CONSULTATIVE CROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH D.C. 20433 U.S.A. 1818H St.,N.W. Washington, Telephone (Area Code202)477-3592 CableAddress- INTBAFRAD January 15, 1973 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Members of the Consultative Executive Secretary Group Summary of Proceedings November l-2, 1972 of Consultative Group Meeting Attached is a revised Summary of Proceedings of the Consulta1. tive Group Meeting which was held in Washington on November 1 and 2, 1972. Copies of the draft Summary were circulated in November. The Summary has been amended in paragraph 63 (page 13), and in the second paragraph of the "General" section of Annex 4. The table constituting Annex 3 has been revised to specify the amount of the intended Norwegian contribution to the international agricultural research centers, and to explain more fully the intended U.S. contributions. Amendments also have been made to pages 3 and 4 of Annex 1, listing the participants in the Meeting. .?. L. Attachment CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH D.C. 20433 U.S.A. 1818H St.,N.W. Washington, Telephone (Area Code202)477-3592 CableAddress- INTBAFRAD Third Meeting November 1 and 2, 1972 Washington, D.C. Summary of Proceedings The Third Meeting of the Consultative Group on International 1. by the Food and Agriculture Agricultural Research, sponsored jointly Organization of the United Nations (FAO),the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), was held on November 1 and 2, 1972, at IBRD Headquarters in Washington, D. C. Mr. Richard H. Demuth, Director, Development Services Department, IBRD, was in the Chair. 2. The Chairman announced that, since had joined the Group as a full member. the last meeting, Australia the 3. The meeting was attended by 26 members and two observers; African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Kellogg Foundation (members) and the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD The Chairman of the Technical Advisory (observer) were unable to attend. A list of delegates is attached as Committee (TAC) also attended. Annex I. Agenda (Agenda Item 1) 4. The Agenda adopted at the meeting is attached as Annex II. Discussion of programs of existing centers and TAC's recommendations concerning them (Agenda Item 2) the Chairman this item, the Chairman invited 5. In introducing of TAC to comment on the salient points of the Committee's report about the existing centers. 6. The Chairman of TAC said grams and budgets as requested for stressed, however, that TAC's role for support had to be taken by the that TAC supported the proposed pro1973 with minor reservations. He was an advisory one and that decisions Consultative Group. -2For CIMMYT, the reservation concerned the budgetary provision of Since there was no international center $40,000 for work on barley. working on this crop at the moment, CIMMYT's work had to be recognized and its collection to be preserved. TAC felt, however, that the amount which CIMMYThad allocated to barley was inadequate to develop an effective contribution to the research on this crop. On the other hand, it believed that no decision about where to develop a major attack on barley should be made pending a thorough study of various alternative In the meantime, CIMMYT's work should remain concentrapossibilities. ted on wheat and maize. 4 b) For IRRI, TAC had emphasized that the institute should concentrate its research on rice. It encouraged IRRI to consider ways and means of expanding its work into upland, rainfed areas; but it did not recommend expenditures for this purpose in 1973. It suggested that discussions should be held between IRRI's new Director, once in office, and TAC before any decision was taken on this matter. c> For IITA, TAC supported the division of its work into farming systems and crop improvement, and the reduction of the number of crops IITA was working on -- in particular, the concentration on yams, sweet capacity potatoes, and cowpeas. It encouraged IITA to use its training to the full, particularly in the interest of the work required in West Africa. As for CIAT, TAC took the view that some clearer definition was d) needed of the scope of its economic work, which seemed to over-emphasize local farm management aspects and to overlap, in certain instances, with national extension activities. The discussions during Centers Week had, however, shown that the program was now more sharply focused than a year before. As to CIP, TAC attached great importance to the station e) Toluca Valley in Mexico, which it hoped would be incorporated CIP. in the within 7. Discussion of the programs and budgets of the six centers by the members of the Group indicated general approval of the proposals as presented by the centers and endorsed by TAC. Referring to CIMMYT, the Chairman said that the budget the Group was approving included the $40,000 item for barley. In his view, confirmed by the Chairman of TAC, the inclusion of this item 'was not contrary to the views of TAC as long as it was clearly understood that the Group was not endorsing a major barley program at CIMMYT and that the question was left open as to whether such a program would be properly located at CIMMYT or elsewhere. 8. The representative'of one FAO region said that at a recent meeting of countries of his region, reference had been made to problems which farmers in many countries were encount,ering in trying to -3apply those international research findings which had been based on highest yield from maximum inputs. The countries of his region were now asking FAO and other international organizations to help develop ways by which farmers could use medium yield varieties requiring only medium inputs and with low risks for the farmer. International Network of Plant Genetic (Agenda Item 3 (a)> Resources 9. In,introducing this item, for which TAC had recommended consultative Group support in 1973, the Chairman of TAC pointed out that the proposal for establishing an international network of plant genetic resources had evolved out of a working group of world experts in this field, which had been convened in Beltsville, Maryland, in the spring of 1972 with the The working cooperation of the United States Department of Agriculture. group had recommended the establishment of a coordinating committee and of a trust fund which would finance the costs both of the committee itself The committee and of the creation and operation of the proposed network. would be located at FAO headquarters in Rome but would be independent of FAO. It would include in its network the- germ plasm collections already existing in various institutes in the developed countries and in interthe Beltsville national centers such as IRRI, IITA and CIMMYT. In addition, conference had recommended the fairly immediate establishment of nine regional collection centers. TAC had modified this recommendation by proposing that the coordinating committee initially be authorized to develop only three regional centers. The financial requirements for three centers would amount to $2.2 million over a three-year period, with about $381,000 required for 1973. The two major tasks of the coordinating committee were to improve the degree of access to the germ plasm stocks and to take steps for collecting, evaluating and safeguarding appropriate stocks for which the case for many present arrangements were not adequate, which was still crops. Responding to a question, the Chairman of TAC said that the collection of genetic resources was intended to include stocks of both food and non-food crops but was not intended to include animal stocks. -_10. .bome speakers expressed the vie& that FAO, as an international organization concerned with agriculture in all parts of the world, should deal with the aspects of the proposal having to do with coordination of collection activities and the retrieval and dissemination of information. 