Consultative Group on lnternaticinal Agricultural Research Mailing Address: 1818 l-i Street, N.W., Washington, DC. 20433, U.S.A. Office Location: 801 19th Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 473-8951 Cable Address-INTBAFRAD Fax (Area Code 202) 334-8750 From: The Secretariat April AGR/TAC:IAR/92/18 Meetino, Istanbul, Mav 18-22, Turkey 1922 15, 1992 - Part II Mid-Term Asenda Review of Item 5 - CGIAR Priorities and and Stratesies Strategies - Part II CGIAR Priorities and 1. Attached is a copy of "Review of CGIAR Priorities This document deals with the implications Strategies - Part II". of CGIAR priorities for strategies, structure and resource allocation in the CGIAR. 2. Part I of the and recommendations separately. document covering on CGIAR priorities TAC's analysis, conclusions has been distributed Distribution CGIAR Members Centre Board Chairmen Centre Directors TAC Chairman TAC Members TAC Secretariat CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Alex F. M&alla chair 15 April, 1992 Dear Mr. Rajagopalan, In my transmittal letter of TAC's Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, dated 3 April 1992, submitted with Part I of the report covering chapters 1 through 12, I noted that Part II containing Chapters 13 and 14 would be submitted under separate I am pleased to now be able to provide the final sections cover. of the report. Chapter 13 extends the exploration of future strategies and structure initiated in the paper ItA Possible Expansion of the CGIAR" (AGR/TAC:IAR/90/24) discussed at ICW90. The issue of future CGIAR strategies and structure is essential to the future It requires substantive debate by the Group, the of the CGIAR. Centres and other stakeholders of the CGIAR before arriving at The analysis provided in Chapter 13 is based on the conclusions. analytical framework developed in Part I of the report, and the options explored are consistent with the long and medium/long term visions outlined in the Expansion paper. To deal with such a complex subject, TAC by necessity has focussed its thinking around a possible CGIAR Programme strategy. The chapter, therefore, does not deal with questions of governance and Considerations of these questions can only follow after funding. the CGIAR has made some choices among the options presented in Chapter 13. Chapter 14 provides TAC's recommendations for five year core allocations to the CGIAR centres and the underpinning analysis linking CGIAR priorities and the allocation. This analytical linkage fully meets one of the significant recommendations of the report II Review of the Resource Allocation Processtt (ICW/90/33) discussed at ICW90. The allocation recommendations are indicative and, upon Group endorsement, will initiate five year Mr. Visvanathan Rajagopalan Chairman Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research World Bank 1818 H. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Mail address: Technical Advisory Comm/CGIAR, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 Tel: (916) 752-8648/X49 - Telex: 4900010239 UCD UI - FAX (916) 752-8572 Office Location: 219 E St., Suite 2C, Davis, CA ii The next stages of the CGIAR's planning planning by the Centres. process are preparation of Centre plans and their discussion with I expect TAC and CGIAR over the next fifteen to eighteen months. that TAC will come forward with final recommendations on the five the plans year allocations by ICW93, SO that upon Group approval, can be operational for the 1994-98 period. in transmitting Part II of the report, I wish Mr. Chairman, to emphasize that TAC has completed the task of advising the I hope strategies and allocations. Group on future priorities, that by ICW93 the CGIAR can conclude its,decision-making in order that Centres can begin to implement the substantial agenda arising from the Expanded CGIAR.. represent TAC's As in the case of Part I, these chapters I must however pay special thanks current view on these issues. to my colleagues in the TAC Secretariat and the CGIAR Part II of the report was produced in Washington at Secretariat. I am grateful to Alexander von der Osten the CGIAR Secretariat. Chapter 13 was enhanced by and his colleagues for their help. inputs from Mike Collinson and Chapter 14 has benefitted significantly from the efforts of Jean-Pierre Jacqmotte and Ravi Tadvalkar of the CGIAR Secretariat. We look the Mid-Term forward meeting to the discussion in Istanbul. of the entire report at Yours sincerely, Alexander F. McCalla Chairman, TAC AGR/TAC:IAR/92/18 - Part II THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW OF CGIAR PRIORITIES PART II AND STRATEGIES TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS April 1992 V TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe SUMMARY 13. IMPLICATIONS OF TAC'S RECOMMENDATIONSON PRIORITIES FUTURE CGIAR STRATEGIES AND STRUCTURE 13.1 FOR 251 251 251 252 253~. 257 260 261 261 265 265 270 274 276 280 280 for Mandates of Existing Centres 282 282 vii Introduction and Conceptual Background TAC's sequential approach to priorities 13.1.1. strategies and strucuture 13.1.2. Main conclusions of the priority exercise 13.1.3. TAC's medium/longand long-term visions of the CGIAR 13.1.4. The ecoregional concept 13.1.5. Medium/long-term model for the CGIAR Options for Future Strategies and Structure for the CGIAR Key strategic principles 13 .2 ..l. 13.2.2. Ecoregional activities 13.2.2.1. CGIAR Stage one: Assessing priorities by RAEZ 13.2.2.2. Stage two: Assessing ecoregional institutional options 13.2.3. Global activities 13.2.3.1. Institutional options for research on global commodity/production issues 13.2.3.2. Global non-commodity/production sector activities Relationships Mechanisms Implications Conclusion between Global and Ecoregional 13.2 13.3 13*4 13.5 14. IMPLICATIONS OF TAC'S RECOMMENDATIONSON PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION 14.1 14.2 Introduction CGIAR Medium-Term Planning Process 14.2.1. First round of MTPS -- 1987-89 14.2.2. Second round of MTPS -- 1992-93 Setting of the Contect for TAC's Recommendations 283 283 283 284 284 14.3 vi on Core Resource Allocation Resource allocation methodology 14.3.1. Time horizon 14.3.2. Availability of core funds 14.3.3. Character of recommendations on resource 14.3.4. allocations 14.4 Priority Allocation 14.4.1. 14.4.2. 14.4.3. 14.4.4. Setting and Factors Relevant to Resource 285 285 286 287 287 288 288 288 289 289 291 293 297. 297 Methodology 299 301 302 302 302 302 305 307 310 315 316 316 316 316 317 317 314 317 318 318 TAC's focus on the core program Priority setting methodlogy 1991 Distribution of CGIAR core resources Results from priority setting 14.4.4.1. Categories of activity 14.4.4.2. Production sectors and commodities 14.4.4.3. Regional distribution Process Allocation 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 The Allocation The Resource 1998 Core Supply Considerations Recommendations of 1998 Resource Allocations System resource allocations 14.8.1. 14.8.1.1. Global outcome 14.8.1.2. Regional portfolio of CGIAR investments 14.8.2. Liking system allocations to centre allocations 14.8.3. Centre Resource Allocations 14.8.4. Specific factors affecting individual centre allocations 14.8.5. Financial factors relevant to the interpretation of the centre envelopes Implementation and Execution of the Medium-term Resource Allocation Process -- The MTP Process Planning guidelines 14.9.1. 14.9.2. Time table 14.9.3. Interactive review of the MTPs 14.9.4. Consolidation and approval of MTPs 14.9.5. Adjusting planned requirements with actual funding during implementation Centres 14.10.1. 14.10.2. Conclusion 1993 Programme and Budgets A transition year Matching demand and supply 14.9 14.10 14.11 REVIEW OF CGIAR PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES SUMMARYOF PART II Part II of this report presents TAC's views on the implications of revised priorities for future CGIAR's strategies and for resource allocation in the CGIAR. This and structure, sequence reflects the approach taken by TAC in its analysis of CGIAR priorities, strategies, and resource allocation. The first step was to develop an analytical frame work to address the question of what research activities should be supported by the CGIAR, and what the relative emphasis of these activities should The determination in relative terms of what to do is the be. object of priority setting. This was discussed in Chapters 1 to 12 of Part I of the report. The second step relates to the question of how the identified priorities should be addressed. This relates to determining the'stratesv appropriate for the CGIAR to implement its priorities. The third step, once priorities and strategies are agreed upon, is to explore which institutional entity should do the research and how it should be operationally organized. This is the question of structure. This discussion of strategy and structure is provided in Chapter 13. The final step of course is to link priorities to available financial resources in the context of current thinking on strategies and structures. This is the subject of Chapter 14. Part I of the report has been shared previously with the members of the CGIAR and its stakeholders, and the information contained in Chapters 1 to 12 is therefore considered definitive. Chapters 13 and 14 have been produced since then and are new. Therefore TAC recognizes that their content will benefit from further inputs by the Group and Centres, while the medium-term resource allocation process is being implemented. In developing its views on future CGIAR strategies and structure, TAC drew on work done previously in the framework of assessing potential expansion of the CGIAR ("A Possible Expansion -of the CGIARI' AGR/TAC:IAR/90/24). In that document TAC outlined a medium/long and long-term vision for the evolution of the CGIAR system. For the medium/long-term, TAC considered that the CGIAR would have two types of activities: global activities, and regionally defined agrecological activities. For the latter type of activity, TAC has described them as "eco-regional'*. This approach was confirmed and elaborated upon in TAC's recent deliberations. Global activities would comprise strategic research on selected commodities and subject matter areas, while eco-regional activities would focus on applied and strategic research on natural resource conservation and management, the development and management of production systems, and on applied aspects of commodity improvement. Global activities would either or a focus on.subject matter or have a commodity focus, These concepts are further elaborated in Chapter discipline. 