. -- . I I Summary of Proceedings and Decisions MTM 2000 Dresden, Germany May 21-26,2000 Charting the CGIAR’s Future A New Visionfor 2010 CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGIAR Centers Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Cali, COLOMBIA Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Jakarta, INDONESIA Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trig0 (CIMMYT) Mexico City, MEXICO Centro Intemacional de la Papa (CIP) Lima, PERU International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Aleppo, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) Penang, MALAYSIA International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) Nairobi, KENYA International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Patancheru, INDIA International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Washington, DC, USA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IRA) Ibadan, NIGERIA International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Nairobi, KENYA International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) Rome, ITALY International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Los Baiios, PHILIPPINES International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) The Hague, NETHERLANDS International Water Management Institute ( M I ) Colombo, SRI LANKA West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) BouakC, COTE DIVOIRE CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting Dresden, Germany, May 21-26 Summary of Proceedings and Decisions Charting the CGIAR 's Future A New Visionfor 2010 Issued by the CGIAR Secretariat The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433 USA Telephone: 1-202-473-8951 Fax: 1-202473-81 10 E-mail: cgiar@cgiar.org or cgiar@worldbank.org www .cgiar.org July 2000 contents .................................................................................................................. I1. Major Decisions ........................................................................................................ I11. Host Country Program............................................................................................ I V. Summary of Proceedings......................................................................................... I . Overview 6 8 10 chairman's Welcome Statement................................................................................... chairmans Opening Remark ..................................................................................... Chairman's Announcements........................................................................................ 20 .. (Box:Chairman's Propositlons).................................................................................... 24 AN e w Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR .................................................................. 25 Global Forum on AgriculturalResearch (GFAR).......................................................... 34 Longer-term Financing Strategy................................................................................... 36 CGIAR Impact: Seminar on CGIAR's Impact on Germplasm Improvement ................. 38 1999 Financial Outcomes and 2000 Progress Rep0a;..................................................... 41 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda and Funding Requirements .......................................... 43 External Program and Management Reviews ................................................................ 44 Report from the CGIAR Centers................................................................................. 47 Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Comminees...................................................... 49 Future CGIAR Meetings ............................................................................................. 54 Other Business ........................................................................................................... 55 + International Undertalung on Plant GeneticResources.......................................... 55 Chairman's Summation, ~ 0 0.............................................................................. 0 56 Chairman's Farewell Comments................................................................................... 59 1 1 13 15 V. Annexes 67 MTM Agenda ............................................................................................................. 68 List of Documents ...................................................................................................... 70 List of Participants...................................................................................................... 71 Committee Rep0rts ..................................................................................................... 88 .................................................................................................................. + + + + + + fighhghts of Cosponsors Meeting ....................................................................... Report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Oversight Committee............................. Report of the SeventeenthMeeting of the Finance Committee .............................. Report of the Genetic Resources Poky convnittee ............................................. Report of the NGO Cornmime Meeting ............................................................ Report of the t w e l f t hMeeting of the Private Sector Committee........................... >- Report of the Science Partnership Committee..................................................... 88 90 94 102 104 119 123 . . , CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting OYElYlEW The CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting (MTM2OOO) will best be remembered as a critical meeting to map the future of the CGIAR. A new CGIAR vision, emphasizing both the poverty aspects of CGIAR scientific research and the opportunities offered by modern science, was adopted. Budding on the leadership of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the endorsement and action proposals of the ConsultativeCouncil, the Group laid the groundwork for a vibrant and effective CGIAR for the 21st Century. What emerged after three days of plenary and parallel sessions in Dresden was a process to move the CGIAR from vision to action and recreate the System as an effective instrument for the future. chairmanIsmail Serageldin highLghted the momentous changes in almost all aspects of the human condition that affect or are affected by the CGIAR wok These developments- from the private sector's increasing activity in agricultural research, to the intense competition for traditional funding, to the implications of restrictive national and international arrangementsthat govern access to germplasm- have profound implications for the CGIAR. Three decades ago, at a time of fear and pessimism about the fate and future of millions in disadvantaged regions of the world, the founders of the CGIAR acted with faith, hope, and a powerful vision. Today, the Chairman said, Members are being called on to again shape the CGIAR in the context of these new challenges. As part of his opening statement to MTM, Mr. Serageldin announced that he has decided to relinquish his position as a World Bank Vice President and, consequently,as CGIAR Chair. Ian Johnson, a respected friend and colleague who is Bank Vice President for Environmentallyand Socially Sustainable Development, is the CGIAR &-designate. Following the Chairman's presentation, Oversight Committee Chairman Andrew Bennett suggested- and Members unanimously agreed- that Mr. Serageldin should be honored at a special symposium at ICW2000. 6 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 CGlAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting 1. CGIAR Leadership. The Group accepted Chairman Ismail Serageldins decision to relinquish also endorsed the allocation of World Bank funds proposed by the Finance Committee. (pp. 41-42.) 8. 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda. The Group approved the substance of the 2001 Research Agenda recommended by TAC and the Finance Committee's proposal that financial planning for 2001 be undertaken in the context of the $340 million fundingtarget. (p. 43.) 9. External Program and Management Reviews. The Group considered the External Program and Management Reviews for ICARDA, IWMI, and WARDA, and endorsed the ad hoc committee's conclusions and recommendations. (pp. 44-46.) 10. Special Honors. The Group unanimously approved resolutions to honor Henri Carsalade, Paul Egger, Miguel Altieri, and Frona Hall for their contributions and service to the CGIAR. (pp. 21-22.) 11. Future CGIAR meetings. The Group agreed on the following dates and locations of future CGIARmeetings. (p. 54.) ICW2000 MTM200I ICW2001 MTM2002 ICW2002 October 23-27 ..................Washington,DC South Afiica October 29-November 2...Washington, DC May 27-31 ...................... To be determined October 28-November I ... Washington,DC May 21-25 .............................. his position as World Bank Vice President and consequently, as CGIAR Chair, and welcomed the announcement of Ian Johnson, Bank Vice President for Environmentdy and Socially Sustainable Development, as CGIAR Chair-designate. (p. 15.) 2. New Vision and Strategy. The Group adopted the seven planks of TACs proposed new vision statement, broadly endorsed the definition of the heartland, adopted follow up arrangements and a timetable for exploring structural changes, and expressed a desire to discuss options at ICW2000. (pp. 25-33.) 3. Longer-Term Financing Strategy. The Group unanimously affirmed the need for a global public awareness/resource mobilization effort, endorsed the concept of the C G W F u t u r e Harvest Foundation, and requested that a business plan and final proposal on structure be presented at ICW2000.(pp. 36-37.) 4. Global Forum on Agricultural Research. The Group received the report on the Global Forum, reaffirmed the strong ties that exist between GFAR and the CGIAR, and agreed to review more specific aspects of that relationship after the completion of the GFAR external review. (pp. 34-35.) 5. Report from the Centers. The Group received the Centers' report on programmatic developments in the System and the Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization Committee's report on public awareness and resource mobilization (pp. 47-48.) 6. 1999 Financial Outcome. The Group adopted the Finance Committee's report on the 1999 financial.outcome. In 1999, funding totaled $330 million, a decrease of $10 million from the approved financing plan. The p r i m 7 reason for the shortfall was the 'default, due to procedural mishaps, by the European Canmksion on its 1999 commitment o f $16 million. (pp. 41-42.) 12. Genetic Resources. The Group expressed concern that the lack of an international agreement on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture poses a major threat to the future of international agricultural research. Reaffirming the importance of GFAR's LkLzraticRz on P h Geneac Resorm~s f w Food and Agnahre, the Group encouraged individual members to bring the DedavatiGpz to the attention of appropriate authorities and to utilize additional technical information available through IPGRI. (p. 55.) 13. TAC and Oversight Committee. The Group approved the two-year extension of TAC Members Joachim von Braun and Richard Harwood, and welcomed new members of the Oversight Committee - Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli, Ruth I-Iaug, Emmy Simmons, Gdes St. Martin, Juan Restrepo, and Zhao Longyue. (pp. 49-53) 7. 2000 Progress Report. The Group received t h e Finance Committee's report that the outlook for 2000 continued to be stable at the level of the approved financing plan of $340 million. The Group Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 8 CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting n o s 1 SOIINTBY PBOCBAM In ceremonies at Schloss Albrechtsberg,the Honorable K u r t Biedenkopf, Prime h4inister of the Free State of Saxony, warmlywelcomed the CGIAR to Dresden for MTM2000.Dr. Biedenkopf emphasized that the city of Dresden was honored to host the important international meetings of the CGIAR and GFAR. He emphasized Germany's support for the goal of making knowledge-intensive agriculture accessible to smallholder farmers in developing countries. The Honorable Erich Stather, Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, addressed the formal opening of MTM2000. He reiterated Germany's support for the CGIAR and expressed hope that Germany c a n step up its financial support in the near future as budgetary deficits are overcome. Food security is a human right, he said, and the CGIAR renewal is a response to this challenge. Mr. Serageldin thanked the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development for hosting the meeting, and the Free State of Saxony for its hospitality. Germany was a founding Member of the CGIAR and has provided the System with strong intellectual leadership and support throughout the CGIAR's existence. The System and the individual Centers have benefited from the enduring links with various German agencies and institutions responsible for managing Germany's CGIAR Manbership. Currently Germany's voice is heard through the head of the German delegation, Mr. Jochen de Haas, a respected and admired colleague who has made valuable contributionsto CGIAR discussions and decision-making. Mr. Serageldin said that Germany has been and remains involved in almost every aspect of the work of the CGIAR. German nationals have served on Center boards, aS heads of CGIAR Centers, on external review panels of CGIAR Centers, on the System Review panel, and on CGIAR committees. The executive secretary of the CGIAR, Alexander von der Osten, who has held the position with dignity and distinction for over ten years, is a German national. MTM2000 was the CGLAR's second meeting in Germany. The first, held in Berlin in 1988, saw the CGIAR begin a cycle of change as the Group reaffirmed sustainabiliy as part of the CGIAR's mission. An inq* into whether the mandate of the CGIAR should specifically include a number of areas connected with natural resource management was launched. As a result of that inquiry, the Group decided that productivity and environmmtal research should be twin pillars of the CGIAR agenda. Several non-CGIAR Centers, whose work focused on those research areas, were consequentlyinducted into the System. Mr. Serageldin noted that it is fitting that the CGIAR should again be in Germany as the System approaches another cycle of renewal for the new millennium. 10 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINCS Chairman‘s Welcome statement Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first meeting of the CGIAR in the new millennium. I thank the Government of Germany for inviting us to meet in historic Dresden, and for the arrangements that have been made to provide us with a setting suitable for deliberations and decisions that will affect and determine the future of the CGIAR. I extend an especially warm welcome to Mr. Erich Stather, Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, and all his colleagues who serve as the hosts of this meeting. They have made us feel very much at ease. I particularly want to thank our German colleague Jochen de Haas, and representatives of B E N who have had to cope with a range of logistical matters, including the influx of some 400 colleagues attending GFAR. They carried out all their responsibilitiescompetentlyand without complaint. I invite you to join me in expressing our appreciation to Mr. Stather, Mr. De Haas, and all others who have toiled so hard on our behalf. I thank you, personally, Mr. Stather, for taking time from your many duties of state to join us at our opening session, and to share your thoughts with us. Mr. Stather is a versatile public figure who has reached his current position after a multifaceted career in the private sector, the public sector, and politics at both the state and federal levels. His experience includes successful management of a variety of public awareness programs. I hope you will share those talents with the CGIAR, Mr. Stather, so that our work might be better known in your country and, thereby, Germany’s support for international a g r i c u l d research protected. Germany was a founding Member of the CGIAR. Throughout the existence of this Group, Germany has provided the CGIAR System with strong intellectual leadership and support. The System and individual Centers appreciate the enduring lmks that have developed over the years with the various German agencies and institutions responsible for managing Germany’s CGIAR Membership. The voice of Germany receives careful attention at this table. Currently, that voice is heard through the head of the German delegation,Jochen de Haas, who is respected and admired by his colleagues. We value his interventions, and enjoy his company. Moreover, Germany has been and remains involved in almost every aspect of the work of the CGIAR. German nationals have served or continue to serve on Center boards, as heads of CGIAR Centers, on external review panels of CGIAR Centers, on the System Review panel, and on CGIAR committees. The executive secretary of the CGIAR, Alexander von der O m , who has held that position with dignity and distinction for over ten years, is a German national as well. So we are a l l well connected. Ladies and gentlemen. Many of you no doubt recall that we last met in Germany twelve years ago, in Berlin, where we began a cycle of renewal. Sustainabilitywas reaffirmed as part of the CGIAR System’s mission, and we launched an inquiry into whether the mandate of the CGIAR should specifically include a number of subject areas, most of them connected with natural resources management, that were the focus of work at ten non-CGIAR Centers. As a result of that inquiry, we decided that productiviy research and Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 13 t l M M A R r O F PROCEEDINGS environmental research should be t w i n pillars of the CGIAR agenda. Several non-CGIAR Centers were It is fitting, given the signrficance and lasting impact of what we consequently inducted into the CGIAR. decided at Berlin, that we should again be in Germany as we approach another cycle of renewal, for the new millennium. Before we begin our formal deliberations, however, I am pleased and honored to invite Mr. Stather to address us. Mr. Stather. 14 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMABY OF P I O C E E D I N E S Confronting the Future Appreciation Thank you, Mr. Stather, for your kind words and thoughtful comments. They will inspire and guide us in our deliberations. Thank you, also, Dr. Paroda,GFAR Chairman, for the meetings of the last few days that clearly presented us with a vision of the context in which the CGIAR works, and for bringing together the f u l lrange of our partners. Together, we do form a Coalition of the Caring. Transition Colleagues and Friends. The prospect of a re-energized CGIAR re-creating itself as an effective instrument of progress for the 21s century is both inspiring and exciting. I regret, therefore, that I will not be your ChaLman as you advance beyond this meeting. I have informed World Bank President Jim Wolfensohn that I wish to relinquish my position as a Bank Vice President and, consequently,to relinquish my CGIAR chairmanship as well. He has accepted my decision. Ia m delighted that Ian Johnson, a respected colleague and friend, will succeed me. Ian is a distinguished alumnus of three universities: Wales, Sussex and Harvard. His experience includes service with UNICEF, the British Government, and the Bank. He was one of the creators of today's GEF. He is a strong environmentalistwhose expertise will greatly benefit the natural resource management efforts of CGIAR Centers. He is, as well, deeply committed to n&g partnerships. I am sure you will find in him a most effective and caring Chairman. You can be assured that we will manage a seamless transition. ' Let me emphasize that although I will no longer be part of the CGIAR in a formal sense, my commitment to all that the CGIAR represents will not change. I appreciate the dedication that all of you bring to this table. I respect and admire the CGIAR scientists who toil ceaselessly on behalf of the world's disconnected and disadvantaged. I care deeply about the future of the CGIAR. I am profoundly concerned about ensuring that it can continue to make a difference in the lives of those millions who will continue to be mired in deprivation unless science is harnessed to meet their needs. I will continue to be your supporter, your loyal critic and, informally, your ambassador. That's for the future. Now...let me t u r n to the business at hand. Vision Our starting point at MTM2000 is the adoption of a new vision. I congratulate E d Javier on the participatory approach that he and his TAC colleagues followed in c&g the new vision. Moreover, it is clear that E d has drawn on his own rich experience and his deep understanding of the issues. I convened two meetings of the Consultative Council- first in Rome, and next in Dresden- to discuss TAC's proposal. The Council extensively discussed the draft at both meetings. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 . 15 SUMMARY OF P l O ~ E E D l W C t We are now challenged to bring the process to closure; to take the crucial first step without which we cannot take the next, and the next, and the next. I am convinced that, like the consultative Council, this group will find Emil’s presentation thoughtful and penetrating. I urge that we should not get bogged down in micro-editingthe TAC draft. I know that you can count on E d and his colleagues to incorporate earlier comments and current views in the final iteration of the vision paper that they table at InternationalCenters Week (Icw2000). However, the Consultative Council and TAC agreed that the new vision raises important issues including those connected with germplasm, intellectual property r&ts (IPR), and the organization of work to implement the “heartland” of the CGIAR. All require additional thought and, depending on how we come out on these, will also impact on possible structural arrangements. More on this later. To sharpen our discussion and move the process forward, I have formulated a proposition based on the consensus of the consultatve Council. For ~ 0 0 0this , will be Proposition #l. The Group adopts the seven principles or ‘planks’outlined in TACs proposed new CGIAR vision statement, and endorses that statement’s definition of the heartland of the CGIAR. Choice Colleagues and Friends. The renewal program that we launched in 1994 gave us a five-year “space”in which to prepare for the future. Our five years are up. Battles once fought and won have to be fought and fought again, in our quest for continued excellence, efficiency, and effectiveness, and for dedicated support from the international community.The CGIAR now faces a future characterized by makeor-break challenges, and make-or-breakopportunities. We can seize the opportunities or succumb to the challenges. We confront that choice against a backdrop of momentous change in almost every aspect of the human condition that affects or is affected by our work. 0 The implicit bargain among the developing countries - the possessors of germplasm - the a i n producers of the new science, and international advanced research organizations, the m institutionsworking with national agricultural research systems (NARS), serving as intermediaries and as creators of new technologies, is becoming more and more ctfficult to maintain, as scientific developments become incre-ingly subject to private control. The private sector is now at the head of most developmentsin the field of science and, to recoup the bilhons of dollars it invests on research, is expanding the application of patents and intellectual property rights. We cannot remain indifferent to what goes on beyond the parameters of that bargain. Recent concerns over perceived appropriation of the mnu or popping bean demonstrated precisely the kind of issue that will increasingly bedevil the CGIAR. National and international arrangements governing access to germplasm appear likely to grow more and more restrictive, thus weakening a key element of the CGIAR’. 9 success. These arrangementsare being developed without our direct involvement, and frequently without f u l lappreciation by the governments concerned of the l i k e l yimpact of restrictions 0 0 16 Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SBMMARY OF PROCEEBINCS on the ability of agricultural research in developing countries to do public goods research for the poor and the environment. 0 The demands on traditional sources of funding for international agricultural research are increasing. We will attract new funding from traditional and new sources,only if we can demonstrate that our science is at the cutting edge, our processes are efficient, our delivery is rapid, and our partnerships are real and effective. Center scientists are beset by great anxieties about how the CGIAR will function- indeed, whether it will function- in the face of these changes. All these developments have profound implications for the future of the CGIAR. It is not that we face a crisis, as we did in 1993 and 1994. It is that we face the prospect of ossifymg, of lurching from one small funding cut to another, and of gradually fading into obsolescence and, ultimately, oblivion, while other actors, more swift, better endowed, and more responsive to the needs of our clients, pass us by. For, as Klaus Schwab aptly points out, "we are moving from a world in which the big eat the small to one in which the fast eat the slow." A Time to Act So it is a time to act. But how, an4 on what? IPR, germplasm, finance, and structure need to be reviewed. Centers and Members must both be involved in defining the substance, the mechanisms, and the pace of change. I am encouraged by the fact that since we arrived here, Center directors and board chairs have engaged in a joint exercise to deal with some of these issues. So have the Oversight Committee, the Finance Committee, and other groups. Eminent and thoughtful Members of the Group are articulating their visions. Bob Herdt, certainly a most eminent member of this Group, has put his thoughts on paper for our collective benefit. Some, like myself, want to move swdtly on all these issues. However, others would wish to move at a slower, more deliberate pace. I will set out several propositions, to help stlucture our discussions in the next two days. This should enable us to move as far as can before we leave Dresden. First, the approach at this moment should be open and inclusive. It is not just the CBC/CDC or TAC or the Oversight Committee or Bob Herdt who have ideas. Hence, Proposition #2. A l l in the CGIAR System who wish to offer proposals on structure should feel free to submit their suggestions to TAC by August 15,2000. Second, it is essential that the Centers, represented by the DGs and Board Chairs, must have an important input into the process. I urge them to carry their deliberations as far and as fast as they can. I give you Proposition #3. Proposals from board chairs and Center directors should be completed no later than August 15,2000and submitted to TAC for further review and comment. The growth of a restrictive regime governing access to germplasm demonstrates the need for institutional arrangements that enable us to harness advances in the biological sciences. Moreover, we need to keep up with current trends that are changing and streamlining the way in which research is carried out. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 201 0 17 SUMMARY OF P R O C E E D I W # S Increasingly we see well-established campus-typeinstitutions transforming themselves, and adapting to arrangements such as networks, knowledge platforms, strategic alliances, and collaboration with shuttle scientists. One of several models proposed for dealing with IPR issues suggests that private sector owners, as a group, agree with public sector users to share a body of technology; and agree on the rules for its use. Others would explore more case-by-case approaches. We need to examine all the options and select what is most consistent with our mission. Additionally, the issues that have been explored by a working group on a longer-term financing strategy for the CGIAR will also raise questions of structure. For instance, the argument has been made that if the maintenance of CGIAR germplasm collections is given over to an institution set up to undertake this activity, it would be most likely to attract endowments separate from other CGIAR funding. I am hoping that the CBC/CDC will be able to address a l l these questions in their proposals by August 15. I recognize, however, that they may not be able to do so. Therefore, I a m suggesting the creation of an adhocworking group to solicit views on how to address these matters. That leads me to my next proposition. Proposition #4. Patents, intellectual property rights, finance, and other issues to be identified before the end of M T M 2 O O O will be addressed by an ad hoc working group that would call on outside experience as appropriate. Bob Herdt’s paper, the papers emanating from the CBC/CDC and the a a !h working group, as well as other papers that may be produced by CGIAR Members, would all be given to TAC w b should prepare their comments on each of the papers. That total package should be reviewed and discussed at a Consultative Council meeting in midSeptember. Clearly, I a m hoping that this meeting of the Consultative Council will be able to bring all this material to the point where the group would be able to make f u l ldecisions on all s t r u d issues, IDR, finance and other matters at ICW2000.If that proves too difficult, then ut kthe Consultative Council should spell out the remaining steps, to be endorsed at ICW, and ensure that these are taken in time for the Group to make their decisions as promptly as possible. H e n c e , I give you Proposition #5. The Consultative Council will convene in mid-September, 2000 to discuss i t h TACs review and proposals from CBC/CDC, the ad hoc workmg group, and other papers, w comments. The Consultative council will prepare recommendations for submission to the Group at ICW2000. What I have suggested so far addresses important issues, no doubt, but leaves unaddressed the question of how this Group manages its own affairs. Our experience in recent months has shown how effective the Consultative Council can be in improving the pace and direction of policy making. I am therefore suggesting that the Council should become a permanent standing committee, but with a reduced membership. This leads me to Proposition #6. After ICW2000, the Consultative Comcil wiU be reconstituted with 15 members as a permanent standing committee. This will not automatically provide answers to the numerous governance and procedure issues that concern CGIAR Members. It is quite clear that concerns abound on such matters as what should be brought to plenary and what should be excluded; how duplication can be avoided 18 Charting the CGIdR’s Fuiure - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY OF PROCEEOINLO in the Group's consideration of external reviews; how much time should be given to Center presentations; what mechanisms can be used to provide the Group with opportunities for discussing "big picture" questions, and so on. I suggest that a slight modification of the decision-making process can help to resolve most of these issues. I therefore give you Proposition #7. After ICW,the Consultative Council will be authorized to reach decisions, on the understanding that the decisions will be immediately circulated among all CGIAR Members. If more than five Members question the decision, the issue will be re-opened at the next meeting of the Group. Envoi Colleagues and friends. The seven propositions I have formulated are intended to help focus our discussions in the coming days, and to lead us towards clear decisions. They are nd being imposed on this group. You are free to modify the propositions in any way you wish, reject them, or adopt them. What is important is that we should all work together over the next days to lay the groundwork for a vibrant and effective CGIAR for the future.The processes we adopt must create a clear path for moving forward beyond MTM. Then, subjects would have been assigned to appropriate groups, responsibilities for review and recommendations would have been clearly defined, and a timetable would be set, leading to decisions by ICW. Colleagues and friends. Almost three decades ago, at a time of fear and pessimism about the fate and future of millions in the disadvantaged regions of the world, the founders of the CGIAR acted with faith, hope, and a powerful vision. They were determined to reach the mountaintops of achievement.We are again required to shape the future, in the context of new challenges. Let us confront those challenges boldly. Let us build a future that is consistent w i & the founding spirit of the CGIAR. Let it never be said that a great inheritance was squandered. Thank you. I will now make the Chairman's Announcements and seek adoption of the agenda. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 19 SUMMARY OF PKOCEEDINCS Chairman b Announcements Ladies and gentlemen. I now move on to the Chairman's Announcements and the adoption of the draft agenda. At this time, we take the opportunity to welcome old and new friends, record achievements and, inevitably, because life never runs an even course, sometimes share the burden of sorrow as well. Condolences On January 30 this year, we were shocked and saddened by the tragic deaths-inan air crash of Dirk Vuylsteke, Paul Speijer, and John Hartman, a l l three from UTA, and of Abdou Salam Ouedraogo of IPGRI. Their f d e s suffered grievous personal loss, and we share their grief. We lost colleagues who were committed, competent, and caring. I request the Secretariat to record our condolences in the summary report of this meeting, and to send copies of the report to the families concerned. As we share sorrow, we should also record thanks and appreciation. I a m pleased to announce that Dr. Craig Venter, president and founder of Celera Genomics, who has just won the King Faisal International Prize for Science has donated $100,000, the full proceeds of the prize, to the Institute for Genomic Research VIGR) to complete the sequencing of the T-parva parasite, work that was being done for ILRI.This collaborative effort will be applied to the development of a vaccine against East Coast Fever, a disease that causes an economic loss of some $200 million a year. Loss of cattle to ECF has devastated smallholder farmers throughout East Africa. The donation is a reaffirmation of the importance and quality of the work being carried out by ILRI.Our thanks are due to Dr. Venter for his great generosity, and our congratulationsare due to ILRI for this recognition of the center's work. CGIAR Director The search for the new CGIAR Director, i.e. the successor to Alexander von der Osten, is now underway,after a slight delay in getting it off the ground. Questions or clarifications may be addressed to Bob Thompson, chairman of the Search Committee. To eliminate any confusion, let me say that Alexander von der Osten will remain in office through ICW2OOO. The transition from h i m to his successor will take place after ICW2000. Farewells and Welcomes We have a number of farewells. Cosponsors, Members, and Secretariat Louise Fresco is with us in Dresden, but we have actually lost her, following her appointment as FADSAssistant Director General for Agriculture. She has had a long and fruitful relationship with the CGIAR. I have no doubt that she will make a strong impact in her current position and in that way complement our own efforts. 