4.1. Economic and institutional contexts in LDCs: demand for P&M research
4.2. Implications of Expansion of the CGIAR
4.3. Areas of Comparative Advantages in P&M Research
4.4. CGIAR priority setting processes
Demand for P&M research may originate from different groups: (a) stakeholders in LDCs, (b) the CGIAR as a System, and (c) individual or groups of donors. In the view of the Panel the CGIAR should focus on the first two sources of demand. Most likely individual donors' demands are largely derived from the first two, but they may also be influenced by stakeholders and policies in their respective countries, leading to potential mismatches. Presumably, reconciliation is achieved at the CGIAR system level. Increased dependency on special project funding, however, may lead to diversions and a loss of synergy in the agenda. Thus, what follows is an attempt to read the demand for P&M research from stakeholders in LDCs, and the implications for priority setting in the CGIAR.
The socioeconomic and problem contexts in each country, including the macroeconomic and agricultural policy contexts, define national demands for policy analysis. While these contexts vary considerably among developing countries, it seems possible to identify common patterns of evolution. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight some of the main differences in the past and present policy challenges in LDCs, summarize what appear to be the emerging demands for policy analysis at the national level, and help identify some of the derived demands for international policy research in order to formulate suggestions for the CGIAR priority setting process in this area.
4.1.1. The regulated context of the 1960s & 1970s
4.1.2. The transition of the 1980s
4.1.3. The globalizing context of the 1990s
Macroeconomic and sectoral policies in the 1960s and 1970s were geared towards import substitution industrialization and self-sufficiency. The need and urgency to increase food production for exports and for feeding fast growing domestic populations led to the adoption of agricultural policies and strategies aimed at increasing production and productivity. Often these policies were implemented within contexts of semi-closed, regulated economies in which macroeconomic policies discriminated against the agricultural sector (Schiff and Valdès, 1992). The policy dilemma was that agriculture was to help secure foreign exchange for industrial development while producing low-cost food to facilitate development. Agricultural policies tried to balance negative effects of macropolicies by accelerating and broadening the base for technology adoption. They aimed at inducing agricultural growth through agricultural research and technology transfer, and they tried to induce growth through rural infrastructure development and subsidies in the provision of various public support services and credit.
The institutional response was the creation of national agricultural research institutes and of national extension systems, or the modification of existing organizational structures, to introduce, adapt, and generate technologies that had the intrinsic characteristics of "public goods" and national extension systems for technology transfer. These public sector systems adopted a supply-driven, productivity paradigm to foster increased production through improved seeds and crop management packages, which subsequently resulted in a demand for strategic research and institutional strengthening. The CGIAR posed itself to help meet these derived demands through improved germplasm training and commodity research networks, and it did this mainly along commodity research lines. To assist in the strengthening of national agricultural research institutions, ISNAR was created in 1979.
There was a widely-shared perception that the green revolution could be a powerful instrument for increasing production as well as alleviating rural poverty, and that adequate policies were needed to foster technology adoption. Agricultural policies included the development of irrigation systems, mechanization programmes, input delivery and output marketing systems, commodity marketing boards and price support schemes to reduce market risks, provision of extension, seeds and animal health services, and integration of credit and public services through integrated rural development programmes. National demand for policy analysis was mainly for ways of improving the mix of these policy instruments, effectively accelerating production response and technology adoption, and reducing price instability in domestic markets.
To help meet the derived demand for policy research arising from the above national policy agendas, IFPRI was created in 1975 and formally incorporated to the CGIAR in 1979. At the time "there was a general recognition that micro-economic research at the commodity-oriented CGIAR Centres could not adequately address policy issues,... and that sector-wide and macro-economic issues were not appropriate topics for research at those Centres" (IFPRI's Second External Programme Review, 1991). But as the thematic emphasis evolved over time, the approach adopted by IFPRI was to identify constraints to agricultural development and to distill lessons from studies across countries on behavioral responses of farmers to policies, a background for policy design by national policy analysts. Analysis of policies at the country level was regarded as a necessary step for deriving lessons across countries.
Shortly after the time IFPRI became operational, the economies in the developing world suffered three sudden and major external shocks: an unprecedented rise in real interest rates, a cessation of foreign capital inflows, and a fall in external terms of trade (Selowsky, 1987), ail of which were compounded by a decline in export demand due to the 1992-1993 recession in OECD countries. "Starting at about 1980, much of the developing world faced a severe economic crisis, ... disposable incomes fell, foreign exchange became scarce in the face of rising debt burden, deteriorating terms of trade and growing current accounts deficits were creating growing resource constraints and widespread balance of payment crises" (Scobie and Jacobsen, 1995). The macroeconomic policies pursued in the 1970s revealed their major weaknesses under the crisis, and many developing countries implemented "structural adjustment programmes" of different degrees of intensity and gradualism. Some are still trying. Seen in retrospect, the panorama was rather heterogeneous and "the implementation of adjustment programmes has had a mix of positive and negative effects on the performance of the agricultural sector, ... and the impact on different groups of agricultural households has been uneven" (Tabor, 1995).
Policies in this period were dominated by the need to manage macro imbalances. The structural adjustment processes were in general characterized by a move away from import substitution towards more open economies, realignment of exchange rates, and deregulation of markets, including agricultural markets. Social concerns were to be handled through social funds and safety net approaches, which, because of political visibility, targeted more urban than rural sectors. These changes in macroeconomic and sectoral policy contexts induced important changes in the demand for agricultural policy analysis at the national level and, hence, in the derived demand for international policy research. However, this latter demand was blurred by the differences in circumstances and policies among countries.
