Consultative Group on InternationaIAgricultural Research Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Office Location: 801 19th Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 334-8021 Cable Address-INTBAFRAD FROM : The Secretariat November 18, 1987 Consultative Group Meeting October 26-30, 1987 Washington, D.C. MAIN CONCLUSIONS REACHED AND DECISIONS TAKEN The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research its annual centers week meeting from October 26 through October 30, 1987 at the International Monetary Fund Auditorium in Washington, D.C. The attached paper contains a s'ummary of the main conclusions reached and decisions taken at the meeting. (CGIAR) held The proceedings Attachment secretariat on microfiche. will make available on request a transcript of the Distribution CGIAR Members TAC Chairman, Members, Center Board Chairpersons and Secretariat Center Directors Other Participants Observers Consultative Group on International International Centers Agricultural Week Research October 26-30, 1987 Washington, D.C. International Centers Week (ICW) was preceeded as usual by 1. meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Committee of Center Directors (CCD) and the Committee of Board Chairpersons (CBC). Donors to several centers not associated with the CGIAR also held meetings before and after ICW. The annual Sir John Crawford Memorial Lecture was delivered on entitled "Food and Freedom" is October 29 by Mr. Amartya Sen. The lecture, being published separately. A seminar on "Gender Issues: User Impact, Agricultural Technology and the Global Agricultural Research System" was chaired by Mrs. Margaret Catley-Carlson, President of CIDA. A brief report on the seminar is attached as Appendix I, and a booklet on the materials presented at the seminar will be published separately. The names of participants in ICW are given in Appendix II. As in 1986, only half of the international agricultural research 2. centers supported by the Group made presentations of their programs during followed in each case by comments and questions ICW, and these presentations, from Group members, were scattered through the five days of meetings, and were sometimes linked to agenda items requiring Group actions. These presentations are not covered by the present summary, but the related agenda Presentations were made on behalf of CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, items are covered. IITA, ILCA, and ISNAR. Adoption of the Agenda - Agenda Item 2 Under this heading, Mr. Farrar proposed on behalf of himself and 3. Mr. Camus that "Review Processes in the CGIAR" - Agenda Item 15 be postponed until the mid-term meeting in Berlin to permit further work on the document and possibly the submission of a specific proposal for consideration. Members were asked to submit written comments on the draft paper (AGR/TAC:IAR/87/19R, of October 2, 1987) if they wished to the CG secretariat (Later in the proceedings, several and the TAC chairman by December 15. delegations expressed regret at not being able to discuss this topic during ICW.) The agenda was adopted with this change and some others not of lasting interest. Chairmanship of the CGIAR - Agenda Item 3 Mr. Hopper became interim chairman on the departure of Mr. Husain 4. as a result of reorganization in the World Bank. Mr. Hopper explained that the item of the chairmanship was on the agenda to give the Group a chance to react before a permanent chairman was named. The Group requested that Mr. Hopper serve as chairman on a regular basis. Chairman's 5. substance Opening Remarks - Agenda Item 1 Mr. Hopper said that he would reserve significant comments on for his summary at the end of the meeting. He said that there -2were many new issues introduced since his first association with the Group but some of the old issues were still had ended ten years earlier, unresolved. There could be little doubt of the productivity of the system, and the important return being given to its expenditures. The system, including the thirteen centers and the many other activities patterned on them, was clearly in good health. Much was owed to his predecessors as chairman, and to the successive chairs of TAC. In a time of uncertainty, when interdependence had penetrated 6. the CGIAR needed, over the coming two years, to examine the agriculture, implications of interdependence and uncertainty. The CGIAR had adapted both to its own success and to changing circumstances, but was still pretty much the same system that had been created seventeen years ago. He believed it now needed to make some very rapid adjustments to a rapidly altering and intrusive world environment. A start might be made with examining the role A committee would be formed to study this question, of the two secretariats. and perhaps the role of the co-sponsors. Further ideas would be discussed at an informal dinner meeting with heads of donor delegations. The original CGIAR agenda was building the 7. success in that task came issues of food and income Today there were also issues related to employment. the special problems of agriculture in environment, development, the changing role of national research science and the opportunities it creates, and donor TAC Chairman's Report - Agenda Item 4 "pile of rice" but with distribution, and sustainability and the Africa, women in systems, new biological coordination. Mr. Camus reported on TAC 43, held in Nairobi in June, and TAC 44 8. As usual, he confined his comments held in Washington the preceeding week. to items not covered elsewhere on the ICW agenda. TAC's Continuing Subcommittees (CSCs) have been very active: CSC 1 had developed a working paper on the sharing of responsibilities among centers. Comments from directors general and board and a final version would be presented to the chairs were being sought, mid-year group meeting in Berlin in May, 1988. The paper presents guidelines centers could follow in resolving disputes that might arise from any overlaps in operational mandates. CSC 2 had tabled a draft report entitled "Sustainable Agricultural Production: Implications for International Agricultural Research," written comments to reach TAC by mid-December. The'report contained a dynamic emphasizing that sustainability did not mean definition of sustainability, just maintaining the status quo but also that production must keep up with the food and fiber needs of rising populations, but in a sustainable way. The paper included chapters on: circumstances that limit sustainability; biotic and abiotic factors that affect sustainability; how the IARCs were at present contributing to the goal of sustainability; opinions on research needs; strategies to achieve sustainability goals; and recommendations. The next stop would be a workshop in January 1987 in Rome, with some 25-30 international organizations and national persons from the donors, centers, The report would be considered at TAC 45 in Rome in March 1988 and systems. a revised version presented to the Group in Berlin. -3CSC 3 was exploring quantitative methods to assist TAC in the evaluation and monitoring of research activities. As first step, a bibliography was compiled, gathering information on quantitative modes that have been used or proposed to evaluate priorities in agricultural research. Such models could be useful tools to assist TAC in its collective judgements concerning priorities and monitoring of activities. To do this, there must be a clear delineation of CGIAR goals and a way to make them quantifiable. Priority-setting would be discussed further by TAC 45 in Rome. CSC 3 was preparing a comprehensive paper on evaluation and monitoring of CGIAR priorities and strategies, and hoped to have it ready for Group consideration in Berlin. Two external reviews 9. June and CIMMYT in August. were planned for 1988. ICARDA will be held in Center strategic plans were central to overall system planning, and 10. were essential for TAC's assessment of external program review recommendations and center medium-term program proposals. TAC considered that a center's strategic plan, even in draft, should be approved by the Board before the external review took place. This document should be available to the review team and to TAC when it discussed the review report. The strategic plan could then be made final by the center once the external program review process was completed. TAC had considered and endorsed strategic plans for IBPGR, IFPRI, ILCA, ILRAD, ISNAR and CIP. Strategic plans for CIMMYT, IITA, ICARDA, IRRI, and WARDA were well along in development. All centers in one way or another had an interest in ensuring that 11. the plant genetic resources were conserved and made available for the continuing use of scientists, particularly those in developing countries. The center directors had provided TAC a paper which documented the common policy on plant genetic resources currently in use. The paper included a review of principles governing cooperation with countries that were the source of the collections, the handling of wild relatives of mandated crops, distribution of germplasm, and duplication, distribution of materials for reasons of safety, and agreements with countries that host IARCs concerning the long-term conservation and security of germplasm collections. The next step would be further TAC consideration of a policy paper, probably before the 45th meeting of TAC in Rome, and a policy paper on plant genetic resources might be available by ICW 88. 12. A cassava demand study carried out by CIAT was initiated after the 1984 external review of CIAT recommended that a market study be done to assess the future demand for cassava as a basis for elaborating the System's future research strategy for cassava. TAC greatly appreciated the studies in Latin America and Asia which would provide very useful information for TAC's review of CIAT's medium-term program proposal which would be considered at TAC 45 in March. 13. considered Mr. Camus then by CGIAR: reported progress on new initiatives being on Ms. G. Persely of ACIAR had agreed to initiate action Coconuts. this crop, and TAC hoped to have a working paper on coconut for TAC consideration in 1988. -4The consultant report recommended that two freshwater Aquaculture. species, tilapia and carp, should receive attention. The main emphasis would be on small farmers. The proposed research areas would be genetics and nutrition/pond dynamics. Initially, the major research effort would be in Asia, in close collaboration with national, regional and international institutions there. Part of ICLARM's aquaculature program could be the leading unit for a network-based initiative. Institution building was TAC agreed with the need for considered to be a priority area for Africa. genetic work on tilapia and carp, but further information was requested on TAC would also study further the institutional nutrition/pond dynamics. It was therefore unlikely that a proposal for aquaculture arrangements. would be ready for group discussion before ICW 88. A consultant report called for a research network in Vegetables. vegetables with a central coordinating entity that would have some in-house Six crops would be emphasized; tomatoes, peppers, onions, research capacity. and leafy green vegetables, the latter being especially okra, eggplant, Research would initially include collection of important in Africa. germplasm and screening of cultivars for pest and disease resistance and heat tolerance, and breeding for yield and quality. The consultant recommended the headquarters of the management entity be located in Asia. A sub-base was proposed in Africa to help expand vegetable research on that continent. A possible sub-base in Latin America should also receive early consideration. National systems would participate in developing a strategic plan for the new Contract research would be a key component. venture. The role of AVRDC in this effort was seen as basic germplasm storage, a computerized bibliographic leadership for germplasm improvement for certain crops, and joint service, responsibility for training in selected fields. TAC considered it wise to start small, and therefore recommended initial attention to tomatoes, peppers TAC agreed the and onions in tropical, humid, and sub-humid environments. hub of the network should be in Southeast Asia, and expansion of the network should follow quickly in Africa where leafy vegetables would receive first Institutional arrangements need priority. A global network was envisaged. TAC would have a proposal on vegetables for the Berlin more clarification. meeting. Comments from the floor included general satisfaction with the 14. progress of the studies on aquaculture and vegetables; support for an AVRDC role in the vegetable network; general agreement and satisfaction that the sustainability issue was being handled well; concern as to whether Africa's needs were being properly considered in both the vegetables and aquaculture support for using existing institutions as much as possible in the proposals; initiation of new ventures in research; and general approval of the concept of a policy on plant genetic resources. Several speakers called for the use of innovative ways to initiate new ventures, including networks, and expressed concerns about the impact of new ventures on financing for the system. Several speakers raised the issue of how the more highly developed Mr. Muhammed national systems could take over some center responsibilities. said that a paper on this subject was being prepared and would come to the Group at one of the next two meetings. UNEP 15. policy document 14th session of Council. UNEP reported that they and the World Food Council were preparing a on sustainability which they hope to have available at the the agricultural ministers constituting the World Food also reported that, with FAO and UNESCO, they would join with - 5two international non-governmental organizations, Conservation Strategy, probably to be released Report Mr. W. Tossell reported on 16. Chairpersons (CBC) which was held in During the year the CBC systematically boards and examined the most effective Mr. Tossell defined responsibilities. information through which each board At the recent his or her own board. experiences about strategic planning, the meeting of the Committee of Board Washington, immediately prior to ICW. reviewed the main responsibilities of ways of discharging these the CBC as a medium for exchanging chairman became better equipped to lead meeting the chairs had exchanged budget monitoring and board membership. to prepare 1989. a new World in The chairman of the Group agreed with a speaker that the broadening 17. of the base of board membership was important and should be examined further. Another speaker suggested that the boards address the question of how the boards relate to TAC and to the CGIAR. Mr. Jack Meagher, chairman of CIP, would be the new chairperson of the CBC and Mr. Lawrence Wilson, chairman of IITA, would be the new vice chairperson. Approval of Medium Term Programs - Agenda Item 6 Mr. Alexander McCalla noted that group consideration of this item 18. marked the formal initiation of the new allocation process. Since the early 1980s TAC had been heavily involved in the annual budget process which focussed on marginal adjustments thereby constraining exercise of TAC's Dissatisfaction with this situation had generated scientific judgment. extensive discussions in the system, which have led to designing a new process for reviewing programs and allocating resources on a five-year cycle. 