cG19.3 I

7?h?cdpr
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

Report

of the Review January. 1977

Committee

CONSULTATIVE GRO';JPOX INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTORY NOTE The following report was circulated to the members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research in October 1976. At the Group's meeting in Washington in late October, two days were devoted to a wide-ranging discussion of the report and its recommendations. The Group decided that, rather than extensively editing the report to take account of this discussion, the text would remain unchanged, but a brief summary of the main points arising during the meeting would be included in the final version of the report. This summary is given in the pages immediately following.

CGItil Condensed of the Committee's -.

Review

Committee 197&j

Summary of Discussion Report, October 27-25,

In reviewing the Report as a whole, members generally supported its conclusions and recommendatioils, and considered that the Review had been timelv and useful. Some members felt the need for a longer-term perspective than the Report provided, which might be given in a subsequent review. It was noted that the Report was generallv cautious and conservative in its approach to the work of the Group over the next several years. The dangers of too much bureaucracy were stressed, particularlv in view of the importance of maintaining the individuality of the Centers, the autonomy of their Boards, and the flexibility of their programs. There should be caution about attemgting to set too rigid criteria for the priorities of the Centers, anIl for their optimum size, but the value of long-term planning was stressed. Other general points 'on which a consensus was reached included: -- The Report was regarded as essentially an internal guidance of members of the Grc,up. contain It did, however, of general interest. -- The Report tended emphasis and priorities. tion, to confirm the recommendations document for the much information of the TAC on considera-

-- New initiatives would continue to come under the Group's but it would be unwise to attempt to take on too much.

Recommendations

1 - 4 (Scope of the CGIAR)

There was support The Group generally endorsed these recommendations. though this did not imnlp stagnation, nor for a period of consolidationj It was felt that the CC, could indeed that some growth would not continue. have a limited role as a forulO, for discussion of matters beyond the confines of the system of research ficznced by tt-e CGIAR but relevant to its overall TAC should continue to explore new initiatives during research mandate. this period. Ir, reviewing Recommendation 2 (that the CG focus primarily on -increasing production in food ,deficit countries) the Group noted the need to maintain the emphasis on problem-oriented research that benefitted the majoritv rf farmers in lcw-income countries and on commodities representing Z.:::-zlrant sources of food for the developing countries.

--.-- ----..-

-. --_ -.--._

_

-I/. .n r

C. a a'r y 0 'I :i~ ?roc:.edings :-rrr.:; the Secretariat.

of the Consultative

Group meeting

is

-2-

Recommendations

5 - 11 --- (Center

and Inter-Center ..-_ --

Issues) ...--

The discussion generally stipported the spirit of the recommendati,ons, which were based on. the recognition that potential demand,on the, Centers, including,demand fcr assistance to national research programsY greatly exceeds their. capacity. The tab.ulation of appropriate cooperative activities with national program? (p. 82) &s endorsed.,. There was general agreement c?n the underlying basis for the recommendations and.on ihe need to review programs as a complete whole a& to clan well ahead.> The question of'how Centers' activities could best be .c!.:.ssified was referred to the Secretariat for further, cons,ideration. Centers and individual should not .be regarded as being necessarily programs might .I need. p.eriodic rejustifying. 12, 13 (Membership of Boards and Staffing of indefinite life,

Recommendations

of Centers)

The Group stressed the importance of Board appointments and endorsed the Group should participate the proposal that, subject to legal constraints, Where this was not in the appointment of three members of each Zoard. already the case, Boards would be invited to consider how it might be achieved over the course of time. .I Respecting to attract staff Recommendations staff, from 14, it was,emphasized thaL,there as wide a field as possible. Review was a need for Centers

15 (CGIAR and Center

and Evaluation)

',

I

Whilst there was some caution expressed about carrying out too many reviews, there was general agreement,on the importance of evaluating the success of research in achieving its goals of providing the technology for Future reviews of the system ati a whole increasing,farmers' production. Efforts should be make to e*and should include a long;,tarm perspective. countries in the review o f developing the role played by representatives process. -, I_' : 16 - 18 (Budget.Planning and Development)

' I '

, Recommendations It was noted that an effect of the recommendations would be to increase but this was thought to be managethe workload of TAC and the Secretariats, able, and the recommendations were generally accepted.. approach to the size of The view was strongly expressed that a rigid Centers should be avoided, yet it was also generally recognized that Centers changing their character and perhaps their could get too big, consequently efficacy. The largest Centers may be approaching the optimum size, but this program. question should be approached first t?lrough ncrut"Lny of the Center's with implications for numbers Centers would be doing more forward programming, of staff and financial needs.

-3-

Recommendations

19,

20 (Budget

Allocation) -

There was support for the view that donors should be as flexible as their rules allowed in the allocation of funds. 'There was scme discussion of the value of a Standby Committee, since existing procedures for allocatj.cr? of funds seemed to have worked reasonably well. TAC would be able to advise on relative priorities. It was cpncluded that the,members of the Committee should be selected with a view to dealing with funding shortfall problems, though it might deal If necessary, it could be expanded or otherwith other types of emergency. wise modified, There was general acceptance of on an ad hoc basis. Recommendation 20 on the understanding that the Chairman would anpoint the Committee, which would be small enough to be effective and large erought to be representative. He would establish it at the appropriate time and activate it as necessary. Recommendation 22 (Donor Contributions and Cash Flow)

Donors were being asked to provide pledged funds as early as possible in the fiscal year. The Secretariat would provide Centers and donors with a If these did not solve schedule of requirements and availability of funds. the cash flow problem, it was recom.mended that the World Bank explore alternative solutions. The problem appeared to be solving itself, largely due to the progress one principal donor had been able to make towards earlier payment.

CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
1818 H St.,N.W. WashingtoqD.C.20433 U.S.A. Telephone (Area Code 202)477-3592 Cable Address - INTBAFRAD

TO:

Members of the Consultative Research

Group on International

Agricultural

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research was established in 1971, and since rhat time has experienced dramatic growth in terms of membership, the size and number of activities supported by it, and the resources provided by its members to fund them. In 1975 the Group decided to review the scope of its activities and the programs supported by it so as to plan its future role in promoting research for the development of agriculture, particularly food production, in developing countries. A Review Committee was established to carry out this task. The Committee members, fifteen altogether including their chairman, each serving in his individual capacity, were chosen for their understanding and experience of the various aspects of the CGIAR system and the several constituencies --developing countries, research centers and CG members-served by it. The members were: Warren C. Baum, Chairman of the CGIAR and Vice Projects Staff, World Bank David E. Bell, Foundation Executive Vice-President, President,

The Ford

Dieter F. R. Bommer, Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department, FAO Sir John Crawford, Chancellor of the Australian National University, Chairman of TAC Ralph W. Cummings, Director of ICRISAT Agricultural Development!, Research United

*Robert K. Cunningham, Principal Adviser, Ministry of Overseas Kingdom

Gerrit de Bakker, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Program

*Dr. Cunningham was unable to attend the final meeting of the Committee. His place was taken by W. Denis Maniece, Ministry of Overseas Development.

-2-

Curtis Farrar, Assistance, Development

Assi.;;ant Administrator United States Agency for International

for Technical International Development Japan Marine for Global Development of Agriculture

W. David Hopper, President, Pesearch Centre, Canada Hidetsugu Science

Ishikura, Director-General, and Technical Center

William T. Mashler, and Inter-Regional Programme

Senior Director, Division United Nations Projects, Ministry

Hussein Mirheydar, Deputy Minister, and Natural Resources, Iran Armando Samper, Internacionai

former Chairman of the Board, Centro de Agricultura Tropical, Colombia

Bukar Shaib, former Chairman of the Board, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Water Resources, Nigeria Alfred Wolf, Program Adviser American Development Bank. to the President, Inter-

a four-man Study Team was appointed. To serve the Committee as staff, It began its wcrk early this year and, with the issuance of this report, completed its task at the end of September. Members of this Study Team were: Dr. Alex McCalla, Study Director Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of California at Davis Dr. Ewert Bberg Professor, Department Agricultural College Uppsala Sweden of Plant Husbandry, of Sweden

Dr. James McWilliam Professor and Head of the Department Agronomy and Soil Science, University of New England, Australia Dr. Arthur Mosher, the Agricultural and now consultant formerly President Development Council to ADC.

of

of (ADC)

‘.

I

The terms :he Consultative refined by the this report.

of rsfzrence of ;he Committee were broadly established by in 1975, and subsequently Group at its Cctober meeting T'ney are set out in the introduction to Committee itself.

This is the report of the Review Committee--which accepts full responsibility for it--but it is very much the outcome of the work of indebted to the Study the Study Team. We of the Cormn'Lttee are heavily Purposely, they were Team for their untiring efforts and sound advice. In the short time available for selected from outside the CGIAR system. they have acquired a comprehensive understanding of the their task, The Committee has been system and a firm grasp of its aims and problems. served outstandingly well.

I !

On behalf of the Review Committee, I herewith Consultative Group the report 02 the Committee.

transmit

to the

a

Warren C. Baum Chairman

! !

Octooer

i976

-

COhrllEXTS

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION&ND Context and Background

RECOMMENDATIONS

i i ii ii V

Conclusions

and Recommendations

Scope of the CGIAR Center Issues Evaluation, Allocation and

CGIAR Planning, Management INTRODUCTION PART A. I. II.

X

1 5 5 13 13 15 18 19 19 19 and 19 20 ' 20 20

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND OF ISSUES

THE WORLDFOOD PROBLEM TO 1985 AND 2000 A.D. NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR EXPANDING FOOD OUTPUT Technical Ceilings, Economic Achievement Distributions Ceilings, Growth

and

.~

Conditions The Theory

for

Agricultural

of Induced

Innovation

III.

SOME IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ITS ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS Some Characteristics Need for of Agricultural Research Research Approach Application, in Research and Expectations Researcher

an Appropriate

Time Lags Between Recognition, Adoption Uncertainty Character and Serendipity of Research '.? of ji

Progress Successful

Character&tics

A Suitable Priorities, IV.