The changes in the policy contexts began revealing some of the latent demand for technologies that in turn brought about some of the institutional limitations to respond to new demands. Tighter fiscal policies implied stagnation in funding for agricultural R&D in many countries. Because of concerns about poor institutional performance, the World Bank in the early 1980s became involved in sponsoring reforms of agricultural research policies as part of their conventional sectoral investments projects (Tabor and Ballantine, 1995). Collapses of extension systems, increasing concerns for household food insecurity, concerns for empowering women and ethnic groups in agriculture, slow technology adoption by small farmers, and the high fiscal costs and limited effectiveness of integrated rural development programmes all led to the questioning of traditional extension approaches and to the exploration of a variety of new opinions, including more decentralized adaptive research involving NGOs (which proliferated during the 1980s) and farmers.
The emerging demand for policy analysis in developing countries was essentially for studying the effects of the new macroeconomic, trade, and agricultural policies on the performance of the agricultural sector and on their distributional effects. Emerging global environmental concerns began adding new dimensions to the agenda to identify policies and public sector strategies that would arrest the alarming rates of deforestation and resource degradation and to reduce chemical contamination and biodiversity losses. The close links between poverty and resource degradation compounded the complexities of the policy research required. While these new demands were common to most countries, pressing regional problems led to more specific demands at the regional level: policy and institutional frameworks were needed to induce technology adoption, empower women, and reduce food insecurity in SSA; to improve water, upland, and coastal area management in Asia; and to find alternative, more cost-effective R&D approaches in LAC.
The demands for policy analysis that began emerging in the 1980s generalized in the early 1990s as more countries undertook structural adjustment programmes. Completion of the Uruguay round of GATT and emergence of regional trade blocks consolidated the trend towards more open economies. International interdependence was facilitated by remarkable advances in communications. After a period of stagnation and decline during the early 1980s, world agricultural trade reassumed growth. Increasing adherence to more open market approaches will help anticipate further changes in future macropolicy environments.
Open economy models imply that governments have less control over traditional, across-the-board policy instruments, particularly exchange rates, interest rates, trade taxes, and tariffs. They need to rely on finer and more complex instruments with a greater degree of sector and local specificity, selective in terms of the role of the public sector in providing public goods and services and incentives. There seems to be a dual process at work: homogenization of macropolicies and a search for greater specificity in micropolicies.
Increasing import competition in domestic markets and changing external demand make evident the need for enhancing the competitiveness of agricultural production to meet new opportunities in domestic and external markets. Structural adjustment policies aim at improving market transparency by removing policy interventions that distort domestic markets. As a result, demand for agricultural products changes rapidly and latent demands for agricultural technologies are expressed.
Changes in demand for agricultural products are also the result of continued urbanization, which will more than double the urban population in LDCs to 3.6 billion by 2020. Urbanization is associated with significant changes in the patterns of food demand, processing, and marketing. Changes in income patterns result in changes in the types of food demanded: higher incomes increase demand for higher quality and processed foods. Demand for livestock products will grow much faster than demand for food grains, except in SSA where virtually no growth in per capita food demand is expected due to income stagnation (IFPRI 2020). However, implementation of successful policy reforms in these countries may raise effective demand for livestock products. And SSA is heterogenous, with potential for stronger growth in countries such as South Africa and with urbanization changing consumption patterns toward livestock products even with low aggregate income growth. Changes in income and employment patterns, particularly the incorporation of women into urban labor markets, result in increased demand for foods that are more convenient in time, space, and form. Expansion of transnational food companies, globalization of fast-food chains, and the growing importance of supermarkets add new actors that help shape the demand for agricultural products. Expansion of the food processing industry and the concomitant increases in product differentiation (e.g., processed foods, brand products, specialty foods, and pesticide-free foods) result in a reduced share of primary products in the retail value of food products, and it increases specific demands for agricultural products in terms of quality and timeliness of supplies. These changes in domestic and external demand patterns create a need to reconvert agricultural production along emerging market opportunity lines.
Urbanization is making poverty an increasingly urban problem, particularly in middle- to higher-income developing countries, and it is making employment and food security for the urban poor a dominant political issue that will influence future policy interventions. In the agrarian-based, least-developed countries extreme poverty in rural areas will continue to dominate the policy agenda.
The political and social context for recovering growth in the 1990s is increasingly characterized by democracy, the decentralization of governance, and a widespread presence of social organizations, which in turn calls for increased attention to the distribution of the benefits from growth (e.g., to the poor, women, and ethnic groups) and to avoiding losses of natural resource capital. This has opened dimensions of political economy that were previously frozen by consolidated status-quo in the respective countries. More than in the past, policies need to be the result of dialogue and negotiation between the interested parties. In a way, the 1990s could be characterized by a return to the social concerns of the 1960s and 1970s, which were largely bypassed during the 1980s due to concerns for macro imbalances.
Macroeconomic policy contexts in the 1990s require that agricultural policies be market-oriented and that government services play a subsidiary role to that of the private sector. But the political and social contexts imply that civil society will participate more actively in agricultural R&D and in the husbandry of the natural resource base for improved equity and sustainability of production. Reinvigorated social concerns for addressing extreme poverty in rural areas and for sustainability of production give rise to new challenges: correcting market failures, internalizing negative environmental externalities, facilitating reconversion of agricultural production according to market opportunities, empowering women and ethnic groups, and designing social and rural development programmes and safety-nets for those without the resources to compete.
Globalization, along with increasing market and social pressures on the resource base, has brought new issues to the international policy agenda. The Convention on Biological Diversity has brought new policy challenges in relation to in-situ conservation of biodiversity. Together with advances in biotechnology, it has brought research on intellectual property rights issues in agriculture to the agenda. Increased pressure on shared resources, such as fresh water sources and fisheries, has added important policy issues. The GATT and regional trade agreements give rise to new trade issues in relation to agriculture, including regulation in the use of pesticides. These problems are distinct from national policy issues in that they are transnational in nature. Some of them may be of strategic importance for future agricultural development in LDCs, and they may justify P&M research as background for international negotiations, the outcomes of which will condition future domestic policies.
As most countries are in different transitional stages towards open market economies, the policy scenarios in the LDCs are quite heterogenous and highly dynamic. Consequently, it is particularly important to acknowledge that the demand for policy research is diverse and will be changing over time, requiring periodic and forward-looking readings of the national, sub-regional, and international perspectives.
The institutional scenario is also highly dynamic. Public institutions are in diverse stages of transition in the search for niches and approaches that insure them institutional sustainability. Tighter fiscal policies, embracement of a subsidiary role for the public sector, concerns for empowering civil society, and adoption of more stringent public management practices result in increasing funding restrictions for public agricultural R&D and in an increased demand for rethinking the role of public sector institutions. The provision of many agricultural support services, such as seeds systems and animal health services, is being privatized in most countries. One of the main dilemmas of state contraction is the institutional vacuum that it creates, particularly for the subsistence and family farm sectors that are the least attended to by the private service sector and commercial banks. Changes in the policy context in which R&D institutions operate call for a shift from the technology supply approach of the past to a demand approach, since technology demands are increasingly derived from new market opportunities rather than from historical production patterns developed to supply captive markets. New R&D paradigms are needed for the agricultural sector, particularly for the peasant sector, which are participatory and driven by market demand.
As a result of the search for more effective institutional paradigms, a general move towards greater institutional decentralization is already observable in Asia and Latin America, albeit within extremely diverse regional and national circumstances. To be sustainable, decentralization modalities need to be congruent with market economies, take into account the public good nature of many agricultural technologies and the existence of market imperfections, and facilitate the integration of the private sector, which includes producers' organizations, NGOs, and other community-based groups in agricultural R&D. It is in this context that research policies and the public management of R&D institutions and programmes, including the public-private interface, have become high priority areas for research.
Despite the highly diverse and dynamic economic, policy, and institutional settings, it seems possible to attempt some generalizations regarding the derived demand for P&M research. LDCs demands include (1) gaining a better understanding of the medium- and long-term effects of new macroeconomic, trade, and agricultural policies on the performance of the agricultural sector and their distributional effects and (2) micropolicies that are effective in facilitating the transition to more open economies and promoting broad-based agricultural development in vulnerable and poor areas. More specifically, developing countries need policies that:
* facilitate the transition to open economies by exploiting potential synergy between comparative advantages, new technologies, and market opportunities while ensuring sustainability of production;* help correct failures in commodity and factor markets (credit, insurance, land, common property resources, and water markets), facilitating the access of small-scale producers and processors to expanding markets;
* facilitate the reconversion of production in areas where the principal crops are highly vulnerable to foreign competition;
* foster efficient integration of primary production with the agricultural processing industry to enhance competitiveness in domestic and external markets;
* effectively promote broad-based development, incomes, and employment, including opportunities for women and ethnic groups, providing synergy between agricultural and social programmes to buffer the transition for food-insecure groups;
* help internalize negative environmental externalities, improve the management of common property resources, and relieve social and market pressures on the resource base in areas were sustainability of production is at risk, integrating biophysical and socioeconomic research to insure viability and complementarity among technologies and local policies;
* facilitate technological and management changes to improve water use efficiency and develop effective water markets in water-scarce areas;
* help preserve biodiversity within the terms agreed to in the CBD;
* and enhance the role and effectiveness of private sector and civil organizations in R&D, with public institutions assuming a subsidiary role in appropriate regulatory functions.
Studies of previous policies geared toward these objectives might yield important lessons for other developing countries. While from a CGIAR perspective the focus should be on the least developed, food-insecure countries, research on the policy experience of other developing countries may also shed light on what is needed for policy success, justifying wide-ranging multi-country research projects.
P&M research in the CGIAR must be seen within the context of the recent expansion of the System. CGIAR goals were broadened, reflecting increased emphasis on poverty alleviation and on the sustainability of production. This implies:
(1) a more formal acceptance of an income security approach to poverty alleviation rather than the initial food self-sufficiency approach and(2) a consolidation of the shift from a productivity oriented research approach along commodity lines to a productivity-sustainability oriented research approach integrating commodity and resource management research, including public P&M research.
