Introduction
The Rice/Wheat Consortium (RWC) was visited in India by a Panel comprising:
· Dr. Gelia T. Castillo - Professor, University of the Philippines, Los Banos; member of the International Scientific Advisory Committee of the Ecoregional Fund to Support Methodological Initiatives· Dr. S.S. Johl - Director, Reserve Bank of India; former Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala
· Dr. E.F. Henzell (Panel Leader) - Former member of the Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR
The visit took place from 18-22 April 1999. Discussions covering the main activities of the RWC were held with representatives of the participating countries and institutions, including the Chairman of the International Steering Committee of the Consortium (Dr. R.S. Paroda), and scientists from the NARS of Bangladesh, India and Nepal and from five Centres. A visit to farmers' fields and a meeting with a group of farmers was arranged by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Haryana. Details of the schedule are given at the end of the Report.
Special thanks are due to Peter Hobbs and Ram Iyer for the excellent arrangements made for the Panel's visit.
Background
Evolution of Concepts
In India, the largest NARS participating in the Consortium, concepts on the organization of agricultural research have evolved very significantly over the past 40 to 50 years. Similar evolutionary changes have occurred in the NARS of Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and it is reasonable to expect that this learning process will continue. The ecoregional approach is the latest and most comprehensive of the evolving concepts of how agricultural research should be structured for more effective performance.
The following stages, with some overlap in time, can be identified in the conceptual evolution of Indian agricultural research.
1. In the early 1950s, research was organized on the basis of commodities and academic disciplines within separate sections of the national and state agricultural research organizations, and within independent faculties/departments of universities. Cooperation between the commodity and disciplinary entities was left to the individual researchers and was often weak, especially between institutions.2. The next step was the establishment of coordinated projects which brought together commodity specialists from different research organizations, and at a later date subject matter specialists, into teams to carry out multi-site projects of a standard design. The first All-India Coordinated Project (for maize) was launched by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) in 1957, with the assistance of the Rockefeller Foundation. There are now 84 All-India projects, comprising 26 in crop sciences, 17 in horticulture, 16 in animal sciences, 15 in NRM and 10 in agricultural engineering.
3. The All-India projects for commodities such as wheat started with a full complement of biophysical disciplines, including pathology, entomology, plant physiology, agronomy and grain quality, but no economists. Each All-India project was the responsibility of a different Deputy Director General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, and this sometimes made cooperation difficult. In the 1970s and 1980s, commodity projects, such as that for wheat, started to look at their crops in different agroecological zones and cropping sequences, however, the primary emphasis was still on the commodity mandate and varietal improvement.
4. The All-India Coordinated Agronomic Research Project was set up in 1968. In the 1970s, the farming-systems approach was formulated in various parts of the world. This broadened the concept of agricultural research to include the whole spectrum of commodities and commodity sequences, and the critically important role of farmers. The All-India Coordinated Agronomic Research Project was upgraded to a Directorate for Cropping Systems Research in 1986-88. It has retained an agronomic focus, and has worked mainly on cropping patterns and crop rotations both on-station and on-farm. It reports to a different Deputy Director General than the commodity directorates.
5. An important innovation during the late 1980s was the creation of national centres of excellence to provide scientific leadership; these go under the name of institutes, centres or directorates. CIMMYT has interacted strongly with the Wheat Directorate and IRRI with the Rice Directorate. However, the Panel was told that the national agencies specializing in NRM research were largely left out of these interactions.
6. An Indian Institute of Soil Science was formed during the 1980s at Bhopal. This took over the coordination of many of the soil-related, All-India projects and their coordinators were located at the Institute. Natural-resource disciplines continued to be dispersed across the various All-India institutions and the Institute of Soil Science.
7. During the 1990s, the ecoregional approach also influenced the priorities and strategies of research in the Indian system, mainly through its emphasis on achieving sustainable improvements in agricultural production by balancing commodity research with increased research on NRM, and by strengthening cooperation between international centres and national research agencies. However, this was certainly not the only influence in that direction because the limitations of too strong a reliance upon a fragmented commodity/discipline approach had already been recognized by national scientists.
As a result of these evolutionary changes in the Indian research system, by the early 1990s strong multidisciplinary teamwork had been established within its institutions. However, links between institutions were much weaker, especially when they reported to different lines of management. Thus, while the commodity-mandated institutions looked at cropping-system interactions for their particular commodity, this tended to be isolated from related research in, for example, the Cropping Systems Directorate and other commodity-based programmes. Social science was, and often still is, relatively weak.
Policy and public-management sciences in particular, were not strongly represented in the Indian system (the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research was founded only in 1991), and many of the extension workers were not well trained in farmer-oriented, participatory approaches. The prevailing philosophy of how to connect farm and laboratory was "land to laboratory and laboratory to land". Experiments carried out by scientists in farmers' fields were, and often still are, the norm.
The Panel's much less comprehensive discussions with scientists knowledgeable about other NARS participating in the RWC indicate that despite the many differences between them, they share the same general problem of implementing the full scope of the ecoregional approach. Similarities are that natural-resource disciplines are dispersed; work is carried out on mandated commodities only, with very little focus on farming systems; and programmes are organized mainly around individual commodities with a focus on multidisciplinary teamwork. Disciplinary sections or divisions still exist although their functions have been redefined.
In Bangladesh, cropping systems or on-farm research divisions or programmes were created in the major research institutes, with a technical head reporting direct to the Director. This approach was not very helpful because it created an artificial wall between the commodity researchers and the farming-systems researchers.
One of the major objectives of the Indian National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP) is to improve the synergy between the different components of the Indian NARS as they focus on NRM issues. It promises to effect major changes in the agricultural research and extension systems of the country. The NATP document, dated October 1998, is the outcome of more than three years of concentrated effort by Indian research leaders and ministry officials. World Bank staff, and FAO and other international experts. The RWC participated in the planning meetings of the NATP.
Since the 1980s, a fact of life for many national and international agricultural research organizations has been the widespread fall in public funding of research. Cuts in non-restricted core funding have certainly affected the ability of Centres such as CIMMYT and IRRI to sustain their major programmes of commodity improvement while expanding their research on various aspects of the ecoregional approach. This has affected their ability to catalyze work in the NARS, and to develop the new paradigms needed to conduct research on the conservation and management of natural resources.
The same financial pressures have been felt to varying degrees by the NARS of South Asia. Funding for the ICAR has been maintained, whereas government funding has dropped in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. This has weakened them significantly, and Bangladesh and Nepal have become more reliant on outside aid. Small amounts of flexible funding can help considerably in such circumstances.
The RWC had its origins in many years of collaborative research between CIMMYT, IRRI, and the national research centres for rice and wheat in South Asia. These arrangements were formalized in 1989 by an agreement between IRRI, CIMMYT and the NARS of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Funding was provided by the World Bank and later the ADB. Cornell University is also a member of the Consortium.
Concern about the sustainability of the rice-wheat system arose from diagnostic work initiated at the different sites. Analysis of data from field experiments conducted by scientists associated with the Directorate of Cropping Systems and the All-India long-term soil fertility project provided early evidence of a sustainability problem. In 1996, the RWC organized a workshop in India for the various scientists involved in long-term soil fertility experiments in the region. The full papers from this workshop, which document the evidence for productivity decline in this intensive system, have been compiled and edited, and are in the process of being published. A summary has already been published. Papers presented by Bangladesh and Nepal at this meeting also provided evidence of a decline in factor productivity in rice-wheat cropping systems. Although most of these experiments were initiated in the 1970's, many of the results were not widely known. The RWC workshop catalyzed the publication of these experiments.
In 1993 an important workshop, organized by FAO in Bangkok, consolidated the evidence available up to that time. Most of the papers were from scientists in the ADB project and the IRRI scientist in charge of the project helped to organize the workshop. The proceedings were published by FAO in 1994 and have since become a standard reference on the subject of sustainability of rice-wheat production systems in Asia.