20 Charting the CGIAR's Fuhtre - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY O F P R 0 6 E E D I N C S Henri Carsalade is now Assistant Director General in charge of FAOs Technical Cooperation Department, and is therefore no longer FAO’s cosponsor representative. Without doubt, Henri will shine in his new position, and we wish him the very best, but that does not diminish our own sense of loss. His contributions to the CGLAR are too numerous to recount in detail. He has had towering and extensive influence throughout the CGIAR System. His judgement, his wisdom, and his practicality have been a boon to us a l l . I will now read the text of the commemorative scroll that we have prepared for him,before handing it over to Louise Fresco with the request that she should kindly present it to Henri on our behalf. “The Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR) at its Mid-Tern Meeting 2000 held in Dresden, Germany unanimously resolved to honor and felicitate Henri Camlade in recognition of his deep understanding of tropical agriculture and agriculturalresearch, his dedicated commitment to the mission of the CGIAR, his contributionsto the effectiveness of CGIAR decisionmaking as a national representative, a member of the inaugural Oversight Committee, as the chair of two boards of trustees, and as a cosponsor of the CGIAR representing the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The CGIAR records its appreciation of his efforts, and offers h i m warm good wishes for the future.” This is Paul Egger’s final appearance as Swimrland’s head of delegation. He has in fact already taken up new responsibilities relating specifically to Asia. Paul advocated positions within the CGIAR that helped to shape its growth, and to strengthen its relations with national agriculturalresearch systems (NAR!S) and NGOs. He was the founding chairman of the Oversight Committee (OC), and provided that committee with dedicated leadership. He was the guiding light in all that we undertook during the CGIAR renewal. He was the architect of the Lucerne Ministerial-level meeting. He was the first to demonstrate that it is appropriate to renew chairmanships, by stepping down from OC duinnanship, opening the way to its renewal. So, Paul, what I am doing for myself is following your example. I will read out the text of the commemorative scroll for Paul before inviting him to come up here and receive it. “The Consultative Group on InternationalAgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) at its Mid-Tern Meeting 2000 held in Dresden, Germany, unanimously resolved to honor and felicitate Paul Egger in recognition of his commitment to the mission of the CGIAR, his dedication to the cause of mobilizing science to serve the needs of the poor and protect the environment, his support for national agricultural research systems, and his contributions to the effectivenessof CGIAR decision-making,partidarly as the founding chairman of the Oversight Committee. The CGLAR records its appreciation of his efforts, and offers him warm good wishes for the future.” Next... Miguel Altieri. I know that I express your views as well as mine when I pay tribute to his enormous contribution and great leadership. His ability to build bridges between the CGIAR and the NGO community has truly been a major contribution to the opening-up of the CGIAR. He has helped us to understand and appreciate the NGO perspective, and that in t u r n has led to the development of a sense of mutuality between us and all those NGOs who are part of the coalition of the caring to which we belong. Miguel ends his chairmanship after this Mid-Term Meeting, and I will miss him personally but I have no doubt that his legacy will endure. Now, let me read the text of the scroll that I will present to h4iguel: “The Consultative Group on International Research (CGIAR),at its annualMid-Tern M&g Dresden, unanimously resolved to felicitate Miguel Altieri in recognition of his commitment to the in ‘ Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 21 SUMMARY OF P R O C E E D I N C S mission of the CGIAR, his dedication to the cause of mobilizing science to serve the needs of the poor and protect the environment, his support for innovative and sustainable forms of natural resource management, and his contributionsto developing the dialogue between the CGIAR and civil society institutions as Chairman of the CGIAFUNGO Partnership Committee. The CGIAR records its appreciation of his effort and offers him warm good wishes for the future.” We bid farewell now to Frona Hall. This will be her last meeting as a member of the CGIAR Secretariat. For many of us around this table, there is no distinction between Frona and CGIAR meetings. She made them happen, choosing the meeting site, working on the agenda, making sure that documents were distributed in a timely manner, and being directly involved in the very many details that make the differencebetween a successful meeting and a breakdown. She even demanded punctuality from us with the persistent ringing of her instantly recognizable bell. Frona has been a tower of strength to all of us. She has been so closely associated with the organization of these meetings, and for so long, that a legend has grown, as to how after each CGIAR meeting outside Washington, when we depart, the management of the hotel where the meeting was held renames our meeting place the “Frona Hall.” Now, before I read the text of the scroll prepared for her, and present the scroll to Frona, I invite Andrew Bennett to join me at the podium, where he will speak on behalf of CGIAR members. ‘ Following comments by Mr. Bennett and presentation of a bell to Ms. Hall, the Charman continued: We do have a scroll for Frona and let me read its text. “The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) at its Mid-Term meeting 2000 held in Dresden, Germany unanimously resolved to honor and felicitate Frona Hall for her outstanding contributionto the effectiveness of the CGIAR, and to place on record its appreciation of the exemplary manner in which she carried out a wide range of responsibilities. The CGIAR offers her w a r m good wishes for the future.” Before I move on to the welcomes, let me point out that Y a n g Weimin of the ADB, Abdelmajid Slama of FAD, and Joachim Voss of IDRC are no longer heads of delegation. We wish them well in their current endeavors. On a different note, I offer a special welcome to His Excellency Minister El-Zahn, Syria’s Minister of State for Planning. His Government recently adopted legislation form&g Syria’s membership in the CGIAR, and we are delighted that thls legislation has now been followed up by the Minister deciding to fly all the way here to attend M.TM2OOO, as a demonstration and reaffirmation of Syria’s renewed and invigorated support. I welcome all the representatives who are here for the first time. We are happy to have them in the CGIAR famdy. I welcome, as well, the observers who are at the Mid-Term meeting for the f i r s t time, and hope that they will soon attend CGIAR meetings as member representatives. We also welcome Robert L. Thompson, Director of the World Bank’s Rural Development Depamnent (RDV), and the Bank’s representative in the CGIAR Cosponsor Group. Most of us know him well as a past president of the Wmock International Institute for Agricultural Development, and Dean of Agriculture and Professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue. More recently, he has been a senior advisor on strategy and policy for agricultural and rural development at the Bank Jacques Eckebil, Director of the Sustainable Development Department at FAO, who cannot join us for personal reasons, is the new FA0 representative in the Cosponsor Group. We knew Jacques at 22 Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY OF PROCEEBIWLS IITA, where he won the respect of his colleagues in the CGIAR and of national scientists. He was a gift from the CGIAR to the FAO, and it is only fitting that F A 0 should now share him with us.He will be with us at ICW. We welcome E d Javier at ICW1999, but let me place it on record that he is now attending a CGIAR meeting for the f i r s t time as TAC chair. We welcome as well Werner Arber, as chairman of the Science Partnership Committee, and all the members of that committee. Board Chairs There have been a number of changes among board chairs. CIAT: Lauritz Holm-Nielsen has succeeded Fernando Chaparro. CIFOR: Jagmohan M a i n i is the new CIFOR chair, followingthe term of Gill Shepherd. ICRAF: Lucie Edwards has succeeded Yemi Katerere. IFPRI: Geoff Miller is the new IFPRI chair, succeeding Martin PGieiro. WARDA Lindsay Innes has succeeded Just Faaland. Wally Falcon continues to serve as Clh4MYT's chair, but he has been succeeded as chairman of u r t Peters. the committee of Center Board Chairs by K Center Directors We welcome Joachim Voss in his new position. He has taken over from the interim director general, Aart van Schoonhoven at CIAT. Frank Rijsbennan will succeeded David Seckler at W M I in September. I express my gratitude to all those who are leaving their positions. I wish them the very best in their future undertakings, confident that we will hear more from them. At the same time, I offer a very hearty welcome to the newcomers. Our appreciation is due to all of them. Please express our appreciation in the usual CGIAR manner. Honor Roll CGIAR scientists and alumni continue to win public honors that recognize their considerable achievements. I am delighted to inform you of the following honors that have been brought to my notice: M. S . Swaminathanwas awarded UNESCO's Gandhi Gold Medal for Science, Gurdev Kush won the 2000 Wolf Prize for Agriculture, Chris Johansen received the Vietnam Medal for Agriculture and Rural Development, and Ronald Cantrell was declared a Distinguished Alumnus of Purdue University. Adoption of the Agenda We can now move on to adopting the draft agenda which has been circulated in advance. The agenda was adopted. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 . 23 ~ SDMMAlY OF PROLEEDllfS Chairman's Propositions Proposition #1. The Group adopts the seven principles or 'planks' o u t l i n e d in TACs proposed new CGIAR vision statement, and endorses that statement's definition of the 'headand' of the CGIAR. Proposition #2. A l l in the CGIAR System who wish to offer proposals on svucnrre should feel free to submit their suggestions to TAC by August 15,2000. Proposition #3. Proposals from board chairs and Center directors should be completed no later than August 15,2000 and submitted to TAC for further review and comment. Proposition #4. P a t e n t s , intellectual property rights, finance, and other issues to be identified before the end of MTM2000 will be addressed by an ad hoc working group that would call on outside experience as appropriate. Proposition #5. The Consultative Council will convene in mid-September, 2000 to discuss proposals f r o m CBC/CDC, the ad hoc working group, and other papers, w i t h TACs review and comments.The Consultative council will prepare recomendauons for submission to the Group at ICW2000. Proposition #6. After ICW2000, the Consultative Council Wiu be reconstituted with 15 members as a permanent standing commitwe. Proposition #7. After ICW, the Consultative councilwill be authonized to reach decisions, on the understanding that the decisions will be immediately circulated among all CGIAR members. If more than five m e m b e r s question the decision,the issue will be re-opened at the next meeting of the Group. Proposition #7 (presented &om the f l o o r ) . The CGIAR reaffirms the importance of the Global Forum on Agricukural R e s e a r c h ,re-endorses its Lnkages with GFAR, and resolves to revisit the issue of CGLAR support for GFAR at ICW2000. 24 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMABY O F P l O L E E D l W g S A New Vision and Skategyfor the CGIAR With the theme of ‘‘Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Vision for 2010,” MTM2000 will best be remembered as a critical meeting to map the new vision and strategy for the CGIAR and lay the groundwork for moving from vision to action. At ICW99, the CGIAR asked the TechnicalAdvisory Committee PAC) to take the lead in formulating the new CGIAR vision. TAC stressed a consultative, open and participatory process, involving a broad range of stakeholders including the CBC, CDC, Chairs of CGIAR Committees, representatives of national agricultural research systems (NARS), and the CGIAR and NARS Secretariats. TAC prepared a vision paper which was reviewed by the Consultative Council at its Rome meeting andat the Council’s request- drafted a companion paper which was reviewed at Dresden. The Council broadly endorsed the strategypresented by TAC and recommended that the Group adopt the seven “planks” of the new vision and TAC‘s definition of the CGIAR heartland. The Council also urged the Group to adopt an action plan as well as a schedule of next steps to deal with issues of strategy and structure following the Dresden meeting. Building on the endorsement and action proposals of the Consultative Council, TAC Chair E d Javier presented the new vision and strategy to the Group at MTM2000. The vision statement draws heady on the third CGIAR System Review, the Conway Panel report, the 1994 TAC study on structure, and other TAC papers. TAC also conducted an extensive electronic discussion of key issues. The New Vision Vision: A food secure world for all. Goal: To reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition by sustainably increasing the productivity of resources in agriculture, forestry, fisheries. Mission: To achieve sustainable food security and reduce poverty in developing countries through scientific research and research-related activities in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, policy, and environment. Strategic Planks Seven “planks” that form the core of the proposed vision would be the basis for strategic planning. 1. sharply focussing System activities on the reduction of poverty, hunger, and malnutrition in developing countries (implications: incidence of poverty will drive the work of the C G W CGIAR will work more closely with other development institutions addressing poverty; both the urban and rural poor will be targeted); 2. bringing modem science to bear on difficult productivity and institutional problems that have proven intractable in the past (implications: the CGIAR will be closely connected with the most recent advances/methods in science, ranging from functional genomics, information technology and GIS modeling to integrated natural resource management and participatory research; addressing institutional issues associated with genetic resources and intellectual property will demand significant effort); Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 25 SUMMAPY OF PROCEEDINGS 3. giving highest priority to the research needs of South Asia and Sub-SaharanAfrica, where poverty is concentrated and growing (implication: the CGIAR will focus on those ecologies and peoples not reached by the green revolution); 4. adopting a regional approach to research planning in order to better address the heterogeneous nature of poverty (implications: the CGIAR will have regional research agendas developed jointly with partners in the region; the C G M will try to better integrate its efforts with others working on different aspects of poverty); a Ycenters without walls’’ mode, with more outsourcing and contracting and greater reliance on alliances and networks); 5. diversifying and closely integrating its partnerships (implication: the CGIAR will operate more in 6 . adopting, under certain circumstances, a task force approach to the organization and delivery of CGIAR products and services (implications: the CGIAR will increasinglyshift towards financing well-defmed,time-bound programs with relatively independent management and involving partners from inside as well as outside the CGIAR; the independent center model will continue side-by-sidewith flexible organizational arrangements such as research consortia and task forces); and 7 . serving as a catalyst, organizer, coordinator, and integrator of global efforts on key opportunities and constraints in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (implication:the CGIAR will not just “produce” technology;it will also serve as an apolitical honest-broker in the international arena.) CGIAR “Heartland” The new vision proposed by TAC offerslittle change in w h the CGIAR does, although it flags some changes in the r$atirepnonaes of CGIAR activities (e.g. focus on Africa and South Asia). Many of TAGSsuggestions are about hare the CGIAR carries out its business (e.g. partnerships, broker/catalyst role, task forces,regional priority setting.) Stated in terms of the CGIAR’s five major undertakings, the major changes from the new vision are as follows: Germplasm Conservation. This has been and wilI remain the principal “heartland” activity of the CGIAR for the long term. The CGIAR will need to be engaged more closely with international policy networks related to germplasm conservation and IPR (e.g., F A 0 Commission, CBD, WTO, TRIPS,etc.) The CGIAR will increasinglyuse new tools (e.g. functional genomics) in characte&g germplasm. A critical strategic consideration is the future organization and financing of the System’s germplasm conservation activities.The designation of i t h a separate endowment, may considerably improve these activities as a discrete enterprise,w their efficiency and effectiveness. Gennplasm Improvement. Crop improvement will continue to be one of the main businesses of the CGIAR over the next 10-15years. In addition, the CGIAR will continue its work on livestock improvement, disease resistance, and vaccine development in light of the expected doubling of demand for meat and milk in developing countries over the next twenty years. Similarly, germplasm exchange and improvement work on fish species like carp and tilapia will continue, with increased use of genetic marker technologies. Among the crops, the CGIAR will continue to work on the major staples that are the most affordable sources of calories and protein for poor people (cereals, roots and tubers) and breed for traits of specific importance to the poor (e.g. drought, salinity,low temperature). In addition, regional prio.rity setting will highhght commodities of regional importance (e.g. horticultural crops) which are not in the current portfolio. The CGIAR will employ a variety of germplasm improvement strategies, ranging from functioning as a catalyst and facilitator of networks (such as in banana and plantain 26 Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMABY OF PBOEEEDlNes improvement), to taking f u l lresponsibility for improvement programs (such as in wheat and rice). It will use a wide range of research tools, from biotechnology to participatory breeding. Over time, the CGIAR will increasingly share germplasm improvement responsibilities with stronger NARS. Integrated Natural Resource Management (NRM). The CGIAR will work only on NRM research that is geared towwds increasing productivity or increasingthe sustainabilityof natural resources to produce outputs needed for reducing poverty. Thus, integrated NRM will serve as a framework for all CGIAR research and will focus more on increasing understanding of biophysical and socio-economicprocesses. The CGIAR will not do NRM research solely to protect the environment. 0 Policy Research. The CGIAR will expand its policy research activities. The principal areas of growth will include: research on malnutrition and nutrients; protecting the interests of the poor in global forums and policy networks; germplasm and IPR policy matters; and modeling of socioeconomicand biophysical systems. Enhancing NARS Capacities. The CGIAR will place priority on those activities that are in the form of international public goods (such as research on or development of generic tools for organization and management of research institutions) at the expense of strengthening services to individual countries or institutions (which are not international public goods). Training conducted by CGIAR institutions will evolve, based on the change in the Centers' research focus and several training activities will be taken over by NARS. Increasingly, the CGIAR will play a catalyhc role in building partnerships and networks. During the plenary discussion, several Members raised questions about the implications of the vision and strategy for CGIAR programs and activities. There was agreement that the CGIAR must continue to evolve in order to strategicallyutilize the best of science to meet the needs of a rapidly changingworld. In rethinking what the CGIAR does, how it does it, and with whom, Members agreed with the TAC recommendationthat the criteria for choosing future research activities should include their contribution to CGIAR goals, creation of international public goods, alternative sources of supply, and probability of research success. The Group agreed with the chairman's suggestionto establish working groups to brainstorm and tease out key issues and help further Group discussions. Six working groups were charged with reviewing a specific subject matter; a seventh was not charged with a specific topic to allow for other issues to be raised. Working groups were asked to report to plenary on issues that should be emphasized (and any that had not been sufficiently addressed), and to identify their implications for restructuring, governance, and finance. The working groups were not meant to reach consensus but to receive diverse and rich views and comments. Working Groups The MTM working groups met in parallel session, then reported their findings to the Group in plenary. Working Group 1 - Genetic Resources. The working group was chaired by Carl Gustav Thornstrom; Juan Restrepo, rapporteur, reported the results to the Group. The participants identified the following key issues: the CGIAR's role in ensuring the free flow of germplasm (access to genetic resources); its role in the negotiation of the F A 0 international undertaking; and Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 27 S U M M A B Y O F PROCEEDINGS conservation and use of germplasm including the maintenance of the gene banks, the role of national and regional centers, and the l i n k between conservation and utilization. Among the specific points raised by the working group were the CGIAR's role in providing technical support at national, regional, and global levels; the sending of strong signals on the need to come to agreement on a multi-lateral system in the context of national legislation on access and benefit sharing; the CGIAR as a mechanism for benefit sharing; support for GFAR's Dresden Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources of Food and Agriculture; and high profile initiatives to provide emergency seed to disaster areas. Working Group 1 saw the need for unified policies on genetic resources at the System level. Regarding finance, the working group suggested setting up an endowment fund for genebanks. It also suggested a special effort to upgrade present genebank facilities and operations. Working Group 2 - Intellectual Property Rights and the Private Sector. The working group was chaired by Albert0 Duque Portugal and Ian Bevege served as rapporteur. The participants identified these key issues: 0 0 The CGIAR must manage its IP framework based on the principles of flexibility and subsidiarity, and taking into account opportuniv costs. It should consider, as appropriate, IP instruments other than patents. Some centralized functions, such as a wholly owned subsidiary, may be desirable. Such a unit should coordinate without dominating, retain competitivenesswhere it matters, and harmonize approaches among Centers. The CGIAR must manage others' I P to enable access to needed technology, assure effective partnerships with advanced research institutes and the private sector, and minimize legal and financial risks. The CGIAR must negotiate from a position of strength.Its leverage is strengthenedwhen its own IP is of interest to partners. It must be a trusted and respected player. It should maximizeits good wrll as a public goods provider in negotiations with the private sector and advanced research institutes (ARIs). Also, it should learn from the experience of ARTSin developing relationships and negotiating with the private sector. The CGIAR should serve as a facilitator for IP management in international agricultural research for development. It can serve as a broker between public and private sectors, helping to harmonize approaches and policies. The CGIAR and its stakeholdersshould develop protective IP to keep international public goods in the public arena and available to the resource poor. An important question is how to handle information such as traditional knowledge, which is not yet subject to IPR Working Group 3 - New Science: Geographic and Ekoregional Issues. E m y Simmons served as chair and Joseph Mukiibi, rapporteur. Discussants raised the following key issues: The science revolution is more than genomics. It includes better understanding of agro-ecology and natural resources processes, and social processes such as collective management of napual resources. Information technologies such as GIs, modehg, and artificial intelligence are also important elements of the science revolution. Tools of the science revolution can be best used to solve clearly defined problems along ecoregional lines. The challenge is to idenufy how these tools relate to poverty, especially h i g h l y heterogeneous povercy. 0 28 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY OF PROCEEOINbS 0 Using the new science tools to reduce poverty requires layering ecoregional constraints over geopolitical issues. If you start with poverty, the focus must be on impact at the geopoliticallevel. If ecoregionalproblems are the point of departure, it may be difficult to assure impact at the geopoliticallevel. There is consensus that geopolitical regional priority setting is key to effective use of modern science tools; ecoregional organization is essential to good science; and restructuring options would benefit from lessons of history. The ideal structure would be based on geopolitical priority setting and have science based ecoregional centers that solve geopolitical problems through their own work and generate truly global knowledge. Other options include: + Geopolitical regional centers w i t h semi-permanent task forces to provide global integrauon. + Ecoregional centers which assume responsibility for coordinating all priority needs for a "lead" geopoliticalregion. + Competitive funding mechanisms to encourage one or the other focus. Working Group 4 - Mode of Operation. Ruth Haug served as chair and Mohammad Roczitdab, rapporteur. Discussants contributed the following perspectives: Modes o f Operation There should be diverse and dynamic modes of operation; there is no single magic model. 0 Modes of operation should support the CGLAR mission to combat poverty and achieve food security. i t h i n The CBC and CDC should document different models of operation based on experiencesw and outside the CGIAR. Modes'of operation could combine different models including those driven by demand or science or partnership or research agenda. One should learn from Centers' experiences. The CGIAR System should be responsive to development efforts of regions/countries while being conducive to use of high quality science. Governance One "mega" center is not a solution;the CGIAR should be a loose federation of regional/ecoregional centers. The TAC should be restructured as a Research Council with a core budget for financing competitive research proposals. Empowerment of Centers and Center scientists should receive priority. Outsourcing should be a two-way process: (1) fromthe CGIAR to NARYregional fora, (2) from NARS/regional fora to the CGIAR. Centers should have a critical mass of scientists before they outsource tasks. A stronger CGIAR System might mean less autonomous Centers. Working Group 5 - Finance. Iain MacGillivray was chair and Eliseo Ponce, rapporteur. Discussants defined the followingkey issues. Traditional vs. non-traditional funds should be understood and exploited. ODA funds from nonagricultural sources have not been fully tapped. Raising more funds from non-traditional sources and from the South depends on the CGIAR's image, program focus, and new institutional arrangements. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 . 0 29 SUMMARY .OF PEOCEEDINCS 0 0 Strategy for maintajning current funding levels from traditional sources should be fully articulated. Multiple funding sources require new mechanisms to generate funds. Long term financing has not been satisfactorilyaddressed. Current funding which is discretionary and annual in character creates instability and affects productivity. The CGIAR’s public awareness program (audience, focus, and links to resource mobilization) requires review and improvement. Implications for restructuring 0 The current issues on financing (stability,variability, and level) require a new CGIAR structure that is highly decentralmd and flexible to meet the needs of its various partners. 0 The repositioning of the CGIAR must take into consideration such issues as: > message and audience t . new partnership arrangements + the growing competencies of NARS t . increasing the cost-effectiveness of operations Implications for governance 0 Declining funding commitments require a well-crafted strategy with a strong Secretariat in a coordinating role while preserving Centers’ competitiveness and independence. Working Group 6 - Process. Working group 6 was chaired by Andrew Bennett, who also served as rapporteur. The working group was charged with clarifymg responsibilities and setting a clear timetable. It &de several recommendations on processes which were endorsed by the CGIAR (see box on pages 3 132). Working Group 7 - Equity, Income Opportunities, and NRM. This ad hoc working group came together because of concern about other issues. Keneti Faulalo served as rapporteur. The participants identified three key issues: Equity with emphasis on explicit benefits for women and excluded groups and on communicating information 0 Income opportunities through marketing and small-scale,post-harvest technology 0 Natural Resources Management for soil fertility and nutrient management/envkonment. 30 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Vision for 2010 SOMMABY O F PROCEEDINES 1 Roles and Responsibilities TAC 0 Working Group 4 -Recommendations Will complete the vision and strategy paper taking into account comments on the two papers from the CGIAR a t the Consultative Council meetings and the MTMZOOO; Will the svucnu"di implications of the seven ''pillars'' of the TAC vision; Wd review and comment on papers on structure and governance from CBC/CDC and other stakeholders; 0 Will facilitate an electronic conference on organizational structure and governance of the CGIAR and summ;uiZethe comments on organizational StrUcNe made at the last TAC conference in cooperation w i t h key stakeholders (such as CFAR,OC, CBC/CDC). + CBC/CDC (PPnmariEy CDC)will analyze stnrcture issues including, >. cross-Center collaboration + geographic vs. ecoregional organization >. Herdtpaper + TaskForces + Possibilities of merger/integration of Center activities. (CDC and CBC)will analyze policies and practices on P R (prima+ CBC) will examine o v d System governance issues, including the hub" of the System and how the System internas w i t h its stakeholders. Finance Committee Will carry out further analysis of long-term financing strategies and StnrCNres and draft business plan, interacting as necessary with other key actors. Oversight Committee W i l l oversee the process on behalf of the CGIAR; Wd appoint a uSyn&esis Group" to integrate the various inputs from other bodies for discussion/decision-makingby the ffiIAR. The Synthesis Group Will be made up of 5-7individuals serving in their personal capaciw Will consist of informed individuals, about 2/3 from w i t h i n and 1/3 from outside the CGLAR, Will synthesize/integrate contributions of all groups to generate actionable recommendations on organizationd svwxure and governance. Members, Other CGIAR Committees, and Stakeholders Will be invited to make contributions to the process (a) through the electronic conference, and (b) through individual submissions. Individd submissions should be sent to TAC, CWCDC a d t h e Synthesis Group (independentlyor through the 0. Consultative Council Will be convened at the invitation of the Chair, either before or after ICW2000,to review/commt on recommendations or help implement t h e m (if acted upon by the CGIAft) Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 31 SUMMARY OF P R O C E E D I N C S Working Group 6 Recommendations (Continued) Timetable July 2000 Aug 24-25 Early Sept Sept 25-30 - End Sept o c t 5-8 - Start of electronic conference (OC) Prepare papers PAC, CBC/CDC) Special TAC meeting to review TAC papers and comment on submissions (at Oa23-27 Jan-Feb 2001 Feb-Mar 2001 Oct 9-10 Oct 21 ISNAR) CBC/CDC meeting to review drafrs, develop options (at ISNAR) TAC meeting at lITA to comment on submissions and finalke TACs papers FC produces dtaft business plan Synthesis Group meeting to integrate all contributions and develop proposals to the CGIAR ( m o s tIikelyin London) Possible Consultative Council meeting h m a t i v e date for a possible Consultative Council meeting ICW2000 Possible Consultative Council meeting Possible extraordinary CGLAR meeting R e & meeting of CGLAJR (h4Th42001) to condude decisions on governance and Structur€! May 2001 - Chairman's Propositions The Working Group also commented on the seven propositions offered by . & I Serageldinduring his opening address. It agreed with propositions 1through 4, with some amendments on dates. Regarding Proposition 5,it offered an alternate schedule for the convening of the Consutrative Council (as noted above). As to propositions 6 and 7 on the composition and role of the Consultative Council,it was felt that it would be premature to reach a conclusion on these points given the timetable hereby defined Thus it is recommended that these issues should be studied as part of the CGIARs overall governance structurt during the coming months. Working Group 6 M e r recommended that there be a discussion on the evolurjon of CGIARGFAR relationships at ICW2000. In plenary session, Members commended the openness of the Working Group brainstorming sessions and the opportunities provided to discuss the substance of a broad mix of issues and future planning for CGIAR governance and structure. The Group briefly discussed the findings of Working Groups 1 5 and Working Group 7, and agreed that the information and conclusions will enrich the work of TAC, CDC, CBC, and other committees in the next phase of developing the new vision and strategy for the CGIAR. 7 Regarding the procedural recommendations offered by Working Group 6, Members noted that the momentous changes brought about by the scientific and information revolutions have profound implications for the CGIAR. The challenge to the CGIAR is to deepen its understanding of those changes and clarify that understanding into a new vision. Members noted that at ICW2000,the CGIAR will be challenged to decide whether structural alterations are required w i t h i n the CGIAR System to f u l f i lthe new vision; and if so, what the new structure(s) should be; and how best and w i t h i n what time frame to transit from the present to such a 32 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SlMYAIY OF PIOCEEBINCS structure. The structural alterations required to f u l f i l the new vision will be the key issue that the CGIAR will grapple w i t h at ICW2000. In discussing the process and timetable for moving beyond M"M2000, several Members raised the issue of the Consultative council's involvement and the use of another mechanism, a synthesis group, to integrate contributions from a l l stakeholder groups and generate actionable recommendations on organizational structure and governance. The synthesis group would not be representative of the Group as a whole, but instead involve individuals serving in their personal capacity, knowledgeable insiders, and outside experts, under the auspices of the Oversight Committee. It was generally agreed that the synthesis group could provide a useful mechanism for moving forward on structural issues in the short-term.The consultatve council would be convened at the Chairmads discretion and decisions about the next council meeting would be left to the incoming Chairman. Decision: The Group adopted the seven planks of TAC'sproposed new vision statement, broadly endorsed the dejinition o f the heartland, adoptedfollow up arrangements and a timetablefor exploring structural changes, and expressed a desire to discuss options at ICW2000. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 33 GFAR 2000- “StrengtheningPartnerships in AgriculturalResearch for Development in the Context of Globalization”- presented the CGIAR with a vision of the environment in which the CGIAR System works and the f u l lrange of partners. Held May 21 - 23,2000 in Dresden as part of MTM2000, the Forum included 500 stakeholders from the public and private sectors. R S. Paroda, Chair of the Global Forum, presented a report to the Group on major outcomes of the meeting. Mr. Paroda began his presentation by tracing the history of GFAR. GFAR was established in 1996 with the encouragement of the CGIAR to provide an innovative means through which all partners engaged in agricultural research for the benefit of the poor could act together on global priorities. National a g r i c u l d research institutions, advanced research institutes, international agricultural research centers, the private sector, non-governmentalorganizations, farmers’organizations,and regional/sub-regional organizations are represented within GFAR. In summarizingthe achievements of GFAR 2000, Mr. Paroda stressed that a key outcome was the endorsement of the Dresden Declaration, “Towards a Global system for Agricultural Research for Development.” GFAR stakeholders envision the development of an agriculture, including crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry,which is: sustainable,equitable, profitable and competitive, in the context of community centered rural development, fully recognizingthe role of women; diversified and flexible to cope with heterogeneous and rapidly changing agro-ecologicaland socio-economicenvironments with an important role for the farm farmly; and responsive to multiple sources of knowledge and innovations, both modern and traditional. 0 The “Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture” was also endorsed by the stakeholders and adopted by the GFAR Steering Committee. It strongly supports the ongoing revision of FAO’s International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources as well as the Leipzig Global Plan of Action. It encourages countries “that are considering or reviewing legislation on intellectual property, to do so in such a way that they do not restrict the exchange,transfer and use of germplasm in crop improvement programs.” In plenary session, the Group discussed the GFAR2000 conclusions and the lessons for the CGIAR - in particular for its new vision and strategy. It was felt that the presence of such a diverse group of stakeholdersrepresenting the global a g r i c u l d research community demonstrated a continuing resolve to move towards an agenda responsive to small and poor farmers in developing countries. The Forum considered important research partnerships including those on genetic resources management and biotechnology, natural resources management and agroecology, commodity chains, policy management, and institutional development. Several Members discussed the nature of GFAR as a forum that facilitates consensus building on strategic issues and research partnerships. Members agreed that it is not a funding mechanism although it could play a cat+c role in initiating stakeholder activities. GFAR priorities include facilitating information flows and concerted actions among stakeholders, promoting policy management capacity building in stakeholders,and developing a “projectmarketplace” of best projects and practices. The first step to implement the Global Vision, it was generally agreed, is the establishment of budding blocks of the global system for agricultural research for development. These include formulating 34 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 201 0 SUMMABY OF PE06EEDlNSO a strategic global research agenda which capitalizes on the comparative strengths and advantages of different stakeholders; promoting innovative, cost-effective and sustainable research pmerships and strategic alliances; and establishing specialized agricultural knowledge and information systems, including networking among stakeholders. information and communication technologies 0 Issues concerning CGIAR involvement in GFAR were also raised. CGIAR Centers are represented in the GFAR steering committee and involved in dialogues on strategic global issues such as plant genetic resources as well as other activities. There was support for continued CGIAR-GFAR collaboration,but it was felt that more detailed discussions should take place after the completion of an on-going external review of the GFAR. Decision: The Group received the report on the Global Forum, reafirmed the strong ties that exist f that relationship afier the between GFAR and the CGUR, and agreed to review more specijk aspects o completion o f the GFAR external review. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 35 SUMMARY OF P R O C E E O I N C S Finance Committee Chair Iain MacGillivray introduced Alex Mas, chair of the working group on a Longer Term Financing Strategy for the CGIAR. At its meeting in January 1999, the Consultative Council requested Mr. McCalla, as Finance Committee Chair,to lead implementation of the CGIAR System Review Panel's recommendations on resource mobilization and public awareness. At MTh499, the Group endorsed Mr. McCaUa's proposal that a consulting company, the Conservation Company, be engaged for the task under the guidance of a working group representing key constituencies- the Centers, Members, CGIAR public awareness and resource mobilization professionals, and Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization Committee (PARC). At ICW99, the Group discussed an interim report and endorsed the Finance Committee's recommendations that: 0 0 the CGIAR's longer term financing strategy be based on continuation of ODA funding with some proportion being supported by non-ODA funding from DAC countries, expansion of Southern financial participation, and a special effort to solicit private philanthropy, and a single mechanism, such as a CGIAR/Future Harvest Foundation, be used to implement a harmonized, but not c e n t r b d , approach for resource mobilization and public awareness. In his introduction,Mr. MacGillivray noted that since ICW99, there has been a strong effort by the working group to put the longer-term financing strategy in the context of the new CGIAR vision. The draft report focuses on strategic issues of longer term funding and an interim structurewhich emphasizes non-traditional resources and enhanced public awareness. It seeks endorsement to proceed with expanding Future Harvest public awareness efforts, defin;ng next steps including pilot activities with nontraditional sources, and continuingthe working group until ICW2OOO to refine resource mobilization strategies and recommend a five year operational budget. Mr. McCalla presented the working group's draft report. The report proposes a sigdicant expansion of public awareness initiatives with Future Harvest in the lead and significant Center involvement. It calls for creation of new fundraising capacities Systemwide, at the Center level, and at national and regional levels where possible. It also calls for expanded efforts to enlist the Southern countries to support the CGIAR financially and increasingly take ownership of the System. The draft report recommends creation of a global, multi-pronged publjc awareness/resource mobilization effort. Built on Future Harvest, this expanded public awareness/resource mobilization effort would place communicationsprofessionals in most regions, build partnerships with national support organizations, NGOs, and other national efforts, support and strengthenCenter efforts, raise funds wherever legally established, advocate for Centers and the System, and match donors and programs. The effort would require an estimated $1.5 to $2 million annual investment, and an additional $1million for regional hubs and partial support of PA/RM staff at the Centers. Mr. McCalla said that expected returns from this investment are $79 to 1I O million from non-traditional funding sources within five years, and $120 to 200 million within I O years, including as much as $32 million derived from yield on endowment. In plenary discussion, the Group noted the declining ODA, growing competition for resources and the perception that traditional global institutions have lost relevance. There was agreement that these internal and external challenges to CGIAR growth and diversification require bold new initiatives. The goals are to reaffirm the CGIAR's relevance in today's society, convey messages of work and impact to key constituencies, and implement innovative strategies to tap new sources of funding, both public and private. 36 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUYMAEY OF PEOtEEDIWGS There was strong support for building on the success of Future Harvest. Making the case for the CGIAR, several Members emphasized,will require creating a brand image for the CGIAR, finding synergies between CGIAR research and donor priorities, and developing cogent messages that link CGIAR research directly to poverty alleviation, food security, and sustainable development. There was agreement on the need to develop a coherent strategywhich is coordinated but not centralized Several Members raised concerns that involvement of the private sector would put the CGIAR under new scrutiny, especiallyin the NGO community. It was also noted that expanded CGIAR investments by the South should not be at the expense of national programs. Members also discussed the estimated costs of the global public awarenesdresource mobilization effort and the importance of a t i o of funds spent to funds raised w i t h i n a reasonable time frame. measuring performance based on the r Decbion: The Group unanimously aflrmed the need for a global public awarenesshesource f the CGLAlUFuture Harvest Foundation, and requested that a mobilization effort, endorsed the concept o business plan andflnal proposal on structure be presented at IC W2000. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 20JO 37 SOMMAlY OF PlOEEEBIWCS Seminar on CGIAR’s Impact on Gemplam Improvement A special seminar was held on “Crop Genetic Improvement and Agricultural Development,” the IAEG study conducted under the direction of Dr. Robert Evenson of Yale University in collaboration with the Centers and several NARS. The study of crop germplasm impacts covers ten crops for which the international and national research systems have been engaged. These crops constitute 80 percent of the area planted in developing countries. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, provided an overview of the synthesis report distributed at M“M2OOO. The report builds on impact assessment work undertaken by individual Centers and their NARS colleagues in monitoring and documenting released varieties, adoption rates, and production gains for individual.commodities.In addition, country case studies for China, Brazil and India add further insights into the impacts of the CGIAR crop germplasm improvement activities. This is a milestone study, Mr. Gregersen noted, in the sense that it is the first time that a Systemwide perspective is emerging on the question of what kind of impacts the Centers’crop germplasm improvement activities are having on the world’s crop producers and consumers. , t Mr. Evenson described the synthesis report and summarized the major conclusions of the assessment program: The growth of investments in crop germplasm improvement activity in the NARS has paralleled that of the Centers. While there is no evidence for direct e e s between the two, the study speculates that there is an indirect Idage, not only in the countries where NARS programs were non-existent or where there was little capacity in the 1960s, but also in the more developed country and crop programs, where, presumably, there were strong interactions between the national and Center programs. 0 There is a continuing high level of NARS and Center production of improved varieties. The data available do not support the contention that strong diminishing returns to varietal production are taking place. With regard to Center contribution to overall varietal releases, the study concludes that the proportion of center-developedvarieties has remained roughly constant at 33 percent of all releases. Further, “in recent years 20 percent of all varietal releases were based on Center-crossed parents and 15 percent on other Center-crossedancestors.” The study emphasizes that “ ...these indirect indexes do not actually measure the true germplasmic effect of the Centers. A much more complex statistical estimation of a breeding function for NARS programs must be estimated.” Using such a model, the study concludes that, for all crops pooled, the resulting statistically significant coefficients imply: + From 1965 to 1980, NARS breeding activities doubled in size. The anticipated increase in NARS varietal production was approximately60%. Actual NARS varietal production approximately doubled, however, from the 1970s to the 1990s. + Center germplasm research made NARS more productive by approximately 30 percent. Thus, the ambb?c$effect of the increase in NARS breeding and the Center germplasm research produced an approximate doubling of NARS varietal production. (CGIAR parents were present in 33 percent of NARS varieties and other CGIAR ancestors in 22 percent of NARS varieties.) 38 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMABY OF PPOLEEOIWCS The direct contribution of Center programs (to varietal production) relative to the investment of resources is impressive. In the 1980s and 1990s the proportion of total varieties produced by Centers was well above their proportion of total resources invested in such production. With regard to adoption, the study found that, as expected, the percentage of “area planted to crop” that is planted to “improved” or “modem” varieties was low in 1970 (except for wheat in Asia) and grew steaddy since then to a point where improved varieties are dominant in most crops. Further, “Center-content varieties are considered by farmers to be as valuable as, or more valuable than, non-Center-content improved varieties. With regard to production impacts, the study approached them in two ways, first, using Center prepared studies addressing the issue; and second, using the insights derived from three country case studies (Brazil, India and China). The paper explains the procedures used for each approach, including how the counterfactual was derived and used in obtainingthe final estimates. The basic conclusions are that: + + without the Centers, released varieties would have been anywhere from 45 to 60 percent less, depending on assumptions. The study used the more conservative figure in calculating Center related production gains; and adjusted estimates of productivity gains per year due to crop germplasm improvement were in the 1to 1.5 percent range; Inserting the various estimates, including the counterfactual (i.e. without Centers) estimates derived from the previous steps into an IFPRI based (MPAcf) model, the study derives the following estimates of what would have happened without the CGIAR input: + + + + prices for grain crops would have been between 27 and 41 percent higher over the 25 year period, depending on the crop; imports of food in developing countries would have been 9 percent higher (reflectingthe advantage that the counterfactual confers to developed countries relative to developing ones); the area planted to crop would have been significantly higher, and there would have been a higher number of mahourished children. In terms of the basic poverty alleviation goal, the poor would have been hurt more by the higher prices in the absence of the CGIAR because (a) they spend a higher fraction of their income on food; (b) in poorer economies a higher proportion of food is consumed in non-processed form, thus the price effect is greater than in an economy where the farm value of food is low relative to the consumer value (;.e. where high levels of processing contribute to the price the consumer pays); and (c) “ ... between 1.5 and 2 percent fewer children from developing countries were malnourished than would have been the case without Centers investment in crop germplasm improvement.” The studv concludes that: “Consumers benefit most and Door consumers benefit most of all from agricultural research. Farmers are consumers too and for the works smallest farm producers the total producer and consumer gains are large. The provisional findings support the proposition that Center investments have had impacts in a l l of the study crops. These impacts have been large, partly because of high “leverage”through Center-NARSjoint production. The placing of crop germplasm i m p r m e n t at the core of Center programs appears to have very strong justification. Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 39 SOYMAPY OF PlOCEEBlNCS During the discussion following the presentation, participants noted the assumptions and extrapolations that were required to reach the relevant conclusions presented, recognizing that with better baseline data and records over time, a more refined set of conclusions could have been reached. At the same time, it was felt that t h i s study is a sigdicant step toward a fuller understanding of the tremendous impacts of the CGIAR. The study provides a landmark for future, more refined studies based on improved monitoring and record keeping. Participants agreed that the major conclusion of the Evenson m d y - consumers benefit most f all from agricultural research- reinforces the view that and poor consumers beneJit most o productiviry increases in staple crops have direct, beneficial impacts on reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. Indeed, the provisional findings support the proposition that CGIAR research investments have had positive impacts on all crops in the portfolio and that these impacts have been large because of the synergistic partnership with national programs. Participants congratulatedProfessor Evenson and his colleagues for the important results and insights regarding the impacts of crop germplasm improvement work'in the CGIAR. The full reports of the commodiv and the countfy case studies will be available at ICW2OOO. The f d results of this broad set of assessment activities will be published in various forms and provide sigtllficant information for use by the Group, Centers, TAC and the broader community interested in the value and impacts of agricultural research. 40 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY OF PROSEEBIN68 I999 Financial Report Overview and 2888 Progress The Group reviewed the System's financial outcome for 1999 and the progress toward meeting the approved financing plan for 2000. 1999 Financial Outcomes Finance Committee Chair Iain MacGillivray reponed to the Group on the 1999 financial outcome and 2000 prospects. In 1999, funding totaled $330 million, a decrease of $10 million fromthe approved financing plan. The primary reason for the shortfall was the default, due to procedural mishaps, by the European Commission (EC) on its 1999 commitment of $16 million. . The majority of Centers received funding within a I O percent range of their approved funding. Only five Centers were outside this range - ICARDA (-)15 percent or $3.4 million; CIFOR (-)14 percent or $1.9 million; CIAT (-)13 percent or $4.5 million; Qp (-)12 percent or $2.9 million; and ILRI (-)lo percent or $3.1 million. If the EC had not defaulted on its contribution, all five Centers would have been within 10 percent and thus broadly in line with their financing plan targets. Disbursement of funds continued to be slow in 1999. Delays in EC funding for 1997 and 1998 were resolved by the end of 1999 for most Centers. The Finance Committee again urged Members to make every effort to accelerate disbursements. CGIAR as a whole remains in a strong position. Total net assets at the end of 1999 were $297 million. Of this amount, $202 million was invested in fixed assets and $95 million in reserves. Financial data show the following trends: 0 Personnel spending is lower in percentage, continuation of a recent trend. Investment allocations by undertaking are consistent with previous trends. By regions, investment in sub-SaharanAfrica increased from 40 percent in 1998 to 42 percent. Investment in WANA declined from 10 percent to 9 percent, and in LAC from 18 percent to 17 percent. Investments in Asia remained at 32 percent. 2000 Progress Report The 2000 financing plan of $340 million approved at ICW99 is on track. This plan includes a 50 percent reduction in German unrestricted funding in 2000 as well as more modest declines in unrestricted funding in 2000 from Sweden and Denmark. It is also expected that the EC will resume its financing for 2000. Regarding the allocation of 2000 World Bank funds, the Committee had made the following recommendations at ICW99: 0 $37.25 million allocated to Centers on a matching basis in the ratio of 12 percent of funds from Members other than the World Bank; Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 41 SUMMARY O F PROCEEDIWCS Special allocation of $1.75 million: $0.6 million to ICRAF; $0.6 million to IPGIU; $0.3 d o n to IITA for Systemwide programs; and $.25 million to CIMMYT to rebuild its tropical maize station. At N1TM2000, the Finance Committee proposed the following: + CIP:$OSmillion + CGIAR Central Asia project: $1million + CIMMkT Rice-Wheat program: $0.25 million + IFPRVISNAR Indicators: $0.25 d o n (a four-yearcommitment) + SPIA/TAC/IFPRT Poverty project: $0.25 million + EC adjustment package: $2.75 million (remainder to be funded by an advance commitment of $3 million of 2001 World Bank funds and by drawing down $2.2 million from CGIAR long-term reserves). + Partnership activities: $0.8 million. Decisions: The Group adopted the Finance Committee's report on the 1999financial outcome. In 1999, j2nding totaled $330 million, a decrease of $10 millionj?om the approvedfinancingplan. The primary reasonfor the shortfall was the default, due to procedural mishaps, by the European Commission on its 1999 commitment of $16 million. The Group received the Finance Committee's report that the outlookfor 2000 continued to be stable at the level of the approvedfinancingplan of $340 million. The Group endorsed the allocation of World Bank finds proposed by the Finance Committee. 42 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 The Centers updated their medium-term plans (MTPs) for 2001-2003 in the context of the MTPs reviewed last year and their likely outcomes. TAC confirmed that the plans are broadly consistent with those approved last year. TAC reported progress toward the general levels of allocations across Centers, commodities, and undertakings, and noted with pleasure that the majority of Centers presented their projects in log-frame format. This more systematic and open process, within the framework of the rolling three-year research plans, will provide incentive for research innovation. After reviewing individual Center proposals, TAC noted that five Centers- CIAT, CIMMYT, IFPRI, IITA, and IPGRI- are sigruficantly&their approved levels for 2001, while three- ICRISAT, The remaining seven Centers are near the approved level. m e ILRI, and ISNAR- are sigruficandy h. “approvedlevel” is the percentage of total CGIAR expenditures approved by the Group for each Center in the context of its three-year M l T . ) TAGSanalysis of the 2001 agenda shows: e 0 e 0 0 The continuing shortfall in allocationsto germplasm improvement compared to what was endorsed by the Group; This is occuring at a time when new developments in molecular genetics offer opportunity for breeding for traits to overcome yield and productivity constraints in favorable and less favorable environments. A larger than endorsed share for strengthening NARS at a time when it is important for the CGIAR to rethink the geographic and thematic focus of its capacity strengthening, to devolve certain strategic activities to strong NARS, and to seek new, non-traditional national partners in key areas such as natural resources management. Continuing underinvestmentin livestock research at a time when, according to a recent IFPRI/ILRI study, significant production increases tantamount to a “livestock revolution” will be needed to meet future livestock demand by 2020, given rapidly diversifymgdiets in the developing world. Proposed investment in the water sector is approaching target, but the actual and estimated outcomes for 1999 and 2000, respectively, are still below target, at a time when lack of access to fresh water is rapidly becoming a key constraint to global food production requiring urgent attention to water management issues; and Continued oversubscription to rice and wheat in an allocational sense, although new plant types currently under development for both crops as well as development of interspecific rice varieties do offer potential for breaking yield ceiling in the medium term. The Centers have proposed 2001 CGIAR investments of $379 million which would require funding of $367 d o n , 8 percent over the $340 d o n level in the 2000 financing plan together with Center generated income of $12 d o n . Centers have reported actual funding of $330 million in 1999 and are now estimating $352 million in Member funding in 2000, to be supplementedby about $15 million in earned income. However, the Finance Committee recommended a 2001 financial planning target of $340 d o n in view of the likely 2000 outcome of $340 d o n . Decision: The Group approved the substance o f the 2001 Research Agenda recommended by TAC and the Finance Committee’sproposal that financial planningfor 2001 be undertaken in the context of $340 millionfunding target. Charring ihe CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 43 SUMMARY OF P R O C E E D I H C ~ The CGIAR considered external reviews of three Centers - IWMI, WARDA, and ICARDA. Following discussions in parallel sessions, the &hoc evaluation committees presented reports to the Plenary where the Group discussed and endorsed the recommendations. Mr. Serageldin commended the review panels and ad hoc committees for their excellent reports. IWMI At a parallel session chaired by Eduardo Moscardi, an &hoc committee of interested CGIAR Members and other MTM2000 participants discussed the report of the second External Program and Management Review (EPMR) of IWMI, as well as the Center's response and the TAC commentary. The discussion of the review report followed a presentation by Michel Petit, Review Panel Chair, the Center response by Has JanBeek, Board Chair, Frank Rijsbeman, Director General designate, and Doug Merrey, deputy Director General, and commentary by Elias Fereres, TAC Member. Highlights of the Committee discussion The ad hoc committee: 0 0 0 e e 0 0 0 e e 0 Concurred with the overall conclusions of the Review Panel and TAC that the review resulted in a positive overall assessment and commended IWMI for undergoing a successful transformation over the past six years to a broader, holistic, science-based and research-oriented approach to water management issues; Noted NlrMI's commendable effort in defining its mission, setting priorities, and implementing strategy. Expressed satisfaction that IWMI is well positioned to exert strong leadership in developing science-based solutions to water management challenges; Encouraged expanded collaboration with other CGIAR Centers to strengthen expertise in crop physiology; Suggested that the Systemwide Initiative on Water Management be continued, with some redesign and focus; Suggested more emphasis on strategic alliances and partnerships to deliver research outputs; Called for a strengthened policy focus at macro and System levels; Urged rethinking of strategic planning and product delivery modes in light of the regional and eco-regional focus; Noted that groundwater depletion is a serious problem affected by macroeconomic policy issues as well as use of small pumps for irrigation; Noted that health issues were best dealt with through strategic alliances with UNICEF, WHO, and similar organizations; Noted that competing claims for water result in serious scarcity issues. Conclusions and recommendations The ad hoc committee: e Endorsed the Panel's recommendations and positive assessment of WMI, thamking the Panel for an excellent report and IWMI for its excellent preparations for the review; 44 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 0 0 Praised IWMI for adopting the Panel's recommendations that the Center enhance expertise in crop physiology, address issues of groundwater depletion, water qualty, and natural resource management, increase emphasis on p o v e q and gender issues, retain research dealing with irrigation-relatedhuman health issues, and adopt more formal procedures for priority setting. Praised NlrMI for adopting the Panel's recommendations that governance be enhanced by implementing a Board development program, establishing an audit committee, taking steps to clarify Board responsibilities, and implementing bi-annual Board meetings. Urged continued support for NlrMI's work. ICARDA At a parallel session chaired by Jochen de Haas, an adhoc committee of interested CGIAR Members and other participants discussed the report of the fourth External Program and Management Review of ICARDA as well as the Center's response and TACs commentary. The discussion followed an introduction of the review report by Don Pluckne?, Panel chair, the Center response by Robert Havener, Board Chair, and Adel El-Beltagy,Director General, and the TAC commentary by Alain de Janvry, TAC Member. Highlights of the Committee Discussion The ad hoc committee: 0 0 0 Concurred with the overall concluions of the Review Panel and TAC that the revieiv resulted in a very positive assessment of ICARDA and commended the Center for an impressive transformation in programs and strategies,the overall quality of science, and its effective partnerships; Noted the Center's excellent preparations for the review, including the eight Centercommissioned external reviews; Noted that ICARDA should begin a period of "dynamic consolidation" of priorities and strategies, focusing activities in Central and West Asia and North Africa instead of spreading resources across all dry areas in the developing world; Praised the Center's partnership efforts, especdy with NARS, but suggested a strategic review of the Center's overall outreach activities; Agreed that a review should be commissionedin two years to determinethe extent to which the Review recommendations, particularlyregarding NRM and social science programs, have been followed; Agreed that a computerized management information system would enhance staff productiviw and Expressed concern at the severe decline in unrestricted funding over the past five years and i t h endorsed TACs analysis of the impact on Center research activities,impact, and interactionsw NARS and advanced research institutes. Conclusions and recommendations The ad hoc committee: 0 0 ' Thanked the Panel for an excellent report and ICARDA for excellent preparations for the review; Called the Group's attention to the importance of the ICARpA's work and encouraged continued support; Endorsed the Panel's recommendations and TACs comments; Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 45 SUMMARY OF P R O C E E B I N C S 0 Assured the Group that ICARDA is well positioned to meet challenges to international research in the C W W region. WARDA At a parallel session chaired by Christine Grieder, an ad hcr committee of interested Members and participants discussed the repon of the fourth External Program and Management Review of WARDA. The discussion of the review report was based on a presentation of the conclusions and recommendations by Mandi Rukuni, Panel Chair, the Center's response by Just Faaland, Board Chair, and Kanayo Nwanze, Director General, and the TAC commentary by Joachim von Braun, TAC Member. Highlights of the Committee Discussion The ad hoc committee: Concurred with the overall conclusions of the Review Panel and TAC that WARDA has transformed itself into a well managed scient& institution, with notable achievements such as the development of inter-specific rice hybrids, and praised the Center's partnerships and effective and efficient operation. Noted that WARDA's Board and Management welcomed all the Panel's recommendations but offered different views on two of them- namely, giving higher priority to crop and resource management of rainfed rice, and reorganizing the research program on rainfed rice. Noted that WARDA is in a unique position to recommend policy changes that are important to food security challenges in the region; Noted the high political commitment to WARDA, even though Membership contributions remain low; Agreed that seasonality issues are important in the context of WARDA's work on the sustainability of rice-based production systems; and Agreed that WARDA should undertake a comprehensive analysis of gender issues. I Conclusions and Recommendations The ad hoc comm'ittee: 0 0 Thanked the Panel for an excellent report and WARDA for the high level of cooperation; Noted that some of the recommendations have already been implemented; Concluded that WARDA is poised to contribute further to rural development in the rice growing areas of Africa; and Strongly encouraged continued support to WARDA. Decision: The Group considered the External Program and Management Reviews for ICARDA, IWM, and WARDA, and endorsed the ad hoc committee's conclusions and recommendations. 46 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMABY OF PB06EEBlNGS Per Pinstrup-Andersen,chair of the Center Directors Committee, presented the Centers' report on the CGIAR Strategy for Sub-SaharanAhca (SSA) and the work of the task forces on Central Asia and the Caucasus, natural resource management, and intellectual property rights. The CGIAR Strategy for SSA was developed in response to a recommendation of the third System Review. The strategy is an example of a very successful partnership with regional associations and NARS, including the Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) and the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa PAM). Gods of the initiative are to increase food security and reduce poverty in SSA; to improve the competitiveness of African agriculture; and to enhance and improve the sustainable use of natural resources in the region. In close collaboration with regional and national institutions, the Centers see their role in SSA by the year 2020 as having contributed to the African agricultural research community's goals of attaining food security and poverty eradication through research, policy support and capacity building based on the environmentally sound management of natural resources. The strategy is centered on four principal elements: I. Germplasm and natural resource management technologies that offer clients a wide range of options for enhancing productivity in an environmentallysustainable manner. 2. Technology dissemination and fapner empowerment to catalyze the adoption of innovations that will increase food security and incomes of the poor. 3. Policy research to provide options that foster enabling environments for the adoption of these innovations and strengtheningNARS in this area. 4. Capacity building to help develop further a cadre of qualified, experienced, and motivated African research and development specialists, managers and policy makers who will lead the region in attaining the gods of the shared vision for Africa. Most importantly,this strategy dbe implemented through innovative and effective partnership mechanisms based on joint planning, execution and evaluation of future activities, effective communication, and mutual trust and respect among all partners. Regarding the work of the CDC Task Forces: The Task Force on Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC) has developed a strategy and structural format which has been endorsed by TAC. At the Lucerne meeting, the Group had decided to strengthen activities in CAC. Funding has been expanded and there is now a well-functioning partnership with eight NARS and nine Centers as well as NGOs and donor institutions. The Task Force on N a d Resource Management (NRM)has continued a web-based dialogue and is convening a meeting on the scientific basis for better NRM, which will take place at ICLARh4 in August. A f u l lreport on activities and accomplishments will be presented at Icw2000. The T a s k Force on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources met in Dresden and launched a process for updating the guidelines adopted at M"M98. Most Centers have now completed the IP audits. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 . 47 8UMMARY OF PROCEEBINCS Chair Hubert Zandstra reported on the outcome of the PARC meetings. Center Directors are pleased with increased emphasis being given to public awareness and resource mobilization and strongly support the working group report developed under A l e x McCalla’s leadership. Center Directors will work with Future Harvest, CBC, PARC, and the w o r k group to develop a business plan. Following final decisions at ICW2OO0, priorities should include implementationof the recommendations by PARC, allocation of additional CGIAR funds,and expansion of the present Future Harvest board to between 12 and 15 members. F i n a l l y ,Mr. Zandstra noted the CDC proposal that the Centers be known as “Future Harvest Centers.” Decision: The Group received the Centers’ report on programmatic developments in the System and the Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization Committee’s report on public awareness and resource mobilization. 48 Charting the CGZAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY O F PEOCEEDINES The Group received and adopted the recommendations of the Cosponsors and the Oversight, Finance, Science Partnership, Genetic Resources Policy, Private Sector, and Non-Governmental Organization Committees, as well as the Center Directors Committee and the Committee of Board chairs. Cosponsors' Report World Bank representative Robert Thompson presented a report on behalf of the CGIAR cosponsors - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank. The Cosponsors met at MTM 2000, with Chairman Serageldin presiding. Highhghts of the discussion and decisions follow: The Cosponsors reviewed the results of the Consultative Counds meeting at MTM 2000 to discuss the companion paper to the TAC vision statement. The Council recommended that the Group adopt TAC's strategic elements, discuss any proposals on' structure that the Centers were ready to discuss at MTM2000, and adopt an action plan and schedule of next steps. Regarding TAC membership, the Cosponsors recommended the extension of Joachim von B m and Richard Harwood for another two-year term and endorsed the TAC c%lair's recommendation to search for candidates to fill the other two membership slots. The Cosponsors noted that, due to financial reasons, UNEP can no longer maintain its status as a cosponsor; however, it remains a CGIAR member. The Cosponsors noted that following the integration of TAC and IAEG, IAEG has been replaced by a Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) which will serve as TACs principal instrument for all system-level evaluation and impact assessments. The TAC and IAEG Secretariatshave been integrated into a single service unit based at FAO, Rome. The Cosponsors noted the progress of GFAR and the need to discuss details of future CGIAR support at ICW2000. The Cosponsors received a report that the search for the CGIAR Director is underway. The Search Committee expects to identify a short list of candidates who wiU be invited for interviews and a public seminar at the World Bank during the summer of 2000. Oversight Committee Andrew Bennett presented the report of the Oversight Committee and announced the new members: Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli, Ruth Haug, Emmy Simmons, Gilles St. Martin, Juan Resuepo, and Zhao Longyue. The Committee thanked Mervat Badawi, who stepped down at MTM 2000, for her outstanding contributions. The Committee welcomed the two TAC reports on the CGIAR vision, strategy, and structure. The Committee praised the approval of a clear timetable for follow up on the action proposals and accepted the mandate to convene the synthesis group in early October. On the follow up to the third Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 49 SUMMARY OF PROCEEBIWCS System Review, the Committee reported on the progress of the RetrospectiveReview, which will provide a draft report for discussion at ICW2OOO. Regarding the Centers, the Committee encouraged the Secretariat to continue the successful Board orientation program initiated at ICW99, congratulated new “ M Iand CIAT Directors General Frank Rijsberman and Joachim Voss, and encouraged the Boards at CIFOR, ICMF, and IITA to follow similar process in their search for new Directors General. Regarding activities at the System level, the Committee expressed regret about the decision of the current chair, Mr. Serageldin, to step down, and welcomed the announcement of Ian Johnson’s appointment; noted with regret UNEP’s decision to withdraw as co-sponsor for financial reasons; welcomed the report on the Longer-termFinancing Strategy; congratulated Dr. Paroda and the organizers of GFAFUOOO on a successful conference; and announced that the current Committee Chak will step down at ICW2OOO and a new Chair is being selected. \ Finance Committee Iain MacGillivray presented the report of the Finance Committee. (For details on the 1999 financial results and 2000 financing plans, see pages 39 to 40.) The Committee discussed progress on five financial policies during its meeting at IvlTM2000. Indirect Costs: Ernst &Young, India, is conducting a review of Center practices for indirect cost accounting and computation. The review includes an assessment of existing center practices and a pilot program at five Centers based on a “value chain” framework. The next step is to test the approach at the remaining 11centers and to initiate consultationswith the investor community. Liquidity Management: An inter-center working group is examining the possibility of poohg excess cash available at individual Centers to maximize financial returns. The Finance Committee is considering a proposal from Citibank which offers 2 percent higher returns (7 percent instead of 5 percent) on an investment pool. Accounting Manual: Revised accounting policies, based on a review by Price WaterhousePhilippines, are being implemented by the Centers. Among changes in the format of the hancial statements are: Different categories of reserves (e.g.: Operating and Capital) will be combined in a single category as “net assets.” 