11. One speaker said that the funds required for germ plasm collection as distinct from the financing of coordination activities, and conservation, The need for this kind of work should be handled outside the FAO budget. Coordination might be would have to be defined on a crop by crop basis. handled by some redeployment of existing FAO staff; an alternative would be to approach other organizations that might be prepared to contribute some of their staff members' time to these functions under an FAO umbrella. -4of the coordinating com12. Asked about the scope of the activities mittee, the Chairman of.TAC said that, under the proposal, the coordinating committee would have the task of arranging for appropriate interlocking of all the existing stocks and for seeing to it that all necessary action was The TAC proposal was open taken to fill any important gaps in the stocks. to modifications with respect to the number of crops to be covered; the Chairman of TAC said that he would not object if TAC were asked to reconsider that aspect, even though tlhis would result in delay in implementing the proposal, 13. One speaker said that since the proposal included an important training component which was designed mainly to strengthen national capacity to participate in the network, countries might apply to UNDP, for example, One should also realize that the regional centers which would for support. be used in the initial stage, according to the proposal,.would formpart of organizations already in existence, thus maximizing experience and minimizing capital costs. The same speaker said thatthought should be given to whether this activity could not be regarded as a high priority claimant on the resources of the environment fund to be established by the Secretary-, General of the United Nations. 14. One speaker said that PA0 should coordinate its activities especially in the field of documentation, with Unesco, which was involved in similar kinds of research. 15. At the request of several speakers, the representative of FAO stated the position of his organization toward the proposal.. He said that FAO rated this as a high priority task, fundamental to maintaining momentum research in crop improvement and that FAO was already devoting resources to this work. As for FAO's involvement in the proposed network which had been stron.gly recommended by TAC, he agreed that the functions of the coordinating committee staff could be viewed as a regular program responsibility given the solution of FAO's budgetary problems. Despite the tight budget situation, FAO would examine the feasibility of assuming a larger responsibility for genetic resources but it was difficult for him to make a firm commitment pending this review and clearance by FAO's governing body. 16. The Secretary of TAC explained that the proposed regional centers were intended to strengthen the operations of collecting and conserving germ These were plasm, in the regions of greatest diversity of the major crops. some of them quite a long way from the all basically in developing countries, international centers which in any case only covered a limited number of crops, He agreed with previous speakers that the idea was not to create new institutions but to use existing establishments with appropriate strengthening facilities where necessary. 17. Summarizing this part of the discussion, the Chairman said that there appeared to be a general consensus that additional work on the collection and conservation of genetic resources was needed. The members of the Consultative Group were reluctant at this point, however, to commit themselves to the full program or to the precise pattern that TAC had proposed. A solution might be to ask FAO to consider between now and the end of January 1973, when the next meeting of TAC would be held, what part FAO might play in the coordination activities of the network proposal. In 1973, FAO would also be asked to -5identify the main gaps in the genetic TAC how these should be filled. resources network and to recommend to 18. The Chairman of TAC agreed with the suggestion that FAO and TAC In its revised recommendation, TAC should consult further on the proposal. would emphasize the priorities already implicit in its recommendation to cut It would also further elaborate down the regional centers from nine to three. on the way the coordinating committee would operate in relation to the use of existing stocks and the identification of gaps. of FAO said that he accepted the solution pro19. The representative posed by the Chairman with the understanding that the proposal was of interest to the Group in principle, FAO would proceed in the expectation that, provided FAO and TAC together could bring forward an acceptable revised proposal -perhaps with FAO's commitment to undertake the central coordination function -the members of the Group would be prepared to consider financial'support for the operational activities involved. African Relay Stations Network related (Agenda Item 3 (b)) to ICRISAT 20. In introducing this agenda item, the Chairman of TAC said that when TAC had approved the original ICRISAT proposal it had emphasized that work in Africa would be a vital part of ICRISAT's over-all program for the semiarid tropics; it had also foreseen the possibility of ultimate links with work in Brazil and other parts of the world. Some of the work could be carried out in the African centers without any supervision from ICRISAT; other work might, however, require ICRISAT personnel because of its specialized character. The nature of, and responsibility for, the programs in Africa should emerge from consultations between the Director of ICRISAT and the heads of the designated centers in Africa. TAC would, therefore, recommend the allocation of funds for the African relay stations only after the new Director of ICRISAT had established himself at the institute and was prepared for such discussions. This would probably not happen until sometime in 1973. 21. One speaker said that, since the African centers suggested to serve as relay stations were already in operation, it should be possible for ICRISAT's Director, even at the present stage, to hold discussions on the relationship with these centers. Ano'ther speaker pointed out that the African outreach program was on the agenda of the ICRISAT Board meeting scheduled for January 1973. 22. The Chairman concluded that the Group agreed with the recommendation of TAC that a network of relay stations be established in Africa. ICRISAT's Board and Director would be informed that the question of financial support for the network would be deferred until after specific proposals had been worked out. Completion of capital facilities for Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) (Agenda Item 3 (c)) 23. In introducing this agenda item, the Chairman of TAC said that TAC recommended that the Asian Vegetable Center should receive the capital support required to complete its building and equipment program for which the Center's request for funding, $1.4 million were needed. In. considering TAC had originally raised some questions both about the Center attempting to deal with too many commodities and about the priority to be accorded the work of the Center. In the discussions with AVRDC's Director, assurance had, however, been received that the Center would reduce the number of commodities. As for the priority question, AVRDC's Director had convincingly stated that vegetables did form an important part of the normal diet of the people in the Far East; the Cent#er's program was not established in the interest of exporters, but was a genuine effort to meet a problem of food TAC had also felt that the location of the Center in Taiwan might supply. perhaps have certain disadvantages since it was a little too far nor.th to be wholly representative of the.tropical problems of most of the countries of Southeast Asia. In this context, TAC strongly supported the establishment of outreach relationships with countries such as Thailand.which were located in the tropical zone. 24. As for the relationship of the Asian Vegetable Center with the Consultative Group and with the other international institutes, TAC.sup: ported the idea of .