Concluding Comment and Recommendation to TAC

The main conclusion derived from this study is that TAC, collaborating with others, should undertake further assessment of the NARS-CGIAR collaborative relationship theme, including an assessment of current practice. It appears that there are enough issues at stake, and enough potential for gain from TAC deliberations to justify additional activity. As mentioned in the foreword, there appears to be general agreement on the recommendation among those NARS representatives, Centers, and others who commented on the first draft of the study. At the same time, many respondents suggested that such an activity should involve full collaboration with centers and with representatives from NARS (perhaps through the NARS Secretariat).

Why TAC involvement?

The issues surrounding NARS-CGIAR collaborative relationships are of direct and central concern to the CGIAR centers and NARS organizations, and most of them have devoted considerable thinking and resources to developing relationships appropriate to their missions, goals, objectives and priorities. However, the issues also have Systemwide implications that justify TAC's involvement at the strategic level along side the activity of centers and NARS organizations at the more operational, center-specific level. Thus, several justifications for TAC's involvement can be put forth:

(1) There is a changing environment in which the CGIAR operates and thus has to establish its relationships with others; and this new context affects the System as a whole, not just the centers individually. A few examples of the elements in the new contextual environment that need to be considered in TAC's next priorities and strategies exercise for the System include the following:

the strengthening of many national research organizations' capacities and leadership;

the evolution of regional and subregional organizations of organizations from NARS that have implications for the whole System and for involvement and coordination of the activities of more than one CG center with a given national organization;

the establishment of the regional fora of NARS, the NARS Secretariat and the GFAR (of which the CGIAR is only one of 13 members of the Steering Committee); these developments create a different dynamics that has implications across the CGIAR System;

the evolution of the Ecoregional Programs that cut across centers and that potentially involve increased leadership within the programs by organizations within NARS;

TAC's role in developing the logframe approach at the System level (this includes explicit consideration of purposes related to NARS strengthening and indicators that relate to the effectiveness of NARS-CGIAR collaborative relationships).

(2) There is a certain "political" need to assess, at the System level (i.e., outside the self-interests of individual centers and NARS organizations) the collaborative relationships issues that arise in the changing environment or context described above. TAC is a logical entity to undertake such a broader assessment - of course, in close consultation with the centers and national organizations. The theme should have the visibility it deserves; and it needs to gain the widespread involvement of all stakeholders in the process.

Considering the above points, it is recommended that a TAC led study of alternative strategies and modalities for CGIAR-NARS collaboration should be undertaken, considering the options presented above, plus ones that TAC identifies through its own deliberations. The study should be a collaborative one with others, including the CG centers (contributing in terms of center specific, operational issues), organizations within NARS, and the NARS Secretariat (contributing a NAR systems perspective). Although Centers and organizations in NARS are more focused on the issues related to their own operational linkages, they also provide critical inputs at the strategic level.

Specific elements of an overall TAC study might include (at a minimum):

An assessment of selected, existing NARS-CGIAR collaborative relationships (see A1 through A3 above). This can be done as a collaborative activity to meet the interests and planning information needs not only of TAC, but also of the centers, organizations within the NARS, the NARS Secretariat. This assessment also should focus on CGIAR relationships with groups other than the NARIs of countries (see C1 above). Centers have a great deal of information and experience to contribute; and they should be consulted right from the beginning in such an activity;

Identification and assessment of alternative new modalities for collaborative relationships by a consultant or team familiar with the variety of collaboration models available and their advantages and disadvantages in different contexts; ISNAR logically could become centrally involved in this activity;

A revisiting of the question of CGIAR relative advantages in relation to the "other 96 percent," in light of the strong sense that the CGIAR centers should be involved in IPG research and only if they have a relative advantage in carrying out the research involved (see B2 and B3 above); and, finally,

A TAC strategy paper that brings together the results of the first three activities to present TAC's thinking on promising avenues for strengthening relationships in the context of the changing global agricultural research management and funding environments, and considering the changing nature of the NARS (in terms of interests, priorities, capacities, resources and needs).

The resulting TAC paper hopefully can usher in new thinking on the issues and opportunities; and it should be able to further clarify involvement of the CGIAR in helping to strengthen positions of developing country organizations with national, bilateral and multilateral financing authorities (see D1 above). It also should consider the ways in which the CGIAR System can provide support in improving NARS organization in countries; and it should provide TAC's thinking on how research organizations can gain better access to the benefits of the global information and communication revolution. If deemed appropriate at the end of the exercise, TAC might produce a set of guidelines and suggested policies for CGIAR-NARS collaborative relationships, keeping in mind that these should be proactive and not restrictive in nature.