A central aspect of linkages with other institutions involves the exchange of information. This subject is of particular significance because it is currently undergoing rapid and important changes. These changes are of two main kinds.
Firstly, we are seeing an increased awareness among scientists and the public at large of the ways information is and can be used for different purposes. There are increasing demands in all walks of life for more transparent government, more transparent codes of conduct in professional activities, and so on. The widespread recognition of the implications of how information is generated, exchanged, withheld, disclosed, and presented is bound to have implications for research establishments, including those in the CGIAR system.
This politicization of information issues is associated, secondly, with dramatic technical developments. These have increased the feasibility, in principle at least, of greater transparency and more open discussion in scientific, commercial and political arenas.
The result of these two factors has been an enormous increase in the practice, and a greater increase in the possibilities, of networking, collaboration, and information services generally. Clearly, issues of how information is accessed and used must now be explicitly addressed by any actor in the rapidly changing world of agricultural science and technology.
Organizations involved in national and international agricultural development, both inside and outside the CGIAR system, have of course been concerned with information networks for years. The activities of international Centres in agricultural research networks have been well documented by Plucknett et al (1990) and by Faris (1991). According to Plucknett, agricultural networks in the CGIAR system have so far concentrated on the exchange of materials and of technical and research related information.
How can we characterize these activities within the wide range of information exchanges in which agricultural development organizations are involved? Nelson and Farrington (1994) provide a useful overall framework for analyzing networking and information exchange systems. They draw a distinction between the type of agricultural exchange networks characteristic of the CGIAR, and what they call Information Exchange Networks (IENs). 'The principle distinctions between the two types are:
1) Type and degree of research focus: Agricultural research networks are concerned primarily with natural science research. Where an IEN has a research component, it tends to lean more on the social sciences than it does the natural sciences disciplines.2) Degree of formalization: Agricultural research networks generally seek to focus research efforts, based in institutions, on an agreed set of problems in such a way that the benefit anticipated by individual participants exceeds the cost that they incur, and the sum of benefits exceeds aggregate costs. This implies a high degree of organization and formality in agreeing on overall research agenda, research methods, allocation and scheduling of tasks, division of financial and other resources, and format and manner of reporting."
The overall organizational ethos of IENs is informal. However, "distinctions between agricultural research networks and IENs are inevitably more a matter of degree than of absolutes."
The suggestion, then, is of a continuum rather than a dichotomy: "Information exchange" comprises a wide range of activities, and CGIAR Centres, in common with other organizations, are having to consider (increasingly) carefully what kinds of exchanges and networks they enter into, how, with which actors, in which arenas, and so on.
These changes and dilemmas are evident from the experience of IPGRI, as described in the section of their 1993 strategy paper entitled Public Awareness:
"Much work has been done to acquaint IPGRI's scientific partners with genetic resources work. This is balanced by the need to give attention to those whose good will and support holds the key to the future of plant genetic resources: policymakers and those who influence them, e.g. NGOs, and the media. The importance of these audiences cannot be overestimated. A strong sustained commitment to genetic resources at the national level is crucial, both to IPGRI's work and to the global resources programmes. Increased emphasis on these audiences is particularly important at a time when the political aspects of plant genetic resources are receiving greater attention than ever before." (IPGRI, 1994).
The media, they note, is an unpredictable but inexpensive tool for influencing policymakers. IPGRI will undertake an active media relations effort, targeting local papers and journals in the regions as well as high-profile national and international media. Elsewhere the document comments: "NGOs are important, because of their political influence and their close contacts with farmers and rural communities. In many countries they are deeply involved in genetic resources conservation and use. As partners we hope to achieve much." A review of IPGRI publications indicates, finally, that they are contributing information to the political debate on international and local genetic conservation measures.
These considerations clearly go well beyond the kind of networking involved, for example, in a collaborative breeding programme. Where the latter typically involves the exchange of finite, quite easily definable materials and pieces of technical information, the IPGRI literature describes more complex processes of dialogue, involving advocacy, persuasion, and politicking, an explicit engagement with wider policy discourses, and varied interactions with a wide range of institutional actors.
It appears, then, that individual CGIAR Centres will increasingly need to consider their roles in a growing number of international networks. This raises the question as to what those roles should be, and where. Provisionally, we can identify two broad kinds of role.
The first is as a promoter and advocate. This might involve promoting specific, technologies, activities or methodologies. Alternatively, it might be concerned with advocating broad approaches, getting issues onto relevant political agendas, and influencing policy discourses at different levels. This would mean increasing the quality, quantity, and availability of information about the Centre's work (through newsletters, for example).
The second kind of role is as a receiver and assimilator of information. As a member of a network coalition, a Centre may draw on the skills, experience, or strategic advantages of national research organizations, NGOs and the private sector in fields where it is relatively weak. This can be seen as an important and effective way of buying in such expertise. Alternatively, this kind of role may imply a less formal process by which a Centre keeps itself in dialogue with a range of organizations and ideas that affect it, possibly quite indirectly.
Finally, it should be acknowledged that the issues presented by the recent expansion of information technologies are very challenging. In particular, it will be recognized that the roles outlined above tend to imply, on one hand, inviting and even encouraging exposure of research processes to "outside" scrutiny; and, on the other hand, investing in processes of exchange and dialogue that, by their nature and extent, may disturb boundaries and assumptions within and between institutions themselves.
statements to include:
