Although TAC has visited the subject of NARS-CGIAR relationships and NARS strengthening in various ways over the past five years, it has not prepared a formal paper on the subject since 1991. The paper was: Relationships between CIGAR Centers and national research systems: issues and options (AGR/TAC:IAR/91/5 Rev.1). As will become evident in the following discussion, a great deal has changed in terms of the thinking with regard to CGIAR-NARS relations; and a number of new initiatives in the global agricultural research and extension communities have been created that lend support to TAC's current interest in revisiting the subject at this time.
Most importantly, a number of the recommendations of the recent System Review relate to CGIAR-NARS relationships and the role of the CGIAR in NARS capacity strengthening. Also, within the framework of the Plan of Action of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), the National Agricultural Research Systems Steering Committee Secretariat (NARS Secretariat) has been established and is housed at FAO in close proximity to the TAC Secretariat. The main purpose of this Secretariat is to strengthen the Regional and Subregional Fora of NARS and to promote partnerships among national systems and other stakeholders in GFAR, including the CGIAR System. There are good opportunities for collaboration and they need to be explored.
TAC needs to develop a positive and constructive sense of community and relationship with the NARS Secretariat and with the various other entities. Further, TAC needs to develop a perspective on, or response to the recommendations on NARS relationships found in the System Review report. This requires developing an updated TAC perspective on the strategic issues surrounding CGIAR relationships with NARS and their component organizations. This paper provides background and a framework for development of such a TAC perspective.
Terms such as NARS, NAES, NARIs, ARIs and NGOs and private sector are used in different ways by different people in the System. We want to make sure in the discussion that follows that the definition of NARS as used here is quite clear, so that people do not read into the discussion something that is implied by their particular definitions and perceptions, but not meant in the strategic context being discussed.
Definitions and Concepts. NARS are here defined in the broadest sense to include national agricultural research institutes (NARIs), universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, extension agencies attached to research groups, farmer cooperatives and other configurations of farmers involved in the consultative and research processes. While this broad definition is legitimate in theory, in practice, there are very few such actual "systems" that exist and work together in practice. One of the tasks for the CGIAR and for the NARS Secretariat and others is to develop stronger communication and collaboration among the broad array of actors that make up the NARS. Comments on the initial draft of the paper emphasized the above point: There is no standard NARS configuration; and most of them do not function as cohesive systems.
NARS is used by many people to refer only to systems in developing countries. Similarly, ARIs are generally referred to as being advanced research institutions in developed countries. However, for others, particularly outside the CGIAR System, the terms are used to refer to agricultural research systems and advanced research institutions in any country. If one accepts the argument below for eliminating the "we-they" mentality in relationships between organizations in developing countries and in developed countries, then it is important that we use the term to refer to all countries, not just the so-to-speak "client" NARS of the CGIAR System in developing countries.
The paper views organizations in NARS as the primary recipients and users of CGIAR outputs (some find the term client to have negative connotations, and thus we do not use it often in this discussion). NARS also are, and need to become even more so in the future, the primary partners in the work of the CGIAR centers. Little of the CGIAR's work would reach its ultimate target groups - the rural and urban poor - without good working relations and partnering with NARS.
Objectives and Terms of Reference. The TORs for this study call for:
A review of the collaborative relationships between the CGIAR Centers and NARS including consideration of:
> the role of CGIAR in strengthening NARS;
> the role of the CGIAR in dealing with extension/diffusion issues;
> the balance between information generation and information dissemination.
The TORs were derived from a TAC discussion of priority strategic issues that it should be addressing over the next few years. The present desk study is intended to provide background for TAC's debate on if and how it wants to proceed with the theme of collaborative relationships with NARS and how it wants to integrate this theme with the broader one of partnerships, which TAC also currently is exploring with the CGIAR Secretariat.
Note, however, that the consultant has interpreted "the role of CGIAR in strengthening NARS" to include both the strengthening of systems (i.e., linkages between organizations in a NARS) and the organizations themselves.
The paper thus has as its objectives to identify and assess (1) the major strategic issues associated with CGIAR-NARS relationships; (2) the advantages of alternative collaborative arrangements in different contexts; and (3) the opportunities, if any for improving both the efficiency and effectiveness of linkages between the CGIAR and organizations in the NARS.
Some reviewers of the earlier draft suggested that the paper was too "CG centric" and focused too much on the CGIAR. The paper indeed is focused on the CGIAR and its role in collaborative relationships with organizations in NARS of various kinds and on what the CGIAR can do to foster effective and efficient relationships. Three points need to be made in this context: (1) Organizations in NARS are indeed part of the CGIAR, and thus their perspectives are covered in that sense; (2) it would be presumptuous at this stage (before TAC obtains widespread input from NARS) to suggest the perspectives of the NARS on such relationships, other than as already expressed in the available written documentation; and the latter is taken into account throughout the paper. It is the role of the NARS Secretariat and other groups to provide a "NARS-centric" perspective; and (3) the consultant is convinced, along with many others, that there is no uniform "NARS perspective" on the issues, both because the groups that fit within the broad NARS definition can vary widely in any given country, and because different countries are at highly varying stages in the development of their NARS.
It is stressed that this paper is the result of a desk study that includes analysis of (hopefully) the most relevant historical and current documentation available on the subject. A clear message that comes out of the documentation is that various forms of partnership with organizations and individuals in NARS, broadly defined, are essential and at the heart of the CGIAR's work to reach the poor in developing countries. In fact, one finds few projects in the System's 350 or so that do not involve collaborative relations with NARS. The implication in terms of TAC's task is that the Centers already have a great deal of experience in developing collaborative relationships and that they thus need to be widely consulted in the process of moving forward with TAC's deliberations
The discussion that follows gives recognition to the fact that the goals of the CGIAR related to poverty eradication, food security and environmental enhancement and sustainability can be met much more effectively if the Centers explicitly recognize the role of the extension organizations5 in the target countries. (For example, consider the key role of strong extension activity in the spread of Green Revolution technologies in India, and the key role of NGO extension arms in diffusion and adoption of a variety of CGIAR outputs).
5
Note here that the term "extension" groups is used in the broadest sense to include any type of group that is involved in disseminating and helping in the adoption of technologies (soft and hard) developed through the work of the CGIAR and its research partners. This includes particularly state extension agencies, NGOs and farmer organizations. It also includes policy making and implementing institutions that extend and implement results from CGIAR related policy research.
Ultimately, relationships with organizations in NARS and the systems as a whole only are successful from the CGIAR perspective if they make a contribution towards meeting the goals of the System. (A similar argument can be made for success in terms of the perspectives of organizations in the NARS). In the context of the goals of the CGIAR, research produced by centers, either alone or with partner national research institutions cannot be considered successful until it gets off the shelf and moves actively towards meeting the goals of the System and the countries involved. Thus, both research and extension organizations are relevant to this discussion. An integrated system of research, education and extension often will be the most effective one in terms of achieving the goals held by the CGIAR System. Examples of such systems include the Dutch, Swedish and U.S. Land Grant Systems. The integrated systems approach is becoming more accepted in the CGIAR System as it moves to make the term "NARS" more inclusive.
