 TAC appreciates the assurance given by ICRAF in its MTP, and CIFOR, in its presentation to TAC 60, about the prospects for constructive cooperation between the institutes.
305 The MTP was introduced by Dr. Gerry Helleiner, Chair of the IFPRI Board of Trustees, and presented by Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General of IFPRI, in the presence of Dr. Curt Farrar, Director of Finance and Administration, and Dr. Peter Hazell, Director of the Environment and Production Technology Division.
306 Dr. Helleiner informed TAC about the sense of dynamism and confidence he perceived at IFPRI which he felt was due to the presence of a new Director General and 2 new Programme Directors, and which had been strengthened by the Interim External Review. He also noted the emerging appreciation for IFPRI within the CGIAR: IFPRI was now being asked for collaboration by almost every other centre. He reported that the Board of Trustees had been very active in developing a framework and in providing comments on successive drafts of IFPRI's MTP.
307 In presenting the MTP, Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen noted that IFPRI's strategic plan for the 1990s had provided a broad outline of the needs for food policy research and outreach. However, meeting these needs would require a higher level of resources than would be available to IFPRI, and rigorous priority setting had therefore been necessary. The priority-setting process at IFPRI had been largely qualitative due to a lack of data on which to base an appropriate quantitative analysis. IFPRI had used clear criteria to identify high-priority policy areas and specific research programmes within each of them. The 4 major areas of work were: accelerated growth and transformation in agriculture; natural resources management policies; market economic reforms and trade policy; and household food security and nutrition. A small amount of resources would also be allocated to synthesis research and exploratory research on emerging priorities. Synthesis research would cut across the work of the divisions on topics such as gender, environmental concerns, political economy of food policy, and the overall food situation, global or regional. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen expressed concern about the current food and agriculture situation and expressed the hope that the tradition of regular discussions on food policy in developing countries at International Centres Week would be reactivated. He then introduced the specific projects associated with each of the 4 priority research areas.
308 The proposed MTP would be implemented through an organizational structure consisting of 5 divisions, which would undertake a total of 17 integrated multicountry research programmes. Each of the multicountry programmes would be focused on a policy issue for which international strategic research was urgently needed and likely to have large benefits. In addition to a division for each of the major priority areas, IFPRI would establish a new Outreach Division, which would incorporate information, training, capacity building, and monitoring and evaluation services, seminars, workshops and conferences, and a network for IFPRI associates. Research which had previously been conducted in the Special Development Studies Division would continue until its completion under the new Outreach Division. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen stressed, however, that all of IFPRI's research had an outreach component and that the activities of the new division did not represent all of IFPRI's outreach work. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen reported that IFPRI would address the issue of measuring of impact in food policy research, and would be organizing a workshop with outside experts for this purpose.
309 IFPRI hoped to increase the number of senior staff from 44 in 1993 to 53 in 1998. Approximately 90% of its total programme was considered to be core, as defined on the basis of specific criteria. However, only part of this programme would be supported by CGIAR core funding; the balance would be made up with funds considered by the CGIAR to be complementary. IFPRI expected that, by 1998, the balance between core and complementary funds would be approximately equal.
310 IFPRI's base MTP had been prepared at the level of the base resource envelope assigned by TAC, but programmatic scenarios at funding of 90% and 110% of the base envelope were also outlined.
311 In concluding his presentation, Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen reiterated the strong demands for policy research. He felt that IFPRI was well positioned to meet these demands, either directly or through institutional collaboration. He expressed confidence that IFPRI could raise the funds necessary to implement the programmes proposed and that his management team would ensure effective programme delivery.
312 The discussion was opened by Dr. Kamla Chowdhry, TAC Liaison Scientist for IFPRI, who complimented IFPRI for a well-argued and concise MTP. She had been impressed by the consultation process during the development of the MTP, which had proved very useful.
313 Dr. Chowdhry was concerned that IFPRI might have too many collaborators and felt that such wide institutional collaboration might not be sustainable. She also noted the predominance of economists at IFPRI and asked whether political science should be given greater consideration. She requested further clarification on the activities of the Outreach Division, which appeared to be 'all things to all people'. With respect to the request for collaboration by other CGIAR institutes, she noted that IFPRI should not be concerned as long as proposed activities were within the Centre's priorities, and she suggested that a service unit could be established to assist in meeting the demands for policy research by other centres.
314 Other TAC members also expressed very positive reactions to the MTP. Questions were raised with respect to the rationale IFPRI had followed in its choice of countries for case studies, and the extent to which this choice had been determined by donors, the importance of research on regional integration, and the need for impact measurement of policy research. Other topics raised were: the nature of collaborative arrangements, particularly in the area of natural resources management; the need for research on rural transportation; and the low priority attached to the policy research for urban areas. Clarification was requested on IFPRI's research on fragile lands, the possibilities for collaboration with ICLARM on common resource property, and IFPRI's role in the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiative.
315 Members expressed satisfaction with the priorities in the Environment and Production Technology Division, the activities of which were considered to be well focused. One member noted the need for close collaboration between IFPRI, whose research was on the demand side, and other centres who were concerned with the supply side. Another member asked whether there was any overlap in activities with other centres and how IFPRI collaborated with FAO. Questions were also raised about IFPRI's ecoregional role, the international nature of its research activities, and whether multilateral agencies consulted IFPRI before making investment decisions.
316 In response to the issues raised, Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen elaborated on the nature of collaboration with other CGIAR institutes: IFPRI considered collaboration to be essential because of the need for a combination of skills not available in-house. Overlap was avoided through joint research protocols and through direct cooperation. IFPRI would soon start seminars on the implementation of each of the 17 multicountry research programmes which would have both internal and external participation by peers. The international aspect of IFPRI's research programme was obtained through a selection of countries and through IFPRI's integrated research approach. IFPRI had a special advantage with respect to other agencies, including FAO, in conducting long-term policy studies using primary data on a wider scale; FAO focused on short-term studies with a more limited scope. IFPRI had close links with multinational agencies, but Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen stressed the fact that IFPRI provided policy-makers with options and analysis, not with solutions. He also emphasized the importance of linking productivity and sustainability concerns.
317 Dr. Hazell elaborated on the Fragile Rainfed Lands Project and the ways in which IFPRI would work with other centres at case-study sites within selected ecologies. He also outlined the research on policies affecting migration which IFPRI would undertake to ensure that the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiative does not lead to accelerated conversion of forests lands.
318 With respect to IFPRI's ecoregional role, Dr. Farrar noted that IFPRI was positive about the ecoregional approach to research, but felt that it appeared to be a moving target. He expressed concern about the logistics of participation.
319 During further deliberation, TAC considered the balance between IFPRI's core and complementary funding, and the implications of the rapid expansion of policy research activities in the CGIAR on the increased demand for collaboration with IFPRI. Finally, TAC offered the following commentary:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON IFPRI'S MTP
320 TAC considers IFPRI's MTP to be coherent, well argued and transparent. The Plan reflects the increasing emphasis given by the Institute to environmental and natural resources management issues. IFPRI has prepared its Plan in accordance with the MTP guidelines and this is commended by TAC.
321 IFPRI's core programme accounts for approximately 90% of the Institute's activities. This core component has been defined on the basis of specific programmatic criteria, and not on a funding basis. Only part of this core programme will be supported by CGIAR core funding. IFPRI intends to implement the balance with funding considered as complementary by the CGIAR.
322 TAC has carefully considered the proposed balance between core funds and complementary funds, which is expected to evolve into an overall share of 53% core and 47% complementary by 1998. The Committee recognizes that the proposed share of complementary funding is high and would normally involve a danger of over-dependency on restricted funds. In the particular case of IFPRI, however, TAC considers that the proposed ratio is reasonable. IFPRI has a high cost per scientist, even though it does not have the fixed expenses associated with work in the natural sciences. The extra cost is due to the need to collect survey data. The absence of a resource commitment to fixed structures gives IFPRI a higher degree of flexibility than other centres. Its dependence on complementary funding cannot therefore be considered imprudent.
323 TAC appreciates IFPRI's wide set of institutional relationships. TAC would like to have more information about the extent and modalities of collaboration with other CGIAR centres, particularly in the area of natural resources management policies. TAC has also noted the expansion of policy research activities in the CGIAR and the increased demands for collaboration with IFPRI. Almost every CGIAR centre has included in its MTP proposals for collaboration with IFPRI in the area of policy research. TAC understands that IFPRI can only engage in effective collaboration where proposals fit with its own priorities, and that IFPRI cannot be expected to address all the policy research issues in the CGIAR. TAC will carefully analyse all the MTPs for their proposals on policy research, and consider options as how best to deal with the issues involved.
324 ILCA's MTP proposals were introduced by Dr. Dieter Bommer, Chair of the Board of Trustees, and presented by Dr. John Walsh, Director General, in the presence of Dr. Hank Fitzhugh, Deputy Director General for Research, and Mr. Ralph von Kaufmann, Director, Donor and Board Secretariat.
325 Dr. Bommer provided an overview of the approach adopted by ILCA in developing the MTP proposals. The Plan was developed in consultation with partners and colleagues in NARS, built on the achievements of the last MTP, and responded to ILCA's updated strategic plan. It addressed ILCA's interests in collaborating with ILRAD and other partner international research centres and declared a role for ILCA in the highlands. Further, it emphasized natural resources management in all projects, and the role of livestock in sustainable systems.
326 Dr. Walsh informed the Committee that ILCA had felt obliged to put forward a substantial document because of the ongoing debate on livestock in the system. The complexity of ILCA's role in livestock led to a complicated ecoregional role. The contribution of livestock was more than just milk and meat; it involved traction, manure, security against disasters, sustaining the natural resource base, recycling nutrients in crop farming, and a main source of income. Impact assessment must, therefore, take into account the effects of all these factors over a long period in order to evaluate the total value of livestock production.
327 ILCA's long-term research priorities were selected on the basis of such factors as relevance, researchability, special advantage of the centre, potential for partnership and impact, and sustainability. ILCA's strategic choice was to focus on cattle, sheep and goats owned by smallholder/agropastoral farmers in the warm semi-arid, subhumid, humid and cool tropical (highlands) ecozones. To achieve the desired focus, ILCA would work specifically towards improved and sustainable milk and meat production in smallholder crop-livestock systems. The major constraints in such systems were inadequate feed, debilitating disease and parasites, poorly-adapted and unproductive genotypes, and policies which discouraged the adoption of innovations for sustainable animal agriculture.
328 ILCA's programmes would be delineated within 7 themes: mixed crop-livestock systems; market-oriented smallholder dairying; conservation of biodiversity; biological efficiency of livestock; livestock production under trypanosomiasis risk; livestock and resource management policy; and strengthening natural research capacities. ILCA used a project-based matrix structure to manage interdisciplinary research. Common interest groups provided the peer reviews and promoted communication among the decentralized and multidisciplinary groups implementing ILCA programmes. Research planning and implementation were project-based, and probable impact was used as a principal criterion to select individual research projects. The extension of ILCA's programme through partnerships with other institutes and inter-centre collaboration was central to the Centre's long-term strategy. Approximately 25% of ILCA's work already has global relevance.
