Rice is the single most important food staple in the world. Demand for rice will continue to grow, year after year. Even although population growth rates are slowing and rice consumption falling in many populated areas, demand will more than double by the year 2030. The majority of that extra output will be needed in Asia, where over 90 percent of the world's rice is currently produced and consumed.
While there is some scope for modest increases in the land devoted to rice, by far the greater part of the extra output will have to result from higher productivity. This means greater output per unit of land, of labour, of water; in short, more rice will need to be produced from the scarce resources. Improved productivity can stem from a number of sources; better infrastructure, improved marketing, access to information, and revisions to domestic and international policies all play a part. Perhaps the single most important source of productivity growth is technological change - the application of new knowledge, materials and techniques to rice production.
Investments made in rice research by national programmes, producer organizations, the private sector and the international community have paid handsome dividends in the past. There is ample evidence that the rates of return to investment in research have typically been well in excess of those that the funds could have generated in other uses. With continued need for greater productivity as a prime source of growth in output, there is no reason to suspect that future returns to rice research will be significantly lower. As a consequence, a case can be made that the overall level of core funding for rice research in the CGIAR should at least be maintained. Any further cuts in real terms could prejudice the generation of new technology which must underpin the future supply of rice.
At the same time, it is clear that the funding available for rice research both from national and international sources will continue to be tight. This makes it even more imperative that the core funding of the CGIAR for rice research be allocated in a manner which ensures the greatest possible contribution to global rice needs.
The Panel has considered the question of the appropriate level of funding for the sub-Saharan Africa region. In 1991, US$8.43 million were allocated to this region; if the funds invested in sub-Saharan Africa were required to generate a return comparable to the funding allocated to Asia, then the amount would need to be reduced to US$0.8 million. Even allowing for a range of special conditions that might be argued apply to the case of sub-Saharan Africa, this figure would not exceed US$3.1 million or about 9 percent of all core funding. The Panel notes that this amount approximates that implied by the priority ranking assigned by TAC in the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies (TAC/CGIAR 1992, p. 174).
The level of core funding that has been applied to research problems in the less favourable rice growing systems has increased significantly in recent years. There have been a number of justifications for this, including an argument that equity is improved by using scarce research funds in harsher areas, that these areas gained little benefit from the green revolution, and that emerging problems in irrigated culture will mean that a greater proportion of future supplies would need to be grown in these areas. The analysis undertaken by the Panel suggests that about 6 percent of global needs might be met from upland rice areas by 2030. Even this presupposes that yields could be virtually doubled. At present the CGIAR System has chosen to allocate over 20 percent of its core funding to upland regions. The Panel expresses concern that this may not be appropriate, and urges that close monitoring be undertaken to ensure that the potential gains that must eventually be realized in these areas are commensurate with this level of funding. In addition, the Panel notes that these upland areas represent the major priority focus of French research organizations, which assign approximately 45 senior scientists to rice research in developing countries.
Enhanced productivity will require that the ceiling yield of rice be lifted substantially. Furthermore the yield gap between that ceiling and the average yields obtained by farmers will have to be markedly reduced from their current levels. Both these changes must occur in the context of sustainable use of the rice growing resource base. Achieving sustainability, together with the reduction in the yield gap, will involve advances in understanding about crop and resource management together with adaptions of that knowledge to a myriad of local circumstances. Advances on all fronts will be needed if future needs are to be met. In particular, serious attention must be focused on raising the potential yield of the rice plant.
This is a major scientific challenge; it is now 25 years since the last major breakthrough. While China has been successful in the use of hybrid rices to lift the ceiling yields, other major rice-growing areas are still operating with much the same ceiling yields that accompanied the introduction of modern dwarf varieties. The CGIAR will need to ensure that its support of rice research is directed at making those basic scientific advances in which the system has a comparative advantage. Increased emphasis will need to be placed on fundamental and strategic research to generate the knowledge that will underpin expansion of output in the future. The Panel's findings are that within the irrigated sector, raising the yield ceiling will be as least as important as reducing the yield gap.
The Panel endorses the view of the External Review of IRRI (1992) that a global approach to germplasm development is a crucial element of both raising the yield ceiling and reducing the yield gap. IRRI is uniquely placed to play a pivotal role in this process, and any moves which threaten its core funding must be viewed as having potentially grave consequences for future rice output.
The Panel recognizes that if the CGIAR accepts the need for a major regional reallocation of its core funding of rice research, there will need to be changes in the present institutional arrangements for rice research in West Africa. The External Review of WARDA (1993) has emphasized the competent management and applauded the well-focused research programmes at WARDA. The Panel's own observations would reinforce these findings. But the allocation of global funding for rice research must be seen as a separate question to the performance of an institution.
The External Review notes that WARDA is most likely operating at or below a critical mass and stresses that the centre needs additional funding. It is the judgement of this Panel that any expansion of CGIAR core funding to WARDA should not be entertained. From a global perspective, there can be no case to justify further distortions to the pattern of core funding. The CGIAR could not justify the level of core support which is apparently needed to sustain a viable separate commodity institute for a relatively small region. Total output of sub-Saharan Africa is after all, less than one half that of Vietnam. Should such support be made available, it could only come at the expense of the research needs in the major rice-growing areas of Asia. Neither efficiency nor equity arguments could justify further misallocation.
Alternative arrangements need to be sought urgently so that a reduced level of core support commensurate with the global importance of West Africa can be effectively applied. The option favoured by the Panel is for the CGIAR to allocate its core funding for rice to a new integrated WARDA/IITA initiative. This would have the following advantages:
· rice research would be placed firmly in the context of a programme focused on farming systems;· the problem of overlapping mandates would be resolved;
· by spreading overheads more efficient use of limited funding could be achieved;
· rice research conducted by the WARDA/IITA initiative would be handled by an ecoregional mechanism linked with the global commodity centre.
This arrangement would in no way preclude the possibility that WARDA should continue to operate as a regional research centre, supported by regional funding supported by contributions from other sources. The Panel's recommendation in no way diminishes the importance of rice research in the region. It simply follows from the need to ensure that the limited core funding of the CGIAR is applied in a manner commensurate with global needs.
With respect to Latin America and the Caribbean, the Panel notes that there is perhaps a case to be made for reducing the level of core support marginally. However the matter is not clear cut; in fact, some of the indicators used in the analyses suggest that additional funding could be justified. The present institutional arrangements however are well established, and the CIAT rice programme acts as an ecoregional mechanism with appropriate links to the global centre.
In both West Asia-North Africa and remaining areas of Eastern and Southern Africa, the current approach adopted by IRRI based on bilateral funding is seen as appropriate.
The Panel concludes by reiterating that the CGIAR allocates almost one third of all core funding for rice research to sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Yet, the increased demand in these regions represents no more than 7 percent of the additional rice needed in developing countries by the year 2030. In the Panel's judgement this is a gross misallocation of resources which calls for careful consideration and action. The opportunity cost of these funds is extremely high in terms of their foregone contribution to both Asian rice output and the alleviation of poverty.
The problem is particularly severe in the case of West Africa. Increased needs in this zone represent at most 2 percent of global needs; yet the CGIAR is devoting 17 percent of its core resources to this part of sub-Saharan Africa. The most significant step which the Group must take with respect to core funding of rice research is to correct this misallocation.
Finally, the Panel reiterates that the challenge facing the CGIAR in assisting national research efforts to double rice production during the next few decades is enormous. The CGIAR must continue to focus on global food needs. Any diversion of effort from priority areas will inevitably weaken the CGIAR's demonstrated ability to contribute to increasing the world's food supplies.
