It is apparent that there does not exist today an inter-Centre strategy for root and tuber crops research. The panel could find no written documentation or any claims for a clear statement on a strategy for inter-Centre root and tuber crop research beyond the considerable scientific collaborations that exist between programs within the CG System. The panel was impressed by the number and variety of apparently spontaneous, ongoing collaborative efforts between Centres in root and tuber crops research. But these appear to be informal structures based on scientific desirability rather than on a strategy for root and tuber crops research.
The present root and tuber crops research portfolio of the CGIAR System has been largely determined historically, during a period of growth in which Centres took on added responsibilities, often as decisions by their management and their boards.
Overall, the initial approach to root and tuber crops research seemed to relate to a common vision of a hungry world wherein these crops could contribute to famine relief. Nutrition and poverty considerations were introduced later. More recently has come the notion of "income generation" through root and tuber crops production and processing.
In the case of research-weak NARS, one peculiar consequence for root and tuber crops is that some of the Centres have developed a kind of autonomous research agenda, with a heavy emphasis on institutional strengthening through training and technical assistance. This is understandable, but it is a complicated and difficult strategy for the Centres that pursue it. The strategy also probably reflects the need, noted earlier, for a mechanism for technology transfer.
The perishability of the root and tuber crops has also complicated CG System research strategies by leading to greater investments in post-harvest technology, relative to cereal programs.
Similarly, the difficulties of vegetative propagation have led to relatively larger investments in "seed technology" vis-a-vis what is allocated to seed issues in other CGIAR commodity programs, in an apparent attempt to assist NARS in obtaining research impact.
Interestingly, in recent years the CGIAR strategy has increasingly stressed the need for inter-Centre collaboration. Such collaborations must, in the panel's opinion, be built on a clear understanding of the biological similarities of the crops, especially for the frequently misunderstood similarities and dissimilarities of root and tuber crops, if the expected benefits of collaboration are to be obtained.
It is noteworthy that each of the Centres working on root and tuber crops research has built strong upstream links with AROs as part of its institutional strategy for research with root and tuber crops. This may represent a special opportunity for interlinking AROs in an inter-Centre strategy for root and tuber crop research.
The mode of operation for root and tuber crop research within the CG System is still largely based on self-contained, independent operations, rather than as full-fledged partnerships among IARCs and with NARS.
The organizational structure (i.e., coordinating mechanism) of root and tuber crops research is "Centre oriented" and is not program-based. Any semblance of a system-wide root and tuber crops research program is simply the summation of related activities across autonomous Centres. One exception is the cassava program that is operating quite well between IITA and CIAT. This inter-Centre organization for collaboration in cassava research probably reflects to a great extent the willingness of scientists to work together to achieve a common goal, rather than some organizational structure to facilitate inter-Centre collaboration. In the panel's observation, there are no structures in place that would facilitate inter-Centre research on root and tuber crops within the CGIAR mandates.
Given the foregoing considerations, the panel (with the assistance of the workshop participants) analyzed eight overarching issues relative to Inter-Centre research on the root and tuber crops. These eight issues were:
· Global planning and organization.
· Potential inter-Centre collaborations.
· Better communication and operations.- Co-location of facilities.· Biotechnology research.
- International transfer of germplasm.
· Post-harvest and market research.
· Partnerships with research strong NARS.
· Policy research. Incentives for progress.
Global Planning and Organization: Discussions at the University of Maryland workshop clearly indicated that root and tuber crops research suffers because of absence of global planning and priority setting for research, especially for analyses which would build on the important similarities between the crops. Also lacking is an effective way to organize and conduct research on root and tuber crops, which often are studied by a small number of scientists located in widely dispersed locations and institutions; including IARCs, AROs, and NARS in developing countries. Because funding for support of root and tuber crops research is unlikely to increase significantly in the medium term, these crops will require new or improved approaches to global planning, coordination, and partnerships for achieving critical mass in research.
The panel evaluated, from three perspectives, new approaches that could be taken for inter-Centre collaboration and partnerships in root and tuber crops research. This analysis was undertaken to provide a perspective to the preceding recommendation, and to establish the boundaries of expectations that surround the standing panel's analysis.
From the first perspective, the panel asked, "if the system was starting all over again with root and tuber crops research, what would be the preferred strategy? This "clean slate" analysis led to the conclusion that very likely that the same root and tuber crops would be selected for research, and that the assignment of crops to Centres would remain the same. One exception might be a reassignment of mandates for cassava (see later section in this report on this topic). But the benefits of making such a total "fix" at this point might be very small. The panel concluded that a major "reengineering" of the CGIAR's root and tuber crops research organization would not necessarily provide 1) a new strategy, 2) increase efficiencies, or 3) enhance opportunities for success. The clean slate approach was thus abandoned.
The second analytical approach which the panel undertook was to examine a rearrangement of commodities to see if a reorganization through a reassignment of commodities might yield some benefit. Again, the panel's analysis showed there were no significant scientific or management benefits to be gained from the reassignment of commodities among the participating Centres.
The third analytical approach that the panel used was to ask, "Could some new structures be formed that would facilitate inter-Centre collaborations on root and tuber crops research?" Through this analysis the panel did identify opportunities for:
· Better identification of potential inter-Centre Collaborations.
· Enhanced planning, communication, and operational efficiency.
Potential Inter-Centre Collaborations: Some potential inter-Centre collaborations identified and recommended by the panel included joint projects with root and tuber crops on:
· Support for the System-wide genetic resources program, with special reference to the root and tuber crops.· Collaborative efforts on international germplasm movement strategies, with phytosanitation.
· Vegetative propagation and conservation technology.
· Biotechnology.
· Collaborative efforts post-harvest technology and market research.
· Mechanization research.
· Policy analysis.
· Studies on international trade.
· Coordinated collections of statistics and surveys.
· Training.
· Concerted, collaborative efforts to strengthen national programs.
The panel recognized that it would be possible under existing mechanisms for individual scientists to identify and go straight to these special topics through various forms of collaboration. In fact, nothing institutional would be likely to stop them. The panel's concern, however, is that some topics might not be initiated because of a lack of recognition, or the failure of the right personalities to come together to form an initiative.
Better Communication and Operations: The panel considered two areas where better communication, and/or facilitated operations would serve the collective interests of the Centres' mandated to work on root and tuber crops. These two areas are:
· Co-location of facilities.
· International transfers of germ plasm.
Co-location of Facilities: The panel explored prospects for the co-location of Centre activities in African countries as a model. There are some significant difficulties in co-location of facilities that are not apparent at first glance. For example, IITA, CIP, and CIAT are co-located in Kampala, Uganda while CIP and IPGRI are both located in Nairobi, Kenya. A superficial evaluation of opportunities to gain efficiencies within the CG System might suggest that individual Centres could "piggyback" on another Centre's existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and thus expand operations, without much additional cost or commitment. This is not the case, as the existing Centre MOUs tend to be highly specific for intended activities, and most MOUs are not applicable to the commodity(ies) of another Centre. For instance, CIAT's MOU for Uganda is specifically for beans, and thus serves no practical use to CIP or IITA.
Nevertheless there are opportunities for Centres with existing MOU's to help other Centres, such as in the importation of a limited amount of equipment that is crucial to implementation of specific research or training programs.
International Transfer of Germplasm: The conservation, maintenance, improvement, and deployment of germplasm have traditionally been core activities of commodity- based IARCs. As noted above, vegetative propagation of root and tuber crops complicates greatly the preservation and distribution of pathogen-tested vegetative material. This is a particularly demanding requirement for a CGIAR Centre.
To conduct the panel's analysis of this issue a number of assumptions were made. Many of these assumptions reflect the biological realities of the crops being researched, and the collective experience of distributing vegetatively propagated material in a number of different settings, for each commodity. In general, although there are some exceptions, centralized governmental and public sector-organized distribution systems for vegetatively propagated crops have considerable difficulty. (Cuba is a notable positive exception.) In many instances there are limited prospects for a strong private sector that supplies planting materials, although there is a often a demand which seems not to be met. Also, there is a limited scope for enhancing the techniques and efficiencies of these supply systems. The exception to this point is the potential for the development of new methods for certifying the plant health status of vegetative materials. Methods for vegetative propagation of all of the crops are reasonably well developed.
