HV 544 . 5 . H43 2005 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research - Healing Wounds How the International Centers of the CGIAR Help Rebuild Agriculture in Countries Affected by Conflicts and Natural Disasters Surendra Varma and Mark Winslow Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research © 2005 by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) All rights reserved. Fair use of this material is encouraged. Proper citation is requested. Recommended citation: Varma, Surendra and Winslow, Mark. 2004. Healing Wounds: How the International Centers of the CGIAR Help Rebuild Agriculture in Countries Affected by Conflicts and Natural Disasters. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) , Washington, DC. xiv+ 80 pp. Dr. Surendra Varma (s.varma@cgiar.org) is Head, Communication, Documentation and lnformation Services at the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) , Aleppo, Syria. Dr. Mark Winslow (m.winslow@t-online .de) is Consultant for International Development and is based in Germany. Design: George Chouha, ICARDA Cover: Left: Ruins of the Toul Kaktrap research station in Suay Rieng , Cambodia. Right: Damaged research station in Badam Bogh, near Kabul, Afghanistan . ISBN: 92-9127-153-9 This study is based on information provided by the CG/AR Centers to the authors. Some material was also drawn from Center websites, research reports, media releases and similar sources. Every effort has been made to provide citations to the published materials used. References to countries, specific areas or geo­ graphic regions do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the authors or the publishers concerning their legal status, authority, frontiers or boundaries. Produced by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and published by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Single copies of this publication may be requested free of charge from the CGIAR or ICARDA. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Tel : l -202-473-8951 Fax: l -202-473-8 l l 0 E-mail: cgiar@cgiar.org or cgiar@worldbank.org Website: http://www.cgiar.org International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria Tel: (+963)(21) 2213433, 2213477, 2225112, 2225012 Fax:(+963)(21) 2213490, 2225105, 5744622 E-mail : ICARDA@cgiar.org Website : http://www.ic arda .org About the CGIAR The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a strategic alliance of countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations supporting 15 international agricultural research centers (see pages 78-80) that work with national agricultural research systems and civil society organizations including the private sector. The alliance mobilizes agricultural science to reduce poverty, foster human well being, promote agricultural growth and protect the envi­ ronment. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) , the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) , and the World Bank serve as co-sponsors of the CGIAR. More than 8,500 CGIAR scientists and staff, working in over l 00 countries, address every critical component of the agricultural sector including agroforestry, biodiversity, food , forage and tree crops, pro-environment farming techniques, fisheries, forestry, livestock, food policies and agricultural research servic­ es. Thirteen of 15 CGIAR Centers are based in developing countries. The knowledge generated by the CGIAR-and the public and private organizations that work with the CGIAR as partners and advisors-pays handsome dividends for poor farmers through increased agricultural production and productivity, greater incomes, and sounder utilization of resources. The products of CGIAR research are kept within the public domain available to all. These include improved crop varieties and production tech­ nologies suited to local conditions, better farming systems that protect natural resources, and policies/practices to combat major global challenges such as climate change. CGIAR research partnerships help achieve the Millennium Development Goals and support major international conven­ tions (Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Desertification) . lll Contents Foreword Preface Acknowledgements Executive Summary Chapter 1: Poverty, Conflict, and Natural Disasters: Persistent Plagues of the Developing World The causes of violent conflict Poverty and conflict Natural disasters wreak increasing havoc Chapter 2: Agricultural Research and Development: A Way Out? Can agricultural development reduce conflict and disaster vulnerability on a wide scale? Research: a catalyst for pro-poor development Chapter 3: Rebuilding Seed and Food Systems Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America and the Caribbean East and South Asia Central and West Asia and North Africa Chapter 4: Safeguarding and Restoring Agrobiodiversity Gene banks: priceless safety nets Adding value to biodiversity Chapter 5: Rebuilding Human and Institutional Capacities Restoring the knowledge and expertise base Rebuilding research infrastructure Reinvigorating the market chain Chapter 6: Reducing Vulnerability to Future Conflicts and Disasters Rebuilding nations, strengthening regions Adapting crops to global warming Knowledge pays off Chapter 7: Helping Aid Organizations Become More Effective and Efficient Action rooted in understanding The power of diagnostics Aid made smart and targeted References Acronyms The CGIAR Centers IV V vi vii ix l 2 3 5 5 6 8 8 15 19 24 32 32 37 42 42 49 50 52 53 57 60 64 64 67 70 72 76 78 Foreword Agriculture lies at the heart of the social and economic fabric of the world 's developing coun­ tries. Most of the world 's poor live in those countries and are engaged in agriculture . When con­ flicts and natural disasters strike, they not only take a heavy toll on human lives but also cause serious damage to agriculture and to the natural resources on which agriculture depends. The poor suffer most when agriculture, the main source of their livelihood, is damaged. They are also the ones whose lives are most at risk during attacks of the forces of nature or in man-made con­ flicts. Research has shown that poverty and hunger breed despair and desperation, compelling the poor to make unthinkable choices. Without hope for a better future, illiterate youth are tempted into an alternative life of banditry, violence, and terrorism for pay and plunder. If poverty and hunger can be alleviated , the frequency of man-made conflicts can be greatly reduced . For nearly three decades the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has focused its mission on helping developing countries turn agriculture into an engine of pro­ poor, sustainable economic growth. Conflicts and natural disasters have often interfered with this mission, and disrupted the long-term work in strengthening human and institutional capaci­ ties, establishing more productive cropping systems, and improving the sustainability of farming. Nevertheless, the CGIAR Centers quickly reworked their strategy, partnering with donors, govern­ ments, emergency relief agencies, non-governmental organizations and others to ensure that emergency assistance made the best possible use of available knowledge and technology. As soon as they could, they moved on to help the affected countries rebuild their agriculture, as well as human capacity and research infrastructure so critical to long-term recovery. Over the course of dealing with crises caused by conflicts and natural disasters in at least 47 countries across Africa , Asia, and Latin America, the CGIAR Centers have been learning impor­ tant new lessons. It became clear that by reducing poverty, pro-poor agricultural development could actually diminish some of the conditions that lead to conflict and render people suscepti­ ble to natural disasters. Agricultural development and poverty reduction strengthen resilience by establishing coping and recovery mechanisms, such as international skill networks and gene bank safety nets. And a knowledge-based approach to helping countries rebuild increases the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of relief operations-an approach that has been referred to as 'smart aid' in this study. These lessons have convinced us that an ongoing partnership between research and emer­ gency aid can significantly improve the ability of the international community to prepare for, as well as respond to the inevitable future crises. Such a pre-emptive approach will alleviate more suffering than dealing with each emergency as an ad-hoc event, after the fact. We hope "Healing Wounds" brings this point home. The volume, indeed, brings to light an important role of the CGIAR that has remained less known and unrecognized . It reminds all of us in both the research and the emergency relief sectors of how much we need each other, and, above all , how much the poor need us, especially in times of crises. C Adel EI-Beltagy Director Gene ral ICARDA Kanayo Nwanze Director General WARDA Executive Committee of the Will iam Dar Director Genera l ICRISAT Center Directors Committee of the CGIAR V Preface The involvement of CGIAR Centers in rebuilding agriculture in countries affected by conflict and natural disasters spans nearly three decades and has benefited more than 47 countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. But the information on the role played by the Centers and the impact of their work is fragmented and dispersed. This study consolidates that information and analyzes it to extract key lessons about how to use emergency aid in the future. It should serve both as a reference source and an indicator of ways to build more effective partnerships between research and emergency aid organizations. It is not always easy to delineate conflict/disaster work from the ongoing research of Centers that contributes to preventing or mitigating these crises. Often there is no clear line between an impending or subsiding disturbance, and an emergency significant enough to be labeled a dis­ aster/conflict. For this study our focus was on climatic disasters and violent conflicts, which excludes certain other types of disaster/strife that are nevertheless of enormous consequence to the poor, such as HIV/ AIDS, crop disease and pest epidemics, and non-violent political instability. The first task in getting this study off the ground was to collect information from the CGIAR Centers that have been involved in rebuilding agriculture, and conduct searches to fill the gaps in the information collected. By the deadline set for material collection , we had case study reports provided to us for 31 countries by our colleagues from 12 CGIAR Centers involved in rebuilding agriculture. Therefore, our coverage of 31 of those countries should be viewed as a representative rather than a comprehensive survey. Instead of presenting the work of the Centers in chronological or geographic order, we felt that a thematic analysis of the major benefits gained and lessons learned might be more valuable. Since the themes covered in this study are interlaced, and since the major case studies con­ tribute to more than one theme, they are revisited in different chapters. We appreciate readers' understanding of this inevitable repetition of the various case studies in the text. Chapters 1 and 2 review the nature of the conflict and disaster problems that face developing countries, and how the CGIAR Centers' comparative advantages and capabilities form a strategic resource for rehabilitating agriculture. Chapters 3-7 explore specific cases in which the CGIAR Centers have contributed to alleviating hunger; preserving agrobiodiversity; rebuilding human and institutional capacities; reducing future vulnerability to conflicts and disasters; and making relief aid more efficient. The study found that the CGIAR Centers' efforts to help countries rebuild agriculture have been heavily dependent on partnerships and the generous support of development investors. The contributions of those valued supporters are highlighted in this study. Vl Acknowledgements This study was implemented working with a