The Context for Defining TAC's Involvement
The Strategic Questions
TAC has chosen the subject of CGIAR-NARS collaborative relationships as one of the priority strategic issues for it to address over the next year or so. There is widespread feeling expressed in existing documentation that the CGIAR centers and organizations in NARS have not done a bad job over the years in developing productive and effective collaborative relationships that reflected the conditions and ideas on partnership that existed at the time they were formed. Thus, the paper proceeds on the premise that TAC has picked this issue not because it sees a failure of past relationships, but rather because its members believe that such relationships can be strengthened to fit more closely with changing conditions, knowledge, understanding and capacities. This is an important assumption, since what follows is based on it and not on the opposite assumption that there have been failures that need correction.
Why TAC involvement?
The issues surrounding NARS-CGIAR collaborative relationships are of direct concern to the centers who forge such relationships. However, the issues also have systemwide implications that justify TAC's involvement at the strategic level along side the centers' activity at the more operational, center-specific level.
First, there is a changing environment in which the CGIAR operates and thus has to establish its relationships; and this new context affects the System as a whole, not just the centers individually. A few examples of the elements in the new environment that need to be considered in the next priorities and strategies exercise for the System include the following:
the general strengthening of NARS capacities and leadership abilities,
Second, there is a certain "political" need to assess, at the System level (i.e., outside the self-interests of individual centers), the collaborative relationships issues that arise in the changing environment described above. TAC is a logical entity to undertake such a broader assessment, to provide the theme with the visibility it deserves and to gain the widespread involvement of all stakeholders in the process.
Based on a thorough assessment of the available documentation, and based on comments from, and discussions with a wide range of individuals, it appears that there is:
(a) a wide range of expectations by different parties concerning desired and expected outcomes from future collaborative arrangements between NARS and the CGIAR System;(b) confusion in some quarters over the current state of affairs (purposes, modalities used, effectiveness and efficiency) of collaborative arrangements used by the centers; and
(c) a belief by some inside and outside the System that it is possible to strengthen collaborative mechanisms and modalities. (Indeed the latter is implicit in the fact that TAC picked the issue as one of the priority strategic ones to look at over the coming year).
Additionally, as mentioned above, one can assume that in the back of some TAC members' minds is the belief that there is a need to forge new types of relationships linked to the regional fora, emerging SROs and the establishment of the NARS Secretariat in Rome; and TAC should explore what those options might be.
With regard to the first point - a wide range of expectations - the main need is to recognize them and recognize that it is not unique to CGIAR-NARS relations to find such a wide range of perceptions and expectations. Indeed, it is the rule rather than the exception. Concerning the second point - confusion over the current state of affairs - a fact gathering activity and assessment of empirical evidence will be required to remove it. As pointed out earlier, we have only scarce and anecdotal information available in the documentation. The third point - finding options to improve the situation to reflect the current conditions and context - likely will be the main focus of the TAC debate. The present paper deals with all three points.
An overall question for TAC (and ultimately the System) is the following: What needs to be done by the System to make future collaborative relationships productive and effective in the context of the changing conditions in the world and in terms of achieving the goals of the System? Answering this general question requires answers to a series of more operational or definitional questions:
Adequate answers to these questions will require widespread input from the centers and NARS involved in collaborative relationships with the centers. Most likely a survey of representative stakeholders would be needed along with appointment of a TAC led panel that would have to do some field work in cooperation with the centers. The existing documentation in the TAC Secretariat and FAO Rome does not provide adequate information on these questions. There are anecdotal examples available; and the EPMRs and the centers' project documentation and MTPs provide some general information. However, this is not enough to address the basic question - what guidelines might be put forth for establishing effective collaborative relationships in the context of the changing conditions, capacities, interests, perceptions and thinking on partnering?
We hasten to add that, given the all pervasive nature of collaborative relationships in the activities of the CGIAR and the prominence given to NARS in the "purposes" listed for the recently adopted CGIAR Logframe approach, the proposed information gathering activity would be well justified quite beyond TAC's immediate needs. However, it very well may be that the best thing TAC could do is to recommend that the activity be undertaken as a joint center activity, rather than by TAC. At the same time, one reason for TAC not to abandon the responsibility to address the topic is the fact that there are some broader strategic questions that go beyond individual center concerns and that would argue for a TAC led initiative.