19. The five year process had three components: in context of (X-approved for activities. priorities center programs were reviewed using a common classification total center programs were reviewed regardless the source of funds. Components considered essential to the center's mandate and for which the center had a special advantage and components considered desirable for CG support were separately identified. TAC did not wish to use the funding terms core and special projects in these reviews so as to emphasize the scientific basis of the process. the process was not level of funding. supply driven, that is it did not assume a Mr. McCalla noted this process appeared to be allowing TAC to use 20. its comparative advantage in making scientific judgments. The three proposals that were on the agenda at this meeting had been developed after He looked forward very constructive discussions with the centers concerned. to discussions with CIP, IBPGR and two additional centers in March 1988, four others in June 1988 with discussions with the remaining two CIMMYT and ICARDA following their EPRs next year. He fully expected that at the conclusion of the process TAC and the CGIAR would have a much better notion of the comprehensive and integrated programs of work of the thirteen centers. -6Approval of Medium Term Program for IFPRI - Agenda Item 6 continued Mr. de Zeeuw, chair of IFPRI's board of trustees, noted that the 21. policy environment was a critical element in ensuring that technological advances in agriculture were fully utilized. The dynamic nature of the environment meant that IFPRI research must continually evolve in response to changing world food situation. As an example, the current situation of huge food surpluses in developed countries moving through trade to developing countries poses interesting research challenges to develop policy options to use this abundance for the long-term development of the poor importing countries. Mr. de Zeeuw ended his introduction by remarking that in its first decade of existence IFPRI had concentrated on building a very competent research staff. Now that this is in place the next challenge is strengthening IFPRI's collaboration, the key to sustainable food policy research. Mr. Mellor, director of IFPRI, echoed Mr. McCalla's satisfaction 22. with the new process. A high proportion of the institute's time had gone into delineating the longer term research program, the substance of research, and how that was divided up among the various sectors. IFPRI's five-year program of work highlighted the significant 23. expansion being launched in collaborative activities with national systems Mr. Mellor cited four examples of existing well as other centers. collaborative relationships (Argentina, Bangladesh, Zambia and Senegal/Cote d'Ivoire). The key factor to keep in mind was that unlike commodity an outside institution could not substitute for national research, institutions doing their own policy research. as There were several important points to keep in mind when 24. A large proportion of IFPRI's program involved considering IFPRI's proposal. field collection of data at the household and the farm family level not These available in the normal macro statistical compilations elsewhere. databases were then pyramided up to provide the factual information needed This meant that IFPRI could not operate in any for policy determination. country without the full cooperation of the national institutions. The cooperating institutions were not always the ministries of agriculture but more often universities or special purpose institutions for policy research. Generation from these projects of information seen as useful by policy makers strengthened these national institutions with IFPRI serving as a role model. Mr. Hopper reminded the Group of the actions required on IFPRI's 25. proposal as approved and recommended by TAC. He drew a parallel between the US budget process by which the US Congress authorized multi-year programs and separately provided the funds through annual appropriations. While the funding would continue to be provided annually, the task today was to give an authorization for IFPRI to proceed with an essential program which would need Including a further desirable 37 senior positions and $10.4 million by 1992. program of one position and $0.7 million, this represented a growth of 5 starting from the current level of 35 percent in real terms annually, positions and $7.4 million (details are given in document no. ICW/87/6). -7Several speakers commented on the comprehensiveness of the 26. presentation. It was also noted that IFPRI now seemed ready to tackle difficult issues such as land tenure. The representative from Zambia explained the perspective from which his government found the collaboration Collaboration with the institute for rural studies avoided fruitful. disruptions from staff movements within the ministry of agriculture which tended to hamper the building of institutional capacity in the policy areas. Several speakers asked for clarification on the manner in which IFPRI chose a collaborator, and the criteria used. Questions about budgets and funding were raised on two levels. 27. Concerns were expressed about the adequacy of the IFPRI budget to fulfill the project funding expectations of the Group, and about the risk that special A second set of questions dealt with might distort agreed priorities. actions that would be needed on a systemwide basis when dealing with funding shortfalls and the extent to which the TAC decisions on IFPRI reflected the overall CG priorities agreed earlier. Mr. Mellor agreed that project financing posed a risk to the 28. execution of the approved programs. To the extent these activities were than with unrestricted funds, it was financed as projects by donors, rather inevitable that biases would arise in terms of selection of countries to work in. This was not serious at present but to be noted for the future. Now that IFPRI had established a reputation for scientific quality IFPRI did feel more comfortable addressing difficult policy issues. Mr. Mellor stressed that IFPRI needed to do more in many other areas such as role of women and sensitive socio-economic issues. He looked forward to further interactions on these subjects with donors. Mr. Mellor expressed satisfaction that judging from the Zambian response IFPRI seemed to be taking the right Various other measures, such as developing approach to collaboration. country participation on IFPRI's boards and staff, ensured that IFPRI benefitted from the interactions with client countries, and developed relations and equality with its collaborators. In the Mr. McCalla briefly addressed the systemwide concerns. 29. event of funding shortfalls in the future, TAC would not expect to be involved in any rationing of funds. Once TAC and the Group agreed on essential programs of individual centers, the center was the best judge of At the where adjustments would be made if funding was less than expected. level of the system, funding was less than the approved levels, the resource adjustment would apply equally across all centers. The question of how priorities were being implemented in reviewing individual center programs was deferred till after the discussion of all three centers. Mr. Hopper concluded the discussion by stating 30. discussions the Group had endorsed the five-year proposal recommended by TAC. Approval of Medium Term Program for ISNAR - Agenda Item that based on the by IFPRI 6 continued chair of ISNAR's board of trustees, revisited the Mr. Carsalade, 31. The two principles which led process by which ISNAR came into being in 1980. to the creation of ISNAR were that the dissemination of technology should be undertaken by national systems themselves, and that the international community should promote these national systems and their leadership. Last -8year the Group discussed the recommendations and findings of the external of the original concept was found reviews of ISNAR. The execution appropriate and ISNAR was fully accepted in the family of international centers. Mr. Carsalade then briefly outlined several fundamental characteristics of ISNAR: programs of research, training and direct services to national systems were fully integrated; ISNAR was independent and not beholden to any single interest group; and finally, ISNAR was an open institution. Mr. von der Osten, director general of ISNAR, outlined the context 32. in which ISNAR works. The global system of agriculture was now well established and so were the developmental benefits arising from technological progress in agriculture. The national systems played a pivotal role in ensuring that these technological progresses were applied to increase agricultural output. The CG system's response was at several levels: generating new technologies ; providing training to complement the technology generation; and finally directly assisting institution-building. Mr. von der Osten then briefly reviewed the overall needs of the national systems in building strong institutions. He outlined the methodology used by ISNAR to develop its responses by conducting relevant research and providing training and advisory services. This was illustrated by examples of ISNAR's work in the area of long-term planning and research management. Key problem areas included the difficulties faced by national 33. systems in retaining staff and providing adequate operating funds to the working scientists. Mr. von der Osten underlined the ambitious nature of ISNAR's programs which he believed was an appropriate response to the This had been recognized in the substantial demand for ISNAR's services. CGIAR priorities and ISNAR had attempted to draw a reasonable balance between these expectations and what ISNAR believed to be the right structure and size for itself. Mr. Hopper 34. While the proposal. today was to provide program which would Including a further represented a growth current level of 33 reminded the Group of the actions required on ISNAR's funding would continue to be provided annually, the task an authorization for ISNAR to proceed with an essential need 34 senior positions and $9.2 million by 1992. desirable program of 15 positions and $4.4 million, this of 11 percent in real terms annually starting from the positions and $7.1 million. Many speakers appreciated the clarity of ISNAR's five-year program 35. in linking the overall goals and objectives to a plan of implementation. Speakers encouraged other centers to keep this in mind when presenting their five-year programs in the future. Several speakers asked for clarification on the balance between research and service programs. While some felt research was growing too rapidly others felt that was very necessary. Several raised the question of relative balance among various CG activities and the implications of approving medium term center programs one by one. The Group seemed to agree that ISNAR was operating at a relatively 36. new frontier using a young knowledge base on the subject of institutionbuilding. While it would not be desirable that ISNAR offer a single recipe to all countries, it would be equally undesirable to use a purely ad-hoc Several speakers asked about the collaboration that existed approach. between ISNAR and other CG centers including IFPRI on issues such as on-farm -9research and policy analysis. Speakers also seemed to agree on the difficulty the Group faced in evaluating ISNAR's impact. Comments were made on explicitly recognizing the role of private sector. One speaker raised the issue of the role ISNAR should play in coordinating donor efforts when dealing with country systems. 