team of communication professionals from the CGIAR Centers. These included Fionna Douglas (CGIAR System Office) , Nathan Russell (CIAT), Michael Hoilu (CIFOR), Kelley Cassady (CIMMYT) , Christine Graves (CIP) , Eric McGow (ICRISAT) , Evelyn Banda (IFPRI) , David Mowbray (IITA), Susan McMillan (ILRI) , Ruth Raymond (IPGRI) , Duncan Mcintosh (IRRI) , Ian Makin (IWMI), Savitri Mahapatra (WARDA) , Helen Leitch (WorldFish) , and Jason Wettstein (Future Harvest). They also helped develop the approach, provided valuable advice as writing progressed, and reviewed the drafts. We sincerely thank them all . We were also fortunate to receive inputs and clarifications on specific issues from Center staff and external partners. We thank Mohan Saxena, William Erskine, Johann Bell , Mork Bell, Tom Blake, Lydia Flynn, Annie Hamel , Peter Hazell , Eugene Hettel, Gory Jahn, Edwin Javier, Richard Jones, Roger Kamidi, Mike Listmon, Cecilia Lopez, Jeon­ Fronc;:ois Mercier, Jeon Ndikumana, Harry Nesbitt, Michael Rubinstein, Louise Sperling , S. Srinivas, Antony van Gastel, Nasrot Wassimi, and Swothi Sridharon for their valuable help. Our grateful thanks ore also due to two distinguished external review­ ers who helped us improve the document considerably: Dr. Uma Lele, Senior Advisor, The World Bonk; and Dr. Mohomed A. Nour, former Director General of ICARDA. Finally, we wish to thank the CGIAR Center Directors Committee and System Office for endorsing and funding this initiative. Vll Executive Summary 0 ver the past three decades, the CGIAR Centers have made major contributions to rebuilding agriculture in at least 47 developing countries affected by conflicts and natu­ ral disasters across Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Fig. l ,_ page viii). In doing so, Center staff and their partners have demonstrated exemplary dedication and commitment to the mission of the CGIAR by continuing to work in difficult conditions, sometimes risking their per­ sonal security. As such, the value of their work, which has made a major differ­ ence to the lives of millions, cannot be assessed using the currency value of investments in the CGIAR. This study first reviews current thinking on the underlying causes of conflicts and disasters, identifying poverty as a major driver of both. Poverty breeds fn..Jstration, compelling the poor to turn to violence. Most of the poor are involved in rural agriculture, so pro-poor investments in agricultural development can alleviate poverty and thereby reduce the possibil­ ities of conflict and also contribute to natural disaster preparedness. History shows that agricultural research is a par­ ticularly high-payoff leverage point for stimulating economic growth and poverty reduction. Based on case studies for 31 countries­ from 12 CGIAR Centers, the study then describes major Center contributions and lessons learned in five key areas: alleviating hunger by rebuilding seed and food systems; safeguarding and restoring agrobiodiversity; rebuilding lX human and institutional capacities; reducing future vulnerability to these crises; and making relief aid more effec­ tive and efficient. It highlights how the Centers' work addresses the root causes of conflicts and disasters, in addition to providing immediate relief by working together with a diverse group of part­ ners, including donors and relief and development agencies, and by building bridges between the various partners for implementing long-term work plans. Rebuilding seed and food systems Through the generosity of development investors, CGIAR Centers were able to contribute to a number of major partner­ ships for emergency relief, including: • The CIAP project, which helped restore rice production in Cambodia following the Khmer Rouge genocide (IRRI with support from AusAID, CIDA and GTZ, 1988-95); • The 'Seeds of Hope' project to rebuild Rwanda after the genocide and civil war of 1994-96 (CIAT convening, with CIMMYT, CIP, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IITA, ILRI and IPGRI through support from DFID, SDC, USAID, IDRC, AusAid , and World Vision); • 'Seeds of Freedom' (mid- l 990s) follow­ ing Angola's civil war (ICRISAT conven­ ing, with CIAT, CIP, CIMMYT and IITA through USAID support); • Restoring sweetpotato production after the 1997-98 El Nino crisis in Peru (CIP with INIA); • 'Seeds of Hope II' in the wake of Hurricane Mitch that devastated Honduras and Nicaragua in late 1998 emergence of small-scale private seed enterprises. Similarly, tree nursery micro­ enterprises have been fostered in loca­ tions as diverse as Rwanda , Palestine and Afghanistan. Sustainable aqua­ farming of black pearl, giant clam, sea cucumber and coral , and ornamental fish and crustacean cultivation are being encouraged by WorldFish in the Solomon Islands; these small-scale liveli­ hoods can alleviate the poverty that fuels ethnic conflict . Reducing future vulnerability to conflicts and disasters It is human nature to think of disasters and conflicts as unique events, hoping they will never happen again; but the unfortunate reality is that they will. How are the CGIAR Centers helping aid agencies prepare for the inevitable? The drama that provided the impetus for the very creation of the CGIAR-the race to prevent mqssive famine in Asia in the 1970s, which succeeded brilliantly through the new crop varieties and management practices known as the Green Revolution-is a striking example of how preventative investments in research can pay off spectacularly. The same South Asia zone is currently the subject of another forward-looking effort, the Rice-Wheat Con.sortium for the lndo­ Gangetic Plains, convened by CIMMYT and IRRI and also engaging CIP, ICRISAT and IWMl-made possible through sup­ port from ACIAR, the Asian Development Bank, DFID, IFAD, Japan, The Netherlands, and USAID. It aims to fore­ stall the next productivity plateau by finding more sustainable and productive Xll ways to crop these areas, such as preci­ sion farming and crop diversification. Disaster and conflict elevate the risk of malnutrition, since refugees inevitably face restricted food choices. CIP is seeking to increase dietary vitamin A through the introduction of orange-. fleshed sweetpotato for refugees in Uganda. A CGIAR-wide effort on 'biofor­ tification '-breeding crops for increased vitamin and nutrient content-has recently been launched. This work will take time, but the benefits will be espe­ cially great for peoples suffering in the wake of catastrophe. Helping countries and regions with long­ term strategic planning to reduce the likelihood and impact of crises is another important role the Centers have played. For example, through support from the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development and IFAD, ICARDA and IFPRI have helped the West Asia/ North Africa region by convening international conferences and research on drought preparedness, coping and recovery strategies. Steps such as the establish­ ment of early-warning systems, institu­ tions and systems for the efficient stock­ ing and de-stocking of animal herds in synchronization with drought cycles, poli­ cies such as drought insurance, liveli­ hood diversification, and crop growth models to advise farmers on the best coping strategies have been identified as potentially high-payoff investments. Another forward-looking type of Center assistance has been in building agricul­ tural systems and institutions. In addition to examples mentioned earlier, ICARDA, with support from the Asian Development Bank, GTZ, IFAD, USAID, and the World Bank, and in partnership with eight other CGIAR Centers (CIP, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRI, IPGRI, ISNAR and IWMI) is convening a Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC) Consortium to help these new nations chart the course ahead. The region is beset by a sobering array of challenges: widespread pover­ ty, environmental degradation, the need for transitioning to a new set of social systems and institutions, the loss of sup­ port services and infrastructure formerly provided by the Soviet Union, and many more. A long-term effort is clearly required. Perhaps the most massive disaster-in-the­ making is global warming. The Centers have a key role to play in helping agri­ culture adapt to climate change. The degree and geographical distribution of impending climate change is still , unclear, which makes preparing for it all the more difficult. Temperature and moisture changes will trigger fundamen­ tal, complex changes in ecosystems. To handle this uncertainty and complexity, CGIAR Centers and their partners are developing models to predict the out­ comes of different possible scenarios­ helping aid agencies and nations envi­ sion the range of risks they face, and options they should consider. As some areas grow drier, farmers will have to shift to more drought-tolerant varieties or crops. Several Centers are working hard on increasing drought resistan.ce, and tangible progress is being made for this difficult trait. CIMMYT and !CARDA for example, are achieving Xlll significant gains in drought resistance in new varieties of maize, wheat and bar­ ley that are spreading rapidly in Southern, Eastern and North Africa, and in West Asia. Pests and diseases are also very sensitive to temperature and moisture changes. Global warming may shift their distribu­ tion , exposing crops to new threats they were not bred to resist. For example, CIP research in Canete Valley, Peru found that temperature increases following the El Nino episode of 1997 /98 triggered a severe attack of late blight fungus and favored a more aggressive biotype of white fly, devastating the potato and sweetpotato crops. Steady long-term support is needed for research on crop adaptation and breeding, integrated pest management, crop ecology and climate change to combat this threat. Making relief aid more effec­ tive and efficient The knowledge and expertise con­ tributed by CGIAR Centers has helped aid agencies increase their effectiveness in crisis situations. Such 'smart aid' gets the job done better, more quickly and more efficiently. The power of smart aid was evident in the Seeds of Hope project in Rwanda. Rather than blanketing the country with non-adapted seed-a practice employed all too frequently in the haste of emergency relief initiatives-the Centers built on a decade of prior expe­ rience there to quickly draw together complementary partners and identify seed sources appropriate to specific localities and needs. As a result, aid was precisely targeted . The right seed got to the neediest people, quickly-and equally important, local agrobiodiversity and seed enterprises were not pushed aside. Extending this learning, seed aid donors and NGOs such as Catholic Relief Services partnered with ICRISAT in the Horn of Africa region, and with ICARDA in Afghanistan, to devise smarter ways of restoring seed systems. The research confirmed that indiscriminate seed give­ aways undermine local seed enterprises. The partners devised a better way: pro­ viding aid in the form of vouchers that poor farmers could use to buy seed from local suppliers of their choice. Supporting local institutions and social networks builds local resilience and food security. In order to make its aid investment smarter, USAID's Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance asked ILRI to help it break away from a 'handout' approach to a new mode that would build self­ reliance and resilience in the conflict-rid­ den and drought-plagued Horn of Africa region. Jointly with ASARECA's A-AARNET network, ILRI assessed traditional systems of coping with drought and elucidated a new set of approaches that built on traditional knowledge and skills. The new approach shifts the focus from relief to development: re-directing aid invest­ ments towards preventative, coping and recovery capabilities such as drought early-warning, herd size management, improved animal health services, dry­ season fodder supplies, and training. When embarking on major rebuilding efforts, the Centers' diagnostic and ana­ lytical capabilities contribute significant­ ly to steer