Drawing on the earlier discussion of the multidimensional continuum of NARS, considering the common perceptions that the CGIAR and NARS hold regarding the benefits and costs associated with their relationships, and using the conclusions drawn from available documentation and results from discussions at ICW 98 and with a wide variety of people, some strategic questions emerge for TAC to consider.
The questions are strategic in the sense that (a) they address fundamental issues that cut across centers and, for the most part, cut across types of linking mechanism and modalities that are used; and (b) acceptable answers to them should be fundamental ingredients in setting priorities and developing new strategies for the work of the CGIAR, given the all pervasive nature of collaborative relationships in the projects undertaken by the centers. The questions are as follows:
A. What should be the balance in IARC collaborative activity with NARS at various stages along the multidimensional continuum of NARS (discussed earlier in terms of relative strengths, priorities and capacities)? How should working relations or collaborative mechanisms differ in the various cases?B. How can the CGIAR system and NARS make more effective and efficient use of their respective relative strengths or comparative advantages in forging effective partnerships?
C. Do priorities and goals of NARS and the CGIAR match, or at least complement each other, and if not, does it matter?
D. In what ways can financial arrangements for collaborative relationships be improved and, particularly, how can the CGIAR best help NARS to secure incremental funding to carry out their responsibilities in collaborative programs or projects?
E. How can the CGIAR System best ensure that the global information and communication technology advances are fully incorporated into the workings of CGIAR-NARS collaborative relationships?
Below, each of these questions is discussed in greater detail along with some options for dealing with and answering them.
QUESTION A: What should be the balance in IARC collaborative activity with NARS at various stages along the multidimensional continuum of NARS (discussed earlier in terms of relative strengths, priorities and capacities)? How should working relations or collaborative mechanisms differ in the various cases?
This question has been on TAC's plate for some time (at least since the 1987 P&S activity). It takes on particular significance if one accepts the basic continuum approach to CGIAR-NARS relations laid out above.
Context and Background
There has been a continuing debate in the CGIAR concerning whether the centers should give more priority to working with strong NARS, where the common perception is that there is a greater potential for major joint scientific progress; or whether centers should give priority to working with the weak NARS, where the perception is that the potential for capacity strengthening might be the greatest, and where the results of CGIAR research could have the most significant relative impacts in terms of moving poor rural people out of absolute poverty. There are regional implications to this question, in the sense that Latin America and parts of Asia are associated with strong NARS and Africa is associated more with weaker NARS (with some notable exceptions).
Even leaving aside the regional political issues involved, the question is not as simple as it might seem at first sight. The perceptions that more significant breakthroughs can be achieved working with strong NARS, and working with weaker NARS will result in a greater capacity strengthening effect, are hypotheses that remain to be tested.
For example, there is no necessary reason why increasing the intensity and amount of CGIAR training and other related activities will lead to anything other than a greater number of better trained researchers, if the proper contextual environment for agricultural research is not present, i.e., the infrastructure, financial resources, basic science policy in a country. And these factors often are missing in countries with weaker NARS. Increased skills in research will lead to significant progress and expansion of productive research outputs in currently weaker NARS only if the complementary capacity is present. In many countries of Africa where resources are inadequate, national funding for agricultural research actually is declining in importance.
On the other hand, if a particular key problem is faced by many countries with weaker NARS, i.e., the potential for adoption of is significant and widespread across countries, then a research breakthrough working with the smaller or weaker NARS could have significant payoffs. An example that comes to mind is ICLARM's work with small island states, where they are involved in activities that could benefit many countries. The question often comes back to the weight given to population, since most of the weaker NARS (and those cases where there simply are no NARS) are found in countries with relatively small populations. Yet, as in the case of the small island states, there are many such countries; and they have the same kinds of problems for which the CGIAR is ideally suited to provide some answers. (This work is a clear example of international public goods research).
Finally, there is the situation recognized quite explicitly in the 1994 P&S document: CGIAR research activities in some countries can be justified over the medium term by the current lack of capacity in those countries (the extreme end of the strong to weak NARS continuum). It is instructive to go back to the document and recall the context of the discussion on smaller (generally weaker) country NARS:
"The needs of small countries may be met through strong outward looking national programs in larger countries, combined with effective networking. In other areas, a continuing international effort will be justified...such activities include: training, assistance in institutional and human resource development; assistance in priority setting...transfer of research technology...methodology development and training in its application...and technical assistance and financial aid for in-country applied and adaptive research, often through bilateral programs administered by CGIAR institutions. "
Of course, the definition of stronger and weaker NARS is problematic in and of itself. TAC's earlier writing on the subject (TAC 1991) unfortunately does not help much: "Amidst this array of potential weaknesses, to describe some national research systems as "weak" and others as "strong" could have many different meanings. In this paper, the terms "stronger" and "weaker" are used in a very general sense to imply that the stronger are more likely and the weaker less likely, to deliver a worthwhile research output, whatever the causes might be."