The change in the external environment and the concomitant expansion and shift in the approach of the CGIAR imply:
(a) a wider number of sectors, adding to agriculture and livestock, which include forestry, aquatic resources, and irrigation systems;(b) a wider set of technical and policy issues in relation to technology-policy interactions in these diverse sectors, e.g., how to help improve productivity and management of natural resources in areas were sustainability of production is at risk, while also improving the management of biodiversity - land, soils, water, and biomass on hillsides, forest and desert margins, natural forests, and coastal areas;
(c) a wider range of public management issues in relation to a wider set of agencies and institutions including other institutions, besides NARIs and universities, with less defined and rapidly evolving institutional maps such as forestry and fishery institutes, irrigation districts, and ministries of the environment;
(d) and a wider set of local actors that could help reveal demands for technologies, assist in the adaptive testing and transfer of these technologies, and assist in resource management, such as producers' and consumers' organizations, NGOs, community-based groups, and private sector firms.
It is within this expanded scope of the CGIAR and the dynamic socioeconomic, policy, and institutional contexts which give rise to new demands for P&M research, that the question should be asked as to in which particular areas of P&M research the CGIAR has or could develop strong comparative advantages in relation to the many other players described in section 3.1 and/or local actors.
4.3.1. A Prospective vision of agricultural challenges in LDCs
4.3.2. Public policies in relation to technological change
4.3.3. Understanding interactions among technologies and policies in areas where sustainability of production is at risk
4.3.4. Research policies and public management of agricultural R&D
4.3.5. Emerging long-term transnational issues
The main advantages of the System are derived from its international and apolitical nature and from its flexibility to adapt to changing demands. The System's comparative advantages at present are derived from the capacity it has acquired from institutional experience, knowledge, and expertise existing in the various centres. Future comparative advantages will depend on the System's ability to respond to new demands. It is in this sense that a long-term, prospective view of future demands for international agricultural research, including P&M research, becomes essential. In the view of the Panel, the CGIAR has comparative advantages in four main areas and could develop comparative advantages in a fifth area. These are described next.
A long-term prospective and integrated vision of the challenges faced by developing countries in the various regions, as well as a vision of alternative agricultural development and technological paths, are essential for priority setting in international agricultural research. Analysis and scientific debate of global and disaggregated projection scenarios can help identify the relative magnitude of the challenges faced by various countries and regions, particularly in relation to major pockets of poverty. They can also anticipate mega trends in food demand, identify trade and production possibilities and issues, and assess alternative technological paths and broad policy options for sustainable, broad-based agricultural development, including options for research policy. Both the CGIAR as a System and each individual Centre are major clients of the output of this type of prospective analysis for their internal priority setting, but international development agencies and NARSs, including NAPAs, are also important clients and partners.
This represents an area in which there are economies of scale to be captured through centralized coordination and analysis of projection scenarios based on the secondary information and expert judgment obtained from a variety of national and international sources, including CGIAR Centres. There are a few institutions that generate prospective information through the use of global projections models (e.g., FAO, USDA,...), though the frequency, time horizon, scope, scenarios explored, and degree of disaggregation vary according to the purpose of the respective studies. CGIAR and Centres' needs for systematized information about the implications of various projection scenarios for international agricultural research go far beyond what the available global projections provide, particularly in terms of the relative magnitude of the gap between food needs and market demand in various countries, expected trade patterns, anticipated and latent demands for technologies, and the implications for research and policy options.
The Panel recommends that the System assign formally to IFPRI the responsibility to advance its work on global food and natural resource use projections (in collaboration with FAO and other agencies, as appropriate). For specific crops, global projections ought to be done in collaboration with the crop centres concerned since these centres have unique knowledge of future technological prospects and agroecological potentials. Alternatively, the System may wish to subcontract the analysis on a regular basis to another agency. What is important is that the best information available be systematized, models and assumptions subjected to peer scrutiny, projection scenarios analyzed from a CGIAR perspective, and that they be used to sustain a continuous dialogue at global and appropriate sub-regional levels as input for priority setting, including priorities for P&M research.
Strategic components for technological change (e.g., technologies, distilled information, methods, and competence built in developing countries) are the major CGIAR instruments to help foster sustainable agricultural development in the LDCs. It follows that public policies in relation to technological change and the distribution of technology's benefits should be the central focus of research efforts by CGIAR centres in the policy area, particularly in direct relation to the areas in which the various IARCs have or are developing comparative advantages in order to tap synergy between technologies and policies.
Several Centres have made solid contributions towards understanding the underlying economic principles that govern technological change. By understanding the broad adaptability or location-specificity of the technologies involved and the production circumstances in various production settings, the Centres have a strong base from which to contribute, particularly in terms of adapting new methodological approaches for socioeconomic and policy research, leading to the generation of new information on behavioral responses of farmers to technology-policy combinations. Advanced universities have attributes derived from their size (numbers of professors and graduate students) which provide them with a larger capacity to develop conceptually new methodological approaches, as well as an environment of tradition in scrutiny and supervision of scientific rigor. CGIAR institutes can contribute meaningfully through the testing of new methods that require primary data collection and by making available such a data base to graduate students and university researches, thereby becoming highly complementary to universities through graduate thesis research.
In the view of the Panel, a strong comparative advantage of the CGIAR as a System is in the area of public policies in LDCs and their relation to technological change as well as intimate knowledge and experience of local institutions and institutes. IFPRI's advantages are an understanding of macro and sector-wide policies implications and options from cross country studies and an acquiring and adapting of new methodological approaches. ISNAR's advantages are in participatory research on national research systems and on the publi-private interface in technology and extension. Other Centres' advantages include field testing biophysical and socioeconomic hypotheses involving primary data collection with local partners. As the opportunities for synergy between IFPRI and other centres are unique, both should contribute to hypotheses development together with national partners. If hypotheses are developed jointly and carefully, benefits of joint project formulation should greatly outweigh inter-institutional transactions costs.