___ a -._ loose without status.. No core support ._ .._ __ .. __--.~ _ -- link ..-~ -----_ ., _ equal was sought by AVRDC at the present time; TAC might consider a closer link if a request for such support was submitted at a later time. 25. In summarizing the discussion, the Chairman said that, since TAC had not recommended core support for the Asian Vegetable Center at the present time, no issue was presented of a continuing long-term relationship, between the Consultative Group and the AVRDC. He and the - proposed, _ --I. a,t.the Asian_xe@ab.le ---a-. Cents-K.-r&uld --- be considered -. . - -.._ as *a kind of associate --.-.member'of the network-of internaJLo%al in.s"ti.tufes; it would . w-.-r--.-mw.-sbe encouraged to exchange information with theother centers and vice versa. A cooperation in outreach programs and linkages in research activities would be desirable and an invitation would AVRDC -_--_ ._ p--e..-be extended to -.--. -.-to participate fully in the discussion of ------International Centers Week. The representative of the United Nations Development Programme requested to be recorded as not participating in the discussion of this agenda item. West African Rice Development Association (Agenda Item 3 (d)) (WARDA) 26. In introducing this agenda item, the representative of the FAO region for Africa said that the countries of his area had been disappointed that TAC had not recommended support for WARDA. He said that WARDAwould want to know whether it qualified for support from the Group and what kind of cooperation should be established with IITA and IRRI in order to prepare an acceptable program. If, on the other hand, a decision was taken that WARDA's activities were not eligible for support by the Consultative Group, this should be stated clearly. -727. The Chairman said that the reason WARDAhad not been put on the agenda of this meeting was because TAC had not recommended financial supTAC, however, had decided to retain the WARDAproposal on its agenda port. for further discussion of any revised program that WARDAmight later submit to TAG. as described 28. The Chairman of TAC, while confirming TAC's position several members of by the Chairman, said that during the TAC discussions, TAC had expressed doubts about the principle of financing a regional institution whose primary.function was not to undertake agricultural research itself, but rather to coordinate the research programs of various national TAC would, however, have a further discusinstitutions within the region. As for the sion of support for regional activities at its next meeting. TAC had specifically recommended that cooperation with existing institutes, discussions between WARDAand the Directors of IITA, IRRI and IRAT should be held as soon as possible to develop a plan of cooperation. to the 29. Several speakers, referring the framework within which it was originally views as should operate, expressed differing tion such as WARDAfell within this framework a decision on this matter should be deferred recommendations. terms of reference of TAC and planned the Consultative Group to whether a regional organizaor not. It was agreed that until TAC had presented its ' Recommendations of the African Livestock Subcommittee regarding activities for 1973. (Agenda Item 4) this agenda item, the Chairman referred to the re30. In introducing port on the results of the recent meeting of the African Livestock SubcomThe Subcommittee had met to mittee by the Chairman of that Subcommittee. consider the next steps to be taken with respect to the proposed animal disease laboratory in view of the decision of the East African Community that it could not be host to this laboratory. The Subcommittee had also had some preliminary discussions of the recommendations of the Task Force on Animal Production in Tropical Africa which had been commissioned to examine the feasibility and desirability of creating an integrated organization for research into animal production and health in tropical Africa. The Subcommittee had agreed that the Bank should make a high-level approach to the Government of Kenya to see whether that Government would be willing to cooperate in the establishment of the disease laboratory. The Subcommittee recommended that if the approach to the Government of Kenya were successful, an initial fund of $500,000 should be established for the development of the laboratory, similar to the fund established for ICRISAT. If that approach proved unsuccessful, then, in the view of the Subcommittee, the Rockefeller Foundation, as executing agency, should investigate other alternatives, of the Near East 31. One member of the Group described the activities Regional Animal Production and Health Commission and said that it was hoped that a close collaboration could be established between that Commission and the integrated livestock institute to be set up in Africa. -8- the 32. Several speakers emphasized the importance of integrating Efforts should be made research on animal production and on animal health. but it should be made clear that the to proceed with the disease laboratory, laboratory would operate on an interim basis until a decision was made reThe letter which was to go garding the over-all livestock research center. to the Government of Kenya should mention that it was envisaged that the center, if laboratory would, at a later stage, become part of the integrated and when created, and that the integrated center might well be established elsewhere in Africa. The Chairman quoted thie letter President Kenyatta had sent in June 33. 1971 to Mr. McNamara when he first had offered the facilities of Kenya for In it, President Kenyatta had clearly stated an animal disease laboratory. that the offer was for-an immunology sub-unit of an integrated center which Thus, the Government of might be established elsewhere in tropical Africa. to be established in Kenya might Kenya had already agreed that the institute be part of a larger organization. for the animal One speaker said it was necessary that the negotiators 34. disease laboratory be reassured that the Consultative Group was prepared to move ahead with it irrespective of the ultimate outcome of deliberations with respect to the African Livestock Research Center. the Chairman said that the consensus In summarizing the discussion, 35. of the Group favored approaching the Government of Kenya with a view to trying to establish in Kenya an immunology laboratory concentrating on East It should, however, be made clear that Coast Fever and Trypanosomiasis. this institute was not being established at the present time as a continuing sub-unit of separate international institution or center, but as a potential an integrated African Livestock Research Organization, if and when established. It should also be stated that if the integrated organization could not be established, consideration would then have to be given to -how the laboratory could be put on a continuing basis if that was desired. 36. The Group agreed that the African Livestock Subcommittee should meet shortly after TAC had had a chance to consider the proposal for the It requested TAC to discuss the integrated organizaintegrated organization. tion as soon as possible, in view of the interim character envisaged for the disease laboratory. 