aid in the right direction. The Future Harvest Consortium in Afghanistan, for example, conducted an in-depth needs assessment that reached every province of the country, talking to thousands of farmers. The information fed into priority-setting deliberations by a wide range of assistance entities, includ­ ing Afghanistan's own Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, US.AID, US uni­ versities, NGOs, FAQ and private sector organizations. IFPRI led a similar study to help Mozambique identify priorities for rebuilding after its long independence struggle and civil war. The advanced tools and skills of CGIAR Centers have been important elements of 'smart aid'. Geographic information systems (GIS) and models have been particularly useful. CIAT's 'Mitch Atlas' XlV GIS dataset became the guiding light for aid agencies in targeting their assistance in the wake of that 'hurricane of the century'. ICARDA and Michigan State University are using GIS to assist Afghanistan with rangeland recovery, directing herders to optimum pastures to reduce overgrazing. Other advanced techniques include CIAT's use of molec­ ular markers to detect changes in bean biodiversity following the Rwandan crisis, and IITA' s use of virus diagnostics and tis­ sue culture multiplication techniques to combat the African Cassava Mosaic Virus. Returns on investments The CGIAR 's knowledge-based approach, referred to as 'smart aid' makes relief assistance more efficient, effective and targeted . It helps aid agencies to achieve more relief per dol­ lar, reach the truly poor and avoid coun­ terproductive outcomes such as the undermining of local mechanisms of resilience. The CIAP effort to rebuild Cambodia's rice economy, for example, generated an internal rate of return of 32% per annum on the humanitarian investment, worth US$1.3 billion (Young et al. 2001 )0 . The entire CGIAR System 's three-decade (1971 -2001) cost of US$7.1 billion was vastly exceeded by an esti­ mated $65 billion in benefits (Raitzer 2003) b related to the prevention of food insecurity crises. Clearly, smart aid pays. In addition to providing relief from disas­ ters and conflicts when they occur, it is important to attack their root causes for the longer term. Poverty breeds desper­ ation that can cause some of the poor to resort to violence. Poverty also pre­ vents investments in structures and sys­ tems that could help protect them from disasters such as storms, droughts and earthquakes . Most of the rural poor are involved in agriculture. Steady, long-term support to agricultural research such as that conducted by the CGIAR Centers contributes to poverty reduction, and therefore to reducing human suffering from conflicts and natural disasters. xv CGIAR Center partnerships with aid agencies should be continuous and organic, not formed only in haste after emergencies strike. Ongoing partner­ ships will help prepare for, mitigate, and accelerate recovery from disasters and conflicts. Major institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank and many donor agencies are now con­ vinced that it is more cost-effective and humanitarian to invest in preventive steps to mitigate the effects of disasters and conflicts, rather than just dealing with their aftermath. Research is essen­ tial for devising these preventive, coping and recovery solutions. The CGIAR Centers will continue to contribute importantly to this endeavor. 0 Young, D. , Raab, R., Martin, R. , Sin, S. , Leng, B. , Abdon , B. , Mot, S. and Seng, M. 2001 . Economic impact assessment of the Cambodia-lRRI­ Australia Project. Phnom Penh : Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute . bRaitzer, D. A. 2003. Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the international agricultural research centres of the CGIAR. Rome: CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.cgiar.org/pdf/bcmeta.pdf Chapter 1 Poverty, Conflict, and Natural Disasters: Persistent Plagues of the Developing World D isasters and conflicts, by their shocking nature, tend to impress us as unique, one-off events. After they end, our mind prefers to block them out like unwelcome r17emories. But a scanning of the record reveals that they are all too frequent and share many distressing and recurrent features . Conflicts have especially harmed the poorest countries in recent decades. Understanding the causes of conflict and disasters is the first step towards defeating them. "When our resources become scarce, we fight over them. In managing our resources and in sustainable development, we plant the seeds of peace." - Dr. Wangari Maathi, 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate The causes of violent conflict During the Cold War many of the conflicts were 'proxy wars ' associated with struggles between the superpowers. Conflicts since then have mostly stemmed from economic, eth­ nic/tribal, and rel igious strife. They take such forms as terrorism, warlordism, and go ngsterism. Healing Wounds Scholars have examined the causes of conflict. Since the Second World War, four main triggers have been suggested, as described by de Soysa and Gleditsch (1999): • Modernization: Reaction against rapid development that appears to create equity and cultural gaps between rich and poor, threatening traditional ways of life. Many of the ideological revolu ­ tionary movements of the 1950s/60s were attributed to this cause. • Dependency: Rebellion against the subservient role perceived to be imposed upon developing countries by global capitalism. This theory gained prominence during the 1970s as multi­ national industries became wide­ spread and influential. • Mobilization: Oppressive state actions trigger disaffected groups to mobilize and resist. The decline of some dictato­ rial states in Africa and Asia appears to have followed this pattern. • Stagnation: Frus~ration when states fail to provide ways to escape poverty and deprivation. This appears to be emerging as a major trigger in recent years, as exemplified in instability and state-collapse situations in Sub-Saharan Africa , Asia , Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union. Poverty and conflict Poverty is a key driver behind stagna­ tion-driven conflicts, according to analy­ ses by the Brundtland Commission (1987) , Brown (1996) , Collier and Hoeffler ( 1998) , the International Food Policy Research Institute (Messer et al. 1998) , Collier ( 1999) , the International Peace Research Institute, O slo (de Soysa and Gleditsch 1999) , and the United Nations ( 1995 and 2001 ). Former US President and Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter, and former UNDP Administrator and World Resources Institute founder James Gustave Speth are just a few of many . distinguished leaders who have also emphasized this link (Carter 1999; Speth 1994). The poverty-conflict linkage is one of the reasons the United Nations Millennium Declaration places a high pri­ ority on halving the number of people living on less than a dollar a day by the year 2015 (UN 2001 ). Poverty goes beyond financial suffering. In the developing world it usually involves both material deprivation and vulnerability to social forces as well as to natural disasters (Hazell and Haddad 200 l) . Material suffering often includes hunger and malnutrition, squalid hous­ ing, and a lack of access to sanitary services, health care and education. Social vulnerability includes unemploy­ ment, anguish over inability to provide for loved ones, vulnerability to more powerful and exploitative forces in the community or government, and a lack of support systems to buffer against shocks such as natural disasters, health crises and income shortfalls (World Bank 2000-2001 ). Poverty breeds despair and desperation, compelling the poor to make previously­ unthinkable choices (Sen 1987). Without hope for a better future, illiterate youth are tempted or coerced into an alterna­ tive life of banditry and gang violence for pay and plunder. For example, hunger, poverty and hopelessness were key triggers in the recent instability in Haiti , in brutal conflicts in Liberia , Sierra Leone and Rwanda, and in drug-ring ter­ rorism in Colombia and Peru (de Soysa and Gleditsch 1999; Messer et al. 1998 p. 24-25; Weiner 2004. If stagnant poverty is at the root of many vio­ lent conflicts in modern times, what can be done to alleviate it? Alternatives are needed so that the poor will no longer see violence as the only way out. Natural disasters wreak inc·reasing havoc Global warming is expected to trigger an increasing frequency and severity of climati­ cally-related natural disasters in the coming decades. Climate prediction models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the wet areas will get wetter (and stormier) and the dry areas, drier and hotter-accentuating extreme envi­ ronmental events such as droughts and floods (Parry 2002). The periodic El Nino phenomenon (every 2-7 years) , which sets off a series of weather abnormalities and climatic disasters, has become both more intense and frequent during the last 20 years. This may be associat­ ed with global warming. These trends may already be taking hold. Compared to the 1960s, major climatic natural disasters were three times more frequent dur­ ing the 1990s, accelerating even more rapidly in the second half of the decade (Delaney et al. 2003). The 1990s was the warmest decade in the last thousand years. Glaciers receded throughout the world, plants bloomed sooner, birds laid their eggs weeks earlier, and dam­ age from storms was up eight-fold from the 1970s. Half of the world 's poorest countries are con­ sidered at high risk from natural disasters, and they are increasing in frequency (Freeman et al. 2003). During 1990-1998, 94% of the world's 568 major natural disasters were in developing countries, as were more than 97% .of all natural disaster-related deaths (World Bank 2000- 2001 ). The developed countries are also beginning to experience the effects of heat Poverty, Conflict, and N Persistent Plagues of t waves and droughts that threaten agriculture in their drier zones (Coghlan 2003). Major parts of Africa are under constant threat of drought. There have been seven major drought episodes on the African continent in the last four decades: 1965-66, 1972-7 4, 1981- 84, 1986-87, 1991-92, 1994-95 and 2000-01. The 1972-7 4 and 1981-84 droughts in the Sahel of West Africa and in the Horn of Africa caused massive dislocation and suffering. Morocco's 1994/95 drought cut its agricultural production in half, and droughts frequently wreak havoc in West Asian countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Suffering from natural disasters is a function not only of the strength of the storm, flood, drought, fire, or earthquake; but also of peo­ ple's vulnerability to it. This can be summarized in the simple equation (Delaney et al. 2003): Risk = Hazard + Vulnerability The poor face a greater risk from a given haz­ ard due to their greater vulnerability. They lack the resources to prepare for these disasters, to endure their onslaught, and to cope with their consequences. Their housing is not strong enough to withstand gale-force wind, rain, or earthquakes; they often live in flood-prone areas avoided by the wealthier class; emer­ gency services may not be available to them, especially in rural areas; they lack paved roads for speedy evacuation; they cannot afford stocks of emergency food and water supplies; and so on. As the poor bear the brunt of each disaster, they are pushed even further down the socioeconomic ladder; women and children especially suffer (World Bank 2000- 200 l). This makes it even more difficult to endure the next catastrophe. Agriculture is one of the hardest-hit sectors when natural disasters strike. Crops are leveled by winds, drowned by floods or scorched by Healing Wounds heat and drought. Livestock perish from thirst and starvation . Lands are stripped of fertile topsoil by floods and wind storms, and salinized by seawater incur­ sion. Seed and food stores rot under water from floods or are consumed dur­ ing droughts. Loans taken to plant crops cannot be repaid. Processing and export