0 Fixed asset lines in financial statements will exclude buildings and structures; past investments in buildings will not be subject to depreciation accounting. Internal Audit: An internal audit team, jointly sponsored by ICLARM, IRRI, IPGRI, and the Secretariat, has been established. The team is undertaking compliance programs at the three sponsoring Centers and has been helpful in problem solving at two other Centers. Financial Systems: Following a survey of Center financial systems, a pilot project based on an “information warehouse” concept was initiated. The Committee will be briefed at ICW2OO on the project’ssuccess. 50 Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY OF PR06EE01168 Science Partnership The Science Partnership Committee held its inaugural meeting at MTM2000. In his statement to the Committee, Chairman Serageldinunderscored the need to increase and strengthen CGIAR scientists‘ +es with the rest of the scientific community. The Committee clarified its role 0 i t h the broader scientific community; to help the CGIAR increase partnerships w to help the CGIAR anticipate how scientific advances can be used to pursue its mission and goals; and to contribute to Strategic thinking and planning sought by TAC. Committee members discussed the TAC vision and strategy paper with Chair E d Javier, and supported TAC‘s recommendation “to bring modern science to bear on difficult productivity and institutionalproblems.” The Committee endorsed the adoption of an integrated approach to NRM research, recognizing the importance of both modem and local traditional knowledge. Regarding partnerships, the committee will help identify potential collaborative arrangements with advanced scientific institutions and plans to interact with Center Directors at ICW2OOO. Genetic Resources Policy Committee Chair Geoffrey J3awti.n reported on the activities of the Genetic Resources Policy Committee. 0 International Undertakjng on Plant Genetic Resources. The Committee encouraged all CGIAR members to work actively to further advance the renegotiation of the F A 0 International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Special attention should be given to ensuring that national governments appreciate the importance of an early conclusion to the renegotiation. National Legislation. The Committee encouraged CGNR members to help ensure that national legislation in their respective countries take into account the importance of open germplasm flow so that CGIAR Centers can continue to serve their many partners w i h and beyond the host countfy. Implementing the FAO-Center Agreements on Germplasm. The Committee endorsed the Centers’ actions to standardize practices regarding Material Transfer Agreements (MTA) b r designated germplasm and recommended that all Centers move with deliberate speed to implement and publicize the procedures used with the standardized MTA format. The Committee commended the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme for its work on genebank standards and strongly endorsed the creation of an endowment to support Center genebanks. 0 Designated Germplasm under F A 0 Agreements. The Committee thanked IPGRI for moving forward the analysis of the implications of new research techniques and changing policy environment on CGIAR trusteeship responsibilities. The issues that remain are complex, and should be a principal focus of the committee’s work in the coming months. The Committee plans a fuller report on these matters for CGIAR members following its September 2000 meeting. In the interim it commends the IPGRI paper to the CDC for its consideration. Central Advisory Service (CAS). The Committee recommended that CAS work with Centers to exchange experienceswith respect to IPRs. The Committee plans to review this issue further at its next meeting. GFAR report on Genetic Resource Policy activ$es. The Committee welcomed this initiative, and expressed its hope that the effort would underscore the unique nature of Plant Genetic Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 51 Resources for Food and Agriculture and the important role of i n & / o n - f k conservation in general and women in particular. Some concern was expressed that the initiative take into account the special needs and opportunities in countries with smaller NARS, particularly in connection with the TRIPS agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 0 Underutilized and Nedected Crops. The Committee is looking into reports that neglected and underutilized crops may not be covered by an agreed Multilateral System. Private Sector Committee The Private Sector Committee (PSC) met at M T M 2 O O O , interacting with Chairman Serageldin and TAC Chair E d Javier. The Committee commented on the TAC Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR, emphasizing the need for technology partnerships with public and private providers of advanced research, a regional approach to research planning, an independent body for handling IPR matters, and more emphasis on defining how CGIAR products would reach the end user. On the issue of partnerships, the Committee noted the complexities of collaborations with the private sector. For example, the private sector would be interested in helping to finance projects with clearly defined objectives and project outcomes aimed at poverty reduction. Throughout the meeting, the Committee emphasized that the application of modem science is essential for achieving food security in developing countries. The CGIAR could serve in an “honest broker” role on biotechnology issues, providing a balanced view regarding the benefits of new technologies to policymakers, producers and consumers in developing countries. This could be done through a public information and communication program about the potential benefits of science for increasing food production and availability in developing countries. The PSC proposed that a multistakeholderworking group of CGIAR representatives (CDC chair, Secretariat Lnformation Officer, Future Harvest) industry bodies (Biotechnology Council, Global Crop Protection Federation, and others) and selected NGOs be created. NWCommittee The Committee has set a goal of reducing membership to eight by ICW2OOO. Chair Miguel Altieri will serve u n t i l ICW2OO0, when Ann Bayers Water will take the helm. The NGOC has been involved in the organization of numerous workshops in Washington, DC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Rambouillet, France, the Philippines, and Berkeley, California. The Committee has also issued numerous publications incl&g the proceedtngs of a workshop at IITA, an article for BMWBEAF, an issues paper for GFAR, and an oped in the San Francisco Chronicle. Chairman Altieri participated in the Consultative Council meeting in Rome, where he discussed the importance of sharpeningthe focus of CGIAR research on the needs of the poor farmers in marginal environments. NRM (including genetic resources) should be the backbone of the CGIAR research and partnerships with farmers organizations and NGOs should be the backbone of the CGIAR System. Center Directors Committee The CDC has collaborated extensively with TAC on the CGIAR vision and strategy, including developing proposals for improved I P management and governance and s t r u d options. The CDC noted its appreciation for the participatory mode followed by TAC in allowing the Centers to express their views and opinions. 52 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Vision for 2010 SUPMABY OF PIOCEEDIWCS Chair Hubert Zanclstra reported to CDC on the outcome of the PARC meetings. Center Directors are pleased with increased emphasis being given to public awareness and resource mobilization and strongly support the working group report, developed under Alex McCalla’s leadership. Center Directors will work with Future Harvest, CBC,PARC, and the working group to develop a business plan. Following final decisions at ICW2000, priorities should include implementation of the recommendations by PARC, allocation of additional CGIAR funds,and expansion of the present Future Harvest board to between 12 and 15 members. Finally, Mr. Zandstra noted the CDC proposal that the Centers be known as “Future Harvest Centers.” Regarding hances, the CDC acknowledgedthe efforts of the European Commission to address the 1999 funding issues. a r m farewells to Chairman Ismail Serageldin, whose efforts since 1994 put The CDC expressed w the CGIAR back on the map in terms of image, and to Frona Hall, for doing an outstandingjob in ensuring the smooth and effective running of CGIAR meetings. Center Board Chairs The CBC met five times during MTM2000,interacting and consulting extensivelywith Chairman Serageldin,TAC Chair End Javier, Finance Chair I& MacG&ray, Oversight Committee Chair Andrew Bennett, World Bank Representative Robert Thompson, PSC Chair Sam Dryden, the CDC, the consultative Council, and other stakeholders. The CBC/CDC will undertake a work program covering four interrelated elements of the system renewal package, contributing to the work of TAC, the Oversight Cornminee, the Consultative Council, and other CGIAR groups. The four elements are 1. implementation of outcomes of the TAC vision and strategy paper, 2. system structure, governance, and management; 3. policy and practice relating to the ownership, management and trading of intellectual property; and 4. the efficiency of processes by which the Centers, as suppliers of international public goods research and related processes and services, interact with partners, donors, recipients, and other stakeholders, as buyers and users of those services and products. The CBC/CDC will undertake additional work on the structural and governance implications of the efficient development and conduct of research into NRM issues. Among other highhghts of the discussions: The CBC is gene& supportive of the draft Longer-Term Financing Strategy but cautioned that successful resource mobilization will require large investments of time, eff on and funding. The CBC has endorsed an annual orientation program for new Board members, based on the successful pilot program following ICW99. Decision: The Group approved the two-year extension o f TAC Members Joachim von Braun and f the Oversight Committee - Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli, Ruth Richard Harwood, and welcomed new members o Haug, Emmy Simmons, Gilles St. Martin, Juan Restrepo, and Zhao Longwe. Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 53 SUMMABY OF PIOCEEDINCS Speaking on behalf of the South African government and the Ministries of Agriculture and Land Affairs, and of Am,Culture, Science and Technology, Siphiwe F. Mkhize reaffirmed South Africa's offer to host MTM2001.The Group applauded South Africa's involvement and participation in the CGIAR and expressed appreciation for the invitation to host MTM2OOI. I ' ICW2000........... October 23 - 27 ............................ Washington, DC MTM200I ......... May 21 - 25 .................................. South Africa ICW2001 ........... October 29 -November 2 ............ Washington, DC MTM2002 ......... May 27 - 31 .................................. To be determined ICW2002 ........... October 28 -November 1............ Washington,DC 54 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMABY OF PR06EEDINCS International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources Several Members raised concerns that national and international arrangements governing access to germplasm appear likely to grow more and more resuictive, which could threaten continued production of international public goods, including conservation itself. These international arrangements, it was noted, are being developed without direct CGIAR involvement and without an appreciation of their effects on the poor. The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources is currently being revised to harmonize relevant provisions with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) w i t h i nthe F A 0 Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. It is urgent that the revision be completed because of the risk that national access legislation, under consideration in a number of countries, might foreclose or restrict the option of multilateral approaches. Over 50 countries are currently considering legislation goveming access to biodiversity in the context of the CBD; however, few countries appear to be making provisions for the special needs of agriculture with respect to exchange and recombination of germplasm. At ICW99, the Group endorsed the statement of the Panel of Experts on Access and BenefitSharing of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture convened by the Secretariat of the (CBD): “In developing national legislation on access, parties should take into account and allow for the development of a multilateral system to facilitate access and benefit-sharing for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.” At M”h42000,the Group again emphasizedthe urgency of the problem. Members welcomed GFAR2OOO’s adoption of the “Declarationon Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Apculture.” The declaration strongly supporn the ongoing revision of FADS International Undertaking and encourages countries “that are considering or reviewing legislation on intellectual property, to do so in such a way that they do not restrict the exchange, transfer and use of germplasm in crop improvement programs.” Decision: The Group expressed concern that the lack of an international agreement on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture f poses a major threat to the future of international agricultural research. ReafJming the importance o GFAR’s Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources of Food and Agriculture, the Group encouraged f appropriate authorities and to utilize individual members to bring the Declaration to the attention o additional technical information available through IPGRI. Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 55 8DMMAlY OF PROCEEDIRCS Introduction Colleagues and friends. I usually end our meetings with a Chairman's Summation.And, as usual, the end-of-meeting report from the Secretariat will be available outside. As this is my leave taking, I propose to do something slightly different. I will, as usual, give you my summation. In addition, however, I will share some parting thoughts with you. Thanks As always, I preface my summation with an expression of appreciationto all those who contributed to the success of this meeting. I want, in particular, to thank all of you around this table for your engagement that helped in the effective resolution of critical issues. I challenged you at this meeting to move at a speed somewhat different from what is normal to the CGIAR, and to do so in a manner that required a robust exchange of views on matters of substance. I appreciate your positive response to the challenge. I especially want to thank the chairs, rapporteurs, and members of yesterday's working groups. The openness of the discussion was exemplary,and bodes well for the fume of the CGIAR. Ow thanks are due now to the German Government for hosting this meeting; the local authorities in Dresden for their support and cooperation; Jochen de Haas, the head of the German delegation, for his untiring efforts in all aspects and in a l l stages of planning and carrying out this meeting; Renee Ernst and her colleagues from BEAF who coped with our requirements and demands cheerfully and efficien* Jurgen Richter of DSE and the staff team he brought together for their exceptionally capable suppofi; Martin Raich of the Bellevue Westin hotel, the hotel's conference staff, and all other hotel staff, who were d a z e d by an extraordinary influx of international visitors; the interpreters who enabled us to understand each other; the organizers of GFAR whose discussions enriched our own; and Alexander von der Osten, for his outstandingmanagement of all aspects of MTM2000. As always, we could not possibly have brought our MTM to a successfulcompletion without the commitment and competence of the CGIAR Secretariat. However, let me take a moment to go beyond just their work at this meeting. I want to tell you, unambiguously,that Secretariat staff serve your interests - the interests of the CGIAR, the international Centers, our partners, and clients - with a competence and commitment that is not easdy replicated. I know from personal observation and experience that they do so every day,whether in Washington or elsewhere. They deserve unqua;fied appreciation and esteem. 56 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 LlMMARY OF PPOGEEOIN6L Now, let us in the u s u a l manner thank the Secretariat for all that it does, and let us thank all those responsible for the way the meeting has unfolded. Activities and Decisions Although our primary focus at M T M 2 O O O was on the visioning exercise, our agenda included a number of other business items. Alex McCalla provided the setting for a thoughtful discussion of the report on a long-term financing strategy. The working group that Alex chaired now has a clear charge to complete its work and present its final recommendations at ICW. We heard from the Centers on programmatic developments in the System, endorsed the framework of the 2001-2003 research agenda, and approved funding requirements of $340 d o n for 2001. I trust that these funding arrangementswill be fully met, with none of the “shocks”that some Centers recently faced. We took note of the EPMRs of ICARDA, IWMI, and WARDA; heard an analytical presentation by Robert Evenson on the impact of CGIAR research on gemplasm improvement; and received a number of recommendations and reports from CGIAR committees. From Vision to Action In my opening statement, I outlined several propositions that could help the Group to focus its discussions sharply, and come up with an agreed process for moving from the new vision crafted by TAC to action. These were not prescriptive propositions. You were free to review them, modify them, reject them, or adopt them. In an effort to tease out a l l the issues that follow up actions must take into account, we broke out into a number of working groups yesterday,to discuss the substance of future planning. The working group arrangement worked exceptionally well. The results of their brainstorming are out on the table, and can be considered by the various units charged with moving from vision to action. Proposition 1 dealt with the new vision, and was adopted. The Group adopted the seven principles or ‘planks’outlined in TACs proposed new CGIAR vision statement, and broadly endorsed that statement’sdefintion of the heartland of the CGIAR. The final iteration of the vision paper, incorporating comments made at h4TM2000, will be ready by the end of August, will be shared by all, and will be ready for final disposition at ICW2OOO. Propositions 2 through 5 outlined a process for managing the changes that are urgently required, and suggested a timetable that would have brought these issues to closure by ICW2OOO. These suggestionswere discussed by one of the working groups yesterday. Follow-up arrangements and schedules were worked out, and were adopted this morning. Thus, the propositions have fulfilled their purpose, and do not need further discussion now. We now have clear assignments and a timetable for action from M l I O O O O onwards. It has been agreed, as well, that it should be left to the incoming Chairman to decide the timing of the next meeting of the Consultative council, which could be before or after ICW. ?his is consistent with an earlier decision that the Council would be convened at the Chairman’sdiscretion. Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 57 SUMMARY OF PROCEEBIWCS Propositions 6 and 7 covered the composition and functions of the Consultative Council. Decisions on these issues will be deferred until after governance matters have been resolved. An eighth proposition from the floor referred to the GFAWCGIAR relationship. While all supported the strong ties that exist between GFAR and the CGIAR, we agreed that more specific aspects of that relationship will be reviewed at ICW2OOO. There are some issues that came up in discussionsthat we have left for future resolution. We need to do much better in terms of gender issues, not as a matter of political rhetoric, but in a transparent effort that to ensure that we respect the role of women in agriculture and agricultural research. This is not something that we can evade or ignore. I appeal to all of you to support the gender program - it is grossly underfunded. We need, as well, to improve the way we communicate the results of research to appropriate publics. Clearly, despite the outstanding efforts of Barbara Rose and ‘‘Future Harvest”, current efforts are inadequate. We need to mobilize professional help. Finally, at the request of several Members, I suggest that a strong signal is required expressing the concern of the agricultural research community that the lack of an international agreement on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture poses a major threat to the very future of international agricultural research. Conclusion Again, colleagues, I thank you for your cooperation. Let me stop here on the summation of MTM.2000 - before I take the liberty of sharing my farewell thoughts with you. 58 Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMABY OF PlObEEBlNeS Chairman’s Farewell Comments Introduction Colleagues and friends. “Partingis such mrvw,” as Shakespeare reminded us. I must confess to a certain sense of anticipation as I go out to meet my future. These are tmmmgmg times for those of us who believe that the yesterdays of the human story can inspire great tomorrows. They are cidkngq tim for all of us who are committed to building new lives for the “wretchedof the earth,” using science and technology as the instruments of change. They are exhkwating timesin the world of science. I see all these elements coming together in a life of inquiry and creativity ahead. And yet, how can I mtjeel the burden of sorrow, knowing that when I bring down the gavel today, I will be e n h g my formal relationship with you - my friends, cblleagues, and collaborators. I consider it a special privilege to have worked for the CGIAR during the past six-and-a-halfyears. I thank you for sharing the hopes and aspirations, the joys and sorrows, of my tenure. What is most important is that together we deven if we did not always succeed. And in trying together... .what a journey it has been, from Delhi to Dresden. My predecessors assured me that of all the positions they held at the Bank, none was more’ satisfymgthan the association with the CGIAR. Despite the great diversity of their experience at the Bank and outside it, they felt most attached to CGIAR chairmanship. Those are my sentiments as well. The six chairmen who preceded me brought an outstanding blend of passion and compassion to their tasks: Dick Demuth, Warren Baum, Shahid Husain, David Hopper, Wilfried Thalwitz and V. Rajagopalan. I was proud to follow the path they trod. As I said to you in N e w Delhi, I very much wished to live up to their high standards. I hope I did. Appreciation I have been helped in my chairmanship by many of you. They are numerous and you will miss your flights if I uy to name them all. Suffice it to say that my knowledge has been enriched and my attitudes shaped by colleagues and friends along the whole continuum of the CGIAR - from the sage wisdom of M. S. Swaminathanto the infectious enthusiasm of Fernando Cbaparro. From the solid professionalism of Alex McCalla to the humane caring of Ruth Haug. From the subtle wit of Andrew Bennett to the wry humor of Jochen de Haas, the commiment of Paul Egger, the wisdom of Klaus Winkei, the thoughtful voice of experience expressed by Raj Paroda, the exuberance of Teresa Fogelberg, the sound judgment of Johan Holmberg, the unremitting l o y a l ~ to the CGIAR of Ian MacG&vray, the brilliance of Henri Carsalade,the fervor of Cyrus Ndiritu, and the initiative of Sally Shelton who led the r e m of the US, and so many, many more. But here I a m slipping again, and taking the risk of keeping you here for a long, long time. Let me not do that. Let me only say, thank you, one and all. I say a special “thankyou” to my teachers who brought me to agriculture and have consistently added to my understanding over the years. There were: Formal teachers during my academic studies, Charring the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 59 SUMMARY O F P R O C E E B I W C L Collegial teachers - my colleagues and nominal subordinates, but teachers nevertheless, during my professional life, Real life teachers - the farmers themselves, who always inspired me by the nobility of their spirit, their knowledge, and their triumphs over adversity. I offer my heartfelt thanks to the academic who, many years ago, introduced me to agriculture. At the time, he was a young assistant professor at Harvard,,bythe name of Walter P. Falcon. He has continued to influence my views, and the manner of their expression. You are a friend, and a great help, w** I turn now to CGIAR Centers. They have been described as the “jewels in the crown” of the CGIAR System. They are indeed very special Centers of scientific excellence, mobilizing science to serve the needs of the poor. Where else but at CGIAR Centers does this magtllficent combination flourish? Whatever we say and decide at our meetings, it is the Centers that transform our words into living reality. I visited the Centers as soon as my duties as Chairman began. Center scientists took the time to explain their work to me, and because of that, I have become a more effective ambassador on their behalf. 1was impressed by their pursuit of scientific excellence, and inspired by their devotion to the CGIAR mission. I was exhilarated by the exciting possibilities of their work. They deserve our admiration and our gratitude. I thank all the scientists in the CGIAR constellation. I thank the board chairs and their colleagues for their dedication to maintaining scientific excellence at the Centers. They are such a wonderful group of colleagues. I thank the Center directors - too often, not heard adequately at this table - who have all become my close friends. They are characterized by a sense of vision, and of unremitting commitment to a noble cause. I respect them all, and will not cease to speak up on their behalf. I count on you to protect their interests. The rzison J~CW of this group, surely, is to enable Center scientists to function effectively and without corrosive challenges to their morale. I want to mention three colleagues who were stalwarts of my term. Alex McCalla was my gift from the CGIAR to the Bank. We actually gained from that act of giftgiving because what it did was to infiltrate “Mr.CGIAR”into the Bank. Michel Petit moved from the position he held, overseeing the Bank’s work on agriculture, to serve as the Bank’s “point man” for agricultural research. He did more than most others have done to strengthen the NARS and foster the development of the GFAR. He also brought passion and caring to the work of the Finance Committee in a difficult period of transition. Alexander von der Osten has been my counselor and companion from the beginning. Whatever you t h i n k I have achieved is the product of his collaboration with me. We were a team. His loyalty to the CGIAR knows no bounds. He works behind the scenes, without fuss or fanfare, attempting much and achieving much for all of you. His determination and ability to nurture increased Southern Membership i m to leave. are widely recognized. It is a great loss for the CGIAR that the rules of retirement compel h Nevertheless, it is fitting that his final h4TM as Executive Secretary should be in the land of his birth. Good luck, Alexander, in whatever you decide to undertake post-ICW. Good luck to your charming famdy as well. And I would be remiss if I did not mention the CGIAR Secretariat - Ravi, S e l p k , Marmy, and the entire team, those who are here in Dresden, as well as those in Washington.Their contributionto the CGIAR is invaluable. I want especially to thank the retirees such as Ernest (my companion over sleepless nights 60 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 8PMMABY OF P I O C E E B I N C S of work) and the young stalwarts such as Salah Brahimi, who tirelessly support the CGIAR mission. But it is no secret to you that Sarwat Hussain has been my special friend and closest assistant - he i n i t i a l l y came from ICRISAT via the US to the Bank, and now back to the CGIAR. Sarwat, hearty thanks from a grateful colleague. From Renewal to Rebirth Colleagues and friends. The CGIAR faced multiple crises from shortly before I began my term. I will spare you the details. You know them well. To overcome the crises as we did was no mean feat. The best known of the problems the CGIAR faced was the serious financial crunch of 1993 and early 1994; a downturn aggravated by incoherent funding arrangements. The funding crisis, however, was like the tip of an iceberg. What lay submerged beneath the surfac6 of immediate attention could have turned out to be far more life threatening. We toiled together to surmount the problems. The 18-monthprogram of renewal that was inauguratedin New Delhi in May 1994 redesigned the vision of the CGIAR, refocused its research agenda, strengthened some of its governancemechanisms, and stabilized its finances. From the shaky $220 million of 1993to the $340 d o n of today is a great leap forward. The crumbling confidence of Center scientists was shored up. I cherish that experience, and honor all those whose combined effort produced demonstrable results. In my judgment, however, the single most significant long-term effect of the 1994/95 renewal was the growth of a sense of “openness.”Nothing manifests that new spirit better than the transformation i n the dynarmc of CGIAR Membership. This Group is today a ful€ySouth-North enterprise. Twenty-two country Members of the CGIAR are from the South, and twenty-one from the North. There were none from the South in 1971, and only seven in early 1995, before the Lucerne meeting. Now if only we could do as well in t e r n of gender diversity,we will all gain. That is a patting charge from me to aU of you. I do not mean to dismiss or denigrate the role major investors played in creating the CGIAR, and will continue to play in the future. However, the broadening of CGIAR Membership brings the representatives of our partners and beneficiaries right to this table. That is crucial. The spirit of partnership that takes concrete form in Southern Membership has spilled over into other areas, as demonstrated by vibrant partnership committees, especially the NGO and Private Sector Committees, and in the vitality of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). The CGIAR served as catalyst to help set up the GFAR that combines all components of the international agricultural research system - from the perceptive farmer in her field through the deeply caring members of civil society institutions to the creative scientists in their laboratories. These are all key elements of the legacy of renewal. But renewal does not end with one convulsive spurt. There are always challenges ahead. I said at ICW95 that, in Churchill’spithy phrase, we were only at “the end of the beginning.” More- much more- would need to be attempted and achieved. The time has come for action, once again. It is a time not simply for 7 d but, truly, for 7 e M . Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 61 SUMMARY OF PROCEEBIWCS Sweeping Forces of Change We are at the start of a new century, when we are confronted with momentous change. The forces of globalization are sweeping across the planet. Never before have the national boundaries of sovereign states been as permeable to the power of ideas and the transactions of commerce. The information and communication technologies (Icr)revolution that sends billions of dollars across the world with the click of a mouse and the flight of an electron is but a symptom of the deeper changes being wrought in our perceptions of ourselves and of others. While these forces have undoubtedly created enormous wealth and well-being for many, they have tended to exacerbate the i e s between and w i t h i n countries. In the realm of the knowledge-based society, which is inexorably pressing on our future, we are challenged to deal with such vexing issues as the emergence of proprietary science; to summon the will and the innovative skills to design new regimes that are fair to all, and that can forestall that most vicious of all forms of discrimination, mtn+ apdmd. Remember, however, that there is another side.to globalization as well. Globalization has created a rising awareness of the inter-connectedness of the human f+, and is a t the heart of the increasing assertion of the universality of human rights, including women’s nghts and children’s rights. It has led to a multiplication of caring and concerned intematiod NGOs that represent an important dimension of the emerging international civil society. It is found in the environmentalmovement, which reminds all humans that they are stewards of this earth, and that together we must with nature, not a p t it Of course, the farmers knew that all along, and we must combine their wisdom with our discoveries in the realms of science. Let us re-dedicate ourselves, in that spirit,to being what I have previously called the %ew abolitionists.” We must be as dedicated to abolishing hunger and poverty, as an earlier Coalition of the Caring was dedicated to abolishing slavery. In all we undertake, we will find that the set of forces which have the greatest impact upon our work are the profound revolutions of ICT and DNA. ICT The key to ICT is not just the wireless technology, but also and more profoundly the dig& ra$rcacnt. By finding the arnmn bumy hngwg?of ones and zeros, we suddenly see things that appeared impossible become possible and the possible become commonplace. Boundaries are erased. Telephony not only becomes mobile, but is linked to the internet. Television, computers and telecom become one. Image, music, data, and voice are all binary bits that can be manipulated and moved on a common digital mode. This extraordinary n-ansfbrmah forced enormous changes in the businesses that functioned within each of its component parts. Mega-mergers, acquisitions, and the emergence of the new have become commonplace. The landscape is being transformed. The fast eat the slow. New names appear with mesmerizing frequency. Governments are running after the new realities, trying to make regulations meaningful in this world of dlzzymg change. For those in that business it is truly “change or die!” Yet despite the astronomic numbers and wealth of the new technology companies, this technological revolution is also a democratizing one. It can empower the weak and the poor if only we have the imagination to see how the benefits can be harnessed properly. 62 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY OF PUOSEEDIWSB From M:S. Swamhathan‘sinfo-villages that have captured universal attention to the inherent open access of the internet, the forces of the civil society and of diversity fmd in the new technologies powerful tools to “remain local while going global.” The dialectics of connectedness and fragmentation can be combined to the benefit of the poor and the environment with imagination and perseverance. DNA In the biological sciences, finding the common ATCG language of DNA is also causing transformative changes in approaches to the practice of science and what is “doable.” We are living in a time unmatched for the opportunitiesthat it provides the biological sciences. It is an exhilarating time, similar to what physics experienced in the glorious 40 years between 1905 and 1945, when all the concepts were changed, from cosmologyto quantum physics, from relativity to the structure of the atoms. Today we are decoding the DNA blueprints of life, we are learning to manage the deployment and expression of genes, we are mobilizing bacteria to do our work, and we are manipulating the very building blocks of life. Like physics in the first half of this centuly, we are confronted by profound ethical and safety issues. Unlike prior work in biological sciences, our future research will be complicated by the new issues of proprietaty science. The Challenge to the CGIAR So, we live in the world of these transformative technologies and vast global currents. We must seize the momentous opportunities offered us, but also remain true to our mission. We must have the courage to seize the future and bend it to our will. We must fashion out of our dreams for better tomorrows the realities of a better world for our children and our children’s’children. We must be guided by the inspiring words of Margaret Mead: This requires change, not just in what we do but in how we do it. Our science itself is undergoing changes. The new approaches- the contextualhation of research, agroecology, natural resource management, genomics, and more- raise as many exciting new questions as they answer old ones. To many in the science world, these are times when, as Daniel Boorstin once observed, the modern discoverer is rather a qmm,whose achievements are measured not in the finality of answers, but in the fertility of questions. Let us enjoy the quest together. Recognizing, as we must today, that from the farmer in her field to the scientist in her lab, we are all problem-inventing as much as problem-solving animals, our vision for the future must therefore be one of flexibility and nimbleness - our vision must be as open-ended as knowledge, as random as play, as surprising as human imagination and ingenuity, as dedicated to the empowerment of the weak as our sense of shared humanity u s t redefined But as we do all this, we must protect the heartland of the CGIAR, which we have j yet again at this millennial meeting. It is not that the heartland changes so much over time. Rather, it is that the manner in which we are going to do the science in that heartland changes and has to change yet again. Our commitment is the same, but the manner in which we view how to approach the problem changes. In the words of T S Eliot: Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 201 0 63 SUMMABY OF PlOCEEBIWCS I have confidence in our scientists. They are always open'to the new. Like all scientists they are dedicated to truth, honor, and a constructive subversiveness... for science advances only by overthr0W;lg the old. They will establish measures of effectiveness and impact of what works and what does not. They will arbitrate among competing claims, alternative visions and paradigms by the standards of science: scientific evidence, rigorous analysis, and rational debate. And in articulating choices, I know they will be guided by the wise criteria of M. S . Swaminathan: seek out what is pro-poor, pro-women, and pro-en~onment. Let me only add that each of us must at all times look into our hearts and obey Gandhi's exhortation. OrganizationalChange But how about organizational change? Is it needed? If it is not, we should not change for change's sake. But if it is needed, as I do believe it is, then we must have the courage to embrace change. Change is never easy, especially to the successful. Peter Drucker referring to the IBM of the 70s and to General Motors said that "he whom the gods would smite, they give decades of success...."For that very success breeds complacency and a sense that it has worked well in the past, so why change it. But the success itself was based on change. Change is never easy. But it is necessary, not just for the internal workings of the CGIAR, but for the CGIAR and GFAR and our partners to play a vital role in shaping the new emerging world order for agricultural research; a vita role for public good, for the poor, for the rights of future generations. That, my friends, is the true revolution, creating a new order of things. There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of success than to take the lead in the intioductionof a new order, because the innovator has for enemies, all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. But it is our destiny to have been here at this time, and we must try. For it is better to try and fail than to have failed to try. Envoi "Change," Samuel Johnson remarked, "is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better." The scientific temperament does not avoid the perceived inconvenience of change, but takes charge of and directs transformation. The CGIAR has proved itself to be an outstanding instrument of progress. Its combination of high-level science with grassroots-level impact has been unique and exemplary. Science revels in replenishment. New knowledge replenishes what is losing its potency. New forms and functions 64 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SDMMAIY OF PIOCEEDINLS replenish the old. The greatest rewards await those who have the courage to undertake the most difficult transformations. So, as you prepare to face the future, I entreat you to reach out boldly and wisely to protect and enhance the inheritance of visionary zeal and boundless compassion that has been passed down from the founders of the CGIAR; ask yourself whether your actions will benefit the men and women of .today, and sustain the children who will be the men and women of tomorrow; send an unequivocal signal to Center scientists that you have confidence in them, that you support them, and that you will not in any way compromise their competence or erode their dedication; and extend your hand to all the partners with whom the CGIAR must work if it is to be truly effective. Colleagues and friends. My end is ; I my beginning. So I say to you now as I did in New Delhi.... I 0 As I leave you, I know that you will, w i t h commitment and dedication, with wisdom and ingenuity, take the current. I know that your voyage will speed you onwards to new realms of accomplishment. I know that it is your destiny to help ease the pain and burden of those who need the benefits of science most. I leave you with the confidence that your commitment to excellence, your passion for will ceaselessly effectiveness, and your compassion for the lowliest and helpless in the human f&, thriVi. Good luck, my friends. Good luck and farewell. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 65 CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting ANHEXES 1. Opening Session i. Welcome by CGIAR chairman ii. Welcome by German hosts iii. Qlairman's opening statement iv. Qlairman'sannoun~ents v. Adoption of the agenda 2. Global Forum on Agricultural Research i. Implications of the GFAR meeting for the CGIAR ii. Discussion 3. vision for the CGUR i. Overview presentation by TAC ii. Initial plenary discussion iii. Explanation and discussion of proposed process for smd group work iv. Working groups on selected themes v. Reports from Working Groups vi. Discussion v i i . Plenary discussion (continued) viii. Conclusions on vision and Structure Germany Program -- Official Welcome at Schloss Albdtsberg -- Reception 4. R e p o r t from the C e n t e r s i. Report from the Centers on programmatic developmentsin the System ii. Discussion 5. Impact of the CGIAR: B E G Seminar on CGIAR's impact on germplasm improvement i. Introduction by Hans Gregersen ii. Presentation by Professor Robert Evenson iii. Discussion 6. Evaluation -parallel sessions i. ICARDAEPMR ii. IWMlEPMR iii. WARDA EPMR iv. Reports from parallel sessions v. Discussion 7. Longer-T.ermFinancing i. Report from the McCalla working group ii. Discussion 68 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 8. Research Agenda and Funding Requirements i. 2001-2003 research agenda framework ii. 2001 research agenda iii. Discussion iv. 2001 funding requirements v. Discussion 9. Committee Recommendations and Reports (expatedto h lwnakf dm& w r i m v ) i. Oral reports, if essential, from: Cosponsors,OC,FC, TAC, GRPC, NGOC, PSC, SPC, CBC,CDC ii. Discussion ( a s+ ) 10. Closing Session Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 69 ~ ~~~ ANNEXES List o f Dommmts Document Number M"M/OO/Ol/Rev. 1 hfl-M/00/02 MTM/00/03 MTM/00/04 MTM/O0/05 h4TM/00/06 MTM/00/07 Document ntle Draft Agenda List of Documents Schedule of Events Financial Requirements of the 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda Toward a Longer-Range Financing Strategy for the CGIAR Composition of the Consultative Council Report on the Consultative council Meeting Held on May 20,2000 MTM/OO/OS Strategy for the CGIAR in Sub-SaharanAfrica MTh4/00/09 Report of the CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee MTM/OO/lO Report of the NGO Committee Future CGIAR Meetings MTM/OO/ll w o o / 12 Project Portfolio W O O / 13 Report of the Finance Committee MTM/00/14 Report of the Center Directors MTM./00/15 Report of the Private Sector Committee M"h4/00/ 16 Report of the Science Partnership Committee w00/17 Report of the Cosponsors SDWTAC: IAR/00/16 The 2001 CGIARResearch Agenda and Initial Proposals for 2003 SDWTAC: IAR/00/14.1 A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR (April 2000) SDWTAC: IAR/00/14.la A Food Secure World for Au:Toward a N e w Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR - Companion Paper on Priority Research and Related Activity Themes Report from the TAC Standing Panel on Impact Assessment SDWTAC: IAR/00/13 SDWTAC: IAR/00/17 IAEG Crop Germplasm Impact Study SDWTAC: W 9 9 / 9 . 1 Report of the Fourth External Program and Management Review of ICARDA Report of the Second External Program and Management Review of IWMI SDWTAC: IAR/00/07 Report of the Fourth External Program and Management Review of SDWTAC: W 0 0 / 0 6 WARDA 70 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES List o f Participants Chairman Ismail Serageldin Vice President, Special Programs The World Bank Werner Betzwar Consultant Wmtemeiger R & D Martin Mayer Research Development Manager Wmtemeiger R & D Bangladesh DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP African Development Bank ZahurulKarim Executive Chairman Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council @ARC) . Belgium M u Mework Principal Agricultural Economist Asian Development Bank (ADB) Bradford R Philips Manager, Agriculture and Rural Development Division (East) Yuen L. Yee Senior Evaluation Specialist Luc sas CGIAR Officer Directorate General International Cooperation ( D W Brazil Australia D. Ian Bevege Principal Adviser Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACM) Albert0 Duque Portugal President Empresa Bradeira de Pesquisa Agropecdria (Embrapa) Francisco J.B. Reifschneider Head, Secretkt for International Cooperation Embrapa John H. Skerritt Deputy Director Research and Development ( R & D) ACIAR Richard R. Williams Executive Director University of Queensland Austria Jamil Macedo Coordinator,Multilateral Cooperation Embrapa Jose Roberto Rodrigues Peres R & D Director, Embrapa - Canada Ralph Gretvnacher Head of Department University of Agricultural Sciences Bruce Howell Project.Manager Canadian International Development Agency ( C W Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 71 ANNEXES Ian C. MacGillivray Senior Adviser, C D A China Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Naiions (FAO) ZHAO Longyue Deputy Director General Department of International Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture Colombia Louise Fresco Assistant Director General Agriculture Department Santiago Funes Director and Officer in Charge Research, Extension and Training Division (SDR) Juan Lucas Restrepo Director, National Department of Planning Ministry of Agriculture Denmark Ibrahim Y.Hamdan Director Regional Office for the Near East (RNE) Maria Josh de 0.Z h e r m a n n Senior A g r i c u l d Research Officer Stephen A. Rudgard Organization of the Islamic Conference (OK) WAICENT Outreach Program Finland Klaus Winkel Head of Department Danish InternationalDevelopment Assistance @ani&) Ministry of Foreign A f f a i r s Jorgen Jakobsen Research Director Research Centre Flakkebjerg Danish Institute of A g r i d d Suences EgvPt Pentti Aspila Research Director Agncultural Research Centre Eero Horstia Agricultural Adviser Ministry for Foreign Affairs Ford Foundation Fawzi Naiem Mahrous Deputy Director AgnculturalResearch Center European Commission (EC) Doris Capistrano Program Officer France &e Werblow H e a d of Division Rural Development and Food Security Philippe Vialatte Principal Administrator Gilles Saint-Martin Ministkre de 1'Education Nationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie - DRIC Daniel Rocchi Charge de Mission Ministkre de 1'Agriculture et de la Ptche Germany Alain Darthenucq Principal Scientific Officer Hans-JorgLutzeyer Executive Secretary European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development ( E m ) H-Jochen de Haas H e a d , Rural Development Section 72 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Tim Dottridge Senior Policy Analyst Maria Jesus (Chusa) Gin& Senior Program Specialist Donald G. Peden Senior Program Officer Ronnie Vemooy Senior Program Specialist , Hartmut E. A. Herbsleb Ministerialrat Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry Hans Pfeifer , Director German Foundation for International Development @SE/ZEL) Cornelis van TuyU Head of Division, Rural Development Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Eke Wolff Rural Development Section, BMZ Stephan K r d Senior Advisor International AgriculturalResearch, GTZ Marlene Diekmann Advisor, International A g r i a Research Beratungsgruppe Entwicklungsonentierte Agrarforschung(BEAF) Petra Mutlu Head of Division, Rural Development, GTZ India Dominic Schofield Partnership and Business Development Office International Fund for Agricultural DeveloDment 1ZFDJ Klemens van de Sand Assistant President Program Management Department Rodney D. Cooke Director, Technical AdvisoryDivision Shantanu Mathur Technical Adviser/Econornist Iran Abbas Keshavarz H e a d , Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO) Mohammad H. Roozitalab Deputy Director General, AREEO Ireland R S. Paroda Secretary - DARE, Director General - ICAR Department of Agriculture, Research and Education Ministry of Agriculture Michael Jim Flanagan Chief Inspector Depamnent of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Swithun Goodbody Consultant, Ireland AID Department of Foreign Affairs Italy Inter-American Developmeni Bank (IDB), Fontapro Edgardo R. Moscardi Executive Secretary International Development Research Centre UDRQ John Hardie Director, Policy and Planning Gioacchino Carabba Senior A g r i c u l d Expert Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 73 ANNEXES Directorate General for Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Marina Puccioni Direttore Agrario Minister0 Affari Esten Istituto Abronomico per L'Oluexnare Japan Rodrigo Aveldano Director General de la Division rNIFl4.P Jesus Moncada Executive Secretaty CoordinadoraNacional Fundaciones Produce A. C. (COFUPRO) Annando Paredes President, COFUPRO Netherlands, The Tetsushi Kondo Multilateral Cooperation Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs Nobuyoshi Maeno Director General Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) Kensuke Okada Senior Researcher, JIRCAS HideyuluTakuma International Research Coordinator International Research Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat 0 Korea L e n Boer Head DGIS Research and CommunicationDivision Ministry of Foreign Affairs Klaas J. Tamminga Senior Expert Research and Development, DGIS Ministry of Foreign Affairs Rob van Raalte Sr. Policy Adviser Ministery of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries Margreet H. van den Berg Senior Policy Advisor Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries Ronald Goldberg Environment and Development Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs FransNeuman CGIAR Liaison IAC Wageningen New Zealand Seong-Hee Lee Director International Technical Cooperation Centre Rural Development Adminisuation (RDA) Luxembourg OTCC) Georges Heinen Government Adviser Ministry of Finance Mexico Jorge Kondo-Lopez Director en Jefe Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agricolas y Pecuarias (INFAP) Keneti Faulalo Program Manager Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Michael W. Dunbier Chief Executive Institute for Crop and Food Research 74 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 20IO ANNEXES Nigeria South Africa Umaru Abubakar AUraleri Permanent Secretary Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Olatunde Adeyemi Oloko Director Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Norway Siphiwe Mkhize Director National Department of Agriculture Michael C. Walters Director, Agricultural Research Council (ARC) Plant Protection Research Institute Leseho Sell0 Assistant Director National Department of Agriculture Spain Ruth Haug Director of Research NoragridAgriculd University of Norway Philiuuines JosC L. Milas Head, International Affairs National Institute for Agriculturd Research and Food Technology ' P I A ) Pilar M. Castro International Scientific Cooperation, INIA Sweden Eliseo R Ponce Director, Bureau of Agricultural Research Department of Agriculture Portupal Joao Borges Senior Officer Institute for International Scientific and Technological Cooperation (ICCQ August0 M. Correia Professor Instituto Superior de Agronomia Rockefeller Foundation Jerker Thunberg Assistant Director General Director, Department for Natural Resources and the Environment Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) Carl-Gustaf Thomstrom Senior Research Advisor SIDA/SAREC Eva L. Ohlsson Research Officer, SIDA/SAREC Switzerland Robert W. Herdt Vice President, Program Administration Russia Gemadi A. Romanenko President Russian Academy of A g r i d d Sciences W S ) Paul Egger Head, Asia Division Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) Christine Grieder Head of Agriculture Division EDA-DEZA, Agriculture Division SDC Olga Glukhovtseva Head, Foreign Relations Department RAAS Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 75 ANNEXES Barbara Becker Executive Manager Swiss Centre for International Agriculture United Nations Development Programme W P ) (ZII-1 Alfred Bronnimann Director Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture Syria Robexto Lenton Director, Sustainable Energy and Environment Division (SEED) Peter J. Matlon Chief, Food Security Program United States f Issam el-Zaim Minister of State for Planning A f f a i r s Ministry of State for Planning A f f a i r s Walid T a d Director of Agricultural Research Ministry of Agriculture Thailand Emmy B. Simmons Deputy Assistant Administrator U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID)/G/EGAD Robert B. Bertram Multilateral Research Coordinator,USAID Dana G. Dalrymple Research Adviser USAJD/Global/E GAD/AFS World Bank Vijai Nopamombodi Deputy Director General Department of Agriculture . Uganda Robert L. Thompson Director, Rural Development Shawki Barghouti Senior Research Advisor Gabrielle Persley Senior A g r i c u l d Biotechnologist Rural Development Department Ashok Seth Principal Agricultural Offcer Joseph Mukiibi Director Generai National Agricultural Research Organization United Kingdom Andrew J. Bennett Chief Natural Resources Adviser Department for InternationalDevelopment ( D w Paul Harding Senior Advisor, Research, DFID Laura Thornton Assistant Program Officer International A g ~ i c u l d Research, DFID rvlichael J. Wdson Head, Research Rural Development Department, DFID REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES Representing Africa h4ichel Sedogo Director General Centre National de Recherche Scientifique et Technologique (C") Burkina Faso 76 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 Representing Asia and the Pacific (Sri Lanka and Fijo S . S . B. D. G. Jayawardena Director General Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka Representing Europe (Hungary and Slovenia) Alain de Janvry Lucia de Vaccaro Maria A. Femandez Martinez Hans M. Gregersen Richard R Harwood Oumar Niangado HirOUChlmIya Joachim von Braun Vo-Tong Xuan TAC Secretariat Ervin Balhs Director General Agricultural Biotechnology Center HU%ary Representing Latin America and the Caribbean (TrinidadTobago and Paraguq) Shellemiah Keya Executive Secretary Guido Gryseels Deputy Executive Secretary a m p t o n L. Paul Executive Secretary, PROCICARIBE Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) Trinidad Ricardo Pedretti Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Paraguay Representing Middle East and North Africa (Sudan and Syria) Sirkka Immonen Senior Agricultural Research Officer Timothy G. Kelley Senior Agricultural Research Officer NGO Committee (NGOC) Ann Waters-Bver Osman AA. Ageeb Professor, .Agronomy Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC) Sudan cochair M & " Ali Shehadeh Agricultural Science Research Directorate Ministry of Agricultural and Agranan Reform Syria Christian castellanet Tulian F. Gonsalves Ass&tou Kanoutk Dwi R. Muhtaman Peter Rosset Juan Sanchez Jean Marc von der Weid ADVISORY BODIES AND PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEES Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Private Sector Committee (PSC) SamDryden chair E d Q. Javier chair it46 claudio Barriga Badrinarayan Barwale Wallace Beversdorf Seizo Sumida Barry Thomas Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 M & Michael Cemea 77 L ANNEXES Florence M. Wambugu Science Partnership Committee (SPC) -I W I EPMR Werner Arber Michel J. Petit, Panel Chair Professor Institut National Agronomique chair M & R James Cook MouinHd Lydia P. Makhubu a i r Sudha N OBSERVERS Boiswana Louis Mazhani Department of Agricultural Research Jordan - WARDA EPMR Mandi Rukuni Dean, Faculty of Agriculture University of Zimbabwe t - C G U R Finance Committee Working Group Alexander McCda chair f the System Review -Retrospective Review o Martin PGeiro &air Elliot Stem Member Abdel Nabi Fardous National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Gerard Barry Monsanto INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS SUPPORTED BY THE C G W Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical 1CL4 T) Saudi Arabia Abraham A. Al-Mulhim Director Al-Ahsa Regional Research Centre United Arab Emirates LauritZ Holm-Nielsen Chair, Board of Trustees Elisio COntini Board Member Alvaro Francisco Uribe Board Member Joachim Voss Director General Peter Campbell Kerridge Coordinator,CIAT-Asia Jacquelhe Ashby Director, Natural Resources Management Juan Antonio G d c Mob-d Al-Attar Director General Biosaline Agriculture Center CGIAR PANELS AND WORKING GROUPS - ICARDA EPMR Donald L. Plucknett, Panel chair Agricultural Research and Development International 78 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Finance Manager Douglas Pachico Director, Strategic Planning Centerfor International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Wanda w. Collins Deputy Director General, Research Roger T. Cortbaoui Director, International Cooperation Peter Erich Schmiediche Coordinator, ECA International Centerfor Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) Jagmohan Maini Chair, Board of Trustees Jeffrey Arthur Sayer Director General Mafa Evaristus Chipeta Deputy Director General Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trig0 ( C M M Y l J Robert D. Havener Chair, Board of Trustees Peter S. M. Franck-Oberaspach Member, Board of Trustees Adel El-Beltagy . Director General Walter P. Falcon Chair, Board of Trustees Timothy G. Reeves Director General Wfim Erskine Acting Assistant Director General Mohan C. Saxena Assistant Director General Mahmoud B. Soh Acting Director General for International Cooperation Larry Wallace Harrington Director, Natural Resources Program David A. Hoisington Director, Applied Biotechnology Center Patricia Lopez Board Secretary Kelly A. Cassaday Head, Information Services Surinder Kumar Vasal Team Leader CIMMYT Asian Maize Program , John Dodds Assistant Director General, Research International Centerfor Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) Kurt Peters Chair, Board of Trustees Meqd J. Williams Director General Philip A. Bontuyan Project Development Coordination Officer Sandra E. Child Head, Information Edward N. Sayegh Associate Director General Centro Internacional de la PaDa KIP1 Koenraad Verhoeff Acting Chair,Board of Trustees Hubert G. Zandstra Director General Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 79 ~ ANNEXES International Centrefor Research i n Agroforestty (ICRAF) Per Pinstrup-Andersen Director Genera ! Lucie Edwards Chair, Board of Trustees Pedro A. Sanchez Director General Fiona J.C. Chandler Executive Officer Glenn L. Denning Director, Development Tiffin D. Harris Director,Management Services Anne-Marie Izac Director, Research International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Stacy C. Roberts Special Assistant to the DG Martin Van Weerdenburg Director, Finance and Administration Klaus von Grebmer Director, Communications Department International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Enrico Porceddu Chair, Board of Trustees Lukas Brader Director General International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Ragnhdd Sohlberg Chair, Board of Trustees John E. Vercoe Chair, Board of Trustees H. J. von Maydell Member, Board of Trustees Hank A. Fitzhugh Director General Ralph von Kaufmann Director, Extend Relations International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Waam D. Dar Director General Jugu J. Abraham Head, Donor Relations Unit Kwame Akuffo-Akoto Director, Finance (IPGRI) Marcio de Miranda Santos Chair, Board of Trustees Geoffrey Hawtin Director General Cary Fowler Senior Advisor to DG Jill M. Lennk Deputy Director General Rodomiro Ortiz Director Genetic Resources and Enhancement Program International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Emile Frison Director InternationalNetwork in Banana and P l a n t a i n Research (INIBAP) Ruth Raymond Public Awareness Geoff m e r Chair, Board of Trustees 80 Charting rhe CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Lpdsey Withers Assistant Director General International Rice Research Institute ( I m Governance Program International Water Management Institute (IwMI) Klaas Jan Beek Chair, Board of Trustees . Roelof Rabbinge Chair, Board of Trustees Ronald P. Cantrell Director General Kenneth S. Fischer Special Adviser Joan H. Joshi Board Member Frank Rijsbeman Director General Designate Michael Devlin Head, Communications and Donor Relations Douglas J. Merrey Deputy Director General West Africa Rice Development Association (WARD4 Just Fdand Duncan I. Macintosh Spokesperson Wfiam G. Padolina Deputy Director General for Partnerships Mercedita A. Sombilla Policy Economist and Head, Liaison International Servicefor National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Chair, Board of Trustees Lindsay N. Innes Chair Designate, Board of Trustees Alois Basler Board Member Kanayo F. Nwanze Director General Michael F. L. Goon Deputy Director General Moise Mensah Chair, Board of Trustees Stein W. Bie Director General Joel Cohen Program Director Howard Elliott Deputy Director General Byme Program Planning Coordinator Victoria Henson-Apollonio Senior Research Officer Francis Idachaba Deputy Director General A m i r Kassam Deputy Director General P. Justin Kouka Executive Assistant to the DG CGIAR CENTER ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS Committee of Center Directors Heike Michelsen Program Director M. M. Rahman Director, Institutional Development and Jean-Pierre Jacqmotte Executive Secretary Charting the CGIAR’SFuture - A New Visionfor 2010 81 ANNEXES Future Harvest Barbara Rose Director of Operations Director, Research Instituto Agronomicoper Z'Oltremare (IAO), Italy Alice Perlini Director General Gender and Diversity Program VickiWide Program Leader CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program - International Centrefor Underutilized Crops, UK NmdHaq Director Organizational Change Program Linda J. Spink Program Leader - Natural Resources Institute (IVRI)), University of Greenwich, UK CGWR PARTNERS T i m C.B. Chancellor Entomologist, GRE Advanced Research Institutes (AMs) - AGROPOLIS, France Michel de Nu& de Lamothe President MalcolmJ. Iles Secretary, IPM Fonun I P M Europe George Rothschild Principal Policy Adviser, GRE - Centre de cooperation intmtionale en recherche agronomique pour le developpement (CIRAD), France - European Consortium for Agricultural Research for the Tropics (ECART), UK Jeremy C. Stickings Executive Secretary Henri R o d e &Orfed Director Michel Giffon ScientificDirector - Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands - Institute of Arable Crops Research (IACR), UK Wdem Van Vuure General Advisor, International Relations Farmers ' Orpanizations Stephen James Head of Information, Gmmunications and External Relations Judy MInternational and Public Liaison Developing and Emerging Economies Ejigu Jonfa Farmer's Research Project of Farm Africa Ethiopia Eliud Kihoro Ngunjiri Executive Director Pelum-Rodi-Kenya - Institut National de la Recherche Agron o mique (INRA), France Gueye Samba Secretary General National councilfor Rural Cooperation 82 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES (CNCR), Senegal Nanjunda Swamy President Karnataka State Farmers Association (KRRS) India - International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM) Eric T. Craswell Director General Foundations Klaus M. Leisinger Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development, Switzerland - International Centrefor Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) Niklaus Weiss Member of Governing council Hans Herren Director General Other International Agricultural Research Centers fIARCS)or International Bodies ChriSHill Director of Adrmnisvation and Finance - Asian VegetableResearch and Development Center ( A m ) Jiirgen Friedrichsen Deputy Director General International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) Amit Roy President and CEO - Burotrop Roger W. Smith Board Chair International Network for Bamboo and Ramn (INBAR) Ian R. Hunter Director General - C A B . International Denis G. Blight Director General Jeff Waage Professor CA.B.1. Bioscience - Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme (TSBF) Michael J. Swift Director Tropical So4 Biology and Fertility Programme - Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion para la Agricultura (IICA), Costa Rica Enrique Alarcon Director, Science and Technology Jorge Ardila Research Specialist Roberto M. Bocchetto Programa Cooperativo para el Desarrollo Tecnol6gico Agropecuario del Con0 Sur (PROCISUR) Waldo G. Espinoza Executive Secretary National Agricultural Research Systems fNARS) - Centro para el Desawollo Agropecuario y Forestal (CEDAF), Dominican Republic Altagracia Rivera de Castillo Executive Director - Georgian University of Agricultural Science Guram Aleksidze Chief Academician Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 83 ~~ ANWEXES - Institut National de la Recherche Agricole du Benin (INRAB), Benin J. Detongnon Director General - Pelum-Rodi-Kenya Eliud Kihoro Ngunjiri Executive Director - Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales AgricolrEs y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Mexico Moneta Port0 Miguel Director, Scientific Exchange Enrique Cortes Almada y Buelna Advisor Arturo Puente G o d e z Advisor - SOS-Sahel-IWT, UK Eyasu Elias Research Programs Coordinator - World Resources Institute, USA Arthur A. Getz Research Associate Regional Organizations/Fora - Ministhe de Dheloppement Rural et de I'Environement, Mauritania Ba Mamoudou Ykro Besse Deputy Director Recherche, Formation, Vulgarisation - Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Afica (AARINENA) Mustapha Yaghl President Yousif Al-Shayji Vice President, AARINENA Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR) - National University of Benin Claude Adandedjan Dean, ESA-UNB ChriStoHilan Executive Secretary Institut du Recherches Agronomiques du NGOs/Private Sector LIBAN - Aventis Cropscience, Germany Manfred Kern Technicd Strategy and Resources - Asia-PacificAssociation of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) Reinier A. van Hoff en Associate Professional Officer Office of the FA0 Representativein India and Bhutan - The Consmation Company, USA John E. Riggan Chief Executive Officer Shelly Kessler Senior Associate - Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and CentralAfica (ASARECA) Geoffrey C. Mrema Executive Secretary - Forum Umwelt und Entwkklung, Germany Susanne Gura International co-ordination of NGO activities - Centre on Integrated Developmentfor Asia and the Pacific (CIRLM?') A. V. S. Reddy 84 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Director General Universities Neville P,Clarke Program Coordinator The Texas A&M University System Ronnie Coffman Associate Dean and Director Comell University Lindsay Falvey University of Melbourne Sergio Salles-Ficno Campinos State University Russell Freed Acting Director Institute of International Agriculture Michigan State Universiv Bryan D. Hawey University Coordinator of A g r i c u l d Research University of Saskatchewan Anatole Krattiger Executive Director International Service for the Acquisition of --Biotech Applications Amencenter Cornell University - Confhence des Responsa.. -Ade Recherche Agricole en Afique de 1'Ouest et du Centre (CORAF,)/WECARD, Mali Traore Adama chairman - CooperationCouncilfor the Arab States of the Gulf(GulfCooperation Council - GCC) Abdullatif I. AI-Mugrin Director, Trade and Agriculture Department GCC Secretariat General - Conference des Responsables de Recherche Agronomique Aficains (C0RAF)AVECARD Ndiaga Mbaye Executive Secretary - Forum for AgriculturalResearch in Afica ( F m ) Joseph Mukiibi chair Moise Houssou - Global Forum on AgriculturalResearch (GFAR) - NARS Secretariat Fernando Chaparro Executive Secretary Christian Hoste Senior Adviser NARS Secretariat of GFAR OSAAA) OTHER PARTICIPANTS Mario Ahumada Movimiento Agroecologko de America Latina y el Caribe (MAELA) Holger Baum Media Company - GFAR Steering Committee Alain G. Derevier Executive Secretariat - SEAMEO Regional Centerfor Graduate Study and Research in Ap'cuture (SEARCA) Jesie S. BinamL-a Interim Director, Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) ChristianBonte-Fnedheim Ecoregiond Fund, ISAC Herbert Borgwardt Senior consultant/Civil Servant State Ministry for the Environment and Agriculture of Saxony Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 85 ANNEXES Yolonda Fowler CGNET Services International Marian Fuchs-Carsch Consultant Peter Gregory Senior Consultant Jehger, Schwartz and Reed Hertford President, EAM Co. Annemat-ie Matthess Project Manager, GTZ Science Adviser Gerard O'Donoghue Senior Financial Officer s e l d ijzgediz Management Adviser Inc. Ravi Tadvalkar Principd Financial Officer Waltraud R. Wightman Program Officer GERMAN ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Maty Ann Piester Technical Support Specialist CGNET Services International - Beratungsgruppe Entwicklungsorientierte Agra$orschung (BEAF) Reinhild Ernst Coordinator, GFAR2000/MTM2000 Ndja Bornscheuer Conference Assistant G i l l M. Shepherd Research Fellow Overseas Development Institute GJAR SECRETARIAT Alexander von der Osten Executive Secretary Sal& Brahimi Nicole Neukirch Conference Assistant Maria Weitz PPJPeer Reviews Adviser, International Relations Ernest Corea Consultant Barbara Eckberg Program Assistant Shirley Geer Senior Information Officer William Grundy Conference Officer Frona Hall Conference Officer Sarwat Hussain Information Officer Manuel Lantin - German Foundation for Dwelopment (DSE/Z EL) Jiirgen Richter Program Director Hendrik Fischer Conference Support Anja Fnmche Conference Support Eva Gaertner Conference Support Claudia Grohme Conference Support Gitta Heier Conference Support 86 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Petra A. Kade Program Assistant Dorothea Marek Conference Support Petra Stolp Conference Support christiane Stroeh Conference Support Nicola Krappweis Conference Support JudithLandes a Conference Support Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 87 ANNEXES Highlights o f Cospoplsors Meeting The Cosponsors held their meeting in conjunctionwith MTM2000 at the Bellevue Hotel, Dresden, Germany. Presided by CGIAR Chairman Ismail Serageldin, the meeting was attended by Robert Thompson (World Bank), Louise Fresco (on behalf of Jacques Eckebil, FAO), and Peter Matlon (on behalf of Roberto Lenton, UNDP). Others present were E d Javier PAC Chair), Hans Gregersen (”AC/SPIA Chair), Alexander von der Osten (CGIAR Executive Secretary), Shellemiah Keya (TAC Executive Secretary), Guido Gryseels PAC Deputy Executive Secretary) and Manuel Lantin (Science Adviser, CGIAR Secretariat). Follow-up to the Consultative Council Meeting I The Cosponsors reviewed the results of the Consultative Council’s (oc) meeting held on May 20, 2000. That meeting considered the companion paper to the vision document prepared by TAC. The main points discussed and recommendations made by the CC were presented in a Chairman’s letter to the CGIAR members. The Council’s recommendationswere as follows: Adoption of the elements of strategy presented by TAC. Discussion of any proposals on structure that the Centers are ready to discuss at MTM2000. Adoption of an action plan as well as schedule of next steps to deal with issues of strategy and structure following the Dresden meeting. TAC Membership At present, TAC has 14 members (excluding the Chair). However, four members will complete their term at the end of 2000. The Cosponsors endorsed the recommendation from the TAC chair for a one-term (two-year) extension of Joachim von Braun (hls second term) and Richard Harwood (hls third term) beginning January 1,2001. The Cosponsors also endorsed the TAC chair‘s recommendationto search for candidates to fill the other two membership slots. United Nations Environment Program’s Status i n the CGIAR The Cosponsors noted with regret the message from UNEP’s Deputy Executive Director Shafqat Kakakhel that “it is no longer possible for UNEP to maintain its status as a cosponsor of the CGIAR.” They were, however, pleased to know that UNEP expressed its intention to remain as a member of the Group. Financial Support t o TAC At MTM99, the CGIAR approved the integration of TAC and the IAEG. The IAEG was replaced by a Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPJA) to serve as TAC‘s principal instrument for a l l System level external evaluations and impact assessment activities. The TAC and IAEG Secretariats were integrated into one service unit based at F A 0 headquarters in Rome. The work program and budget of the integrated TAC/IAEG (SPIA) for the period 2000-2002 are embodied in an inter-agency agreement prepared at F A 0 and presented to the Cosponsors meeting at ICW99. The agreement has been signed by FA0 and the World Bank. F A 0 expressed hope that the agreement would be signed by UNDP in the near future. 