What is the bottleneck in the multiplication and distribution of vegetatively propagated root and tuber crops? The panel evaluated this question and listed a number of options for the solution of the problem. These solutions included the development of some inter-Centre special projects perhaps involving ISNAR. The projects should be of limited duration, and in partnership with NARS and with selected private sector representatives, to address constraints to the distribution of improved root and tuber crops germplasm. The panel suggests that the setting of this research agenda should include farmer participation, both for variety selection and for research approaches, to enhance the acceptability of the resulting methods and materials.
With respect to the preservation of germplasm of root and tuber crops the panel recognizes the need for the Centres to collect, characterize, conserve, move, and use the available germplasm, recognizing the unique challenges presented by vegetative propagation. The panel evaluated this topic using a number of assumptions to develop some options leading to a recommendation.
The panel assumed that germplasm preservation activities will continue to be an important component of any IARCS' working on root and tuber crops. It would therefore be desirable to provide more effective and cheaper methods for the conservation of this germplasm through new technologies, such as cryopreservation. Root and tuber crops are particularly difficult to store, as they are more vulnerable to loss than are other types of crops (i.e., those that can be stored as true seed). The panel also assumed that plant pathogens, especially plant viruses, will continue to be a major hazard to the international movement of plant materials intended for research. However, the panel recognized that the new biotechnologies offer considerable hope for increasing the safety of international shipment of plant materials, especially through use of biochemical and molecular diagnostic kits to identify the plant health status of material, and by enabling the culture of plant parts free of pathogens.
Given these assumptions the panel deliberated two alternatives that could be used as a strategy for inter-Centre collaboration on phytosanitation issues vis-a-vis germplasm. The first strategy was characterized as a higher cost/lower risk approach to obtain, through the development of a centralized facility, phytosanitary certification of germplasm as an inter-Centre effort for the CGIAR mandated root and tuber crops. The higher cost would be for the development of needed technology and for institutional support to maintain a centralized facility that would deliver lower-risk international shipments, from a plant health perspective.
The second option was characterized as a lower cost/"higher risk" strategy to speed up the exchange of materials between countries, with an emphasis on intra continental movement of materials. This strategy would entail the development of internationally acceptable, rational phytosanitary protocols based on the best possible science, and arguing for a lowering of non-tariff trade barriers which all too often complicate international phytosanitary regulations.
The panel notes that the first option (higher cost/lower risk) has been successfully accomplished by the INIBAP Transit Centre in Belgium. There are, however, some hidden costs to INIBAP. Also, the panel noted that the volume of banana and plantain moving through the Transit Centre was considerably less than the expected volume for a hypothetical root and tuber crops transit centre. A root and tuber crops partnership with the INIBAP Transit Centre seems out of the question, as the existing space and facilities at the Katholik University in Leuven, Belgium could not accommodate the anticipated volume that would be transmitted, and dealt with, in a fully operational root and tuber crops research system.
Another consideration noted by the panel is the lack of trust relative to the problems of international shipments of vegetatively-propagated material. This problem is not that widely understood, and is manifested as "double cleaning." Untrusting recipients of vegetatively- propagated materials once again clean materials already certified at the time of shipment as pathogen-tested. This lack of trust becomes an unnecessary delay in the exchange of material that would not necessarily be resolved by the creation of a root and tuber crops transit centre.
Biotechnology Research: The panel noted the opportunities for the application of the new tools of biotechnology for the genetic improvement and maintenance of healthy materials of root and tuber crops. In the panel's assessment, these applications need to be stimulated within the CGIAR system, particularly when working in partnership with non-CGIAR institutions. This effort will require, however, adequate resolution of several outstanding issues, such as: claims to intellectual property rights; biosafety compliance; access to genetic materials; and the use of material transfer agreements. Some of the Centre mandated root and tuber crops that have received less biotechnology research attention, such as cassava, may require careful coordination of research activities to prevent double investments in this expensive area of research. Benefits should include incorporation of agronomically important genetic traits from foreign sources, marker- assisted selection, and genetic probes for plant pathogens. Inter-Centre coordination of biotechnology research on root and tuber crops should help to identify appropriate partners (e.g., AROs and NARS); share resources effectively; and better distribute advanced research methods.