37. The consensus of the Group, the Chairman noted, carried with it the implication that an initial fund for the disease laboratory would be established if the approach to th.e Kenya Government was favorably received. It would have to be understood th.at additional funds subsequently would be required to finance buildings and. equipment for the laboratory, regardless of the progress being made in connection with the establishment of the integrated African Livestock Research Center. -9Statements of intention regarding financing of existing international centers (Agenda Item 5 (a)) subject to 38. A number of members made statements of intention, legislative and other approvals, regarding the total amounts of funds to be made available for the existing centers for 1973 and, where possible, also for subsequent years. Those statements, with slight modifications to reflect subsequent developments, are presented in tabular form as Annex 3. the intended extent 39. Some members also indicated port for the existing centers in 1974. These indications in Annex 4. of their supare summarized a number of rep40. In connection with the statements of intention resentatives made some general remarks about the purposes intended to be One speaker said the kind served by the research they were supporting. of research the Group was sponsoring should be designed not only to increase and improve yields, but also to meet nutritional needs. More generally, in designing research programs it was important to take relevant socio-economic factors into consideration, such as the effects of the technology and programs being developed upon the large mass of small farmers, on income distribution and employment, and on nutrition and health. The research undertaken at the institutes should also take ecological and environmental factors carefully into account. 41. Several representatives spoke about the importance of strengthening national research programs. International research centers depended for their effectiveness upon the delivery of their research results to the farmers, which could be only done through national programs. National programs therefore had to be regarded as an integral part of the global agricultural research and training system. 42. Other speakers urged on the Centers the importance of developing outreach programs. Such programs should include training in research personnel from developing countries, provision of advisory services of those countries, the carrying out of joint research with centers in the developing countries, and similar activities. 43. Referring to the forthcoming meeting of the Directors of the international institutes, a speaker noted that this kind of meeting was an important step towards relating the research programs of the institutes to each other, including studies of socio-economic questions of significance to the peoples of the developing world. of one of the FAO regions stressed the fact 44. The representative that developing countries should have the possibility of contributing, in however small a manner, to the activities of the Group. Unfortunately, the present structure 'of the Group seemed to be very restrictive. - 10 Statements of intention regarding the capital of ICRISAT,(Agenda Item 5 (b)) facilities this agenda item, the Chairman observed that 45. In introducing ICRISAT was the first center to be established under the sponsorship of from the ground up, the Consultative Group. Since ICRISAT was starting it would take at least until some time in 1976 to construct its buildings Although most members of the Group could only and install its equipment. appropriate funds from one year to the next, ICRISAT had to be in a position to sign long-term contracts for construction and to have funds in sight to purchase the necessary scientific and capital equipment. $13.4 46. The estimated capital budget requirements through 1976 were‘ If donors were in a position to indicate their intention of promillion. viding long-term support on this scale, then the management of the World Bank Group would be prepared to consider the feasibility of entering into an underwriting arrangement, which, if approved by the Bank's Executive Directors, would enable'ICRISAT to enter into long-term contracts with the assurance that it could meet the financial requirements as they came due. The Chairman also suggested that one way of approaching this matter might be for some members to indicate that they were willing to bear a certain percentage of the budget of ICRISAT, a procedure already being followed by one member with respect to all its contributions to. the international centers. that their intentions were to 47. Nine members of the Group indicated continue to support ICRISAT during its formative period, although most of them,were not able to give specific commitments as far ahead as 1976; six of these members were able to contribute funds for capital expenditures. implied that 48. One member roughly estimated that these intentions at least $10 million was in sight for the ICRISAT capital budget over a period contributions likely during the construction of three years, with additional period. Other speakers concurred in the judgment that ICRISAT's capital needs. would! in all probability be met. The Chairman agreed to pursue the matter further, from the standpoint of the World Bank Group, by getting in touch with prospective donors to learn more about their long-term projections of."! support for ICRISAT. Statements of intention by the Consultative regarding new activities endorsed Group (Agenda Item 5 (c)) 49. The Group then turned to the question of financing for new initiatives.. It appeared that neither the proposed genetic resources network nor the linkage between ICRISAT and African relay stations would be ready for the question of an initial funding in 1973. That left for consideration fund for African livestock research. - 11 that they would support the establishment 50. Some members indicated Others indicated of a development fund for the animal disease laboratory. that they would contribute to an initial fund if it were intended for the development of an organization for comprehensive research on animal production and health, of which the laboratory would be a sub-unit; some would or at the least would find it difficult, to contribute to a be unwilling, One member pointed out that it would be fund for the laboratory alone. hard to negotiate an agreement with the Kenya Government without the prospect of a start-up fund for the disease laboratory. fund which would at51. No consensus appeared on the kind of initial tract the support of members. In any case, the Chairman pointed out, the Group had before it neither any recommendation from TAC concerning an integrated African livestock research center nor any proposal for an initial The Group concurred in the suggestion that fund to support such a center. the subject be referred to the African Livestock Subcommittee, to be considered by the Subcommittee soon after the next TAC meeting in the light both of the reaction of the Kenya Government on the animal disease laboratory and the recommendations of TAC on the proposed integrated livestock research center. that that one speaker said 52. With respect to the ICRISAT network in Africa, his organization already was supporting some of the African institutes might serve as relay stations. 