Research Planning,

Environment Evaluation, and Management

20 21 23 23 23 24 24

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHORGANIZATIONS SERVING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Major Components Research Research Research in Developed Countries

National Regional International Research Links

26 26 27 30

and Interaction

Sources of Funds and the Deployment of Resources for Agricultural Research in Developing Countries Special Problems in Developing tural Research Organizations V. THE CGIAR FAMILY OF ACTIVITIES Origin and History of the of Its of the CGIAR: CGIAR Origin A Narrative Sketch Strong National Agricul-

32 32 32 35 35

Objectives Influences Present Evolution Current

CGIAR Activities of the Research Centers

37 39

Form and Function for Financing Centers

Arrangements The Technical Ffscal &rowth Trends History

39 41 43 43 44

Advisory

Committee of Activities 1972-1577 1972-1976

of the CGrXARFamily Expenditures: Contributions:

of Center in Donor

-3-

PART B. VI.

ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS

57 58 58 61
and Technology

SCOPE AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CGIAR Geograpic and Commodity Focus of the CGIAR

Types of CGIAR Activities Modes of Operation Development Centers Consortia Direct Interfaces Financial (Networks) Support with of National Other Agencies of CGIAR Program Future Decisions about New Programs Assumptions Programs in Research

63 63 64 65 65 66 66 67 71 75 75 76
79

Magnitude for

Procedures Projection Future VII.

of Costs

Under Alternative

Funding

Potential

SCOPE, BOUNDARIES, AND MANAGEMENT OF CENTERS Concept Program of a Fully Integrated Program

Complementarity with with Sources Size National Advanced

and Balance Programs Research Institutions

Cooperation Interaction Multiple Desirable Longevity Forward Interaction

83 84 86

of Funding of Centers Research Programs

of Individual Planning

87 88
89

and Program Development

Among Centers

-4-

Boards Staffing VIII.

of Trustees Issues

91 92 95 95 Planning and Development Including Distribution 96 98 100 102

PLANNING, EVALUATION, ALLOCATION ARD MANAGEMENTFOR THE CGIAR AND ITS FAMILY OF ACTIVITIES Structure Evaluation Mechanisms of the CGIAR and Long-Range for Budget Budget

Planning Allocation, Needs

Mechanisms for of Shortfalls Technical

and Management

ANNEX.: "World Food Needs: N. M. Koffsky.

Food Gaps and Performance,"

SLZMRY,

CONCLUSZONS AND RRCOMMRNDATIONS

This

report

presents Agricultural

the results Research

of a review

of the Consultative family with of staff This

Group on International activities. assistance section The review provided presents

(CGIAR) and its hoc committee is in

was conducted team.

by an.ad -The report

by a study

two parts.

a summary of Part resulting

A of the report

and the

conclusions report. are pre-

and recommendations The problem sented setting,

from the analysis

in Part

B of the

the analysis

and more complete

conclusions

in the main body of the report. CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND Part A of this report concludes, on the evidence food needs, that of the Koffsky- l/ there is an

findings urgent where

and other

analyses

of the world

need to increase large food shortages

food production threaten over

in those the next only

developing decade

countries and beyond. important involved way of means of interacting

Agricultural approaches in expanding raising meeting factors the

research

represents of activities“that It but represents alone

one of the

among the universe food production. technical ceiling,

are necessarily the most important a sufficient

is not

the world's involved. With

food problem

as there

are many other

respect

to agricultural interacti*Te

research,

it

is

important

to and

recognize

the highly

and dynamic

nature

of the problem approach.

the %esirability

of adopting

an interdisciplinary

Goals must

ii

be defined allowed associated

clearly

and a sufficient

degree

of freedom

and independence the

in choosing problems. The present

them and the approaches

to be used in solving

status

of international of organizations and regional

agricultural and funding

research sources

is

characterized involved donors centers a small ity

by the diversity national

including

organizations activities. through although significance. the the

and bilateral The International CGIAR represent scope of their only activ-

and by the wide and other component

scope of their supported effort, but

activities of this they is a high of other

may be limited, There

are of great degree

of complementarity in the field.

between

the centers' face of activthe

research pressures ities view

and that

agencies

The centers range

and inducements

to become involved transfer and extension.

in a wider

such as Lechnology that the centers not Finally try

However,

we support they

should

continue

to concentrate

on what

do best

and should

to do too much. the development observations rapidly financial and staffed and fiscal are that both nistory of the CG1A.Rwere is still only

reviewed. five it :lears supports will

The important old

the Group

and is developjng terms of i;s

in the number Five

of activities new four

and in not

needs. for

relatively years

centers oidest

be completed still

several

and the

centers

are

evolving.

COXCL3c "^'ON s ~593 RECOMENDATIONS

It of ti-2

is

against analyzed.

this

;:ackground There is

that

the

future

need for efforts

and scope to imp,:ove

CGIAR is

nee6 for

increased

world

food

producticn; the

i&sea&h

will

continue element in future.

to play that

a crucial

role.

Therefore continue focuses mddities that though

CGIAR is an important for

process

and will

to be needed on research which

the foreseeable

The CGIAR currently related to food world. coverage This focus comeoidtide

and techndlogy

development

Bre wideiy is appropriate not fully

coxSuin&d in the developing and that inclusive the commodity of all be cautious such as direct needs. about

We

the focus obviously

is broad, should responsi-

be continued bility efforts itself, existing CGIAR. for

and the major

CGIAR should

assuming

new activities, progrAms.

support

of extension as the CGIAk

or national are still centers

Many of the centers, stages and there

as well

in the formative to maturity

is need to bring load on the

and to iimit

the administrative

We do bt&ievei tribution engage to better in analysis fora

however,

that of its

the CGIAR could and others' the

make a useful if it

con-

articulation of key issues under its

efforts exchange

were to

and promote

of information

by organizing

auspices. potential five tsough costs years of current under activities supported assumptions. than in This that the past, analysis, the

We have analyzed through Costs will the CGIA.3 for continue no new major with a review Crease

the next :o gr3w, financial of potential for

alternative rapid rate

at a less

provided coupled rate

commitments fund fey

are undertaken. suggests

avaiLa bility, years necessarily

0;‘ ~0s: de

t:'ns iexc

must be moderate. -the appropri-

,;eA-e:'sre co:lclu&:*

fc.:- s;l

of ir;-.ise reasons centers

a+ Le-les _ .

-.

. ._.-~-z.'~ focus ) -ihe need to bring

tc maturity,

the

.__b.r...‘..Icati,::-.s ~~Cilr.iL...cr.,

?;I z:r,e ~Si;i:r.:.s’;y, ative

capacity

of an informal

iv

organization three during tions years that

such as the CGIk", and financial should period be considered TAC should programs as a period continue

realities

--

that

the next However,

of consolidation. needs for

to explore

modificaand should

in existing

and for

potential as it

new programs,

make such recommendations The following the conclusions Recommendation resulting 1: The

to the group
recommendations therefrom.

deems appropriate. analysis and

are based on this

need for a sustained research effort will

to increase to

food availability increase. national

in developing countries

continue and is Zikely

Therefore,
AgriculturaZ

we recommend that the Consultative

Group on Inter-

Research proceed on the basis that it shouZd confor the foreseeable future (pp. 58-60).

tinue to function
Recommendation 2:

Werecomme& that the CGIAR should continue to endorse that the primary focus of the CGlAR should be to support increase food The research

TAC's conclusion

research dzd technology development that can potentially production activities modities in the food-deficit countries of the world.

supported by the CGIAR are appropriately which are widely consumed and collectively

focused on food comrepresent

the majority

of the food sources of:the

developing world and no major changes or addi-

tions are called for at this time (pp. 61-63).
Recommendation 3:

We recommezd that the next three years should be During this period set of centers and initiatives requiring c

viewed by the CGIARas a pericd of consolidation. continued support should be provided for the current related activities. Wecaution against undertaking commitments.

major financial

TAC should continue during this period of

v

consoZi&tion existing

to eccpZore the need for new initiatives

and changes in

programs (pp. 61-74). 4: In addition to the current practice of receiving

Recommendation

reports from reZated activities

such as IFDC, IFPRI, AVl?DC,and CGFPI, exchange

we reconunend that the CGIAR s,houZd support fora for information among members of the Group, technicaL personne2 from their centers, other aid agencies and national

agencies, countries.

programs in developing

In this connection the CGIAR shouZd consider two specific (1) commissioning papers as a basis for discussions
interest

activities of

of CGIAR issues

to donors and research beneficiaries increased information

and (2) eqlicitly

seeking

to foster

exchange among CGIARdonors axd related in which they acre jointly involved

agencies about other activities (pp. 61-631.
CENTEK ISSUES Scope, Balance and Boundaries program balance

of Center

Programs or related program framed activity thrusts. within should For most a systems commodity inter-

The research achieve centers approach, a functional these include

of a center between

the major often

commodity with

research,

cooperation

national other

programs off+ampus

in LDC's in both activities training, is essential involving

and socioeconomic actions .with

research,

advanced

research

institutions, and it

and conferences. that all the total

These components projects integrated undertaken

are interdependent by centers

be regarded

as components

of their

program. A number of factors can potentially distort One of these the balance is and with

integration

of components

of the program.

cooperation

vi

naticnal is the world a vital

programs

(formerly of the strengthen

known as outreach). research national mandate

Although of all centers,

this

cooperation the demand on

component to help exceeds can distract

centers greatly

programs system primary

throughout to respond. research factor

the developing Extensive mission is the under and existhe

the capacity a center on center of funds

of the from its

involvement place tence aegis This funds is that for

an undue burden of two sources of the has led which these

management. for center from

Another

programs,

one derived bilateral by the

CGIAR and the to the practice

other

independent

contributions. source of

of identifying effect

programs

can have a divisive influences

on center

programs.

Cur conclusion boundthe

can be contained work with program. and budget national

by adopting programs

appropriate

aries concept by the

cooperative of an integrated

and implementing should

The entire papers

program

be covered review balance

centers'

program

and subject appropriate

to general program

procedures

adopted

by the CGUR.

To achieve

and integration Recommendation

we make these 5:

recommendations.

Wereconmterz that al2 projects total integrated

undertaken by a center program regardless
of

be regarded as components of its

sources of funds and that the entire procedure as outlined
Recommendation 6:

program be subject to the review (pp. 75-76). develop an objective set

in this report

We recommend that each center

of criteria

for program choice and periodicaZZy

reassess the baZance of

its program with respect to: (2) training, (3) cooperation

!I) research and technology development, tith n&tiol;rzZ programs and advanced re-

search institutions;

and (4) communication and exchange of information

vii

b&wGen center scientists
Recommendation 7:

an2 others 3n related

fields

(pp. 76-79).