When TAC called for proposals for Systemwide and ecoregional initiatives in its review of CGIAR resource allocations for the period 1994-98, a submission for a Systemwide Ecoregional Programme, incorporating elements of the CIMMYT-IRRI rice-wheat programme, was presented by ICRISAT on behalf of its partners. Since 1995, the RWC has been listed as one of the CGIAR Programmes with an ecoregional approach.
Assessment of the RWC
The Nature of the RWC
It needs to be made very clear that the RWC is truly a consortium (a special kind of research network). It is not a research programme in its own right in the sense that the word 'programme' is generally used in the CGIAR. Apart from any studies the facilitation unit might carry out on ecoregional methodologies, the RWC is not structured to conduct research in its own name. The research programmes and projects directed at the problems of rice-wheat production systems, and carried out under the aegis of the RWC, all reside with one or more of the participating research organizations. To add to the confusion, the RWC has sometimes been described by the CGIAR as an ecoregional programme, for example in TAC's 1994 Review of Proposals for Systemwide and Ecoregional Initiatives.
The RWC has a Regional Steering Committee which is currently chaired by Dr. Paroda of India; this position rotates annually. Membership comprises the Directors of the four NARS, a representative from the International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs), and a donor representative. The Consortium Facilitator acts as Secretary (Dr. Peter Hobbs is the interim Facilitator). A Regional Technical Coordinating Committee, made up of the national rice-wheat coordinators, four scientists from the participating IARCs and the facilitator, supports the work of the RWC. In addition there are national technical coordinating committees and there have always been informal site committees. These have now been formalized under the NATP in India and are the favoured mechanism for the cooperative research sites in all four countries.
RWC works on the four themes of tillage and crop establishment, integrated nutrient management, integrated water management and system ecology/integrated pest management. Since its designation as ecoregional in 1995, its activities have included:
· development of priorities and strategies for research on rice-wheat production systems;· provision of a forum where scientists in the region can meet to discuss common problems, and to exchange ideas and technologies (also effected through a newsletter and a web site);
· coordination of activities through national coordinating committees and site teams, including the submission of joint funding proposals on behalf of stakeholders;
· organization of technical conferences and training seminars;
· publication of conference proceedings and training materials;
· organization of travelling seminars to see farmers' problems and field experiments at first hand; and
· promotion of the use of new methodologies.
A good example of the last point is the promotion of farmer participation in the research process. Traditionally, research and extension is a top-down process. The results of research are provided to extension workers and the recommendations are then demonstrated to farmers; farmer participation is minimal. Improved farmer participation in diagnostic work to set the research agenda, and to experiment with new technology is being encouraged by the consortium with the backing of the IARC and the Agricultural Research Institutes. The success of the new tillage options is one example of how this new methodology has allowed faster adoption of a new technology.
If funds permit, the RWC intends to develop a regional project information system and a regional GIS for cross-site synthesis of data.
How should the achievements of the RWC be evaluated?
The achievements of the RWC can be expected to manifest themselves as improvements in:
· research carried out by the participating organizations: priorities, organization and management (institutional development, mindset), procedures and results;· determining government policies affecting the rice-wheat production system;
· adoption of new technologies by farmers using the rice-wheat rotation; and
· capacity of scientists working on the rice- wheat production system.
The Panel was particularly interested in the changes that had occurred since the RWC formally adopted the ecoregional approach. Therefore, the degree of understanding of the major elements of that approach, especially its emphasis on sustainable improvement of production, was also pertinent.
Response to Terms of Reference 1
- - - how the programme performed in addressing the objective of sustainable improvement of productivity, especially how well the ecoregional approach had performed in linking strategic and applied research on natural resource conservation and management with that on production systems, including location-specific aspects of global commodity/subject matter research activities.
Dr. Paroda credits the ecoregional approach with having heightened awareness in South Asia of the benefits of a whole system perspective in agricultural research and the importance of integrating NRM research with production research. The Panel's view is that the recent ecoregional phase of the RWC has had its greatest success in linking research on natural resource conservation and management with that on production. The new tillage options increase production while conserving soil resources and saving on fuel, tractor costs, water, fertilizer and chemicals. Earlier planting of wheat means an earlier harvest and more time for another crop. Higher wheat yields free some land for possible crop diversification. A research area which has emerged through the RWC is the relationship between water needs and new cultural management practices such as zero tillage. These recent achievements are additional to those of the longer standing research (predating the formalities of adopting the ecoregional approach) on whether or not factor productivity is declining - very strategic research on the link between NRM and productivity.