329 ILCA presented a core programme at a funding level of US$17 million (the TAC base envelope of $14 million and $3 million supplement) and at 110% of this level. Approximately 25% of the core resources would be allocated to research on the conservation and management of natural resources, 2.4% to germplasm enhancement and breeding, 38% to production systems, 12% to socioeconomic and policy research and 23% to institution building. At the adapted 110% funding level, additional work would be possible on embryo technology, rumen ecology, policy and impact assessment, as well as on strengthening collaborative research networks.
330 In opening the discussion, Dr. Saydil Touré (TAC Liaison Scientist for ILCA in 1992) reported on the visit to ILCA by the TAC Working Party, who had been impressed that ILCA was doing far more than met the eye, and that NARS had high expectations of ILCA. He commended ILCA for a concise and relevant revised strategic plan. He asked for clarification on the nature of collaboration between ILCA and other actors in the characterization of indigenous animal genetic resources, on the impact of health constraints on livestock production efficiency, and on trypanosomiasis. He pointed out that considerable strategic research was undertaken by other institutions in these areas.
331 In the ensuing discussion, TAC members sought clarification on priority setting for projects within programme themes, the balance of effort among programme themes, ILCA's ecoregional role in the Ethiopian highlands, its relationship with the ICRAF-led consortium for the highlands of East and central Africa, and the mechanisms for integrating ILCA's research capacity into crop research outside sub-Saharan Africa. The Centre was also asked to elaborate on the rationale for allocating 25% of its research to work which had implications for regions outside sub-Saharan Africa, the role of NARS in implementing some of the applied research work, and why ILCA felt that impact was considered so difficult to assess when elements such as income, security, and natural resources potential could be measured. Other questions related to the Centre's strategy for expansion of livestock production in the humid forest areas, and how the MTP proposals related to ILCA's previous work.
332 Several donor representatives brought up issues concerning the basis for anticipating a ten-fold increase in special project funding, the possibility of resolving crop-livestock integration through a systemwide crop-livestock programme, and the lessons learnt from ILCA's ecoregional work in the highlands.
333 ILCA responded by explaining that the Centre has always organized ecoregional activities in the humid/subhumid, semi-arid and the highland zones, and would continue this within the systemwide ecoregional initiatives. The Centre had the infrastructure for ecoregional activities in the highlands, and its past work there had taught ILCA many lessons, particularly about how to establish meaningful partnerships with NARS and how to ensure continuity. For the livestock production in the humid forest zone, the proposals were based on the concept of an ecoregional approach in terms of the growing season and biomass potential, linked to a market-oriented demographic approach. Care should be taken in introducing livestock into forest areas because of the sensitivities involved, and proposed changes would be monitored and made acceptable. In this context, ILCA was closely collaborating with IITA on smallholder dairying, with ICRISAT on crop-livestock systems and nutrient management, and with IFPRI on policy.
334 ILCA's MTP did not propose drastic changes in the Centre's work, but offered a mixture of changes, some of which were in emphasis, others were evolutionary, and some involved handing over responsibilities to NARS. It was felt that there was now a greater convergence of priorities across CGIAR centres so that it should be possible to strengthen the inter-centre work on integrated crop-livestock production systems. ILCA agreed that there was a need to measure impact, and saw the proposed level of special project funding as a necessary hunting licence under the current financial constraints.
335 After further discussion, TAC prepared the following commentary on ILCA's MTP:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON ILCA'S MTP
336 ILCA's MTP indicates that there has been an improvement in programme focus in response to the recommendations of the 1992 EPMR. However, ILCA's MTP is written in more general terms than some other MTPs, which have used more quantitative and transparent approaches to priority setting. As a result, the rationale for ILCA's internal priorities across programmes, species, commodities, activities and agroecological zones is not always clear. TAC would appreciate the provision of further information on this rationale and on the implications for balance of effort by programme theme.
337 ILCA sees both a global and an ecoregional perspective to its activities. However, the way these perspectives relate to programmes is not clear. TAC would therefore welcome an elaboration of the programmatic implications of ILCA's global and ecoregional perspectives.
338 TAC notes ILCA's estimate that 25% of its research efforts, over the period 1994-98, will be for regions outside sub-Saharan Africa. TAC also notes that ILCA has used standard allocations of research effort across regions throughout the 5 years of the MTP. TAC would appreciate an elaboration of the justification underlining these allocations.
339 Because of the importance of integrated crop-livestock production systems, there is a need for strong partnerships between ILCA and relevant crop-oriented centres. ILCA proposes to extend its capabilities for research on crop-livestock systems to the crop centres, including those outside sub-Saharan Africa. TAC would appreciate further clarification on the mechanisms for integrating ILCA's research capacity into crop research outside sub-Saharan Africa.
340 The MTP states that ILCA will support an Ethiopia-based ecoregional programme for the East African highlands, and serve as an ecoregional base for cooperation with other international centres working in this area. TAC would appreciate clarification on how ILCA's proposed ecoregional activities in the Ethiopian highlands relate to the ICRAF-led consortium on integrated natural resources management research for the highlands of East and central Africa.
341 TAC notes that the Appendix Table 3.2 suggests substantial discontinuity between ILCA's programme priorities in 1988-93 and what it intends to do in 1994-98. TAC would like ILCA to provide further information on the nature of the proposed changes, including information on the activities that are being terminated.
342 TAC notes that the partnership and division of responsibilities between ILCA and ILRAD are evolving well but that no formal mechanisms for implementing joint initiatives have been worked out. TAC would welcome an elaboration on the modes of collaboration between the Centres, and with ITC and CIRDES.
343 ILCA's statements on its potential impact are defined in a subjective way and do not provide milestones for measuring progress. While TAC recognizes that this is part of a systemwide problem with regard to work on production systems development and management including sustainability, it would welcome impact statements that incorporate milestones by which ILCA could measure progress.
344 ILCA's budget is presented in 1993 US dollars. The budget neither provides an indication of the level of in-trust funds expected to be managed by the Centre, nor does it provide a clear indication of how the overhead costs accrued from such funds are handled. TAC would like to see ILCA's budget based on constant 1992 dollars and including the information related to in-trust funds to facilitate comparisons across all centre budgets.
345 The proposals which ILCA submitted to TAC were based at funding levels of $17 million (base envelope of $14 million and $3 million supplement) and at 110% of this level. TAC would like ILCA to provide confidential supplementary proposals at the level of the base resource envelope of $14 million.
346 ILRAD's MTP proposals for 1994-98 were presented by the Director General, Dr. Ross Gray, who was accompanied by Dr. John Doyle, Deputy Director General, Drs. Dolan, Teale and Perry, Heads of the Theileriosis, Trypanosomiasis, and Epidemiology and Socioeconomics Programmes, and Dr. Peter Gardiner, Information and Planning Officer.
347 Dr. Gray recalled that recent studies, including Winrock International's report on Animal Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa and TAC's 1992 review of CGIAR priorities and strategies, had established the performance and potential of a healthy livestock industry in relation to world food needs. The role of research in livestock productivity was also well documented. He noted that the 1992 EPMR of ILRAD had recognized the high quality of science in the Laboratory, the global economic importance of tick-borne diseases and trypanosomiasis, and the appropriate choice of research approaches and programme focus by ILRAD. The review had also recognized ILRAD's progress in achieving its short-term goals and the progress and promise of longer-term strategic research on vaccine development and genetic resistance.
348 In its MTP proposals, ILRAD had taken into account the recommendations of the 1992 EPMR and the views of the Programme Committee of its Board of Directors and of the scientific staff, which emerged from peer reviews and planning workshops, and these had been incorporated into the revised strategic plan. Given the strategic and basic research orientation of its work, ILRAD considered that its research results were applicable to all developing countries where the target diseases were a constraint to livestock production.
349 Dr. Gray reported that ILRAD agreed with TAC on the key role of genetics in future research on improving livestock productivity in developing countries. Programmes proposed in the MTP would include further work on mapping the bovine genome, on the exploitation of genetic resistance to diseases, particularly trypanosomiasis and helminthiasis, and on genetic aspects of immune responses and disease pathogenesis. Due to projected resource constraints, ILRAD would not undertake work on the conservation and characterization of animal genetic resources, physiology of climatic adaptation, or growth and nutrition.
350 During the MTP period, ILRAD would concentrate on activities in 5 programme areas: trypanosomiasis; tick-borne diseases; genetics; socioeconomics and the environment; and outreach research and training. Activities were proposed at 3 levels of funding: Level 1, the 'basic' MTP proposal (US$12.6 million); Level 2, the level of a supplemented resource envelope ($11.1 million); and the 'Strategic' Level ($13.9 million) which was described in an addendum to the MTP. Funding at Level 1 would enable ILRAD to maintain its current programme level of activities with 56 international staff positions, which was considered to be the critical mass for an advanced laboratory to channel new technology into the search for solutions to the major livestock disease problems in developing countries. Funding at Level 2 would mean that ILRAD could only afford 48 international staff positions, a loss of 8 SSY per year; 15 in trypanosomiasis, 9 in tick-borne diseases, 7 in socioeconomics and 4 in research support over the MTP period. This would result in delayed production of results, further erosion of the critical mass required to absorb new technology, premature curtailment of activities with loss of investment, and failure to use opportunities for new initiatives.
351 At the Strategic Level, which ILRAD considered necessary to implement its strategic plan, activities in cowdriosis research, socioeconomics research and technology transfer would be increased and there would be additional activities in ruminant genetics. For this level of activity, 63 international staff would be required under the core programme based on $13.9 million in core funds.
352 The discussion was led by Dr. Richard Musangi, TAC Liaison Scientist for ILRAD. He noted that ILRAD had taken into account most of the suggestions made by the TAC Working Party, who had visited the Laboratory in December 1992. He asked ILRAD for further clarification on the regional allocation of resources, the rationale for a full-time epidemiologist in the socioeconomics programme, given the large number of epidemiologists in the disease programmes, and the rationale for allocating information services in 2 places within ILRAD's organizational structure.
353 Other TAC members wanted further clarification on the role of GIS in ILRAD's work and on links with other institutions developing GIS databases. Concern was expressed about ILRAD's apparent weakness in biometrics and statistics, the overlap between ILRAD and ILCA activities in socioeconomics, and the sub-Saharan focus of the socioeconomics programme, given ILRAD's claim to a global mandate for animal diseases research. Members noted that the statements in the MTP on collaboration with NARS were very general and did not specify the nature and scope of the proposed collaboration.
354 Noting ILRAD's strong capacity in molecular biology, an observer requested elaboration on its perceived role for strengthening national capabilities in the application of biotechnology.
