A. INTRODUCTION
B. THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE CGIAR SYSTEM AND THE NARS
1. This review of the institutional development of agricultural research concentrates on strategic issues and takes a forward looking approach to the role the organizations in the CGIAR system might play, along with others in the Global Agricultural Research System (GARS) in strengthening National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in developing countries. It comes at a critical time in the history of the CGIAR: when this successful consortium is in a period of renewal; and when the Ministerial-Level meeting at Lucerne (CGIAR 1995) has ascribed a stronger role for the NARS, in both in the setting and implementation of the CGIAR research agenda.
2. There is no doubt that in order to play these larger roles the NARS will need to be strong. Indeed, one of the five components of the "Research Agenda" of the LUCERNE ACTION PLAN is "contributing to strengthening agricultural research in developing countries." The question that arises, however, is what is to be the role of the new CGIAR in this strengthening endeavour. At the Lucerne meeting, views on this subject were divided; while some saw this as an important function for the CGIAR, others suggested this responsibility should be assumed by other organizations. It was pointed out that in order for the CGIAR Centres1 to increase work on natural resources and social science there has been a proportionate decline in expenditures on capacity building. It was further asserted that strong national research systems are essential for the CGIAR to move upstream and tackle more strategic problems; and the question was raised "Who is going to build that research capacity?" To help resolve this conundrum this study was commissioned by the TAC.
1 The word 'Centres', used interchangeably with the acronym, IARCs, in this document, refers to all of the centres and institutes supported through the CGIAR.
3. This study is one of two components of a larger "Stripe2 Study of Public Policy, Public Management and Institution Strengthening Research/Service". The draft terms of reference for this study (as presented to TAC 66 at Lima) are appended to this report as Annex A. At the Lima meeting the TAC decided that the study should be conducted by two panels: one dealing with Public Policy and Public Management, and one dealing with Institution Strengthening Research/Service. This report is of the second panel. The major questions the TAC asked the two study panels to address are:
2 A 'stripe study' in the CGIAR terminology, refers to a study on a particular subject across all of the Centres in the CGIAR System.· What are the centres doing and how is it done?
· Are there better ways of doing it and what are the options available?
· Are there gaps in the current CGIAR portfolio and/or are there activities to be deleted from that portfolio?
4. With respect to the Institution Strengthening Research/Service component of the study, the TAC asked our panel to address the following questions:
· How much and what type of this work should the CGIAR System vs others be doing (what are others doing)?33 This study did not have the resources to learn what others are doing, as this would entail a major international survey of at least major public and private research institutions in the world. Perhaps the TAC will need to commission such a study.· What are the advantages of this type of work being done in international organizations?
· Are there international public goods characteristics?
· If the CGIAR System should be continuing to do it, how should it be organized?
· Should ISNAR have a more central role, or is much of this kind of work, e.g. related to training and capacity building, done better in a decentralized fashion, or in connection with systemwide ecoregionally focused programmes?
· Is the current balance optimum, or should it be changed?
· How should the System link to and coordinate with others involved in this type of activity?
· How should priorities for this type of work be established (e.g., small countries vs. high population countries)?
5. The study began with a two-day seminar at ISNAR, attended by two TAC members (Eugenia Muchnik and Hans Gregersen), Guido Gryseels (Officer-in-Charge of the TAC Secretariat and the TAC Secretariat resource person for the study), representatives of the Centres, and the ten members of the two panels. The schedule of that Seminar and a list of the participants are appended as Annex B. Panel members returned to their homes to write on specific areas agreed upon at the Seminar. The chair of this panel stayed on for two additional days of discussions with ISNAR staff and was responsible for putting together the first draft of this report, incorporating contributions from the respective panel members. At the same time a questionnaire was sent to each Centre to obtain information on current and planned NARS strengthening activities. This panel met again in Rome on 7-9 June, 1995. At that meeting the panel discussed the first draft and responses from the Centres to the questionnaire, and met with key FAO officials. On the basis of these discussions, a second draft was prepared. This was sent to the Centres and TAC members. The Chair of the panel met with the TAC at its July meeting. On the basis of discussions at that meeting, a list of questions posed by TAC members, and responses from several Centres, this final version of the report was prepared. It is being sent to the NARS working group4 for discussion at their meeting scheduled for ICW 1995 in Washington. Their comments are invited, and will be appended to this report when it is considered by the TAC at its meeting scheduled for December, 1995.