We recommmd

that centers con$inue to develop and progrmns, iqofar as this is

strengthen their egsentiat
should

cooperation

with national

to accomplish their

research mandate.

Beyond this centers opportunities
for

remain alert

and responsive to additional

cooper-

atrion to the extent that extra-core activities

funds are a.vaiZabZe, that these

do not co&romise or distort

the central

research mission of to staff and

the center azd that they m?e *&thin
manage (pp. 79-84).
Recommendation 8:

the centers'

capacity

Werecomme& .i that aZZ support to a center other than as extra-core funding.

that provided through the CG.lYRbe classified

Further?, we reconunend that these funds be used to supplement activities supported by core funds and/o? to finance activities wish to undertake primarily
Recommendation 9:

that the center may
country

to benefit

a particuZar

(pp. 84-86). to

Werecommend that any proposal for a new project
funds

be supported by extra-core

shouZd be fomJarded by the center to

TAC for review when (I) there is a question as to whether the purpose of the activity
cations for

lies within future

the center's

mandate, (2) acceptance has CnpZimight put

core support, strain

(3) the proposed activity

undue additional funding

on center management, or (4) the extra-core

is particularly
10:

Zarge (pp. 84-86).

Recommendation

Wereconunerd that aZZ centers develop more effective

forward research program ptanning procedures and incZude as advisors internutionul
(pp. 88-89).

scientists

with competence in the appropriate

areas

viii

Inter-center

Relationships As centers become more active countries, This centers' countries. and have important that in cooperating for with inter-center enhance impact research collabothe

agencies ration

in developing have increased. of the in these

opportunities desirable

is highly programs Because interests that centers location

and will the

effectiveness technology with the

and enlarge

of their work

a number of these in they the

centers

same commodity world, special it is

same regions competition. in particular to the formal

of the To this activ-

developing end, ities should between the

avoid

strengths

may have in relation

or commodities be taken the into

and their consideration concerned. that the

target

areas

in developing

agreements

centers

We believe the fiscal

initiative arrangements

to develop

such linkages for the

and center

and administrative and the respective

are a matter

director

boards

of trustees. disputes

TAC and the should this

CGIAR should

be available Recommendation

to assist 11:

in resolving

be necessary.

Werecorrunendthat centers should be encouraged to in executing their cooperative research

coZZaborate wherever possible activities with national

prog-rams when working in the same region or The negotiation and administration directors of these and the respec-

with the same conunodity.

linkages should be the responsibiZity tive boards of trustees. and assist

of center

TAC or the CGIAR shmzd serve only to advise in the case of disputes thut~cannot be

in reaching a solution Further,

resoZved by the centers.

we recommend that agreements and and a copy

arrangements between centers be formaZZy recorded in writing of aZZ such agreements be sent to the CGIARSecretariat

(pp. 89-90).

IX

Center

Management The boards of trustees staff perform a valuable role in conjunction the programs in the main-

with

the director of the

and his centers.

in developing

and reviewing element

and budgets tenance

They are an essential of the of board for should

of the quality To preserve

and independence the high their caliber

centers. membership, the selection we conclude and for: and for

that

boards

should

define

own criteria these

appointment balanced vitality

of board representation of boards, including

members and that of expertise and for expanded

contain fields,

provision openness the search

in relevant efforts participation issues,

to broaden

new members,

more active to staffing

by donors. and success of the should regular to policies from these the of

In relation the CGIAR and the

the reputation a reflection Every

individual

centers scientific

is largely staff.

caliber

and performance staff

of the vitality in

effort

be made to maintain contact publish should widest in mind, with scientists

through fields, policies.

sound leadership, increased Further,

similar

opportunities recruitment new staff With

and enlightened

personnel effort

be more open and every possible cross section

made to identify applicants. are made.

of potential

issues

the following 12:

recommendations

Recommendation

Werecommend that each board of trustees

define cri-

teria

and procedures for the seZection and appointment of its own members Further, tie recommend
Am

and that these be made avaiZabZe to the CGIAR. that each board of trustees appropriate con&n&ion and consistent with and ratified broaden its with nationa

membership by inchding,

laws, three members seZected <n

by the CGIAR (pp. 91-92).

X

Recommendation

13:

Since q~,r'.ity of the staff

is a central

factor

in

the success. of the program, we recomend that:

(11 center directors cqzdidates for vitality, and
staff

advertise positions,

as WideZy and openly as possible (2) every effort

in seeking
staff

be made to maintain

(3) outposted staff

receive the same sabbatical

privileges

as staff the

posted at headquarters regardless scientist (pp. 92-94).

of source of funds supporting

CGIAR PLANNING, EVALUATION, ALLOCATION AND MANAGEMENT Long Range Planning Every character istics of the include: effort and Evaluation should be made to retain it the supports. present informal

CGIAR and the activities the consultative the the right nature

These charactermainly contriand

of the

CGIAR, membership how its centers

comprised bution related is

of donors; to be used,

of each donor

to designate research

support

of independent

activities, TAC should

and minimum bureaucratic continue needs to play as well a major

structure. role in providing ongoing the activities. center CGIAR

with

advice

about

future

as evaluating

TAC's responsibility analysis of particular

should topics

include (stripe

quinquennial analysis),

reviews,

across

and periodic

reassess-

ment of CGIAR priorities. We also centers matur.e, research and related national conclude activities research change. that the CGIAR is a highly dynamic entity. to and of the The

supported programs will

by the increase

CGIAR will their

continue

own capacities

needs will

Therefore,

the program

and procedures

CGIAR should

be reviewed

frequently.

xi

Because fic recommendations possible

of the dynamic only criteria for periodic for

nature

of the three

CGIAR, we have made speciyears. Beyond that and recom-

the next

to five future

we present

to use in making evaluation. provide

judgments

mend a mechanism

The following mechanisms needed for 14:

recommendations long range planning

additional

specific of the

:

and evaluation

CGIAR.

Recommendation

Werecommend that the CGIARreview its overall every three to five years.

pro-

gram and operation

The CGIAR should appoint program of the '

an -ad hoc committee to conduct a review of the substantive CGIARas well as review those policies, anisms which require attention. procedures,

and management mech-

TAC should provide a major input into program (pp. 96-98).
of the TAC quinquennial

this long term forward look at the substantive
Recommendation 15:

Werecommend continuation of scientific quality,

reviews for evaluation

scope, and balance of curexplicit review

rent programs, and to evaZuate future plans, including
of center

proposals to continue projects

of long standing.

Wealso across center

recommend that the TAC give greater emphasis to periodic, analysis
Mechanism

of particular
for Budget

topics
Planning

istripe

analysis)

(pp. 96-98).

and Development and related activfinan-

The character ities, cial lem: with respectively, needs (1) and fund the annual

of the CGIAR and of the centers poses a problem for There of centers projections and financial planning

and coordinating elements activities quality (2) a large

availability. budgets

are several and related

in the probare developed with respect

few guidelines programs,

and contain directions,

of variable needs;

to future

number of

Xii.

independent to potential the situation

donors funding

who contribute instability; donor

to centers (3) resources there fall analysis problem

on an annual is no mechanism short

basis

leading

to manage requests; out. the program in (1) rather combin-

when total program of the

of center carried limiting for lies

and (4)

integrated Part

and fiscal to this

is not lies primarily solution in

solution

number and size than ing istic be able financial program

of CGIAB supported reasons. Another reviews both

activities part of the

and budget

more completely centers

and (2) making

more realCGIAB may

projections to plan

so that ahead. that

and donor-members

of the

We conclude ward planning conclude develop Because sharp financial centers. terms that of budget

annual

budgeting

and the a serious

lack

of effective problem. funding for

for-

needs

is potentially the stability

We further is to

one way to increase for improving

of future planning

a mechanism of the

forward

budget

centers. a

interdisciplinary mission

mode of centers, of the center, that there is

the need to maintain and because a desirable a desired and then of potential size size range (in

focus

on the primary constraints, Each center

we conclude should

for

be requested

to propose budget) plans. with major

of number of senior eiement 9% conclude

scientists its

and total future

use this

as a centrr.i

in developing that biennial

budgets, staff.needs, should

an additional proposed

two year program TAC

iindlczzive changes should ;>rogyciii

plan,which and capital

emphasizes requirements,

be prepared

by centers.

revi_ew the growth

indicative for future

plans

and-recommend

to the

CGTAB reasonable patterns would then

patterns for

each center. budget

These growth

become guidelines

development.

Xiii

In tke process additional two-year

of reviewing plans,

these

biennial

budgets

and the to comrecom-

indicative

TAC would lead

be in a position to the following

ment on current mendations. Recommendation

programs.

These conclusions

16:

Werecommend that the concept of a desirabZe size Wefurther recommend that centers be asked

range for centers be adopted. to propose their translated
into

desired size based on the number of senior scientists
financial terms.

Until

these plans are developed, we numbers that xouzd centers should be

recommend that any proposed increase

in senior stuff
existing

take centers above the size of the largest cZose$y scrutinized
Recommendation 17:

(pp. 86-B? a&

98-100).

Werecommerrd that a biennia2 budget cycZe be adopted activities.
In

for centers and related plan for

addition,

a further

indicative

the two years beyond the biennium shouZd be deveZoped. These budplans to be deveZoped by centers s&uZd be consistent

gets and indicative

with their proposed desired size (pp. 98-100).
Recommendation 18:

Werecorrunendthat the desired size and indicative

plan

proposals from centers be reviewed by TAC. TAC shouZd make appropriate reconunendations to the CGIAR, after .ments &th guidelines the centers. The C[;I! the discussion
of any proposed adjust-

approved pZans wouZd then form the next biennial budget.

for the preparaticn

of the center's

Unti.1 this process is in operation,

centers should recognize that Fro-

Lps~~~S j."or budget Increases til.2 be raviewed very ca.refuZ Zy in the spirit of our recmmnded period of cmsolidation (pp. 98-2 00).

xiv

Mechanism

for

Budget

Allocatir,,, and indicative to donors with about plans would greatly financial center the enhance magnitude the of

These budgets information CGIAR needs. clude that available Parallel donors should

the future in

longer

horizons

planning, time horizon their

we conof their own

be encouraged on several

to expand guidelines

own commitments behavior. It longer serious potential annual is

by agreeing

regarding

our judgment obligations shortfalls is not of the will fully

that,

if

forward

planning

by centers the likelihood

and. of

by donors

are possible, However,

be minimized. eliminated.

the possibility conclude, the that group

of such shortfalls a standby if shortfalls committee appear

We therefore be available

CGIAR should

to advise

imminent.