88 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Global Forum on Agricultural Research The Cosponsors were pleased to note the progress in the work of the Global Forum on A g r i c u l d Research (GFAR) and reiterated their support to it. A discussion of the details of the CGIAR's future support was deferred pending the outcome of the ongoing external review of GFAR. Search for and Recruitment of CGIAR Director Robert Thompson, World Bank representative and chair of the Search Committee for CGIAR Director, informed the meeting that the search is well under way. The Search Committee is inviting additional nominations of outstandingpotential candidates particularly from developing counties. The committee will come up with a short list of candidates in due course, and these candidates will be invited for interview including a public seminar at the World Bank. It is hoped that the selection and recruitment process can be completed during the summer of 2000 so that the Director-designate can participate in Icw2000. '1 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 89 ANNEXES Report ofthe Nineteenth Meeting ofthe Oversight Committee The CGIAR Oversight Committee (OC) held its 19th Meeting at the Westin Hotel in Dresden between 20-25 May 2000, in conjunction with the CGIAR’s 2000 Mid-Term Meeting. Participating in the meeting were Andrew Bennett (chair), Emmy Simmons, Ruth Haug, Gilles St Martin, JuanRestrepo, Zhao Longyue and Selpk Ozgediz (Secretary). The OC interacted with the chauman, the Finance Committee, the Chairman of TAC, the Center Board Chairs, and the Center Directors’ Committee. The OC agenda consisted of the following items: The chairmanwelcomed the members of the Committee and noted that the membership of the OC is now 0 Andww~-C%ai~ BonpNph-Mbdi RtithHatlg 0 EmmySinrrrapzr Gdes St. Martin JmResenpo 0 zhdOL0ng)Lve Mervat Badawi stood down at h4TM2000. The OC placed on record their thanks to her for her help and outstanding contributions over the past three years. 1. Introduction The agenda was adopted. The Chairman and those members of the OC that had attended the Consultative Council and the ad hoc,informal meeting of the OC and Finance Committee in Rome outlined their impressions of the outcome of the meeting. 2. CGIAR Vision, Strategy and Structure The OC members took part in the discussions and working groups based on the conclusions and principles set out in two excellent and clear reports produced by TAC. 90 Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES It will be important to take the next steps forward in an open and transparent way, setting realistic timetables and deadlines. The OC supports the need to move forward as quickly as possible and in ways that ensure continuity and buy-in as key personalities in the System change. The OC was pleased that a timetable with clear milestones was agreed upon. It willingly accepts the mandate of the CGIAR to take the responsibilityfor convening the Synthesis Group in early October. This Panel will prepare a paper that p d s together the work of TAC and the CBC/CDC on the new CGIAR vision, TAC's seven P i l l a r s ,IPR issues and on System and Center governance.The paper will a i m to provide an overview of the options suggested and identlfy the issues that might be discussed at ICW2000. 3. Retrospective Review of the System Review The OC met with the members of the Review team and discussed and agreed on the terms of reference. It was impressed with the speed with which the team had started its work. The OC issued the revised terms of reference to the Members of the CGIAR and agreed to write to Review Panel Chairman Maurice Strong, to the Executive SecretaryMahendra Shah, and other members of the third System Review Panel asking for their help and cooperation in canying out the Retrospective Review. The OC looks forward to receiving the draft review report in September for dscussion at its meeting at ICW2000. 4. Due Diligence - Centers Board Membership and Orientation The OC welcomes the successful Board orientation program held at the time of ICW99. It was obviously welcomed by the participants and enhanced the role that the participants can play on their Boards. It encouragesthe Secretariat to incorporate the comments received in the feedback into the format of the program. The OC suggests that the program be offered annually and run every year, subject to there being an adequate demand. 0 IWMIand CIAT Successions The OC welcomes the transparent and inclusive processes followed in the identification and selection of the new Directors General at IWMI and CIAT. It congratulates Frank Rijsberman and Joachim Voss on their appointments and looks forward to working with them over the comingyears. CIFOR, ICRAF, and IITA Successions The OC notes the need to identify new DGs for CIFOR, ICRAF, and IITA over the coining 18 months. It encouragesthe Boards of these Centers to follow the good practices used by NlrMI and CIAT in their recent searches and selections. 0 EPMRs The OC welcomed the opportunity to discuss the EPMRs of ICARDA, IWMI, and WARDA and notes that the system of EPMRs is working well. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 91 ANHEXES 5. Due Diligence System - CGIAR Chair Succession The OC noted with regret the decision of the current Chair - Ismail Serageldin - to step down at the end of July. It will express its thanks,appreciation and farewells at ICW2000. It welcomes the commitment of the World Bank by offering that Ian Johnson - Vice President - Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development - would take over as Chairman of the CGIAR and would chair ICW2000. The OC looks forward to working with the new Chauman. ' The OC will write to the President of the World Bank on behalf of the Members of the CGIAR, expressing the appreciation of the CGIAR for the leadership and achievements of Ismail Serageldin and welcoming the continued commitment of the Bank through its nomination of Ian Johnson as the next Chair of the CGIAR It will also write to the incoming Chairman offering to brief him on CGIAR issues and the concerns. Cosponsor Succession The OC notes with regret the decision of the UNEP to step down as a Cosponsor of the CGIAR. It is concerned that restructuring and refocusing of priorities within the UNDP may make it difficult for the UNDP to continue in its role of Cosponsor. The Cosponsors play an invaluable role in providing the international status and legitimacy to the System. They will be particularly important in maintaining confidence in the System a t times of change. e C G M Executive Secretary/Director Succession The OC welcomed the report of the Chairman and the Director of the World Bank's Rural Development Department on progress in the identification and selection of candidates for this k.r Post. Funding Issues The OC welcomed the report on the Longer-Term Financing Strategy. It notes that the World Bank is planning to seek contributionsfrom the Members to meet up to 50 percent of the costs of the CGIAR Secretariat. The OC encourages the World Bank to present proposals at ICW, but recognizes that the review planned by the Bank might result in changes in the role, functions and size of the Secretariat. It is possible that this review of the Secretariat mght be extended to look at the costs and future funding of the TAC Secretariat. MTM and ICWAgendas The OC notes the continuing difficulties in predicting how CGIAR meetings will develop and incorporate all business into the time available. It welcomes the constructive flexibility shown by the Members in responding to these challenges, but underlines the importance of trying to set and adhere to a well prepared agenda. e Global Forum for Agricultural Research The OC congratulates Dr Paroda and the organizers and Secretariats of the GFAR on the successful conduct and conclusion of the Global Forum. The positive outcome and the rich diversity of views and opinions expressed make it important to revisit the future relationships and 92 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES division of labor between the GFAR and the CGIAR. At regional levels, this could be carried out by the Centers, regional organizations, and the GFAR Secretariat, as they take their work forward on the regiondecoregional focus of their programs. The OC looks forward to the opportunity to discuss and consider the future,evolution of the relationship between the GFAR and the CGIAR at ICW2OOO. 6. Membership and Rotation The OC noted that it is now up to strength but that its current chair was due to stand down at ICW2000,so it would be important to agree who would be the next chair in Washington. 7 . Interactions w i t h other Committees The OC interacted with the Finance Committee. The chair of OC had several meetings with the chairs of the Center Directors, Center Boards, TAC and Finance Committees, and the CGIAR Chairman over the conduct of MTM2000 and the next steps on the 2010 Vision Review. 8. Any Other Business The OC will discuss the issue of CGIAR nominees to the Boards of the CGIAR Centers at its next meeting. ' Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 93 ANNEXES Report ofthe Seventeenth Meeting ofthe Finance Committee The report of the Finance Committee was presented by its Chair, Iain MacGiIlivray. The agenda for the meeting covered the followingitems: 1999Outcome 2000 Financing Plan 2001 Financial Requirements CGIAR Longer Term Financing Strategy Financial Policies 0 0 The CGLAR Finance Committee held its I Th meeting in Dresden, Germany on May 20, 2000 and May 25, 2000. It held a joint session, chaired by the CGLAR Chairman, with the Oversight Committee on May 20 Members participating were: Australia (Bevege), Brazil (Reifschneider), Canada (MacGiNivray), Germany (De Haas), IFAD (Mathur), Japan (Kondo), Sweden (Thornstrom), Switzerland (Egger), World Bank (ThompsodBarghouti). Regrets were receivedpom Egypt. F A 0 (Lunes), European Commission (Vialatte), USA (Dalrymple) and United Kingdom (Harding;)observed the meeting. Agenda item No 1: 1999 Decision: The Finance Committee recommends approval of the CDC proposd to confirm the 1999 World Bank contribution at the levels disbursed during 1999. Overall outcome $330 million funding, representing a decrease of $10 million or 3 percent from the approved financing plan of $340 million. It is also $10 million less than actual 1998 funding of $340 million. a s the default, due to procedural mishaps, by the European The primary reason for the shortfall w Commission on its 1999 commitment of $16 million. Centers posted an operating deficit of $5 million financed from reserves. 0 Composition of funding: Unrestricted funding. Stable pattern in terms of absolute levels of unrestricted, outcome $179 million in line with 1998 total of $179 d o n . Represents 54 percent (1998: 53 percent) of total funding Restricted funding decreased by $10 million to $151 million in 1999. This represented 46 percent (1998: 47 percent) of total funding. Member groups: The top twelve donors contributed 73 percent of funding,down m a r g i n a l l y from 75 percent in 1998.Australia replaced the EC in the list of top twelve donors. ,Developing countries increased their contributions in absolute and percentage terms. Total contibutions increased from $13.2 million (3.9 percent) to $14.7 million (4.5 percent) in 1999. Contributions from non CG donors also increased by $3.1 million to $15 million, primarily &om private foundations and collaboration with private sector in Latin America. 94 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Program investments Agenda investments came to $347 million. The distribution of resources by undertaking was consistent with the 1999 finance plan. Investment in increasing productivity, at 34 percent of total investment (1998: 37 percent), continued to be the major thrust of CG activities. Protecting the environment accounted for 20 percent (1998:19 percent); Policy increased from 12 percent to 13 percent; Biodiversity decreased from 11percent to 10 percent and Strengthening NARS increased by 2 percent to 23 percent. Sectorally,crops accounted for 71 percent of investment, livestock, 14 percent; forestry, 11percent; and fish 4 percent. Center hi&ghts The majority of Centers (eleven) received funding w i t h i n a 10 percent range of their approved funding. Only five Centers were outside this range - ICARDA $3.4 million (-15 percent); CIFOR $1.9 million (-14 percent); CIAT $4.5 million (-13 percent), CIP $2.9 million (-12 percent); and ILRI $3.1 million (-10 percent). If the EC had not defaulted on its contribution all five Centers would have been within ten per cent, and thus broadly in line with their financing plan targets. Shortfalls would have been; ILRI$2.7 million (-9 percent); ICARDA $1.9 million (-8 percent); CIAT $2.7 million (-8 percent); CIFOR $1.1million (-8 percent); and CIP $1.0 million (-4 percent). These shortfalls were prim+ due to slower than planned project implementation. Membership Initial contribution by Syria. Disbursements 0 89 percent of 1999 contibutions were received by end of year, compared to 88 percent in 1998. Delays in EC funding in 1997 and 1998 were resolved by the end of 1999 for most Centers. World Bank funding The Finance Committee established a policy in 1997 that World Bank matching funds would be recomputed in light of a d experience at the end of the year and the necessary adjustments would be reflected in the mid-term funding tranche. 1. Due to the exceptional situation with EC funding in 1999, the CDC has proposed that the recomputation of matching funds be suspended for 1999. 2. If the matching contribution were to be recomputed for 1999, additional matching funds would be due to three Centers; IITA ($0.5don); ICARDA ($0.2 million); and CIMMYT ($0.1 million). Refunds would be due from six Centers; CIAT ($0.3 million); C I P ($0.2 million); WARDA ($0.2 million); IPGN ($0.2 million); CIFOR ($0.1 million); and I C ($0.1million). There will be a net repayment of $0.3 million. CGIAR reserve Reserve at the end of 1999 $4.2 +on. Financial position 0 There was no change d k g the year. 0 The CGLAR as a whole remains in a strong position. Cash on hand was $209 million and represented 220 days of expenditures. Total net assets at the end of 1999 were $297 million, comprising: + Investments in fixed assets came to $203 million in 1999 down from $227 million in 1998. This followed a change in accounting policy on depreciation of land & buildings, which revert Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 95 ANNEXES back to host governments at the cessation of a Center (see detailed explanation in the Section W , 1999 Finance Report). Funds decreased by $2 million to $95 million. Operating funds decreased by $5 million to $47 million, representing 49 revenue days, or about two months of funding requirements. The capital fund increased by $3 million to $48 million and represents 23 percent of the net assets value of CGIAR capital stock. Member funding of $330 million, combined with Center generated income of $12 million, came to total funding of $342 million. Agenda investment of $347 million resulted in an operating deficit of $5 million. However, included in the $330 million of member funding is $5 million of income which will be expensed in 2000. True operating deficit in 1999 is, therefore, $10 million. Spending trends Personnel spending was lower in percentage terms, continuing recent trend). Investment allocations by undertakings consistent with previous trends. By region, investment in SSA rose from 40 percent in 1998 to 42 percent; declined in WANA from 10 percent to 9 percent and in LAC from 18 percent to 17 percent. Investments in Asia remained at 32 percent. Agenda item N o 2: 2000 + Decisions Finance Committee recommendations: Confinnation of the 2000 CGIAR financing plan at the approved level of $340 million. World Bank funds: + Approval of disbursement of second tranche ($3.8 million) of Bankfunds at levels indicated at IC w99. + EC adjustmentpackage proposed by the Centers - conversion of $8 million out of the $12 million loan package put in place in February in response to the EC crisis. + Funding of special requestsfor $2 million. The Finance Committee will henceforth consider special requests on& at IC W when approvingfinancing plans. + Allocation ofpartnership funds. Overall 2000 funding point forecast by Centers is $352 million, consistent w i t h their ICW99 projections but higher than the approved fmancing plan of $340 million. As noted at ICW99 this forecast includes a 50 percent reduction in German unrestricted funding in 2000. It also includes more modest declines in unrestricted support from Sweden and Denmark. Hence, there does not appear to be a need to revise the financing plan. Following the procedural default by EC on its 1999 contributions, the Finance Committee authorized a loan to Centers of $12 million, representing about 75 percent of the 1999 shortfall of $16 million in January 2000. The loan has been financed from CGLAR reserves ($2 m), 2000 funds set aside at IoJlr99 ($3 million) and a call on 2001 funding of $7 million. $5 million of the loan has been disbursed to centers. The EC has taken steps to implement a funding package for 2000. The size of the package, Euro 25 million, will allow some coverage, possibly about $5 million, of the $16 million shortfall in 1999. The internal EC approval process is on schedule with formal announcement possible in June/July 2000. The nature of the contribution has changed from unrestricted to targeted and this may pose some challenges in f u l lutilization of the funding in 2000. 96 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2OIO ANNEXES Center financing updates point to four Centers being signhcantly (>5 percent) below their financing plan target. The four Centers predicting sipficant deviations are ISNAR (-20 percent); IWMI (-10 percent); and ICLARM (-5 percent); - all affected by the loss of EC funding in 2000 and WAEDA (-13 percent). The other twelve Centers expect to be funded either marginally above (range 1 percent to 7 percent) or marginally below (range -1 percent to -4 percent) the financing plan level. No improvementsin disbursements. Use of Bank funds. At ICW99, out of a t o d of $45 million. $37.25 million allocated to Centers on a matching basis (12 percent of non-Bank funding); Special allocation of $1.75 million allocated as follows: $0.6 million to ICRAF; $0.6 million to IPGRI; $0.3 m. to IITA for system-wide programs and $0.25 m. to CIMMYT to rebuild tropical maize station. $1million allocated to partnership activities: $5 million to be allocated at MTM2000. At MTM2000 the following requests were submitted for additional funding. EC-related: ICLARM: $1.8 million to cover the loss of EC funding in 1999 and 2000. Genetic Resource Program: 0.6 million to compensate for reallocation of EC funding from SGRP to other PGRI projects. EC compensatory action: CDC has proposed the following action requiring an allocation of about $8 million to cope with the EC problem: +Conversion of about 60 percent of the loan into a grant for all Centers ($7 d o n ) +An additional 40 percent for Centers not receiving EC funding in 2000. ($1 million). Identified at ICW99 CIP $1.7 million to support a downsizingand to rebuild its reserves. CGIAR C e n d Asia Program: $1million. IFPR.I/ISNAR indicatorsproject: $0.3 million (four year commitment). SPIA/TAC/IFPRI Poverty project: $0.25 million. New requests: CIMMYT: $0.25 million rice/wheat facilitationunit. Partnership activities Costs of suppon through June 2000 for NGOC/PSC/SPC/GRPC - $0.3 million. Global Forum - To be determined at ICW2000 after the completion of the planned review. Search process for TAC Chair and CGIAR Director and Oversight Committee commissioned Review of reviews - $0.1million. W o h g Group on longer-term financing Strategy (through ICW2000):$0.4 d o n . ~ ~ ~ ~ / t h e c . n t e / s d o t a p p e a r r ~ r e q u i r e a n y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b n c n t s ~ ~ ~ Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 97 AWNEXES Proposed actions: Endorsement of the CDC Proposal for conversion of the loan into a grant as proposed. To be financed by using $2.9 million from the $5million set aside from 2000 funds,drawing down $2.1 million from reserves and committing $3 million from 2001. Special requests: Endorsement of special requests for the Central Asia Program, IFPFWISNAR Agridtural Indicators Program, TAC/SPIA Poverty project and the Rice-Wheat Initiative. For the Rice-Wheat Initiative, the Finance Committee will not consider any future requests. Partnership initiatives as proposed. $0.5 million for CIP to support its downsizing efforts. Agenda item No 3: 2001 Please refer to h4.TM document MTM/00/04 dated April 16,2000 titled “FinancialRequirements of the 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda”. Decisions: Finance Committee Recommendations: 0 Financial planning target for 2001 in context of likely 2000 outcome of $340 million. In view of the special EC action taken in 2000 the matching World Bankfunding be limited to 1I percent. Process steps: Following CGIAR endorsement at this meeting, Centers will prepare financing plans by midSeptember. - TAC will review program implications and highhght issues in September. - The Finance Committee will review financing plans prior to CGIAR consideration at 1cw2000. Centers prepared plans for 2001-2003 in the context of 2000-2002 Medium and Term Plans (MTPs) reviewed last year and 2000 l i k e l y outcomes. TAC reviewed the proposal at TAC78, Paris, 27 - 3 1March, 2000 and confirmed that with the exceptionsnoted in the TAC‘s observations (“2001G L 4 R R e d A&axdInitialhpxds f w 2003”, SDWTAC: JA.R/00/16), the plans are broadly in line w i t h those approved last year. TAC recommends extension of the 2000-2002 MTP to 2003, subject to the Group’s action on a new vision and strategy for the CGIAR. Process observations: 0 This is the fourth year under the I ” process adopted at -97. As expected, TAC‘s review has increasingly become “light”in March, noting directional changes over a three year time frame. A l l Centers have fully incorporated the project approach in their planning and the transition to the log-frame approach is on target: all Centers have translated the standard financial tables into the log frame outputs and most have followed the log-frame terminology in describing their project portfolio. The September review of financing plans will be more focused on the budget year. Financial dimensions: 2000-2002 MTPs called for fundmg of $385 million in 2001 to support an investment program of $400 million. Overall, Center proposals are broadly in line Le., funding of $367 million, 98 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES supplementedby $12 million in Center income to support an investment program of $379 million in 2001. In the context of the 2000 financing plan of $340 million, the funding proposals represent an increase of $27 million or 8 percent. This is ambitious. Agenda item No 4: CGIAR Longer Term Financing Strategy Please refer to MTM2000 document MTM/00/05 dated April 26,2000 titled "A longer term financing strategy for the CGIAR" Decisions Finance Committee recommendations: Endorsement o f the proposal to set up a CGLAWFuture Harvest organization to implement the longer term financing strategv and public awareness initiatives Authorization to implement, under continued Finance Committee oversight, proposed interim steps including development o f a business plan, explore financing possibilities and develop a governance mechanismfor the CGIAWFuture Harvest organization. In January 1999 the Consultative Council requested CGIAR Finance Committee Chair Alex McCalla to lead the implementation of the CGIAR SystemReview recommendations on resource mobilization and public awareness. At MTM99, the Group endorsed Mr. McCalla's proposal that a consulting company, The Conservation Company, be engaged for the task and that a working group representing the Centers, Members, CGIAR public awareness and resource mobilization professionals and the Public Awareness and Resources Committee of the CDC guide their work. At ICW99, the Group discussed an interim report from the consultants and endorsed the propositions from the Finance Committee that: the CGIAR Longer Term Financing Strategy should be based on the continuation of ODA funding with some proportion being supported by non-ODA funding from DAC countries, expansion of Southern financial participation and private sector, and a single CGIAR mechanism should be used for implementing a harmonized, but not centralized, approach for resource mobilization and public awareness. At MTM2OO0, the Group will consider a draft report of the working group. The report highhghts the potential for financing as much as 15-40percent of CGIAR requirements from non-public sources. To realize the potential, it recommends that the CGIAR launch an enhanced public awareness/resource mobilization ( P A M effort that builds on current efforts. Specifically, the proposed C G W F u t u r e Harvest mechanism would have expanded marketing and fundraising capacity in each region of the world; support and work with national efforts; and support Center efforts and work to build Center capacity. Annual costs to adequately staff and provide an operating budget and consulting support are estimated at about $1.5 to $2 million. The creation of regional nodes or hubs and partial support of Center PA/RM staff would increase costs by approximately $1 million, bringing the t o d initial investment to $2.5 to $3 d o n . Clearly, the initiative cannot be fully launched until there is a new vision for the CGIAR for the 21st Century. However, in the interim, the following key steps are recommended: Prepare a business plan for the operation of the proposed entity identlfyrng resources required and potential non-CGIAR funding sources. 99 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Increase resources for public awareness activities at Centers and Future Harvest. Engage fundraising expertise to help develop and implement plans. Pilot promising, high priority alternative financing initiatives to gain experience and test their feasibility for CGIAR application. Agenda item No 5: Financial Policies1 The Finance Committee provides oversight on CGIAR financial policy issues as the apex financial body of the system and because implementationof some of the issues requires action by the membership. Under its guidance, the CGIAR Secretariat is collaborating with Center finance professionals, and outside experts as necessary, in pursuing a program on financial issues underpinning prudent and cost effective use of resources by Centers. The Finance Committee has endorsed this collaborative approach to addressing financial policy issues of concern to all components of the system and has authorized its continuation. At this meeting the Finance Committee received the following progress reports. Since IVf"M99,the Finane comminee has reviewed accountingpolicy, financial management guidelines, exchange rate management, indirect costs, internal audit, and financial systems. At this meeting, updates are provided on ongoing projects (indirect costs, internal audit and accountingpolicies, financial systems). A new project on liquidity management is being introduced. More detailed notes are provided on indirect costs and liquidity management. Indirect Costs: Last year, the Secretariat in collaboration with the Centers initiated a study by Ernst & Young, India to review CGIAR Center practices for indirect cost accounting and computation. The objective of the study w a s to develop common standards that will bring about transparency in computation of indirect costs leading to their recovery from all funders of restricted activities. Following a review of existing center practices last year, an approach based on a "value chain" framework proposed by E r n s t and Young was piloted at five Centers earlier h s year. ICRISAT, the lead Center, has distributed the proposed methodology to all Centers. In brief, Center costs would be collected under five broad headmgs for computing indirect costs. The note on indirect cost prepared by ICFUSAT provides fuller treatment of the proposed methodology. The next step in the process is testing the approach by the remaining eleven Centers. Simultaneously it would be helpful to start consultations with the investor community, under the Finance Committee leadership, on the proposed approach. A fmd report is expected by ICW2OOO. Liquidity Management: An interCenterworking group has been examining the possibility of pooling excess cash available at individual Centers from time to time in order to maximize financial returns. The paper (provided separately) prepared by IRRI, the lead Center, d s a proposal from Citibank that offers about 2 percent higher returns (7 percent compared to. 5 percent at the present) if Center cash is pooled. This will be accomplished by instituting longer-termmaturities and including a small equity component in the investment pool. Finance Committee views are solicited on the acceptability of this approach. Accounting Manual: The CGIAR follows the principle to periodically review CGIAR accountingpolicies to ensure their compliance with the ongoing revisions of generally accepted principles, both International and US. In mid 1998, the Secretariat engaged Price Waterhouse, Philippines to examine the CGIAR accountingmanual and propose relevant revisions. Ms. Rose Javier, Partner, Price Waterhouse led the project with oversight provided by a small working group of Center staff from ICL.ARh4 and IRRIand the Secretariat. The revised accountingpolicy manual is in effect as of July 1, 1 Notes on Indrect costs and liquidity management are provided separately. 100 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES 1999 with all Centers expected to be in compliance by the end of 2000. Three Centers have implemented the approach and have not flagged any implementation difficulties. From a general perspective, readers will find the following changes in the format of the financial statements. Diflerent categories of reserves used in the past (e.g. Operating and Capital) will be combined into a single category termed as '!NetAssets." The Fixed asset lines injhancial statements will exclude Building and Structures, and past investments in buildings will not be subject to depreciation accounting. e Internal Audit At ICW99, the Finance Committee reviewed and endorsed a proposal by ICLARM, IRR.I, IPGRI and the Secretariat to jointly sponsor an internal audit team, initially based in Asia. The Finance Committee noted the proposal to be an innovative approach to deal with fiduciary issues where an individual Center is hard pressed to make the necessary budget available to support the required expertise and hence collective action is required. The audit team, led by Mr. Hock-Chye Ong has been in place since early February. The four partners serve as a board for the audit team. In addition to undertaking compliance programs at the three member Centers, the team has also been helpful in problem solving at two other Centers. Financial Systems: At ICW99, the CGIAR Secretariat announced the launch, in collaboration with Center staff, of a survey of Center financial systems to position the CGIAR to fully benefit from advances in information technology and process improvements in financial processes and procedures in the past fewyears. Four surveys have been completed and have already led to an initial round of discussions on common system platforms. A pilot project based on an information warehouse concept, by which financial information required by all components of the system would be easdy available through the Internet, has been initiated for the semi-annual exchange of financial information between the Centers and the Secretariat in the context of the resource allocation process. Experience with the pilot will facilitate exploration of whether the concept can be extended to normal Center financial operations. This is of particular relevance to those Centers who are considering upgrading their financial infrastructure in the near future. The Finance Committee will be briefed at ICW2000. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 101 ANNEXES Participants: M. S. Siwmmh, Chairman R o h B e r b m , USA Stetjz Bie, CL)C Man50 de M i r d Sums, CBC C;nmtnF e l p Mor&, NGOC c z m h m e w , w wbkYH-serueta/y Patrick H e , PSC Sirkka Jmncnm, TAC GkibmMkummg, NARS w - w s Czny F&, Remum P e v s a n Observers: F d Chzpanv, Exea&e Smamy, GFAR VicimbH m w n - A p ~CAS, , ISNAR Agenda Item 1: Renegotiation of the International Undertaking 1. Progress is being in made in the development of a new International Undertaking 0. The work of the negotiators has been aided by several informal meetings in which perspectives have been shared and common ground staked out. The CGIAR has played an active role in the deliberations, for example by providing technical analyses, through active participation as resource persons in the negotiating sessions, and by contributing to a series of informal meetings among key countries. An example of the progress in the negotiations is that countries are now focusing clearly on the development of a Multilateral System of Facilitated Access and Benefit-Sharing, rather than on bilateral approaches. Major areas under discussion include the range of crops to be covered under this Multilateral System (its scope), the terms of access thereto, and the means to generate and share benefits, within this multilateral framework The overall effort is seen as addressing the special needs of agriculture and food security in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2. The committee sees both the possibility of progress as well as some potential pitfalls in the path ahead. Consensus language has been reached on Farmers' Rights, which is seen as being focussed at Uwill cover all plant the national level. On the matter of scope, it has been agreed that the revised I genetic resources for food and agriculture. Within this framework, countries are developing a Multilateral System, and discussions continue on several possibilities for its coverage, ranging from just a few to many crops. At present, a compromise is emerging in which major food crops important to global food security, and where substantial international interdependence exists, would be covered by the Multilateral System. Access would be facilitated at low transaction costs to the germplasm of crops included w i t h i nthe Multilateral System, in order to maintain germplasm flows important to plant breeding and food security. Examination of benefit sharing presents a major challenge, but opportunities exist to underscore accessrelated benefits associated with a Multilateral System, as well as specific activities in the areas of conservation, use and capacity building. A number of positive incentives for countries and institutions associated with the Multilateral System are being explored. 102 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES 3. Minimally, the CGIAR would look to the new IU to establish a Multilateral System covering the major mandate crops of the CGIAR Centers. The CGIAR also needs a policy atmosphere that will permit continued free movement of germplasm and assurance that the CGIAR can continue to generate and distribute germplasm-basedbternational public goods in the form of varieties, stocks, segregating populations etc., and relevant information. By clanfylng benefits associated with the Multilateral System, countries may increasingly contribute new genetic material to the international genebanks and germplasm screening and improvement networks. 4. Concerning the ultimate legal and institutional status of the IU, a number of options are possible for linking to both the CBD and FAO. There is general agreement among the members of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture that the IU should be legally binding. In connection with the global food security and conservation objectives of the Commission’s work, it is in the interest of the C G W i and the larger objectives of international public goods research that the I U be concluded at an early date. A completed IU should ideally clarify and secure the status of the germplasm held in trust by the CGIAR Centers, under the Center-FA0 agreements; this “designated germplasm” is the foundation of many CGIAR and NARS efforts to provide international public goods and increase food security, globally and at the local level. Clear information on the past and present impacts associated with use of a wide range of plant genetic resources around the world will be very useful in quandymg benefits and communicating them to important audiences around the world. The studies commissioned by the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group will help communicate the impact of the CGIAR and the benefits associated with multilateral co-operation and unrestricted access. 5. A number of actions could be taken by the CGIAR to help Governments reach a positive outcome to these negotiations, and establish an effective, transparent and non-bureaucraticMultilateral System that addresses the special needs of agriculture.Examples include: surveys and analyses of germplasm flows transactional costs genetic erosion genetic interdependence the feasibility of using the Convention on Biological Diversity’sdefinition of “countryof origin” as a basis for bilateral negotiations, and funding needs and opportunities. 6. In addition, analyses could be undertaken to construct alternative scenarios as a means of informing decision-makersand increasing awareness of the negotiations. It may be necessary to describe the situation in terms of risks, as well as benefits. Topics might include: bilateral vs. multilateral frameworks the scope of the Multilateral System (numbers of species and crops covered) impacts of including or excluding forages, horticultural species, or minor or underutilized crops the expected extent of germplasm flows under different regimes, and the issue of “countryof origin” for PGRFA under the CBD. 7. The Committee’s view is that the CGIAR and IPGRI in particular should remain important sources of technical and policy input to the ongoing negotiations. The negotiations may highLght the role of the Global Plan of Action, which was developed under the guidance of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and adopted by 150 countries at the 1996 Leipzig Conference on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.Many of the 20 activity areas discussed in the plan are central to genetic resources activities of the CGIAR Centers. Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 103 ANNEXES 8. The Committee also discussed the eventual legal status of the International Undertaking. Several options are possible, from a protocol under the CBD to a freestandingFA0 agreement. Matters relating to the governing body and implementation approaches will be significant considerationsin developing an acceptable and effective status for an eventual agreement. 9. Conclusion: The GRPC encourages all CGIAR members to work actively to further advance the renegotiation of the F A 0 International Undertaking. Special attention should be given to ensuring an appreciation among all relevant governmental bodies at the national level of the importance of an early conclusion to the renegotiation to the ability of the CGIAR to achieve its research and global food security objectives. Agenda Item 2: National Legislation 10. Over 50 countries are currently considering legislation goveming access to biodiversity in the context of the CBD. Few countries appear to be making provisions for the special needs of agriculture with respect to exchange and recombination of germplasm For example, the OAU has endorsed model legislation that provides no special status for agricultural germplasm. Legislation is also being prepared in relation to Article 27.3 (b) of the WTO/TRIpS Agreement. An unintended effect of many of these new laws could be to greatly reduce access to agricultural biodiversity, hindering agricultural germplasm exchange and increasing transaction costs. Such legislation could, if adopted, make it more difficult for countries to subscribe to a Multilateral System, since the passage of such legislation would have established a bilateral, transactions-basedapproach. Furthermore,the prospect of revising recent legislation might involve further delay. For these reasons, a pro-active approach that seek to accommodate the special needs of agriculture under a new Multilateral System would be helpful. Even if a Multilateral System is adopted fairly soon, some CGIAR Centers and NAFG may in the meantime face problems in their distributionof, and access to, germplasm. Many of the countries that the Centers work in, however, are also members of the CGIAR, are active in the renegotiation of the Tu, and have a strong interest in protecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the Centers. 11. The Committee welcomed the recommendation from a CBD-convened panel of experts last October that called on countries drafting national legislation regarding access to,biodiversity to leave open options for adopting a multilateral approach to PGRFA. The Committee noted the constructive participation of several CGIAR-affiliated experts on this panel. The CGIAR endorsement of the spirit of the Panel's recommendation at ICW99 was a positive move. The Committee also noted that the 1999 F A 0 Conference had stressed the importance for countries that are developing relevant legislation to do so in such a way that would enable them to take into account and allow for the elements of this new international agreement. 12. Recommendation: That CGIAR delegations seek to ensure that national legislation in their respective countries take into account the needs for contingencies that allow for the eventual requirements of a Multilateral System for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and'Agriculturein selected crops. 13. Centers' agreements with the Host Countries follow a variety of models, but all are clearly designed to respect national law. In a few instances, special mention was made of the need for free movement of germplasm (respechg quarantine, etc.), but it is not clear how strong these provisions will remain in a changing policy and legislative environment. In the event that new legislation limiting the movement of agricultural germplasm is adopted, restrictions on the ability of Centers to distribute even designated germplasm could result. Such a situation would soon compromise the effective operating of the Centers at the international, as well as host country, levels. It would pose a signtficant handicap to the effective functioning of Centers, hindering their ability to serve national programs and other partners in developing countries, and possibly providing impediments to their ability to attract funding from traditional or new sources. 104 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES 14. Recommendation:That CGIAR members hosting individual Centers seek to ensure that legislation takes into account the importance of open germplasm flow, to make it possible for the Centers to serve their many partners, within and beyond the host country. Agenda Item 3: Implementing the Center-FA0 Agreements 15. Centers are in the pro,cess of assembling updated lists of designated material to provide to FAO. Through the Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (SGRP), Centers are undertaking a review of the degree to which they have implemented the agreed procedures for using Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). While all Centers are now using the standardized MTA, not all have completed the agreed procedures for publicizing the new terms and conditions. The Committee encourages speedy completion of this process, and welcomes the adoption of the standardized format. The Committee was also informed of the work of the SGRP to develop a streamlinedlabeling system that would cover mixed shipments of designated and non-designatedgermplasm. 16. Recommendation:The Committee endorsed the actions of the Centers to standardize practice with respect to MTAs for designated germplasm. The Committee recommends that all Centers move with deliberate speed to implement and publicize the procedures used with the standardized MTA format. 17. The Committee received a report from the SGRP about a new MTA that has been developed for non-plant genetic resources (microorganisms, aquatic animals, livestock). Explanatory guidelines for the acquisition and transfer of such germplasm have also been drafted. Both were endorsed by the ICWG-GR at its February meeting. The Committee also reviewed a funding plan for upgrading Center genebanks followingthe System-wideGenebank Review. The plan will be presented to TAC for consideration at its upcoming meeting. 18. Recommendations:The Committee commended the SGRP for its efforts to develop documentation necessary for the conservation and distribution of agriculturally sigrufcant microorganisms. The Committee also acknowledgedthe sigrufcant progress made in reviewing genebank standards, and commendedthe SGRP for developinga comprehensive plan and related budgets for meeting appropriate operational and i n f r a s t r u d requirements. The Committee looked forward to TAGSreview of the upgrading plan, and believes that undertaking a system-wide effort to upgrade genebank standards would be an important step in seeking substaniial, non-traditional sources of support for the conservation of the genetic diversity held in trust in CGIAR genebanks,which constitute a critical bulwark for agicultural sustainabilityand global food security. Agenda Item 4: Designated Germplasm under FA0 Agreements 19. The Center-FA0 agreements governing access to designated germplasm have now been in effect for nearly six years. A key means for implementingthose agreements has been the through the use of Material Transfer Agreements. Centers’ experienceusing MTAs has been satisfactory, but over time some areas have emerged where greater clarity is needed. 20. IPGRI has produced a thorough and informative analysis of various possible interpretations of the term “germplasmand related information” in the context of Center-FA0 agreements, and how derivatives might be determined for the purpose of permitting applications for intellectual property rights (II’h). In this context, it appears that the word “germplasm”is usUay. understood to mean “accessions.” This is in line with &ent CGIAR practice, in which trusteeship responsibilities are viewed as requiring Centers to ensure that individual designated accessions remain in the public domain and fully available for use. The paper considers that if “germplasm”were to be considered to mean genes or alleles, this could 105 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES lead to greatly diminished interest in, and use of, the collections by a wide range of breeders in both the public and the private sector. 21. A second area for interpretation is how derivatives are treated - i.e., how much genetic change must occur in order for a recipient to be able to apply for intellectual property protection over material derived from such accessions, and still be in conformity with the terms of the MTA. The Committee reviewed the various alternative mechanisms examined in the paper for quantifymg changes that could occur in the breeding process (allelic differences, allelic frequencies, phenotypic differences, specific breeding steps, and combinations thereof). Another way to consider these matters, also presented in the paper, was whether or not the material (at accession and/or genetic level) would remain available for direct use and for developing further derivatives. This last approach takes as its starting point the objective of the agreements with F A 0 governing designated material - that the material remain in the public domain, available for use. The paper suggests that, in line with such an approach, it was necessary to “employ a definition which, while allowing for IPRs, aims to ensure that the designated accession or the designated accession and its components remain available for use by other recipients in defined ways.” The paper points out that the goal of h s approach would be to keep the material in the public domain while encouraging research on, and use of, designated accessions. , 22. Reflecting new developments in scientific research, an MTA might thus need to incorporate an unambiguous reference to the permissibility of recipients applymg for intellectual property rights on innovations produced using the designated material, provided that they are not permitted to claim rights that would restrict further use of the accession or related information by others. 23. The Committee recognized that Governments were currently negotiating a number of related questions in the context of the International Underding. Interpretation of such matters would U , including any eventual thus need to be provisional, pending completion of the negotiation of the new I provisions on benefit sharing. It was noted that clarity on access and use provisions as a result of the completion of the revision of the IUwould help the Centers’ collections to grow and to be used. 24. Recommendation: The Committee expressed its thanks to I P G R Ifor moving forward the analysis of the implications of new research techniques and changing policy environment on CGIAR trusteeship responsibilities. The issues that remain are complex, and should be a principal focus of the GRPC’s work in the coming months. The Committee plans a fuller report on these matters for CGIAR members, following its September, 2000 meeting. In the interim it commends the IPGRI paper to the CDC fcr its consideration. Agenda Item 5: Central Advisory Service 25. The Committee received an update of progress in the development of the new Central Advisory Service (W) on Intellectual Property located at ISNAR. Most of the IPR audits commissioned last year have now been completed. Although the focus of those audits was on the appropriate use by the Centers of proprietary technology owned by others, the Committee noted that the Centers are also monitoring their own innovations, to ensure adequate protection for both continued development and delivery to partners. There is a need to review, and possibly revise, the IPR Guidelines, and there is much to be gained from Centers working together to exchange experiences and strategies. An initial step would be for the CAS to work with the Centers to develop a report on their experiences with IPR. The Committee hoped that it would be able to review such a report at its next meeting. 26. Concerns were raised about the actual and potential effects of IPR on the functioning of international or regional trials coordinated by Centers. These trials often include lines from a variety of sources such as NARS, but they could be affected as IPRs are increasingly being used to protect materials under development. 106 Charting the CGIAR’s Future A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES 27. Recommendation:The Committee recommended that CAS work with Centers to exchange experiences with respect to IPRs, including in the context of national legislation. The Committee plans to review this issue further at its next meeting. Agenda Item 6. Global Forum Report on Genetic Resources Policy-related activities 28., Dr. Feinando Chaparro presented a report on GFAR and its activities concerning plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). GFAR is planning an in-depth program on agrobiodiversity and the importance for NARS of the emerging Multilateral System, at its upcoming meeting in Dresden (May 20-23). The meeting will hi&& the special nature of (PGRFA), and the a d and potential benefits of a multilateral approach to their conservation and use. GFAR is working with FAO, IPGRI and others to develop a series of briefs on strategic issues including legislation, IPR, germplasm flows, generation and sharing of benefits, and plans to follow up with stakeholders on these matters. 29. Recommendation:The Committee welcomed this initiative, and expressed its hope that the effort would underscore the unique nature of PGRFA and the important role of insWon-farm conservation in general and women in particular. Some concern was expressed that the initiative take into account the special needs and opportunities in countries with smaller NARS, particularlyin connection with the TRIPS agreement and the CBD. Agenda Item 7: Updates on Developments i n International Fora 30. Biosafety Protocol: The “CartagenaProtocol,” which was completed in Montreal in late January, 2000, addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (L,MOs)that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity with a specific focus on transboundary movements. It was pointed out that the protocol should help provide greater clarity for Centers working with transgenic technologies. The protocol will likely lead to more countries enacting biosafety regulations which would, in nun, be helpful to the Centers, since they do not work on certain biotechnologies, such as gene transformation, in countries lacking an adequate regulatory framework. 3 1. WTO/TRzpS: IPGRI presented a summary of recent events surroundingthe WTO agreements including TRIPS, and the Agreement on Agriculture. A new round of global trade negotiations was held in December 1999 in Seattle,Washington, USA, but the talks were suspended as a result of protests by non-governmentalorganizations and complaints by developing countries of marginalization in the process. At subsequent meetings, member countries have discussed reforms in the areas of institutional transparency and capacity building in developing countries. The TRIPS Agreement is due to be reviewed in the year 2000. P G R Iprovided a briefing on WIPO activities in two areas: biotechnology and 32. K”0: I indigenous knowledge. IPGRI is represented on the Working Group on Biotechnology and is thus able to monitor progress closely and make others aware of CGIAR activities. 33. WOV: UPOV now has 44 members, 11 of which have ratified UPOV 91. In addition, some 90-100 countries have or are currently considering legislation to implement PW. Agenda Item 8: Underutilized and Neglected Crops 34. The Committee reviewed progress of on-going efforts by I P G R Iand the MSSRF in the area of underutilized crop species. The activity is building on the GRPC-sponsoredworkshop held in early 1999. Discussions with IFAD and other potential donors are underway. IFAD has indicated interest in these crops, particularlywith respect to food security and the income needs of the poor, and proposed Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 107 ANNEXES that a consortium of donors support this initiative. Some important objectives include: enhanced food security through a broadly based production system; l i n k sto income generation and poverty alleviation; nutrition enhancement; and adaptation of some species to drier and other less favored production environments.Marketing was highhghted as a matter of special significance, and one in which expanded research efforts by CGIAR Centers might be appropriate. 35. A policy area related to underutilized crops that is of some concern is what crops Governments would finally agree to include in the list of crops to be included in the Multilateral System under the revised International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. At present, the list is being discussed on the basis of two criteria: food security and interdependence.Most, if not all, of the CGIAR mandate crops are l i k e l y to be included on the agreed lists. Nevertheless, based on current negotiations it does not appear likely that most species that are categorized as underutilized, neglected or minor crops will be included. Many such species may, however, be critically important for food security at the local or national level and may to some degree be conserved by CGIAR genebanks. 36. Further consideration needs to be given to the special conservation and utilization needs associated with such crops. Moreover, concerns were raised as to whether their exclusion from an eventual Multilateral System might lead to a decline in the already scarce resources allocated to research on, and conservation of, such crops. From a policy standpoint,the Committee believes that a further analysis is warranted of the implications of a Multilateral System that does not encompass all the Centers' in-trust germplasm holdings (e.g., thousands of genebank accessions of underutilized and non-mandate crops) and that this should be taken up in a future meeting. 37. Recommendations: The Committee agreed that this is an opportune time to consider the role of the CGIAR with respect to underutilized crop species, particularly as part of a review of Center mandates and a consideration of how these may evolve in the future. The Committee noted that the upcoming Global Forum at Dresden includes discussion of a GFAR brief that reviews the importance of l i n k sbetween production of a crop and its ultimate consumption. From a policy standpoint,the Committee plans to explore the implications of a Multilateral System that might not encompass the full holdings of CGIAR in-trust germplasm. Agenda Item 9: Date and Place of Next Meeting 38. It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would take place from 6 to 8 September in The Hague, The Netherlands, at the invitation of ISNAR. 108 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Report ofthe NGO Commi@eeMeeting Report of activities of the C G M NGOC duringperiod ICW99 - MTM2000 Committee Composition The Committee has set as a goal to reach a size of 8 members by the end of ICW2OOO. This goal will be achieved by the stepping down of various current members who will be replaced by new members I already on board (Peter Rosset, Food First, USA and Juan Sanchez,CIED, Peru) and new to be appointed female members from Asia and Africa. During the MTM-ICW2000 period, current NGOC chair Miguel Altieri will serve as co-chair of the NGOC with Ann Bayers Waters, who should assume as Chair after ICW2000. Activities Wodcshops During this period the NGOC engaged in a number of activities including the organization of various workshops: *I- & o h 22-23,1999. Wmksbopon S c d m g Up S@ SustuinuhbAg& In&tim. W hE , 38 participants from some 25 institutions who attended the Workshop which was organized by the NGO Committee of the Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) with support from the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) with the general assumption that there are successfullocal level sustainable agriculture initiatives which, although spreading on their own through the informal social structures, may be further expanded or scaled up with direct intervention.There are however institutional, political, technological and methodological factors that keep the scaling up activities from realizing its fullest potential of diversifymgthe benefits and spreading these benefits to more people more quickly. Overcoming these constraining factors is the overall challenge to the scaling up process. The Workshop participants shared and discussed the current and emerging views on the process of scaling up based on their work and related experiences. These took off from looking into the factors and principles explaining success of local level initiatives and how these experiences may be extrapolated and then examining what impedes scaling up the experiences and how these may be overcome. As the meeting progressed, the discussions converged along two major sets of agenda. These are on (i) cladjmg further the scaling up concepts, approaches, principles and issues; and (ii) the role of CGIAR in the whole process of going to scale. There was a general acceptance in the meeting that scaling up is not just about technologies but is more a development process of scaling up a vision starting from that of the farmers. It is a process for expanding learning and organizational/communiv capacities to idenufy and solve new and different problems and adapt to changing situations. It is expansion resulting from not just having more numbers of farmers and larger areas, but also from evolving roles and responsibilities that go with improved capacities and diversification of benefits. In being able to carry on with the discussion on what else constitutes the s c h g up process, participants had to go into clarifying concepts and definitions which the Workshop initially intended to bypass. Scalingup, scaling out and scaling down processes had to be differentiated but to later recognize that the up, out and down concepts in fact comprise particular sets of patterns in going to scale. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 109 ANNEXES For many of the participants scalrng up connotes a vertical movement of experience, knowledge, impact and effects higher up the levels of local organization of rural community or society. This implies involving more stakeholder groups up the ladder from farmers to extensionists and NGO workers to local officials,to researchers to policy makers/ministers to donors. Scaling out is horizontal spread within a sector, particularly farmers. Both scaling up and scaling out implies adaptation, modification and improvement (not just replication) of particular technologies and techniques but more importantly of social and agroecological principles and processes. Scaling down is more particular to the replication of whole programs, not just technologies or principles or processes, by breaking them down into smaller programs or projects to facilitate planning, implementation and accountability at lower levels. Some see this as decentralizationor devolution and therefore equate these processes with scaling out as well. In this document going to scale is used as the generic term comprising of scaling up, scaling out and scaling down. However, inasmuch as scaling up appears to be the more common terminology in use, it is used interchangeablywith going to scale in this document. In discussingthe concepts associatedwith scaling up, at least five dimensions of scaling up emerged during the meeting. These included the institutional (vertical integration), the geographical/spatial (horizontal spread), the technological,the temporal, and the economic or cost dimensions. In all these dimensions sustainability,participation and capacity budding were common themes. Furthermore, the Workshop implied three general strategies adopted by an implementing organization in dealing with the issue of scaling up relative to how it conceptualized its project/program intervention. These were (i) spontaneous scaling up, (ii) scalingup after achieving initial local success, and (iii)inclusion of the scaling up plan right from the start of project. * Brazilian Mdti Stakeholder W won Agn-mkpd R e w d , Seq&u-Rioak Jam&, N& 1213,1999. Professionals from EMBRAPA, UFRRJ, other universities and NGOs as well as from other state research and extension organizations met to discuss the state of the art of agroecological research targeted at smallholder agriculture in Brazil. The group assessed progress and weaknesses of current research efforts, and also identified the opportunities for establishing a working group to expand research and outreach in key areas in order to further advance the scaling up of sustainable agriculture. *n I Nawal R m MWorkshop,l ? u n d v u i k F r m , Lkmnh 14-17,1999. a s workshop was convened by the CGIAR NGO Committee and the Global Forum for Agricultural Research, as a preparatory workshop for the GFAR meeting in Dresden, scheduled for May 2000. The aim of the workshop was to gather an international audience of participants from research institutes and civil society organizations from Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia in order to discuss and review the status of three global initiatives being proposed as a main focus of the Natural Resources Management component of GFAR. For each initiative, namely Interdev (a mutualistic and de-centralizedinformation system on development experiences), Prolinnova (an initiative aimed at budding global partnerships in order to promote local innovations) and PolicyNet (a research network on demand driven global policy issues pertaining to NRM), a comprehensive strategy was set up, encompassing the issues of partnerships, conceptual progresses and operationalization. For Interdev, a timetable and action plan for the experimental phase were devised and a policy to enlarge partnership was drawn. For Prolinnova, four areas of partnership were defined and a procedure to establish partnerships was defined. For PolicyNet a collaborative process was initiated on the issue of innovation in Genetic Resources Management, for which a concept paper will be written for circulation prior to the GFAR meeting. In addition, l i n k s and synergies between the three initiatives were identified and means to complement them explored. A global vision of the NRM component of GFAR progressively emerged. 110 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES A Steering Group was formed to formulate that vision in a concept paper to be collectivelywritten for presentation in Dresden in May. Each initiative will also be presented separately at Dresden and leading participants were identified in order to organize the preparation of these presentations. Besides Dresden, which is undoubtedly a crucial time for each initiative to make itself known and to gather support, a strategy for their long-term sustainability(includmg funding)was outlined. Both the NARS Secretariat and the GFAR Steering cornminee pledged support for all three initiatives. Going To Scale I * Can WeBring Mm Ben@s to Mm P + Mm @c&? An hernational workshop held April 1014,2000 at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR),Silang, Cavite, Philippines was a follow through to the discussions initiated during the CGIAR NGO Committee Workshop on Scaling Up Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives held October 22-23,1999 at the World Bank, Washington, D.C. One of the main objectives of the workshop was to generate 'guideposts' and a list of available/emerging tools for development stakeholders, particularly sustainable agriculture practitioners, for use in their scaling up efforts. More specifically,workshop participants analyzed selected experiences/initiatives toward a better approximation of: how to plan for scaling up - including when and what to scale up and with whom and with what resources,. how to implement and monitor the impact o f the scaling up process - be it to scale out, down, up or a combination o f the strategies therein. The workshop was launched with two keynote presentations, "Thinkingthrough the Issues" and "Scale SEED Process of Integrated Social Development," which provided the overview of scaling up to include the different dimensions. This gave the participants the opportunity not only to understand the basic concepts and principles but also be able to reach an agreement on what scaling up means. The lessons and suggestions on how the concepts and principles of scaling up are to operate and to be managed vis-&vis the many considerations and issues highLghted in the Washington workshop were extractedgenerated from nine selected case studies. The selected cases were initiatives, projects or programs which are considered to have gone to scale to some extent. The workshop participants, other than the case presenters, did not present their scaling up experiences during the workshop plenary. They, however, wrote their initiatives as additional inputs to the thematic (small) group discussions. These additional papers also form p m of the workshop document on highhghts of proceedings. A documentation and publication, both in print and electronic forms, on Gang TO scale - Brbzgazg M mB e q ht o M m Peopk MOR@c& was produced. The publication contains the generated issues, concepts, principles, guidelines and a list of available/emerging tools for development stakeholders' particularly sustainable agriculture practitioners for use in their scaling efforts; and, the highhghts and synthesis of the follow through workshop. The publication will be made widely available at Dresden. *IWmkshpon Ecokgud Iwpcts of Trmsgmc Cnp> Bwkeby, Gd&ma M a d 2-4>2000 attended by 21 scientists from ten Universities, two Centers, five NGOs, and one private company. After two and half days of discussions the group arrived at the following conclusions and recommendations: Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 111 Although no catastrophic impacts have yet been recorded from the massive use of transgenic crops, the known and potential risks are substantial from an ecological point of view. It was generally agreed that because of the widespread use of transgenic crops, and the impossibility of effectively removing them once they are released, even more effects might persist and accumulate and eventually cause serious ecological impacts. For example nobody can really predict the impacts that will result from the Bt toxin that is released into the soil from roots during the growth of thousands of hectares of Bt corn, or the effects to the soil and general ecosystem from pollen during corn tasseling and as a result of the incorporation of tons of plant residues after crop harvesting. Not enough research has been done to evaluate the environmental and health risks of transgenic crops, an unfortunate trend as most scientists feel that such knowledge was crucial to have before biotechnological innovations were up scaled to a d levels. There is a clear need to further assess the severity, magnitude and scope of risks associated with the massive field deployment of winsgenic crops. Much of the evaluation of risks must move beyond comparing GeneticallyModified Crops (GMC) fields and conventionally managed systems to include alternative cropping systems featuring crop diversity and low-external input approaches. This will allow real riswbenefit analysis of transgenic crops in relation to known and effective alternatives. The potential for ecological risks is to a large extent "event and context-specific." The particular risks which may be identified for the first wave genetically engineered (GE) offerings do no exhaust the list of potential risks from events yet in the pipeline. By the same token, ecological risks identified in the US or Canada may not be relevant to risks in Malaysia or Mexico - whether due to gene flow issues or to disruption of natural pest controls in more biodiverse environments. Risks in a "normal"weather year may not be predictive of those in a dry year (e.g. RR soybean stem splitting in Georgia), or to those experienced by farmers burdened by sporadic pest outbreaks. In short, identification and quandcation of risks seems likely to remain an obligation and ongoing complement to the development and release of each new GE crop. The repeated use of transgenic crops in an area may result in cumulative effects such as those resulting from the buildup of toxins in soils. For this reason, risk assessment studies not only have to be of an ecological nature in order to capture effects on ecosystem processes, but also of sufficient duration so that probable accumulative effects can be detected. The application of multiple methods wiU provide the most sensitive and comprehensive assessment of the potential ecological impact of transgenic crops. Further empirical studies of the ecological impact of commercial-scale cultivation of transgenic i t h regard to the following questions: plants are clearly needed, particularly w Which cultivated plants have sexually compatible wild relatives that could become troublesome weeds after inheriting fitness-related transgenes, and to what extent will this conversion to weediness occur? . Wd the propagation of certain transgenic plants result in the evolution of newly resistant plant pests (microbial pathogens, insects, and weeds), and if so, how can the evolution of these resistant biotypes be delayed or avoided? What effects wiJl plant-produced pesticides have on the population dynamics of non-target organisms, especially beneficial predators, parasitoids, pollinators, components of soil food webs, and fundamental ecological processes? Ecologists can provide valuable input in the planning and evaluation of high-risk genetically engineered plants, but does documenting the risks of such crops entails the best use of scarce ecological talent? Or should ecologists devote their time and skills to developing the best environmentally sound 112 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES approaches to deal with real agricultural limitations, which in many cases are management options not related to biotechnology but rather to agroecology? Overall the group felt that although biotechnology is an important tool, at t h i s point alternative solutions exist to address the problems that current GMCs are designed to solve. The dramatic positive effects of rotations, multiple cropping, and biological control on crop health, environmental quality and agricultural productivity have been confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. Biotechnology should be considered as one more tool that can be used, provided the ecological risks are investigated and deemed acceptable, in conjunction with a host of other approaches to move agriculture towards sustainabiliv. Publications Towards more efective implementation of IPMin AJLica, proceedings of a workshop held at IITA, Cotonou, Benin, March 29-April 3,1999 Integrated pest management (IPM) is increasingly recognized as a vital element in sustainable a g r i c u l d development. In P M , farmers use their knowledge of ecological processes in the agricultural system to combine a variety of compatible tactics to increase the productivity of crops and reduce the impact of pests, diseases and weeds. Pesticides are used as little as possible, if at all, with corresponding benefit to farmers' income, human health and the environment. Although a number of promising IPM options are becoming available, adoption of IPM at farm level, especially in Africa, is disappointinglyslow. Poor communication between farmers and researchers is believed by many stakeholders in the agricultural development process to be a constraint limiting IPM adoption. Experience elsewhere has shown that non-governmental organizations ( N o s ) can play a key role in brokering exchange of relevant information, empowering farmers and thus promoting the undemanding and adoption of IPM. However, in Africa, NGOs so far lack the access to information and other key resources to play these roles effectively. As a contribution towards addressing this problem the NGO committee of the CGIAR, in collaboration with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),convened a week-long workshop in March 1999 at Cotonou in the Republic of B6nin. Thuty-six participants from 14 African countries took part in the workshop. Twenty delegates represented NGOs while the remainder came from national extension organizations or research organizations (national and international) with a special interest in the use of IPM in sustainable agricultural development. A variety of participatoIy activities helped participants to analyze constraints to IPM implementation in Africa and identify opportunities. Discussion sessions enabled participants to exchange first-hand experience of IPM implementation and to become familiar with principles, key issues and emerging options and supporting resources for IPM in Africa. On-farm,facilitator-led and farmer-led sessions were given special emphasis to help participants become familiar with participatoly'approachesthat are now widely recognized as crucial to the success of IPM implementation. A tour of the IITA-Bknin station offered participants an insight into novel IPM options that are currently being generated by research. Action planning led to formulation of resolutions and the formation of a Task Force to follow up on the recommendations. The internet website: http://www.cgiar.org/spipm/news/ngomtg/ngowkmenuhtml was initially established to publish the outputs of the workshop and subsequentlyto serve as a focal point for exchanging information on followup activities. Managing knowledgefor local innovation, Article for BMZBEAF "spotlight" on Knowledge Management by Ann Waters-Bayer, NGOC member. Scientific databases on agriculture are expanding by the minute, but it is difficult to apply the information directly to development practice. Non-governmental development organizations (NGOs) have conceived an information system that combines scientific and local knowledge about agroecology and natural resource management (AE/NRh4) and is intended mainly for development practitioners. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 113 ANNEXES Promising technologies and experiencesin NRM Wiu become accessible via an interactive development database "InterDev." Much documented knowledge comes from science, but how can local innovations - products of knowledge generation by resource users - be fed into InterDev?How can other farmers be helped to access and apply information about these innovations in their own settings, so that they can generate new site-specificknowledge? "Prolinnova" (Promoting Local Innovation) addresses such activities "before" and "after" InterDev. Studies of the processes and conditions of generating and spreading improvements in AE/NRM should inform decision-makers at various policy levels - therefore the need for a research network "PolicyNet." At the Global Forum on AgriculturalResearch (GFAR) in Dresden, InterDev, Prolinnova and PolicyNet will be presented as an integrated set of mechanisms to strengthen partnerships in research and development in AE/NRM. New paths in development-orientedresearch. Why this initiative?Mainstream agricultural research has developed technologies applicable on well-endowed land. Meanwhde, many NGOs work directly with smallholders in marginal areas to develop site-appropriatetechnologies and strengthen local capacities to meet new challenges.These NGOs have learned to appreciate dynamic indigenous knowledge. Many ''success stories" of development in smallholder farming derive from local knowledge and experimentation. At the farm level, the innovations are often biophysical measures following ecological principles; at landscape level, they are often institutional new ways of jointly managing common resources. The innovations may be site-specific,but the ideas can inspire farmers in other areas and provide starting points for experimentation. Spreadingthese innovations can acceleratelearning by others trying to improve their land-use systems. In AE/NRM, especially where climatic variability is high, key factors for success are not external inputs, but labor, knowledge, and local management capacity. Scientific research i n AE/NRM must aim not to develop perfected technologies, but to develop local capacityto manage resources flexibly, access useful information, test new ideas, assess the results, and adapt to change. This demands new partnerships in generating and managing knowledge. First steps Initial ideas were developed by European-basedNGOs offering information services in a g r i c u l d development. A meeting of these NGOs in Brussels and at the European Forum on AgriculturalResearch in Wageningen in early 1999, and at a North-South meeting near Paris in late 1999, provided opportunities to develop the ideas further. A Steering Group with members from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe prepared a concept paper (see http://www.egfar.org) which is circulating widely by email for reactions and suggestions, and hopes for lively discussion and action planning at the GFAR. Meanwhile, fkst steps are already being tested. InterDev. In the test phase for this shared database, initially seven organizations focus on three themes: agroecologicalfarming, agroprocessing, and urban agriculture. Each has interlinked database subsets on methods and technologies, practica experiences, resource organizations and individuals, multimedia, and bibliographic references. Mechanisms for description, validation, classification and exchange are being developed so that the information can be downloaded and adapted for local use, at the same time as local experience enriches the global database. 114 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Prolinnova. To scale up the promotion of local innovationin AE/NRM through farmer-NGO researcher partnerships, four types of activities are planned: 1. Identifymg and documenting local biotechnical and institutional innovations 2. Joint stakeholder analysis of research approaches and methods to stimulate innovation, including analysis of a) investigating local innovation, b) joint action in further developing innovations, and c) jointly evaluating innovations and impacts 3. Training researchers in the new approaches and methods through various activities,including participation in multi-stakeholder .Regional and global research networks on AE/NRM based on local innovation. learning groups 4 PolicyNet. This research network will study options to improve NRM-related policy at local, national and international level, and make results available to policymakers. The collaborationis meant to strengthen the capacities of southern partners to conduct policy research. The initial focus will be on institutionaland political conditions that favor development and spread of local innovations in NRM. Linkages InterDev is the pivot, where practice-proven information on AE/NRM flows together and is made accessible. Prolinnova includes mechanisms to identdy and document innovations for InterDev, and to promote use of the informationin participatov research. InterDev provides PolicyNet with data for comparative analyses and cases for studymg conditions that influence innovation and scaling-up processes. The results of Prolinnova-inspired innovation and policy research flow back into InterDev. The initiative is designed to facilitate mutual learning by stakeholders in research for development of sustainable landuse systems, and seeks linkages with relevant existing initiatives. Prospects for agroecologically based natural resource management for low-incomefarmers in the 21”‘ century, issues paper prepared for the GFAR. Miguel A. Altieri and Jean Marc von der Weid, NGOC members. Alternative agricultural development approaches and agroecological technologies spearheaded by farmers groups and NGOs around the developing world are already making a significant contributionto food security at the household, national and regional levels in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Increasing smallholders a g r i c u l d productivitynot only increases food supplies, but also increases smallholders incomes, reducing poverty, increasing food access, reducing malnutrition, and improving the livelihoods of the poor. Yield increases are being achieved by using technological approaches, based on agroecological principles that emphasize diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that emphasize community participation and empowerment. When such features are optimized, not only yield enhancement and stability of production are achieved, but also a series of ecological services such as conservation of biodiversity, soil restoration, water harvesting, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, etc. Agroecological approaches are increasing production under environmental conditions that are far from ideal, such as on eroded hillsides of Central America, high barren plateaus of the Andes, semi-arid areas in the West African Sahel, exhausted lands in eastern and southernAfrica, sloping areas in the Philippines and remote forest margins in many parts of Asia. That yields can be doubled or more in these areas is due in part to the low base of production from which these farmers start. However, absolute yield levels can also become high. These are areas where the need to increase production is greatest and where the soil, climatic and other conditions are most unfavorable. So relative to the poor resource endowments and the urgent human needs, the levels of production being newly achieved are quite sigdicant, and they provide food directly to households that are most vulnerable to food insecurity. These experiences which emphasize farmer-to-farmerresearch and grassroots extension approaches, represent countless demonstrations of talent, creativity,and scientific capability in rural communities. They point to the fact that human resource development is the cornerstone of any strategy aimed at increasing options for d people and especially resource-poor farmers. 115 Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Promising research areas for evaluation and promotion of alternative technologies and policies include: green manures, cover crops, polycultures, improved fallows, agroforesty, aquaculture, croplivestock mixed systems, IPM, biological control, organic soil management and nutrient cycling, processes of technology adaptation and adoption, supportive policies, institutional partnerships and market development. Results from agroecological initiatives are a breakthrough for achieving food security and environmentalpreservation among the rural poor in the developing world, but their potential and further spread depends on investments, policies, institutional support and attitude changes on the part of policy makers and the scientific community, especially the CGJAR and GFAR which should devote much of their efforts to assisting the 370 million rural poor living in marginal environments. But the task must be shared with NGOs and farmers' organizations. The ideal way to achieve a qualitative leap in agroecological research is to promote partnerships amongst the various stakeholdersin agricultural development processes. One can imagine a variety of combinations amongst the following players: researchers, farmers, officially and NGO-employed extension agents, produce processing and marketing companies, companies supplymg inputs (including small seed companies) and equipment, representatives of official programs, credit agents, environmental organizations, etc. Their roles will be quite differentiated, as will be the intensity of their inter-relations, but all will have a say about what products will reach the market, and how. Such partnerships must not be reduced to local alliances amongst partners in a development process, but must encompass broader national and international networks dealing with similar sets of problems, even in differing ecological realities. NGOs have already created such networks of alliances quite effectively, and their experience can be broadened to incorporate many more partners. ' Clearly the new kind of pro-poor research will demand paradigmatic and methodological changes, as well as a capacity to intensify interdisciplinarity, in order for development workers to be able to balance ecological, agronomic, economic, cultural and social concerns. In addition to obvious changes in the profile of researchers and extension agents themselves, there must be changes in institutional procedures, to make them more flexible and decentralized, and to m o w today's prevailing systems of professional evaluation, which are a major limitation for interested researchers to be able to move towards agroecological approaches. Failure to promote a people-centered agricultural research and development due to diversion of funds and expertise to biotechnology will forego a historical opportunity to raise agricultural productivity in economically viable, environmentally benign and socially uplifting ways. Can genetically engineered crops feed a hungry world? San Francisco Chronicle ,March 30, 2000, Miguel A. Mtieri Most proponents of agricultural biotechnology assert that genetically modified crops are essential to feed the 840 million undernourished people in the world, and to reduce the poverty of the 1.3 billion people who live on less than $1per day. They believe that the biorevolution can be harnessed to serve the food and nutritional needs of the world's poor. But will such potential benefits of genetically engineered food crops ever become practical enough to rid the world of hunger? Pro-biotechnology scientists say that with new research methods, biotechnology can be used to develop new crop varieties that are drought tolerant, resistant to insects and weeds, able to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere q d even increase the nutrient content in the edible portion of plants. Proponents say modem biotechnology offers enormous opportunities to poor farmers and low-income consumers in developing countries. 116 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES The first problem with that argument is that there is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger and a country's population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh, there is a sparsely populated (but also hungry) country like Brazil. Even in the midst of superabundance in the United States, there are between 20 million and 30 million malnourished people. Thus,even though crop yields per acre improved dramatically between the late 1960s and the early 1990s,these advances in agriculture have only trimmed the ranks of the world's undernourished by 8 percent - to 840 million from 920 million. Poverty is the key reason why 840 million people do not have enough to eat. In the past 30 years, enough food was produced to feed everyone - had it been more evenly distributed. Hunger is not a matter of agricultural limits, but a problem of masses of people not having access to food or the means to produce it. Biotechnologyproponents, however, argue that food production will not keep pace with the growth of the global population, which is expected to add 73 million people every year from now until 2020. The biotechnology proponents say hunger will persist unless the potential of biotechnology is realized. I say, if the root causes are not addressed, hunger will persist no matter what agricultural technologies are used. At most, biotechnology has the yet-unrealizedpotential to deal with the issues of quality and quantity of food, but does not address distribution and access. Insisting on technological solutions to hunger ignores the tremendous complexityof the problem. It is too easy to fall into the "paradox of plenty" - more food accompanied by greater hunger. Any method of boosting food production that deepens inequalityis bound to fail to reduce hunger. I This is particularlytrue for biotechnology,which is being promoted by private corporations to whom poor farmers (who produce most of the basic food crops in the developing world) do not represent an attractive market. For example, the new strain of rice that is capable of producing provitamin A, which is being heralded as the best that agrobiotech can offer the developing world, constitutes a solution that ignores the root causes of why there are 2 d o n children at risk of vitamin A deficiency. In rural areas of the developingworld, food preferences are culturally determined. Asians will not likely consume "orange rice" in the midst of abundant white rice. In fact, Asian s m a l l farmers grow diverse rice varieties with varying nutritional content and adapted to a wide variety of environmental conditions. The resulting genetic diversity heightens resistance to plant diseases and enables farmers to derive multiple nutritional uses. If, as expected, transgenic seeds continue to be developed and commercializedexclusivelyby private firms, poor farmers will continue to find them too expensive to purchase. The few that will have access to bioengineered seeds will be hurt by becoming dangerously "dependent" on the annual purchase of such seeds. Choices are surely also being denied to poor farmers when private industries insist upon protecting biotech patents that deny seed saving, an aspect that is of fundamental cultural importance to traditional farmers, who for centuries have saved and shared seeds. Food production will have to come from agricultural systems in countries with the largest population growth. This poses a major challenge for biotechnology in these tropical countries where farmers are not only resource poor- with no access to credit, technical assistance or markets- but where about 370 million rural poor live in arid or semi-arid zones or in steeply sloped areas. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 117 ANNEXES In the past, such farmers were bypassed by advances in agriculture known as the Green Revolution because their soil, water, and labor methods were unsuited to the demanding and costly management practices of improved seeds and accompanying need for pesticides and fertilizers. Biotechnologywill exacerbate the problem even more. Some scientists and policymakers posit that a solution would be to increase government investments in biotechnology research. However, larger investments may not yield the desired results. Corporate legal rights to biotechnology is affecting the development of transgenic crops by public institutions. Moreover, the seed distribution channels and networks to reach farmers are being privatized, focusing on commercial farms rather than on poor farmers. Much of the needed food can be produced throughout the world by small farmers using agroecological technologies. In fact, new rural development approaches and simple technologies spearheaded by farmers groups and nongovernmental organizations around the developing world are already making a difference. These results are a breakthrough for achieving food security and environmental preservation in the developing world, but realizing their potential depends on investments, policies, institutional support and attitude changes on the part of policymakers and the international scientific community. Fdure to promote such people-centered agricultural research and development dm i s s a historic oppommity to raise a g r i d d productivity in economically viable, environmentally benignmd socially uplifting ways. Other activities On April 10-11, Mguel Altieri participated in the CGIAR Consultative Council meeting held at F A 0 in Rome. Although no major decisions were made at this meeting, the NGOC Chair stressed the importance of CGIAR research sharpening its focus on the poor farmers living in marginal environments throughout the developing world (estimated at 370 d o n ) . NRM (including genetic resources) research should be the backbone of the CGIAR, and biotechnological innovations used as tools only when appropriate as a complementary approach. Partnerships with NGOs and farmers organizations will be crucial for the scaling up of already successful NRM experiences and the mobilization of a critical mass to rapidly achieve sustainable agriculture in areas so far bypassed by modern science. Task forces inclusive of grassroots organizations can be a flexible and fast organizational instrument to act at the local level. A regional approach to NRM is the only sensible way to create viable partnerships between research and development agencies in order to mobilize human and material resources to crystallize NRM approaches in specific ecosystems of each region. The protection of the public and free access nature of CGIAR's work can be best achieved by concentrating on NRM and downplaying types of biotechnological work increasingly becoming subjected to proptiemy measures. The example of the golden rice for which there are 30 patents is a good reminder for the system as it advances its pro-poor agenda in a complex world of privatized science and patented innovations. 118 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 ANNEXES Report ofthe Tweljth Meeting ofthe Private sector committee The 12th meeting of the CGIAR's Private Sector Committee (PSC) was held at the Westin Bellevue Hotel, the conference hotel for MTM2000,in Dresden, Germany on May 19-20,2000,under the chairmanship of Sam Dryden. Members Claudio Baniga, Badrinarayan Barwale, Wallace Beversdorf, Barry Thomas, Seizo Sumida and Florence Wambugu attended. Robert Horsch could not participate. Se1q.k Ozgediz and Waltraud Wightman, CGIAR Secretariat,served as Secretary. Gerard Barry (Monsanto) attended as an observer. The Committee also interacted with Ismail Serageldin,CGIAR Chairman, and E d Javier, TAC chair. Agenda 1. In- 2. o c m n e z u g m afkiing CGIAR 'SparMevShtpsStb the Prizute Sector 3. V i s i o n and strwfi the CGlAR 4. IntevacticPtsdtheheCGIAR Chairandthe TACChtr 5. O d m B ~ s 5. I 5.2 Possibilities OfRiLlZfe sertov itzwk.renth the CGIAR F u mh CrxrPncrnicaticPzolawaolltoendtlsers g ~ 5 . 3 1. Introduction In the absence of Sam Dryden (unavoidably delayed), Selpk Ozgediz opened the meeting by welcoming members and observers to the Private Sector Committee (PSC).WaUy Beversdorf agreed to chair the meeting until Dryden's arrival. Members agreed to discuss the possibilities of Private Sector (PS)involvement with CGIAR Center activities and approved the agenda as amended. The report of the 1 Ith meeting was adopted without amendment. bgediz provided a brief overview of the developments in the CGIAR since ICW99. At ICW, the Group agreed that the CGIAR needed to develop a vision and strategy to define where it should be, what it should be doing and producing, how it should be doing it, and with whom. TAC was asked to lead the exercise. Based on extensive consultation with stakeholders, and following meetings of the Consultative council, CGIAR committees and major investors, TAC drafted two documents, "AFood SecureWorld for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR" and a companion paper, "Priority Research and Related Activity Themes." The Group was expected to discuss the new vision and strategy during MTM and to come to closure on this topic. Ozgediz also briefed PSC members on developments in the areas of finance and governance. Research agenda funding in 1999 was $330 million, 3 percent lower than the 1998 level, mostly due to the ECs inability to meet its 1999 commitments for administrativereasons. Funding prospects for 2000 are within the Group approved level of $340 d o n . Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 119 ANNEXES CGIAR governance is expected to be influenced by the departure of Ismail Serageldin, for whom M"M2000 would be the last CGIAR meeting as chair. Alexander von der Osten plans to retire after ICW2000. Ozgediz encouraged Committee members to nominate candidates for the position of "CGIAR Director" (the CGIAR Director will replace the Executive Secretary). A third partnership committee, the i n k between Science Partnership Camnittee (SPC), was established earlier this year to provide a closer l the CGIAR and the scientific academia. The SPC is headed by Nobel laureate Werner Arber. 2. Overview of recent developments affecting CGIAR's partnerships with the PS Dryden reported that he had attended several meetings- including an international forum convened by CIMMYT in Tlaxcala, Mexico- that sought to determine how the private and public sector could join forces to make proprietary technology products available to subnstena? farmers 2 in developing countries. There is great willingness on the part of the PS to share such technologies, as long as such action would not distort world markets. However, the industry unanimously agrees that proprietaty technology products can only be made available in countries with a regulatory framework to protect the consumer and environment. 3. Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR Ozgediz provided a brief overview of the main components of TAC's vision and strategy paper for the CGIAR (including the companion paper on priority research and related activity themes). The PSC subsequently devoted a major part of its 12th meeting toward a discussion of the two documents. The principal conclusions were: The PSC supportsthe vision and planks of the strategy, and encourages its implementation with emphasis on sharp focus, execution, and leadership. 0 The PSC supports the CGIAR's efforts in establishing a framework for project portfolio management. These should include clearly defined objectives that are consistent with the CGIAR mission and clear to all those who are involved, so as to ensure the beneficial impact of projects. The PSC believes weak or absent links in the delivery of CG outputs have significantly weakened the impact of CGIAR investments. The PSC encourages efforts by the CGIAR to establish and execute technology partnerships with providers of advanced research, technology, and other intellectual property (both public and private) to ensure rapid and efficient exploitation of discoveries to help alleviate poverty and hunger. The PSC strongly recommends the concept of regional approach to research planning involving all CGIAR partners. The PSC strongly encourages the CGIAR to consider geographic alignment and leadership when addressing the issue of structural adjustments to the system to ensure accountability and speedy beneficial impacts. 0 As noted in prior comments regarding structural adjustments, the PSC encourages the CGIAR to form an independent body for handling IPR matters. According to one industry definition, swbszsof a farm's produce. 120 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 farmers and their families consume more than 50 percent ANNEXES 4. Interactions with the CGIAR Chair and the TAC Chair In their separate discussions with the CGIAR Chair and the TAC Chaw, Committee members emphasized that the CGIAR needed to clearly define how its products would reach the end user. Otherwise there would be a considerable risk that it would not achieve its overall mission of poverty reduction. In the same context, members commented that germplasm conservation was a great service to mankind, but did not contribute to poverty reduction pev se. This could only be achieved with appropriate Mrages, e.g., germplasm conservation -3 genomics germplasm improvement improved varieties. + + The Chairman noted that germplasm is still available to everybody but the results of scientific research are not. Growing resentment in the developing world could lead to more and more barriers around the free movement of germplasm. It would be good if the agro-business sector could come up with creative mechanisms, such as licenses or research tool kits that could be updated on an annual basis. The World Bank president, the Rockefeller Foundation president, as well as the Ford Foundation have indicated their readiness to mediate. Public sentiments could be turned around if there were, say, five examples of 'Golden R i c e 'caliber: real products, with a demonstrated benign benefit, given away for nothing. Discussions with Emil Javier centered around the Committee's concerns and conclusions regarding the new CGIAR vision and strategy. Committee members acknowledgedthat the CGIAR Chair has been foremost in promoting the use of new research tools. However, it appears that this view is not shared by all. A united approach would help in convincing the public and the CGNR's investors about the potential benefits of biotechnology for the poor in developing countries. The TAC Chair noted investors wanted impact but the CGIAR generally delivers intermediate products, such as seeds. It was up to others, such as the PS, to provide the w e and to bring end products to the farmers' fields. 5. Other Business 1. Possibilities of PS involvement with the CGlAR Barry Thomas introduced the subject. He explained that the Global Crop Protection Federation's (GCPF) mandate was broadened from integrated pest- to integrated crop management and, more recently, to sustainable agriculture. Thomas could envisage the industry cooperating as a "Global Crop Science Federation", whose mandate would range from IPM to seeds, to biotechnology tools and products. In this case, CGIAR Centers could send all their project/funding proposals to the Federation, which would screen them and ultimately decide on their merits for funding (onestop shop concept). committee members agreed that this was an interesting concept that is worth Pursuing. At the same time, consolidation in the biotech industry continues and is expected to lead to having only 4-5major players. It may thus be easier for the CGIAR and the PS to reach common platforms and approaches regarding matters revolving around proprietary technology products. Regarding partnerships, there are two main avenues: purely philanthropic or project-based. Committee members agreed that tapping philanthropic sources for funding of public goods research is less likely to succeed in future, because most of the patents held on pesticides etc. have expired, resulting in the erosion of profit margins from industry sales and thus less 'surplus cash that could be allocated to agro-induq foundations. Committee members emphasized, however, that the PS would be interested in helping to finance projects with clearly defined objectives and project outcomes that a i m at poverty reduction. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 121 ANNEXES Increasing the income of poor subsistence farmers would eventually make them business partners i k e l y success of for the PS- a relevant outcome for the CGIAR, the poor and the industry. The l such an approach would, however, depend on many factors, including the interpretation by the CGIAR of its 'international public goods' criterion. 2. Communication outreach to end users Throughout the meeting, Committee members emphasized that the application of modern science is essential for achieving food security in developing countries. Currently, the public discussion on the use of biotechnology is dominated by NGOs, especially in developing countries. There is a need to diversify sources of information and broaden the discussion. However, if the PS launched such an outreach initiative, it would be seen as self-serving. The CGIAR could serve in a 'honest broker' role and help in providing a balanced view regarding the benefits of new technologies to policy makers, producers and consumers in developing countries. This could be done through an information and communication program that informs the public about the potential benefits of science in increasing food production and availabilityin developing countries. To explore the possibilities of such an outreach plan, and to work toward the design and implementation of such a program, the PSC therefore proposed that a multi-stakeholder working group- consisting of CGIAR representatives (e.g., CDC chair, Secretariat Information Officer, Future Harvest) and industry bodies such as FIS, I S M , Biotechnology Council, and/or GCPF- be constituted. NGOs, such as the RF, could also be included. Action: Dryden to propose this to the CGIAR during the forthcoming MTM; and all PSC members to discuss concept within their respective companies. 3. Future meetings The next meeting will be held before ICW2000 on Friday and/or Saturday, October 20-21,2000 at the World Bank's headquarters in Washington DC. The major theme and draft agenda will be communicated at a later stage. Thanks The PSC believes the dialogue with the CGIAR has been very fruitful and wishes to record its appreciation of Chairman Serageldin's efforts and acknowledges his vision and leadership that enabled this interaction to come about. 122 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES The Science Partnership Committee (SPC) held its inaugural meeting on May 20,2000 at the Westin Bellevue Hotel, Dresden, Germany. Participants in the meeting were Werner Arber (Chair),R. James Cook, M o G Lydia Makhubu, and Sudha Nair. CGIAR Chairman Ismail Serageldin joined part of the committee’s meeting to share his vision and expectations for this third partnership committee formed under his leadership. TAC Chair E d Javier was also invited to exchange ideas with the SPC. Manuel Lantin of the CGIAR Secretariat served as resource person on the workings of the CGIAR and provided background information on science-relatedissues under discussion in the CGLAR. Interaction w i t h the CGUR Chairman and the TAC Chair The creation of the Science Partnership Committee is part of the continuing efforts of the CGIAR to develop a more open system and is in line with the Third System Review’s observation that “broadening and deepening partnerships and collaboration with other actors in the research-development continuum is of utmost importance to the future of the CGIAR.” In his interaction with the Committee, Chairman Ismail Serageldin underscored the need to increase and strengthen the CGIAR scientists’ w e s with the rest of the scientific community. He observed that science is rapidly advancing and running across disciplinaryboundaries. The CGIAR should benefit from the discussions in other scientific fora of issues that are relevant to its work. The committee’s meeting with TAC Chair E d Javier presented an opportunityto discuss some elements of TAC‘s vision paper. The meeting was also very useful in identifymg ways by which the SPC could contribute to some aspects of the work of TAC. The TAC Chair indicated that he would welcome an opportunity for the f u l lTAC to interact with the SPC. Role of SPC The SPC understands its role in the CGIAR system to include the following: 0 To help the CGIAR establish Idages and increase its partnerships with the broader international scientific community. To serve as a mechanism for monitohg the horizons of new and emerging areas of science and to help the CGIAR anticipate how the advances in science could be used to pursue its mission and goals. To contribute to the strategic thinking and planning sought by TAC. TAGSVision Paper The SPC discussed the key elements of TAC‘s paper “A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR,” focusing on the role of modem science in the pursuit of CGIAR goals. The committee supports TAGSrecommendation “to bring modern science to bear on difficult productivity and institutional problems.” It isconvinced that the application of knowledge and tools from functional genomics, GIs, remote sensing, information and communicationtechnologies, and computingtechnologies could accelerate CGIAR’s work and a&we its research objectives. It views modern biotechnology strategies, in its many new and emerging forms, as important tools and sources of knowledge for future improvementsin agriculturalproductivity, food quality, and natural resource management. However, the SPC recommends that the selection of projects involving novel technologies Charting the CGIAR‘s Future - A New Visionfor 201 0 123 ANNEXES be responsible and reflective, patticularly in the field of biotechnology. The SPC is willing to provide contacts with scientific experts ready to collaborate with CGIAR in order to insure sustainability, biosafety, long-termutility and public acceptance of projects to be taken up. The committee also endorses the adoption of an integrated approach to natural resource management research in the CGIAR. It considers NRM research as critical component of CGIAR research agenda for enhancing productivity and ensuring sustainability of production of crops, livestock, forest, and fish that are important to the poor. It recognizes the importance of both modem and local traditional knowledge in this field, and sees modern biotechnology and NRM as complementaryand interdependent areas of science. contribution to Development of Partnerships At the Center level, the SPC will help identlfy potential collaborative arrangements with advanced scientific institutions that utilize new knowledge and tools of modem science in addressing issues relevant to the goals of the Center. It is important for the committee to know where individual Centers’ comparative advantages lie and the extent of “parmering wolk” that they have undertaken.To facilitate its work in t h i s area, it will seek an opportunityto interact with the Center Directors during the next Centers Week. The SPC is overwhelmed by its broad charges consideringthe speed of developments in science, the size and diversity of the international scientific community, and the need for balance across the biological, physical, and social sciences. Some ideas have been generated to help facilitate this process. It hopes to develop them further into concrete proposals for presentation and discussion in its next meeting at ICW2000. 124 Charting the CGIAR’s Future - A New Visionfor 2010 x Advanced Research Institute Central Advisory Service < Committee of Board Chairs, CGIAR CBC Convention on Biological Diversity CBD Center Directors Committee, CGIAR CDC CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agncultural Research DAC Development Assistance Committee EC European Commission ECA Europe and Central Asia External Program and Management Review EPMR Food and Agriculture Organization of the FA0 United Nations FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Afma FC Finance Committee, CGIAR FIS Financial Information System GCPF Global Crop Protection Federation GFAR Global Forum on Agncultural Research Geographical Information System GIS Genetically Modified Crops GMC Genetic Resources Policy Committee, CGIAR GRPC International Agricultural Research Centers IARC IAEG Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, CGIAR Information and Communication Technologies ICT . ICW International Centers Week, CGIAK ICWG-GR Inter-Cente-r Working Group on Genetic Resources Inter-American Development Bank IDB IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IGM Integrated Gene Management IIRR International Institute of Rural Reconstruction IPR Intellectual Property Rights Living Modified Organisms LMO MSSRF M. S. swaminathan Research Foundation MTA Material Transfer Agreement MTM Mid-Term Meeting, CGIAR MTP Medium-Term Plan ARI CAS NARI NARS NGO NGOC NRM OAU oc ODA PARC PAIRM PGRFA PSC PVP RF SGRP SPAAK SPIA SPC SSA TAC TRIPS UFRRJ UNDP UNEP UNESCO UPOV USAID WANA WIPO WTO 8 National Agricultural Research Institute National Agricultural Research System (s) Non-Governmental Organization N G O Committee, CGIAR Natural Resources Management Organization for African Unity Oversight Committee, CGIAR Official Development Assistance Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization Committee, CGIAR Public Awamness/Resource Mobilization Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Private Sector Committee, CGIAR Plant Variety Protection Rockefeller Foundation Systemwide Genetic Resources Program Special Program for African Agricultural Research Standmg Panel on Impact Assessment Science Partnership Committee, CGIAR Sub-Saharan Africa Technical Advisory Committee, CGIAR Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Universidade Federal rural do Rio de Janeiro United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants United States Agency for International Development West Asia and North Africa World Intellectual Property Organization World Trade Organization AU financial data are given in US dollars e Printed on recycled paper CGIAR Secretariat The World Bank 1818 H Street, hW,Washington, DC 20433 USA Telephone: 1-202-473-8951 Fax: 1-202-473-8110 E-mail:cgiar@cgiar.org or cgiar@worldbank.org w w w.cgiur.org