53. With respect to the Asian..Vegetable Center, two speakers said that they believed the Center would be carrying out important work, and were No new contributions to the Center were supporting it on that account. announced. Selection Procedures for Consultative Group representation on Center boards of trustees and nominations to the Board of Trustees of CIP (Agenda Item 6) 54. The Chairman said that this Agenda Item related to the procedure for responding to requests from international centers or organizations for the Consultative Group to nominate candidates for election to their governing boards. The usual pattern was for each board to be composed of trustees of three kinds -- first, trustees representing the host country; second, trustees drawn from developing countries lying within the ecological zone with which the particular center was concerned; and third, trustees from developed countries able to offer the center financial assistance or technical knowledge. In the case of ICRISAT, for the first time, the charter of an international institute stipulated that three members of the institute's governing board should be selected by the Consultative Group. - 12 - A request had been received by the International Potato Center (CIP) for the Consultative Group to make three nominations to its Board, in accordance with the recently amended statutes of the Center. The Group, at its informal meeting during International Centers Week, had agreed to, Thereafter, the Secretariat had tabled .a paper accede to this request. suggesting a procedure for handling this request and any other similar ones which might be made to the #Group. The proposed procedure contemplated that all members of the Consultative Group should be entitled to submit nominations to a board in which IGroup representation was sought, but that the nominees should be selected in each case by an -ad hoc committee consisting of those members interested in providing financial support to the center or having a special relationship to the center. 55.’ In response to a question, the Chairman said that the proposal only referred to requests for nominations by the Group received from institutes and that it did not imp:Ly that institutes that did not ask for Consultative Group representation on its board should be persuaded to do so. 56. One speaker suggested that nominees recommended to centers' boards should not be considered as being representatives of the Consultative Group but rather be deemed to be members of the board appointed on the recommendation of the Consultative Group. This was agreed. was approved by the Group 57. The proposal tabled by the Secretariat and thereafter an -ad hoc subcommittee met and selected three nominees to be recommended for appointment to the ,Board of the Potato Center. They are: Dr. I. C. de Bakker, The Netherlands; Dr. Borge Jacobsen, Denmark; and Professor E. R. Keller, Switzerland. Socio-economic aspects of international (Agenda Item 7) agricultural research this item, the Chairman referred to a proposal made 58. In introducing by the representative of the United States during International Centers Week. The first part of the proposal called for a seminar'on the progress and prospects of socio-economic work by the international research centers which might be held in the Washington area at the end of next International Centers Week. This seminar would bring together personnel of the international centers, outside experts, and any members of TAC or the Consultative Group who wished to attend. The second part of the proposal suggested that consideration be given to means for strengthening the capacity of developing countries to formulate programs for the development of their agricultural sectors , perhaps by giving support to an international institution of some kind that would work toward this objective. 59. The Group agreed that a seminar on the socio-economic aspects of agricultural research should be held following International Centers Week in the summer of 1973. The seminar should include the Directors and economists of the international centers) members of TAC and of the ConThe representasultative Group, and a selected number of outside experts. tive of the United .States agreed to assume responsibility for assembling a planning group, which would work out an agenda, and of commissioning some preliminary working papers for this seminar. - 13 the following suggestions, 60. During the discussion, were made for items that might be included in the agenda: among others, the transmission of research results to the population of developing countries; implications of new technologies for farm-management practices; social or structural implications of these technologies being developed by the centers (e.g., whether the technologies were a function of large size, or were neutral as to size); research re1ationship.s between the centers and national govern?. ments, universities, and research stations; appropriate training functions for the centers (it was recognized that it was impossible for the centers to take on the task of training the entire extension service in any one country); the problem of keeping people in rural areas; employment and income distribution (the possibility of using social science and biological innovations as a means of achieving goals of stimulating growth and creating employment); the issue of how to add a social science dimension to essentially biological and agronomic research. of several members said that they were willing to 61. Representatives provide the seminar and the planning group with material from research activities already under way in their countries or organizations. the Chairman of TAC said 62. As for the second part of the proposal, He did not that this issue would be on the agenda for TAC's next meeting. believe, however, that it would be desirable to create a single center to perform the functions envisaged by the representative of the United States. He said he was hopeful that the January meeting of TAC and the summer seminar would lead to further progress on this question of how to marshal available experience in agricultural sector analysis and planning for the benefit of developing countries. _-. 63. One speaker speculated that, with new production technologies having been developed at the Centers, there might now be a need for another kind of technical advance: the development of improved methodologies for analyzing the effects of alternative national policies and programs affecting agriculture on the multiple goals sought by developing countries, such as increased production, more employment, better income distribution, improved health, improved trade balance, and so forth. The goal would be to build developing countries own capabilities to do such analysis in support of their policy makers, thereby improving policy choices and reducing dependence on the advice of experts from the developed countries. This methodology might be developed by bringing together experts in this field and enabling them to work closely with those departments in developing countries which were trying to do this kind of work. It would have to be seen whether a centralized effort in this direction was the right approach. If the answer were affirmative, it might be that a center established for this purpose would be very different in structure from the existing biological centers. The answer might also be that no unified approach to this question was desirable. It was therefore suggested that TAC select international experts to look into the issues involved. 1 .-1464. The Chairman of the Group concluded that it was the consensus that TAC be asked to take careful note of the discussion and to give its advice on whether continuing institutional arrangements would be desirable in connection with the set of problems encompassed within the second part of the proposal of the representative of the United States and, if so, what kind of arrangements there should be. Discussion of the UNCTADResolution on Competitiveness of Natural Products, Synthetics and Substitutes (Agenda Item 8) 65. The Chairman, in introducing this item, cited the UNCTADresolution which requested that the Consultative Group give urgent consideration to the need for assistance to re,search designed,to improve the competitiveness of natural raw materials including processing and end use research as well as production research. 