Recommendation

19:

Werecommerzl that within

the framework

of the foZZowing

guidezines,

donor autonomy be preserved and that center budgets resutt T?zegu&ieZines are: (1) donors of their pledges, (2) donors be

from the sum of independent dowr decisions. be encouraged to increase the fZexibiZity encouraged to continue

support for a reasonubze period of time to aZZow (3) donors be encouraged to precede by two years' notice, (4) that donors

centers to produce research resxtts, an3 substantial reduction
in szqport

agree to cooperate to assme i-by receives greater requests,
underfunded,

thzt no center

or other CGIAR supported aetiv-

support than its budget request,

inchuiing

supplemental

and (5) donor(s) of last resort but if
that

fund a center that is ser-kusly

situat:.on

continues for two or three' ye&s the

jFuture of the center slwuki! be ;aev&ed by the CGIAR (pp. 100-101).

xv
i

Recommendation

20:

Wereeormmd-

that

a standby eo&ttee
.

of the CGIARbe

authorized.

Its membership shouZd in.cZude the ehu&wan of the TAC and the We suggest the committee stand ready to advise on
shortfaZZs in funding.

exeeutitle seere taxy .

how the Group should deal with significant committee could also be activated
for advioe

The

by the CGIAB or the Chairman of the CGIAR
arise

shouZd other poZiey issues or eirewnstanees
and Management of whether and budget by closer that shortfalls analysis coordination adequate integrity budget occur of current there budget

(pp. 101-102).

Budget

Analysis

Regardless integrated should program

needs

to be more This

proposals.

be provided

of the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. and staff are available of these 'support to do secreto the

An assurance the job. tariats CGIAR.

is needed

The independence, are essential

and effectiveness continued

to donors

in justifying

Finally, in certain efforts as early centers. to provide in the

we comment on the The obvious their

seriousness is for

of the donors

cash flow

problem

solution

to make greater activities

contributions year as possible.

to centers

and related

fiscal 21:

Recommendation

Wereeonunewd - that steps be taken to ensure closer to enuble them to
for -the CGIAR.

coordination jointZy

between the TAC aT!d CGIAR secretariats integrated

produce

program and budget analysis

Certain additionuZ upon:

points of oi.ganization

and procedure shouki! be agreed

12) Adequate sk$f

c'zd fiwneial

resources must be provided

-"or the wo~.Icof eaeh,of the seemtariats.

xvi

(2)

The co-sponsors should report

to the Group at

its July meetirq on the budgets of the secretariats for the coming year. If Sufficient resources cannot

be provided by them, donors should be asked to make additional (3) funds ocvaiZabZe. should redognize that it reports its respective chairman.

Each secretariat

ody to the Group, through Wefurther forthcoming

reeomnend that the co-sponsors report

to the Group at the

meeting (October 1376) whether they foresee any difficulty
(pp. 102-103).

in meeting these considerations
Recommendation 22: We reeolrend A-

that donors be strongly

encouraged to

provide their Further,

pledged funds as eari!y izl the fiscal

year as possible. provide donors and een'

we recommend that the CGIAR Secretariat

ters with a time schedule of; center budgetary needs and avaiZabiZi-i;y of donors' funds. If these two mechanisms do not so&e the cash fzow that tti WorZd Eank explore aZternative sbZv,tions

problem, we recomend (pp. 103-104).

There were four International Centers in existence iri i!Z: %?i& h&w CGl$R soon decided to add five more; by 1976 there were a total In ddditioii; df iiine such centers although all Are not yet q&rating. certain other activities, e.g.5 WARDA, CARIS, were supported by the CGtiR. All of these organizations are at various stages of maturity in ifi &jabterms of staff, physical facilities? and progrkm develdpmeht; t&h to growth in the number of CGIAR sueported activities, the number of members of the CGIAk d&b&d in the s&tie period; Those develb$ietits ied to rapidiy increasing financial reijuiremehts and to a question of how long the iiiCrea.8ifig financial iieeds could continue to be fully funded; If they could not be, then some r;itiori$l means of establishing piioirities among current and potential research activities (or at least of allocating insufficieiit funds among est&li&ed &dti?k.&j would have to be devised. Because the CGIAR is five years old; because iti has grown at a rapid rate, both monetdriiy and arganiiatiaiMilyi and because it has iricretised iii complexity tliid has been cBlled @ori to contribute more dupport toward the solution of the food @-oblem+ it seemed approbriate to re+x&Ziine its scope arid direction. Thus in October 1975, the CGIAR began a review of its future role by establishing a Review Comrriittee which in turn selected a four person study team to assist in this analysis; The Review Cominittee adopted the following Terms of Reference; This document is fkMtiulated around issues raised in the berms of Reference. Final Terms of Reference A/

The committee will review available projections until I. the year ?bOG A.D. of probabie production of major food cornand trends in economic demand and in nutritionai modities, needs, especialiy in the areas most severely pressed. It wili also review existing expert opinion as to rates of yield and production increase that are considered feasible over the next 10 years as a result of research and its application.

l/ -.

Approved

by the CGIAR Review

Committee,

March 18,

1976.

2

II. The Committee will :-eview available information on the and the objectives and promise of, major effort devoted to, research programs already in progress that are relevant to the principal food crops, animal products, and related farming systems. In the light of information obtained from I and II the III. Committee will review existing expert opinion as to needs for expanded applied and basic research relevant to the principal food crops, animal products and related farming systems noting particularly those areas of research that could appropriately be undertaken either by international centers or through other activities cooperatively financed by members of the CGIAR. IV. Having regard to the existing and prospective state of development of national research and extension efforts in the LDCs, the Committee will suggest appropriate bo&daries for the responsibilities of the Centers with respect to their own research programs, collaborative research with the developed countries, training, strengthening national research programs, facilitating the effective transfer of technology to benefit ciary countries and its use there. V. The Committee will suggest boundaries for the activities and responsibilities of the CGIAR itself with respect to the international Centers, other forms of CGIAk intemational agricultural research programs, national research and production programs and/or other activities in which various groupings of its members may have a common interest. VI. The Committee will examine the statements of priorities recommended by the TAC, and consider whether it wishes to suggest any change in those priorities for CGIAR activities. It may, in addition, suggest special priorities and/ or an overall size for the Centers, individually or collecr tively, for the next five years. VII. The Committee will estimate the,level of financing required by the international Centers and other CGIARsupported activities over the next five years based on different assumptions with respect to programs. It will seek to ascertain the likelihood of availability of funds for the system as a whole under those program assumptions. If a shortfall seems likely it will recommend mechanisms, including means of establishing priorities among programs, for bringing resources and prcgram needs into balance, should that become necessary. VIII. sary The Committee and practicable will consider what measures may be necesto insure that manpower and money devoted

3 to the CGIAR's international research are efficiently used. It may also suggest ways in which the procedures of the CGIAR, the TAC, and the Centers may need to be modified either individually or in relation to each other. Scope of the Report The report mechanisms, focuses primarily on issues of future and magnitudes of the CGIAR and of its possible activfties.

scopes,

As a necessary background for future analysis, Part A presents information against which the issues discussed in Part B can be considered. (1) a summary review of projected world food This background includes: needs, (2) a review of the potential contribution of research in meeting and nature of agricultural those needs, (3) a review of the character research, (4) a description of current research efforts addressing the food problem especially in developing countries, and (5) a review of the Thus Part A evolution of the CGIAR and of its current activities. attempts to set in perspective the current situation of the CGIAR. The report then considers three major issues in Part B. These (1) the future scope and boundaries of the CGIAR including issues are: some indication of the cost of different options; (2) the scope and boundaries of individual CGIAR activities (centers, etc.); and (3) mechanisms for planning, evaluation, allocation, and management. It is also appropriate to state what the report does not attempt. It is not a review of the scientific content and quality of current CGIAR activities, nor does it attempt to make judgments about future program emphases. It is not a full-scale independent review of the world food situation nor a review of all research devoted to agricultural production. Finally, it is not an evaluation of the effective scope of national research programs. More information about the work sponsored by the CGIAR (the purpose, function, and operation) can be obtained in International Research in Agriculture published by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Method of Approach and board chaircontained in the two documents

Donor-members of the CGIAR, center directors men of centers were interviewed on the range of issues Terms of Reference. As a prelude to those interviews,

for CGIAR Members" and Staff Paper 3, labeled Staff Paper 2, "Questions "Questions for Centers and Tf!eir Boards" were prepared. These interviews included visits to the eight existing centers and some of the other CGIAR supported operations. The opinion of 26 donors was sought. In addition, several other people knowledgeable about the CGIAR were interviewed. These interviews were conducted in most cases by at least two members of the Study Team selected by the Review Committee. A paper on world fcod needs was commissioned. The paper prepared by Nathan Koffsky titled "World Food Needs; Food Gaps and Performance" is included as the Annex. It has formed the basis for Chapter I. including Many documents related to the issues addressed in this the TAC priorities paper2/, were extensively reviewed. report,

21

"Priorities developsing

for international support countries," TAC Secretariat,

to Agricultural Research FAO, Rome 1976.

in

5

PART A. I.

CONTRXT AND RACKGRpuM> OF ISSUES

THE WORLDFOOD PROBLEM TO 1985 AND 2000 A.D.

The CGIAR grew out of concern about the world food problem, especially as it affects people in the less developed, low income countries. Nathan M. Koffsky was commissioned to summarize the ctirrent magnitude and character of the problem in "World Food Needs: Food Gaps and Performance": a copy is annexed to this report. L/ This chapter is based primarily on the Koffsky paper. Despite the gains in productivity that have been made in recent years, the problem is growing, and with expected increases in population levels, it seems likely to grow still more. If recent production and yield trends were to continue, the deficit in cereal production in Asia, Africa, and much of Latin America is likely to rise from about 17 million metric tons in 1969-71 to between 65 million and 83 million tons in 1985-86;.and it might grow by another 30 to 35 million tons by 2000 A.D. Similar increases in deficits are likely in .' root and tuber crops, and grain legumes. . efforts Those projections alone are sufficient to increase farm production. to call for intensified

Global and aggregate figures similar to those just cited are insufficient as a guide to action. To formulate guidelines, a clearer picture of current production, potential increases in production, specific food commodities needs, by countries or geographically associated graups of countries are needed. Such a breakdown is depicted in visual terms in Chart I-l on the next page which portrays in juxtaposition (a) the percentage of cropland devoted to each major crop in 1974, by country or groups of countries; and (b) the projected 1985 population of each country or group of countries. The width of each vertical band is proportional to the percentage of cropland devoted to each crop. The,width of each horizontal band is proportional to the projected 1985 population of each country or group of countries. As a consequence, the chart shows the location in which each crop is important, its importance in terms of the number of people affected, alld its relative importance among major crops in each region.