355 Members recalled that, in its review of CGIAR priorities and strategies, TAC had stressed the need for an integrated approach to livestock productivity and diseases research. In the light of this, ILRAD was asked to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a merger between ILRAD and ILCA. ILRAD's comments were also sought on the effect of the nutritional status of the animal on the success of disease intervention strategies, including vaccination, and on the feasibility of introducing the high-yielding traits of temperate livestock breeds into tropical and subtropical breeds through crossbreeding and molecular biology techniques.
356 While TAC fully endorsed the need for ILRAD to work on ruminant genetics, some members questioned ILRAD's special advantage in working on the map of the bovine genome, since a number of laboratories in developed countries were already working in this area. ILRAD was also asked to elaborate on the nature and scope of its collaborative activities with advanced institutions, and particularly to name its major collaborating institutions.
357 An observer noted that ILRAD would be undertaking laboratory tests on an experimental vaccine for theileriosis during the MTP period, and wanted to know if ILRAD had a policy for the release of genetically-modified organisms.
358 Finally, TAC members noted that complementary activities at ILRAD would constitute less than 2% of the core budget in 1996 at Level 1 and about 3% in 1998 at Level 2. ILRAD was therefore asked to elaborate on the rationale for such a low level of complementary activities.
359 In the response to the questions raised during the discussion, it was noted that the figures given on page 28 of the MTP document should refer to the distribution of large and small ruminants that were potentially exposed to trypanosomiasis and tick-borne diseases including dermatophilosis. The current allocation of ILRAD's total effort was considered to be 53% in sub-Saharan Africa, 5% in WANA, 26% in Asia and 18% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and this ratio of regional allocation would be maintained during the MTP period. The low allocation to WANA was indicative of the low incidence of ILRAD's target diseases in the WANA region.
360 ILRAD was conscious of activities by other CGIAR centres and agencies such as FAO, with which it was collaborating in GIS. There was close collaboration between ILRAD and ILCA in the socioeconomics programmes. Dr. Gray stated that one of ILCA's economists was based at ILRAD, and that an ILCA project on the Kenya coast had provided a good framework for collaboration on vaccination by the infection and treatment method for East Coast fever.
361 The presence of an epidemiologist in the socioeconomics programme was justified on the grounds that the incumbent would facilitate technology transfer and help ILRAD to relate more effectively to the needs of NARS. Expertise in epidemiology had also been strengthened in the tick-borne diseases and trypanosomiasis programmes to ensure that the utilization of research products and the feedback from field work guided laboratory-based activities. In view of the small size of the socioeconomics programme and projected resource constraints, the main focus of the programme would be in sub-Saharan Africa. Activities in other regions would have to be very selective.
362 Dr. Gray stated that the 2 groups involved in information services at ILRAD had different functions and responsibilities. The Information and Planning Officer, who was located in the office of the Director General, was responsible for centrewide planning of scientific programmes, research project development, and donor relations. The other unit, located in the Cooperative Programmes, Training and Information Department, was responsible for ILRAD's imprimatur publications, editing, public awareness and communications.
363 Dr. Gray noted that the issue of ILRAD's capacity in biometrics had also been raised by the 1992 EPMR. However, projected funding constraints would make it difficult for ILRAD to acquire a full-time biometrician. He stated that consultants and other resource persons were used whenever necessary for this task, and that an ILCA biometrician was posted on the ILRAD campus.
364 ILRAD was working through its Socioeconomics Programme and the Training and Information Department on strengthening relations with NARS by cooperative programmes. Initial steps had been taken to strengthen collaboration with specific institutions in SSA, including the Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania, and a number of national scientists would benefit from specialized training programmes and higher-degree research opportunities offered by ILRAD.
365 ILRAD's collaboration with advanced institutions in developed countries was strong and improving. ILRAD's special advantage in the bovine genome mapping lay in its invaluable stock of pure and crossbreed N'Dama for segregating trypanotolerance trait(s). As a result of the bovine genome work, ILRAD had successfully developed and used embryo-transfer techniques which would enable the utilization of genetic markers in future breeding work on disease resistance.
366 ILRAD did not expect to attract much funding for complementary activities due to the strategic and basic nature of its research and had therefore proposed only a small complementary programme.
367 After further discussion, TAC prepared the following interim commentary on ILRAD's MTP proposals:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON ILRAD'S MTP
368 The Committee is pleased with the transparent and analytical process followed by ILRAD in preparing its MTP proposals. The document is clearly written and the proposals are well argued and prioritized. TAC notes that ILRAD plans to safeguard past achievements through increased efforts on vaccine development in the Theileriosis Programme, maintaining the work on socioeconomic and environmental concerns, and identification of genetic markers for trypanotolerance.
369 The MTP clearly reflects ILRAD's revised strategy which projects an expansion of its operational mandate to include other tick-borne diseases, ruminant genetics, animal physiology and possibly animal nutrition, depending on the availability of resources. The MTP also indicates how ILRAD would implement a broadened mandate in line with the 1992 TAC draft strategy on livestock research in the CGIAR. TAC would appreciate further clarification on how ILRAD would sustain its current effort on theileriosis and trypanosomiasis while embarking on new areas.
370 TAC notes that ILRAD plans to complete laboratory tests of an experimental vaccine for theileriosis in the next 5 years and would like details of ILRAD's policy for the safe release of genetically-modified organisms.
371 The MTP proposals are presented under 3 scenarios. The first, Level 1, would require 50 senior staff year (SSY) per year and assumes continued funding at the 1992 level of $12.6 million; the second, Level 2, would require 42 SSY per year and corresponds to the supplemented resource envelope totalling $11.1 million; and the third level is what ILRAD calls the strategic scenario. ILRAD has also provided detailed information in a supplementary document on the programmatic implications of reduced funding, corresponding to the unsupplemented resource envelope of $9.1 million. TAC would welcome further information on the programmatic implications of operating at Level 2.
372 The financial figures at both Levels 1 and 2, showing total core requirements from the CGIAR, include inflation. It would be helpful if ILRAD could also present the total operational costs in 1992 constant dollars to facilitate comparisons with other centres.
373 INIBAP's MTP proposals were introduced by Dr. Coenraad ter Kuile, Board Chair, and presented by Dr. Nicolás Mateo, Director, who was accompanied by Dr. David Jones (Crop Protection Coordinator), Mr. Robert Huggan (Head, Information and Communications) and Mr. Thomas Thornton (Financial Manager).
374 Dr. ter Kuile informed TAC that the report of the Task Force on Banana and Plantain had not been available to INIBAP when the MTP was being drafted. The MTP would be finalized to take into account the Task Force's recommendations for presentation to the CGIAR at MTM'93. The Plan had been drawn up on the basis of consultations between centres, clients and collaborators, and illustrated what INIBAP could achieve. Dr. ter Kuile asked for TAC's guidance on how INIBAP should proceed in the light of conflicting recommendations from the EPMR and the Task Force.
375 Dr. Mateo began his presentation by emphasizing the diversity of banana and plantain cultivars, the environments and regions in which they were grown, the factors constraining improvement in yield, and the capabilities of institutions engaged in Musa research. INIBAP's main objectives were to organize a global effort aimed at the development and dissemination of new cultivars through traditional and new techniques and the conservation of Musa diversity; to promote regional research and training; to assist the regions to contribute towards and benefit from global research; to strengthen the ability of national programmes to conduct research and training; and to organize and implement the exchange of information.
376 Dr. Mateo stated INIBAP's role in the research process in terms of priority definition, research design and analysis, and intelligence gathering for priority setting. The MTP proposals were given in terms of the full programme (189% of the base resource envelope), with notes on the implications of funding at the TAC-recommended resource envelope (US$2.1 million) and 110% of the base envelope. Dr. Mateo emphasized that INIBAP was realistic about the financial situation within the CGIAR, but had wanted to show what was possible at 'full' funding.
377 INIBAP was proposing 3 programmes in its MTP: Programme I, Musa germplasm conservation, management and improvement; Programme II, regional research and training; and Programme in, information and communications. Programme I was aimed at ensuring an effective system of biological research on Musa, through 3 subprogrammes concerning the collection, conservation, characterization, evaluation, safe movement and improvement of Musa germplasm. At the resource envelope and the +10% scenario, INIBAP would continue to support its germplasm transit centre and the conservation of the base collection, and would maintain its work on the safe movement of germplasm, and training in support of the International Musa Testing Programme. However, collection, characterization and evaluation work would have to be carried out under complementary funding, and core-funded germplasm enhancement work would be greatly curtailed.
378 The objectives of Programme II were to provide the products and services of Programmes I and III and enhance their impact at the national level, to promote research and training efforts to deal with region-specific problems and opportunities, and to strengthen the abilities of NARS to conduct research on banana and plantain. At a funding level of 110% of the resource envelope, training would be limited, and the Regional Coordinators would be restricted to holding Regional Advisory Committees and providing technical backstopping and advisory services. At the resource envelope, the Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Information Node would be terminated, and there would only be provision for a Regional Coordinator in Africa.
379 Programme III was aimed at making information on Musa in English, French and Spanish accessible to its clients. At the full programme, the information work would be expanded from a database at headquarters and limited regional activity in Latin America and the Caribbean, to a fully-regional activity. At funding of 110% of the resource envelope, the current level of activity would be maintained. With funding at the resource envelope, the existing work in the regions would be discontinued.
380 Dr. Gerardo Budowski, TAC Liaison Scientist for INIBAP, opened the discussion by reminding those present that INIBAP had been brought into the CGIAR as a new model for the system, and its role was as a promoter, catalyst and leader of research, rather than as a research institute. He expressed concern about INIBAP's high aims in relation to the resources at its disposal. He also asked for information on the collaborating partners' expectations, interactions and relationships with INIBAP.
381 In a wide-ranging discussion, it was noted that both the EPMR and the Task Force reports perceived that the main task of INIBAP was to catalyse the development of new improved germplasm and deliver it to NARS. Members also noted that it was difficult for an institute not engaged in research itself to coordinate and provide leadership for the research of others, and that the critical mass required by a research service comprised a different balance of human and financial resources than a research-based centre. INIBAP was asked for elaboration on the timescale for impact, its collaborative links with IITA, the way in which smallholders would be expected to benefit from its work, and whether a merger with other institutes might better serve the needs of NARS in banana and plantain research. One member noted that the wide variation in cultivated varieties and conditions dictated the need for a variety of solutions, and questioned the need for a global CGIAR centre for this purpose.
382 With respect to Programme I, members asked for details on the collection missions, the duplication of material in regional genebanks, and the screening, indexing and dissemination of germplasm. Members also commented that biotechnology could be useful in overcoming the difficulties in breeding Musa.
383 Questions were raised on a number of aspects of Programme II, including the production systems work, Musa mixed cropping systems, socioeconomics and postharvest research, and the level of attention being paid to the feed quality of Musa by-products used for livestock. The importance that INIBAP had placed on biopesticides in the MTP was questioned. One member recognized INIBAP's plans to contribute to research on Ensete, a type of Musa grown only in Ethiopia, but noted that it might be necessary to stimulate rather than to coordinate the research in this area.
