The standing panel attempted to evaluate the likely reception of changing approaches to research on root and tuber crops within and beyond the CG System. Evaluations were done from the perspectives of donors, NARS, farmers. Centres, and non-CG entities in an attempt to anticipate how they might view the panel's recommendations.
Donors:
The panel believes that a concerted inter-Centre initiative on root and tuber crops research would provide better donor appreciation of the opportunities for research, and present a "cleaner" strategy for their evaluation. In the present climate, it is desirable for proposed research activities to have an anticipated impact. The panel believes that a clearly stated strategy for root and tuber crops research could include such ex ante impact assessments. Derivative statements of impact should be developed, with the anticipated eventual payoffs, especially for the intended rural and/or poor populations. A clearly stated strategy could further elevate the visibility of inter-Centre collaboration (which is already respectable), and bring into the partnership more members, including the private sector.
The panel believes that the donor community may or may not be interested in post-harvest technology research as a major topic. Consequently, this may require a policy statement from the CG System to clarify the legitimacy of this strategic approach.
The panel also anticipates that donors might ask about the propriety of post-harvest technology research being funded in the public sector, and if there are not alternative suppliers in the private sector. The panel has concluded that this area of research has suffered under invested for a considerable period of time, and that pre-commercial research through the CG System could initiate considerable research opportunity and derived benefit, for both the farmers as the main client, and for the private sector as a catalyst, if carefully planned and strategically developed.
The panel also anticipates that donors to the CG System may expect of this panel a statement about the appropriateness of existing mandates for root and tuber crops research. The panel's response to this expectation is that the current mandates are, for the most part, working. A reconfiguration does not seem to be justified in our judgement.
NARS:
The panel concluded that a new inter-Centre strategy for root and tuber crops research would boost the morale and enhance awareness within the NARS. This could result in closer partnerships with substantial scientific benefits. Some of these benefits might include: stronger research programs; more access to information; increased awareness of research opportunities; greater exchange of research materials; greater mobility of germplasm; better linkages to third institutions, including advanced research organizations leading to new partnerships; better training opportunities; and more exchange of research results.
The panel did not feel that an inter-Centre strategy for root and tuber crops research would be seen as a threat by the respective NARS.
Farmers:
In the panel's view, enhanced inter-Centre research on root and tuber crops would increase opportunities for farmers, especially women and children, who are engaged in the production of root and tuber crops. The results of the proposed collaborative research on root and tuber crops to provide improved "seed" systems will have direct benefits to farmers by giving them access to healthier planting materials. Research on post-harvest technologies should provide increased market absorption of harvested products, and thus produce additional income for farms; more food for consumers; increased rural employment when small-scale processing is available; and perhaps more industrial products. Greater partnerships derived from inter-Centre collaborations on root and tuber crops research should expand the use of research findings, and perhaps open new channels for feedback from the farm community, which would be useful for priority setting in areas such as germplasm preservation, variety selection, and research.
Centres:
The panel concluded that international Centres would benefit from an inter-Centre initiative on root and tuber crops through enhanced partnership opportunities and a new awareness of investments in root and tuber crops research. The proposed Consultative Committee could clarify roles among Centres, and provide increased attention to problems within and among commodities of the root and tuber crops group. Greater coordination of planning and implementation should increase the efficiency of research investments, and assist in the exchange of data and knowledge for the benefit of all.
Non-CG Entities:
A concerted inter-Centre initiative on root and tuber crops research could have ripple effects within the system and beyond. In addition to facilitated cooperation and support, there should be an increase in the strength of research, and a consequent elevation of appreciation of the opportunities for research on root and tuber crops. Through a clearly stated research strategy there should be new opportunities for partnerships with the private sector, NGOs, AROs, and others. This should go a long way towards reducing what some have criticized as the autonomy and isolation of root and tuber crops research globally.