'He felt that ISNAR could play a stronger role in mobilizing external resources for strengthening national systems. Another speaker underlined the need to take into account the role of other actors such as bilateral aid agencies in this endeavor. A speaker asked to be reassured that ISNAR's presence in the form of country advisors would not lead to continued dependence on expatriate assistance. Several speakers wondered whether the donors themselves could find any uniformity in their own research structures as a basis to advise the developing countries on an appropriate structure. Mr. von der Osten reiterated that ISNAR needed a strong applied 37. research base from which it could provide specific assistance to countries. The growth in research effort did not mean more research staff per se since all ISNAR staff participated in the research program. All staff outposted by ISNAR were considered ISNAR staff and fully participated in internal reviews and similar activities. This should reduce the danger that they could become permanent fixtures in the national systems. ISNAR had used an average to develop its resource needs per country engaged, but in fact the level varied significantly from country to country. On the question of resource mobilization and donor coordination Mr. von der Osten stated that while he agreed with the objectives, ISNAR felt it could be more valuable if it worked from within the national systems as against taking a prominent external He ended his remarks by pointing to specific areas in which ISNAR had role. strengths and areas where ISNAR depended on others, including other CG institutions. Mr. Hopper concluded the discussion by stating 38. discussions the Group had endorsed the five year proposal recommended by TAC. Approval of Medium Term Program for ILRAD - Agenda Item that based on the by ISNAR, as 6 continued Mr. Hans Jahnke, chair of the ILRAD board, noted that ILRAD had an 39. African mandate and was a specialized institution working on tick-borne and tsetse-borne livestock diseases. The relevance of its work was underlined by the fact that these diseases had shaped and constrained the development of African agriculture for thousands of years. He highlighted the crucial role livestock played beyond meat and milk in African agriculture and the dearth success stories about livestock developments in Africa. Despite its hightech nature, ILRAD's research was being done in Africa. Mr. Gray, director general of ILRAD, reminded the Group that last 40. year ILRAD had presented to the Group its research strategies for the next decade. ILRAD remains committed to develop economically sound improved measures for controlling the two livestock diseases--bovine theileriosis and trypanosomiasis. These diseases cause major losses across the African continent. ILRAD continues to operate within the context of its ten year plan published in 1984 with some modifications relating to trypanosomiasis and the addition of a new socio-economic program since last year. - 10 Mr. Gray said that expected outputs included the development of 41. specific diagnostic tests for trypanosomiasis as well as more efficient use of trypanotolerant varieties of livestock in African farming leading to better land use. He outlined plans to put in practice in three countries the infection and treatment method of cattle immunization against theileriosis as well as continued work on developing vaccines using advanced biological techniques for both diseases. Socio-economic work was important to identify factors governing successful application of improved control measures. ILRAD's training program was now poised for a significant push as facilities were completed. He described three examples of collaborative research involving ILRAD, national governments, and other institutions such as ILCA, FAO and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He underlined ILRAD's agreement to come to TAC for further discussions before undertaking work on other diseases. ILRAD had found the five-year process very useful and relevant from the perspective of research scientists. 42. Mr. Hopper reminded the Group of the actions required on ILRAD's While the funding would continue to be provided annually, the task proposal. was to provide an authorization for ILRAD to proceed with an essential program which would need 62 senior positions and $15.9 million by 1992. Including a further desirable program of 4 positions and $1.2 million, this represented a growth of 3 percent in real terms annually starting from the current level of 62 positions and $13 million. Many speakers complimented the presentation by Mr. Gray for its 43. clarity and simplicity in dealing with a complex set of advanced scientific programs. One of the basic questions for the Group when dealing with problems such as those being researched by ILRAD was to decide at what point While several a scientific gamble should be declared to have been lost. speakers endorsed the importance of ILRAD's socio-economic program, some suggested that this could be better addressed through collaboration with other institutions. Several speakers asked about the extent of collaboration between 44. ILRAD and other institutions where research has been underway for many years on similar animal diseases. A related question was the extent of One speaker asked whether ILRAD had collaboration between ILRAD and ICIPE. thought about the potential environmental impact of disease control in view of the conventional wisdom that the existence of these diseases had protected African flora and fauna. Finally questions were raised as to the role of private sector in ILRAD's work. Mr. Gray said that ILRAD was working on difficult problems, but was 45. not taking a wild or hopeless gamble. Progress on theileriosis was going quite fast. The trypanosomiasis program had been broadened a bit to take care of possible lack of success on a straight vaccine approach. To those who wondered if N'Dama cattle were of much value, he said that with proper diet they could grow large and work well. ILRAD was collaborating with many other institutions: for example with ICIPE ("if the parasite stays in the insect it is theirs; when the parasite gets into the cow it is ours,"), with the International Trypanotolerance Center in the Gambia, with numerous universities in Africa and elsewhere, with other centers, and with the FAO. - 11 Mr. Gray stated that the question of environmental impact was very 46. relevant and at the same time very controversial. ILRAD could not deny improved measures to the governments when they became available. At the same time ILRAD was also working with various groups to ensure that the damage could be anticipated and steps taken to prevent it. He defended the socio-economic program at ILRAD as a unique opportunity for biological and social scientists to work together on the impact question. Mr. Gray also clarified ILRAD's training policies as well as the way in which ILRAD addressed the question of the role of women in its work. He said the private sector was playing a role in ILRAD's work and would become more important once a vaccine was developed. Mr. Hopper concluded the discussions 47. discussions the Group had endorsed the five-year recommended by TAC. Approval of Medium Term Programs, concluded by stating proposal that based on the by ILRAD, and 6 - Agenda Item Mr. Hopper asked Mr. McCalla to respond to questions that had been 48. raised through the three discussions of five-year programs. Mr. McCalla agreed with the observation of several donors that it would have been ideal to deal with all thirteen centers at one time to ensure that a clear picture Although this was not feasible, a special effort of priorities would emerge. was being made to move expeditiously within a reasonable period of time. He pointed out the role these five year programs would play in the future when assembling a systemwide perspective of priorities. The cross center questions would become very important as the process moved to the large and he hoped that TAC would meet this challenge. He reiterated that centers, it was not the intention to straight jacket a center. TAC, the centers and on the question of importantly the Group, needed to be working together setting priorities and providing funding and this appeared to be a reasonable mechanism to do so. WARDA Status Report - Agenda Item 9 The chairman of the Group summarized the changes at WARDA since the 49. Ottawa meeting of the Group in May 1987. The council of ministers of the WARDA member states had worked with the CGIAR to change the governance and structure of the regional organization into the likeness of a CGIAR center. The constitution had been rewritten to reduce the powers of the ministers to nominal ones; a board of trustees had been appointed, with nominations coming from the member states and the CGIAR, but with selection and appointment authority residing in the board. A new director general had been appointed: Mr. Eugene Terry, of Sierra Leone, who was Director of International Cooperation and Training at IITA, and on that center's staff for many years, so that he is well known and highly respected throughout the system. The board was currently interviewing for the post of director of research, which had been advertised internationally; the WARDA member states had contributed sufficient funds to pay off WARDA's commercial debts and the Group now financed the whole of WARDA's core budget, which had been approved by TAC under the same procedures as those of other CGIAR centers. The two major issues that still remained to be resolved were the approval of a strategy for rice research in the WARDA member states and the selection of a site for WARDA's main research station and the transfer of WARDA's headquarters, currently in Monrovia, to that site. - 12 Mr. Moctar Toure, chair 50. Mr. Camus then addressed the Group summarized the progress to date in presented to TAC for consideration of WARDA's board of trustees, Mr. Terry and on these two questions. Mr. Terry formulating the strategy, which will be in March 1988. The two major requirements for any new rice technology for the 51. region were: that it must simultaneously increase land and labor productivity, and help to preserve the agricultural resource base. WARDA's goal was, therefore, to provide and strengthen a growing West Africa rice science capability that would improve the livelihood of small-holder farm families and contribute to increased food security in the region. Although the WARDA mandate specified the crop and the region in which WARDA should work, it did not identify the target farming populations nor the specific working environment for rice research. Consequently, as part of its strategy formulation, WARDA had targeted the small-holder farm family that produced more than 90 percent of West Africa's total rice production. Of the four major rice environments, WARDA had decided to focus on the upland-inland continuum as first priority, the irrigated rice areas of the Sahel as second and mangrove swamp as the third research priority, with deep water priority, rice excluded from WARDA's strategy focus. The strategy was scheduled to become operational in 1990. During the transition phase from 1988 to 1990, WARDA would recruit key staff, develop a main research station on which its headquarters will be located and begin to implement its rice research strategy. 52. The TAC chairman, Mr. Camus, noted that TAC had been kept fully informed of the progress of the strategy study a.6 it was being formulated and looked forward to receiving the final document at its March 1988 meeting. Commenting on the issues of overlapping mandates between WARDA and IITA, TAC believed that IITA's rice research work must continue during the period when WARDA is coming to full strength and strongly encouraged WARDA to continue the dialogue it had initiated on arrangements during the interim period with respect to germplasm enhancement activities for the overlap area. In summary, TAC believed that WARDA's recent progress was most encouraging and had put WARDA on the right track. As to site selection, Mr. Toure said that the board of trustees had 53. commissioned a site selection committee to examine the most suitable site, on technical and institutional grounds, for WARDA's main research station. The board approved the findings of the committee that the most appropriate site was in the Mbe/Foro Foro area, near Bouake, in the Cote d'Ivoire and the council of ministers considered the recommendation at its meeting in Dakar in September. However, the Liberian delegation criticized certain omissions in the committee's report and, therefore, the Ministers decided to request the board of trustees to commission another study to take account of the Liberian concerns, to review the findings of the first study and to make a recommendation to the ministers for consideration by the council at a special meeting in December this year. The Liberian Government was invited to appoint an independent consultant to work with the board-appointed site selection committee and the Liberian delegation agreed that, if the study was carried out in an objective manner, the government would accept its findings. The second site selection committee, headed by Mr. Ronnie Coffman of Cornell, confirmed the findings of the first site selection committee. The executive committee of the board, meeting in Washington before ICW, decided to recommend to the council of ministers, which had agreed to - 13 take a decision on the location of the main research station of WARDA be located meeting, that the main research station Foro area of the Cote d'Ivoire and that WARDA's headquarters from Monrovia to that main research station. at its December in the Mbe/Foro be transferred The members of the CGIAR praised the council of ministers, the 54. board of trustees and the new management of WARDA for the many achievements since the Ottawa meeting of the Group. They expressed their appreciation to the council of ministers for the changes in the governance and structure of WARDA, which are reflected in the new constitution approved in 1986. The Group also noted with gratitude Liberia's long years of hospitality as the host government to WARDA. With reference to the location of the main research station and the headquarters, the CGIAR members recorded their support for the decisions of the board of trustees and their confidence that those decisions would also be supported by the council of ministers at its meeting in December 1987. After considerable discussion of how it should best convey its 55. views to those involved in the continuing negotiations on this point, the Group decided to ask its chairman to write a letter to the chairman of the WARDA council of ministers, the Honorable F.I. Sagna, Minister of Rural Mr. Wessels of the Netherlands reported to the Group Development of Senegal. at a subsequent session that this letter was delivered to Mr. Sagna at a lunch for WARDA donors in the course of a brief visit the minister paid to Washington. IRRI External Reviews - Agenda Item 11 chair of the external program review