L/

Some or the studies used :-'y Koffsky in preparing his paper were conducted by the U.S. Department of Agricuiture, the Food and Agriculture Organization cf the U.N., and the International Food Policy Research Institute.

.“.
--_ B&i:?
‘Protected

.) -

_ .-_-.--

._ ---._....---_-., . _ .

Chalt ‘L-l -_. -

.~ -.-. -.

..-- .

- --.-... _ ____.-._.,_. .- - Source:

..i-.--.. ac~.l nd- by

1985

-n
-.Relative --._

-- ._-.._ _. ._-... _. Nathan M. Koff$lq, “World Food Needs: Food Gaps and Performances,” prepared for CGIAR’keview Connnittee Study Team (Washington, D.C., May, 1976).

Importmce of Food Crops in Acreages by Regions in 1974

India

RiCl?

Wheat

e k3iZl

Sorghum

Millets

PUlSlZS

R W Ma s Mi B

Rice wheat Maize Sorghum Millets Barley

Roots and Tubers ---

-_-.-____-_

_.-. R

Sub-Sahara; L&l 1ncoale

Ma r-----l
I w

S Ii Y

Indonesia

----

---ITC SP B C PO S Pu , Pu Pu G Pu B P 0 PO CC! G PU G B

C PO SP Y Grain Pu SE G

cassava Potatoes Sweet Potatoes Y8UtS Legumes Pulses Soybeans Groundnuts L%

BaaSladesh Nigeria Other Low Income, A.918 sow Middle East South America

R R Ha

Mexico
Sub-Sahara. high income.

w
R e-e--R W n8 R Ma S

Ha
Mi I I I C

s

I
0 SP Ma

w
R I w

1 !
B

s Ma I48

I

Hi

I

r,

Fu Pu

7

The coverage of countries in Chart I-l is limited in three ways. First, only low incolile countries with a GNP per capita of under $200 and middle income countries with a GNP per capita of $200 to $400 are listed. Second, it is further limited to those regions faced with food deficits and fcreign exchange constraints, thereby eliminating OPEC countries and a few others like Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Pakistan, that are predicted to be food exporters by 1985. Third, only countries having market economies are included. The Peoples Republic of China and other Asian centrally planned economies are, therefore, omitted. Even with these omissions, the chart includes the countries about which the CGIAR has been, and needs to be most concerned. For example, by 1985 it is projected that 40 percent of all the people in the low and middle income countries will be in India. Current acreages in major food crops in India consist of 30 percent in rice, 15 percent in wheat, 5 percent in maize, 14 percent in sorghum, 15 percent in millet, 2 percent in barley, 18 percent in pulses and 1 percent in groundnuts. No root or tuber crop occupies as much as 1 percent of India's acreage in major food crops. In contrast, in low income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 53 percent of the acreage is in maize, sorghum or millet, and 11 percent is in cassava (see Table I-l). Both Chart- I-l and Table I-l reflect the.predominZZimpo-rL tance of cereals in the diets of the low and middle income countries covered in Koffsky's review; neither refers to animal products as a Those, however, are covered in a table foodstuff in those countries. Koffsky's paper, which is reproduced as Table I-2.

in

In Table I-2 it will be noted that the percentage of calories ' derived from meat and eggs is particularly low in all Asian, low income countries and in Nigeria. A relatively greater consumption of milk and milk products in the Indian subcontinent and Nigeria slightly increases this percentage. The prospects for.meeting the food gaps by 1985 or 2000 A.D. are not bright. Those projections assume that production trends of the recent past of 2 percent to 3 percent per year will continue., Those rates are similar to rates achieved in devel'oped countries. It has been estimated that to close t.?e gap by the year 2000 would require maintaining a growth rate of 4 percent to 4.5 percent, a rate that has never been achieved in the past, except for a brief period, in South Korea. IJ Current information suggests that substantial increases'are most likely in the yields of maize, sorghum, millets, and cassava 2/ in the near future if research in these areas is continued and perhaps

&/ "Meeting Food Needs in the Developing World: The Location and Magnitude of the Task in the Next Decade," Research Report No. 1, International Food Policy Research Institute (Washington, D.C., February, 1976). 21 Cassava aiso to two major has propagation problems, continents, Sou?h America but its use is and Africa. largely restricted'

8

Table

I-l

..-

Percentages

of Tot&I. Food Cron Acres,, by Maj_or Crops

Cereals

Roots

and Tubers

Grain. Legumes

Country

Grouping

Q INCOME: India Sub-Sahara Indonesia Bangladesh Nigeria Other Asian

. 30 Africa 9 59 95 30 77 East 2 50 7 7 9 4 26 11 1 15 5 22 20 11 14 12 15 19 13 2 18 14 4 3 24 6 4 I 6 7 3

N. Africa/W.ddle (non-OPEC)

CDDLE INCOME: South America Mexico Sub-Sahara Philippines Central America/ Caribbean
Turirey

12

24 7

29 65 24 42 52 7 7 10 7 20

8

5

10

10 16 2

2

Africa

6 53 15 68 i t ; 25 53 30

14 2 4 21 36

2

3 2 1

6 1 12 5 10 8

I.8

5

1

Morrh Africa/Y&ddle East (non-OPEC)

1
2

34

1

Source:

Derived

from

Nathan M. Koffsky, "World Food Xeeds: Food Gaps and Performance,n prepared for the CGIAR Review Committee.Study Team (Washingtori, D.C., MgsT, :976)..

Table I-2

Sources of Calories

C&uwned Per Capi& (Percent of Total

by IPPRI Country Consumed) Sugar x

Categories

Country

Country/Grouping Food Deficit Low Income India Bangladesh Indonesia Other Asia NAfMe Non-OPEC Low Nigeria Sub Sahara Low Food Deficit Middle Income

per capita Total Calories/per day

Starchy Cereals %

x
1.5 .9 19.2 1.8 9.9 30.2 22.6

Pulses, Nuts, Seeds x

Vegetables X

Fruit X

Heat 7.

Eggs X

Milk X

Fish x

Oils and FaCS 1

1964 1995
1760 2066 2071 2166 2133

64.4 70.9 60.4 72.7 65.2 51.5 53.P

10.3 2.9 6.9 ::i 7.1

IO.3
a3 4.1 4.8 4.2 a 2.6

1.4 1.4
.7 1.3

1.4 1.3

1.0 1.3
.6 .8

1.0
+4 06

2.0

10.0

.3 .8 1.1 1.3 4.0 1.4 3.5

.I ::
.3

4.0 6.9

.l
2.2 4.9 .7 1.7

.l .1
.2

.2 .h 1.1 1.2 .2 .3 .S

5.8 z-i 613 4.6 6.8 3.6

Philippines EgYPt Turkey NA/NB Non-OPEC High Sub Sahara High
MeXiCO

1911 2639 2769
'2248 2208 2624 2156 1848 2302

Other MA/Carit. Ecuador Other Latin America Food Deficit High Income Asia Group High l-IA/ME OPEC Venezue‘la Food Exporters Pakistan Thailand Argentina Brazil

62.7 69.6 61.9 60.0 47.1 52.0 46.9 31.3 40.5

5.6

1.0
2.8 .9 30.5 1.5 8.7 15.3 12.5

2.8 3.1 5.0 %:i 8.6

6.1
7.0 2.7

9.5 8.1 5.8 10.6 4.0 16.0 15.8 16.0 16.2

.8 2.7 2.0 1.5 .6 .3 .8 1.6

3.8 3.3 5.8 4.1

1.0
3;7 3.0 6.1 2.6

5.1 2.3 2.7 3.4 2.6 ::2 7.7 8.6

1.1

.5 .2 .3 .4 .1 .6 1.2 .4 .5

1.1
2.8 3.9 3.4 1.3 3.7 4.6 6.4 6.0

2.7 .3 .2 .4

1.1
.2 .7 .s .8

4.7 6.6 9.4 11.6 5.3 7.7 7.2 7.2 7.6

.a

2329
2007 2367

69.5 63.6 37.6

7.2 1.7 13.4

3.3 f:f

5.0 11.8 15.4

1.8 1.2
.4

:-i 2:o

4.5 3.3

9.1

.4 .2 .8

.8 3.3 6.4

1.6 1::

3.8 7.8

9.1

1995
2226 2885 2541

70.9 72.1 34.6 33.9

.9 3.0 6.2 16.1

2.9 5.8 .8 12.2

8.3 5.3 13.1 15.8

1.4 .9

1.0 A

::i 3.0

1.9

.8 3.7 21.3 8.0

.l
.7 .8 .7

6.9 .8 7.1 5.3

.6 2.2 .4 .S

5.9 1.9 11.3 5.1

1! Computed from Food Balance Sheets 1964-66 FAO, Rome 1971

10

Potato yields can be increased , and the range of climates expanded. within which they can be grokn extended, but due to dependence OTI vegetative propagation and quarantine restrictions, the rate at which aggregate potato production can increase will be much slower than in the case of cereals. The food situation will be most severe in the coming decades in low income countries with foreign exchange constraints. It will be and foreign exchange less severe in countries that also face food deficits constraints but are somewhat better off economically. &/ Domestic food deficits alone need not mean undernourishment if, through international However, there must be enough trade, a country can afford to import food. food produced in the aggregate if global food needs are to be met. Koffsky's conclusions about global needs have implications for total research priorities. Vhile the present relative importance of different food crops and their geographic distribution are important factors to be considered in research planning , they should not be the sole criterion used to decide which activities the CGIAR should support. Many additional factors should be considered including: use of particular crops in farming systems, other agencies' research programs, and comparative advantage of national research programs versus international research programs. A number of these issues are discussed in subsequent sections of this report. Koffsky's findings and implications for research: 2/

1. There is a clear case for urgent attention to the needs of the low income countries (i.e., GNP per capita less than $200) where large food shortfalls threaten over the next decade and beyond. Most importantly, these include India, Bangladesh, Indonesia (probably), Nigeria and most other low income sub-Sahara Africa countries. This group also contains most of the malnourished people in the developing world. Food crop yields are generally low and performance in improving them is poor. This is especially a matter of concern in Asian countries where additional cultivable land is a constraint. 2. Next are those countries, somewhat better off economically and in food production, but which also face substantial food deficits and financial constraints to purchase needed food supplies. These include the rest of the subSaharan countries, the non-OPEC North Africa/Middle East countries, the Mid-America/Caribbean group (except Mexico) and the Andean countries of South America, especially Peru and Bolivia. -i/ / Na:~r;ai averages conceal the fact that substantial ‘ betwee.-* various segments cf the economy. Koffsky, World Food Needs." differences exist

11 This does not mean that others, where improved 3. crop yields are a major determinant of higher incomes But and levels of living should be denied ettention. the major focus should be directed to the groups above if the food problem in developing countries is to be resolved. should contiuue directed toward 4. Fihile attention improving yields of the major cereals -- rice, wheat and maize -- there is need also for emphasis on millets and sorghtim which are associated with the dry land cultivation prevalent in many food deficit countries. The same is true for root crops and for pulses and groundnuts. the primary need continues to be improve-, In Asia, 5. ment of rice yields, the major food. Performance in this respect appears to be more or less adequate only in Pakistan and Indonesia. In India, additionally, poor performance in sorghum, millets and pulses also contributes substantially to the food problem. In Indonesia, where cassava is important, yields are on a declining trend. The situation for maize and groundnuts is generally unsatisfactory throughout the region. ::'n sub-lanara Africa, yield performance of the 6. major cereals -- maize, millets and sorghum -- is poor, for ttie latter two where yields are declinparticularly ing . Root crops -- cassava, yams and sweet potatoes -which rank with cereals as a major food source in much are having difficulty in maintaining of the region, historical yield Ievels. Yields of pulses and groundnuts are oa a deciining trend. In North Africa/Middle East, the major problems in 7. food crops remain wheat and barley, aLthough in the low income countries of Sudan, they involve sorghum, cassava and pulses and, in Afghanistan, millets as well as wheat. 3. In Latin i'aerica, where maize is the dominant food, <he main pro&em countries are in the Mid-America/ C?r::.,-.10ean are3 (except Mexico) and in Bolivia and Peru. ',t-2y;7; yjp& . 7. the forme;r gr oup have not changed much ..r ne t:nc: c.ci I-,-.ve ris,z. A,. iY siowly in the latter ;xc cou:tt;:ies. ;,...ssc'.vi ..3d sweet potatoes are important .iri y-Y,% i .; i (2 ;.:.i T.' dzJ^L. .'.- :z;I-ry/ \ , but yields show no . Jz 4 i _.. .-.-,,..:. ,.cank c:-,~-.;I:;~I-;fstc.rical.ly. Z;.. Bolivia and Peru, ,;i I , _'. of 7,~:. cc:; arc iow a;;2 declini:.g :;I the latter :‘.I., ; . \r: iir-T ts af ptatocs in 'Peru are low and also <; '7c cendaxy 'ccc irqrov~. In most of Latin America, . .I_ 2o;; ef ;~lses .. ..L. -1 Lags '%ninci po~;uS:.cior. growth.
o:=;iv

12

It should be noted that there is an immediate 9. and urgent need to improve food production in low income food deficit countries. This places added emphasis on accelerating and exploiting research on those commodities where the potential exists to make a significant impact in the next 5 to 10 years. At the same time, it is recognized that there 10. are other constraints -- inappropriate food policies, lack of incentives, inadequate institutions and management, lack of inputs, etc. -- which impede the adoption of available research and technology by the ultimate cultivator. To narrow this gap, more intensive research is needed to identify and to help overcome such constraints.

23

,II.

NECESSARY AND SUFF'ICIENT CONDITIONS FOR EXPANDING FOOD OUTPUT b

The food problem in the less economically developed countries is The activities supported by the severe, and is likely to become more so. In order to identify CGIAR are intended to help alleviate that problem. those activities all efforts that could increase food production irhould be surveyed before decisions about which activities the CGIAR should support are made. increased: per hectare There are two ways in which agricultural 1) expand the area under cultivation, per unit of ttie. production 2) increase can be production

Both approaches to increasing production are constrained by natural resources: by the nature of the soil, by topography and altitude, by moisture availability and ranges of temperatures. In both cases, sustained and increased productivity depend on protecting and improving the character of the soil. The soil should not be depleted to achieve quick increases in productivity, instead long-run and increasing productivity should be sought. Agafn, in both instances, increased production requires investment. To expand acreage, land may have to be cleared, but in addition in many eases irrigation and/or drainage may be needed. In increasing production per hectare per unit of time agricultural development, Among those, investment in requires investments of many different forms. research is essential, but it is not the only'approach. In order to better understand the role of research in. this process, we review many conditions that must be met to achieve agricultural growth. Key factors that influence the necessary and sufficient conditions for agricultural growth are: technical ceilings, economic ceilings, achievement distributions, and the specific measures that affect them. Another key factor is the "theory of induced innovation." Technical Ceilings, Economic Ceilingsi and Achievement Distributions

A technical ceiling is the maximum physical production that can be achieved per unit area of land using the most productive set of technologies and services available, given the existing &and quality. The highest technical ceiling is achieved on maximum yield plots at experiment stations, including those of the International Centers. It is represented by line T Tl in Chart II-I on the next page. The fact that the technical ceiling .-zifts lower toward the right in the chart reflects what happens to yields w;len the same technologies are applied on progressively less prcc;.yi;.-.; ,..e land . Corresponding to each technical ceiling is an economic ceiling, I . P:I-‘L.;~~i possible with perfect information rs;izesents maximum farm output a-a, a;. r;iT: :.I economic sense. Tae economic ceiling is always considerably

14

Chart
i

11-Z

T 7-(

-Technical --

Ceiling
---Tl

6a

E 5"

C-H

-

Economic Ceiling .w B - -

-

--

-Z

-w

-

.

El 4-

A1

Most Favorable

Quality

of Land 6 Climatic
Farmers'
and of Abilities

Resources
11

Least Favorable

below the technical ceiling because farmers stop applying purchased when marginal cost equals marginal returns , even though additional could increase physicai production.

inputs inputs

&I

Only differences in land quality enter into the downward drift Two factors toward the right of a technical ceiling in Chart II-I. 'are responsible for the downward trend toward the right of achievement distribu:ion. 0ne.k land quality. The other is differences 'in the abilities of farmers. gome of those differences' types of education and:training, but even can be removed by,various significant differences in farmers' with eq&l opportunities, abilities-always persist.

.Conditions

for

Agricultural

Growth

How can the %4Wd? ce$iings

Wo ceilings

and the achievement to keep technical Ipovgng'upwaad:

d$str$bufion and economic

be

Six a#iviti,es and achdevement (1)

are essent%al distributions

Rasearch focused on. food productgon and protection, farm management, and improvgng the other five actjvities;

(2) (3)

p&pfgGp.tq
fertilizera? A Rural
real

0~

Importation pesticides,

of Farm Inputs: tools, implements,

efc,;

Infrastructure of .Agri-Support Services: roads and local service centers to make Snformafion, farm ‘inputs? and production credit readily accessible to farmers; and to move their products to market;

(k)

Adequate Production Incentives: primarily fVWable price relationsh&ps and conditions of land tenure; &/

Relative prices of in:;uts and products can affect overall production 0%: Pe as an incentive to use an optimum combination in two ways. The of types and azaunts of inputs in producing individual crops. other in.. jy influeccing shifts in the use of land among different ;:rops. Mhere Local coaGitions allow several crops to compete for t'fie s;iIcle la& ay?Gs, &z land will be used for the most part, to .. .F Conmost profitable. L-.i;k are currently . . -,..2 tl,r ;e Cri'-,r ;> c. i L ..,, .and associated d.&I-'-.L. L1y, when z... ::e"r: produces a crop variety zhat make that crop more profitable, the acreage ci2txsrsi practices ro expand at the expense of the area devoted devoted to it fs Likely which majr also be in short supply, and may or may ~1: 'co 6tLer crqs, *::2 nutritionally important.

16

(5)

Land Improverent through irrigation, land-shaping, and appropriate cultural tices; and Training Agricultural all of these essential Technicians activities

drainage, prac-

(6)

to operate effectively. the necessary and All are related to distributions in ceiling can be raised and (2) through land

these six constitute Taken together, sufficient conditions for agricultural growth. technical and economic ceilings and achievement various ways. As depicted through (1) biological improvement. in Chart 11-2, and engineering a technical research

.

An economic ceiling can be raised by (1) raising the technical ceiling and (2) increasing the number of farming localities served by markets, and the efficiency of markets for farm products, local outlets for farm supplies and equipment, farm to market roads, favorable price relationships, and favorable tenure relations. &/ economic and their extensfon An achievement distribution can be raised by (1) raising the ceiling and (2) improving the abilities and skills of farmers desire to increase production (e.g., through an efficient service).

A substantial gap between an economic ceiling and an achievment distribution is often viewed as a signal that effort be concentrated on extension, rather than research, to raise the achievement distribution. That would be a major mistake. Instead, it is important to raise the technical ceiling as rapidly as possible, while also raising the economic ceiling. A constantly raising economic ceiling is a powerful incentive to farmers to increase production. As stated earlier, there is always a gap between aneconomic ceiling and its associated achievement distribution, and that gap is greater in less developed economies. Efforts to raise achievement distributions are important and need to be intensified. However, raising the technical and economic, ceiling should be the primary focus.

-

L/

Parenthetically, the International Centers are proving that they can raise technical ceilings and, to a lesser degree, raise economic ceilings by breeding for responses and resistances that contribute to yield stability. They can find cultural practices that economfze on the use of purchased inputs. Meanwhile, center scientists are haunted bY lagging achievement distributions and are constantly tempted to give direct attention to them.

Chart II-2

.

Agricultural Development Activities Appropriate to Raising Technica? and Economic Ceilings and Achievement Distributions '

Raising the' Technfcal'Ceiling is accomplished through: --Biological research, and engineering and

--Land improvement Raising the Economic Ceiling can be accomplished by:
. \

. .. a

----,e

I 4

-Raising

the technical

c'efling

\ \ .

-Increasing the number of localities served by, and the efficiency of: 1) Markets for farm prod&s 2) Outlets for farm supplies and equipment 3) Production credit facilities

4) Farm to market roads 5) Favorable. price relationships r 6) Favorable tenure relationships Bafsing the AcMevement'DiitrF~tion is accomplished:' -Primarily ceiling, / 1.
.- -

-I-

-A
-4-N e

---4

\

a

by raising the economic, but it can be accelerated by:

An efficient extension service and other means of increasing farmers' abilities, skills,and enthusiastic eagerness to increase production '

The Theory

af

Induced

Innsvcrt?..

Techqqcal find econonic ceiJ.&$p, achiwwqt disfrlbqtlsns, and the necessqe azpd sufflfciant cqndltio@s for agyicpl@fsl gxrqtha as, 4gr+cultyr41 research are a few of many factors that contribute growth. The "theory of induced innovation" offers 4~ addftLona1 explancrtion of agricultural grotsth. &/

to

The key points that explain the role of induced innovation in agricultural growth are (1) that the relative abundance or scarcity of different factors of production in any -economy induce a.ssrch ~-__ for new technologies that are appropriate to-those factor endowments. and (2) that the availability of new technologies induces development of the other innovations (including organizations and services) that are essential to exploit fully these technologies. The theory implies that the crucial step in agrfcultural growth is to develop biological and engineering technologies that are appropriate to the resource endowments of each region. Once these technologies are available , they will help induce the development of organizations and services essential to their use. Although most of the present centers were functioning before that theory was formally presented and verified from historical materials, it is precisely the reasoning that led to the creation of the older Their founders believed that if more highly productive techcenters. nologies were developed and made available, these technologies would stimulate leaders of national research and production programs to build up the other activities that would take full advantage of the new technologies. Thus, agricultural research is a necessary but not a sufficient It is the most important conmeans of meeting the world's food problem. It is one contributor to raising tributor to raising technical ceilings. economic ceilings, but many other activities are involved that include improving the rural infrastructure of agri-support services and price and land tenure policies. The influence agricultural research has on achievement distributions is primarily through its effect on technical and economic ceilings and farmer behavior that may be changed by expanding opportunities.

1!

Y. Hayami and V. W. Ruts-an, Agricultural Johns national Perspective (Baltimore:

Development: An InteyHopkins University Press).

III;

SOME IMPORT&XT ,!X&RACTERISTICS OF .AGRIC.ULTLJRAL RE,S@.RCH AN-D ITS ADMINI$T+TIyE,NEEDS

Research is one of eix interacting activities, referred to in the preceding chapter that in combination can lead to agricultural growth. Each of these six reqtiires distinctive procedures atld administration. This chapter is a review of some salient characteristic& of agricultural research and presents a brief description of the type of adminiStration it requires. Some Characteristics of Agricaltural Research

Agricultural research focuses on problems that arise in highly interactive and dynamic ecosystems operating within a complex economic and social framework. Crop improvement involves interactiofi between the genetic composition and developmental processes of plants and other envi(1) soils of varying ronmental, biological and social factors guch as: composition, (2) differing patterns of moisture availability, (3) varying insect populations, (4) plant disease organisms, (5) human decisions about crop cultivation, and (6) social customs , such as those governing the division of farm labor. Problems of livestock production involve a similar set of interacting factors. Need for an Appropriate Research Approach. Relatively simplistic "single-limiting-factor" approaches have limited value in solving these highly dynamic and inteiractive agricultural problems. These complex problems demand a more comprehensive systems approach to problem solving, employing the combined skills of researchers from many disciplines. Adopting this more holistic approach to agricultural problems does not lessen the importance of the individual specialist in studying particular components of the system. To maximize their contributfon, scientists from varied discipiines must jointly focus on particular problems and exchange scientific ideas. This interdisciplinary approach runs counter to the more traditional disciplinary approach which characterized so much agricultural research effort in the past. Interdisciplinary cooperatiot has proven to be a successful research approa'ch and a more effective use of manpower. Time Lags Between Recognition, Application, and Adoption.. A commor feature of most biological research is the several time lags that are Ir,v;;lved. One is the long delay which often occurs between the discovery of a new concept or technolog y and the recognition of its practica; value. T?e Japar,ess wheat variety h'orin 10 was developed many years before Orville Vogel beg&u using it in expe?imental trials in'the U. S. ir, 1949. It was several years later when it, in combination with the ii. varietyZrc-.;ror , became the prcgenitor of most tif the high-yielding semiSwarf .i<:ehcs chat have emerged from CIMMYT's program in Mexico.

S.

20 A second lag is the perioL between that recognition and compleTiiird is the inevitable time tion of research based on the new concept. lag involved in the adoption of a new technology by farmers. Uncertainty and Serendipity in Research. Another characteristic of research.is the uncertainty which makes it very difficult to predict the outcome of a particular project. The very fact that a problem requires research implies that there are some unknowns in the system. Often a solution is found, partially thrcugh luck or a chance discovery. This serendipity has been a feature of many important research developments in agriculture. For example, the discovery of zinc as an important key trace element in soils arose out of the use of galvanized containers in experiments with fertilizer treatments. These are the chance occurrences that make quantum jumps possible in science, but to achieve these, it also requires the right person to recognize the situation and exploit it. Character of Research Progress and Expectations. Agricultural research history suggests that most progress has been cumulative and incremental, eventually leading to a more complete understanding and a gradual improvement in technology. Only occasionally does research progress by quantum jumps or breakthroughs, thereby resulting in the emergence of a new concept, genotype, or technique , which in turn creates new opportunities for further research. The publicity from this sort of rare occurrence can be a mixed blessing. It builds up the reputation and credibility of the research organization and makes it easier to attract support. However, it can also lead to undue pressure and, sometimes a reaction from donors if similar breakthroughs are not forthcoming at fairly regular intervals. New breakthroughs will occur, but these are not predictable. Meanwhile, most progress in agricultural research will continue to be of the cumulative, incremental type. Characteristics of a Successful Researcher. Attributes required to be a successful agricultural scientist are varied. Formal training is important, but intelligence, ability, and motivation are equally -valuable. Many successful agricultural scientists have moved into agricultural research following rigorous training in a more specialized biological field or from different but related fields such as mathematics, physics, or biochemistry. often bring new insights and ways of approachSuch scientists ing problems which can be valuable in an interdisciplinary team approach. Above all, agricultural researchers need to be able to bring a conceptual approach to problem solving. critical. program The choice of first rate scientists They represent the most important and largely determine its outcome. with these attributes is component of any research

A Suitable ment for the scientific ment and facilities, scientific colleagues,

A productive research environResearch Environment. staff requires good leadership, adequate equipindependance, opportunities to interact with other and adequate rewards and recognition.

Priorities,

Planning,

Evaluazion, .

. and Management

The preceding brief discussion of the character of agricultural research makes it clear that the research enterprise Ps atypical; It is For that unlike many other types of agriculturai development activities. reason, issues relating to priority setting, planning, evaluation, and management of research require additional brief comment. The process of identifying priorities and translating them into specific goals -7 a responsibility of any agricultural research organizatgor& -- requires a delicate balance between generality and specificity. Further, that balance is going to be different at each level in a research organization. Clearly, problem-oriented, interdisciplinary agricultural research requires clear choices about the geographic target area and the The criteria for these choices should include: problems on which to focus. (1) geographic importance of different food sources, (2) importance of particular food sources in the diets of target populations, (3) the limitation of agroclimatic conditions, (4) the magnitude and character of ongoing research, (5) the existing state of research knowledge, and (6) some estimate of the impact research might have in raising technical and economic ceilings. Integratfon of these and other factors to mak.e quantitative priority choices is virtually impossible; and therefore, the choice of priorities must come from subjective judgment about the potential impact that a sustained research effort might have on levels of food output, Thus at the general level (e.g., CGIAR), these priorities need to be specific, constantly evaluated, Howand continuously emphasized. ever, these goals should be generally outlined for the research unit, providing adequate leeway for the research unit to develop an appropriate strategy. Given that research is interrelated, long term, chancy, and has an unknown specific outcome, the development of a research strategy is a critical element in the success of a research program. That strategy must allow maximum freedom for the researcher and the research inBtitute to decide the best approach and proceed to direct its research activities toward the general goal. Researchers must be experienced and highly qualified. To maintain their quality, researchers should have the opportunity and encouragement for continuous self-renewal. They must be able to work in a stable environment with maximum opportunity for scientific interchange. They must be provided with excellent equipment, laboratory and field facilities. They musrhave dynamic and enlightened leaders who constantly keep the goal before them and who have frequent, direct contact with problems under attack. They must have a feeling of personal and resource security that permits maximum sustained effort on a specific problem without bureaucratic interference. In summary, a successful research strategy is one that involves clear>-r defined goals, the best possible inputs in the correct combinatirn, and maximum freedom to pursue promising avenues within the general

Therefore, goal. apply traditional benefit analysis.

it is inhere-.:tly difficult to predict outcomes and evaluative measures, such as, rates of return or cost-

The above strategy should be pursued long enough to permit the possibility of substantial progress towards the goal. This time period However, once an instiwill vary depending on the nature of the goal. tution is operating, periodic ex post progress reviews are essential. These reviews should involve internal program evaluation by the researcher and the research team (internal peer review), review,by other members of the research institution, periodic external review by knowledgeable people outside of the institute, and review by potential users and donors. This chapter presented a general research and its management needs. It will deal of harmony between what good research national Centers now exemplify. description of agricultural be noted that there is a good requires and what the Inter-

as
IV.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS ,.. SERVING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The International Agricultural Research Centers sponsored by the CGIAR represent one among many research efforts serving the needs of developing countries. This chapter briefly reviews the kinds of. research organizations that are involved, the interrelationships among them, the magnitudes of the resources devoted to them, and some of the problems involved in improving national programs. Major Components serving research

There are four major types of agricultural research the developing countries: national, regional, international and research conducted in developed countries. (the centers),

tiithin developing countries, most agriNational Research. cultural research is supported by public funds (in some cases augmented by direct grants from bilateral and other aid agencies) and is conducted by or under the auspices of ministries or departments of agriculture. A limited amount of research is also conducted by universities and colleges 0; agriculture, who often have well qualified graduates on their staffs but because of limited facilities and funds some of them contribute little to national research efforts. Two influences from the past may have inhibited the developThe heritage of singlement of productive national research programs. crop research institutions focused on export crops,,established in colonial times and financed by a tax on exports has probably delayed adequate financing for research on other crops financed out of general Second, there has been a tendency to scatter research efforts revenues. on non-export crops among a large number of small experiment stations, thus failing to achieve a critical mass of high quality staff in particuler p-aces.