What is not so clear is whether the designation of the RWC as an ecoregional activity has strengthened NRM research in the participating IARCs. There appears to have been some redirection of priorities in line with ecoregional principles, e.g. in the work of IRRI on integrated nutrient management and of ICRISAT on the fertilizer needs of grain legumes, but very little in the way of distinctly new projects. There was already a strong awareness of threats to the sustainability of the rice-wheat system, and increased attention was being given to soil fertility management and crop protection before the RWC was designated as an ecoregional activity in 1994. The work on fertilizers and nutrient management has yet to be incorporated into a systematic multidisciplinary team effort under the RWC, but it is hoped to do this in future.
However, the above conclusion concerning new research needs to be qualified. The capacity of CIMMYT, ICRISAT and IRRI to develop new lines of research has been severely restricted by funding difficulties during the 1990s, as already mentioned. The RWC has not invested as much in regional and site characterization as a number of other ecoregional programmes, but it may be enough. One of the pilot sites of SysNet is in the rice-wheat region of India.
Perhaps the greatest gap in the NRM coverage of the RWC is in water-resources research. There are significant problems in different areas of the Indo-Gangetic Plain such as competing demands for water, water pollution, and waterlogging and salinity of irrigated land. Water-resources policy is of vital importance. A good deal of research is being done on these issues by national agencies and by IIMI, but this is not overtly linked to the RWC. This is likely to change in future, according to IIMI's presentation to the Panel. As with the other Centres, the capacity of IIMI to develop new water-resources research has been constrained by lack of finance.
One of the problems with water management is that work on this subject is often carried out in a different department or ministry, and so is more difficult to coordinate with traditional agricultural research. There is also a difference of scale between catchments (basins) and agricultural-production systems, which complicates the reconciliation of site requirements for the two kinds of work. However, the RWC has had recent discussions with other groups looking at river-basin approaches and this matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Regional Steering Committee.
Response to Terms of Reference 2
Evaluate, using the following seven criteria, how the value added by making the activities systemwide, rather than leaving them as a series of centre-based components, outweighed the additional transaction and management costs.
The degree of effectiveness of collaboration among Centres and between them and their partners (linking, openness, involvement with NARS and other research partners)
The Panel judges this to have been a most important achievement of the RWC, built on the sound foundations created in earlier phases. Certainly there are more effective partnerships between Centres and their NARS partners, and within and between the four national systems of the region. The RWC is clearly a NARS-driven initiative with the Centres having roles largely defined by the Consortium.
However, the RWC has not been as effective in increasing cooperation amongst Centres operating in the rice-wheat region. IRRI's interest seems to have waned since the days when it hosted the facilitation unit. However, the Panel was informed in discussion that some very relevant IRRI research that has taken place in recent years has not been reported as a contribution to the RWC. The decision of CIP to participate in the next phase of the consortium is a significant gain.
The effectiveness of collaboration, and of using the ecoregional approach, are shown in a number of ways:
· Scientists from the four countries in the region continue to cooperate constructively under the umbrella of the RWC, notwithstanding other tensions.· In both Bangladesh and India, the purposes of recent World Bank loans for R&D have been strongly influenced by the experience of the RWC. The Panel was told that the only direct experience of working on a whole production system as a 'systemwide programme' that senior Indian scientists could draw on, came from the rice-wheat production system.
· The RWC has improved the planning of research and extension through a better understanding of issues, approaches and experiences. Success of a technology in one country, e.g. with zero tillage, has caused others to review its potential utility. The planning process has been able to tap knowledge, experience and expertise at all levels from local farmers to international scientists.
· As a result of the improved communication amongst research organizations participating in the activities of the RWC, national and international researchers have been sensitized to the issue of duplication and gaps in experimentation. This has led to problems being corrected in a non-threatening manner.