panel, stated that Mr. Riley, 56. but that there were a few fields where IRRI was in a very healthy state, discussions are necessary. The review had a strategic focus and was not IRRI had fully concerned with the minutae of the operation of the Institute. agreed with 11 of the EPR's 37 recommendations, had agreed with comments focussed qualifications on 18 and disagreed with 8. Mr. Riley's mainly on these eight recommendations. Mr. Riley summarized his panel's overall views on IRRI as follows: But live on IRRI had a miraculous success conditions were changed today past successes. in the 1960s and the 1970s. and organizations could not IRRI needed to take up new forms of science not previously part of the programs, but forms of science which were increasingly going to be needed in order to help rice farmers. This was necessary for IRRI to provide a link between rice growing countries of the world Principally the change would be in and advanced laboratories. biotechnology, but there would also be need for change in computer simulation and crop modeling, sophisticated soil and nutrient studies, and increased physiology, sophisticated entomology and pathology. The CGIAR goal and TAC's redefinition of the objectives of the system called for IRRI to draw back to some extent from work where it had its greatest impact, in the irrigated environment. - 14 Vis-a-vis the centers the CGIAR should consider itself not as buying research, but as buying research results. Some such results might be achieved more cost effectively in the private sector. Mr. Riley next turned to IRRI's concentration of effort and 57. focussed on two of the eight recommendations on which there were disagreements between the panel and the center. The panel's concern was whether IRRI's program was becoming diffuse and whether such dilution would undermine quality of work and divert attention from IRRI's principal The panel had some anxiety that farming systems research might take purpose. in crops other than rice. Second, the panel thought that research on water management at the farm level should be carried out by bringing together soils and water under one department, since both were components of the growing medium of the crop. 58. Mr. Riley. the panel The panel's views on research was the next area covered by He made the following points on the areas of disagreement and the center: Producing diminished capable of difficult between elite homozygous lines ready for cultivation should be and left to the national systems, many of which were now Instead, IRRI should undertake the more doing this. tasks. .It is not clear that IRRI had a comparative advantage in' macroeconomic research. Major macroeconomic research should best be left to IFPRI and other organizations created for this purpose. There was an uncertainty of the payoff to work on biological nitrogen fixation and whether the trade-off paid by the farmer using it was worthwhile. There would need to be a dramatic demonstration of payoff to justify ignoring the panel's recommendation. On the biological nitrogen fixation germplasm bank the panel concluded that since there was no erosion of any significance in the organisms with which IRRI was concerned, there was no need for long-term preservation. On the there money review spend International should be a and time to would show their money Rice Testing Program the panel suggested that review. This was necessary because the costs in the participating countries were substantial. A if this was the best way for the countries to and time. Asia, the differences to be wide. aspects between of the panel and On IRRI work outside IRRI did not appear 59. review Mr. Hardin commented on five panel which he chaired. of the work the management First, he noted that IRRI's actual historical level of performance was very high by any standard. The panel concluded, however, that management changes needed to be made if IRRI's performance was to approach its potential in productivity, efficiency, discipline and accountability. - 15 Second, over the last 27 years IRRI had developed rigidities that could strain its capacity to adjust and change. These rigidities include not only equipment and facilities, but, more importantly, staffing and funding. Normal attrition might not suffice to introduce new skills into the staff. Inducements for early retirement or provision of special severance payments might be On funding, necessary. the fact that less than half of IRRI's budget came from unrestricted sources was a cause for concern at a time when major program shifts might be necessary. Third, none of the issues identified in the panel's report were new to IRRI management. However, these issues were pulled together and studied systematically for the first time during the review. Panels such as this could not be expected to possess "instant intelligence" to solve the problems an institution like IRRI had been facing over many years. The key lay in having a good dialogue between the panel and the board and management so that workable solutions could be formulated. Fourth, much of what was seen in IRRI's case was not unique to IRRI. Because IRRI was the oldest of the centers, problems were somewhat more apparent there than in younger organizations. As an institution became larger and more demands were placed upon it, management and administrative procedures needed to be tightened. This was necessary in order to generate greater discipline, accountability and efficiency. Fifth, the experiences at IRRI and ILCA suggested that what strategy and strategic planning meant to the reviewers had differed somewhat from the concept of planning held by the centers. As a the reviews had become vehicles for establishing a more result, commonly held set of concepts in this area. Mr. Hardin also commented on the establishment 60. a management committee of the board. He noted that this confuse governance with management. The panel's purpose mechanism was to elevate the board's attention to urgent by the IRRI board of was not intended to in suggesting such a management matters. Mr. Camus noted that this EPR was the first where the panel was 61. specifically charged to be concerned with strategic issues and not with the detail of individual programs. TAC was in general agreement with most of the recommendations made by the panel, but found itself unable to comment meaningfully on many of these recommendations because of the lack of a board-approved strategic plan. For this reason, TAC prepared only an interim commentary and intended to examine the IRRI review in March 1988 along with the now board-approved strategic plan. Kenzo Hemmi, the chairman of the IRRI board spoke on the 62. Mr. recent meeting of the board and the actions taken in response to the external management review. Mr. Hemmi also introduced to the Group the Honorable - 16 Carlos Dominguez, and vice-chairman Mr. Klaus Lampe. Secretary of IRRI's of Agriculture of the Republic of the Philippines board, and the director general designate, Mr. Hemmi noted that the IRRI board had formulated its views on the 63. major recommendations of the strategic planning committee of IRRI. IRRI would submit to TAC in March 1988 a board-approved strategic plan along with the institute's medium-term program proposal. IRRI had already taken action on several recommendations of the 64. EMR, particularly in personnel and financial management, computerization, and the strengthening of the internal audit system. The board had decided to retain the discipline-based departmental structure, but the institute would be moving towards a project-based budgeting and monitoring system. The management committee of the board was carefully examining all aspects of the institute's reorganization. Mr. M. S. Swaminathan, director general of IRRI, pointed out that 65. some of the recommendations in the EPR were the exact opposites of the recommendations of the 1981 quinquennial review which IRRI had been implementing until the recent review. He gave examples from IRRI's work, with the aid of slides, to show the rationale behind the program priorities endorsed by the board. He made the following points: IRRI must place heavy priority already achieved in the rainfed Some of the chronic malnourished people problems had rice on consolidation areas. of food lie as a staple. in Asia of the gains and many of the As stated by the Brundtland Commission, the existing agricultural systems “were built for the purposes of a smaller, more fragmented New realities reveal their inherent contradictions. These world. realities require agricultural systems that focus as much attention on people as they do on technology, as much on resources as on as much on the long term and on the short term." This production, was the main reason for IRRI's emphasis on farming systems research. IRRI had been moving upstream in many areas during the last few years. In 1983 IRRI organized an inter-center seminar on the role of biotechnology in crop improvement in the CGIAR. Recently, with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, IRRI had been able to organize a rice genetic engineering cooperative involving over 28 institutions. Early results were very promising. In the area of training, IRRI had developed a computer simulation model training course, which was more upstream than traditional training courses. One of the principal aims of the networks coordinated to provide a forum for partnership. The observational have allowed national research systems to obtain data varieties were performing in different places and get warning on the breakdown of resistances. by IRRI was nurseries on how their an early - 17 did research on no other component In farming systems, IRRI itself The work on animals and fish are also done by crops than rice. other institutions such as the University of Philippines at Los Banos or ICLARM. IRRI had placed a strong emphasis on women. The program on women in rice farming was gradually being integrated into the different networks IRRI was affiliated with. One of IRRI's greatest achievements over the last 27 years was development of rice research institutions in developing countries. Recent examples included the Sacca Rice Research and Training Rice Research Institute, the China Centers in Egypt, the Phillipine Rice Research Institute in Hang Chow, the National Azolla Research Center at Fu Chow, China, and the germplasm bank in Beijing, China, and the Madagascar Rice Research Center at Mahitz. Mr. Hopper observed that charting a new course for IRRI 66. more than this meeting of the CGIAR and invited the members of the He noted voice and/or send their views to TAC and the IRRI board. dilemma faced by the CGIAR was how to hold the traditions, systems, and the science that made it successful and, at the same time, to new dynamism, vigor and change that was necessary for the CGIAR of 67. The ensuing discussion focussed primarily on the following reviews would take Group to that the practices introduce a tomorrow. areas: of IRRI and among as the process followed its implications for in conducting the external future reviews; sharing of responsibilities CGIAR centers and between on rice research and training IRRI and the national systems; the broader issue of adjustment problems created a result of successful agricultural research; in agriculture whether IRRI should continue its comprehensive approach to rice research or pull back from areas such as farming systems research, biological nitrogen fixation, and networks such as the IRTP; and the EMR recommendations and their follow-up. 68. Most speakers were critical of the timing of the external reviews of IRRI because these took place when there was no board-approved strategic plan. Mr. Camus stated that at the time the reviews were scheduled in 1986 IRRI had started its strategic planning process, but the process was not completed by the time of the review. TAC and the CGIAR secretariat would take the comments of the donors into account in preparing the next draft of the paper on review processes. The Group underscored 69. leadership role played by IRRI to the Group a plan for sharing training. Mr. Bonte-Friedheim cooperation between developing IRRI's activities could not be the importance of maintaining the global in rice research and encouraged TAC to bring responsibilities in rice research and emphasized the importance of technical countries (TCDC) and asked whether some of undertaken by some national systems. Other - 18 speakers noted that as IRRI moves upstream, the nature of its relationships with national systems at different stages of development would have to be re-examined. Mr. Schuh pointed out that raising rice yields even more would most 70. likely lead to declines in rice prices which would create an income problem for rice farmers assuming that the number of persons engaged in agriculture remains the same. One solution was to generate an adjustment in agriculture itself through diversification. The implication of this was that one should not look just at rice, but also at other commodities, if the interest of the Group was on the impact of research on resource-poor farmers. Practically all speakers were supportive of IRRI's efforts in 71. farming systems research, biological nitrogen fixation, women in rice farming systems, socio-economic circumstances surrounding rice farming systems, and coordination of rice-related networks. IRRI was urged to continue paying attention to the resource-poor rice farming environment, with a comprehensive view of production contraints. The complexity of tropical environments and the current emphasis on sustainability of production systems necessitated such an approach. 