384 With respect to Programme III, questions were raised about the merit of devolving INIBAP's database to the regions, and whether the Network was providing funds to national programmes for postgraduate training.
385 Clarification was also requested on how the increase in activities compared to the increase in budget required for the full programme, the reason for the dramatic decline in complementary funding for the full programme and the +10% scenario, and on INIBAP's criteria for classifying activities as core or complementary.
386 Dr. Gabrielle Persley, representative of the World Bank and a member of the CGIAR Task Force on Banana and Plantain, commented that INIBAP had failed to specify how impact should be achieved, and that there seemed to be a gap between the research and the dissemination of the technology. She pointed out that if less money was spent by INIBAP on its coordination activities, more would be available for catalytic research, and asked if the CGIAR should be thinking about putting some of the programmes out to tender.
387 In his response, Dr. Mateo emphasized the importance of INIBAP's partnerships with NARS which, he reported, varied considerably. INIBAP needed critical mass to demonstrate leadership and show its effectiveness, and Dr. Mateo felt that the only way critical mass could be maintained at level of the resource envelope was by a concentration of effort, as suggested, on germplasm improvement, training and information. He stated that INIBAP's contribution to banana and plantain research would be under threat if its budget was cut further.
388 With respect to the regionally-specific research problems, Dr. Mateo stated that there was a need for a global view of the complex problems constraining banana and plantain production due to the threat of disease cross-over, the challenges of safe germplasm transfer, and the need to monitor and stimulate changes in the ability of NARS. He reported that the germplasm collection missions were carried out in collaboration with IBPGR and national programmes. The duplicate of each collected item stayed in the region, and more and more of the material was being tested. There were difficulties in working out how to distribute material to national programmes, since only a few have in vitro facilities. IITA would form part of the breeders' network and that INIBAP would collaborate with IITA on training courses in West Africa. He noted that there was an IITA representative on INIBAP's Board and felt that there was much to be gained in collaboration between the institutes.
389 Dr. Mateo stated that, during 50 years of research on banana and plantain, no new non-commercial varieties had been released. INIBAP's work should accelerate the production of new varieties. He emphasized that the speed at which any new material could be disseminated depended on the region, and he noted that INIBAP's aid to dissemination would be complementary funded. Since smallholders in the Caribbean grew the commercial Cavendish banana for export and local consumption, there was justification for INIBAP's involvement in research in this area. Only a small amount of research was currently being carried out on Ensete, and INIBAP intended to stimulate this activity in the full programme. Postharvest and socioeconomics research, and seed money to stimulate research on the various Musa productions systems, would only be provided under the full programme.
390 With respect to the dissemination of information to the regions, Mr. Huggan reported that Musarama reached a readership of 1900 policy makers, teachers, trainers, and research scientists, while Musalogue would mainly go to researchers. He reported that accessibility to the information databases would be improved by the development of regional information nodes, and the regional databases would be enriched by the input of local information and grey literature from NARS. If funded at the resource envelope, INIBAP would not finance postgraduate training.
391 Dr. Jones informed the Committee that tissue culture techniques were being developed to generate Musa plants from single cells. He reported that biotechniques were also important for indexing virus diseases, and that the hope was to produce a 4-in-one virus test in order to ensure that only healthy material was disseminated and replicated. Dr. Jones also noted the concern about biopesticides, but reported that these may offer the only solution for controlling bunchy top virus.
392 Dr. ter Kuile stated that the timescale for impact was dependent on the time to establish a variety, and the whole process would be speeded up using biotechniques. With respect to the drop in complementary funding in the full programme and the +10% scenario, Dr. ter Kuile emphasized that the tables were provisional, but that INIBAP had tried to be realistic and had assumed that major complementary donors might drop out at higher funding levels. He reported that INIBAP needed donors who would allow plenty of scope for complementary work to stimulate research of the highest priority.
393 The Chair thanked the delegation from INIBAP for their frankness in providing a clear statement of proposals, both at the full programme and at the resource envelope. He noted INIBAP's concern that funding at the resource envelope represented the absolute minimum necessary to maintain critical mass, and he requested elaboration on the rationale for this statement. He also noted that the issues facing INIBAP were common to all research services, and included the difficulties of maintaining in-house scientific credibility and achieving a balance in scientific competence between the research service and the clients.
394 The Chair concluded the discussion by stating that he appreciated that INIBAP had prepared its MTP under difficult conditions. He recognized the uncertainty under which INIBAP had been obliged to operate, and hoped that the banana and plantain research issue would be resolved with all due speed.
395 After further discussion, TAC prepared the following commentary:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON INIBAP'S MTP
396 TAC recalls that the CGIAR endorsed its commentary on the 1992 EPMR which contained a recommendation for the establishment of a task force to re-examine institutional options for banana and plantain research. The Task Force presented its draft report to the Committee at TAC 60. Since the report was still in draft form and not available to INIBAP when it prepared its MTP proposals, TAC did not take the Task Force's recommendations into account in assessing the INIBAP MTP. However, TAC was conscious of the need for INIBAP to revise its MTP, if the CGIAR accepted the recommendations of the task force.
397 Considering the great diversity in consumer preferences, production constraints and distribution of bananas and plantain within and between regions, TAC would like INIBAP to clarify its role and absolute advantage in addressing research needs which vary greatly across regions. TAC considers that INIBAP's highest priority should be to address germplasm-related work and the provision of information, which can usefully be tackled on a global basis.
398 INIBAP has presented its proposals at 3 levels: the resource envelope ($2.1 million); the +10% scenario; and the 'full programme' ($4.4 million). The 1992 EPMR report noted that INIBAP did not have the management capacity or adequate financial resources to allow a proper assessment of the network approach. Recently, there have been changes in the senior management at INIBAP, and TAC now requires INIBAP to clarify its plans to maintain its scientific viability at the level of the base resource envelope, while undertaking the 3 programmes stated in the MTP.
399 TAC notes that INIBAP considers itself to be a research service and believes that its current complement of 7 senior scientific staff and information specialists constitutes the minimum critical mass. TAC would appreciate clarification on INIBAP's definition of minimum critical mass.
400 At the base resource envelope, INIBAP plans to allocate about 34% of its core resources to germplasm-related activities; about 21% to regional research and training; about 19% to information and documentation; and about 25% to administration and governance. TAC would welcome an elaboration by INIBAP on the rationale for the allocation to regional research, given the global importance of its germplasm work.
401 Under the 'full programme', INIBAP projects a capital core component of $943,000 for building works at headquarters. Given the experimental nature of the network model and the CGIAR sunset clause, TAC would require clarification about the justification for constructing a permanent building. TAC would also caution INIBAP against the significant budget deficit projected throughout the MTP period for the +10% scenario and the 'full programme'.
402 Finally, TAC considers its commentary on the INIBAP MTP proposals to be very tentative, pending the CGIAR's decision on the institutional options recommended by the CGIAR Task Force on Banana and Plantain, and a possible resubmission of an MTP by INIBAP.
403 IRRI's MTP was introduced by Dr. Walter Falcon, Chair of the Board of Trustees, and presented by Dr. Klaus Lampe, Director General, and Dr. Ken Fischer, Deputy Director General, in the presence of Dr. Ed Sayegh, Director of Finance.
404 Dr. Falcon informed TAC that the MTP, as presented, had the full backing of the Board and that it reflected continuity of work while strengthening IRRI's position at the strategic and upstream levels of rice research. While IRRI was raising relevant questions, the answers could only be provided through research.
405 In presenting the MTP, Dr. Lampe referred to some of the myths about IRRI: that it was nothing but a rice-breeding institute; that it had been around too long; that it had generated nothing beyond IR8; that its activities had no relevance to Latin America and Africa; and that some of the scientific problems, such as the rice yield ceiling, were unsolvable. He then referred to an Asian Development Bank study on agricultural research in Asia, which indicated some of the major limitations in the work of national research systems in the region.
406 Dr. Lampe stated that the 1994-98 MTP reflected the continuation of the 1990-94 work plan. The process of preparing the MTP had started in July 1992 and had involved all staff and many stakeholder representatives. The MTP attempted to respond to the major challenges to be met by rice research during the next decade using 5 themes; people, permanence, productivity, protection and partnership. Each of these themes was implicit in the goal, objectives, and project plans of every programme. IRRI would use the most advanced techniques for research and would work in partnership with advanced research institutes and national research systems.
407 IRRI had carefully considered the necessary balance between crop improvement and resource management research. There were to be 4 major rice ecosystem programmes in irrigated, rainfed-lowland, upland, flood-prone rice and one cross-ecosystem programme. In addition, there would be programmes on germplasm conservation, dissemination and evaluation; a crop and resource management network; information and knowledge exchange; training; and national research services. Overall, IRRI proposed to allocate 27.5% of its resources to conservation and management of natural resources, 33.8% to germplasm enhancement and breeding, 15.2% to production systems development and management, 8% to socioeconomic, public policy and public management research, and 15.5% to institution building.
408 Dr. Fischer introduced the proposed mega projects, research consortia, and 'new frontier projects'. Mega projects were those expected to have an enormous impact if larger resources could be provided. Proposed mega projects included raising the irrigated rice yield ceiling, reversing the decline in productivity trends in intensive irrigated rice, improving rice-wheat systems, conserving rice genetic resources, and exploiting biodiversity for sustainable pest management.
409 Dr. Fischer stated that research consortia were different from networks in that they were instigators rather than evaluators of research. They also differed in the number of members, the level and nature of members' commitments, the types of research undertaken, and the existence of a membership fee. Members' resources were used to address the system's needs, and such resources had opportunity costs for local, site-specific research. During 1991, 2 research consortia had been established with special funding support; one for the rainfed lowlands and one for the uplands. The new frontier projects were formulated to solve major challenges and stretched research horizons. Exploring these frontiers required the application of imaginative research, unconstrained by concerns of failure. IRRI had identified 4 such projects: exploiting apomixis; assessing opportunities for nitrogen fixation in rice; managing weeds using less chemicals; and developing a perennial rice plant.
410 In concluding the presentation, Dr. Lampe stressed that IRRI had been downsized considerably in recent years, and that the number of staff had been reduced by 49% in 4 years. The Institute was now considerably leaner, but the recent financial constraints imposed on it were creating real hardship. Dr. Lampe expressed the hope that the CGIAR could allocate sufficient resources to IRRI to allow it to effectively tackle the enormous challenges that were faced by rice research in developing countries.
411 The discussion was opened by Dr. Ted Henzell, TAC Liaison Scientist for IRRI, who commented that the MTP was concise and pleasant to read. He reported that, during its visit to IRRI, the Working Party had been deeply impressed by the staffs participation in and detailed knowledge of the MTP planning process and of their awareness of CGIAR priorities and strategies. Dr. Henzell made some comments on the importance of mega projects which, he felt, should be assigned a very high priority and incorporated, wherever possible, in IRRI's core envelope. He expressed concern that, in a situation of tight funding, the mega projects might not be given the order of priority they deserved, and he noted that, at present, only part of the mega projects could be covered by core funding. Moreover, IRRI had not ranked the proposed mega projects in priority order.