The above conclusions generally apply to public policies in relation to technological change. They apply to policies that affect technology markets as well as input and output markets, including markets of crops, livestock, forest, and fishery products. They also apply to many of the new emerging demands for policy research in developing countries (listed in section 4.1.3). Two of the latter are highlighted next as specific new areas in which CGIAR Centres have or could develop comparative advantages.
International centres are in privileged positions for understanding behavioral responses of farmers and other resource managers to technology-policy combinations in major agricultural areas and pockets of poverty were sustainability of production is at risk. This could be done through the acquisition and analysis of primary information from cross-sectional studies and/or long-term farm panels in a few, carefully selected pilot watersheds to derive lessons of international relevance. CGIAR ecoregional programmes seem to provide a unique opportunity to various Centres for the joint formulation and testing of hypotheses in the selected pilot watersheds, in partnership with NARSs and NAPAs. Independent institutional initiatives may have value in their own rights and may minimize transactions costs, but they will certainly miss unique opportunities for inter-institutional synergy, for formulating systemic interdisciplinary perspectives, and for a more efficient division of labor and task specialization according to institutional advantages and disciplinary competencies. In the view of the Panel, joint research project formulation by IFPRI and the other Centres and institutions that could contribute to the research agenda in the respective ecoregions where sustainability of production is at risk is very much called upon. The problems to be addressed are of significant international relevance. An interdisciplinary approach is required, and the opportunity is unique. The challenge is to identify appropriate pilot sites and to develop mutually agreeable working arrangements.
Changes in the political, social, and macropolicy contexts in which R&D institutions in LDCs operate lead to the search and experimentation of decentralized R&D approaches that increasingly rely on market forces and civil organizations. Devolution of agricultural services to the private sector, water management to water users, and credit to private banks and informal financial institutions, among others, are all movements congruent with a subsidiary state role. But policy impact analysis cannot ignore market failures in technology, water, risk, and credit markets, nor can it ignore policy making processes in relation to agricultural R&D and the need for the state to compliment its subsidiary role with appropriate regulatory functions.
One of the main dilemmas of state contraction is the institutional vacuum that it creates, particularly for the subsistence and family farm sectors, which are the least attended to by the private service sector and commercial banks. To be sustainable and effective, R&D modalities need to take into account the public-good nature of many agricultural technologies and the existence of market imperfections (even under fully open markets). They need to provide effective incentives to the private sector, producers' organizations, NGOs, and other community-based groups for revealing latent demands for technologies and for participating in adaptive testing and technology transfer to help close the R&D cycle and provide effective feedback to research. It is in this context that research policies and the public management of R&D institutions and programmes, including public-private interface, have become a high priority area for P&M research. While solutions will necessarily have a high degree of local specificity, important lessons can be derived from cross-country studies.
This is a general area of public management that falls within the mandate of ISNAR (organization and management of R&D institutions) as well as IFPRI (agricultural policies). In relation to more specific areas, it also falls within the mandate of IIMI (water management), CIFOR (forest management), and ICLARM (fisheries management). These Centres do have comparative advantages in certain specific areas of P&M research. And there is ample scope for deriving synergy from joint projects among IFPRI, ISNAR, and other international centres involved in commodity and resource management research, as well as with other international agencies, regional institutions, and national institutions.
The Panel suggests that the forthcoming review of IFPRI pay particular attention to the above four areas of comparative advantages, the review of ISNAR to the latter (section 4.3.4), and that both reviews consider the potential synergy that could be derived from joint, inter-centre projects on these themes.
As mentioned in section 4.1.3, there exists a series of emerging long-term, strategic issues that are distinct from national policy issues: they are transnational in nature and require socioeconomic and policy research as background for international negotiations, the outcomes of which will condition future domestic policies. These issues are listed below:
* Trade issues arising from the GATT and regional trade agreements and their implications/or trade negotiations. As mentioned in section 4.3.1, IFPRI is well positioned to contribute to the understanding of the implications of trade agreements for LDC's agriculture and trade. Partnership with institutions such as the World Bank, WTO, or USDA could allow IFPRI to play an extremely useful role in analyzing the implications for future CGIAR priorities and strategies and for national policies. The Institute does not have comparative advantages to become involved in policy making analysis for trade negotiations, which requires in-depth country analysis and involvement in negotiations. It should, however, maintain a watching brief on trade issues and on the implications of negotiations' outcomes.* Management of common water sources involving two or more countries. At present, CGIAR centres do not have comparative advantages in this field, though conceivably IIMI, with IFPRI and other centres involved in resource management research in the respective regions, could contribute.
* Management of common fishery resources, especially those affected by fish population migrations and interactions with zones beyond the economic areas under the control of individual countries. ICLARM could conceivably contribute, particularly in relation to fisheries in fresh water bodies, but organizations such as FAO seem to be better posed for P&M research in this area.