Post-harvest and Market Research: The panel investigated the question, "What should be CGIAR's role and level of investment in the area of post-harvest and market research?"
The panel acknowledges some existing and significant inter-Centre collaborations in post-harvest and market research for root and tuber crops. Some important examples are:
· Product development workshops/manual (jointly by CIP, CIAT, and IITA).· Marketing methods materials in Spanish and English (involving CIP, CIAT, and IFPRI).
· Demand studies for potato (Bangladesh, Pakistan) and sweet potatoes (Philippines) (done by CIP, and IFPRI).
· Marketing research on root and tuber crops in China (CIP and IFPRI).
· FAO expert consultation on root and tuber crops for animal feed (involving CIP and CIAT).
· Evaluation of competitive position of sweet potato versus cassava in Vietnam and Peru with national program collaborators (CIP and CIAT).
In the standing panel's view there appears to be opportunity for greater efficiency in post-harvest and market research that could be obtained through more organized collaborations among Centres - and with AROs and NARS through partnerships.
In the standing panel's opinion, considerable opportunity exists for the development of improved cultivars for processing and for new processed products based on genetically-enhanced root or tuber quality and storage potential. This is, however, not a trivial consideration but one that demands substantial evaluation, analysis, and strategy development. Moreover, it is likely that strong research partnerships with the private sector may be necessary in specific topics (e.g., post-harvest technology, market research).
In its analysis, the standing panel assumed that urbanization in the developing world will open up market opportunities for new food and non-food processed products that could be based on root and tuber crops. Significant commonalities appear to exist across root and tuber crops in the area of post- harvest technology and for research on the development of new products through post-harvest processing. This would likely lead to demand-driven root and tuber crops research that would make these crops more competitive with other crops at the farm level, and in strategies to provide income for the producers.
Strategies to pursue these research opportunities were evaluated by the panel as options by which to formulate a recommendation. Continuation of the status quo seems inappropriate because it would fail to capture the potential synergies that could be applied to the development of post-harvest technologies for root and tuber crops. Certain aspects of post-harvest technologies will continue to require location-specific attention (at the regional or sub-regional levels). Nevertheless, there could be gains in efficiency to be realized by conducting research on well defined topics, in a more centralized way.
Partnerships With Research-Strong NARS: In stating its priorities and strategies, TAC noted the opportunities for partnership with research-strong NARS as an approach for Centres working on root and tuber crops. It is understood that the intent of this approach would be to improve research output for root and tuber crops by drawing on the capacity of NARS to conduct such research. The panel evaluated this issue and concluded there were opportunities that could be pursued through inter-Centre strategies.
Clearly, the national programs have benefited tremendously from the CGIAR investments in root and tuber crops research. These benefits have been derived as increased incomes, greater food supplies, and enhanced capacity in national programs to conduct research on root and tuber crops. In spite of past capacity-building, many individuals at the Centres working on root and tuber crops feel that most developing country national programs lack the critical mass of scientific strength necessary to meet their own national research needs. Some have proposed that NARS research networks are a viable alternative to insufficient national "critical mass," and several positive examples of such networks exist to document the argument. It is likely that this assessment has led some IARCs to invest in networks and partnership arrangements designed to strengthen root and tuber crop research within national programs.
Many of the shared characteristics of the root and tuber crops could make them difficult to handle (vegetative propagation, phytosanitation, storage, etc.). Such factors, along with insufficient funding, appears to dissuade national research scientists from working on root and tuber crops. This presents a dilemma to the CGIAR System for the organization of research partnerships. Although there are number of very successful bilateral partnerships and networks that are operational, the expectation for the direct handing off of a commodity or disciplinary area of science to a national program seems, at this time, not straightforward.