412 Other TAC members commented on the difficulties of breeding perennial rice (particularly because of viruses), apomixis and nitrogen-fixation research. Additional information was requested on the importance of the declining yield trends in irrigated areas, the nature of the collaboration between IRRI and CIMMYT in rice-wheat systems, and the opportunities for work on azolla. One TAC member stressed the importance of labour-saving technology for increasing rice productivity.
413 Clarification was requested on IRRI's priority-setting process, the involvement of policy makers in priority setting, its use in ranking complementary programmes, and IRRI's rationale for partitioning core and complementary activities. The role of IRRI in ecoregional research was raised in several interventions. Other questions were raised about IRRI's interaction with ICLARM in research on rice-fish systems and the relationship between IRRI's research on perennial rice and its proposed research on alternatives to slash-and-burn farming systems.
414 In responding to the discussion, Dr. Lampe stated that a high priority was assigned to the mega projects, each of which had a core component, but that priorities had not been set among them. While recognizing the difficulties in research on perennials, apomixis and nitrogen fixation, he noted that IRRI had conducted ex ante studies and 'think-tank' discussions, and was optimistic about the opportunities for achieving results.
415 Dr. Lampe reported that IRRI's priority-setting process had been based on a modified congruence approach which was explained in Annex 1 of the proposal. NARS and policy makers had been closely involved in the priority-setting process, through consultations and special meetings. He also reported that IRRI worked closely with ICRAF on slash-and-burn farming systems. The Institute gave substantial attention to upland farming systems since rice was the key component in these systems. In response to a TAC member's question, he acknowledged that livestock was an important part of this farming system. IRRI was conducting research on improving labour productivity through its work on direct seeding which had considerable potential. Finally, Dr. Lampe stressed that IRRI attached great importance to research on the gender issues in rice.
416 In concluding the discussion, the Chair expressed his appreciation for the clarity and conciseness of IRRI's MTP.
417 After further consideration, TAC offered the following commentary:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON IRRI'S MTP
418 TAC considers IRRI's MTP to be well argued, transparent and coherent. The Plan was prepared on the basis of the level of the resource envelope and in accordance with the guidelines for the preparation of MTPs, and this is commended by TAC. TAC also appreciates that the Centre has been able to present a large amount of significant information in a concise and well-structured way. The Plan shows considerable vision, and reflects the increasing emphasis given by the Centre to strategic research on productivity enhancement and sustainability.
419 TAC considers that the proposed mega projects and research consortia for the rainfed lowland and upland ecosystems are a high priority for IRRI and for global rice research. To the extent possible, these should be fully integrated into the Centre's core research programme. TAC notes that fully funding the mega projects and consortia as proposed would add a total of about 18% to the base envelope level. TAC would appreciate further information from the Centre about the programmatic and other implications of fully integrating these projects, both at the level of the base resource envelope and at the 110% level.
420 The Committee would like the Centre to provide additional information about opportunities in the short to medium term for handing over a larger share of the responsibilities it currently carries to strong national programmes in the region.
421 TAC would also welcome additional information about the role and specific activities of IRRI as a global centre for rice research, as distinct from its regional activities in Asia, and about the multicommodity perspective of its proposed consortium for upland farming systems.
422 Dr. Henri Carsalade, Chair of the Board of Trustees of WARDA, introduced the draft MTP by stating that the Plan had been endorsed by the Board, management and staff, and had benefited from consultation with WARDA's national programme partners through the task force mechanisms, and from the visit of the TAC Working Party. He noted that WARDA had begun to mobilize regional funds and that hopes were running high in the region for CGIAR-supported activities through WARDA and other centres.
423 Dr. Eugene Terry, Director General of WARDA presented the draft MTP with assistance from Dr. Peter Matlon, Director of Research, and Mr. Kwame Akuffo-Akoto, Financial Controller. Dr. Terry reported that WARDA perceived the challenges it faced as opportunities for creativity and change. However, the research capacity of NARS was a limiting factor at a time when the region needed sober and innovative ways to solve its problems.
424 WARDA's MTP proposals responded to 3 major challenges facing West Africa: the growing imbalance between regional production and demand for rice; the increasing degradation of the agricultural resource base as agriculture production in general and rice in particular shifted from extensive to intensive land-use systems; and the future wellbeing of women, who are heavily involved in rice farming and constitute 38% of the agricultural labour force. Further, the MTP responded to lessons learnt from WARDA's institutional reorganization, the first MTP for 1990-93, the internal programme and management review, and the 1993 EPMR. The Plan focused on expanding the research activities of the 2 primary programmes: the Continuum and the Sahel, and on strengthening the network activities within the Mangrove Swamp Programme. At the same time, the scientific teams in the Continuum and Sahel Programmes would expand their focus on resource management research with the goal of balancing the immediate need for productivity growth with the long-term imperative of sustaining the resource base. Through a new open-centre construct, WARDA would provide an institutional framework within which teams of collaborators could work together in an integrated regional rice research programme. The open-centre concept would also allow effective coordination of WARDA's partnerships with NARS and with advanced institutions, and facilitate the greater mobilization of talent and resources towards the achievement of regional critical mass.
425 WARDA's strategy was based on a new goal statement which focuses on rice-based cropping systems in the region, and incorporated sustainability concerns as well as productivity objectives. WARDA's long-term vision at the institutional level was that of a permanent organizational structure oriented towards strengthening regional agricultural science capability. Programmatically, WARDA's commitment to the development of sustainable production systems required a research programme with a broad perspective and an integrated approach. In the continuum ecosystems, WARDA's programme would increasingly address a diverse range of crops, especially in the inland valleys. In the Sahel, WARDA's research would contribute directly to the long-term strategy of crop diversification.
426 The MTP was built on 5 elements of its strategy which define the key ecoregional aspects of WARDA's research approach: the environmental orientation of WARDA's operational mandate with a focus on agroecological zones at the institutional level, and agroecosystems at the project level; the focus on resource and crop management; sustainable production systems; the farming systems perspective and partnership.
427 WARDA's priority setting was based on a congruence approach and took into account potential for output growth. 75% of its resources for research would be allocated to support core activities in the continuum, and 25% in the Sahel. WARDA expected to further refine its priorities as constraints, yield losses and potential became better characterized and diagnosed. Research objectives were quantified in the Plan to measure progress and provide guidelines for resource allocation, and outputs were defined in terms of advances in knowledge and technology generation.
428 The core funding target for the Plan was US$7.58 million in 1992 US dollars (equal to the base envelope plus 30%), which WARDA felt was necessary for a set of priority activities constituting a viable nucleus programme with 21 SSY. Based on TAC guidelines, the Plan also included programme proposals at the base envelope of $5.83 million (16 SSY) and at the base plus 10% level of $6.41 million (18 SSY).
429 In the 110% scenario, the total number of core scientists would increase from 9 in 1993 to 13 in 1998. In 1993, $0.71 million and $1.81 million of complementary funding would be used to support core and complementary programmes, respectively. The target for complementary funding during the planning period was $4.53 million in 1998. Given the constraints posed by the indicative TAC base envelope, WARDA had developed a financial strategy to expand available resources, guide resource allocation, and ensure cost-effective operations.
430 In the ensuing discussion, members commented that WARDA's MTP was well-structured with clearly-defined priorities, but was written in more detail than in most other MTPs, conveying an impression that WARDA may be attempting to do too much. Since the region lacked clear development pathways and there were major problems on policy, infrastructure, pricing, etc., members felt that it was essential for WARDA to become involved in policy analysis. However, no policy analysis activity was proposed at the base and the base plus 10% core funding levels. Questions were raised about the strategy for policy analysis and its implications for collaboration.
431 It was observed that, while WARDA's institutional goal and programmes had been modified in order to place greater emphasis on the conservation and management of natural resources, the change had not been explicitly reflected in the allocation of resources by activity category. It was noted that WARDA's priorities in the continuum and Sahel were based on the need for increased productivity and sustainability of the cropping systems, rather than for rice itself. Clarification was requested on WARDA's collaboration with IITA in the Continuum Programme, and with IIMI in the Sahel Programme.
432 Other points in the discussion related to the future of INGER, priorities for activities to be supported by special project funding, the implementation of the open-centre concept under the current situation of funding constraints, the relative advantage of rice in the different ecosystems within the continuum, and the nature of land degradation in the uplands due to rice.
433 In their response, WARDA's Board and management stated that the policy implications of farmers moving into the lowlands were being investigated, although rice had an environmental comparative advantage in the lowlands. WARDA considered that comparative advantage studies that took into account cropping systems were essential, but so far a joint WARDA-IFPRI project in this area had not been successful in securing funds. There was, however, a reduced proposal with the African Development Bank to assess the relative advantages for rice in various sectors. It was pointed out that there was a provision for a 3% allocation to policy analysis at the base envelope funding level.
434 In response to other questions, WARDA stated that the open-centre concept needed to be implemented carefully. TAC was informed that, with the severity of funding constraints, WARDA would allocate some complementary funding for core programme activities, as appropriate. There would also be activities which would be entirely financed with complementary funds. The contribution of rice cultivation to the land degradation of the uplands had not been quantified so far, although there was a need to do so. WARDA was already collaborating with other organizations, including IITA, and expected the arrangement to evolve into a consortium. The facilities to accommodate INGER at WARDA were only partly available, but the requirements to fully host this activity would be in place shortly.
435 After further discussion, TAC prepared the following commentary on WARDA's MTP:
TAC INTERIM COMMENTARY ON WARDA'S MTP
436 WARDA's proposals are transparent and well structured, with clearly-defined priorities. TAC commends the detailed planning to ensure efficient use of scarce funds, and notes that sub-projects are presented at a level of detail not shown in most other MTPs. This level of disaggregation may convey an impression that WARDA is attempting to do too much.
437 TAC notes that the priority being given to research in the continuum (a sequence of land types and associated ecosystems located along the slope of the local topography) is based on the needs and opportunities for increased productivity and sustainability of its cropping systems, and not just of rice.
438 TAC also notes that WARDA's institutional goal and programmes have been modified to place greater emphasis on the conservation and management of natural resources. This change does not appear to be reflected in an obvious manner in the allocation of resources by activity categories. It would be helpful to TAC if the basis for this apparent discrepancy could be clarified.
439 TAC seeks clarification of:
· the extent to which partnerships with advanced institutions can be used by WARDA to effectively address priority research areas under its current situation of funding constraints;· the opportunities for an integrated programme of research with IITA on rice-based cropping systems in the continuum/inland valley ecosystems, as suggested by both the panels of the Inter-Centre Review of Rice and the WARDA External Review; and
· the arrangements that are being negotiated for collaboration with IITA and other partners in the Continuum Programme, and with IIMI in the Sahel Programme.
440 TAC notes the relatively low level of financial support expected by WARDA from its Member States during the period of the MTP. TAC also notes the limited capacity of West African NARS for rice research which could complement WARDA's work. In the light of this, TAC agrees with the recommendation of the External Review Panel that the WARDA Member States take steps to bring their contributions to the WARDA budget up to the target level of 5% of operating funds.
441 WARDA's MTP and its written response to the report of the Third External Review are at variance, with regard to the future of INGER-Africa. The WARDA MTP states that during a 3-year period of transition, responsibility for INGER-West Africa will be transferred from IITA to its main research centre at M'bé, and a regionally-recruited breeder will assist the IRRI liaison scientist who currently serves as the INGER-Africa coordinator, based at IITA. After the transition period, the regionally-recruited breeder will assume full responsibility as the INGER-Africa coordinator. However, in the written response to the External Review, WARDA states that it is seeking agreement with IRRI to move the current INGER-Africa coordinator to M'bé as soon as the appropriate facilities are in place. TAC agrees with the External Review Panel's recommendation that INGER should be maintained as a unitary network for the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, sponsored and managed jointly by WARDA and IRRI, and that the timing of the move to WARDA and the definitive arrangements, including the financial arrangements, should be worked out as part of an overall package that will guarantee the Network's future stability and effectiveness. TAC would appreciate receiving clarification of the proposals for INGER-Africa, and the agreement reached by WARDA and IRRI regarding its future.
442 The Chair announced that the paper before TAC, 'Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR', was a revision of an earlier draft and incorporated comments made at TAC 59 and ICW'92 and by interested observers. He then highlighted the revisions: Clarification had been given on the allocation of CGIAR core resources to livestock research and on the outcome of the congruence analysis made by TAC in the review of CGIAR priorities and strategies. A new section had been added to deal with the broader research challenge faced by the CGIAR, in which an elaboration was given of strategic and applied research at the global and ecoregional levels.
443 The major changes in the revised draft occurred in Chapter 5: A new section had been added, in which the opportunities for inter-centre collaboration in each of the 7 major priority research areas were explored, with the assumption of the current institutional arrangements. It was concluded from the analysis that there were very strong arguments for closer integration of significant parts of the research programmes of ILCA and ILRAD and that there was a need to develop an inter-centre framework for the coordination of livestock research. In another new section, a number of institutional options for the organization of livestock research in the CGIAR had been expanded by the TAC Secretariat for discussion by TAC. Four options had been presented: the status quo; development of mechanisms for inter-centre collaboration; a merger of ILCA and ILRAD; and the establishment of a new global centre for livestock research. The advantages and disadvantages for each option had been listed. The Chair noted that the option of a merger of ILCA and ILRAD was further explored elsewhere in the paper and he encouraged TAC members to think of other options.
444 The Chair then recalled that, at ICW'92, the CGIAR had established a Working Group on Livestock Research, chaired by Dr. John 'Taff' Davies, which had met in Rome for 2 days prior to the start of TAC 60. He invited Dr. Davies to provide an overview of the progress made by the Working Group.
445 Dr. Davies introduced some of the members of the Working Group who were also attending TAC 60; Drs. Ralph Cummings, Paul Egger and lain MacGillivray. He stated that the TAC document had been a very useful input into the Working Group's deliberations and noted that there was a remarkable similarity between the 2 sets of proposals. The Working Group would recommend a unified strategy for livestock research, a revised institutional organization and new management structures. A report had been drafted and would be circulated to TAC for comments in due course.
446 In the ensuing discussion, TAC members stressed the need for mechanisms which would coordinate global livestock research efforts, and called for innovative modes of operation for livestock research. Several members also stressed the need for a systemwide review of livestock research, similar to the recent Inter-Centre Review of Rice.
447 Items that were considered to deserve greater coverage in the TAC paper were: the justification for CGIAR involvement in livestock research, which related primarily to the poverty-alleviation aspects of low-income producers; the role of the private sector in livestock research; and the need for an improved analysis of the capacity of NARS to complement CGIAR research. The need for crop-oriented centres to give greater emphasis to the feed aspects of their crops was also discussed. Several members cautioned against the call for a strategic redirection of crop-oriented centres, noting that there were trade-offs associated with breeding for particular characteristics and that greater digestibility, for example, could be achieved only at the cost of lower grain yields.
448 Dr. Ross Gray, Director General of ILRAD, complimented TAC on the paper and expressed the hope that future erosion in the funding of livestock research could be avoided.
449 Responding for ILCA, Dr. John Walsh, Director General, and Dr. Dieter Bommer, Board Chair, commended TAC's revised draft, reporting that ILCA agreed with the analysis of the global aspects of nutrition research and the implications for ILCA. They referred TAC members to ILCA's MTP for up-to-date information on future directions of ILCA/ILRAD collaboration, but expressed concern about the precarious financial situation in the CGIAR.
450 During the course of the TAC meeting, the TAC draft paper, particularly the section on institutional options, was further discussed and revised. TAC expressed a strong preference for 'option 4', the proposal that a new global centre for livestock research should be established in which the physical and human resources of ILCA and ILRAD would be integrated. The new centre would be given an extended mandate and would work in close collaboration with ecoregional mechanisms.
451 Dr. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee for External Reviews, gave a progress report on the external reviews of ICARDA, IIMI, CIP and CIAT. He also reported on responsibilities which would be taken on by the Inter-Secretariat Working Group, and noted that decisions on the future use of interim reviews would be taken after the Interim External Review of CIMMYT had been received by the CGIAR.
ICARDA
452 The third EPMR of ICARDA was commissioned at TAC 55 in June 1991. The Panel composition was as follows:
|
Dr. Jock Anderson |
Australia |
Chair, Economics |
|
Dr. Graham Jenkins |
UK |
Crop improvement |
|
Dr. Peter Trutman |
Switzerland |
Crop protection |
|
Dr. Adel El-Beltagy |
Egypt |
Crop and resources management |
|
Dr. Kurt Finsterbusch |
USA |
Management |
|
Dr. John McIntire |
USA |
Consultant, Livestock policy |
|
Dr. William Carlson |
USA |
Consultant, Governance |
|
Ms. Elizabeth Field |
|
CGIAR Secretariat |
|
Dr. Vivian Timon |
|
TAC Secretariat/Panel Secretary |
453 Prior to the initial phase of the review, the Panel Chair and the consultant to the Panel on governance had attended the Executive Committee meeting of the ICARDA Board in Washington on 2-3 November 1992, where they had interviewed Board members.
454 The initial phase of the review was held at ICARDA from 23 to 29 January 1993, and was followed by field visits in Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco. The review appeared to be going well, and the use of a smaller panel with experienced consultants was considered to be a good model.
455 The main phase of the review would be conducted at ICARDA from 23 April to 9 May 1993. The Panel's report would be considered at TAC 61 in June 1993, and by the CGIAR at ICW'93.
IIMI
456 The first EPMR of IIMI was commissioned at TAC 55 in June 1991. The review would be conducted by a single panel of 4 persons including the Chair, and supported by consultants as appropriate. The Panel would hold expertise in: irrigation and agricultural institutions/support services; water resources/irrigation structures; agricultural science/natural resources management; socioeconomics; and management.
457 A list of potential chairs was approved at TAC 59 in October 1992 and had been cleared by IIMI. Interest and availability of the first-ranked candidate is currently being ascertained. A list of potential panel members has been compiled, and a short list would be prepared in consultation with the Panel Chair and the Centre.
458 The initial phase was tentatively planned for 29 November to 4 December 1993 to coincide with IIMI's 1993 Internal Programme Review, and Programme Committee and Board meetings at IIMI headquarters in Sri Lanka. After a week at IIMI, the panel would visit IIMI field locations in Pakistan and Sri Lanka in Asia, and in Burkina Faso, Niger and Nigeria in West Africa.
459 The main phase of the review would be conducted during the end of March and the beginning of April 1994. The review report would be considered by TAC 64 in June 1994, and by the CGIAR at ICW'94.
CIAT and CIP
460 The fourth EPMRs of CIAT and CIP were commissioned at TAC 59 in October 1992. Planning of the reviews had begun in consultation with the centres. The main phases of the reviews were tentatively planned for late 1994 or early 1995. The reviews would be conducted by small panels, supported by consultants as appropriate. A list of potential chairs for each review would be considered at TAC 61.
461 A panel of a chair plus a maximum of 5 members had been proposed for the CIAT review: 2 panel members (or one panel member and one consultant) with expertise in crop improvement/crop protection; one in crop and resource management; one in socioeconomics/policy; and 2 in management (including finance and administration, resources management and board matters). A consultant would be used to provide additional expertise in forage/livestock and to fill in other gaps in expertise where necessary.
462 A panel of a chair plus a maximum of 4 members had been proposed for the CIP review. The necessary expertise would be contributed by one panel member for crop improvement/crop protection; one for crop and resource management; one for socioeconomics/policy; and 2 panel members (or one panel member and one consultant) for management. Expertise in biotechnology and relationships with NARS and networking would also be necessary.
Inter-Secretariat Working Group
463 The responsibilities which would be taken on by the Inter-Secretariat Working Group include: the way scientific quality and impact are assessed in reviews; the efficiency of the review process; the roles of panel chairs, members and resource persons; and terms of reference for review panels. The Inter-Secretariat Working Group would report back to TAC in March 1994.
464 Following Dr. Gregersen's report, several issues on reviews were raised by donors. One noted that some centres referred to donors as investors, and he felt that the reviews were not supplying what would be required from investors in terms of management of funds. Another appealed for more socioeconomic analysis in the review reports, which he considered especially important in the light of the ecoregional approach to research.
465 It was noted by TAC members that investors receive a company report, and this format could be used for reviews. However, the financial components of centres' work was considered to be dealt with adequately in centres' annual reports. The review panels examined the reports of external auditors and assessed the way funds were managed. TAC felt that review panels had always assessed the socioeconomics element of centres with an ecoregional mandate, including relationships with NARS.
466 The following dates and venues were considered and approved:
|
TAC 61 |
28 June - 6 July 1993 |
IIMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka |
|
TAC 62 |
18-23 October 1993 |
IFPRI, Washington DC, USA |
|
TAC 63 |
21-27 March 1994 |
FAO, Rome, Italy |
|
TAC 64 |
20-26 June 1994 |
WARDA, Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire |
|
TAC 65 |
17-22 October 1994 |
IFPRI, Washington DC, USA |
Task Force on Banana and Plantain
CIFOR
ECART
Report of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources
467 The Chair reminded the Committee that INIBAP was one of the 10 non-associated centres which TAC had been asked to review with a view to inclusion in the CGIAR. In its 1990 paper 'A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR', TAC had stated that its preferred recommendation for banana and plantain research was to merge INIBAP with IITA, while maintaining a physical presence in Montpellier for the networking activities. This recommendation was not accepted by the CGIAR and INIBAP had been admitted to the system in 1990 as an experimental network model. Serious questions about the scientific direction, regional network structure and management at INIBAP had been raised in the 1992 EPMR. The TAC commentary on the EPMR had recommended that the CGIAR set up a task force to review the needs for banana and plantain research and to explore institutional options for CGIAR activities in this area. The Task Force was appointed at ICW'92 and consisted of 6 members, 4 of whom were present at the meeting. The Chair invited Dr. Henri Carsalade from the Task Force to present then-draft report.