The problem with this interpretation becomes evident when put in the context of the continuum framework suggested earlier: Thus, along a multidimensional continuum, NARS can be strong in one area (discipline or activity area), but weak in another - be able to produce "worthwhile research outputs" in one area, but not in another. Strengths and weaknesses depend on what we are trying to accomplish as well as the resources available. Thus, we may be weak in basic science but very strong in terms of adaptive research working with farmers. Finally, there is the dimension of relativity and the influence of partnering on defining strengths and weaknesses: A given NARS may be strong in one area relative to another NARS partner, but weak relative to still others. Also, a NARS that in isolation might be considered weak can, through a symbiotic relationship with others provide a strong input into producing worthwhile research outputs.
The Nichols study (TAC 1995) provided a different interpretation of a "strong" NARS:
A strong NARS is defined as one that carries out all of these steps (agricultural research policy formulation, constraints/potential identification, research program development, resource allocation, research program execution, monitoring and evaluation) effectively and efficiently in a sustainable manner in a changing environment
Again, this definition is not very useful in an operational sense and particularly when trying to understand better the question raised above - CGIAR relations with NARS along the continuum from weak to strong.
Probably of most help are the scattered concepts in the new Logframe. In the chain from goals, intermediate goals, purposes and outputs, two of the three purposes relate to NARS strengthening. Purpose 1 reads: "NARS develop improved production systems which will effectively raise productivity while conserving biodiversity, land and water." Purpose 2 reads: "performance of NARS and regional programs is improved." The Logframe discussion goes on to provide several indicators that the purposes are being achieved. At this stage, we will not delve further into this subject, other than to say that if TAC pursues any of the options below, the context of new Logframe should be explicitly considered in the design of activities.
Options to Consider related to choice of collaboration modalities to use with different types of research organizations and programs.
In fact, recognizing that there is no simple answer to the questions posed regarding working with weaker or stronger NARS, TAC in the past has remained silent on the balance question. Instead, the recommendation has been to focus on given internationally relevant researchable problems and work with whatever partners make most sense in resolving these problems. That advice should probably still stand.
However, at the same time, there are opportunities to understand better the various conditions under which the CGIAR System should favor work with stronger or weaker NARS. And there is opportunity to understand better what the contextual issues are associated with success in working with either strong or weaker NARS, e.g., related to purposes and indicators in the new Logframe. Finally, there are opportunities to pursue avenues of collaboration that benefit both strong and weak, e.g., in the area of information and communication technology development for agricultural research progress. Thus, some of the options for further activity that TAC might consider include:
Table 1. Examples of Regional and Subregional Groupings.
|
AARINENA: |
Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Africa |
|
APAARI: |
Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions |
|
AFRENAs: |
agroforestry regional networks for Africa (several of them) |
|
ASARECA: |
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa |
|
CORAF: |
Conférence des responsables de la recherche agronomique africains |
|
FARA: |
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (sub-Saharan) |
|
FORAGRO: | |
|
IICA: |
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura |
|
RF: |
regional forum |
|
PROCIANDINO: |
Programa Cooperativo de Investigación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria para la Subregión Andina |
|
PROCICARIBE: |
Program for Cooperation in Agricultural Science and Technology in the Caribbean |
|
PROCITROPICOS: |
Programa Cooperativo de Investigación y Transferencia de Tecnología para los Trópicos Suramericanos |
|
PROCISUR: |
Programa Cooperativo para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Agropecuario del Cono Surransferencia |
|
SACCAR: |
Southern African Center for Co-operation in Agricultural & Natural Resources Research and Training |
|
SICTA: |
Sistema de Integración Centroamericano de Tecnología Agrícola (Central America) |
QUESTION B: How can the CGIAR system and NARS make more effective and efficient use of their respective relative strengths or comparative advantages in forging effective partnerships?
This basic question also has been on TAC's agenda for some time, not so much in terms of partnering, but rather in terms of how to address the comparative advantage question in the context of the CGIAR's role relative to "the other 96 percent." Again, TAC has not gotten very far with the issue and, in fact, to the best of our knowledge TAC has not attempted to define in any operational sense what is meant by comparative advantage, even though the term is widely used in the System.