industries cannot meet delivery obligations and lose out to competitors. Yet again , the poor are the biggest los­ ers since they are the most dependent on agriculture for a living and have few buffer systems to cushion against these losses. The environment is also damaged by natural disasters. Trees killed by f!ooding or drought represent ecological degra­ dation and loss of landscape protection, as well as lost income from timber and lost sources of fuel for poor households. Communities cut down even more trees to rebuild their housing, putting the land at further risk from the next storm. Biodiversity is lost as habitats are laid to waste by floods or left barren by drought. Rapid climate change may outstrip evolution's capacity to adapt to the new climate, or to migrate species to new areas. Hostile/harmful species adapted to the new climate may migrate in and displace the indigenous species. While there may be little that humans can do to prevent natural disasters, there is much they can do to reduce their vulnerability to these forces of nature. This is one reason why the United Nations has placed development and poverty eradication at the heart of its Millennium Declaration. The Declaration further resolves to "intensify cooperation to reduce the number and effects of natural and man-made disasters" {UN 2000). The Millennium Declaration Road Map recognizes the vulnerability issue and the major conceptual shift from dis­ aster response to disaster reduction including the increased application of science and technology to prevent, miti­ gate and prepare for disasters (UN 2001 ). Poverty reduction would mitigate many vulnerabilities and increase resilience. But what approaches can effectively reduce poverty on a scale large enough to make a difference for hundreds of millions of poor? Chapter 2 Agricultural Research and. Development: A Way Out? Can agricultural development reduce conflict and disaster vulnerability on a wide scale? Most poverty is rural, and most of the rural poor are engaged in agriculture (Lipton 2002; UN 2001). Since the poor typically spend more than half of their incomes on food, stimulus to the agricultural "His tory hos taught us that wars produce hunger, but we are less aware that mass poverty can lead to war or end in chaos." - Willy Brandt, Former Chancellor, Federal Republic of Germany sector can provide them with a double bene­ fit as both producers (through more employ­ ment and higher incomes) and consumers (through more affordable food). In addition to weakening the underpinnings of violence, more remunerative agricultural livelihoods can free up more financial resources for investing in infrastructure and systems to reduce vulner­ ability to climatic disasters. .. . ... --~- .. ~.. ' . . 1can-:{o'rrn-ft:1rriily t-Phot9.·'7c~eoi - • • i • -, -~ ~•~6!~-:¥1:'. • - -· • • • ,/< ~- :~!~:- Healing Wounds Therefore, investments in agricultural and rural development should be prime can­ didates for poverty reduction initiatives. Leading experts are convinced by the evidence to date that agricultural devel­ opment can be a powerful tool for poverty reduction if it is carefully designed to especially reach the most needy (Fan et al. 2000a, b; Hazell and Haddad 2001 ; Lipton 2002; Lewis 2003; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2003). NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development) , Sub-Saharan Africa's self-developed plan for renewal, concurs with this view. Two of its four primary objectives are to eradicate poverty and to place Africa on a path of sustainable growth and development. Agriculture is a priority for policy reforms and increased investment in NEPAD's Program of Action. Despite this consensus of the global and the African communities, international aid to agricultural development had fall­ en from approximately 30% of total development assistance in the 1970s to about 10% by the turn of the century {Lipton 2002). The result is th cit the rural poor are left further behind in the devel­ opment process. This increases their vul­ nerability to natural disasters as well as sows the seeds of future violence result­ ing from frustration and hopelessness. Research: a catalyst for pro-poor development To most effectively help the poor, agri­ cultural development must be backed by a solid understanding of their liveli­ hood systems, needs and values, the functioning of markets, climatic con­ straints and potentials, cropping systems and natural resources, ecological parameters of sustainability, government policies and institutions, and a myriad of other factors that influence the function­ ing of the agricultural economy. From this understanding, new innovations emerge in the fields of policy, technolo­ gy, capacity-building and institutional improvement. This is the role of 'research-for-development' {R4D). R4D can produce high returns on invest­ ment because it can transform agricul­ tural systems in fundamenta l ways (Sachs 2002). Public-sector R4D is partic­ ularly important because it focuses on the poor who are a low priority for the private sector. When pursued on an international scale, the results can be impressive. The achievements of the 15 International Agricultural Research Centers supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and their partners over the past three decades form a prime example. The System's three-decade (1971-2001) investment of US$7.1 billion was plausibly estimated to have returned approxi­ mately $65 billion in benefits from just three easily-documented research areas-an extraordinary 34% annual return on investment ( Raitzer 2003). A large proportion of these benefits are believed to have reached the poor, mostly through lower food prices and increased small-farm incomes. Furthermore, this estimate is believed to be quite conservative, because (i) it considers only a subset of all impacts ( attributed against total System cost), (ii) it does not include 'multiplier effects,' e.g. how these impacts stimulated addi­ tional growth in the non-farm economy (Hazell and Haddad 2001 ); and (iii) it does not include a wide array of qualita­ tive impacts, such as human capacity building, adding to the scientific knowledge base, building more effective national institu­ tions etc. The estimate also does not take into account spillover benefits captured by the developed countries, which far exceeds their investment cost in the CGIAR Centers (Brennan et al. 2003). There is yet another dimension of the CGIAR 's work, that of rebuilding agricl..Jlture in countries affected by conflict and natural disasters. Over the past three decades, the CGIAR Centers have made major contributions to rebuilding agriculture in at least 47 developing countries affected by conficts and natural dis­ asters across Africa, Asia , and Latin America. The value of financial investments in this work cannot be assessed using the currency market rates, because the CGIAR Center scientists and staff have often carried out these activi­ ties at the risk of their personal security and in difficult working conditions. This dimension of the CGIAR 's role has remained less known and unrecognized. This volume attempts to docu­ ment that role, based on case studies for 31 countries provided by 12 of 15 Centers of the , CGIAR. Despite this impressive track record, the CGIAR's core budget for assisting the entire developing world is just half that of a single pri­ vate sector company, Monsanto (Sachs 2002). Increased investment would accelerate progress towards global food security, poverty reduction , and peace. Agricultural Research A Way Out? The returns to investment in R4D can be espe­ cially large when helping to rebuild countries ravaged by conflict or natural disasters. In a crisis, aid agencies are pressured to act quick­ ly. When the knowledge base is deficient, aid is often less effective than the donors intend­ ed. It is at these times when prior investments in R4D pay off handsomely, steering relief aid on a course to do the most good. Research, in other words, provides a bridge that connects emergency actions with longer term develop­ ment-reducing future vulnerability to these hazards. This study assesses how R4D conducted by CGIAR Centers is helping reduce human suf­ fering from conflicts and natural disasters by: l. Alleviating immediate hunger and setting food production systems back on track; 2. Protecting and restoring damaged agri­ cultural biodiversity; 3. Rebuilding human capacities and agricul­ tural institutions; 4. Reducing vulnerability of the poor to future conflicts and disasters; and 5. Helping development agencies work more effectively and cost-efficiently. Chapter 3 Rebuilding Seed and Food Systems "There is a critical interdependence between sustainable development and human security. Mechanisms of social stability and societal justice usually develop hand in hand with improvements in living standards." - Road Map Towards the Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, 2001 , UN Secretary General 's Report, para. 34 W hen the agricultural pedestal of a developing nation's economy is top­ pled by conflict or natural disaster, it must be righted quickly, because lives depend on it. But aid must be provided in ways that build people's capacity to care for themselves rather than create dependency. The CGIAR Centers have been playing an increasing role in helping nations rebuild their agriculture after conflict and disaster over the past three decades. Much of this work has revolved around the restoration of seed and production systems of basic food crops. Sub-Saharan Africa Rwanda:SeedsofHope Perhaps one of the best-known examples of the CGIAR 's engagement in rebuilding a country shattered by war has been the case of Rwanda. The Rwanda nightmare was a bru­ tal example of the new type of post-Cold War 'stagnation' conflict. Poverty, political unrest and economic stagnation fueled hopelessness and ethnic hatred {see Chapter 1 in this report, and p. 24-25 in Messer et al. 1998). The genocidal campaign and civil war flared most intensely during the first half of 1994, although instability continued for the next two years. It killed approximately 800,000 people and scat­ tered another two million as refugees, or about a third of the total population. As one of Africa 's poorest countries, with about 90% of the population dependent on agriculture for a living, Rwanda had received steady attention from the CG,IAR for more than a decade prior to the calamity. When the war began to subside, CIAT convened a consortium of eight CGIAR Centers, including itself, CIMMYT, CIP, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IITA, ILRI, and IPGRI. The Seeds of Hope (SOH) Initiative was formally launched in September 1995. The national research institutions of Rwanda and its neighbors--Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Zimbabwe- were vital SOH partners, along with some brave Rwandans from the lnstitut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR) and the Ministry of Agriculture, who continued to work despite extreme duress. The NARS (National Agricultural Research Systems) contributed through the crop improvement research net­ works they and the Centers had established previously: RESAPAC/ECABREN (East and Central African Bean Research Network) for beans, PRAPACE (Research Network on Potato and Sweetpotato in East and Central Africa) for potato and sweetpotato, and EAR­ RNET (East African Root Crops Network) for cassava . . Involvement of non-governmental organiza­ tions was the third dimension of SOH partner­ ship, especially CARE, World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, Swiss Disaster Relief, and Medicins Sans Frontiers. They monitored devel­ opments on the ground as the war and post­ war recovery progressed , identifying needy locations and delivering seed aid and techni­ cal support. Rebuilding Seed an Development investors that made SOH possi­ ble included USAID, ODA (now DFID - UK), Swiss Development Corporation (SDC), IDRC (Canada) , Australian Aid, and World Vision­ all building upon the steady investments of CGIAR Members prior