The panel conducted its evaluation of the issues of partnership opportunities using a number of assumptions. The panel assumed that Centre budgets will remain constrained, and that funds will not be available to fully reimburse national programs for assuming major research responsibilities. It was additionally assumed that the budgets of potential partners would remain constrained. Research partnerships would therefore be based more on mutual interests, rather than on contract-for-research relationships with payment for services rendered. The panel does not expect national programs to underwrite international agricultural research projects of significant size.
The panel also assumed that developed countries are not likely to increase their interest in root and tuber crop research with the exception of potato, which is a commodity of interest to their region. The panel also assumed that the dissimilarities of root and tuber crops would contribute to the need for different types of partnership arrangements, especially with regard to research scope and coverage.
The panel's analysis led to a number of options that were evaluated for feasibility. Each of these supposed mechanisms for establishing inter-institutional linkages (such as networks or research collaborations) were evaluated by using specific examples identified as relevant to contemporary root and tuber crops research. After exploring a number of options it became apparent to the panel that the CGIAR system needs to maintain considerable flexibility in the types of relationships that are established for conducting research on crops that have a number of dissimilarities, given the fact that a considerable breadth of research activity is needed.
To illustrate this concept of partnering with a research strong NARS an example is given for sweet potato.
Produced on six (6) million hectares annually, sweet potato in China is often grown on marginal lands, by very poor farmers, and is used for food, livestock feed, and processing into starch, alcohol, and noodles, plus other minor uses and products. CIP, recognizing China's interest and research capacity in sweet potato, has included contract research with Chinese institutions as part of its core program. Similar support for potato research is handled through CIP's regional office in Beijing. The panel commends CIP for devising this research partnership approach.
The panel considers the CIP/China partnership in potato and sweet potato as a point of departure for further collaboration. This partnership approach could help Centres acquire a critical mass in international research, perhaps at a lower cost.
Partnerships with research strong NARS may have greater application when/if the CGIAR System falls on hard financial times. Given the unknown prospects for continued funding for the System, it seems reasonable to explore strategies for dealing with major or catastrophic budget cuts. Research partners with research strong NARS would be a likely strategy for maintaining vital research activities, rather than a shut-down of programs. Clearly no one advocates this outcome, but research leaders must consider the possibility, given present uncertainties.
The standing panel recognizes that there are several performance standards that should be considered when establishing partnerships with stronger NARS, either as a partnership strategy, or as a response to catastrophic financial exigency.
In response to the standing panel's comment on the need for performance standards for research partnerships with research-strong NARS, TAC requested some tentative guidelines and criteria that could be used to judge the merits and demerits of individual cases. In response to TAC's request the standing panel outlines six standards should be met when passing a research program to a research strong NARS:
· Science quality assurance -
mechanisms should be in place to ensure that the research undertaken will be of highest quality, and of relevance to the needs of the System. This needs to be assured through some agreed processes for:
- merit review before the initiation of research projects;
- subsequent evaluation of research progress and performance; and
- the assessment of research results, outcomes, and impacts.
· Cost effectiveness - if the intention of passing off of a research program is to capture some cost efficiencies, these should be monitored in a way that justifies continuation of the agreement.
· Adequate resources - the capacity and/or sufficiency of:
- People (senior scientists and support staff),
- Facilities (for research), and
- Funding (project support and financial accountability), should be continuously evaluated to assure that the intended research can be carried out.
· Scientific leadership - the acceptance of the research outcomes will depend on the scientific recognition of those conducting the research. Consequently, the research scientists and the institutions selected to take on the research responsibilities should have an established reputation for scientific leadership.
· Programmatic commitment - the long term success of a research program is often dependent upon a continued commitment to a program's activities. It is important to gain assurances for continuity of support for the program that is to be passed off.
· Accessibility of research results - inasmuch as the intention of passing off an IARCS' research program to a NARS is to obtain research results for the broad scientific community, agreements must be reached on the sharing of results, and the distribution of information and germplasm without encumbrances. These considerations range from intellectual property considerations, to cultural differences that could manifest themselves in an unwillingness to share research outcomes with the entire scientific community.
The standing panel also notes some complications that may occur with the continuation of research partnerships with research strong NARS. These complications are: the absolute need for sustained funding; policy to deal with intellectual property rights, especially for essentially derived materials; methods for dealing with material transfer agreements; and the inevitable need to comply with international phytosanitary regulations.
Obtaining early agreement on these issues should help to favorable implement international research partnerships for selected commodities.
Policy Research: One of the potential areas of inter-Centre collaboration that was clearly evident to the panel entailed opportunities for policy research. During the course of the University of Maryland workshop, one of the breakout groups had an opportunity to compose a list of potential collaborative research areas that could be conducted as an inter-Centre initiatives. Nine topics were identified as:
· Compare crop yield data with regional and national statistics to detect systematic biases and recommend improved methods for yield estimation in root and tuber crops.· Fine-tuning of international projections of supply and demand for root and tuber crops.
· Study the indirect effects of distortionary sectorial policies and food aid on the production and consumption of root and tuber crops.
· Determine the role of public investments in infrastructure and transportation on production and consumption of root and tuber crops.
· Conduct analyses of resource allocations to root and tuber crops research in the NARS.
· Study the impact and implication of CGIAR-related root and tuber research.
· Evaluate the competitiveness of root and tuber crops as substitutes for internationally-traded commodities (i.e., cassava for feed versus imported feed grains; domestic production versus imported frozen foods; cassava starch versus imported starch), and the implications for research.
· Determine the alleged relative inferiority (or superiority) as consumer goods of root and tuber crops in time and space, and the value of root and tuber crops as food security.
· Study the economics of processing of root and tuber crops and the role of the public sector and the IARCs.
Incentives for Progress: There are some interesting incentives that could be provided that would help facilitate inter-Centre collaboration on root and tuber crops research.
The panel proposes that TAC could clarify the linkages of CGIAR system root and tuber crops research programs to ecoregional and system-wide activities that are now being initiated. This would help the Centres see where the opportunities in ecoregional and System-wide initiatives co-reside with root and tuber crops research priorities and potential inter-Centre collaborations.
The panel proposes that improved information on the present and future importance of root and tuber crops, and their contributions to the CGIAR goals of food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainability would help establish appropriate research roles and help set priorities for research on these crops. This might include the development of appropriate databases and geographic information systems to help decision makers plan strategies and set priorities.
In another dimension (and where appropriate), the Centres should develop joint partnerships and networks with NARS on a regional basis, and explore other arrangements with NARS, NGOs, AROs, universities, and the private sector on an inter-Centre basis.
The panel clearly sees opportunities for Centres to work cooperatively within regions, to share capabilities (e.g., science discipline strengths), and to jointly respond to the needs and opportunities of NARS through a more coordinated effort on root and tuber crops research and training. This might be modeled after the successful CIAT/IITA cassava coordinating mechanism, that captures opportunities for complementarity, based on each other's capabilities.
Relative to the common difficulties of effective technology delivery systems for improved planting materials of root and tuber crops, the panel notes that the appropriate Centres could jointly engage in activities with other institutions such as FAO, the World Bank, and research-strong NARS for a concerted action program to resolve these constraints. Failure to find appropriate solutions to these complex problems will severely restrict the potential for impact from current and future research on root and tuber crops. In the panel's view, a considerable portion of the research needed in this area must involve the social, behavioral, and economic disciplines.
Inter-Centre coordinated efforts in root and tuber crops could provide a clearer vision of how investments in research collaborations for these commodities could pay off, relative to other research investments. Several representatives from IARCs working on root and tuber crops noted to the panel the perceived under investments in research of tropical root and tuber crops. This under investment, it was argued, represents a missed opportunity in what one scientist called, "Phase I" technological change6.
6
The notion here is one that recognizes that the early stages of technological breakthroughs often yield the greatest benefits. Root and tuber crops, being relatively late on the global scientific research agenda should be an excellent area for research investments to gain significant research payoffs.