Context and Background
While CGIAR documentation often speculates on the "comparative advantages" of the IARCs vs. different NARS (including so-called ARIs in developed countries) for carrying out various types of research, there actually is little systematic analysis and knowledge of them in terms of cost and impact criteria, nor in terms of how they should be used in designing effective linkages and partnerships. At the institutional level, there is only a vague concept of what the term "comparative advantage" means, as evidenced by the lack of definitions and conceptual treatment in the various TAC priorities and strategies documents. There is better recognition at the IARC scientist level of which NARS are good and which are not in particular areas of research, and which scientists complement and which duplicate work on-going in the centers (based mainly on the CG scientists assessments of their counterparts and colleagues in such NARS).
In the broader formal planning and strategic writings of the CGIAR System, NARS (and NARS) tend to be lumped in a couple of categories and the comparative advantages of IARCs tend to be argued in generic terms - advantages of IARCs in terms of being able to mount major interdisciplinary, long term research (e.g., the ecoregional themes of recent), and being able to produce international public goods (IPGs), or research that no one country would have the incentive to undertake by itself.
It is instructive to repeat the only statement in the 1997 P&S document relating to this theme: "If there are suppliers who can offer products at costs below those of the CGIAR, who are a reliable source of supply and who provide the products in an even-handed way, then CGIAR investment is questionable and will be limited." The paper goes on to suggest that the main comparative advantages will be where there are international public goods (IPG) aspects; and it says: "As the quality of being an international public good is either present or absent, this characteristic is viewed by TAC as a necessary condition for consideration in priority setting." Since by definition an IPG is one that the individual countries would not produce by themselves (for the well-known reasons associated with non-excludability and significant externalities, non-rivalrous consumption, etc.) then it is fairly clear that the CG centers (as quasi public international institutions) are best placed to produce them unless there is some other international entity that can and would produce the same IPG at lower cost.
However, even these general advantages break down as more and more SROs and ROs come on stream with their abilities and incentive to produce IPGs. How should we go about assessing the comparative advantages of the centers vis-à-vis the NARS and then using such assessment information in making recommendations related to linkages and partnership activity?
The 1996 TAC led study on Priorities and Strategies for Soil and Water Aspects of Natural Resources Management Research in the CGIAR (SDR/TAC:IAR/96/2.1) goes on in more detail to discuss the role of international public research:
Given the above, if is clear that the CGIAR - having the attributes of a public entity - should primarily be involved in production of research that fits in the international public good category. However, there also are more moderate cases of externalities where CGIAR production or activity still is justified, so long as the benefits from such activity accrue to more than one country, i.e., so long as the internationality condition holds. In such cases, the System brings in a number of other criteria to meet the sufficiency conditions for CGIAR involvement. Thus, there are criteria related to:
One can think of at least two sub-categories of criteria helping to explain cost-effectiveness. Thus there are:
There also is, of course, the need to consider the relative or comparative advantages of different NARS, both across regions for a given type of NAREO (e.g., universities, government agricultural research and extension agencies, various forms of NGOs, etc.) and across types within countries and regions.
This whole question of what the CGIAR centers should and should not get involved in terms of research and extension/development activities is central, of course, to the issues addressed in this paper related to CGIAR-NARS relationships.
Options to Consider related to CGIAR comparative advantages and choice of CG center contributions in various collaborative relationships
In addressing this question of comparative advantages and choice of CG center roles and activities in various collaborative relationships with NARS, TAC might look at the following:
QUESTION C: Do priorities and goals of NARS and the CGIAR match, or at least complement each other, and if not, does it matter?
This question has come up more frequently with regard to the stronger NARS vis-à-vis CGIAR centers. It also relates to the question of future expansion of relationships with the private sector and the particular issues surrounding the IPR debate concerning germplasm enhancement.
Context and Background
It is important to recognize, as done in a recent draft note from the TAC chair, that there are levels of priorities, ranging from those at the scientist level all the way up through institutional priorities, regional and national political priorities, and global priorities, such as those put forth by the CGIAR. While priorities may conflict at one level, e.g., the operational level, they might be quite consistent and compatible at the science level or the political level. Thus, for example, diverse scientists from CGIAR centers and NARS might agree entirely on an approach to a given science issue, but have different priorities in mind in terms of how gains from that science will be used.