66. Several speakers expressed the fear that extending the Group's concerns to non-food crops and to research on commercial and industrial uses of these products might have the- undesirable effect of diffusing the Group's financial resources and diverting the priority area of food crops. A representative of a developing region, on the other hand, said that there was pressure from all over the developing world for research that would enhance exports of non-food agricultural products from the developing countries, and urged the Group to take serious account of the UNCTADresolution. 67. Most speakers suggested that it would weigh the issues raised by the resolution, and that non-food crops would be included in TAC's research priorities. There was agreement that take no final decision on the UNCTADresolution advice of TAG. Review Procedures be desirable for TAC to the Chairman of TAC confirmed forthcoming consideration of the Consultative Group would until it had received the (Agenda Item 9) 68. The Chairman said that the paper on review procedures which the Secretariat had prepared for the Group's consideration sought, for the most part, to express in the form of recommendations the consensus which seemed to have emerged from the discussion during the informal meeting of the Group in August 1972. The paper dealt with procedures for making an annual review of programs and budgets and with the external scientific reviews which occurred at different intervals at different centers and took a number of different forms. The paper reflected the consensus that the initiative for designing and scheduling the latter kind of review should be left in the hands of the Centers and their Boards of Trustees,, In addition, however, a number of suggestions had been made to m'eet the wishes of members of the Group who wanted to have some influence ove'r the content and the scheduling of external reviews. One way of having membe,rs of the Group participate would be to ask the Centers to prepare a five-year schedule for reviews, indicating which of those reviews would be open to observers, and giving members a chance to - 15 Centers might also give the Group an comment on timing and substance. opportunity to participate in the selection of members of external rethe Chairman of TAC, in consultation with the Chairman of view panels: of experts nominated by the centhe Group, could confirm the selection ters, and could appoint additional experts to review panels in cases Should these suggestions be followed, where that appeared desirable. then TAC would have less need than formerly to look into the execution of approved programs by on-going centers and it would have correspondingly more time to consider proposed program changes in those centers, other new research initiatives and how best to fill existing research gaps l 69. The Secretary the Chairman of TAC: of TAC made the following comments on behalf of TAC itself did not pretend to examine the budgets of the international centers in detail; TAC was anxious that any appearance of interference with approved center programs should be avoided; If review panels should be established, their reports would be particularly valuable to TAC; TAC would welcome being invited to designate one or more of its members to join in review panels, provided members did not come from the particular region where the center was located; TAC recognized the need to clarify review procedures and to improve the content of the Centers' annual reports; TAC's concerns should be limited to the difficulties encountered by the centers in carrying out their programs and any program changes which might be proposed. points 70. During the discussion were made: of this item, the following principal Several speakers said that they believed it would be better if members of,TAC were not themselves members of review panels; Members of review panels should be selected in consultation between the institutes and TAC; In the case of those centers which had annual external reviews, the visit of the Consultative Group Secretariat's review staff should be concurrent with the center's own external review; The review procedure suggested should be tried for the first year on an experimental basis. 71. In summarizing the discussion, the Chairman said that it was the consensus of the Group that the review procedures as proposed should be tried on an experimental basis for one year or so. It should be assured - 16 the visits of the Consultative Group reviewing that, whenever possible, staff should be coordinated with the centers' own reviews. The whole matter would, from time to time, be put on the agenda of Consultative Group meetings for reexamination. Responding to several questions, the Chairman. said that the proposal had been sent to the centers for their comments.. Other Business (Agenda Item 10) 72. The Secretary of TAC reported on the FAO regional conferences which had met during the preceding weeks. This statement wi'll be circulated separately. passed by one FAO regional 73. One speaker referred t'o a resolution conference which provided that research priorities established by the conference should be regarded as guidelines for choosing regj;onal projstated ects to be financed by the Consultative Group; the resolution that those guidelines were the more ess,ential because of inadequate representation of -the developing countries on the Consultative Group. The speaker said that, in his view, this resolution was based on a, misconception of the purpose of the Consultative Group. Research priorities had to be determined in the first instance by TAC which would certainly welcome the advice of the regional conferences. As for a resolution stating the conference's dissent from the position taken by the Consultative Group in regard to the participation of the developing countries, the speaker said that the Consultative Group was a consulting body rather than an organization where decisions lhad to be reached collective&y or by vote. of ,the FAO region for the Near East 74. The representative said that a mission organized by TAC was scheduled to visit the Middle East and North Africa in early 1973 to study the research problems of that area. During their recent conference, representatives of the region had discussed major research priorities in the area to facilitate the work of the mission. Among the problems discussed were those of dry farming, water use and irrigation techniques, animal food and new varieties of legumes and forage. for this region, he said;were 75. Of special interest the possibilities of aquaculture. For this reason, funds had been raised to finance a feasibility study of this problem in the Near East region. The study might, he suggested, be undertaken by a team appointed by TAC. 76. The point was also stressed that, in its program of conferences and of assistance to the developing countries, FAO should include more information about the research results of the centers. 77. Responding to a question by the Chairman, the Secretary of TAC observed that aquaculture was on the agenda of TAC's next meeting. The terms of reference for a proposed working group had already been drawn up - 17 which would meet in May 1973. It would study the state of the art and advise whether additional research in aquaculture was likely to have significant results, primarily in terms of widespread production of high-protein food for the lower income groups. participation of developing 78. Referring to the question of fuller countries in the Consultative Group, one speaker said that, as had been pointed out at the first planning meeting of the Group, the primary business of the Group was consultation among a body of donors in an attempt to TAC, on mobilize and coordinate financing for the international centers. the other hand, had been set up as the body to advise the Group on research priorities. In doing so, it had been agreed that TAC should increasingly TAC rely on selected panels of experts to advise it on particular matters. might want to rely more heavily on experts from developing countries serving on these panels. 