468 In his presentation, Dr. Carsalade stated that the Task Force had used documents, visits to institutions, and written contributions from research centres and donors to analyse production, research capacity and trends for banana and plantain research within and outside the CGIAR. They had tried to make realistic recommendations which, if acted upon, could effect a strong impact on banana and plantain smallholders.
469 Dr. Carsalade emphasized the major characteristics of banana and plantain production; the diversity in varieties, production systems, regions, producers, and constraints. He reported that the gross value of production for banana and plantain ranked fourth after rice, milk and wheat; 70 million tonnes of banana and plantain were produced per year, (63 million for local consumption, 7 million for export), 86% of which was grown by smallholders. Distribution of production was 35% in Africa, 36% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 29% in Asia and the Pacific. The major constraint to production were diseases, which varied with region and variety.
470 At present, about US$70 million was being spent globally on banana and plantain research, involving approximately 500 scientists, 70% of whom were located in public institutions in developing countries. Researchers often worked in small teams, with unstable financial resources, and often focused on local problems. Research institutions in advanced countries such as the USA, France, Belgium and Australia, which accounted for 15% of the research capacity, supported national institutions and conducted some strategic research. Private institutions, which made up 10% of the current capacity, were generally focused on dessert bananas. The CGIAR contributed the remaining 5% of banana and plantain research in the form of $4 million ($3.3 million in core and $0.7 million in complementary funds), representing 15 senior scientists. CGIAR funds were channelled through INIBAP, for networking, germplasm exchange and information, IITA, for conducting research on varietal improvement and production systems, and IBPGR, for organizing Musa collection expeditions and developing germplasm exchange procedures. ICRAF and IFPRI also planned to work with Musa in the future.
471 The Task Force had used 3 principles to guide their thinking on institutional options for the CGIAR: that the major need was for germplasm improvement, which would have the strongest impact on smallholders; that CGIAR funding would stay at the same level ($3.3 million); and that CGIAR support should enhance the international relevance of non-CGIAR investments on Musa. As a result, the Task Force had recommended:
· that a Musa germplasm consortium should be created, with a global improvement programme on Musa germplasm.· that INIBAP, IITA and IBPGR should focus their activities on Musa germplasm improvement and on information documentation and training.
· that a scientific advisory committee should be established for the consortium, which would work with TAC to ensure coherence of the Musa research effort.
472 Dr. Carsalade explained that the consortium would be made up of a group of research institutions with strong research capacities which would develop a coherent programme on Musa germplasm improvement, based on their current activities. Research generated from their activities would be freely available. The Task Force had so far identified 7 groups, representing 50 or 60 scientists, who would be appropriate for and able to participate in this type of consortium.
473 As well as providing a secretariat for the consortium, the Task Force had felt that INIBAP should concentrate its efforts to become the node of a global network focused on Musa germplasm improvement and related activities; assist the transfer of germplasm-related technologies and provide mechanisms for their evaluation; provide a forum for the definition of research priorities; and provide information, documentation and training services, especially for NARS.
474 IITA's role in the consortium would be to continue its Musa germplasm activities in East and West Africa, working closely with NARS and regionally-based institutions, and to participate in the Musa global germplasm programme. IBPGR would support Musa germplasm collections with INIBAP, especially in South-East Asia. The current allocation of CGIAR core funds for banana and plantain work among INIBAP, IITA and IBPGR was considered appropriate for their roles in the consortium.
475 Dr. Carsalade emphasized that the creation of a scientific advisory committee was still under discussion. The Task Force had thought that such a committee would be necessary to facilitate the formation of a current international programme on Musa research and to advise donors on funding for the centres in the consortium. The proposal was for a small committee of no more than 6 members; one each from IITA and INIBAP and 4 independent scientists. The INIBAP donors support group would take on a broader role and become a Musa donors support group. Dr. Carsalade ended his presentation by reporting that the Task Force was convinced that there were major opportunities for impact in the medium and long term for banana and plantain production, and that the proposed consortium would provide the CGIAR with a cost-effective mechanism for generating technology to help small producers and low-income consumers, enhancing the contributions of other institutions as it did so.
476 Dr. Lukas Brader, Director General of IITA, stated that he felt the Task Force's report represented an original solution to a complex task. He recognized the time constraints on the Task Force, but regretted that they had not had time to visit IITA. He reiterated the importance of banana and plantain in food production in developing countries, and reported that IITA had developed 14 black Sigatoka-resistant hybrids which were moving to field-level testing.
477 Dr. Brader disagreed with the Task Force's opinion that there was not always sufficient coordination among the activities of the 3 CGIAR centres involved in Musa research and that there was no mechanism to ensure coherence of action. He reported that a memorandum of understanding between INIBAP and IITA had been drawn up immediately after INIBAP had joined the CGIAR system. As a result of that memorandum, joint annual work plans had been formulated, and representatives of IITA were attending INIBAP's Board meetings. He also reported that, contrary to the figure given in the report, IITA's allocation for banana and plantain work was about $1 million.
478 The Task Force had recommended that the CGIAR should sponsor a global programme on Musa germplasm improvement and related research, which Dr. Brader felt was an excellent proposal. However, under the same recommendation, it was stated that IITA, INIBAP and IBPGR should focus their programmes on Musa germplasm-related activities and on information, documentation and training, which he felt conflicted with the view of the comprehensive programme recommended for IITA earlier in the report. The real constraints in Africa concerned problems such as yield decline, pests and diseases, and post-harvest losses, and could not be solved by germplasm improvement alone. IITA was addressing aspects of these problems, and being confined to germplasm improvement work would be contrary to its strategic plan and MTP. He noted that the Task Force had suggested that the INIBAP specialists in Africa should become involved with pest management research, using information flowing from the IITA programme and elsewhere. Dr. Brader stated that IITA published all its results in this area, and asked for justification for the Task Force's suggestion.
479 Finally, he reported that IITA welcomed the idea of a consortium on Musa and would propose EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuària) as a member. However, there was some concern at the proposal for a scientific advisory committee, which IITA felt might add unnecessarily to the structures within the CGIAR system.
480 Dr. Nicolás Mateo, Director of INIBAP, stated that the Task Force's report was challenging and useful, and he commended the members of the Task Force for their work. He highlighted that the visions of INIBAP and the Task Force coincided in 2 important areas: the idea of the consortium on breeding, and the importance attached to information and communication systems. Like IITA, INIBAP had reservations about the proposed scientific advisory committee which, would necessarily complicate the structure within which members had to work, and dilute the time and effort spent on dealing with partners and clients. INIBAP was also concerned about the critical mass in the CGIAR system necessary to maintain a global vision, provide leadership and encouragement, and organize banana and plantain activities.
481 Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin, Director of IBPGR, noted that while IBPGR was a small actor in the Musa business, it had worked quite closely with INIBAP and other institutes on various aspects of Musa genetic resources. In its new strategy, IBPGR wanted a more sharply-defined and scaled-down role in its work on crops for which other centres held a leading mandate. He felt that there was clearly a continuing role for IBPGR in a very defined area of banana and plantain research, probably in providing advice and support on collection activities such as generic research issues, genetic diversity measurement, documentation, and in vitro conservation work. IBPGR supported the proposal for a consortium, and agreed with the Task Force that, while IBPGR should be involved in its activities, it should not be a member.
482 Dr. Michael Arnold reminded those present of TAC's concern about the findings in the 1992 EPMR that INIBAP was turning itself into a research service, rather than a stimulator of research. TAC had felt that this development had resulted in inadequate attention being given to research on germplasm improvement, an area to which the CGIAR could make a strong contribution. TAC had also been concerned about the expansion of INIBAP's mandate.
483 Dr. Arnold felt that the Task Force report put the funding for and the gaps in research on banana and plantain into perspective. He assumed that a focus on disease resistance was implicit in the recommendation regarding germplasm work. Dr. Arnold drew an analogy between the proposed consortium and the Africa-wide biocontrol programme, which had also had a donor support group, and a scientific advisory committee with its own secretariat. He asked for details of other institutional options considered by the Task Force, and the advantages and disadvantages of each.
484 Other TAC members raised questions about the implications of reallocating funds from INIBAP, the possible conflict of interest for INIBAP in having to compete for funds it might be administering, and the proposed relationship between the scientific advisory committee and its secretariat at INIBAP. Concern was expressed about the proposal to decentralize INIBAP staff to the regions, since there were so few staff at INIBAP at present, and about the difficulties in fully integrating outposted scientists at their host institutes and in assessing critical mass for a network.
485 The Task Force was commended for identifying the main sources of expertise around the world and for suggesting how these could best be brought to bear. It was noted that no mention had been made in the report of INIBAP's Transit Centre in Belgium, which was also serving as an in vitro germplasm bank for the Network.
486 TAC was concerned that the proposed consortium might not be the most cost-effective solution having regard to the total facilities currently available in the CGIAR. Given the projected financial stringencies in the CGIAR and the small size of the proposed consortium, TAC suggested that the CGIAR should consider the relative costs of operating the proposed consortium through IBPGR or IITA. TAC noted that IBPGR had already developed a similar innovative proposal for coconut and could be asked to assume responsibility for the Banana and Plantain Consortium. TAC also noted that IITA had an effective and expanding programme on banana and plantain improvement and wondered whether IITA could play a greater role in the global effort.
487 Dr. Selçuk Özgediz of the CGIAR Secretariat, who had served as secretary for the INIBAP EPMR, added his voice to the general concern over setting up a parallel structure to the CGIAR, and stated that there would be a need to clarify accountability in such an organization. He was concerned that, under the scheme proposed by the Task Force, production systems issues would not be given sufficient attention, and he felt that the current capacity at INIBAP had not been adequately taken into account.
488 One of the donor representatives noted that it appeared that the Task Force had justified the case for banana and plantain research, but not for INIBAP. An FAO representative gave a brief report of the activities of the FAO Inter-Governmental Group on Bananas, which was in the process of obtaining funds for and implementing a comprehensive programme on banana research through a range of institutes. He asked how the CGIAR consortium's work would be bridged with initiatives similar to FAO's.
489 The Chair noted that it was necessary to link the banana and plantain breeding programme nodes in such a way as to achieve a global effort that was greater than the sum of the parts. He felt that the proposed consortium could be a way to achieve this, but noted that there was a lack of understanding on operational and funding aspects of such an option. He echoed TAC's concerns with respect to the donors support group and the scientific advisory committee and the scientific role of INIBAP.