There are past indications that some CGIAR centers were working on issues that are not considered priorities by the main public national agricultural research organizations (NAROs) with which they work. Specifically, at the TAC 66 meeting in Lima in 1995, the heads of many of the NAROs from the region informed TAC that their governments provided them funding to work primarily on issues related to commercial crops and exports, not issues related to agriculture by poor farmers. They were firm on the point that while their governments gave priority to poverty alleviation (consistent with the CGIAR's goal), they saw it in the broader context of commercial agriculture and exports as engines of growth and development that would eventually reach the poor. The question arose (again) as to what should be the role of the CGIAR in such countries? This issue to some extent led to TAC's proposal for the study of CGIAR activity in Latin America. Should the CGIAR be substituting for what the strong NARS should themselves be doing, merely because national priorities in their countries emphasize agriculture's indirect role in poverty alleviation and food security for the poor rather than the direct approach favored by the CGIAR, involving direct support for small, poor farmers? (This point relates also directly to the issue raised above concerning CGIAR activity with strong and weaker NARS)?
When looking at how centers should react to situations where official national agendas for the main public research agencies emphasize different objectives than those accepted by the CGIAR (e.g., when they have commercial and export crop priorities), two points are important to keep in mind: (1) that while priorities in terms of means might differ, the countries might be quite consistent with the broader goals of the CGIAR System; and (2) that with the broader interpretation of NAREO partners now widely accepted in the System, i.e., including NGOs, community and farmer groups, academic institutions, and so forth, it may very well be that such differences in agendas with the major official agricultural research agencies may be justified. In such cases, it may be that the centers should be linking and collaborating more closely with NGO partners that have poverty alleviation and environmental enhancement as primary goals for their constituencies in the countries in which the CGIAR is operating.
In sum, a county may have legitimate direct poverty alleviation objectives and priorities that fit with those of the CGIAR and as expressed by various actors within the broad NARS, even though the country's official NARI is working primarily on commercial or export oriented crop research with only an indirect focus on poverty reduction and prevention.
Options to Consider related to reconciling differing CGIAR and NARS priorities in collaborative relationships.
QUESTION D. In what ways can financial arrangements for collaborative relationships be improved and, particularly, how can the CGIAR best support NARS in their quest to secure incremental funding to carry out their research and other responsibilities, particularly in the context of the collaborative programs or projects with the CGIAR?
In many ways the initial vision of the CGIAR has largely been realized - it has helped to reduce widespread hunger in the world that results from lack of ability to increase productivity for the key food crops eaten by the poor. However, in later years, it was recognized that a number of other factors lead to the conditions of food insecurity. Chief among these are (1) poverty and political conflict and exclusion that make it impossible for the land insufficient poor to produce or buy enough food; (2) environmental degradation that negates the potential increases in food production promised by the new varieties and technically possible crop productivity increases; and (3) lack of adequate funding for research to keep agricultural progress ahead of the growth in population and deterioration of the environment. Such funding declines often are directly related to the lack of clear evidence of the beneficial impacts of research that can be transmitted to finance and planning ministries and other decision making, funding bodies.
The initial vision of the CGIAR included that the centers would help strengthen the NARS in such ways that the NARS themselves could produce the research results that would lead to food productivity increases in their respective countries. In many countries this part of the vision also has been achieved. Overall, the scientific capacities of the NARS of the developing world have increased dramatically over the past 25 years; and a very large cadre of trained scientists is out there working and ready to work. The CGIAR System has helped train and educate thousands of young researchers, educators and trainers in agriculture in the NARS of the developing world. It was estimated that by 1986 more than 19,300 agricultural workers of various kinds had taken training from the then 13 CGIAR centers (TAC 1986). Latter estimates are not available, but need to be generated.
In this sense - and responding to one of the questions in the TORs - most would agree that the CGIAR System has been quite successful in terms of its contribution to technical capacity strengthening among NARS. Unfortunately, the situation in many instances is like learning to ride a bicycle, but not having the bicycle to ride or not knowing how to repair the bicycle that is available: Many of the people trained do not get the resources to carry out research. In fact, while technical research capacity has increased - dramatically in some cases, the support and funding to actually carry out agricultural research (the availability of "bicycles") has been steady or declining in many countries.
In the case of many of those trained through the System, they still are waiting to use their new talents and abilities to contribute to the research results that will lead to greater food security, poverty reduction and environmental protection in their countries. The CGIAR System has not, in its collaborative relationships, had much success, nor particular interest in helping to obtain the "bicycles" for those who have learned to ride them.