to and continuing through, and beyond SOH. The CGIAR Centers helped Rwanda in four major ways: l . Helping relief agencies find good quality seed of the right varieties that farmers and communities were asking for, avoid­ ing the past pitfall of indiscriminate sup­ plies of seed not well adapted to the tar­ get zone ; 2. Studied changes in seed diversity and household seed security in the immediate aftermath of the genocide, to understand if and how precious biodiversity might have been damaged; 3. Multiplied seed of a wide range of indige­ nous Rwandan crop varieties outside the country, so as to be prepared to restore it on a major scale in case of total loss (for­ tunately, this worst-case scenario did not materialize, but those seeds did prove valuable in rebuilding Rwanda 's research capacity); and 4. Helping rebuild human capacities, train­ ing those who replaced those who had been killed or forced to flee. The watershed SOH case touches a number of issues discussed later in this monograph. Here we focus on emergency actions-items l and 3 above (see Buruchara et al. 2002 and Sperling 1997 for more detail). It was unclear at the outset how the war would ultimately affect farmers and the poor; a number of scenarios had to be considered in SOH 's planning. If crops in the field were lost, desperate hunger would ensue. Farm families might be forced to eat their seed stocks, Healing Wounds creating a crisis for subsequent seasons. Widespread death and displacement might cause farmers to lose or abandon their traditional wealth of seeds, resulting in a loss of precious biodiversity. SOH acted on its knowledge to multiply well-adapted seed in neighboring Tanzania and Uganda so that aid agen­ cies would not have to look further afield or bring in non-adapted varieties . This produced 1 .5 tons of bean seed of more than 275 different types; 7 tons of sorghum seed adapted to the three major Rwandan agroecologies (low, medium and high elevation); 152 tons of three main adapted varieties of maize; and 20 tons of seed potatoes. Wii'hin these efforts, the case of potato was particularly telling. Much of the potato germplasm funneled into Rwanda by the PRAPACE network, derived from seed that Uganda had itself received from the PRAPACE network in 1988 when it was recovering from the nightmare caused by the ldi Amin regime. What goes around, sometimes really does come around. • One impediment in providing relief materials to Rwanda was the difficulty of introducing improved cassava planting materials due to virus diseases that might be carried within the stems of this vege­ tatively-propagated crop. In an effort to prevent similar bottlenecks in the future, IITA established a Disaster Relief Unit within its Tissue Culture Laboratory at Ibadan, Nigeria in 1996, with start-up funding from USAID. This tissue culture facility can produce disease-free plantlets quickly and on a large scale. These are kept clean in sterile test tubes and can be flown to any country in times of need, often using IITA ' s own air­ craft when commercial flights are not available. Thousands of plantlets have since been delivered to countries all across Africa, accelerating relief and impact. Once introduced into Rwanda, another cycle of multiplication was made possi­ ble largely through the efforts of Service Semencier Selectionnees (SSS) , the World Food Programme, and NGOs such as World Vision International (WVI) and CARE, in collaboration with SOH. CARE continued providing advice and assis-­ tance on the cultivation of these vari­ eties for years afterwards. The SOH partners initially met weekly (and later monthly) to assess seed needs in the country and target the right vari­ eties to areas most in need. Partners complemented each other's knowl­ edge: NGOs knew where needs were greatest, CGIAR Center staff knew which seed was best adapted and where, and aid agencies took steps to acquire the seed from external or internal sources (including local and regional markets), guided by seed 'source maps' that Center staff had drawn based on their knowledge. The feedback from farmer assessments later proved the wisdom of the strategy of targeted distributions of locally-adapt­ ed varieties. Yield measurements showed that these varieties were more productive for farmers than other relief seed they had been given that had not been carefully chosen for its adaptation (Buruchara et al. 2002). A unique contribution of SOH was the research that it conducted as an inte­ gral part of the aid effort. Those studies illuminated a number of important princi­ ples about how seed relief could be improved in the future. The research revealed that, despite the conflict, farmers had been remarkably successful in preserving their bean agrobiodiversity (Sperling 1997, Sperling and Cooper 2003}. Local bean varieties persisted because the war was of relatively short dura­ tion and many farmers were able to harvest parts of their fields, and because local seed markets continued to function , allowing farm­ ers to re-stock their own varieties-if needed. Food aid also helped, because farmers did not need to eat their seeds to stay alive. Rwandan farmers often use bean varietal mix­ tures rather than pure lines, and reported satis­ faction in being able to sort out the varieties they wanted from the mixtures provided by SOH (Buruchara et al. 2002}. Local seed markets quickly recovered after the war and continued supplying diverse and locally-adapted seeds of subsistence crops. In contrast, seed systems for cash crops such as potato that were dependent on a formal seed sector were debilitated due to destruction of their supporting infrastructure and institutions. A key lesson learned was that attention to seed supply channels is essential for under­ standing the effects of conflict and disaster on agrobiodiversity (Sperling 1997}. The landmark nature of the SOH success built the confide nce that led to Center participa­ tion in subsequent disaster relief efforts includ­ ing 'Seeds of Freedom' (catalyzed by the Angolan war}, 'Seeds of Hope II' (in response to Hurricane Mitch in Central America}, 'Seeds of Life' in East Timor, and current efforts in post­ Taliban Afghanistan and in Iraq. Numerous lower-profile yet equally important partnerships between CGIAR Centers and relief agencies continue in other conflict-prone countries, building on the confidence created by SOH. Misery in Mozambique Mozambique suffered greatly from internal conflict for most of the 1970s and 80s. When Rebuilding Seed an the fighting finally stopped in the early 1990s, the droughts began . ICRISAT stepped in to help the impoverished country rebu ild its dry­ land cereal systems (sorghum and millet}. It collaborated closely with World Vision, which was engaged in a large-scale agricultural rehabilitation program. This program included the distribution of seed kits to returning refugees as well as the testing of improved crop varieties to determine which seeds should be included in the kits. It also studied how aid systems could be improved in the future (see Chapter 7). And then the droughts turned into floods. In early 2000, Cyclone Eline overwhelmed south­ ern Africa. Many of that area 's rivers drain into Mozambique, and the Limpopo River Basin became a major disaster area. About 700 people died and half a million were affected, including many thousands displaced from their homes. IIT A has been intensively working since then with national institutions and NGOs to restore root crop farming systems that were washed away by the floods. Chaos in the Democratic Republic of Congo During the late 1990s, the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, descended into war and chaos. Government forces backed by Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe battled rebels supported by Uganda and Rwanda. A fragile peace deal is finally raising hopes of an end to this nightmare, but large parts of the country remain unstable. The conflict is believed to have contributed to the spread of a new strain of the Africa Cassava Mosaic Virus, called the Uganda Variant. Internally displaced people are believed to have transported planting materi­ al from one place to another. The cassava cri­ sis could not have struck at a worse time. The impoverished and malnourished refugees Healing Wounds were highly vulnerable to food short­ ages; an estimated 3 million may have perished during the conflict period , mostly from starvation and disease. IITA had previously developed cassava lines resistant to the disease that had major impact across East Africa , and beginning in 2000, brought this experi­ ence to bear in the more difficult situa­ tion of Democratic Republic of Congo. IITA scientists made rapid assessments that confirmed that the Uganda Variant was a spreading epidemic . Within months, proposals were developed, sup­ port obtained from USAID for emergency intervention and, in 200 l , disease man­ agement projects were initiated. Small initial shipments of plants gave farmers in Democratic Republic of Congo a chance to pick the varieties most suitable ' for them. From a starting set of 200 genotypes, they selected l 0 for rapid mul­ tiplication and distribution at the Mvuazi research station. These lines are expected to turn the dis- aster around for the Democratic Republic of Congo's most important food crop. Nourishing refugees in Uganda A brutal insurgency plaguing northern Uganda since 1986 has displaced an estimated l .4 million people in the Achioli, Teso and Lango sub-regions. Houses have been burned and looted, and civilians have been the victims of atrocities, involuntary conscription and forced labor. The displaced live without· shelter or in camps where water, sanita­ tion and health care are inadequate and disease is rampant, with high infant mortality. Security risks limit humanitarian and food aid to the camps; relief convoys have been ambushed. Malnutrition is increas­ ing, particularly among displaced children. When some of the internally displaced try to return home to farm, they lack basic agricul­ tura_l inputs. Vitamin A deficiency is one of Africa's most widespread, yet treatable health problems. It is a leading cause of early childhood death and a major risk factor for pregnant and lac­ tating women across Africa. It weakens the immune system, leaving them susceptible to deadly diseases such as measles, malaria , and diarrhea. Meat and milk are good sources of vitamin A and many fruits and vegetables are rich in beta-carotene, which the human body uses to make vitamin A. But most of these foods are too expensive for African consumers to buy in sufficient quantities and are especially difficult to obtain in times of disaster and conflict. The Vitamin A for Africa (VITAA) Partnership, led by CIP, is helping to address malnutrition needs in northern Uganda and neighboring countries in eastern Africa. VITAA is tackling this problem through the improvement and dissemination of orange-fleshed sweet­ potato. This crop is naturally high in Vitamin A, is familiar to Africans, and is relatively easy to grow. VITAA is a remarkable partner­ ship of approximately 40 organizations straddling the traditionally-separated sec­ tors of agriculture, health and nutrition. It is con­ vened from CIP's Kampala, Uganda office to coordinate with the regional potato network PRA­ PACE as well as with Rebuilding Seed an ASARECA (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa). Support for VITAA is generously provid­ ed by BMZ, the OPEC Fund, the McKnight Foundation, the Micronutrient Initiative, USAID, and the private philanthropic organization-­ Senior Family Fund. Through VIT AA, more than 850,000 orange­ fleshed sweetpotato vine cuttings were deliv­ ered to Ugandan farmers in 2003 in the war­ torn districts of Lira and Apac. During lulls in the fighting, farmers move beyond the camps to attend to their fields. They depend on extension workers from the James Arwata Foundation (JAF), a local community-based organization and VIT AA member, to provide the planting materials, with support from Uganda's National Agricultural Research Organization , PRAPACE, VITAA-CIP, and