* Biodiversity and property rights in relation to genetic resources within the terms agreed to in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). IPGRI and other Centres are well positioned to address technical and scientific issues. Policy issues fall under the mandate of the International Commission on Plant Genetic Resources (CPGR), hosted by FAO. It is important, however, to maintain a watching brief in relation to the conservation and access to biodiversity, since future agricultural development in LDCs will depend on the access to genetic resources and associated conditionalities.
* Intellectual property rights in relation to agriculture. Patent legislation falls under the general mandate of the WTO, while breeders' rights fall under the UFO convention, and both subjects are analyzed by the CPGR and FAO. National patent legislations were developed for new products and processes that, at the time, did not include living organisms or naturally occurring genes. The full implications of extending patent laws to the latter are not fully understood. Because of their potential implications for agricultural development in LDCs, these laws have become an important researchable area. IPGRI, IFPRI, and other Centres are in a position to contribute to the understanding of the potential implications of alternative patent structures through research, but this will require a special joint initiative with other organizations such as FAO and the WTO.
* Excessive use of pesticides and their environmental and health implications. So far pesticide issues fall under the national policy domain. Developing countries, such as Indonesia and others, have implemented policies that minimize environmental damage, often with FAO support. Because of important cost, environmental, and health implications, many national and international centres are already conducting integrated pest management research, and hence they are in a position to contribute to the understanding of technology and P&M interactions. As international trade of pesticides and products with pesticide residues become important issues, it might be an opportune time to assess the magnitude of the problem in LDCs and the potential comparative advantage of the CGIAR in P&M research as it relates to pesticides use.
CGIAR eventual involvement in P&M research in any of these areas should be the result of a careful assessment of the System's relative priorities, capacity to delivery vis-a-vis other relevant players, and CGIAR policy considerations. Despite Centres' capacity to contribute, their actual or potential comparative advantages in P&M research are not as obvious as in the other four areas (sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.4). Assessment and eventual research initiatives could benefit from the joint planning and undertaking with other actors.
4.4.1. The process
4.4.2. Programmes versus projects
4.4.3. Criteria for priority setting
Tighter priority setting processes are needed to help narrow the portfolio of potential research projects in the above mentioned areas of CGIAR comparative advantages into a portfolio that is most strategic from an international-LDC perspective.
The System has mechanisms in place for priority setting and for CGIAR resource allocation. The process is based on the TAC developing, every five years or so, a document on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies that, after discussion at regional and other open fora, is submitted to the CGIAR for comments and endorsement. The document provides a broad frame for analysis of submissions by the Centres. Individual centres submit ten-year draft strategic plans and five-year operational plans (MTPs) for discussion with TAC and later with the CGIAR, which receive TAC commentaries and advice. Centres also make annual budget submissions to TAC, whose commentaries provide a basis for the CGIAR Standing Committee on Finance to make recommendations to the System on indicative annual budget allocations. These plans with different horizon lengths provide the basis for individual donor allocations of funds to the various centres. These mechanisms are currently under review by the System. The desirable attributes of the CGIAR priority setting process in relation to P&M research are discussed next.
First, it is important that the proposals be strategy-based and bottom-up, that is, submitted by the institutes (individually or jointly, depending on the subject matter and expertise required) to assure institutional and scientist commitment and internal coherence within the institutes' strategic plans. While this presumably happens on an institute-by-institute basis, it does not seem to occur in the case of all inter-centre projects on P&M research. The number of projects that other centres claim are or will be developed in collaboration with IFPRI far exceeds the number acknowledged by IFPRI. Many of them appear to be mere activities in areas of potential mutual interest rather than research projects. Demands for collaboration seem to far exceed IFPRI's current capacity to do so. The outcome of the current planning process certainly leaves gaps in relation to some of the other centres' strategic plans, particularly where collaboration is not fully acknowledged by IFPRI or mechanisms for joint planning are not evident. This presumably leads to gaps and/or inefficiencies at the System level.
Second, equally important, is that the processes be forward-looking in terms of the relative future magnitude of the problems being addressed and the strategic nature of the knowledge and methods to be generated to assure international or regional relevance and impact. IFPRI's global food projections and associated information provide an initial framework to assess relative priorities for P&M research in relation to global themes, regions, ecoregions, or clusters of countries. What is needed is to fine-tune these projections and to sustain a dialogue at appropriate sub-regional levels on the implications of the various projection scenarios for P&M research and to adjust priorities and strategies as appropriate.
Third, not less important, is that the priority setting processes at the Centre's level be participatory to optimize informed consensus on the relevance of the particular research projects to be undertaken and to maximize ownership and commitment by research partners at national levels.
Last but not least, it is critical that the process continue being convened by TAC (as a technical, independent, and apolitical body) and that, when required, the TAC be supported by independent experts on P&M research in order to provide the CGIAR with the best advice possible for the allocation of scarce funds in this area.
The Panel recommends that TAC consider priority setting in P&M research a dynamic and interactive process that needs to be bottom-up (based on Centre's proposals), forward-looking, and participatory, involving NARSs, NAPAs, and other centres as appropriate. The heterogeneity and dynamics of future policy contexts in LDCs call for flexibility in the implementation of the priority setting approach, which should be seen as a continuing and interactive process rather than as a one time exercise.
Given the excessive and diverse demands for P&M research on the CGIAR in general and on IFPRI in particular, along with the dynamic nature of the economic and policy contexts in developing countries, the question arises as to whether research programmes or research projects are more appropriate units of analysis for priority setting and resource allocation. Both have advantages and limitations.