72. There was substantial support of the recommendations of the EMR. Several members commented on the implications for the system of three issues highlighted in the EMR. First, there was a sentiment that the centers needed to devise mechanisms to induce changes in staffing and talent mix. Second, contributors to unrestricted core budgets of centers queried if this was the best "value-for-money" approach to funding when there were management inefficiencies at the centers. Third, the members indicated their concern for the high proportion of IRRI funds going into restricted core and special project activities and advised IRRI to withstand pressures from the donors to expand such activities. The Group agreed that the IRRI board should report to the CGIAR in a year's time on the measures it had taken to implement the recommendations of the management review. Conclusions 73. Mr. Hopper IRRI should 1988; closed the discussion its strategic by concluding plan that: it to TAC in complete and bring the board should report progress in implementing review; and to the group at centers week in 1988 on its the recommendations of the management IRRI should be pursuing some new directions in the application of science to rice, but the board should consider retaining as part of the IRRI program its people-related and environment-related programs endorsed by the Group. ILCA's External Reviews - Agenda Item 14 presentation of its program, ILCA strategy statement as approved by the completion of consideration of the 74. In combination with an overall put before the Group the content of its for TAC. This met the last requirement - 19 The center also reported on its response to the external program review. management review. Mr. Ralph Cummings Sr., chair of the board, said that Mr. Walsh, after taking office as director general late last year, had lead the ILCA staff, with the full backing of the board, in charting ILCA's course for the future in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the 1986 external reviews. ILCA's final strategy document was a product of close working together of the board, the ILCA management and the staff. The board wished to give the director general sufficent time and flexibility to accomplish the required staff organization and deployment for implementing the strategy in a systematic and orderly manner. Mr. Cummings mentioned changes in board composition in the past 75. The new board members were Mr. Martin Kyomo, Mr. Dieter Bommer, year. Mr. John Dillon, and Mr. Noel Chabeuf. Mr. Cummings noted that, as a result of a recent change in ILCA's agreement with the host country, the number of CGIAR nominees had been increased from three to four. Mr. Walsh summarized ILCA's response to the 76. especially the progress made in developing a focussed that ILCA agreed with 71 of the 73 recommendations in of the 36 recommendations in the EMR and that many of implemented. 1986 reviews, He noted strategy. the EPR report and all these had already been Mr. Walsh pointed that in developing its strategy ILCA concentrated 77. on developing a corporate identity, common success on what it must do well, and on ensuring that its internal value systems were in measurement, In addition to receiving the endorsement of TAC, the strategy was harmony. discussed and received general approval by the national systems who are ILCA's partners at a meeting in July 1987. The strategy defined ILCA's operational goals as the following: to strengthen the ability of national systems to conduct and policy research in livestock related fields; to develop and technical packages for increasing livestock technical production; to solving to contribute to scientific knowledge in a way conducive livestock production, technology and policy problems. 78. ILCA's overall strategy called for choosing a limited number of activities that would achieve measurable and sustainable increases in Consequently, ILCA had chosen to put livestock output in Sub-Saharan Africa. high priority on three species (cattle, sheep, goats), two target groups (smallholders and agropastoralists), four zones (semi-arid, subhumid, humid and highland) and four products (meat, milk, traction and manure). In addition, ILCA had made a careful analysis of activities that could be This had led to the identification of the carried out in these areas. following six principle research thrusts which were described by ILCA's director of research, Mr. Peters: Cattle, meat and milk Small ruminant meat and milk Animal traction Animal feed resources Trypanotolerance Livestock policy and resource use. - 20 Planning conferences on four thrusts have been completed, which clear definition of projects and activities over the near term. approaches to training, information and documentation have also defined. have led to ILCA's been clearly 79. Mr. Walsh gave examples of recent ILCA work in animal traction, vertisol management, surface pond technology, alley farming, fodder banks, the trypanotolerance network, training, and system studies. 80. Mr. Camus stated that ILCA's final strategy document had been broadly accepted by TAC as a soundly conceived and comprehensive blueprint for the center's activities in the years to come. TAC suggested to ILCA that policy issues related to pastoralist systems should continue to be addressed by ILCA. 81. Asked to comment on ILCA's progress in implementing the recommendations of the management review, Mr. Farrar said that progress been substantial and that no further follow-up was necessary on the management review. 82. ILCA's future had The burden of comment by eleven members of the Group was praise for progress and satisfaction with the directions ILCA had chosen for its Points raised in the discussion included the possibility of: work. ILCA engaging context; in aquaculture activities to assess programs in a farming systems of the conducting an ILCA overview past ten years; and expanding ILCA's training the accomplishment in French. conducted In response to questions raised, Mr. Walsh indicated that ILCA's 83. strategy is a vehicle for preparing the center for its next stage. ILCA's development followed a two-phase approach. The initial years were devoted to learning about Africa, its livestock problems and possible solutions. The second phase has been going on for the last five years. The new strategy reflects a continuation of this phase. Mr. 84. the start of complete and strategy met institutional the external Report Bonte-Friedheim (who took over the chair from Mr. Hopper after the discussion) noted that the external reviews of ILCA were now that the CGIAR had endorsed TAC's judgment that the ILCA the CGIAR's requirements. He suggested that, for the memory of the system, ILCA should write up its experiences with reviews and the strategic planning process. of the Directors General - Agenda Item 10 by the Chairman Mr. Mellor paid tribute to Mr. Camus and reported on the activities 85. of the directors' group since the CGIAR meeting in Montpellier. He addressed concern for the development.of national research two areas: the centers' ' increasing emphasis on strategic thinking systems and the center directors on cross-center concerns. - 21 Mr. Mellor saw the strengthening of the national systems as a 86. trilateral task, also involving the centers and the donors. The efforts of the centers alone were not sufficient to generate the type of change In many developing countries the national commitment to desired. agricultural research is far too weak to support long term growth of research In Africa, an average sixty percent of the support for the national systems. systems came from foreign assistance. This inhibited decision-making and the building of political and administrative commitment to research. In addition, the scarcity of highly trained local scientists limited the effectiveness of the centers' efforts. The directors were delighted with the encouragement they received 87. from Mr. Hopper to play a stronger role on strategic thinking on systemwide concerns. The directors would devote at least one day of their meeting in January to the setting of an agenda for such broad thinking. The directors endorsed the recommendation of their publicity committee to create an association or network of centers and donors for public awareness purposes. Steps were being taken to implement this activity by mid-1988. The centers were examining a high-tech approach to information preservation as a The centers were contributing to the development of a system-wide activity. research strategy relevant to Africa. Other Business: Status of the IBPGR - Agenda Item 23 The representative of Canada asked for assurance that there would 88. be a report from the CGIAR committee on the IBPGR at the Berlin meeting in May 1988 on the implementation of the agreement between the IBPGR and the FAO which was due to expire at the end of 1988. Mr. Farrar said that the committee intended to review the situation early in 1988 and make such a Mr. Peacock, chair of the IBPGR, said that the agreement was working report. well, and collaboration with FAO plant genetic resource activities was Some problems remained in the area of salaries and promotions. excellent. The broad issue to be faced was whether the IBPGR should have administrative Mr. Bonte-Friedheim, in the chair, said as well as operational autonomy. that there was agreement to examine the situation and discuss it at Berlin. FAO Report on the Future Agenda Item 13 89. deal only of Root and Tuber Crops, Bananas and Plaintains - Mr. C. Bonte-Friedheim with roots and tubers. presented a paper originally designed to Bananas and plantains were added later. 90. He pointed out that in developing countries of the humid tropics and outside the rice producing areas, foods produced and consumed in rural areas--especially in isolated areas-- consists to a very great extent of Most of these crops had advantages roots, tubers, bananas, and plantains. over the major cereals in many agro-ecological zones. They had considerable potential both as food and as cash crops with very high land and labor contributing with vegetables and legumes to better nutrition productivity, for the population as well as to national food self-sufficiency. With few exceptions, these crops had very little potential for export. Today these crops were being substituted for by major cereals, wheat in particular. - 22 these crops had received little research attention. In 91. In general, part this may be due to the fact that they were considered "poor man's crops" and usually had a low social status. Also, it was due to the fact that most of these crops were grown in subsistence systems. Still, there were major problems of availability of good planting material, serious pests and diseases , production on marginal lands, sometimes poor yields, long crop durations, and serious post-harvest losses. Many were grown by women with great drudgery. Recommendations made in the paper were aimed at governments and 92. policy makers in developing countries, researchers and research institutions in all countries, and donors. The theme of the recommendations was that here was a group of crops that warrants attention, that there were important researchable matters, and that these crops constitute an important research investment if we were to help women, small farmers, and less favorably-endowed countries. A specific recommendation dealt with the need to rationalize plant quarantine procedures for these crops to permit exchange of vegetative materials for planting. In the brief discussion that followed, IDRC reported that six 93. highland bananas from East Africa had been transferred to Belgium as tissue cultures and after secondary quarantine these were sent to Nigeria and planted out at IITA. After three months of establishment and growth, all six were found to be susceptible to black sigatoka, a devastating fungal disease which is decimating banana and plantain in West Africa. This posts an alarm for the countries of East Africa that depend heavily on starchy bananas as a human food. The CGIAR chairman commended the paper on roots, tubers, bananas, 94. and plantains to TAC for review and further deliberation, with the suggestion that it might appear on the agenda in Berlin for discussion by the Group. Approval of 1988 Funding Requirements for CGIAR Centers - Agenda Item 18 Mr. Farrar presented the TAC recommended 1988 CGIAR centers' 95. funding requirements to the Group for approval and referred to document ICW/87/18, "1988 Funding Requirements of the IARCs supported by the CGIAR" and to the erratum slip which had been distributed. Core funding for 1987 96. project contributions at $40-45 million. The increase, compared due mainly to growth in non-dollar the US dollar vis-a-vis non-dollar the decline in contributions of Centers' 97. two percent growth were fully funded. expenditures in centers' was estimated at $199 million and special million bringing total funding to about $240 to 1986 core funding of $192 million, was pledges and to the further weakening of currencies which together compensated for some important donors. This implied a centers but one in 1987 were $191 million. operational programs and all Exchange gains realized in 1987 would flow into the stabilization 98. mechanism. Several payments would be made to centers where inflation, measured in U.S. dollars, was higher than was anticipated at the time of budget preparations. The devaluation of the Naira in Nigeria was taken into account by making a technical reduction of $3.5 million in IITA's net funding - 23 requirements. It was expected that the year-end balance in the stabilization mechanism will amount to $16 million, which was the upper end of the range calculated by the World Bank's experts as being necessary for the mechanism to meet its objectives. TAC recommended $210.6 million for centers' operational and capital 99. programs in 1988. This recommendation included the normal core funding of 10 centers and the first year of the essential activities for three centers (IFPRI, ILRAD and ISNAR) whose five-year programs were approved at this meeting by the Group. 