farm­ ers multiplying vines in Uganda 's Soroti district. Healing Wounds Fat is needed in human diet to absorb vitamin A. In emergency situations, as in conditions of chronic poverty, diets of the poor often have insufficient fat. Peanuts, or groundnuts as they are also known, are a poor person 's crop that provides a rich source of dietary fat (oil). Working in partnership with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) , a UK-based NGO, ICRISAT undertook a study of seed systems in northern Uganda during a lull in the fighting in 2001, and identified an opportunity to introduce rosette-resistant groundnut varieties in an area where groundnuts are widely grown for food as a complement to starchy staples. CRS evaluated these materials with dis­ placed farmers , who were provided small plots of churc h-owned land close to urban centers that are less vulnerable to attack. In 2002, when a rosette epi­ demic hit the region , the improved vari­ eties stood out like a beacon. These vari­ eties, developed by the BMZ-supported SADC/ICRISAT Regional Groundnut Improvement Project in Malawi, also found their way to Southern Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo where farmers have snapped them up. Equally outstanding was IITA 's Africa cas­ sava mosaic virus resistant variety TMS 30572. Angola's Seeds of Freedom For more than a quarter of a century Angola suffered mightily from a combi­ nation of war and drought. The brutal proxy war between the Cold War super­ powers also drew in regional combat­ ants. Two to three million people may have died, and 1 .2 million were left homeless and hungry. Hundreds of thou­ sands died from or were mutilated by land mines; millions of unexploded devices remain today, impeding farm­ ers' ability to cultivate their fields. A peace agreement was signed in 1991 between the fighting factions, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA)-led Government and UNITA (Union for the Total Independence of Angola), although hostilities resumed later and continued into the next millen­ nium. In the mid-1990s, USAID launched the Seeds of Freedom project to improve household food security and · help revitalize the agriculture sector by rebuilding the seed system for high-yield­ ing and adapted varieties of important food crops. World Vision International coordinated the effort, which engaged five CGIAR Centers (CIAT, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, IIT A, CIP), four government insti­ tutions and eight NGOs. Seed produced in the first phase includ­ ed 15 tons of pearl millet (2 varieties), 80 tons of sorghum (3 varieties), 4 tons of beans (4 varieties), 14 tons of maize (3 varieties), 15,000 pathogen-free plantlets of 16 varieties of cassava regenerated from tissue culture, 380 pathogen-tested cuttings of 17 sweetpotato varieties, 1460 mini-tubers of 9 advanced potato clones, and a packet each of 1000 true potato seed (TPS) lines from 6 hybrid progenies. In the 1996/97 season NGOs distributed 26 tons of seed to farmers (sorghum, mil­ let, maize and beans). A total of 1390 on-farm trials were established and man­ aged by farmers under their own condi­ tions. Data were collected by extension and channeled to the coordinator for analysis and reporting. Usable results were analyzed and farmers' preferences were documented. Minor research infra­ structure rehabilitation was carried out. During 1997-1999, the Project was constrained by a renewal of violence in the country. However, efforts to test and disseminate seeds continue to the extent possible. Ric~ in West Africa West Africa has been plagued by extended wars and low-intensity conflicts in recent decades: in Guinea Bissau (1962-75), Liberia ( 1989-96), Sierra Leone ( 1991-97), and most recently in Ivory Coast. Farmers fleeing the Ivory Coast conflict near the border with Liberia, the heart of the upland rice belt, returned only to find their homes and seed stocks looted or burnt. There is an urgent need to build new seed supply systems that farmers can rely upon. WARDA has helped countries rebuild after conflict by providing infusions of improved seed and by helping restore lost germplasm collections. Seeds being provided in bulk to areas recovering from conflict include the low­ land varieties, WITA 4 and WITA 12, identified as superior in wide-scale regional testing using WAR DA' s participatory varietal selection - methodology; and the hardy new NERICA upland rice varieties emerging from innovative wide crosses between the African and Asian rice species (Oryza glaberrima and 0. sativa). Understanding emergency seed interventions Embedding research/aid organization partner­ ships into their institutional fabric, ICRISAT and the Overseas Development Institute (OD1), a UK-based NGO established a joint staff posi­ tion in 200 l based in Nairobi to undertake col­ laborative research on ways to improve emer­ gency seed interventions. This work also col­ laborates with FAO's Rehabilitation and Humanitarian Policies Unit (TCER) to examine agricultural rehabilitation in chronic conflict and post-conflict countries (Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Somalia) , and support to the Rebuilding Seed an Somalia Aid Coordination Body to revise a nd expand its Agricultural Sector Strategy for Somalia. The Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) at 001 is dedicated to improving humanitarian policy and practice in this challenging, fast-moving and sometimes controversial sector. In addi­ tion to its own independent research, the HPG publishes the journal 'Disasters' (in conjunction with Blackwell Publishers), the leading journal in the field of complex emergencies and natu­ ral disasters. HPG also manages the Humanitarian Practice Network (www.odih­ pn.org), which provides a forum for sharing and disseminating information, analysis and experience in humanitarian policy and practice. ODI also hosts the Secretariat of the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Assistance (ALNAP). ALNAP is an international, intera­ gency forum working to improve learning, accountability and quality across the humani­ tarian sector. Through its partnership with ODI, ICRISAT has gained an institutional channel through which it can learn from, as well as influence those working in the humanitarian sector. Latin America and the Caribbean Hurricane Mitch Hurricane Mitch was the worst natural disaster to strike Central America in the past century. It killed more than l 0,000 people. Much of the damage was caused not by high winds but by two meters of rain that fell in less than one fateful week in November 1998. Flooding and mudslides damaged an estimated 60% of the combined agricultural land of Honduras and Nicaragua. Bridges and roads were washed away, complicating relief efforts. Rivers, crucial Healing Wounds for irrigation and hydroelectric energy, silted up. Honduras was hit the hardest, with agri­ cultural losses valued at about $800 mil­ lion; but the northern mountainous areas of Nicaragua also suffered badly. Maize and beans, the two most important food crops in both countries, suffered huge losses as did other crops like potatoes and plantains. Mitch destroyed about half of the bean crop and a third of the maize in the affected areas. It also wiped out about 80% of the two coun­ tries' commercial export crops, such as banana, coffee and tobacco, destroy­ ing a crucial source of employment and income in poor agricultural regions . A food crisis loomed. Bolstered by their success in emergency research-for-development in Rwanda a few years prior, four CGIAR Centers teamed up for a sequel. CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP and IPGRI joined hands with the Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA) in Honduras, the Nicaraguan Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) , regional research networks, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and farmer associations to launch Seeds of Hope for Central America , or Seeds of Hope II (SOH- 11). Donors underwriting the effort were the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance of USAID and the Multilateral Programs Branch of CIDA. The project began with multiplication and tar­ geted distribution of seed in 1999 through net­ works of researchers, development workers, and farmers. The project's most urgent task was to help multiply large quantities of seed for distribution among small farmers, focusing on bean, maize, potato, and sweetpotato. Supplies of bean seed were especially hard hit, because the crop is mostly grown in the second season when the hurricane struck. SOH-11, together with nation­ al partners and farmer groups in Honduras, organ­ ized the multiplication of 175 tons of seed of three popu­ lar improved bean varieties. The project provided farm­ ers with seed, fertilizers, and cash to purchase inputs in exchange for a commit­ ment to sell the harvest to the project for distribution. The bean seed was distrib­ uted to about 3500 farm families by local and inter­ national organizations, notably the Red Cross and the Zamorano School in Honduras. Rebuilding Seed and National researchers' seed stocks, the founda­ tion of the formal seed supply system in these countries, also needed to be rebuilt. DICTA lost major stores of seed. Nearly all its field plant­ ings of improved maize, and most machinery and infrastructure on several key experiment stations were also damaged. Fortunately, INTA came through the storm virtually intact. Immediately following the hurricane, CIMMYT sent DICTA nearly half a ton of seed of diverse improved varieties and inbred lines chosen for high yield , regional adaptation, and stress tol­ erance. In addition to high yield potential , the varieties carried valuable traits such as drought tolerance, resistance to foliar diseases and ear rot, and enhanced protein quality. Nicaraguan Minister of Agriculture Mario De Franco urged that the country "turn disaster into opportunity" by introducing modern high­ yielding crop varieties and other innovations. CIP , CIMMYT and Nicaraguan farmers are test­ ing sweetpotato alongside maize, a practice that has helped to reduce soil erosion in China. Healing Wounds As in Rwanda, regional networks per­ formed a vital role as safety nets for replenishing lost Central American germplasm. Improved bean germplasm was obtained from CIAT's partner, the Collaborative Bean Program for Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean (PROFRIJOL). CIMMYT's network partner was the Regional Maize Program for Central America and the Caribbean (PRM). Both networks have been funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SOC). (In an interest­ ing example of the safety-net value of regional networks, in 1989 the PRM com­ pletely replaced strategic maize seed reserves lost in Panama during the US invasion to oust Manuel Noriega, allow­ ing the national maize program to meet farmers' seed needs within just four months.) And, in another parallel with the Rwanda experience, the prior existence of a rich knowledge base gained through research paid off u~expectedly when Mitch hit. A digital "Mitch Atlas" developed by CIAT scientists guided relief workers to the areas most in need (see more about this in Chapter 6). The atlas indicates the condition of roads before and after Mitch, relief efforts under way in specific areas, damage to crops, the distribution of poverty, and other information crucial for _targeting relief efforts. Hurricane Michelle The Caribbean islands are frequently battered by hurricanes. Hurricane Michelle swept through Cuba in November 2001 , razing fields of upright crops such as bananas, plantains, yucca and citrus. With its tubers below-ground, sweetpotato survived and provided vital food. This prompted local authorities to launch a program to promote the crop's expansion for food security. The added push from the authorities is expected to increase the island's output by as much as 30%. Sweetpotato has long been known in Cuba, and is grown on about 60,000 hectares annually. It is easy to cultivate, hardy against a range of stresses, and highly productive. It requires little fertiliz­ er, and as described previously, the orange-fleshed varieties are an excellent source of vitamin A. CIP and Cuba's lnstituto de lnvestigaci6n de Viandas Tropicales (INIVIT) already had a longstanding research partner­ ship, and more than half of the crop's area was planted with varieties recom­ mended by INIVIT. The partners had also disseminated integrated pest manage­ ment principles, helping to reduce the damage caused by weevils from 40% to 10% in just five years. El Nino in Peru The particularly severe El Nino event of 1997-98 caused Peru's climate to lurch from severe drought to torrential down­ pours. Potato yields were cut by half in many areas while pests and diseases, especially late blight, surged. The severe late blight attack took its toll on many potato varieties, including one of Peru's rising stars, 'Canchan-lNIA,' developed jointly by CIP and Peru's national potato program and released to farmers in 1990. However, a CIP 'true potato seed' (TPS) hybrid, 'Chacasina' , performed well under this stress. 