79. In response to this suggestion, the Secretary of TAC said that TAC had already convened such panels or working groups but that TAC's rather tight budget of $150,000 did not allow a sizable increase in the number of these panels. Date of next meeting 80. It was agreed that be held during International July 30, 1973. (Agenda Item 11) the next meeting of the Consultative Group would Centers Week which was scheduled for the week of Press Communique (Agenda Item 12) ing. 8i. The Chairman was authorized to issue a press release The text of the release is attached as Annex 5. on the meet- ANNEX 1 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH D.C. 20433 U.S.A. 1818H St.,N.W. Washington, Telephone (AreaCode202)477-3592 CableAddress - INTBAFRAD Third Meeting November l-3, Washington, 1972 D. C. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Australia Mr. M. A. Cranswick, Alternate Executive Director, IBRD Mr. Stuard H. R. Hume, First Secretary, Embassy of Australia, Washington, D. C. Dr. Peter S. Muecke, Scientific Attache, Embassy of Australia, Washington, D. C. Belgium Dr. Charles Populer, Representative of the Administration de la Cooperation au Developpement Canada Mr. Charles Greenwood, Director, United Nations and Research Program Division, Canadian International Development Agency Canadian International Dr. H. G. Dion, Technical Adviser (Agriculture), Development Agency Mr. George Krivicky, Program Administrator, United Nations and Research Program Division, Canadian International Developmeflt Agency Denmark of Foreign Affairs Miss Inger Nielsen, Head of Department, DANIDA, Ministry Mr. Lars Tybjerg, Financial Secretary, Royal Danish:Embassy, Washington, D.C. European Communities Mr. Ivo Dubois, Delegation Washington, D. C.. of the Commission of the European Communities, Generale Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to the TAC Mr. Roy 1; Jackson, Deputy Director General Mr. Peter A. Oram, Senior Agronomist and Secretary Ford Foundation Dr. F. F. Hill, Program Advisor for Agriculture, Office of the Vice President Mr. Norman Collins, Program Adviser, Agriculture, Latin American and.the Caribbean Dr. Lowell S. Hardin, Program Officer for Agriculture, Office of the Vice President France Mr. H. Vemede, Commissaire du Gouvemement.aupres.des Instituts de recherche specialisee Outre-Mer, Secretariat d'Etat aux Affaires Etrangeres Mr. D. Pfeiffer, Alternate Executive Director, IBRD ~ Germany Dr. Dr. Mr. Dr. W. Treitz, Ministry of Economic Cooperation Rohner, Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Eclonomics and Finance G. Osterhaus, K. Lampe, Federal.Office for .Development Aid Development Bank Inter-American Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Alfred Wolf, Program Advisor M. Herman, Director Training :Division C. Cainelli, Chief, Project Promotion and Planning C. M. Pierce, Senior Consultant J. M. Soto, Training Officer Medford Alexander, Agricultural Economics Section Bank for Reconstruction and Development Section International Mr. Richard H. Demuth, Chairman o:E the Consultative Group and Director, Development Services Department the Consultative Group and Mr. Harold Graves, Executive Secretary,of Associate Director, Development ljervices Department Mr. James Fransen, Agriculture Department Mr. Franz H. Kaps, Assistant to the Executive Secretary of the Consultative Group, Development Services Department -3International Development Research Centre Program Director, Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Sciences'. Mr. J. H. Hulse, Japan Mr. Nobutoshi Akao, Embassy of Japan, Washirrgton, D. C. Mr. Masanari Sumi, Alternate Executive Director, IBRD Netherlands Baron R. H. de Vos van Steenwijk, Washington, D. C. Mr. W. M. Dijkstra, Agricultural Washington, D. C. Norway Mr. Per J. Ulvevadet, Rockefeller Foundation Director for Agricultural Sciences Second Secretary, Embassy of Norway, Washington, D. C. Financial Attache, Attache, Embassy of the Netherlands,. Embassy of the Netherlands, Dr. John A. Pino, Sweden Mr. A. Willen, Head of Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr. R. Beijer, Head of Division, SIDA Swedish Embassy, Washington, Mr. M. Nordbyck, First Secretary, Switzerland Mr. Peter Saladin, United Kingdom First Secretary, Embassy of Switzerland, D. C. Washington, D.C. Overseas Development Administration Mr. W. A. C. Mathieson, Deputy Secretary, Mr. A. R. Melville, Chief Natural Resources Adviser, Overseas Development Administration -4- United Nations Development Programme Mr. S. Linner, Deputy to the Assistant Administrator and Director, Technical Advisory Division, Bureau for Programme Policy and Coordination Mr. W. T. Mashler, Director, Division for Global and Interregional Projects Mr. M. M. Gucovsky, Senior Technical Advisor, Technical Advisory Division, Bureau for Programme Policy and Coordination United States Dr. Joel,Bemstein, Assistant Administrator (Technical Assistance Bureau), U.S. Agency for International Development Dr. Omer J. Kelley, Director, Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Technical Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development Mr. Guy Baird, Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Technical Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development Mr. John L. Cooper, Principal Agriculture Advisor, Office of Technical Assistance Coordination, Africa Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development Representing Africa: a. Nigeria Federal a. Ministry of Agriculture Dr. Bukar Shaib, Representing Dr. Placid0 Permanent Secretary, Asia and the Far East: Mapa, Jr., Alternate Philippines Director, Thailand Ministry of Agriculture IBRD Executive b. Dr. Siribongse Representing Boon-Long; Latin America: Inspector-General, a. Argentina Mr. Jorge A. Del Aguila, Washington, D. C. Agricultural b. -- Counselor, Embassy of Argentina, ELrazil Embassy of Brazil, Washington, D. C. Mr. C. R. Mourao Neto, Representing the Middle Second Secretary, East: a. Lebanon of Agriculture Office Dr. Malek Basbous, Director Dr. Sultan Haidar, General General1 Plan Vert, Ministry Director, Animal Production b A Pakistan Mr. Haq Nawaz, Food Attache, Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, D. C. - 5’ - Representing Southern and Eastern Europe: a. Israel Washington, D.C. Mr. ,Gideon Cohen, Agricultural Attache, Embassy of Israel, b, Romania Mr. Octavian Technical Ichim, Economic Officer, Committee Chairman Romanian Trade Office, New York Advisory Sir John Crawford, OBSERVERS New Zealand Mr. R. L. Knight, Mr. Ian E. Sliper, Finland Mr. Martti Manninen, Attache, Embassy of Finland, Washington, D.C. of Forestry and Agriculture Mr. Holger Mauria, Forestry Office, Ministry UNCTAD Mr. A. R. Lamond, Chief, General Studies Section, Commodities Division Executive Director, Technical Assistant IBRD to the Executive Director, IBRD ANNEX 2 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Third Meeting November l-3, AGENDA 1. 2. Adoption of Agenda centers and TAC recommenda1972 Discussion of the programs of existing tions concerning them: b) 6) d) e> f> a> International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. (CIHMYT) International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) International Center of Tropical'rigriculture (CIAT) International Potato Center (CIP) International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) of New Activities recommended to the Consultative Group 3. Discussion by TAC: b) 4 a> d) 4. 5. International Network of Plant Genetic Resources African Relay Station Network related to ICRISAT Completion of capital facilities for Asian Vegetable search and Development Center (AVRDC) West African Rice Development Association (WARDA) Livestock of: Re- Discussion of recommendations of the African regarding activities for 1973. Statements of intention regarding financing Subcommittee a> b) 4 '6. 