100. Highlights of the core funding of some centers were: for CIP the recommendation included $1.5 million for sweet potatoes which TAC recommended be included in that center's operational mandate; for ICARDA there was a decrease in real terms in the center's expenditures. expenditures were being However, operational maintained in real terms; total for IBPGR the recommendation took into account the new arrangements whereby professional staff previously funded by FAO would from 1988 onwards be funded from IBPGR's budget; for IITA, TAC acknowledged the importance of including the center's operational mandate and approved the first staff position for that program; for IRRI, the 1988 budget under review; and was straight-lined, plantain senior was in as the center for WARDA, the recommendation did not include capital expenditures which would be required to put up a main research station. A speaker requested that when presenting funding requirements in 101. the secretariat provide a bridge between the funding under the the future, the new system was new system and that under the old system, at least until The purpose was to provide comparability among centers fully operational. funded in the same year on different systems, and to provide a comparison between years from the old to the new system. The TAC recommendations, as presented by Mr. 102. and the Group proceeded to make pledges for 1988. Pledging Session by Donors - Agenda Item 19 Farrar, were approved, Speaking on the following morning Mr. Farrar said that the 103. announcement of results went beyond arithmetic. It sets benchmarks for the future and had an important operational role for the centers. Based on the funding outcome and taking into account the flexibility of the World Bank contribution and the availability of funds in the stabilization mechanism, the CGIAR secretariat had been in a position during the past two years to guarantee centers a solid level of funding at the start of their operational year on January 1. To guarantee such an operational level as would be done again this year, the determination of the outcome of the pledging session went beyond the calculations. - 24 104. Based on commitments expressed and indications given, the CGIAR secretariat estimated that 1988 funding for core and essential activities will be about $207 million. The Group approved $210 million funding requirements which implied that centers programs would be funded on the average at 98 percent. 105. It should be noted that the $207 million funding figure includes the total contribution by the World Bank. In 1988 the Bank did not intend to add funds to the stabilization mechanism. This was considered feasible view of the adequate balance in the mechanism expected at the end of 1987. The above amount of $207 million was arrived at on a reasonably 106. conservative basis. Variations might occur but hopefully these will be improvements. The relatively comfortable situation for 1988 was due to exchange 107. gains resulting from the weakening of the US dollar vis-a-vis non-dollar currencies and to the World Bank's decision to contribute no funds to the stabilization mechanism. Donors' efforts in their contributions have been considerable during the past two years and this year. However, to remain at a standstill in 1989, donors' efforts will need to increase still further as the devaluaton of the U.S. dollar cannot be expected to continue forever. Sub-Saharan Africa: Reports of the CGIAR Task Force Subcommittee of Center Directors - Agenda Item 21 Mr. Camus and Mr. Stifel, 108. the committee of center directors, meeting of the Group. chairs reported and the Standing of the task force since the last and in respectively on progress . One achievement of the center committee had been the completion of 109. an inventory of centers activities in Africa prepared by, and available from, ISNAR with an active participation from all centers. A strategy paper on Africa was currently under preparation, coordinated by IFPRI. 110. activities Africa, Of the four initiatives to explore mechanisms for coordinating of the centers while contributing to strengthen the NARS in three were currently in various stages of implementation: the The "initiative on maize-based cropping systems in the mid-evaluation areas of the Southern African Development Coordination Committee (SADCC) region" should enter its final phase of implementation, once the South African Center for Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR) board had examined the report of the study team on the diagnostic phase, in a special meeting at the beginning of December. It was satisfying that SACCAR intended to play a leading role in the drafting of the action program to be proposed through consultations of center scientists, as coordinated by CIMMYT, and scientists of the SACCAR countries, as well as in the later implementation of this program. The two-commodity (cassava and maize) approach in West Africa coordinated by the French Ministry of Cooperation was well launched. The first round of visits were currently underway following completion of the desk study. A report was expected in - 25 time for the planned general consultation of the countries to take place at the beginning of April 1988. The outcome should again be an action program. It was hoped that the Conference of African and French Leaders of Agricultural Research (CORAF) a recently formed non-political coordination body, would in the future play a role similar to that of SACCAR. As CORAF was open to all West African countries, this initiative was viewed as a welcome way of cutting across the linguistic barriers in the region. Finally the Sahel initiative, as proposed by ICRISAT, on millet based farming systems in the Sahel region was beginning. ICRISAT was acting as coordinator on behalf of the Task Force with the support of France. 111. A fourth approach dealing with the collective relations of centers with one country, had been postponed. Through the setting up of their and their close collaboration in joint meetings with the task committee, force, the centers had shown their perception of the issue. It was suggested that the centers might rather address the case of countries that were poorly served by any center. Both speakers insisted on the concept of an approach starting from 112. country priorities. The centers should be willing to collaborate under the entity most appropriate to act as a coordinator for planning as well as for and the national systems should participate implementing action programs, actively in all phases as full partners. In the discussion that followed, donors expressed their 113. satisfaction with the progress made and made a number of comments on the Reports from the last two task force meetings would be situation. The issue of seed production and distribution was distributed shortly. raised and it was agreed that the task force would address it in its next meeting in Berlin in May 1988. Mr. Hopper said that he had asked Mr. Camus to continue as chairman 114. of the task force, and that Mr. Camus had agreed to do so. At its next meeting in May 1988, the task force will consider its future program. Other Business: CGIAR/SPAAR Relationships - Agenda Item 23 continued 115. The executive secretary of SPAAR, Mr. Roger Fauck, presented a short account of the proceedings of the last meeting of SPAAR, held on October 23rd. Mr. Hopper had been elected as chairman. A new development was the agreement of a group of SPAAR donor members to collaborate in strengthening research in Tanzania. The relations between SPAAR and the CGIAR task force were continuous and active. The executive secretary of SPAAR was invited to attend the task force meetings, and the chairman and secretary of the task force were invited to the SPAAR meetings. And, of course, the CGIAR and SPAAR have a common chairman. Mr. Hopper said that the committee of SPAAR members he had 116. appointed to study a European proposal about the governance of SPAAR would also be looking at its overall operations. It was critical to recognize that SPAAR was intended to examine what donors were doing in support of national research systems in Africa, which embraces what the CGIAR is doing. The - 26 feedback to SPAAR from CG centers was just as critical as the feedback from CGIAR information efforts also tied to SPAAR information efforts, donors. which could in turn be available to the CG system. The progress made by SPAAR and its implications for the CGIAR would be communicated regularly to the members of the Group. 117. In the discussion that followed, the need for a coordination of networking efforts was stressed. It was also agreed that the CGIAR meeting was not a place to discuss internal SPAAR business. Organization of Future CGIAR Meetings - Agenda Item 22 At the Montpellier meeting in May 1987, the Group accepted a 118. proposal made during the discussion of Future meetings, that the donors set up a working group to discuss the size, length, frequency, format and substance of future meetings of the Consultative Group. Consequently, a working group was constituted during ICW 1987 and after a lunchtime meeting on October 26, produced a paper (ICW/87/22a), in which certain recommendations about future meetings were made. These were presented to the Group by Mr. Hubert Zandstra, who had been elected chairman of the working group. Mr. Zandstra said that two meetings seemed unavoidable, but they 119. might be differentiated. Perhaps the May meeting could have limited participation, and deal with system-wide issues and the interaction of the GG system with the national system of the country hosting the meeting. Center specific issues could then be handled at centers week. The work group thought that in interacting with host countries, the emphasis should be on specific ways in which the centers could relate to the host country system. There was discussion, but not a recommendation, on the use of simultaneous presentations by centers, including those not in the CG system, as a means of saving time. The idea of using work groups, such as that employed in the case 120. for discussion in Group meetings was of this agenda item, to prepare topics commended for further development. As for broad agricultural topics, the working group suggested that these might be drawn from cross-cutting issues affecting a number of centers. Mr. Schuh mentioned that the heads of donor groups of several 121. centers not associated with the CGIAR, which were involved in natural resources and environmental matters , planned to meet together early in to sort out how they relate to each other and to the CGIAR. 1988 122. In the discussion, members drew not only on the report of the work group but also on discussions that took place in the heads of donor delegations meeting held by the chairman of the Group over dinner on Wednesday, October 28. A variety of ideas were put forward, including holding mid-term meetings at centers, extending centers week and abandoning the mid-term meetings, combining and strengthening the secretariats and giving them a responsibility for distilling and presenting cross-cutting issues to the Group, bringing non-associated centers into the structure at least for purposes of making presentations, the creation of some sort of executive committee, perhaps by expanding the cosponsors and others. - 27 123. Several speakers made the were substantial, and that members guiding the system. Also that the discussion repeatedly without major point that the expenditures of the CGIAR should expect to spend substantial time in format of meetings had been the subject of changes being made. 124. The representative of Australia made clear that his government's offer to host the May meeting in 1989 was not dependent on that meeting following a specific format. He looked forward to having guidance at Berlin, and the discussion at this meeting would be taken into account in advance planning done prior to next May. 125. The chairman, Mr. Hopper, said that a lot of interesting ideas had been expressed. These would be summarized and distributed in order to contribute to further consideration of the issue at the Berlin meeting. He looked forward to reactions, even very strong ones, to the ideas put forward, and thought that the Group should experiment with various approaches. Other Business: Farewells - Agenda Item 23 farewell present At various 126. to important persons positions: times in the meeting, occasion was taken to bid associated with the CGIAR who were leaving their The chairman paid an extended tribute to Mr. M.S. Swaminathan, who is retiring as director general of IRRI, not only for his leadership of that institution, but for his early role in the creation of the CGIAR and his membership of TAC, his personal scientific achievements, and above all for his leadership in bringing the benefits of the high yielding varieties of wheat and rice to India. The executive secretary read out Husain the long resolution passed he stepped down from the chair of presented him with the inscribed signatures of all the participants his leadership of the CGIAR. in the presence of Mr. Shahid by the Group at Montpellier when the Group, and Mr. Hopper text of the resolution and the in that meeting as a moment0 of The Group passed a resolution praising the contribution of Mr. Camus during hfs six years as chair of the TAC, and the text of the resolution inscribed on a scroll was presented to him. Mr. Bonte-Friedheim, on behalf of the Director General of FAO, gave Mr. Camus a silver medal for services to research, a new FAO award of which Mr. Camus is the first recipient. The chairman also spoke words of tribute to Peter Greening and Doreen Calvo, who were both leaving the CG secretariat after more than five years of service, having made significant contributions to the system. Chairman's 127. attempt of this Closing Remarks - Agenda Item 24 Mr. Hopper said that he would not give a formal summary, or to say all of the things that he found in his mind at the closing meeting. There were a few points he wanted to make: - 28 the first concerned the role of women, which was a very hard one in the societies in which the Group was working, something we should never forget. Technologies which were sex-neutral or even favorable to women in principle did not turn out to be so in practice. the second was sustainability, not only in the short term when activities supported by foreign aid tended to vanish once the aid was withdrawn, but the intergenerational comparisons concerning sustainability, which exceeded the niceties of our calculations of rates of return. He added that the implications of the Bruntland Report for the CGIAR should be considered at a future meeting. the strength of national agricultural research systems was a topic which we had not probed deeply enough. The national systems needed to be analyzed lot more thoroughly than they had been. how to reduce poverty in a period of relative abundance of food was another issue addressed but not resolved. How did we chose between undertaking research for those people trapped in unproductive and fragile environments, and research to produce more food in the highly productive areas which would benefit the Other poverty issues were the creation of employment urban poor. and food policies in all their ramifications. opportunities, These are all among the policy sharply and address before it issues decided which the Group must define more how to allocate its resources. Africa was clearly the area where food abundance is still a major 128. All of the issues mentioned above applied there, but there was a problem. need for interaction with those in charge of investment activities, since conquering the agricultural problem in Africa would require conquering the and other major problems for which billions of transport, the education, dollars were being mobilized. Besides discussing these questions, the meeting looked at 129. networking as a source of efficiency, a matter that TAC could address further. It considered biotechnology, one of the instruments for more efficient research in the future. But there was one very positive element above others. The meeting had a sense of system that extended beyond the thirteen centers themselves, to collaborating international institutions in related fields. Future experiments with the shape of the Group meetings would need to seek ways to include the rest of the system more formally in its processes. 130. Mr. Hopper concluded by saying that it was good to have been at the founding of the CGIAR, and it was good to be back in it. His thanks went to all who had participated and contributed to the success of the meeting. CF:ndm:lb 11/18/87 Appendix I Page 1 of 3 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH International Centers' 16 Research System Week 1987 Agenda Item Gender and the Global Agricultural The focus of the seminar was the need to understand the potential impact of agricultural technology on disadvantaged user groups, and particularly women. Three themes were addressed by the presentations the discussions: (1) (2) How can the research technology choice? process bring user implications to bear in What are the respective roles of national research systems international centers in incorporating user considerations technology design? How far have the centers themselves gender balance and in incorporating activities? and into (3) progressed in achieving it into research and training Conclusions (1) Incorporation of user considerations The presentations emphasized the complexity of the issue by highlighting the large number of user groups potentially affected by any Consumers, farmers and laborers are three broad and often technology. overlapping target groups. Within this are a large number of sub-groups National development policies and gender is one important sub-division. have multiple objectives and usually try to reach all target groups. However, it is clear that programs when implemented have positive effects impacts on others. Groups are often competing. A on some groups, negative technology from a research program which helps consumers may disadvantage women laborers who however, may also be consumers. Anticipating whether a technology would impact a particular group positively or negatively is often possible once groups and their needs and interests are identified. Evaluating the level of impact and the overall trade off in terms of national priorities remains a matter of judgement. It was recognized that the groups to be targetted as a priority is a policy choice. It was concluded that an awareness of the multiplicity of target groups and of how positive and negative impacts across groups are linked, would be major contributions to better planning and policy Appendix I Page 2 of 3 It was seen decisions. recognized by policy as choices of technology. brought to bear ex-ante as important that the net effect on groups disadvantaged be explicitly evaluated in making The same process could be turned upside down and be to identify priority research programs. It is clear that the research process faces a dilemna. The need to satisfy a wide variety of user groups, and, at the same time the need to focus limited resources to make progress in key fields poses a With user group patterns so local specific adaptive contradiction. research programs must be the primary means of orienting research output and research program planning to meet identified user needs. The development of finished technologies and farmer recommendations is seen as too rigid to accommodate the diversity of users. Participation by user allowing a choice from options introduced groups in the research process, by researchers after close community interaction allows greater flexibility to reach diverse targets. It also provides feedback along the research chain to identify user relevant priority thrusts at the applied and strategic levels. Client participation in the technology choice and research planning process is seen as a manageable and cost effective way forward. Country experience has shown that concern for currently disadvantaged user groups is best shown, not by special women's projects which may isolate the problem and solution from the general bureaucracy, but by increased sensitivity and improved process within the mainstream research administration. (2) Responsibilities; the national systems and the IARC's of Interactions with technology client groups - the farmers - is While local consumer or labor clearly a role for adaptive research. interests can readily be identified and weighed by the adaptive research process, national and international repercussions are more problematic. Regardless of these widening circles responsibility for the assessment of potential impact rests with the national agricultural research and policy systems rather than the IARC's. It was acknowledged that policy on the gender issue rapidly ran into politics which the centers had to keep out of. Center/national program links are so vital to the working of a global agricultural research system that forays into politics can only damage the credibility of effective collaboration. Yet, given the rudimentary state the IARC's do have major roles to play: . of the arts in process and method In heightening policy makers user groups. awareness among national research managers and of the diversity and often conflicting interests of Appendix I Page 3 of 3 . In developing methods process and including for user participation in the research these in national program training. . In developing processes to allow feedback of user needs to influence focus and content in applied and strategic research at national and, where justified, international levels. Feedback from clients will allow an accumulation of weight behind key thrusts, identifying these as new priorities. and gender balance (3) IARC's It was clear that the user perspective had become of major importance to several centers and was increasingly reflected both in their own research process and in their training to build national research It was concluded that this was not universal across all centers, capacity. with much more progress in some than others. Similarly, progress in representation of women on the staff and on the boards of the centers was It was agreed that the need for balance justified the extra effort uneven. required to identify women candidates and, at the same time, to maintain quality in the centers. Recommendations . That the centers play a role in bringing processes and methods to national systems which allow decisions on research thrusts and on technology choice to be made in the light of the needs of and potential impacts on different user groups. That the Group should receive information area, and in the balancing of genders at on a routine basis. That external issue in the reviews questions on progress in this the centers themselves, . . of centers take up gender as an explicit asked of centers and in their report. in center reaction to the of a Stripe Review on the gender subject Finally, given the wide differences issue question, the possible usefulness was raised. November 9, MC/sdj: 530 1987 Appendix Attachment Page l.of I 1 2 Consultative Group on jnternational.Agricultural Research MailingAddress:1818H Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20433. U.S.A. Office Location: 80119thStreet, N.W. Telephone(Area Code202)334-8021 CableAddress-INTBAFRAD REVISED 10/14/87 ICW 87 Wednesday, October Gender Issues 28, 1987 0900 hours Timetable Seminar - Detailed 0900 Margaret - Catley-Carlson, Chairperson Chair, CGIAR Introduction by David Hopper, Opening Remarks Introduces Barber Conable and Agricultural President, impacts 0910 Gender Issues - Research. World Bank of Technical Change). Barber Conable, 0920 Users and different.lal - Robert Herdt, Director, .Rockefeller Foundation Floor questions for Agricultural only Sciences, (5 minutes) design, clarification 0945 Worldwide examples of the neglect of women In technology -testing and application (slide presentation). Susan Poates, International Programs, University of Florida, Gainesville Implications process. of differential user impacts for 1005 - the research Dr. Jacqueline Ashby, CIAT, Colombia Floor questions for clarification only (5 minutes) 1030 1100 Coffee A national Bharatl Ministry Floor perspective on user Issues In technology design. Patel, Dlrect.or of Agriculture questions for of Agrlc,ultural Research,. and Hater Development, Zambia only (5 minutes) clarification 1120 . ’ A center perspective Richard on user issues in technology design. General, CIP, Peru Sawyer, Director Appendix I Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 1140 Panel discussion Chairperson: Members: of issues from the presentat,;ons John Mellor, Director, IFPRI Amir Muhammed, Chairman Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Janice Jiggins University of Wageningen Net.herlands Rosina Salerno Ministry of Foreign Italy Affairs 1205 1225 Panel and Floor discussion and Summing Up - the main conclusions from the presentations. discussions Margaret Catley-Carlson, President, CIDA, Canada Chairperson Lunch 1230 MC/J28 I Appendix II Page 1 of 25 CONSULTATIVE GROUPON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH International List Centers' of Participants Week 1987 W. David Hopper Senior Vice President The World Bank Washington, D.C. INTERNATIONALAGRICULTURALRESEARCHCENTJ3RS Centro International de Agrfcultura Tropical (CIAT) William E. Tossell Chairman Rodrigo Tarte Board Member John L. Nickel Director General Filemon Torres Deputy Director Douglas R. Laing Deputy Director General General and Administration Fritz Kramer Director, Finance Jacqueline Ashby Trudy Brekelbaum Centro Interuacional EFC de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIWfYT) Lucia Reca Chairman, Donald Winkelmann Director General Clive James Deputy Director Tiff Harris General Appendix II Page 2 of 25 INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL BESEBBCB CRNTJ!XS Centro Intemacional de la Papa (CIP) John Meagher Chairman David Call Board Member Richard L. Sawyer Director General Jose Valle-Riestra Deputy Director General Research of Technology Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) Kenneth John Brown Regional Director, Primo Accatino Transfer Director, International Board for W. James Peacock Chairman J. Trevor Williams Director Alison McCusker Head of Research International Center Dry Areas (ICARDA) Jose I. Cuber0 Chairman Naima Al-Shayji Board Member G. Jan Koopman Acting Director Aart General for Research for Agricultural Research in the Van Schoonhoven Deputy Director General S. El-Fayoumi Director of Administration Suresh Sitaraman Acting Financial Controller and Treasurer Appendix II Page 3 of 25 INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RRSRARCHCRNTRRS International Crops Research Tropics (ICRISAT) Fenton V. MacHardy Chairman William T. Mashler Board Member Leslie D. Swindale Director General J. S. Kanwar Deputy Director Genral General (Admn.) Institute for the Semi-Arfd Michael Goon Assistant Director J. L. Monte1th Director, Resources Management Program M. G. Wedeman Special Consultant L. J. Haravu Manager, Library and Document Services Research Institute (IPPRI) International Food Policy Dick de Zeeuw Chairman John W. Mellor Director Loraine W. Halsey Director of Finance Nurul Islam Senior Research and Administration Adviser Appendix II Page 4 of 25 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Lawrence A. Wilson Chairman Laurence Stifel Director General Kenneth S. Fischer Deputy Director William M. Steele Special Assistant A.S.A. Juo Soil Scientist International Livestock Center for Africa General, Research General to Director (1LC.A) Ralph W. Cummings Chairman Barry Nestel Ex-Board Chairman John Walsh Director General Richard Stewart Director of Donor and Board Secretariat Kurt Peters Director of Research Koen Geerts Head of Administration Stephen Sandford Head of Livestock Economics Division Appendix II Page 5 of 25 INTEXNATION&AGRICULTURAL International Laboratory for Research RESEARCHCENTERS Diseases (ILRAD) on Animal Hans E. Jahnke Chairman Arthur Ross Gray Director General John J. Doyle Director of Research P. Roger Rowe Director of Administration International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Kenzo Hemmi Chairman Carlos Dominguez Vice Chairman R.K. Cunningham Board Member M.S. Swaminathan Director General D.J. F.A. Greenland Deputy Director Bernard0 Deputy Director General General and Accounts Edward Sayegh Director, Budget Paul A. Cooper Thelma Paris Assistant Scientist Appendix II Page 6 of 25 INTERNATIONALAGRIClJLTIJRALR.EXARCRCENTl3RS International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Henri Carsalade Chairman Alexander von der Osten Director General Howard Elliott Deputy Director Krishan Jain Deputy Director Susan Buisten-Glover West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) General General - NARS Moctar Toure Chairman Bakary Traore Board Member B. Wudiri Board Member Eugene Terry Director General Robert Ayling D. Sanni Appendix II Page 7 of 25 DELJZGATIONSOF MEMBERSOF THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP Asfan Development Bank (West) Soeksmono B. Martokoesoemo Director, Agriculture Department Asian Development Bank Manila, Philippines Australia R.C. Manning Deputy Director General Australian International Canberra Development Assistance Bureau Philip J. Fradd Assistant Director Development Research and Sector Agency Section Australian International Development Assistance Gabrielle Persley Associate Director Australian Centre Canberra Austria Heiner Luschin Alternate Executive Washington, D.C. Belgium Jean-Dominique D'hayere Attache Administration for Development Cooperation (A.G.C.D.) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Brussels J. Meyer Adviser, A.G.C.D. Director, World Bank (Crop Sciences) for International Bureau Agricultural Research (ACIAR) Appendix II Page 8 of 25 DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERSOF TEIE CONSULTATIVE GROUP Canada Nicole Seneca1 Director General Multilateral Technical CIDA Martha ter Kuile Senior Program Officer, CIDA Trevor Sykes Agricultural CIDA Specialist, Cooperative Division MTCD Natural Resources Division Donald Kirkland Research Branch Agriculture Canada China Shen Jinpu Deputy Director Chinese Academy of Agricultural Beijing Liu Cong Meng Agricultural Attache Embassy of China Washington, D.C. (Second Sciences Secretary) Commission of the European-Co-~itie~-(~E~) Gunter Gruner Head, Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment Directorate-General for Development Brussels, Belgium Denmark Ebbe Schioler Head of Research DANIDA Copenhagen Section Appendix II Page 9 of 25 DELEGATIONS OF MEHBERS OF TEE CONSULTBTIVE GROUP Federal Republic of Germany Thomas Schurig Head, Agriculture and Rural Development Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation (BMZ) Bonn Dieter Bommer President, ATSAF Bonn Erhard Kruesken Food and Agriculture Director, Development Centre German Foundation for International Development Feldafing Klaus J. Lampe Head, Department of Agriculture, and Rural Development German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTz) Eschborn Peter Mueller Head, Dept. of Agriculture, Rural Development, GTZ Achim Viereck Scientific Secretary, ATSAF Health Health and Brigitte Lindner ATSAF Finland Birgitta Stenius-Mladenov Counselor, FINNIDA Department of Development Helsinki Lauri Kettunen Director Agricultural Helsinki Merja K. Lindroos-Binham Second Secretary Embassy of Finland Washington, D.C. Assistance Economics Institute Appendix II Page 10 of '25 DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERSOF THE CONSULTATIVE GROW Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Natfous (FAO) C.H. Bonte-Friedheim Assistant Director General Agriculture Department Rome, Italy Mohamed S. Zehni Director, Research and Technology Development Division Ford Foundation Norman R. Collins Program Officer-in-Charge Rural Poverty and Resources New York France E. Salmon Legagneur Conseiller Direction, Ministry of Foreign Paris Francois Vicariot Ministry of Research J. Perrin de Brichambault Ministry of Agriculture DCSTD Affairs Program and Superior Education Therese Pujolle Ministry of Cooperation Jean Baptiste Fournier Ministry of Cooperation Indfa N. Misra Minister (Economic) Embassy of India Washington, D.C. Naveen Sarna Third Secretary (Economic) Embassy of India Appendix II Page 11 of 25 DELRCATIONS OF MWBF&S OF THE CONSULTATIVR CROUP Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Sector Stephen E. McGaughey Chief, Forestry and Fisheries Washington, D.C. Jose Kohout International Bank for Research and Development (IBRD) G. Edward Schuh Director Agriculture and Rural Washington, D.C. A. J. Pritchard Agriculture Agriculture International Development Department Research Adviser and Rural Development Research Centre Department (IDRC) Development Hubert G. Zandstra Director Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Greg Spendjian Deputy Director Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Geoffrey C. Hawtin Associate Director Crop and Animal Production K.P. Broadbent Associate Director Information Sciences Fund for Sciences Division Sciences Division Systems Division Development (IFAD) International Agricultural Unit Abbas Kesseba Coordinator Rome, Italy Technical Appendix II Page 12 of 25 DELEGATIONS OF IWMBEJB OF THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP Ireland Etain Doyle Counsellor Development Cooperation Division Department of Foreign Affairs Dublin Donal Denham First Secretary Embassy of Ireland Washington, D.C. Bernard Davenport Counsellor Embassy of Ireland Italy Sergio Busetto Counsellor Ministry of Foreign Rome Affairs Rosina Salerno Dipartimento per la Cooperazione all0 Sviluppo Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan Yoshitaka Kitagawa Multilateral Cooperation Division Economic Cooperation Bureau Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tokyo Tatsuzi Takahashi Director for Research Tropical Agricultural Tsukuba, Ibaraki Yasumasa Nagamine First Secretary Embassy of Japan Washington, D.C. Research Center Appendix II Page 13 of 25 DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERSOF THE CON!3JLTATIVE GROUP Mexico Antonio Turrent Vocal Ejecutiva Mexico City .INIFAP Alfonso Ayala Agricultural Counselor Embassy of Mexico Netherlands J. Bos Director Ministry of Foreign The Hague Affairs Hans Wessels Research and Technology Programme Ministry of Foreign Affairs Willem van Vuure Senior Research Officer Directorate for Agricultural Research Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Wageningen Jaap J. Hardon Director Center for Genetic Resources Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Nigeria Sheriff A. Adetunji Agricultural Science Department Director, Federal Ministry of Science & Technology Lagos Norway Gunnar Oeygard Assistant Director General Noragric, Norwegian Agricultural Aas-NLH University Appendix II Page 14 of '25 DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERSOF TEE CONSULTATIVE GROUP Philippines Carlos Dominguez Secretary of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Quezon City Johnson P. Mercader Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Victor Leviste Agricultural Embassy of Washington, Rockefeller Attache the Philippines D.C. Foundation Robert Herdt Director Division for New York Agricultural Sciences Joyce M. Moock Associate Director Division for Agricultural Spain Sciences Francisco Javier Garcia-Ramos Chief of Section Instituto National de Investigaciones Madrid Sweden Bo M.I. Bengtsson Director General Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation Developing Countries (SARBC) Stockholm Carl-Gustaf Thornstroem Senior Research Officer SAREC Agrarias (INIA) with Appendix II Page 15 of 25 DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERSOF TEE CONSULTATIVE GROUP Switzerland Rolf Wilhelm Deputy Director Swiss Development Bern Cooperation Paul Egger Agricultural United A.J. Kingdom Advisor Bennett Chief Natural Resources Adviser Overseas Development Administration London Davies Deputy Chief, Natural Resources Division J.C. Anthony Beattie Tropical Development Director, and Research Institute United Nations Development Programme (IJNDP) Timothy Rothermel Director Division for Global and Interregional United Nations Development Programme New York K. N. Satyapal Principal Programme Officer A- APP United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Director Projects Reuben Olembo Deputy Assistant D.P.S. Wasawo Consultant Executive Joan Martin-Brown Senior Liaison Officer Washington, D.C. Appendix II Page 16 of 25 DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERSOF TBE CONSULTATIVE GROUP Unfted States for Nyle C. Brady Senior Assistant Administrator Science and Technology USAID Washington, D.C. William Furtick Agency Deputy Director Bureau for Science and Technology USAID Robert Bertram Agricultural Specialist Bureau for Science and Technology USAID Dana G. Dalrymple Agricultural Economist Bureau for Science and Technology USAID Representing Africa (Guinea aud Zambia) Network Research Oua N'Diaye Head, Agricultural Foulaya National c/o FAO Office Conakry, Guinea Research Agricultural Institute Nicholas E. Mumba Permanent Secretary, Eastern Ministry of Decentralisation, Chipata, Zambia Representing Asia and Pacific Province (Bangladesh and Thailand) Ekramul Ahsan Member Director Bangladesh Agricultural Dhaka, Bangladesh Research,Council Praphas Weerapat Rice Specialist Rice Research Institute Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Bangkhen, Bangkok, Thailand Appendix II Page 17 of 25 DELEGATIONS OF MEMBRRSOF TEIE CONSULTATIVR CROUP Representing Venezuela) Latin America and the Caribbean Region (Argentina and Edgardo R. Moscardi Director General National Institute of Agricultural Buenos Aires, Argentina Rafael Pinto M. Advisor to the Minister Caracas, Venezuela Representing Near $ast Region of Agriculture (EpVpt Research (INTA) and Turkey) Nazmi Demir Deputy Undersecretary Ministry of Agriculture, Ankara, Turkey Representing Southern Forestry Europe and Rural (Poland Affairs and Portugal) and Eastern Augustyn Wos Director Institute of Agricultural Warsaw, Poland Jose Carvalho-Cardoso Director Estacao Agronomica Oeiras, Portugal and Food Economics National Appendix II Page 18 of 25 OBSERVERS Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) George A. Marlowe Director General Shanhua, Tainan, Paul M.H. Deputy Sun Director Taiwan General Bureaux International (CABI) Commouwealth Agricultural Donald Mentz Director General Wallingford, Oxon, United John Metcalfe Caribbean Agricultural Research Kingdom and Development Institute (CARDI) Derrick Dyer Executive Director Trinidad, West Indies Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigation y Enseuanza (CATIE) Rodrigo Tarte Director General Turrialba, Costa Oscar Fonseca Deputy Director Victor Villalobos Rica Jose Flores Chief Natural Resources Washington, D.C. International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM) Marc Latham Director General C. Niamskul Appendix II Page 19 of 25 OBSERVERS International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) Heinrich Weltzien Chairman Thomas Odhiambo Director Nairobi, Kenya Rhoda A. Odingo Chief Planning Lennard Okola Manager for William International Officer and Planning Administration Mathieson Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) Roy I. Jackson Chairman Manila, Philippines James Storer Board Member Ian R. Smith Director General Roger Pullin Director, International Aquaculture Councfl for Program Research in Agroforestry (ICEAF) Howard Steppler Chairman Quebec, Canada Bjorn Lundgren Director Nairobi, Kenya Bruce International Scott Fertilfzer Development Center (IFDC) Donald L. McCune Managing Director Muscle Shoals, Alabama Appendix II Page 20 of 25 OBSERVRRS Instituto Interamericano de Cooperation para la Agricultura (IICA) Harlan L. Davis Deputy Director General San Jose, Costa Rica Eduardo Trigo Director of Programs International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMl) Robert K. Cunningham Chairman Roberto Lenton Director General Digana, Sri Lanka Daniel Goodman Nanda Abeywickrema International Soybean Resource Base (INTSOY) Harold Kauffmann Director Urbana, Illinois International Network for Improvement of Bananas and Plantains (INIBAP) Edmond de Langhe Director Montpellier, France International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) Dominic E. Iyamabo Research Coordinator for Africa IUFRO Special Programme for Africa Nairobi, Kenya Winrock International Robert D. Havener President Morrilton, Arkansas Appendix II Page 21 of 25 OTHER PARTICIPANTS Enrique Ampuero Inter-American Rene Billaz CIRAD Rudolf Binsack Consultant, GTZ Affairs Development Bank (IDB) A. Brandolini Ministry of Foreign Rome, Italy Ms. Margaret J. Copeland Catley-Carlson James P. Kerr Plant Physiology Division Director, D.S.I.R. Palmerston North, New Zealand Lowell Hardin Chairman, IRRI External Frank Maresca IDB R. McDowell North Carolina Harry Palmier ORSTOM Ms. Bharati Zambia Pate1 University Management Review Richard C. Robarts Near East Foundation New York Ralph Riley Chairman, Amartya Sen IRRI External Program Review Jose Soto-Angli IDB James Taylor IDB Appendix II Page 22 of 25 OTHER PARTICIPANTS cont'd Peter Temu World Food Council New York Werner Treitz Deputy Director ACP-EEC Lome Convention-Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation Wageninen, Netherlands Hans Wyss (CIA) Director IBRD Technical Department Appendix II Page 23 of 25 TE~W Guy Camus Chairman Paris, France Michael H. Arnold Cambridge, England Charan Chantalakhana Bangkok, Thailand C. T. de Wit Wageningen, Netherlands ADVISORY coM#Im~ (TAc) Ola M. Heide Aas-NLH, Norway Alexander Davis, McCalla California Amir Muhammed Islamabad, Pakistan Ibrahim Nahal Aleppo, Syria Gustav0 Nores Buenos Aires, Thomas Odhiambo Nairobi, Kenya Ernest0 Paterniani Brazil Abdoulaye Sawadogo Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire Winfried von Urff Freising, Fed. Rep. of Germany Agentina Appendix II Page 24 of 25 TAC SECBETARIAT John H. Monyo Executive Secretary Patricia Roberts-Pichette Deputy Executive Secretary Marioara Lantini Program Assistant Appendix II Page 25 of 25 CGIAR SECRETARIAT Curtis Farrar Executive Secretary Peter Greening Deputy Executive Secretary Doreen Calvo Senior Program Officer Michael Collinson Scientific Advisor Hennie Deboeck-De Zutter Financial Officer Selcuk Ozgediz Management Advisor Donald Plucknett Scientific Advisor Max Rives Technical Consultant Officer Ravindra Tadvalkar Senior Financial