4 The NARS Working Group is made up of NARS representatives to the CGIAR and other members that met at the Nairobi MTM as a follow-up to the NARS Consultation held at Rome on 12-14 December, 1994, and the Ministerial-level Meeting at Lucerne, and is charged with developing an Action Plan to strengthen the NARS-CGIAR partnership.
6. We have not been asked or given the resources to undertake a comprehensive review. Consequently, some of the analysis is speculative. However, we hope that this report will be of use to the many actors that influence science and technology policy in the CGIAR system and in NARS.
1. Evolution of The CGIAR System
2. The Changing Perception of What Constitutes NARS
3. Contending Coalitions of Agricultural Science and Technology
4. A Broader Perspective on Institutional Development
7. Since the establishment of the IARCs in the early 1960s, there have been many changes in their number, their level and pattern of funding, their scientific emphases, and their relationships with the NARS. At the same time there have been major changes in the size and organization of NARS in both low and high income countries. Some of these trends have been documented; for example, by Pardey et al (1991). In addition, there have been major changes in the way actors who influence science and technology policy perceive the nature of institutional development. We outline these trends here, as they provide part of the basis for our concluding suggestions.
8. A detailed history of the development of the CGIAR from 1960 to 1985 is given in Baum (1986). Since that time, several other Centres dealing chiefly with natural resources issues (CIFOR, ICRAF and IIMI), as well as INIBAP (dealing with banana and plantain research) have been added to the system, the former IBPGR has been reconstituted as IPGRI, and ILRAD and ILCA have been merged to form ILRI. Recently the mode of action of the Centres has also changed by the addition of the concept of Systemwide and Ecoregional activities.
9. The CGIAR is currently in the midst of an 18-month "Renewal" process. The programme of renewal was initiated at the Mid-Term Meeting in Delhi in May, 1994, continued at the Mid-Term Meeting in Nairobi in May, 1995, at which detailed changes and instruments were adopted, and is expected to be finalized at International Centres Week in Washington in October, 1995, when the final adoption of new structures, programmes, and procedures will take place, with the goal of having a renewed CGIAR in place in January, 1996. Key element of the renewal plan that are particularly relevant to the subject of this study are:
· greater involvement of the NARS as full partners in the CGIAR, for which an Action Plan is being developed by a NARS Working Group; and· a matrix framework made up of Centre programmes, and systemwide programmes in specific areas of research that involve both the Centres and other actors in the execution of the research; with donors being given the option of providing support to individual Centres and/or to systemwide programmes.
· a commitment of the CGIAR System to the goals of poverty alleviation and environmental protection.
The CGIAR renewal process and the NARS Action Plan will reinforce trends to a) convert the nature of cooperation between Centres and NARS from supplementary to complementary, b) change the relationship between respective institutions from dependency to interdependency, c) alter the basis of communication from passive consultations to joint decision-making, and d) modify the organizational framework for interinstitutional cooperation from vertical supplementation to horizontal complementarity.
10. The concept of the NARS of the developing countries has undoubtedly changed over time, especially in the past 10 years. When a single institution was responsible for the public sector agricultural research, such institutions have been referred to as National Research Institutes (NARIs). In most cases the links of the NARIs with other national institutions with potential research capacity, especially the universities, was very weak or non-existent. The improvement of the scientific and technological capacity NARI researchers was mostly accomplished by postgraduate education at the Agricultural Colleges of the U.S. and Europe, generally under the financial support of international cooperating agencies. Also training (mainly in-service training) at CGIAR Centres was a frequent feature. In some cases the developing countries conducted their own graduate programmes. The essential feature, however was that the Colleges of Agronomy and Veterinary Sciences of the national universities of the developing countries were usually not conceived as being as recipients of funds in support of agricultural research. One reason for this in some regions may be because by the 1960's and 1970's many of these universities were facing serious problems not only caused as a result of serious financial problems, but also because of their involvement in social and political turmoil. The net result of this situation has been an overall lack of adequate articulation and linkage between the NARIs and the Universities.