'existing international centers, for 1973 and, to the extent possible, 1974 as well; capital facilities of ICRISAT; and any new activities endorsed by the Consultative Group under agenda items 3 and 4. Consultative.Group and nominations agricultural on Competitiveness repreto Board Discussion of selection procedures for sentation on Center boards of trustees; of Trustees of CIP Socio-economic aspects of international 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. research of Natural Discussion of the UNCTADResolution and Substitutes Products, Synthetics Review Procedures Other Business Date and place of next meeting Press Communique ANNEX 3 Indications of Financing of Existing Centers for 1973 (Equivalent of $'OOO) - Belgium Canada Denmark Ford >ermany TDRC Japan Gel logg Jetherlands Jorway Lockefeller :weden -witzerland i.K. 'ND!? .S. orld Bank Group nor Total 220 1,750 250 3,000 1,975 550 31 350 430 150 3,545 1,150 260 1,145 1,200 5,390 3,000 CIAT 350 k/ 750 CIMMYT 450 j 750 CIP 200 150-175 75 ICRISAT -IITA 220 tg 750 -IRRI To Be Allocated 75-100 350 125 1,400 z/ 870 I/ 180 150 140 150 65 50 880 300 700 g/ 1,500 1,000 340 515 1,000 130 225 540 500 &/ 745 iJ 1,200 i/ '750 65 330 725 120 830 620 125 Of which part may be devoted to special projects. Core support for cassava and swine programs. Core support for triticale program. Amount to be determined. Including $718,000 to complete CIAT's basic capital facilities. Including $120,000 for the Puebla project. Core support for high-lysine maize program; this amount adjustable in the light of cash needs. Core support for sorghum and millet programs; this amount adjustable in the light of cash needs. U.S. confirmed availability up to one-fourth of core and capital costs, subject to need, appropriation and satisfactory outcome of required review of ICRISAT planning for capital expenditures. Estimated at $300,000 for core costs plus uncertain amount capital Amount shown a provisional estimate of costs to be established. total. Provisional subject to establishment of total core plus capital budget for 1972 and 1973 and adjustment of U.S. contribution for the two years to one-fourth of total up to amount indicated. ANNEX4 Indications of Financing of Existing Centers for 1974 of During the Consultative Group meeting, various donors gave indications their intentions concerning financial support for international agricultural research centers in 1974. In most cases, the amounts mentioned were subject The indications are summarized below. to legislative or other approvals. General The representatives of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations indicated that the support of their organizations for the international agricultural research centers, and especially for the four original centers (CIAT, CIMMYT, IITA and of the Rockefeller Foundation also IRRI), would continue; the representative that their specifically mentioned a continuing interest in CTP. Both indicated organizations wished to be flexible with respect to individual grants, determining the amounts in the light of over-all needs and availabilities within the The Ford representative said that it would conConsultative Group framework. tinue to be the policy of his Foundation to make individual grants up to a total of $3 million; the Rockefeller representative said that this also had been the policy of his Foundation. Without specifying amounts for particular centers, the representative of the United States referred to the general formula for its participation stated at the Consultative Group Meeting of December, 1971. He indicated that in 1974, subject to legislative approval and availability of funds, his Government would continue its support of international agricultural research activities, up to , 25 per cent of requirements, so long as that 25 per cent did not exceed $7 million. If the total of operations endorsed by the Consultative Group were to exceed four times that amount, his Government would re-study the situation in the light of the requirements then existing. Certain other donors were not in a position of intentions with respect to individual centers Germany and Japan. CIAT The representative of Canada said that his Government would have approximately $550,000 available in 1974 for CIAT's work in cassava and swine. The representative of the Netherlands said that his Government would continue its support of CIAT at not less than the level for 1973 ($125,'000). With respect to the Kellogg Foundation, it had been indicated during International Centers Week that the Foundation's support would be given at a level of from $250,000 to $300,000. CIMMYT The representative of Canada said that approximately $550,000 would be available for the triticale program in 1974. The representative of LJNDP to give specific indications in 1974. These included -2- ANNEX 4 indi.cated.that his organization's 1974 would amount to appro&nately commitment of $2,340,.000.for-this support for the high-lysine corn program in one-third of his organization's 3-year program. The United Kingdom representative said that the British grant to CIP in 1974 would at least equal the &121,,000 (about $50,,000) to be made available in The Danish representative indicated that a recommendation would.be made 1973. within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that support for CIP be continued at a sum-not less than the 1973 level ((between $150,000 and $175,000)'. The Swedish representative said that his Government intended to, continue its support of CHP The Netherlands representative said on a scale not less. than that of IL973. that it was: ehe.intention of his authorities to support CIP on at least the same scale as 1973 ($180,000). The representative of Switzerland reported that his Govemmen@'would contribute 250,000 Swiss francs (about $65,000) to GIP in 1974. The representative of Canada said that he would expect the grant of his Government to CIP. in 1974 'to be at least as large as the $200,000 grant recommended for 1973. ICI&AT The representative of UNDP s,aid that his organization"s contribution in 19;74 would be rou.gBky one-fifth of the $3,584,000 his organiza,tion was committing to ICRISAT over a 5-year period. The United Kingdom, said its reprewas prepared to make a contribution in 1974 which would be "subsentative, stantially increased" over the b95,OOO (roughly $225,000) intended for 1973. The Swedish representative said that while he could not commit his Government it was not the intention to diminish the support being to: specific figures, given to ICRISAT ($l,OOO,OOO for 1972/73). The Swiss representative reported that his Government would make a grant of 500,000 Swiss francs (roughly $130,000), The representative of Canada said that his Government intended to have $2,100,000 a;vailable for ICRISAT in 1974, of which $800,000 could be drawn down before April 1 of that year. IITA The United Kingdom representative said that his Government's support would at least equal its 1973 contribution (h230,000, or about $540,000). The Netherlands representative indicated that his Government's grant would be maintained on at least the 1973 level. The Belgian representative expressed the hope that his Government's support would increase beyond the 10 m.illion Belgian fran.cs being considered for 1973. The representative of Canada,said that his authorities would seek approval for a grant of at least $750,000. IRRI The United Kingdom representative indicated that the British grant to IRRI in 1974 would be at least as much as the b140,250 (about $330,000) to be granted for 1973. The representative of the International Development Research Centre of Canada said that up to $280,000 would -be available for IRRI's multiplecropping program in 1974.