13. The ecoregional approach was proposed by TAC as a vehicle for increasing research on the conservation and management of needs which were strongly confirmed by the natural resources, and for greater rationalization of analysis of CGIAR priorities, it recognizes that the CGIAR centre contacts with NARS. Although primary responsibility for conducting ecoregional research would TAC notes that the global research be with national programmes, community does not yet have an effective paradigm for natural Identifying a conceptual framework resource management research. for conducting such research was a goal of truly international Thus, TAC carefully defined the nature of the outputs relevance. to be expected from CGIAR supported ecoregional research. TAC proceeded with the translation of the strategic concepts With respect to the ecoregional concept, in operational terms. an assessment was made of the need for particular activities in each regional agrecological zone (RAEZ). TAC considered that six eco-regional programmes were justified: two in Sub-Saharan Africa (one on AEZl, and one combing on AEZ's 2 and 3), one in WANA (AEZ 9) I two in Asia (one combing for AEZs 1 and 5, and one that would combine AEZs 2, 3, and 7), and one in Latin America (combining AEZ's 2, 3, 6, and 7). In addition, TAC noted the condition to be met for justifying a programme for the cool tropics in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. TAC then considered the institutional options for priority ecoregions. This included comparing identified ecoregional needs with existing CGIAR centre capacity in order to determine if centre programmes could be adjusted to meet future needs. With respect to global activities, TAC first considered a number of strategic questions, and the explored a number of particular structural options. Both for ecoregional and global concepts TAC discussed a number of options but did not make firm recommendations pending further consideration by the CGIAR of their feasibilities, advantages, and disadvantages. TAC also considered the relationships between global and ecoregional mechanisms, which programmatically are entirely complementary. Finally, Chapter 13 briefly discusses the possible implications of TAC's view on strategies and structure for mandates of CGIAR centres. Chapter 14 describes the background, process and outcome of TAC's deliberations on linking medium/long term priorities and strategies to medium term resource allocation. In its analysis, TAC proceeded in two steps: first at the system level, and then at the Centre level. At the system among the priority production sectors data on 1991 core resource level, parameters (categories of activity, and commodities) constituted the distribution regions, point of ix reference for TAC to identify the change in direction needed (and the scope thereof) to ensure a gradual implementation in the medium term of medium/long term priorities. This .required the setting of intermediate targets by 1998 in a manner that provided a satisfactory degree of compatibility among the various priority Following a series of iterations, TAC arrived at a parameters. consistent set of recommendations of relative distribution of resources among the priority parameters. Throughout this analysis, TAC has assumed that core funding in 1998 would be essentially maintained, in real terms, at its current 1992 level, but with incremental core funding for expansion of new CGIAR activities -- fisheries and forestry in particular. This funding assumption may be considered too conservative. It should not be seen as an indication by TAC that the current level of resources is adequate to fully meet the challenges and tasks faced by the Centres. It is a conservative approach at this stage of the planning process to ensure that the system has the opportunity to explore the operational implications of zero real growth. Once the relative distribution of core resources was determined, it was translated in absolute core funding terms 1998, i.e. $270 million (in 1992 values). This amount is consistent with the funding assumption described above: it consists of the level of 1992 core funding ($251 million), augmented by ICLARM's 1992 core funding ($4 million) and an assumed increment of core funding of $15 million for fisheries and forestry. for -- A financial spreadsheet provided for an initial mechanical translation of recommendations on system level priorities into Centre allocations. This was the beginning point of TAC,s development of individual centre resource envelopes, taking into account other factors such as the need for minimum critical mass, stage of maturity and recent development in centre programmes, and relevant information from strategic plans as well as programme and management reviews. TAC also considered the need to have sufficient flexibility at completion of the medium term resource allocation. Therefore TAC recommends, on the one hand, that Centres resource envelopes be discounted to set aside a $20 million reserve which could be allocated either following the review of all Centres, MTP proposals, or during the period of implementation of the MTPs. On the other hand, Centres are requested to present their MTP proposals in a range of 10% above and below the indicative resource envelope, thus allowing them to disclose their programme potentials at higher levels of core funding as well as the impact lower core funding would have on the programmes. 251 CHAPTER 13. IMPLICATIONS OF TAC'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE CGIAR STRATEGIES AND STRUCTURE 13.1. 13.1.1. Introduction and Conceotual Backsround to priorities. TAC,s seouential anoroach strategies and structure The approach taken by TAC in its analysis of priorities and The first step strategies has been conducted in three stages. was to develop an analytical framework to address the question of what research should be supported by the CGIAR and what should be The the relative emphasis attached to the identified activities. determination of what to do in relative terms is the setting of priorities. The second step asks the question of m should the identified priorities be addressed. This is the issue of determining the appropriate strateov for the CGIAR to follow in The third step, once priorities and implementing its priorities. strategies are agreed upon, is to ask who should do the research and how should it be organized--center, network or consortia. This is the question of structure. Each step necessarily The final step of course is to link precedes the other. priorities to available financial resources, in the context of This is the current thinking on strategies and structures. subject of Chapter 14. The chapter does not contain a single set of specific recommendations for the future structure of the CGIAR. Rather, TAC is sharing with the Group how it analyzed what are in the Committee's judgement a plausible set of alternatives. The future structure of the CGIAR will evolve based on the collective views of the Group, Centres, and national partners. TAC sees that its role is to provide reasoned input to the debate, not to recommend a particular structure. Therefore this chapter is a draft for discussion. The analysis presented in Chapters l-12 developed an analytical framework to translate the complex dimensions of the CGIAR mission and goals into an array of relative priorities among activities, agroecological zones, regions, production sectors and commodities. The result is TAC,s recommendations on future priorities. In this chapter TAC addresses issues of strategy and structure. Here the analytical framework developed is less helpful in guiding us to firm conclusions. It is relatively easier to say efforts on resource management, for should increase than it is to say how it should be done example, and by whom. the In approaching analysis of the its task, potential TAC drew on previous work done in CGIAR expansion ("A Possible -- 252 Expansion of the CGIAR" AGR/TAC: IAR/90/24). In that analysis TAC developed medium/long and long term visions of the CGIAR (Chapter 8) and discussed possible institutional (structural) options (Chapter ll)'/. In addition TAC over the past four years has considered many centre strategic plans and external programme reviews. Using these as a basis, as well as Chapters l-12, TAC presents in this chapter some further thoughts on strategies and The analysis reaches tentative conclusions with structure. regard to strategies. For example, the issue of ecoregional approaches is addressed directly-which ecoregions merit CGIAR can priority ecoregions be combined to reduce the programmes, number of mechanisms needed and how well do current centres match with ecoregional needs. Similarly TAC addresses more fully the medium/long term needs for global mechanisms. The Committee goes less far on questions of restructuring discusses options for organizing both the CGIAR. This chapter ecoregional and global activities. The future as TAC sees it will be different. It is therefore necessary to ask about whether future structures ought also to be adjusted. This chapter proceeds as follows. TAC first reviews briefly the major conclusions of the priority exercise and updates the Group of its emerging long and medium term visions of the CGIAR. Included is a further elaboration of the ecoregional concept and a possible medium/long term model for the CGIAR in, say, 2010. TAC then presents the guiding principles it used in its analysis before addressing directly the questions of how many ecoregional mechanisms we need and how many new institutes, if any, will be ‘needed. Included is a discussion of institutional options using existing CGIAR institutes as the basic building blocks. A similar exercise is undertaken for global activities. The chapter concludes with some thoughts on linkages between ecoregional and global entities, and on the implications for existing centre mandates. 13.1.2. Main conclusions of the priority exercise TAC's analysis of CGIAR priorities, in system-wide terms and by activity category, led the Committee to recommend a significant increase in the research efforts on natural resource conservation and management, and on socio-economic, public policy and public management. It recommended that the current priority ranking of germplasm enhancement and breeding should be '/ To prevent confusion in terminology between medium-term programme and budgets (5 yrs) and TAC's medium term vision is used for the 2010 target. (2010) I the term medium/long 253 The Committee also recommended that CGIAR investment maintained. in research on the development and management of production systems and oninstitution building should be reduced because of increasing strength of national programmes and lack of comparative advantage for the CGPAR. TAC considered that in the medium term the share of resources allocated to Sub-Saharan Africa and to WANA should be while the share allocated to Asia, in modestly reduced, and LAC should be increased. The Committee did not particular, make a recommendation on the level of priority by production sector, but considered that the proposed new programmes in forestry and fisheries should not be funded at the expense of critical on going research related to sustainable agricultural agroforestry and resource management. production, In the agricultural and forestry sectors, the analysis indicated that, relative to the baseline, emphasis should increase in the tropical AEZs l-4 and, for agriculture, additionally in the cool subtropical AEZ 9. In both cases, greater increases were suggested for the tropical AEZs of SSA relative to those of Asia and LAC. However, it is noted that TAC does not have adequate information on the current distribution of CGIAR efforts by AEZ and therefore did not make recommendations on the distribution of effort by agro-ecological zone. TAC reaffirmed the priority currently given to the cereal and root and tuber crops. Among the food legumes, it proposes reducing the level of priority of phaseolus beans modestly, and that of pigeonpea significantly. The priority of groundnut and soybean should be increased, while that of lentil, chickpea and cowpea should be maintained. The current level of effort on banana and plantain should also be maintained. TAC reaffirmed its views on the priority level for research on vegetables and coconut. TAC noted that the CGIAR currently seems to be over-investing in research on livestock, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. 13.1.3. TAC,s medium/ionsCGIAR and long-term visions of the In its report "A Possible Expansion of the CGIARt', TAC outlined a medium/longand long-term (2025+) vision for the evolution of the CGIAR System which was endorsed in principle by members of the CGIAR at International Centres, Week 1990. Realization of the long-term vision would depend heavily on improvements in the capacity of national research systems and the development of effective regional and transnational mechanisms of cooperation. The long term was defined in terms of the period when most national research systems in developing countries would 254 The be strong enough to meet their own national research needs. underlying assumptions are that, in the long term, the capacity that there would be strong and of NARS would become stronger; effective regional and transnational mechanisms for research collaboration; that research and information networks would that sharing of research become a major mode of operation; responsibilities as well as joint planning of research between and that the private sector would NARS and IARCs would increase; become an important alternative supplier of research. the CGIAR System would be expected to be smaller Consequently, and quite different from today. It is TAC,s judgement, international public goods, that in the long term there international efforts in: based on considerations of economies of scale, and spillovers, would be a continuing need for germplasm collection, conservation, characterization, evaluation and enhancement for commodities of global significance; strategic research on global conservation and management; strategic research on public issues of global significance; global information strategic research issues policy and of natural and public resource management services related in agriculture, to international forestry and fisheries. Currently many CGIAR centres are involved in applied, and research on germplasm enhancement and breeding and even adaptive, This on the development and management of production systems. type of research is properly the province of national systems in To get from where the CGIAR System is now to the the long term. The challenge period is essential. long term, a transitional confronting the CGIAR is how to manage the transition period in ways that ensure effective and efficient coverage of the spectrum while helping strengthen NARS of urgently needed research, capacity. TAC has therefore developed a medium/long term vision activities and mechanisms. In Chapter 8 of in terms of concepts, the Expansion Report (TAC/CGIAR, 1990) and in the elaboration papers "An Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR', between CGIAR Centres and (TAC/CGIAR, 1991 b) and t'Relationships to define a possible NARS" (TAc/cGIAR, 1991 a), TAC Attempted evolutionary path from the present situation through the of possible medium/long term to the long term, in the context institutional arrangements. In the medium/long term TAC envisages activities of two types: global activities activities, regionally defined (for which the CGIAR having major and agroecological TAC has used the term 255 Global activities would comprise strategic ffecoregionalff). research on selected commodities and subject matter areas while ecoregional activities would focus on applied and strategic research on natural resource conservation and management, the development and management of production systems, and on applied aspects of commodity improvement. A figure and a table have been prepared to help explain the terminology and concepts developed by TAC and described in detail Figure 13.1. shows the in the three papers mentioned above. interrelationships between one of the broad goals of the CGIAR of activities -- global, ecoregional and system, and three levels One ultimate goal of the CGIAR is to contribute to national. sustainable increases in the productivity of agriculture, The two interrelated elements of this forestry and fisheries. increases and sustainability - are key goal - productivity objectives for both CGIAR centres and NARS . As Figure 13.1 the approach of the CGIAR centres to these objectives indicates, will entail both ecoregional and global activities, which will be undertaken in close collaboration with the NARS. It is the changing nature of the linkages between these three sets of activities that will determine the future role of the CGIAR. Table 13.1. indicates the possible roles of different types of CGIAR entities with respect to the five major categories of research and research-related activities, as defined in Section 2.2. Ecoregional entities will play a major role in institution building and in research on ecosystem aspects of the conservation and management of natural resources, on production systems development and management, and on socio-economics, public policy and public management. The research categories in which global commodity centres will play a more focused, major role are germplasm enhancement and breeding and germplasm collection, conservation, characterization and evaluation (shortened to genetic resources in the heading in Table 13.1.). The latter research category is also the major responsibility of IBPGR, a global subject matter centre. The other subject matter centres included in the Table are: IIMI, which is involved in research categories 4 and 5 specifically in relation to irrigation management; IFPRI which has a global responsibility for research on soeio-economics, public policy and public management; and ISNAR with a role focused primarily on institution building. 256 Sustainable Increases in Agricultural, 8nd Fisheries Production Forestry, I Productivity i Increase Sustainability t I Ecoregional Activities -1 Global A;vities 1: l-l Figure 13.1, interrelationships Responsibilities CG Centres between System Goals, Research of NARS and CGIAR Centres Activities and Table 13.1. Roles of Different CGIAR Entitites with Respect to the Five Categories of Research Activity Conservation and management of natural resources Type of entity/ mechanism koregional 1. Ecosystem 2. Genetic Resources Germplasm enhancement and breeding Production Socioeconomics, public policy systems development and public and management management lnstitution building 4-k -t + ++ ++ ++ ;lobal commodi ++ ++ f + d- ;lobal subject natter’ BPGR IFPRVIIMI %SNAR/IIMI/ IBPGR ++ + (‘) Lead role Cooperation role No role Current roles of global subject matter centres as indicated 258 13.1.4. The ecoresional concert The ecoregional approach was proposed by TAC primarily as a vehicle for increasing research on the conservation and - a need which emerged from the management of natural resources - and for rationalizing CGIAR centre contacts priorities analysis Since the ecoregional approach is a new, key with NARS. organizing principle for the CGIAR, the main concepts are reiterated here. TAC has characterized an ecoregion as an agroecological Inherent in the definition is the defined. zone, regionally acknowledgement that there is a high degree of location-specificity in both the biophysical and socio-economic aspects of natural resource management research, and that therefore the ultimate comparative advantage in ecoregional research will lie with national programmes. However, the global research community does not presently have an effective paradigm for natural resource management such a conceptual framework is a research. Thus, identifying goal of truly international relevance. It is also a goal fully congruent with the justification for international research in germplasm, itself increasingly dependent on effective applied and adaptive research in national programmes to develop plant materials and management guidance appropriate to local farmers. The comparative advantage of the CGIAR is firmly based on the international relevance of the research it undertakes. Yet natural resource management research involves a great deal of Thus a careful definition of the nature of location-specificity. the outputs to be expected from CGIAR-supported ecoregional research is needed. These international outputs can be divided into five categories: to determine effective research and development approaches for natural resource management that bring sustainable improvements in productivity to agriculturally dependent rural communities. to understand and biological ecologies. the principles of management of soil, water processes, and their interaction in different to determine an effective mechanism to link decision-making and policy formulation and implementation with technological opportunities and social organization as instruments of change, across a range of natural resource endowments, levels of population pressure, social organizations, employment opportunities and policy conditions. 259 to understand the principles of farmer and community decision making, particularly the trade-off between short-term gain and the long-term sustainability of production. to build systems resource a human resource capacity to help national research implement an effective research approach to naturaL management. Practical experience developed in a rigorous fashion by ecoregional mechanisms in local situations, under varying conditions of the natural resource base, population pressure, employment opportunity and policy social organization, can be used to define and develop broader, widely conditions, applicable principles for decision-making in relation to the These mechanisms also can help management of natural resources. determine how these essentially local findings can best be linked All these to government decision processes at the policy level. outputs will be internationally relevant. selecting the most important Within designated ecoregions, problems or research domains will also be vital. It needs to be emphasized that each ecoregional mechanism would have the capacity to undertake research at onlv a limited number of characteristic sites. Each site should embrace a physically cohesive unit, possibly a watershed, and the units of social cohesion, usually the communities that use and manage it. Where the farming systems.of these communities extend beyond the watershed either to other lands or to off-farm employment opportunities, research will necessarily have to take that into account. Work at each site could involve close collaboration between a CGIAR Centre, the national research system, national policy agencies and grassroots organizations working with local ' communities to cope with the multidimensional problems facing Where national capacity in the wider dimensions is farmers. limited, the IARC may need reinforcing by international partners with experience in areas beyond agricultural research. Research f&r the ecoregion should be done both at the site and ex situ in laboratories. Results from each site will be useful at three levels: First, listed at the above. international level, through the outputs n Second, results on will be relevant to represented by the term interaction of the soil, water and biology of the sites the broader agroecological zone understanding the longerFurther, site. farming systems, and the commodities 260 embedded in them, with the resource base is crucial knowledge which should have broader applicability in terms of methodologies tested and principles learned. Thirdly, the results will provide technology, social organization and policy guidance for the improvement farming and forestry systems of the research sites, sites with similar human characteristics throughout ecoregion represented by the site. of and of the Each site will also offer a training venue for research managers and scientists. At the site they will gain firsthand experience in the different dimensions of the research and in the coordination required for its planning, implementation and for the application of the results. As national capacity for natural resource management research is strengthened, the research undertaken by CGIAR ecoregional mechanisms can be transferred to national research systems. There may be a continuing global role in synthesizing the principles of resource management identified by national systems and in transnational networking of these results. 13.1.5. Medium/lona-term model for the CGIAR . In Chapter 11 of the Expansion Report, TAC outlined some generic principles and the first steps for a possible evolutionary path for the CGIAR as it moves towards the medium/longand long-term vision. It also developed an approach and guiding principles for institutional options in the transitional period, and presented scenarios which move the CGIAR towards what would be considered an ideal model in the year 2010; the overall scenario for the CGIAR can be summarized as follows: A. Global Mechanisms focus a. Commodity (i) (ii) Cereals - wheat, maize, rice, barley, sorghum, millet Roots, Tubers and Vegetables - cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, etc (iii) Legumes - cowpeas, beans, chick pea, pigeon pea, etc (iv) Livestock - large and small ruminants (v) Forestry - agroforestry (vi) Aquatic Resources - fish b. Subject (i) (ii) Matter/Disciplines including Public Policy and Public Management, irrigation management Genetic Resource Conservation 261 B. Ecoregional a. Humid and b. Humid and Semi-arid C. d. Dry Areas e. Semi-arid, Subtropics Mechanisms Subhumid Tropics and Subtropics - Latin America Africa (SSA) Subhumid Tropics - Sub-Saharan Tropics and Highland Cool Tropics - SSA - WANA Subhumid, Humid and Coastal Tropics and - Asia The model is based on the assumption that concerns of sustainability and strengthening NARS cut across all equity, The model described above is something activities and regions. approach which does not take account approaching a "clean slate" as of past institutional history of the CGIAR. It may be useful a target for medium/long term planning. 13.2. Options CGIAR 13.2.1. for Future Stratesies and Structure for the Kev strateaic Drincinles TAC's starting point in strategic planning for the CGIAR has been the priorities study. The implementation of priorities by activity, by region and agroecological zone, and by commodity, is therefore a maj.or consideration in developing the strategy for However, TAC is aware that the CGIAR in the medium/long term. the priority analysis covers a broad spectrum of research needs, and recognizes that the CGIAR, as only one actor in the international research system, must be selective. The strategic approach must take account of the important role of NARS, advanced institutions in developed countries, and other players. The role of the private sector must also be considered, particularly given recent developments in .biotechnology, post-harvest technology, plant breeders rights, and intellectual property rights. Such developments contribute to the complexity and dynamism of the task facing the CGIAR. Although TAC has taken these issues into account in developing the CGIAR strategy, it has to be recognized that major breakthroughs in particular fields, and dramatic changes in institutions .or policy regimes, are unpredictable and therefore difficult to factor into the strategy. It should also be noted that TAC has focused its consideration of strategic principles largely on research programmes and institutional matters. However the Committee has been cognizant of potential limitations of funding. Therefore it has been given preference to adjusting existing institutions rather than proposing the creation of new ones. 262 Among the guiding principles for translating into strategies medium/long and long- term visions is the idea of building on the current strengths These include: the apolitical and international character; TAC's and structures of the CGIAR. decentralized management; independent centres, autonomous donors and a system of checks and balances through reviews; the concept of critical mass; hands-on closeness stable research capability; to partners; but flexible funding; in research and with a commodity focus. effort to sound experience the its However, overcome - CGIAR System should also make every own shortcomings, such as: commodity resource responsibilities; management for mandates; strategic of a variety of centres' overlapping overlapping lack of clear responsibility resource management issues; uncoordinated decentralization research on of activities; capacity lack of intra-system coordination building efforts; and inadequate accountability to partners. Now and in the future, the greatest challenge for the CGIAR is its collaboration with NARS, particularly its contributions to strengthening national programmes and to development of transnational mechanisms for scientific cooperation. There is.an emerging consensus that the CGIAR, as only one player in this and leading role in these area, is not equipped to play a direct types of activities. However, in association with, and through its own research it should actively support efforts focused on strengthening NARS and transnational collaborative research mechanisms. The interfaces of CGIAR Centres with NARS through networks, consortia and other collaborative programmes of the proposed ecoregional mechanisms would certainly help strengthen NARS 263 capacity at the scientific should not be a substitute strengthening mechanisms governments in developing multilateral development However, the CGIAR efforts level. for institution building or for for regional cooperation in research countries, and bilateral and agencies. by In TAG's judgement, some of the main weaknesses of the CGIAR could be overcome by a sharper delineation of responsibilities between CGIAR global and ecbregional mechanisms. This is the key organizing principle in TACfs options for re-structuring the As pointed out in the TAC paper on the ecoregional CGIAR system. approach to research, implementation of this approach would entail a deliberate and concerted move that follow four main principles: fill gaps in the coverage of research resource conservation and management; relating to natural rationalize overlapping commodity mandates and minimize overlaps in research on natural resource conservation and management, by clearly delineating responsibilities for different research activities; provide focal points within framework for coordinating activities; and an organized decentralized agroecological research to streamline interactions between NAPS and CGIAR Centres avoid confusion at the national level, by coordinating institution-building efforts and other activities. TAC wishes to stress the need for caution in applying these principles. They are all consistent with the CGIAR mission and but given the current realities of the CGIAR System and goals, its components, and the present and potential heterogeneity in the capacity of national research systems, they may not be easy to implement. A pragmatic rather than a doctrinaire approach must be taken in applying these principles. TAC reiterates its views stated in the Expansion Paper. In approaching the delicate task of possible future structures, TAC debated three possible ways of proceeding. In.each case TAC was using the medium/long and long term visions as desired end The first possible approach was the so-called "clean points. slate" approach where one begins by asking if the CGIAR was to start afresh with US$ 250 million and the medium/long-term vision, how would it be structured. A second approach was to start where the CGIAP is now and suggest only the minimum necessary changes to accomplish the inclusion of the specific new activities. The third was an intermediate approach which considered the possibilities of considerable restructuring but uses existing institutes as the beginning point as the above four 264 guiding principles pragmatic approach. are applied. approach This would be called the TAC adopted the last following considerations: keeping in mind by the that is of 0) (ii) wherever possible build quality and efficiently on what exists operated; keep firmly in mind the medium/long term vision and the objective of more clearly delineating responsibilities for activities and reducing the potential for conflict and confusion; clearly distinguish between an activity and an institution. TAC is pressing for clear responsibilities for activities but sees no particular reason that an institution could not operate two activities, one global and one ecoregional. The guiding principle should be that each has clear priorities and that,one does not dominate the other, either intellectually, or in terms of resource availability; an institution is an organizational form with governance, management and operational functions. Except for governance, there can be varying degrees of decentralization, both of decisions and the geographic Thus when TAC location, of the other two functions. talks of a particular institution having a particular responsibility it does not imply that all of its activities are at one physical site, in one geographic location; there are available forms of decentralization that make possible managing highly variable numbers of scientists. However, two considerations were kept in mind. One was the need for a critical mass for effective pursuit of particular research projects and the other was possible diseconomies of very large congregations at single sites; scientists at all levels must have the possibility of collaborating directly or indirectly with the ultimate partners, the national programmes, and they must also have the possibilities of necessary discipline and basic research linkages globally. The global centres must not become basic research enclaves isolated from applied and adaptive problems. Nor can the ecoregional centres become provincial islands isolated from modern science. Fostering effective collaboration is a key to the future success of the CGIAR. (iii) -. (iv) (VI (vi) 265 13.2.2. Ecoresional activities TAC approached the question of translating the ecoregional The first was to concept into operational needs to two stages. assess CGIAR priorities and needs for activity in each RAEZ. options With results of that analysis in hand, the institutional for priority ecoregions were considered. three The assessment steps: of CGIAR priorities by ecoregions involved First while Regional Agroecological Zones (RAEZ'S) are conceptually useful for priority setting, are they too fine a classification for defining operational research programmes? This led first to a consideration of combining RAEZ's for purposes of programme definition, The second step was to review generated by the priority exercise the for relative priority index combinations of RAEZ's. The third step involved reviewing the intensity of research needs in each RAEZ (or combination of RAEZ's) as outlined in Chapter 4. This led to a second strategic question of whether every combination of RAEZ's resulting from the analysis should have a formal CGIAR programme. The second stage then involved options that might be used to deliver programme. This included comparing with existing CGIAR centre capacity programmes might be adjusted to meet 13.2.2.1. Stase one: Assessins exploring institutional a CGIAR ecoregional identified ecoregional to determine if centre future needs. CGIAR priorities needs by RAEZ TAC's priority analysis was based on 9 agroecological zones (AEZ) and four regional groupings of developing countries: (1) Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), (2) West Asia and North Africa (WANA), (3) Asia and the Pacific, and (4) Latin America and Caribbean 21 RAEZ's were used in the priority setting (MC) 0 Ultimately exercise (Figure 12.1). As TAC reviewed research needs, centre strategic plans and commodity distribution across RAEZ's, a clear pattern emerged. The distinction between the tropics and subtropics in programme development was not a sharp line. TAC therefore considered combining the tropical and subtropical agroecological zones. The distinction between the tropics and subtropics is on the basis of monthly mean temperature only. After careful review, particularly noting-that CGIAR Centres do not normally distinguish between the tropics and subtropics in programme definition and that cropping patterns have great 266 similarities, TAC concluded that, subtropics made pragmatic sense. 2 and 6, 3 and 7, and 4 and 8 were The result of this first strategic regional agroecological zones was Asia; 4 in SSA, 5 in LAC, and 1 in combining the tropics and Thus the pairs of AEZs 1 and 5, combined for future analysis. choice is that the number of 4 in reduced from 21 to 14: WANA. TAC then reviewed what the priority exercise had produced in 'terms of the relative priority index for each of the 14 aggregated RAEZ's. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 13.2. Recall that the values in the Table sum to 1000 and result from the application of nine modifiers to the composite base line. TAC also reviewed the distribution of values of commodity production across RAEZ's to determine whether commodities production patterns crossed boundaries between even aggregated RAEZ's (Table 13.3). Clearly many commodities such as rice and maize are grown in most RAEZ's, while some, such as pigeonpea and barley, are relatively important to one or a few RAEZ'S. This information is useful in analyzing whether a particular RAEZ would be better served by a commodity focused programme as opposed to a full ecoregional programme. While TAC did not adopt a minimum value of the relative it did carefully review those RAEZ's with a priority index, relative priority index of less than 5% (50.0). At this stage TAC ruled out, on the basis of low priority ranking, separate programmes for LAC-AEZ 9 and LAC-AEZ's 1+5-. In other cases TAC considered that further amalgamation of RAEZ's would be necessary to justify a formal programme Finally, TAC's analysis of research priorities showed that more research on the conservation and management of natural resources was needed in every region and agroecological zone, although the size of the increase and the type of research needed differs across the regions (see Chapter 4). As noted in Chapter 10, the NARS in some regions are not as strong as others, creating the need for a greater CGIAR ecoregional involvement in applied research on production systems development and management in the weaker areas, despite the general recommendation that activities in this category should be decreased system-wide. Based on all this ecoregional activities analysis, TAC's assessment of the in different RAEZ'S is as follows: need for -. 267 Table 13.2 Distribution of relative geographic regiok,within .. by AEZs and - priority indices agri&Iture* Warm arid and semi-arid tropics and sub-topics with summer rainfall (AEZS l-+5) 136.8 121.1 23.7 Warm sub-humid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 2+6) 68.2 64.4 39.9 Warm humid tropics and sub-tropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 3+7) 98.6 - Cool tropics and sub-tropics summer rainfall (AEZs 4+8) with .33.1 63.6 1 42.0 Cool sub-tropics rainfall (AEZ 9) with winter 81.1 -Y---p- * Derived from Table 9.15. (all modifiers weighted 0.5) Table 13.3. Values modified ( d.f" of commodity production, mo 1 let-s at 0.5) across RAEZs (values by the relative as a orooortion priority of total index,of CGIAR commodities value of orodwtinn nf 1K1fl) Commodities I 1 SSA 1 3.9 .8 1 2 2.6 l I 3 5.4 * Regions and Regional Agroecological 1 WANAl ASIA 9 1+5 2+6 3+7 4 l Zones (RAEZs) 8 1+5 .8 .7 1.4 * 2+6 1.4 l LAC 3+7 3.8 .8 1 3.6 I l 4+8 .6 1.4 1 2.1 I . 9 * .5 1 l * II Rice Wheat Maize Barley Sorghum Millett 1 7.1 * 7.7 8.8 3.4 l 2.5 l .9 2.2 .7 .6 l 1.7 33.5 20.8 1 10.6 1 7.9 1 1.8 1.4 2.3 1.4 3.7 l l * l 56.4 1 2.5 4.6 l 14.6 1 11.9 8.1 .7 l l 1 1,9 I l 2.3 2.8 l l 1.8 2.1 .8 .5 .6 1.8 l .5 l t l * l t .7 l l * e l Cassava II Potato S. Potato . Yam II 10.0 1 7.3 c 1 .6 1 1.6 1 1.4 . 8.4 .6 l 16.2 1 l 1 * 1.2 1 1.0 l 3.9 l 4.8 + 1.4 l t 2.2 * l l 1 1 3.8 l l 1 1 1 .9 10.3 8.0 l 2.5 2.6 l l 1 1 .9 1.4 l 1 1.8 1 4.9 * 1 5.7 1 * l l t 2.7 l * * l l l t * * Banana/PI Chickpea Cowpea 9.7 l l 1.9 .6 3.9 * 1.2 t 1.4 t 3.5 l 1.6 t l l l 96 2.2 * 1 1.1 I * 5.2 I I l 2.0 I I l 1.5 I I l II Broadbean I 1 .6 1 .8 1 l 1 I + 1 l l I * I * I * I l 1.2 l 3.0 c 5.5 l 1.1 t * * I II Coconut Beef/Buf. Sheep/Goat Milk . Value is I.8 1 l I .9 I * I l I 1.5 I .9 I 8.8 I * l I * I l I l I l II 1 1 14.4 1 3.5 I 8.2 1 1.2 1 25.9 1 2.0 less than 0.5 1 1 3.7 1 1.3 .6 1 1 3.9 3.4 1 1.5 3.7 I 4.3 1 8.6 1 1 1.9 1 1.2 I 2.0 1 1 24.1 1 6.0 l I 3.5 1 1.0 1 1.7 1 2.0 1 1.8 1 3.3 * 269 W programme in the Sub-Saharan Africa - An ecoregional warm arid and semi-arid tropics seems justified by all the analysis which is reflected in the priority ranking (AEZ 3) of 136.8 for this PAEZ. The warm humid tropics and the warm subhumid tropics (AEZ 2) could be combined since the agricultural research needs of both overlap The considerably and the areas are contiguous. combined priority index is 166.8, which seems to The cool tropics justify an ecoregional programme. the East African Highlands, has a (AEZ 4) t basically priority index of only 33.1 which is less compelling However TAC considers for a stand-alone programme. that the needs of this RAEZ are nevertheless important. In the discussion of institutional options which follows in the next section, the Committee explores possible alternatives. West Asia/North Africa (WANA) - The cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9) in this region has a priority index of 81.1, The geographic contiguity of the region and its pressing resource management needs justify a continuing ecoregional research programme. TAC noted that irrigated systems are important in this region. TAC suggests that, where appropriate, irrigated ecosystems could constitute specific research domains of ecoregional programmes. Asia and the Pacific - The Asia region is large and diverse in all respects. The warm semi-arid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 1+5) have relatively high priority index (121.1). Clearly major issues in resource management, population and poverty are reflected in that rating. In the short run this would suggest a continued, CGIAR effort in this ecoregion. TAC notes however that virtually all of this ecoregion is contained in two countries--India and Pakistan-both of which are judged to have relatively strong national programmes. In the longer term this ecoregion would be an early candidate for CGIAP efforts to be transferred to regional mechanisms or national TAC next considered the warm humid and programmes. subhumid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall index of (AEZ 2, 3, 5, 7) which has a combined priority 212.6. Within this grouping, AEZ 3 (120.7) and AEZ 2 (43.0) dominated, thus the joint consideration of the warm humid and subhumid tropics and subtropics. This is a vast area with serious resource degradation problems and a burgeoning population. Although the major crop is rice, upland crops, agroforestry, forestry and coastal ecosystems are also important. TAC This suggests a need for ecoregional approaches. (ii) (iii) 270 returns to possible institutional options later. The remaining ecoregion is the cool"tropics (AEZ 8) which has a lower priority index and is almost all contained within one country--China. TAC concludes that a major CGIAR ecoregional programme is not fully justified in this area. (iv) Latin America and the Caribbean - The warm arid and semi-arid tropics and subtropics (AEZ's 1 +5) of LAC have a low relative priority index (23.7), are widely dispersed geographically and are dominated by a limited There number of commodities--maize, wheat and cattle. could be spillovers from ecoregional programmes in SSA and Asia that could partially serve this region. In TAC's judgment a separate ecoregional programme is not TAC considered an amalgamation of RAEZ's 2, justified. 6, and 7 because of geographic proximity, 3, overlapping cropping patterns and similar resource The combined priority index of management problems. 113.6 suggests justification for one CGIAR programme paying attention to important research domains. TAC eliminated consideration of RAEZ 9 because of its low priority index and its concentration in two relatively advanced countries--Chile and Argentina. The remaining aggregate is AEZ's 4 + 8, the cool tropics (the highlands of Latin and Central America). It, like the highlands of Africa, has a relatively low priority index (42.0) and is geographically diverse. However resource management issues are particularly acute in In TAC's mountainous regions and poverty is pervasive. view, the CGIAR would be well advised not to ignore highland ecologies, but establishing separate programmes in Latin America and Africa is probably not The Committee returns to this issue when justified. institutional options are discussed. In summary TAC concluded that 6 ecoregional programmes are justified--two in SSA (a) in the semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1) and (b) the warm humid and subhumid tropics (AEZ's 2 +3) , one in WANA (AEZ 9), two in Asia in (a) the semi-arid region (AEZ 1+5), and (b) the warm humid and,subhumid tropics and subtropics (AEZ's In addition 2, 3, 6 + 7) and one in LAC (AEZ's 2, 3, 6 + 7). there may be a justification for the cool tropics programmes in LAC and SSA if either some interregional mechanism were possible or that programmes for each region are institutionally combined with other mechanisms. 13.2.2.2 TAC began the medium/long Stage two: or&ions. its analysis term (2010) Assessins ecoresional institutional options for before of possible institutional with a range of alternatives 271 it. Options considered included: devoted combining exclusively ecoregional to ecoregional and global centres/mechanisms activities centres/mechanisms activities creation major of new entities restructuring of existing and/or consortia national programmes to implement institutions use of networks assistance ecoregional to stronger programmes TAC also attempted to categorize the distribution of current CGIAR Centres in both commodity oriented work and in natural resources and production systems by ecoregion. That analysis is TAC also referred again to Table 13.3 contained in Table 13.4. on the regional distribution of commodities priority indexes. The purpose was to see how much of a match there was between TAC's recommendations regarding ecoregional programmes and existing CGIAR efforts. The conclusions of TAC's analysis are that, to some considerable extent, there is a reasonable institutional match. (a) SSA - the combination of ICRISAT's Sahelian programme and its Southern Africa programme geographically span most of the semi-arid tropics of Africa. Currently the Southern African programme is more commodity focused and would need to be broadened. Further portions of ILCA's programmes would need to be involved in some way, but in general significant components of an ecoregional programme already exist. For the warm humid and subhumid tropics IITA has already an ecoregional mandate to cover these ecologies in West and Central Africa. However several other Centres also have programmes of relevance --WARDA, ILCA, ILRAD, ICRAF and potentially CIFOR. The decentralized portion of ICRAF's programme should clearly be integrated into the ecoregional programme. WARDA while currently a single commodity regional centre, has a headquarters location and decentralized programmes of relevance to the transition zone and the subhumid tropics. It is also located in a francophone country. These considerations suggest interesting possibilities of closer coordination of WARDA and IITA programmes. The potential roles of ILCA and ILRAD are discussed below under TAC's discussion of approaches to livestock research in the CGIAR. Table 13.4 Illustrative distribution of CGIAR Centre research activities in different RAEZs RESEARCH CATEGORIES RAE2 2. Germplasm Enhancement and Breading 1. Conservation f%xm~rcos; and Management and Systems Development .... .... .. of Natural and ... . . . . 3. Production Manwwe? .. ., SSA 1 2 3 4 9 ! CIMMYT, ICRISAT (IX) CIMMYT. ICRISAT, IITA. WAHUA, Clf’ CIAT, IITA, WARD/I CIAT, CIMMYT. CIP. ICRISAT. ILCA CIMMYT. ICARDA, ICRISAT: CIP CIMMYT, lCR!SAT. IRRI CIMMYT, ICRlSAl! IRRI CIA’1 ! CIMMYT. IFVX. CIP CIMMYT, ICHISAT. IRRI CIMMY’I : ICRISAT, IRRI CIMMYT: ICHISAT: IRRI CIM.MYT. ICRISAT, CIP CIAT, CIMMYT, ICRISAT CIAl, CIMMYT ifIR CIMMYT: CIP C;!MMY’I’: CIP CIAT, CIMMYT CIAT, CIMMYT. CIF’ CIMMYT. CII’ CIMMYT. CIP CIMMY I ----.- ICRAF, ICRISAT (ISC) ICRAF. IITA. lt.C:A: WAHDA, ILRAC ICRAI-, IITA, ILCA, WARDA, ILRAD CIAT, ICRAF, IL-CA, ILRAD ICARDA ICRISAT: IRRI CIMMYT, CIMMYT: CIMMYT, IRRI IRRI ICLARM. IHRI ICRISAT. IRRI: ICAHDA IRRf WPNA ASIP I AC 1 3 3 4 5 6 -/ 8 9 CIPT CIAT CIAT CIP CIAT, CIMMYT Clf’ 273 The needs of the African highlands (AEZ's 4+8), as a separate centre or entity, however noted, do not justify Several options are worth the needs are important. The first is to use a consortia approach which exploring. has already been discussed involving at least ICRAF, CIMMYT, A lead ILCA and the ICRISAT/SACCAR programme. CIAT, CIP, Centre would be identified, possibly ICRAF or ILCA. A second possibility would be for ILCA to assume primary responsibility with collaborative programmes with other A third option would be to explore a relevant Centres. transregional programme with LAC, with CIP and ILCA as leaders or one or the other assuming responsibility for both A fourth possibility is to combine the ecoregional regions. responsibility with global commodity responsibilities in each region. This ecoregion provides an opportunity for the CGIAR to explore new alternative modes of operation without establishing a new entity. (b) the programmes of ICARDA already WANA - in this ecoregion, are similar to TAC's view of an ecoregional programme and could be modified relatively easily. The major issue to be addressed would be whether irrigated agriculture should be added to ICARDA's ecoregional mandate. Asia and the Pacific - In the semi-arid tropics and subtropics of Asia ICRISAT's resource management programme out of their headquarters is surely the candidate vehicle subject to the longer run considerations discussed earlier. For AEZ's 8 TAC has concluded a major programme is not warranted. We note however that a non-CGIAR Centre, ICIMOD, is actively engaged in research on mountainous regions in Asia. The remaining AEZ's (2+6, 3+7) represent a major challenge for the CGIAR because at present no CGIAR Centre has anything approaching a comprehensive ecoregional programme. The gap is partially covered by IRRI's programme on rice-based farming systems, but it does not cover the large rainfed areas where upland rice is not a major crop. TAC noted that in these areas land degradation is a serious problem, with on- and off-site impacts affecting the sustainability of high potential irrigated lands. Emerging programmes at CIFOR and IC.RAF on forestry and agroforestry, and the soil management networks of IBSRAM, all utilize and build on the strong NARS in the region to address important problems in the humid and subhumid areas. However, these programmes do not exactly adopt the comprehensive the ecoregional approach proposed by TAC. Furthermore, strong NARS in the region are able to undertake the applied but especially need scientific support from research, This strategic research on natural resource problems. --. (c) 274 problem could be overcome in part by links to advanced .institutions in developed countries, but some focal point such as a regional organization or some other coordinating mechanism is needed. one option is to attempt to develop In sum, clearly research programmes by building links with existing mechanisms. A second option would be for ICRISAT to expand its work to the warm subhumid tropics and subtropics (AEZ's that these zones have several 2 and 6), recognizing important food legume and cereal commodities in common with the present ICRISAT mandate area (see Table 13.3.). In parallel, IRRI could expand its programme to crops other than rice and take responsibility for the warm humid tropics and subtropics (AEZ 3+7). This option would have to be considered in the context of future global responsibilities for these Centres. A third option would be to convert either ICRISAT or IRRI into an ecoregional centre for Asia (AEZ's 2, 3, 6+7). A fourth option clearly is to encourage national programmes to expand activity through networks or consortia. A fifth although not preferred by TAC, would be to create a option, new institution. In the Asian region, coastal ecosystems are especially important in equity and sustainability terms. Although not delineated in the priorities framework, the coastal ecosystems may warrant a separate ecoregional approach. ICLARM has been working on the problems of the coastal ecosystem and could take the lead, involving ICRAF (with its emerging coconut systems programme) and IRRI. Cd) Latin America and the Caribbean - The emerging ecoregional programme of CIAT has been designed to address the major research problems of the warm humid and subhumid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall. As discussed above, the priority analysis did not justify separate ecoregional programmes in other AEZ's in this region with the exception of the cool tropics and subtropics (AEZ's 4+8) where CIP could take the lead. The Committee returns to this issue after discussing global responsibilities. 13.2.3. Global activities In section 13.2.1. TAC presented key strategic principles in approaching the question of strategy and structure of the CGIAR. These principles were applied to the consideration of both ecoregional and global strategies and structures. In approaching the issue of ecoregional activities an intermediate step of determining which ecoregions merited CGIAR programmes was 275 necessary before institutional options could be discussed. In the global context such a step is unnecessary because the priority exercise has already identified proposed commodities and activities deserving of CGIAR support and has identified relative It is therefore possible to proceed directly to priorities. discussing institutional options. In doing so it is necessary to keep in mind the medium and long term visions of the CGIAR. There TAC argued that research with a global perspective should be strategic, sharply focused and should continue to be focused on selected commodities and A number of strategic subject matter of global significance. questions were considered by TAC in analyzing future strategies What should be the evolving CGIAR role in and structure. How should the form and commodities receiving priority rankings? As the CGIAR moves magnitude of that research change over time? towards the medium/long and long term should commodity activities be combined into larger aggregates? These questions are relevant in all production sectors--crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries. Further questions on the nature and scope of non-commodity global activities were asked. In addition there was explicit discussion of linkages between global activities and ecoregional mechanisms. 13.2.3.1. Institutional oDtions for research conunoditv/nroduction sector issues on slobal -- TAC considered several alternative institutional possibilities for global commodity/production sector research responsibilities in the CGIAR. It took into account the preceding analysis and recent decisions by the CGIAR with respect to institutional forms for agroforestry, forestry and bananas and plantains. Among the criteria considered by TAC in looking at institutional options were: proven record and impact; and existing effects; for the group of commodities; infrastructure for the economies research; possibility centres of scale of spillover of origin/diversity of research research links compatibility existing approaches between among commodities; and I centres on the commodity. in CGIAR policy resources and in the formulation on of TAC considers that recent developments intellectual property rights, plant genetic biotechnology should be taken into account 276 institutional strategies. The facilities needed for genetic resource conservation and for research using the techniques of Means of more cost modern molecular biology are very costly. effective use of such facilities should constantly be sought. As TAC proceeded with its analysis it considered options for cereals, roots and the following groupings of commodities: legumes, vegetables, coconut, banana and plantain, trees, tubers, large and small ruminants and fish. Possible institutional options are discussed in turn. In discussing these options it must be recognized that consistency with institutional options for ecoregional programmes is necessary. The discussions of particular options is therefore conditioned by possible models for ecoregional activities. (a) wheat, maize, barley, millet and Cereals - Cereals--rice, sorghum--provide the majority of calories for developing country consumers. Nearly 50% of CGIAR commodity focused research is directed at cereals. Within the group there is great heterogeneity in terms of relative importance, geographic and ecological dispersion and state research knowledge. While in the long run there maybe merit in considering a consolidated yet decentralized germplasm enhancement and breeding effort in cereals, this in TAC's judgement is not a viable option in the short to medium/long term. Thus the beginning point of TAC's analysis was the current distribution of activity among centres with global responsibilities: rice--1RRI; wheat and maize--CIMMYT; barley-ICARDA; millet and sorghum--1CRISAT. There are also significant regional programmes on rice at WARDA and CIAT, on maize at IITA and wheat (jointly with CIMMYT) at ICARDA. Clearly to retain this division of responsibilities is dependent on future emerging roles for several Centres-- CIAT, ICRISAT and IRRI in particular--in ecoregional activities. Looked at from the commodity n perspective, one can make the argument that there, are potential economies of scale in operating decentralized germplasm exchange and testing networks. Thus one option that should be debated would be to move towards merging more of the cereal programmes into one institutional form. For example CIMMYT could expand its mandate to include barley and possibly millet and sorghum. There are however plausible arguments for leaving barley with ICARDA as the majority of barley is grown in the WANA region. Shifting millet and sorghum to another institute should be conditioned by the long term directions undertaken by ICRISAT both in Africa and Asia. For the medium term TAC remains convinced that rice is of sufficient importance to warrant a separate highly focused global germplasm enhancement programme. Regional rice programmes at CIAT, IITA and WARDA should evolve to be more integrated into ecoregional programmes in their respective regions. Thus _-. .- 277 TAC has no specific recommendation the completion of the intercentre Committee will revisit the issue. (b) at this time. review on rice Following the responsibility for production Roots and Tubers - Current improvement programmes in roots and tubers are dispersed across several institutes: potatoes and sweet cassava --CIAT and IITA; potatoes --CIP; and yam at PITA. Options considered included the following: " (i) Over the past several years there have been a number of discussions about the possibility of a highly focused global institute for all CGIAR efforts in roots and An obvious candidate for such a centre would tubers. be CIP which could provide improved germplasm to ecoregional efforts in the relevant regions. Such an effort would of necessity have to be operated in a decentralized mode. A less radical option would be to consolidate programmes by region by developing closer collaboration between CIAT and CIP in Latin America by shifting germplasm enhancement responsibilities for cassava in Latin America (and possibly Asia) to CIP with CIAT integrating CIP's commodities into ecoregional research programmes. IITA would continue with regional responsibilities for cassava and yam in SSA. One variant on options (i) and (ii) would be to closely link (if not amalgamate) CIP and CIAT into a global root and tuber institute and an ecoregional institute for LAC. Another variant, close to status quo, would be to assign global responsibility for cassava to CIAT as well as ecoregional responsibilities for Latin America. IITA would focus on ecoregional activities including cassava based farming systems. Other commodity responsibilities would be as present. One final option is to retain the status quo. (ii) (iii) (iv) (VI Each option has merits and demerits. discussion as to what are the most efficient options to consider further. (cl TAC would welcome and effective Legumes - Current CGIAR activities are widely dispersed: chickpea, pigeonpea and groundnut--1CRISAT; beans--CIAT; cowpea --IITA; and selected pulses--ICARDA. TAC has recommended a reduction in emphasis to some--pigeonpea and phaesolus beans, maintenance of efforts in the short term for lentil, faba bean, chickpea and cowpea, and increased 278 emphasis on groundnut and soybean. The number of species involved, the localized importance of some food legumes (See the relatively low total CGIAR efforts in food Table 13.3), legumes and their integral importance in complex farming systems have led to the current situation of dispersion. Thus one option would be to move to firmly embed particular food legume improvement activities in ecoregional programmes where the species are important and not have a global The diametrically opposite option would be to activity. centralize all legume improvement activity in a single global activity. ICRISAT could be a candidate for such an Various intermediate options could be considered, approach. but in TAC's judgement, the determination of what global if any, are needed in legumes should be conditional efforts, on decisions regarding ecoregional activities. (d) (e) Vegetables from that - TAC recommendation made in the Expansion on vegetables Report. is unchanged -- for these commodities Banana and Plantain - CGIAR activities are an improvement programme for Africa at IITA and a global networking mechanism in INIBAP. The CGIAR has expressed a preference for INIBAP to have the opportunity to further develop its networking mode. Coconut - TAC's recommendation for a global programme on coconut germplasm conservation and improvement did not contain a parallel recommendation for a new institution. Rather the emerging efforts to form a coconut germplasm network (coordinated by IBPGR) and the inclusion of coconut as a multipurpose tree in the mandate of ICRAF seem appropriate. A somewhat different option might be to consider including coconut in a broadened mandate for INIBAP. This option should be considered only after INIBAP's progranune has matured further. Large and Small Ruminants - The TAC priority analysis of livestock suggests that when CGIAR's global expenditures are compared to global modified values of production there is reasonable congruence. However when expenditures are disaggregated by region and compared to modified values of production, there is an apparent over expenditure in SSA. It is against this background that TAC discusses future structural options. Ruminants and their feed sources are important elements of complex farming systems in LAC, WANA and SSA in particular. Thus the small ruminant programme at ICARDA and the-pastures programme at CIAT are properly integral parts of ecoregional activities. For Sub-Saharan Africa, ILCA and ILRAD share responsibilities. External reviews of ILCA and ILRAD will be received by TAC in June 1992 and the CG in October 1992. At that time the Winrock report will also be available. Thus it may be premature to (f) (s) 279 Nevertheless TAC wishes to emphasize discuss firm options. that critical strategic and structural questions need to be All evidence suggests that single addressed soon. approaches to solving complex production problems related to productivity, genetic improvement and feed sources disease, What is clearly needed is a are unlikely to be successful, more integrated approach for improving productivity through combined programmes of productivity improvement, including TAC therefore feels and disease management. feed sources, that, as a minimum, there must be a more coordinated CGIAR effort for livestock improvement in SSA. This coordinated programme should not only include ILCA and ILRAD but also relevant components of other programmes focused on tolerant breeds such as ITC and CRTA. As the Committee reviews the various reports in June it will develop more firm recommendations in regard to ruminant research. (h) TAC notes the present division of responsibilities between CIFOR, for forest systems, and ICRAF, for When CIFOR has been established and has agroforestry. operated for five years or so, TAC will be able to judge whether this division of responsibility is working or needs amendment. Trees (i) Fisheries - The TAC expansion report suggested that the CGIAR should address fisheries research. TAC has recently considered the ICLARM external review report and draft strategic plan, and recommended‘that ICLARM enter the CGIAR. 13.2.3.2. Global non-commoditv/nroduction activities sector Several institutional options were considered by TAC for addressing global, strategic and methodological issues in socio-economics, public policy and public management research, including irrigation and research management. The first was to continue with IFPRI, IIMI and ISNAR as three separate institutions. The second was to integrate IIMI's programmes into a broader programme addressing both technical and management issues in irrigated ecosystems through closer association between IIMI and IRRI. Third, the programmes of IFPRI and ISNAR could also be more closely integrated, given similarities in their research approaches. A fourth option would be to encourage closer collaboration between ISNAR and IIMP in light of their potential‘conunon activities and common interest in the management problems faced by national systems. There is not a consensus in TAC on which option is preferable. This is an issue deserving further debate by the CGIAR and dialogue among the Centres concerned. 280 13.3. Relationships between Global and Ecoresional Mechanisms TAC considers that, programatically, the commodity-specific activities of global entities and the production system and resource management activities of ecoregional mechanisms are Placing commodity-specific research entirely complementary. entirely at a global commodity centre has in the past potentially isolated the work from the broader agricultural and socio-economic context o‘f the real world of the farmer. This is not to say that the multidisciplinary commodity approach has failed, but rather it may have been adopted in too narrow a form, neglecting important aspects such as resource conservation and management and user considerations important to technology acceptance by small farmer population. It is important that centres learn from their experience in dealing with these problems as the framework of ecoregional and global mechanisms and collaborative operating procedures between them, and with NARS, evolve. TAC sees a need for very close ties between global and ecoregional mechanisms. Ecoregional entities would develop and build the store of knowledge of the natural resource base in their regions and human interactions with that base. This would include a detailed understanding of the important biotic and abiotic stresses constraining productivity and sustainability of production in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This understanding would be shared with global commodity centres which would factor it into their genetic enhancement and breeding programmes. To complement these programmes, ecoregional entities would serve as the major sites for testing, evaluation of methodologies, and packaging of technological components generated by the global centres. Research on germplasm enhancement and breeding will be a particularly important area in which clear modes for collaboration and