In some cases, there is a feeling that the centers are not interested in helping the NARS obtain incremental resources. Thus, the response from one developing country NARI to a recent TAC questionnaire on the ecoregional programs states that: "there is all out effort on the part of the centers to maintain a separate identity of programs and not to amalgamate and integrate them physically and financially with the NARS led and driven programs. This results in depriving the NARS of incremental support and diversion of manpower to centers' programs on the prioritized programs of mutual interest to NARS and the CG Centers." The solution suggested by this NARI is "...to develop and implement programs in true partnerships mode by integrating the resources on mutually agreed programs." SROs dealing with other ecoregional or collaborative programs have suggested much the same thing: integrate resources and let the SRO decide who, including the CG centers, gets what resources to undertake specific tasks in the context of agreed upon priorities.
A major challenge in future collaborative relationships between the CGIAR and the NARS is to combine forces to help strengthen capacities in a balanced way, including in the facilities and funding needed to carry out effective local research. The CGIAR has not been very successful in this task in the past, partly because the CGIAR's role has not been to convince finance ministers and politicians that more local and national support is needed. That has been considered the role and function of national programs, bilateral support programs and multilateral groups such as World Bank and others in the international community that are explicitly focused on this activity and technical assistance.
The extent to which the CGIAR should get involved in these types of promotional activity - which fits into what TAC elsewhere has called "research assistance" - is still a matter of debate, even though it was a central issue brought to the Group by TAC in its 1991 paper on the subject of CGIAR-NARS relations.
In that paper, TAC argues that there is little controversy about the CGIAR role in training and other forms of scientific collaboration. However, TAC also suggests that:
None of the above measures can be effective, however, unless there is a certain minimum capacity within the national system to do research, as well as to establish effective linkages both with the Centers and with local producers through the extension services. Where this minimum capacity is lacking, the Centers have sometimes collaborated with bilateral donors in the provision of research assistance, rather than face the frustration of not being able to transfer the benefits of their work.
The debate still goes on related to the CGIAR's role in capacity strengthening beyond training and through collaborative scientific activities. Accepting the continuum perspective put forth above, one would conclude that there is no one answer to the question of how much centers should be doing to make sure that the products of their training activities can be fully utilized by researchers by ensuring that they have adequate resources with which to work. The informal guidelines developed by a variety of centers suggest that they should stick to research assistance that involves more than one country, that focuses on improving processes rather than structures, and that leads to sustainable increases in overall capacity - something that technical assistance often does not do very well.
However, the CGIAR would seem to have a legitimate role in helping NARS develop the means and methods to produce the impact assessments that can convince the policy makers of the gains that have been derived from national agricultural research investments. Further, the System, through such centers as ISNAR and IFPRI particularly, has the ability to support efforts of NARS to develop improved research policies, priority setting processes, and synergies among the various members of a country's NARS.
It should be noted that Recommendation 7 of the System Review deals with parallel topics and TAC might wish to consider that recommendation in formulating its approach to this theme.
Option to consider related to financing of collaborative relationships and increasing NARS funding opportunities.
QUESTION E. How can the CGIAR system best ensure that information and communication technology advances are fully incorporated into the workings of CGIAR-NARS collaborative relationships?
The global agricultural research community is making very rapid advances in information and communication technologies that help speed up the pace of science and the transfer of useful knowledge and information. We need to ensure that the developing country NARS share in this information and communication revolution. How should the CGIAR System position itself to take advantage of the advances by forging alliances and other relationships with those who can make sure that such advances move into agricultural research arena and into the hands of the NARS most rapidly and effectively?
The FAO and the World Bank are jointly starting an initiative on Agricultural and Rural Knowledge and Information Systems (ARKIS). This initiative draws on the revolutionary developments in communications and information technology, e.g., related to the internet, the growth in cellular phone technology, access to mass media, and so forth. In a parallel fashion, there has been an information growth that is phenomenal by any standard. The initiative focuses on the advances in development of effective participatory approaches to development in searching for ways to institute ARKIS reform that can help the rural poor help themselves to get out of abject poverty and achieve food security in a sustainable fashion. How should the CGIAR fit into this initiative, given the fact that its goals parallel the fundamental goals of improvements in ARKIS?
Options to Consider related to improvements in information flows and knowledge transfer through modern communications developments: Taking full advantage of the information revolution.