11. Also the relationships of the NARIs to private sectors and other organizations related to the generation and transfer of technology, was generally poor. Often in the past the key role of non-government and non-CGIAR actors was not emphasised (for example, see Tender, 1993). This situation has been improving during the past decade. Yet, such research partnerships that have developed outside the public-sector institutions are few and recent.
12. Several factors have been operating in the last years that point to a need to visualize the NARS with a much broader perception than in the past.
a) The increased interconnection and interdependence of the so called "basic", "strategic", "applied", and "adaptive" research for the generation and application of new technologies in agricultural production implies that a need for much closer coordination of activities among the public and private agricultural research and extension organizations of a given country. Biotechnology is a clear case for such closer integration, as it is significantly changing the scientific and institutional basis of the process of agricultural technology generation and transfer. In addition to the research in this field done by NARIs and agricultural faculties in universities, some is work on biotechnology is being done by universities with no previous experience in agriculture. Also biotechnology requires scientific talents different from those available at the traditional agricultural research institutions.b) In many countries public funding of agricultural research has decreased, especially in terms of funding per scientist; at the same time there has in an increase in the participation of the private sector in research and development activities in many developing countries. For example:
(1) Areas of research like agrochemical and fertilizer evaluation have been taken up by private organizations related to the production and marketing of these products.(2) Breeding for the creation of new varieties has been increasingly done by multinational firms, enhanced by an increase in property rights for created materials. In this area the relationship of biotechnology with the private sector is an example. Even though universities are playing an important role in biotechnology research, the development of biotechnology both in developed and developing countries is characterized by market incentives and private investments.
(3) Producer organization involvement in the adaptation and dissemination of technology has become significant in the past 15 to 20 years. In some cases producers have virtually assumed the role of the public extension system through the development of their own technical assistance mechanisms.
(4) The development of research foundations is another feature to take into consideration (especially in Latin America). Regardless of whether they perform research and development activities themselves, or they are only restricted to the funding of research, the foundations are important because they increase the country's research capability and the research support base.
(5) There has been an increase in NGO activity in agricultural research and extension (see Farrington, et. al., 1993), but this is still quite limited with respect to research.
(6) Farmers themselves have been increasingly recognized as experimenters in the generation and evaluation of production technology. This has been accompanied by a growing trend towards farmer participation in the research planning and execution process.
c) A number of regional groupings of NARS have been added or strengthened. These are discussed more fully in the "Future Directions" section of this report (see paras 57 and 58).
d) The need to protect the environment and the natural resource base are becoming a growing component of the research agenda of developing countries. This has also expanded the spectrum of national entities which have to be considered as part of a NARS. A significant proportion of the research dealing with natural resource management and conservation is being conducted at institutions like universities or programmes of the ministries of Agriculture distinct from the NARIs themselves.
13. It therefore appears more appropriate for the CGIAR to conceptualize the NARS as "a system comprising all country's entities responsible for organizing, coordinating or executing research that contributes directly to the development of its agriculture and the maintenance of its natural resource base" (ISNAR, 1992). In such a national system, the various entities responsible for research operate at different levels and fulfil different functions. At the research policy level, for example, Agricultural Research Councils or Boards may formulate policies and coordinate the activities of other entities without themselves executing research. At the operational level, the institutes which conduct research and develop technologies are diverse. They can be of public, private or mixed character. They range from ministerial departments and national research institutes and universities, to quasi-private institutes such as non governmental organizations (NGOs) and research foundations to fully private ventures. And their mandates vary in scope from research focused on single commodities to research on all relevant crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries within a country or an agroecological zone. It should also be noted that a country's NARS is not a hierarchical system or organization operating under a single line of command.