Because of greater specificity, projects have some advantages: (a) being of finite duration, they are compatible with periodic resource allocations and changing demands for P&M research, and imply more discrete time and resource commitments; (b) by design, projects may allow external human resources to be tapped that might not be available on a long-term basis, including thesis-research and post-doctoral fellows, while programmes tend to create expectations of tenure and an internal demand for a disciplinary self-sufficiency and critical mass; (c) projects lend themselves better to inter-institutional arrangements and to the delegation of discrete governance functions to consortia; (d) projects bring about more informed judgments on the relative merits of the individual projects in accordance with the expected research outputs and their clients, their strategic relevance and potential impact, methodological contributions, interdisciplinary requirements, and the competence to be built at the national level; and (e) projects facilitate monitoring and assessment of output achievement, and thus they help improve mutual accountability among research partners and accountability to the respective donors and clients. These advantages can be capitalized through careful ex-ante project assessment complemented with ex-post assessment of outputs and impact.
Programme funding has other advantages: (a) simplicity for resource allocation and review processes; (b) delegation of responsibilities to various management levels which have more complete information; (c) pooling of funds under programmes that provide more flexibility, which is essential for exploratory and complementary research, and it allows for reallocation of funds and improved efficiency in the use of these funds; (d) staff retainment and continuity, development of core competencies, accumulation of experience, and specialization of personnel; (e) long-term undertaking of research endeavors such as those requiring long-term household panels, monitoring secondary effects of policies or the assessment of sustainability implications of P&M strategies; and (f) minimization of inter-institutional transactions costs and ease of management. Programmes, however, imply the need for periodic and in-depth external programme reviews. The EPMRs commissioned by TAC normally focus on the institutional strategy and the overall effectiveness of the respective institution. They often cannot afford in-depth review of programmes that cover the quality of their science. While individual institutes might have effective internally-managed external review processes in place for this purpose, when programmes involve projects with several institutions such reviews might become cumbersome to implement. In this latter case, careful ex-ante project assessment, complemented with ex-post assessment of outputs and impacts, might be more effective.
Several centres have set in place a matrix of programmes by projects. The challenge is how to reach a mix that maximizes the advantages of both approaches. What concerns the Panel in the case of P&M research is that, driven mostly by System's funding shortfalls, short-term project funding appears to dominate (reaching 50% in the case of IFPRI and in some areas, such as its Environment and Production Technology Division, more than 80%). Project funding may well end up driving the P&M research agenda for the System. The magnitude of the challenge and the efficiency of the research processes call for a better balance of programme funding, independently of whether the respective institutes decide to adopt internally a comprehensive project approach to research for management/efficiency reasons, i.e., to internalize advantages of the project approach.
In sum, project funding seems to be more appropriate for inter-centre initiatives. It facilitates discrete delegation of selected governance functions to consortia's steering committees, and it delegates responsibilities to project managers who could hold dual appointments. Programme funding is much preferable for P&M research that is executed by a single institution, again independently of whether the respective institute decides to adopt internally a project approach to research management.
The Panel recommends that the forthcoming review of IFPRI assess the proportions of project funding in the various programmes of the Institute and their implications for programme effectiveness.
The CGIAR has over the years developed several criteria for inclusion of activities in its portfolio. As discussed in chapter 3, the activity should be research or research-related, international, relevant or essential, and have institutional comparative advantages. But it is not as evident how these and other criteria have been applied for priority setting in P&M research. Moreover, changes in the policy contexts in LDCs and the parallel expansion of the System have changed the demand for international P&M research and brought entire new sectors and sets of actors into play. Since demand far exceeds the supply capacity, there is a felt need for more stringent criteria for inclusion and priority setting. Vision, intuition, and experience can go a long way, but they do not suffice when demands far exceed available resources. Further documentation along the lines of selecting criteria for priority setting may facilitate the process and streamline proposals along the way. The desirable attributes of the priority setting processes were analyzed in section 4.4.1. The six main criteria recommended by the Panel for priority setting are presented in this section. Tentative indicators for each criterion are presented in Table 4.1.
A. International Relevance
Not only must the P&M research undertaken be international in character (international public-good in nature, i.e., transferable research outputs and lessons), but it must be among the most relevant research in terms of potential impact and beneficiaries. It follows that location-specific policy analysis of little transferability should be excluded. Ex-ante explicitation of potential payoffs in terms of number of countries and beneficiaries can facilitate priority setting. Cross-country analysis of P&M strategies based on existing information should be regarded as necessary background research for hypotheses formulation leading to P&M research that involved the distillation of new information through hypotheses testing. The focus should be on the latter, with resources allocated according to their international relevance in terms of potential impact. Despite the fact that impact of P&M research is more difficult to assess and anticipate than some other types of research, it is feasible to identify potential policy adoption domains and the number of countries and people that might benefit from the new information generated by the proposed research.
B. Relevance to Achieving Current CGIAR Goals
The stated CGIAR goals of contributing to increased efficiency of agricultural production, poverty alleviation, and improving the environment imply that research should focus on new P&M strategies that help increase overall factor productivity. It should also focus on robust and fragile lands with productive potential and particularly on large areas of extreme poverty or any area where sustainability of production is at risk.