490 Drs. Carsalade, Gabrielle Persley and Robert Bertram responded on behalf of the Task Force. Emphasis had been placed on germplasm improvement at the expense of production systems because of the necessity to prioritize under limited funding and because of the location-specific nature of production systems research. Resource implications of the consortium would be marginal for the CGIAR, since the Task Force had assumed constant CGIAR funding, but the consortium could be a more effective channel for the money. The Task Force had reviewed a range of institutional options, including the coconut model, and would give more details of these, and the pros and cons of each, in the next draft of the report. They would also take a closer look at the scientific role of INIBAP.
491 The Task Force recognized TAC's concern over the proposal for a scientific advisory committee, but believed that there was a need for independent scientific assessment and priority setting. Although such a committee might be expensive, it would not necessarily have to exist indefinitely. An analogy was drawn with the Rockefeller's Rice Biotechnology Network, whose scientific advisory committee was made up of both rice research and biotechnology experts.
492 The Chair thanked the Task Force members and stated that he would take TAC's comments and advice into account when making his report to the CGIAR at MTM'93.
493 Mr. Jeffrey Sayer, Director General, gave a progress report on developments at CIFOR. He reported that CIFOR had signed sponsorship agreements with 3 donors; Sweden, Switzerland and Australia, and was approaching consensus on a host country agreement with Indonesia. It was hoped that the host country agreement would be signed at a board meeting in early May, when CIFOR would be officially inaugurated
494 CIFOR was currently working on developing its MTP, the provisional draft of which would be reviewed by the Programme Committee and the Board in May, presented to the CGIAR at MTM'93, and sent to TAC by the end of May for consideration at TAC 61 in June. A strategic plan would be developed later in the year. CIFOR was developing 5 main programme areas: strategic policy research; conservation and management of natural forests; forestry in degraded lands; products and markets; and research support. Strategic policy research would be conducted in areas identified as having potentially-rapid payoff: settlement patterns in forest areas and the macroeconomic environment which influences these patterns; the influence of forestry activities, particularly logging, on settlement patterns; and the distribution of the costs and benefits of forest conservation and use, and the equitable distribution of those benefits. CIFOR would also conduct research on the evolution, advocation and adoption of policy.
495 Under the programme on conservation and management of natural forests, particular attention would be given to the assessment and monitoring of biodiversity, and the use of international financial transfers to pay for the conservation of biodiversity; low-impact harvesting technologies; mechanisms for balancing the global and local value of forests; and the influence of forest management on biodiversity and other environmental values, particularly the influence of logging and selective logging.
496 The degraded lands programme would work on the social and economic constraints to land restoration and would be involved in the biological and social aspects of ICRAF's Imperata programme. Work on products and markets would be aimed at local value-added technologies and the management and marketing of non-timber products. Research support services would deal with information, databases and publications, and would be the focal point for human resources development in NARS.
497 Each programme would have activities in all the regions. Staff would report to their programme heads, and each project would be accounted for in a particular programme. Horizontal links between programmes would initially be informal. The programmes would be built on strategic partnerships with a restricted number of key institutions in developing and developed countries. A clear distinction would be drawn between the relationships with partners and clients or constituents.
498 The Institute would develop in 2 phases: the initial phase of building critical mass, during which 60-70% of the budget would be spent in Bogor; and the second phase, in the medium term, when growth would occur in the regions.
499 The priority-setting process used by CIFOR was outlined. It was reported that, in view of considerations of natural resources and human impact, forestry research concerned many more factors and interactions than most other commodities. Since the larger problems had already been prioritized by various other groups, CIFOR had documented the origins of the problems at the field level, and had identified approximately 100 international and strategic research topics. Since qualitative data were incomplete, a multiple-scoring system was used in conjunction with the experienced judgement of a wide range of professionals, to rank the 100 programmes. Final selection of programmes would be left to incoming staff.
500 The discussion was opened by Dr. Peter Tigerstedt, TAC Liaison Scientist for CIFOR. He felt that conservation and maintenance of biodiversity were a consequence of good silvicultural management. In his view, the programme on conservation and management of natural forests could be better named to reflect this. Other members asked for details on how CIFOR's work would benefit the poor, the Centre's projected growth, and its links with IUFRO (International Union of Forestry Research Organizations), with ICRAF's alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiative, and with policy research in other institutes. Questions were also raised on links between forestry research in tropical, subtropical and temperate regions.
501 Since agroecological zoning was considered inappropriate for forestry research, CIFOR was asked what alternative it planned to use. Members asked whether the Centre would conduct research on wildlife conservation, tree selection or tree improvement. One member asked how TAC could best help CIFOR.
502 In his response, Mr. Sayer stated that programme names were not fixed as yet, but that silvicultural management would not necessarily cover the conservation of biodiversity in forests. He felt that the conservation of wildlife was implicit in the conservation of biodiversity. He reported that one of CIFOR's fundamental aims was to serve the poor through the generation of employment and income, in both industrial and subsistence forestry. Further, land tenure would be prominent in the policy research.
503 CIFOR would expand in partnership with regional institutes and ecoregional CGIAR centres. IUFRO's networks and membership were considered to be extremely important to CIFOR's work, and the Centre had also engaged in discussions with FAO. Partners in policy work would include IFPRI and other international organizations engaged in innovative policy work; CIFOR would be involved in developing methodologies for policy analysis and policy adoption, rather than in policy issues in individual countries.
504 Regional work would initially be focused on the tropics, particularly in the lowlands. He reported that tree selection and improvement would be addressed in the programmes on conservation and management and degraded and depleted forest lands. CIFOR would be concerned with the methodologies of species improvement rather than with the improvement of individual species. He stated that TAC's help could be most usefully engaged in providing guidance on the application of the agroecological zone concept to forestry and in assessing various databases and information systems.
505 With respect to collaboration, TAC was informed that CIFOR had attended the second global steering group meeting of ICRAF's alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiative, and would continue to contribute towards it. In formulating its MTP, CIFOR had sought the collaboration of a vast number of group leaders and active participants in IUFRO. A dialogue on tree selection and improvement was being organized by the Keystone Centre, with the possibility of a similar initiative on forest genetic resources. If proposals in these areas were acceptable, they would be incorporated into CIFOR's MTP.
506 The Chair stated that ECART (the European Consortium for Agricultural Research in the Tropics), was comprised of CIRAD (International Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development) of France, IICT (Tropical Research Institute) of Portugal, NRI (Natural Resources Institute) of the UK, and KIT (Royal Tropical Institute) of the Netherlands.
507 Dr. Anthony Beattie, Director of NRI, informed TAC that ECART had been launched in Amsterdam in May 1992, and its objectives were:
· to respond to the needs of developing countries through long-term institution building;· to contribute to the development of operational policies for rural development and natural resources management;
· to increase the perceived significance of agricultural research in the tropics by policy makers; and
· to improve the contribution to agricultural research by stimulating collaboration between European organizations and other parts of the international scientific community, NARS and national development agencies.
508 Dr. Beattie highlighted the similarities in the aims of ECART and the CGIAR. He drew particular attention to the need to share and develop knowledge within the scientific community, to add value to the research effort through synergistic relations, and to ensure that the significance of agricultural research in the tropics was understood by policy makers. ECART operated through biannual meetings of the directors of the member institutions, all of whom were very involved in and committed to the process and were in constant communication with each other. Working-level coordination was organized through secretariat meetings every 3 months, and projects were realized through working groups. So far, 8 main areas of interaction had been identified where members felt they shared common interests on which they could usefully collaborate. Work had begun on merging the 4 institutions' documentation databases, and some joint publishing projects had been proposed.
509 Dr. Carsalade, Director General of CIRAD, noted that ECART's member institutions represented 2,000 scientists and an annual budget capacity of over US$200 million. He highlighted the complementary interests of ECART and the CGIAR, and noted that they shared experience in applied research, technology transfer and institution building. Both institutions were used to working with NARS and with many bilateral and multilateral aid programmes. He reported that ECART was keen to discuss projects with CGIAR centres.
510 TAC members asked whether collaboration was being sought from other European institutions, and if external funds would be sought for ECART's collaborative projects. Details were requested on the mode of operation of the working groups.
511 Responding to the questions, Dr. Carsalade reported that the ECART's member institutions undertook joint projects and programmes, and that the consortium would try to secure external funds for collaborative projects. He reported that ECART strove to be non-bureaucratic and left the working groups to determine their own modes of operation.
512 The Chair thanked Drs. Beattie and Carsalade for their presentation.
513 Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin, Director of IBPGR, reported that representatives from FAO and all the CGIAR centres with genebanks or significant plant genetic resources (PGR) activities had met in February for the fourth meeting of the Inter-Centre Working Group on PGR, held at ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dr. Hawtin noted that the meeting had been positive, and that the participants had been united in their approach to the issues.
514 In a discussion on standardizing genebank procedures, the Working Group had commended the final report of the FAO/IBPGR Expert Consultation on Genebank Standards, which it considered would be a useful tool in assisting genetic conservation in NARS. The Working Group had felt that, while progress had been made on safety duplication of the CGIAR collections, there was still some way to go in order to ensure adequate duplication of existing stocks. The meeting had received a progress report on the Svalbard International Seedbank, a permafrost storage bank, and Dr. Hawtin reported that the Working Group had engaged a consultant to look into the possibility of raising an endowment fund for the facility, which the majority of centres had indicated they would use.
515 In a discussion on intellectual property rights (IPR), the Working Group had endorsed the concept of trusteeship, since the centres did not regard themselves as owners of the materials. However, they had recognized that such a concept would be difficult to maintain in the public domain once materials were distributed. A few modifications had been suggested for the guidelines published by the Centre Directors' Committee on IPR in 1992. A large number of centres would sign the draft agreement 'Model E', thereby placing their base collections under FAO auspices, after the agreement had been endorsed by the FAO Commission on PGR. The Working Group had discussed the CGIAR strategy on PGR, and since the meeting a draft had been sent to all centres in order to incorporate their comments before it was submitted to the Centre Directors Committee meeting in May and TAC 61 in June.
516 Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Convention had also been also discussed. UNEP had not been able to attend the meeting, but the consideration of post-UNCED issues had highlighted the need for centres to act as part of one system. The Working Group had also drafted and circulated to centres a paper on the implications of the Biodiversity Convention for the CGIAR system, which stated the case for in-trust collections in order to ensure that these are considered as a legitimate mechanism for handling international collections. The Working Group had also circulated a first draft of a publicity brochure which outlined the CGIAR's current and future activities in the context of the global system. The brochure was targeted at those groups involved in follow-up discussions on the Biodiversity Convention and Agenda 21, many of whom were not familiar with the CGIAR.
517 With respect to procedural matters, the Working Group had agreed to recommend to the Centre Directors Committee that its mandate should be broadened to include animal genetic resources, and IBPGR had agreed to provide a secretariat for the Working Group. Dr. Michael Jackson of IRRI had been elected as the new Working Group Chairman.