'Chacasina' is a cross between the most popular local variety produced in the central Andes, 'Yungay,' and a CIP late blight-resistant breeding line. The success of 'Chacasina' continues to rise in Peru. Harvests in more than 100 Peruvian dis­ tricts where the variety has spread have been exceptional. As a result, the Center has been asked to produce two more similar varieties. Meanwhile, in the aftermath of El Nino, CIP dis­ tributed 'Chacasina ' to more than 5000 farm families across Peru. East and South Asia Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge Cambodia is a rice-dependent country. So it was natural that the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) take the lead in bring­ ing CGIAR assistance to that country following the horrific Khmer Rouge genocide of 1971-79. The Cambodian-lRRI-Australia Project (CIAP) was made possible through special funding from the Australian Agency for International Development. As its work progressed, many additional partners joined in, notably World Vision, the German Agency for Technical Cooperation ( GTZ), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Catholic Relief Services and Oxfam. The situation at the outset of the project in 1988 was grim. A quarter of the coun­ try 's people had been murdered, especially the edu­ cated ones upon whom a recovery depended. Hunger, poverty and desola­ tion permeated the Rebuilding Seed an countryside. Villages had been razed and human bones were stacked in the center of most of the major towns. Landmines were still killing and maiming farmers, and the Khmer Rouge, although driven from the capital city, still posed a threat in the countryside. Agriculture had been likewise devastated. Formerly one of Asia's leading rice exporters, Cambodia's production fell by 84% during the reign of terror. The Khmer Rouge pursued a brutal and disastrous purging of foreign and educated influences. Most of the agricultural scientists were killed or fled the country. Great personal courage was required of the project leader and his team. A grenade was thrown into the project office early on, the project leader 's house was shot at, and a bounty for his life was offered by the Khmer Rouge. One of the project's first locally trained agricultural technicians died when the project vehicle was ambushed and machine-gunned Healing Wounds by the Khmer. There was no international peace-keeping force to call upon for protection. The CIAP team obtained traditional Cambodian varieties from IRRl's gene bank and began growing them for test­ ing, along with launching a training pro­ gram. They introduced new rice varieties such as early-maturing IR66, providing a quick food crop and leaving time for a second harvest the same season. To achieve the potential of new varieties, the team needed to introduce Cambodians {who were used to low­ input rainfed agriculture) to more inten­ sive methods employing fertilizer, water control , and integrated pest manage­ ment. Postharvest grain handling issues also received attention. CIAP made a major contribution to relieving intense human suffering (Collis 2002). It was instrumental in transforming Cambodia from a rice deficit country, reflected in widespread hunger and star- vation, into a surplus producer by 1995. The dollar value of net benefits over both the terms of the CIAP project ( 1987- 2001) and projected to the year 2020 was estimated as US$ l .3 billion (in 200 l dollars) , delivering an impressive aver­ age annual internal rate of return of 32% on donors' investment (Young et al. 2001). Timor-Leste East Timor, a former Portuguese colony, declared its independence in 1975, trig­ gering a long conflict with Indonesia. In August 1999, a UN-sponsored referen­ dum accepted the declaration, but sparked reprisals by those opposing the independence movement. Many lives were lost and crop seeds were stolen or burned, creating an imminent food crisis. Finally, after a UN Transitional Administration was installed to bring calm, a newly-independent Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste was internation­ ally recognized in May 2002. The devastated country needed help. Since more than 90% of the population was involved in farming, its first priority was to rebuild agricul­ ture and establish food security. Numerous agencies rushed assistance to the country in the form of seeds, but crop scientists found that much of the seed and plant material pro­ vided was not well adapted to the country. Five CGIAR Centers joined hands to help: CIAT for cassava and beans, CIMMYT for maize, CIP for sweetpotato, ICRISAT for peanuts and IRRI for rice. The Seeds of Life (SOL) Project, launched in the year 2000 during the UN Transitional Administration period, was made possible through support from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). SOL formed a close partnership with Rebuilding Seed and F the new nation's Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (MAFF) and helped train its new staff. It also partnered closely with the NGOs-- Catholic Relief Services, World Vision International and Australian Volunteers International. The Memorandum of Understanding that established the partnership was the first such agreement signed by the new government, and the new president of the country, Xanana Gusmao, was an enthusi­ astic participant at the inaugural planning meeting-demonstrating the priority the new country placed on getting its agriculture moving again. An initial scoping mission found a wide range of soil types and rainfall patterns across the country. The project team concluded that an appropriately wide range of germplasm should be assembled for testing with the participation of farmers on their own lands. Farmers typically tried 1-3 varieties of a crop using their own management resources. This helped them identify the best materials to be multiplied at the village level for further use, and allowed neighboring farmers to observe as well. Their feedback helped national authorities identify the best varieties for formal release. Healing Wounds The project team also advised the government on setting up a central seed multiplica­ tion farm to accelerate seed production. Improved varieties were impressive in the trials, espe­ cially when com­ bined with bet- ter manage- ment tech- niques. Cassava lines from CIAT yielded almost twice as much as the local varieties , while CIMMYT maize outpaced the local types by 50% and was more lodging­ resistant. Groundnut is the most important food legume in Timor­ Leste, and varieties provided by ICRISAT proved far more pro- ductive than the local varieties in tests across four diverse locations. At Bacau ( a lowland site), farmers were stunned to see the sweetpotato supplied by CIP yielding six times as much as local varieties. They and Timorese leader Xanana Gusmao as well took note because it was previous­ ly believed that sweet­ potato wouldn't grow well there. In Aileu , a mountain town, the farmers carried away most of the sweetpotato cuttings. Rather than being perturbed, Project staff saw that as a compliment. Orange­ fleshed sweetpotato varieties that could help alleviate vitamin A deficiency-a significant problem on the island, especially for children­ will also be introduced. Drought severely damaged crops in early 2003, and Timor-Leste' s Minister of Agriculture wrote to ICRISAT asking for help in reviving sorghum culture, a crop that is well suit­ ed to dry conditions and is currently found mainly in the north around Liquic;a. It is known as 'tall corn' in the local language, reaching a height of about 4.5 meters. Sorghum is eaten mixed with maize, and is also fed to cattle. India The collision of the Inda-Australian and the Eurasian Plates of the earth's crust has given rise to the magnificent Himalaya mountain range of southern Asia. Unfortunately, people sometimes get caught in the middle of this titanic duel. On 26 January 2001 an earthquake registering 6.9 on the Richter scale struck the state of Gujarat in northwestern India. The epicenter was close to the small desert town of Bhuj. An estimated 20,000 people were killed and 15 million (half the region's people) were affect­ ed in some way; hundreds of thousands were Rebuilding Seed and . .. . ... ~- left homeless, and the economic basis of the state was ravaged. To restore critical planting material in this parched area, ICRISAT rushed 500 kilograms of seed of a high-yielding pearl millet hybrid vari­ ety to the Gujarat Seed Producers' Association which, with a local NGO (VRTI) distributed it to 350 of the neediest farmers. Due to its loca­ tion, more quakes are inevitable in the decades to come. To reduce the poverty that underlies vulnerability, ICRISAT is collaborating with the Gujarat Agricultural University and VRTI to multiply and distribute seeds of improved groundnut, sorghum, and pigeon­ pea. ICRISAT is also planning to assist in the "'· ·: .. ~. I Healing Wounds proposed Fodder Bank for Kutch, which will help meet the demand for high qual­ ity fodder in this largely cattle-centered region . North Korea North Korea has suffered greatly from famine in recent years. Three million lives may have been lost. Two-thirds of the potato crop has been lost due to drought caused by El Nino and because of diseases. Potato is the third most important crop in the country· after rice and maize. At the country 's request in 1999, CIP came to help establish true potato seed (TPS) technology. World Vision, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance of USAID, Potato Production International (a private company based in_ California) , SDC and national program partners from Vietnam and China worked in partner­ ship to introduce the technology. Central and West Asia and North Africa Palestine Palestine faces many difficult problems that require a sustained effort. Chronic conflict aggravates inherent limitations of the agricultural environment: shortage of arable land, water scarcity, and a lim­ ited market for local products. Agriculture plays an important role in the Palestinian economy by both feeding the population and providing jobs. Livestock contribute roughly 40% of agri­ cultural income in the West Bank and 25% in Gaza. Activities to strengthen agriculture promote peace through greater economic security. The capacities of Palestinian agriculture­ related agencies and departments (the National Agricultural Research Center­ NARC-and the Directorate of Extension and Research) are limited. ICARDA is assisting in the rehabilitation and sustain­ able development of the Palestinian agricultural sector. Since 1994 ICARDA has worked with the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment and the National Center for Agricultural Research in testing improved crop varieties, capacity-building, and joint project implementation. ICARDA has facilitated many training and conference-atten­ dance opportunities for Palestinian scientists. Within the framework of the regional initiative for dryland management facilitated by ICAR­ OA, techniques are being promoted that ensure more efficient utilization of water in the Palestinian territories. The project has already tested different water-harvesting techniques and has found two to be exceptionally promis­ ing: V-Shaped micro-catchments and perme­ able rocks. The permeable rocks technique is traditionally used, while the V-shaped micro­ catchment technique is new to farmers. Iraq Agriculture in Iraq has suffered because of wars and drought, economic sanctions, and other internal and external factors. Agricultural inputs are scarce and land resources such as irrigation facilities are difficult to maintain. Growing populations and shrinking resources are forcing farmers to follow exploitative pro­ duction practices. Feed resources have been reduced by overgrazing, cultivation of range­ lands for crop and tree production, removal of vegetation for fuel wood, and soil erosion. Veterinary services and vaccines are in short supply. Iraq is in need of substantial humanitar­ ian , rehabilitation , and reconstruction assistance. Since its inception, ICARDA has worked closely with Iraq, particularly its Ministry of Agriculture Rebuilding Seed and F --"; ------ ·~ • .