C. Relevance to the Long-Term Efficiency of the CGIAR Strategy
Acknowledging that the CGIAR is a small actor in the global agricultural R&D system, even though it uses a non-trivial proportion of scarce international public funds, it is particularly important that the strategy adopted by the System be both effective and cost-efficient. Achieving effectiveness and cost-efficiency in the implementation of the CGIAR strategy requires maximizing cohesiveness and synergy among the research efforts by the various Centres without compromising creativity. Moreover, these efforts need to be complementary and avoid unnecessary duplication. P&M research that helps internalize the positive externalities within and outside the System should be given priority over those that do not. Joint-project submissions by centres deserve special analysis and consideration (see sections 4.3.2,4.3.3, and 4.4.2).
D. Strategic Nature of Research Outputs for National Programmes
If an important objective of the System is to help NARSs, including NAPAs, enhance their own efficiency through the provision of strategic information, technology components, and improved methods, it follows that P&M research that generates outputs of strategic value to national policy analysts, particularly in least developed countries, should be given priority. Stakeholder analysis and participatory assessment of expected research outputs is called for (i.e., assessment with clients and partners of the derived demand for policy research, including needs for new methods). Contributions to institution and competence building in NARSs, particularly NAPAs, should be seen as another important product of policy and management research, not as a by-product.
E. Comparative Advantages
Priorities should also be guided by the comparative advantages of the institution(s) submitting the proposals. This implies that the institution(s) must be the most qualified one(s) to undertake the proposed research, both in terms of quality and cost. The latter is usually reflected in lower unit cost of research outputs arising from positive interrelationships with other activities in the participating institutions. Comparative advantages are also derived from the institutional capacity to sustain data collection and information exchange internationally, engage in action research, organize task forces for prompt delivery, assemble interdisciplinary teams, and engage local institutions and use collaborative research for competence building in LDCs. The identification of other institutes that could undertake the proposed research should help streamline proposals and facilitate priority setting.
F. Processes in Place to Assure Research Quality and Impact Assessment
A final important criterion is evidence that processes are in place at the respective institutes or consortia for ex-ante and ex-post impact assessment and for monitoring appropriateness of methodology and quality of research outputs.
In the view of the Panel the six criteria listed above are particularly relevant for assisting Centres, TAC, and the CGIAR in defining broad priorities and for sorting out potential research projects in P&M research. Adoption of the criteria may place an additional burden on the Centres, but hopefully the result will be a portfolio of better screened and tighter proposals. These criteria will inevitably be refined and improved in the practice of using them. In that sense, the continuing practice of a more rigorous review of priorities will be at least as important as the criteria proposed themselves. The Panel recommends that TAC give due consideration to the adoption of the six specific criteria listed above for priority setting in P&M research. The Panel suggests that the possible indicators listed in Table 4.1 be discussed with the Centres in an effort to develop a set of indicators that becomes useful in applying the proposed criteria.
Table 4.1 Criteria for priority setting in P&M research: Possible indicators
A. International relevance:
A.1 Global? ________,
Explain why: ________
A.2 Direct beneficiaries in countries studied:
|
# of countries: |
_______ |
Per caput income range: |
______ |
|
# of hectares: |
_______ |
|
|
|
# of producers: |
_______ |
% of income affected: |
______ |
|
# of consumers: |
_______ |
% of food expenditure: |
______ |
A.3 Spillovers to other countries;
|
# of countries: |
__________ |
Per caput income range: |
__________ |
|
# of hectares: |
__________ |
|
|
|
# of producers: |
__________ |
% of income: |
__________ |
|
# of consumers: |
__________ |
% of food expenditure: |
__________ |
B . Relevance to CGIAR goals: (very high, high, medium, low)
B.1 Increasing efficiency:_____
B.2 Alleviating poverty, income effect:
|
Rural poor: |
_____ |
|
Women: |
_____ |
|
Urban poor: |
_____ |
B.3 Improving the environment:
|
Avoiding degredation: |
_____ |
|
Improving resource productivity: |
_____ |
C. Relevance for increasing efficiency of CGIAR strategy: (critical, high, medium, low)
C.1 For CGIAR priorities and strategies: _____
C.2 For Centers' priorities and strategies: _____
Names of Centers:______
C.3 Centers' participating with more than 10% SPY:______
D. Strategic nature of P&M research outputs for national programs:
D.1 Institutions in LDCs that have indicated high priority for the research outputs (including methods):_______
D.2 Reasons provided by NARSs & NAPAs for high priority _______
D.3 Research competence strength in NARSs & NAPAs:
|
# of policy analysts involved as partners: |
_____ |
|
|
# of analysts participating in workshops: |
_____ |
|
|
Sustainability of NAPAs after project: |
_____ |
(very high, high, medium, low) |
E. Comparative advantages:
E. 1 Other institutes that could undertake the research (leading alternative suppliers): __________
E.2 Previous/on-going complementary projects:________
E.3 Number of publications of project leader on the subject in referred journals:_____________
E.4 Partner institutions: _______
E.5 Cost per SPY: ___________
F. Mechanisms in place to assess research quality and impact: (peer reviews)
|
F.1 Planning/design: |
Internal |
External | |
|
|
project: |
______ |
_______ |
|
|
hypotheses: |
______ |
_______ |
|
|
methods: |
______ |
_______ |
|
F.2 Monitoring intermediate outputs: |
______ |
_______ | |
|
F.3 Impact assessment: |
______ |
_______ | |