· Discussions with the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP) in Delhi, created in 1991, revealed an advanced understanding of the value of including social sciences in a whole-system approach to the problem of sustainably improving agricultural productivity. The Director indicated that his knowledge of the ecoregional approach was obtained through contacts with ICRISAT and the RWC. NCAP's aims include improving the use of the agricultural-research system as a source of advice to Government policy makers. In addition, socioeconomic constraints to technology transfer are being researched.
· Other interesting evidence of the effectiveness of the RWC in encouraging a multidisciplinary systems approach to rice-wheat research came from a soil physicist in one of the agricultural universities. He stated that his involvement was triggered by information gathered at one of the RWC's travelling seminars.
· RWC's effectiveness in improving technology transfer shows up particularly clearly in tillage practices. Equipment and techniques from New Zealand, China and the headquarters of two Centres have been adapted and used to solve practical problems in rice-wheat production. Through the consortium, CIMMYT and IRRI have played a vital role in facilitating this technology transfer.
Cost-effectiveness/value-added of the implementation option
None of the achievements listed above can be attributed entirely or even mostly to the recent phase of the RWC or to the contribution of the CGIAR. Many different agencies and individuals have been involved and the origins of the changes often go back many years. The closer the cooperation becomes in a consortium like the RWC the more seamless its operations will be and the more difficult (and perhaps counterproductive) it will be to try to separate the individual contributions. What is clear to the Panel, however, is that the activities since 1994 have significantly increased the extent of cooperation in rice-wheat research and set a basis for even greater achievements in future.
It is virtually impossible to put a dollar value on the benefits of the consortium to date and only its direct costs can be calculated. Much of the time and effort contributed by participants is not accounted for. The facilitation unit (facilitator plus local staff and operating money) has cost approximately t US$ 200,000 a year to run. Until this year, about another US$ 200,000 has flowed to NARS to support meetings, workshops, training, publications and small competitive grants.
It is largely an act of faith that a more cooperative and participatory approach will improve the efficiency of the research process, and increase the rate of adoption and impact of new technologies sufficiently to give a good rate of return on the additional investment. The Panel believes it to be so, provided that the transaction costs are kept under strict control.
There is a strong tradition in basic science of rewarding individuals for their discoveries and innovations, and of tolerating inter-institutional rivalry. This culture spills over into strategic and applied science and may have been strengthened by the recent trend for protection of intellectual property. Therefore, it is necessary to balance the competitive and cooperative proclivities of scientists, both of which can be very valuable. This is probably one of the most important public-good responsibilities of agricultural research leaders.
There is clearly a strong commitment to the RWC at the highest level of leadership in the three NARS with which the Panel had discussions. The enthusiasm of the participating researchers and extension specialists was also very evident. What was not so obvious was the extent of support at intermediate levels of management in government research institutions and universities. The Panel was told that commitment to the new approach is often stronger amongst the practising scientists than with middle management. When funds are scarce in the RWC, it is difficult to give enough people the chance to become acquainted at first hand with what is happening. Also, institutional rivalries are often stronger at managerial levels.
The participation of potential beneficiaries and other stakeholders in defining research problems and priorities
This has been one of the strengths of the RWC. The travelling seminars seem to have provided a very effective mechanism for ensuring that researchers at all levels in the consortium are kept well informed on the nature of farmers' practices and concerns. In the meeting at Karnal, the rapport between State extension specialists and farmers, and between both groups and the scientists who were present, was most impressive. In contrast, gender sensitivity is not a strong point in South Asian cultures.
Clarity in communicating the importance of the research to CGIAR members and other actors
While technical communication has been excellent within the consortium, its special funding requirements do not seem to have been communicated to TAC and members of the CGIAR as effectively. The fact that it was sometimes documented by the CGIAR as an ecoregional programme rather than a consortium has added to this problem.
The technical achievements of the RWC, especially those involving Centre scientists, have featured strongly in the Annual Reports of CIMMYT and IRRI, and some information has been given there about the consortium's mode of operation. However, it is very difficult to ascertain from these reports that special funding is necessary to facilitate the cross-institutional activities of the RWC. Nor was that need featured in ICRISAT's reports during the period in which it acted as convening centre.