14. Because of the different political, economic, scientific and institutional environment of such a system, as compared with the single NARI, it is timely to critically re-examine and re-design the CGIAR strategy in terms of its future approach to and relationships with NARS. The involvement of the CGIAR in activities aimed to strengthen the NARS of developing countries should take a holistic approach, not only when considering the critical areas of intervention at a NARS level, but also when defining how, and through which Centre the CGIAR will be involved in those actions.
15. A major change of recent years is that the activities of agricultural research organizations, whether international or national, are now widely viewed as taking place within the broader political arena occupied by government, non government and private organizations generally. The relations between these organizations may be complimentary, competitive or symbiotic, depending on the particular set of circumstances. The boundaries between "international" and "national" research are seen in practice to be very blurred. The two can also be highly interactive, and an international Centre can profoundly affect the strength and capacity of national organizations. The promoters and funders of IRRI, for example, also exerted a major influence on rice research policy and the long term scientific rice research capability in India and other Asian countries (Chandler, 1979; Anderson, 1991). The IRRI coalition gave rise to a strengthening of research capability on dwarf varieties and a relative weakening of work on other germplasm. There are various views about the rationale and long term effects of these initiatives but this is not the place to review the arguments. For our purposes, the point is that research funding, technology priority setting and institutional capability development are increasingly seen as taking place in political arenas. It follows that there is no simple apolitical notion of scientific "institutional development", "institution building", or "institutional strengthening". There are always contending coalitions actively promoting one sort of science and technology rather than another.
16. Related to this change of view has been the recognition that NGOs can and do play an advocacy and policy role in the international and national arenas of science. There is a slight paradox in this recent acknowledgement, given that NGOs such as the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have played major roles in influencing the direction, pace and content of international and national agricultural science for many years. The very high level of involvement of the Ford Foundation in influencing science and institutional development policy is well described by Staples (1992) in his review of 40 years of Ford Foundation activities in India. The influence of the Rockefeller Foundation is described by Lele and Goldsmith (1986). In addition to such international organizations, local NGOs play an important role in advocating greater attention to environmental and equity issues.
17. The CGIAR is one coalition in this global system. It has been noted that it represents only three to four percent5 of the total agricultural research efforts, but plays an important catalytic role. The challenge for the renewed CGIAR will be to see how this relatively small amount can be used to its maximum effect for reducing poverty and protecting the environment in the global agricultural system. The partnerships developed between individual Centre programmes and the respective programmes in NARS represent another coalition, sometimes referred to as an "invisible college" of those who have been trained at the Centres and continue their relationships through follow-up activities and collaborative research. While such coalitions are on the whole a positive development, care must always be taken to ensure that these close, collegial relationships to not distort national priorities or divide loyalties. As Centres have moved into more strategic research, "upstream" coalitions are also being developed in between them and advanced institutions in areas of highly specialized research. These coalitions can serve as an important bridge to bring benefits of new knowledge and methods to bear on the research problems being addressed by the NARS.
5 Statement by I. Serageldin, at Lucerne meeting (CGIAR, 1995).
18. Another change is that organizations such as ISNAR are altering the emphasis of their advice to research managers. In the past, much institutional development was structural in its approach. It was concerned with the reorganization of national agricultural organizations, the establishment of farming systems research units, and so on. This has now changed to take on more directly a broader set of issues. In a recent ISNAR publication, Busch and Bingen (1994) suggest a "multiframe" approach consisting of three Perspectives: Structural, Human Resource, and Political. The latter is concerned with the bargaining, coalition building and politicking that research managers in all scientific systems undertake. Clearly, the various institutions making up a NARS must become more accountable to their stakeholders, and need to engage in public relations efforts to make policy-makers more aware of their work.