-•::;,"!·""-· ~--.:r~·: and the IPA Agricultural Research Center, Abu Ghraib, Baghdad. ICARDA held its ninth bien­ nial coordination meeting with Iraq in November 2003, in which the partners jointly determined the immediate actions needed to restart agricultural research and rehabilitate the agricultural sector. Priorities include: (i) the multiplication and delivery of high quality seed of adapted varieties, (ii) for the longer term, provision of technical assistance in the devel­ opment of sustainable agriculture, and (iii) development of a strategy that will ensure a Healing Wounds close integration of relief, rehabilitation and development projects. To jump-start . seed production, ICARDA provided over 20 tonnes of improved seeds of cereal and legume varieties known to be adapted to Iraq's environmental condi­ tions in 2003. ICARDA and Iraq are imple­ menting a program of large-scale on­ farm demonstrations with improved vari­ eties of barley, wheat, chickpea , lentil and vetches under different agroeco­ logical conditions during the 2003/2004 cropping season through support from USAID. Better livestock management options include the introduction of improved breeding stock, practices to enhance fertility and lambing rates, early wean­ ing, on-farm feed production, alternative feed sources, and better management of small ruminants. New varieties of bar­ ley, oat, vetch and triticale adapted to harsh environments have been tested and adopted by farmers. Fodder shrubs and cactus are widely used to augment feed resources. Feed-blocks made from agro-industrial by-products have become an integral part of the feed calendar of small ruminants in Iraq, and are produced entirely by the private sector. Longstanding !CARDA/Iraq collaboration on crop improvement includes joint research , plant genetic resources con­ servation and capacity building. Improved varieties of barley, spring bread wheat, durum wheat, ·1entil, and chickpea have been released to Iraqi farmers and are being grown on large areas. Afghanistan After years of armed conflict and drought, Afghanistan is struggling to get back on its feet. Afghanistan once pro­ duced enough to feed its people and even exported some surplus. A long peri­ od of war and four consecutive years of drought have brought the country to its knees. One-third of the population fled during the wars, with Pakistan and Iran sheltering more than 6 million refugees. Less than a third of the population can read or write; the population growth rate exceeds 3% but the average lifespan is just 40-46 years. The great majority are desperately poor, earning less than a dollar a day. Agricultural productivity has declined sharply and food has become scarce. Only a small part ( 12%) of Afghanistan's land, mostly in scattered valleys, is suit­ able for farming. The diverse topography results in tremendous diversity of agricul­ ture. Systems range from arid pastoralism to intensive small-scale irrigated produc­ tion, to sub-mountainous systems of rain­ fed cereals, legumes and fruit trees. Because of the dry climate, most of the farmland requires irrigation. Water from springs and rivers is available, but irriga­ tion has been developed on less than a third of the arable land area. In large valleys crop productivity is often con­ strained by water supply, and conversely in narrow ravines steep slopes limit the quantity of arable land. Today, with the situation relatively quiet, farmers are returning to their home­ steads and villages to take up agricul­ ture again. But getting agriculture back on its feet wil l not be easy, given the vir­ tual collapse of supporting institutions, the neglect of human resource develop­ ment and the scarcity of inputs. The country 's entire agricultural production system has been disrupted; local seed and crop improvement programs do not ,._.tiW •~ •-:..<:;:---~ ... ' f&-11- ., ;~J.h .,,., ' \ I function; research stations have been exten­ sively damaged, equipment has been looted and staff members have left the country or do not have the financial means to carry out research and development activities. To help Afghanistan with these daunting chal­ lenges, ICARDA spearheaded the formation of a Future Harvest Consortium to Rebuild Agriculture in Afghanistan during 2001 /02, made possible through support from USAID and IDRC as well as the CGIAR core investors (ICARDA 2003b, p. 9). Participating CGIAR Centers ins:lude CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRI, IPGRI, and IWMI. Non-CGIAR partners include a number of international research and development organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), US universities, several international and local NGOs such as the Overseas Development Institute (OD1) and the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MOAL). Rebuilding Seed an Two major challenges confront Afghanistan's agriculture today: addressing immediate hunger and food insecurity, and put- . ting the country's agriculture on a sustainable growth path for the longer term. In this chapter we present the emergency actions being engaged by the Future Harvest Consortium; the longer-term activities are addressed in Chapters 6 and 7. Wheat and maize Wheat is the most important crop in Afghanistan, covering 80-85% of the farmland or about 4 to 8 million hectares annually. It is the main staple cereal in the diet. In late 2001 and early 2002, there was world­ wide concern about the possibility of starva­ tion in Afghanistan. The 2002 planting season loomed just three months after the Future Harvest Consortium was launched. The Consortium needed to act fast. Fortunately, it had a deep base of experience to draw from; CIMMYT and ICARDA, for example had been evaluating wheat germplasm there with national partners for years. By early April 2002, 3500 tons of seed of the CIMMYT/ICARDA wheat varieties, 'lnqilab-91' and 'MH 97' were procured by ICARDA in Pakistan and transported by the United Nations World Food Programme to NGOs and village shurahs (community groups) for distribu­ tion to farmers. The seed reached an estimat­ ed 70,000 farm families in the provinces of Badakhshan, Bamian, Ghazni, Lowgar, Kapisa, Parwan, Wardak, and Uruzgan (ICARDA 20030, b, p.12). Afghan partners provided criti­ cal insights on where the most needy farmers could be found, and worked around the clock to distribute the seed in time. The International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) later sup- Healing Wounds plemented the seed with fertilizer distri­ butions through a voucher system. To avoid creating dependency, no inputs were provided free of charge; farmers paid for the seed with wheat grain from their harvest. "If I had not received this seed, I would not have sown any crop this season. We ate everything we had. Nobody could get a job to earn money and we could not buy seed," said farmer Chariaka Hamidullah from Maidan District. Many ponder the fate of others who were not fortunate enough to get seed. "We received the !CARDA seed and could plant, but another village did not get this seed, and could not plant. We have to help them with what we will harvest," said a farmer in Bagram. For the autumn 2003 planting , the Consortium arranged the production and delivery of more than 5000 tons of wheat seed. All of this seed was pro­ duced locally by leading farmers follow­ ing a rigorous program to ensure quality, including field inspections, the removal of off-type plants, post-harvest treatment against disease, and proper packaging. The seed reached more than 90,000 farmers in 11 provinces. This high quality, disease-resistant wheat seed produced at least 100,000 tonnes of food in 2003. --~\--- ~ ~ - - -~ · ·.. ~ SEED UNIT \: . s~ p, .• ~'~?~:: \ FOUNDATION SEED PRODUCTION 1 .... ~,:'?"· · ~ '-'11 , ,, 1 •' , '' t\1 ' •. •• FOR DISTRIBUTION TO AFGHANISTAN AND OTHER NATIONAL PROGRAMS CIMMYT's efforts in Afghanistan have recently been strengthened by the Australian Government through AusAid and ACIAR. The project, called Seeds of Strength, is delivering locally-adapted wheat and maize seed that can be sown right away. As a condition of receiving the seed , the farmers are asked to give a portion of the grain they produce to neighbors who did not have access to the seed in the first year of dis­ tribution. On-farm participatory testing of the imported seed is identifying the best cultivars, allowing for their local multipli­ cation and distribution. Particular atte_n­ tion has been paid to yellow rust resist­ ance in wheat and to promoting improved agronomy along with improved cultivars. Through the Seeds of Strength project, CIMMYT distributed seven improved maize varieties along with fertilizer to 500 farmers in seven provinces with the help of a number of national and internation­ al NGOs. Three hundred tons of seed of the locally-adapted wheat variety MH- 97 were distributed to 9,000 farmers in four provinces in time for 2002 fall plant­ ing. A winter wheat called SOLH 02 ('Peace 02') imported from a CIMMYT /!CARDA Winter Wheat Observation Nursery in Turkey and tested by FAO in Afghanistan was also distrib- uted. The project alleviated the 2002 seed shortage, and a favorable 2003 harvest is expected to boost seed stocks. To encourage the formation of seed enterpris­ es, seeds of a large number of varieties of wheat, barley, lentil, chickpea , and vetch have been provided to Afghanistan by ICAR­ DA for evaluation and multiplication in coop­ eration with farmers (ICARDA 2004). Land race (farmers trad itional) varieties from ICARDA's gene bank are included in th_e test material. CIMMYT shipped 35 international nurseries to Afghanistan for testing throughout Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. These materials mark the beginning of a seed sector in Afghanistan. A code of conduct for seed support The crisis in Afghanistan has attracted consid­ erable aid interest, and many international and national organizations and donor agen­ cies are assisting in the rebuilding of the coun­ try 's agricultural sector. Genuine as these efforts are, such activities come with risks such as the import and distribution of inappropriate varieties, or seeds that carry new diseases, pests, and weeds. To reduce these risks, ICARDA organized a meeting of Future Harvest Consortium partners in May 2002 to develop a Code of Conduct for all those involved in seed pro- duction and dis­ tribution in Afghanistan. The Code is being finalized with sup­ port from FAO and is expected to form the basis Rebuilding Seed and F for a larger national seed policy and regula­ tory framework for the country. Pest management saves crop in Helmand, Afghanistan In the summer of 2002, wheat grown on about 200,000 hectares in Afghanistan was rendered useless after being infested by Eurygaster inte­ griceps , an insect commonly known as Sunn pest. This disappointment would have been repeated in spring 2003 if not for the good effort of the Central Asian Development Group (CADG) to save the crop. CADG, a member of the Futur