Continuity of funding support
Funding was adequate during the first phase of the consortium (1989-1994) but less money was available to support the NARS during the second phase (1994-1998). So far it has proved difficult to obtain even US$ 200,000 a year for the third phase - certainly not enough has been pledged yet to employ a full-time facilitator. This difficulty may be explained by a lack of understanding in the CGIAR of the real purpose of the RWC, and it may also be part of a broader problem of financing and managing Systemwide activities.
The Panel learned that some potential donors for consortium operations presented the convening centre with the choice between support for the Centre or for the RWC. To the Panel, this indicates a basic misunderstanding of what the RWC is about. It is not a matter of one or the other but of putting some resources into a consortium to increase the efficiency with which Centre funds are used. Funding can improve a range of operations from the better initial definition of research priorities through to improved chances of adoption and the eventual achievement of the CGIAR goals. So it is not simply a question of sufficiency of funding, but of achieving a balanced investment through a process which is increasingly constrained by the restriction of purpose and location imposed by many donors.
Only a small proportion of funds need to be allocated directly to the RWC. Used creatively, that money can influence the allocation of a larger quantity of R&D resources by the participants (through leverage). There is no reason why all the funding for the RWC's facilitation functions should have to come from international sources. There are potential benefits to be had also from more flexible funding within the NARS. The Panel concludes that there is scope for developing innovative funding mechanisms to provide the relatively modest longer-term support needed for the activities of consortia such as the RWC.
Within the new CGIAR logframe, the expected outputs from the facilitation function of the RWC are to increase the accessibility of "knowledge and expertise for enhancing the performance of research and related institutions". The RWC can be a very effective means of bringing partners together in focused activities where the NARS can define what they expect from Centres.
Ease of accountability
There are no problems in using project-accounting methods for the budget of the facilitation unit. Accounting for the value of in-kind contributions by participating organizations is much more difficult.
Standards of planning, monitoring and evaluation
Policy making, carried out by the Steering Committee for the consortium, seems to have been of a high standard as has monitoring the activities of the facilitation unit. The planning of rice-wheat research in the participating organizations has been considered above. It has not been possible to fund any recent independent evaluation of the operations of the consortium but the ADB conducted a review of the RWC towards the end of its first phase.
The RWC as an ecoregional activity
Since 1995, the RWC has maintained its strong focus on the sustainable improvement of productivity, with additional research on tillage and weed control. However, it has still to exploit the full scope of the holistic ecoregional approach. As already explained, there may be some good reasons for this, chiefly that research by the consortium's participants was already quite strong on particular aspects of sustainability (notably in detecting declines in yields and factor productivity, and in searching for practical solutions) before the RWC was ever designated as an ecoregional activity. Also, it takes time to catalyze change. But participants in the consortium still have some way to go, especially if they are to adopt a river-basin (watershed) framework as the conceptual basis for dealing with problems of water management in areas practising rice-wheat rotation. Use of this framework does not mean the actual study of catchments, but an awareness of upstream/downstream linkages in research at different kinds of sites. For irrigated agriculture, the canal area may be the appropriate research domain.
Arguments for adopting the watershed framework were presented to the CGIAR in a paper entitled "Priorities and strategies for soil and water aspects of natural resources management research in the CGIAR" and adopted at MTM 1996 in Jakarta. DMI uses this framework, describing the units as river basins rather than watersheds or catchments. During its discussions with ICAR and scientists from other IARCs, the Panel was assured that it will be possible to reconcile the differing site requirements of the production system and river basin approaches. However, that has still to be done under the umbrella of the RWC.
Working in partnership with national organizations, and involving all the stakeholders with a role in agriculture and the management of natural resources, was seen by the CGIAR as an essential part of the ecoregional approach. Particularly if it was ever to have any substantial impact in resolving problems of sustainability and conservation. While this was initially a means to an end for the CGIAR, it took on much greater prominence with the subsequent emphasis on global partnerships in agricultural research.
Some of the greatest achievements of the RWC have been in fostering partnerships and strengthening stakeholder participation. Part of the paradigm shift that is being sought under current thinking is the early involvement of a wider range of stakeholders such as farmers, extension workers, local government officials, Non governmental Organizations and the private sector (seed producers, machinery manufacturers, traders, processors), as well as traditional research providers. The aim is not only to draw on their experience and knowledge in order to set more relevant priorities, but more importantly, to develop a sense of ownership of the R&D process and to improve the 'goodness of fit' of its expected products. It is hard to see how the CGIAR can play any useful role in testing and developing these partnership approaches unless it is through a mechanism such as the RWC.
Another aspect of the RWC that warrants comment is its decision to focus on a production system rather than the ecoregion defined by TAC: the warm arid and semi-arid Tropics and sub-Tropics of Asia. The Panel was assured that careful consideration had been given to TAC's regional classification as well as to earlier ones developed in South Asia. According to the main document of NATP, the ICAR first divided the country into 20 agroecoregions (and 60 sub-regions) on the basis of soils, physiography, climate, crops and vegetation, and duration of growing period. But this classification failed to reflect the significance of differences in social and economic conditions, market support and the service sector. Also, the introduction of irrigation has alleviated a major constraint and provided opportunities for diversification. Therefore, the ICAR focused on production systems which integrate all the "components for determining the productivity and profitability of the system".
ICRISAT also found the TAC ecoregion difficult to use and developed other typologies of land use based on socioeconomic and agroecological information. It seems that the original definition of the ecoregion left a good deal to be desired and that pragmatism has led to the choice of alternative regions, broader in definition than those proposed by TAC. If this proves true for other CGIAR ecoregional initiatives, then some re-examination of the whole issue is warranted.
Certainly the rice-wheat production system is important in relation to the CGIAR's goals. It is vital to food security in South Asia (it is the main source of surplus grain in India) and north China. But above that, it is a primary testing ground for the sustainability of high-yielding technologies of rice and wheat production.
The future of the RWC
The Panel was very impressed by the achievements of the RWC, which have been assisted recently by the ecoregional approach, and even more impressed by the potential for future benefits. A number of actions can be suggested to increase the chances of that potential being realized.
1. The way the consortium works (especially what it is that the facilitation unit actually does), the value of its activities in promoting participatory practices and R&D partnerships, and its successes need to be understood better within the CGIAR. This consortium plays a vital role in the process of learning how to conduct agricultural research more effectively in a food-production system of great significance to the CGIAR.2. Some flexible funding is needed on a long-term basis, from both national and international sources, to promote international and intranational cooperation under the RWC. The provision of incentives for participating in partnerships is likely to remain important. Short-term project funding at the margins of this work will not achieve the synergistic objectives of the RWC.
3. Provision should be made for periodic evaluation of the internal operations of the consortium - its impact on the performance of institutional leaders and others engaged in R&D at various levels in the rice-wheat production system - and the efficiency of its processes. The actual research done by the participants should be reviewed separately in the normal way, e.g. through the External Programme and Management Reviews of Centres.
4. There appears to be scope for the RWC to play an even greater role in gathering, evaluating, synthesizing and disseminating useful information from international sources, as has been done so successfully for tillage technology.
5. More emphasis should be given by the participants to natural resource conservation and management issues. In particular, the CGIAR should strengthen its involvement in water-resources research under the umbrella of the RWC. The role of livestock in the longer term viability, especially financial viability, of the rice-wheat system also warrants attention.
Schedule of visits
19 April 1999
Meeting of Panel at the Facilitation Unit, IARI Campus
Discussion with Dr. P R Hobbs, Interim Facilitator, Rice-Wheat Consortium
Visit to National Centre for Agricultural Policy - Dr. D N Jha (Director) and senior staff
Meeting with Dr. I P Abrol, ex- Facilitator, Rice-Wheat Consortium
20 April 1999
Field visit of the TAC Ecoregional Review Team to Karnal, Haryana
The team first visited a farmer's field in this rice-wheat area where farmers use zero-tillage to establish wheat after rice. The farmer was present in the field to answer questions. This was the only field in the area planted to wheat because all the other fields were too wet to plant. This field had been planted using the new zero-tillage option being promoted by the State Extension Service and recommended by the Haryana Agricultural University. The farmer, who said he would buy his own drill next year and plant a larger area, was pleased with the 3.5 t/ha crop.
The team then moved to the HAU Uchani Research Station where they saw a field of bed-planted wheat. This was higher yielding than the flat-planted crop mainly a result of less lodging. A group of 20 farmers who experimented this year with zero-tillage and bed planting under the supervision on the State Extension Service were available at the station to talk about their experiences and answer questions. The majority of the farmers were happy with the experiment although a few problems were identified and a feedback was relayed to the researchers. The zero-tilled plots usually yielded the same or more than traditionally planted wheat but at less cost. Farmers indicated they would expand the area planted to the new technique next year.
After lunch the Review Team assembled in the conference room of the Directorate of Wheat Research for discussions with a group of scientists and extension agents invited from other parts of India and from Nepal and Bangladesh. There were active discussions on various aspects of the rice-wheat research in the region and it was agreed that the ecoregional approach had brought added advantages to their programmes. This meeting enabled the Review Team to better understand the intricate research system in India that involves State Agricultural Universities and ICAR programmes working with State Extension Services. The following is a list of the various participants:
1. Dr. Y. Singh, General Manager (Farms), GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar2. Dr. S.B. Sharma, Head, Division of Nematology, IARI, New Delhi
3. Dr. Samar Singh, Agronomist, CCS HAU, Regional Research Station, Uchani, Karnal
4. Dr. V. Beri, Professor, Dept. of Soil, PAU, Ludhiana
5. Mr Aroor Singh, ASS Foundry, Amritsar (Local Manufacturer of drills)
6. Dr. P.R. Gajri, Professor, Dept. of Soils, PAU, Ludhiana
7. Dr. R.S. Mehla, Joint Director Extension (Agri), Haryana
8. Dr. J.K. Verma, Joint Director Extension (Agricultural Farm Machinery), Haryana
9. Dr. S.K. Rautaray, Principal Scientist, CIAE, Bhopal
10. Dr. S.S. Dhillon, Sr. Agronomist Wheat, Dept. of Plant Breeding, PAU, Ludhiana
11. Dr. R.K. Malik, Professor (Weed Science), CCS HAU, Hisar
12. Dr. D.S. Chauhan, Principal Scientist, DWR Karnal
13. Dr. C.R.S. Panwar, Assistant Agriculture Engineer, Karnal
14. Dr. S. Nagarajan, Project Director, Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal, Haryana
15. Dr. S.D. Dhiman, Agronomist, CCS HAU Rice Research Station, Kaul, Haryana
16. Dr. T.P. Pokharel, Director of Crops, NARC, Nepal
17. Dr. M.A. Razzaque, Director of Research, BARI, Bangladesh
18. Dr. C. Johansen, ICRISAT
19. Dr. R. Barker, IIMI
20. Dr. P.R. Hobbs, CIMMYT
21 April 1999
Discussions/Presentations by ICAR Rice-Wheat Team
Dr. R.K. Gupta, RWC Coordinator for India
Dr. P.K. Aggarwal, Systems Analyst
Dr. S.B. Sharma, Head, Division of Nematology, IARI
Lunch hosted by Dr. R.S. Paroda at Indian International Centre
Discussions/Presentations by IARC scientists
Dr. M. Hossain and Dr. V. Pal Singh, IRRI
Dr. S. Illangantilake, CIP
Dr. C. Johansen, ICRISAT
Dr. R. Barker, IMMI (IWMI)
Dr. P.R. Hobbs, CIMMYT
Concluding commentary by Dr. R.P. Singh, Director, IARI
Dr. M.A. Razzauqe, RWC Coordinator, Bangladesh and Dr. T.P. Pokharel, RWC Coordinator, Nepal, also participated in the discussions on 21 April. An apology was received from Dr. M. Saleem, RWC Coordinator, Pakistan.
22 April 1999
Internal Panel discussion and wrap-up meeting with Dr. Hobbs.