In an effort to overcome these problems, some countries have createi ...antral National Agricultural Research Institutes that group all the 1'6in res;.arch areas under an IJmbrella. These institutes have sufficient strength and flexibility for research on specific commodities or nrob1em.s to be conducted, either within disciplines, or on a multidisciplfnar hasis. 1 esearch Exaqies of this approach are the Indian Council of Agricultural (ICAX) with its All-India Coordinated Research Programs in particular commodities, the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) and the quasi-government corporation (EMBRAPA) in Brazil. facing In addition to central research organizations, an important '--Sk aAly natiolial research effort is to create decentralized programs

24

that can adequately serve nhe localized social, fragmentation mental problems without excessive resources.

economic, and environand dissipation of scarce

Regional Research. Another component of the research system in the developing world is regional multi-country research programs. These are fairly recent and have*developed on a modest scale in Africa, the Middle East, Central America, and Southeast Asia. Some examples of these organizations and the scope of their activities are listed on the next Page (Table IV-l). those supported through the Office Among the regional programs, de la Recherche Scientifique de Technique d'Outre-Mer (ORSTOM), and the Groupement d'Etudes et de Recherches Pour la Developpement de 1'Agronomie Tropical (GERDAT) both operaring in francophone Africa, are probably the most extensive and well supported. Both organizations have central stations or research institutions supported by a network of secondary research centers distributed through the region. In the case of GERDAT the organization is further subdivided into a number of commodity research institutes with their own substations (e.g., IRAT, Institute de Recherches Agronomiques Tropicals et des Cultures Vivrieres). The other regional organizations listed obtain funds from host countries, in addition to those received from sources outside the region, e.g., U.K. in the case of East Africa, The Ford Foundation and FAO in the Middle East, U.S.A. for Central America, and France and the CGIAR in the case of WARDA in West Africa. Agricultural research in regional programs of research activities. With some exceptions, (e.g., largely mission oriented. Some of it involves longer that have regional implications. Research structure International Research. Centers (IARCs) constitute of the LDCs. The International a third tier in covers the spectrum ORSTOM) it is term investigations Agricultural the research

Most of them are lccated in developing countries in the low latitude belt around the world and have a strong commodity focus, usually developed within a farming system context. The majority of the International Centers are under the collective sponsorship of the CGIAR. The history and development of this organization and details of the program and support for the centers are reviewed in Chapter V. Some of the special advantages of the IARCs are their ability to attract a critical mass of talented scientists and provide them with adequate funding and facilities; their independence, flexibility, and interdisciplinary approach to problem solving; their strong focus on issues that are central to the problems of food production in developing countries; and their ability to interact with national and regional research programs through a global network of collaborative research efforts.

25

Tab1.e IV-,1 Regional Operatihg Organization ORSTOM Office de la Recherche Technique d'Outre-Mer GERDAT Groupement d'Etudes et de Recherches Pour la Developpement de 1'Agronomie Tropical WARDA West African Development Rice Association East Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania) East Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania) Research in agriculculture and forestry Some Examples of Research Organizations in Developing C.ountries Region Former French in West Africa Former French in West Africa Colonies Activity Basic research ail tute Applied research agriculture agri-

Colonies

West Africaa

Region

Applied

rice

research

EAAFRO East African Agriculture and Forestry Research Organization EAVRO East African Veterinary Research Organization OAU/STRC Scientific Technical and Research Commission of the Organization of African Unity ,ATIE Centro Agronomic0 Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza SEARCA Southeast Asian Reg;ional Center for G" aduate Study and 'Yesearch in Agricuiture
.- ‘-4 :

Veterinary

research

--

Central America and Caribbean region

Dairy, beef, food cropping and forestry Wide range of activities: water resources, food technology, extension, agribusiness, economics, also postgraduate training Research and development of basic food crops, winter cereals, food legumes, and work on summer cereals, msize millet and sorghum,

Southeast

Asia :.

1 &ricul,;r :.I ,:. -,,. . ._.A_ . .,I~Lz:.:>ornent

Z<orth Africa E:ear East

and

26

ressarch countries business lation

The fourth agricultural Research in Deve>&ned Countries. component serving developing countries is research in developed ronducted by research institutions, universities, and private firms. That research contributes in a number of ways: First, it provides the scientific of past research results and fruitful resource research the accumubase: techniques.

Second, it provides a number of models for research organization. These vary by-country of origin.and need to be adapted to the needs of developing countries. They do, however, exemplify: (1) effective combinations of central research institutes and branch experiment stations, (2) fundamental and applied research with technology development, (3) cooperation between universities and governmental research agencies, and (4) quickly mounted efforts to solve emerging problems. Third, in some cases developed country research is aimed directly at current problems in the developing countries. Concern about the world food problem is worldwide and much of the research in developed countries is now being funded to tackle such basic problems as nitrogenfixation, photosynthetic efficiency, etc. research organiIn addftion, zations in developed countries are willing to study particular. problems referred to them from developing countries, witness the several research contracts CIP has made with organizations in developed countries. Links and Interaction A major current need is to foster effective links among the four research components just discussed. and inter-

action

These links may involve joint research projects, pooling and exchange of research materials and results (including broadly based genetic materials), priority setting and program coordination, training, exchange visits, information sharing services, or other kinds of reinforcing activity. The IARCs have a pivotal role to play in this process. They are in continuous contac? and collaboration with national programs in the process of carrying on their own research. They are in a position to work together with regiona? programs. They operate at the interface of research and technology in the developed world and itsapplication to the problems of increasing focbd production in the developing world. The mechanism for cnllaboration in the past has been largely dependent on voluntary ccoperction among scientists and organizations sharing common interests and problems. Now, the cooperative regional and national programs of centers(such:as CIMMYT, IRRI, IITA, and ICRISAT) are initiating interaction, and coupied with centers' training activities, are making a significant contribution to the strengthening of.national research programs. .,"

27

The UNDP/FAO Regional Research Cooperation Program in the Near East IJ is another good example of integrated research activities. It covering the majority of food crops of involves an integrated approach, and dry land the region, agronomic work, and problems of both irrigated It involves cooperation farming, embracing a total of 22 countries. increasingly as a between FAO and national programs , and it is serving vehicle for collaboration with IARCs, regional programs (ALAD) and developed country research institutions that are active in the region. Sources of Funds and the Deployment Research in Developing Countries of Resources for Agricultural

International aid funds have been a major input in the development of many of the agricultural research systems in developing countries over the last 25 years. In the 1950's international aid probably accounted for 40 percent to 50 percent of the total investment in research in developing countries and although that figure has now been reduced, it is still substantial, approximately 20 percent. The support comes from a number of sources. For example, the French government has provided Intersubstantial support for research mainly in francophone Africa. national agencies such as FAO/UNDP have been major contributors to the support of research and training. Aid for research has also flowed directly through bilateral government agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.K. Ministry for Overseas Development (ODM), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), from international organizations such as the World Bank (IBRD) and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB), and from private foundations. This support for agricultural research in developing has taken a number of forms, including direct grants as loans ments, provision of expatriate technical and scientific staff, uate training. countries to governand grad-

Although the details about the deployment of these funds in developing countries are not available, some impression of the overall pattern of distribution can be inferred from the global picture of the investment in agricultural research presented in Table IV-2 for the period 1951-1974. These data show that investment in agricultural research has increased at a rapid pace in all regions, although in the last three years the rate has slowed considerably. The share of the investment in agricultural research in the developing countries has increased from Lpproximately 10 percent in the 1950's to 16 percent in 1971, and has remained fairly constant since that time. Within these countries the contribution to agricultural research from the private industrial sector has been

,i/' Project

REM-71/293.

PAO, Xome 1975.

,,

28

limited because of the stage of development. In the more basic agriculturally related scientific research, there again the contribution has been limited because of the slow development of research in universities. TaSle Expenditure Region on Agricultural IV-2 Research by Region -/1

Total Annual Expenditure in Millions of Constant 1971 U.S. Dollars 1974 1971 1951 130 132 366 30 41 70 -769 671 818 1203 146 139 610
-3587

Western Europe Eastern Europe & USSR North America & Oceania Latin America Africa Asia World Total

733 861 1289 170 141 646 3840

-I1

Includes all agricultural and agriculturally supported by public and private funds (does extension). "National J. K. Boyce and R. 'E. Evenson. tural Research and Extension Programs," Council (New York, 1975).

related scientific research not include agricultural and International.AgriculAgricultural Development

Source:

Despite the widespread efforts since World War II to improve agricultural research and extension programs in the developing world, the investment in these activities is still far short of that achieved in the developed western world. To assist in the future planning of agricultural research and more reliable development in the LDCs, there is an urgent need to obtain data, on a country by country basis, of the current investment in agricu lt.c'TEZe research. The data should include the contributions of individual donors, the manner in which these funds are invested in national programs, and the nature and quality of the research they support. The statistical data currently available are not sufficiently reliable to use for this purpose. International Centers must now operate within a very complex set of circur;stances. They m,st find their place among, and establish opeimum cooperative relationships with other international agencies, advanced research institutes, and national research and production systems,in LDCs.

These ihterrelaticnships diagram.

are indic$ted

in

the foliowing

Adiignced c-- Research Iristitutes Research and

$<$::(I Research

on

Applied Research and Technology

LDC National d

Production h.&

Programs

. . . . . ...... . . . . ............. :.. ......... - ....... ..-. ...... ... , ... . ........................ ..~.~.~~ ..................... .............................. ............. .......................... :.:.:.:.> . . . . ............................... .............................. ‘.‘,‘.‘.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.~.: .............. ........................... ......... ............ .......................................... . ......... ............. . ....... . ......... .................................. .-.

.

In chli; diagram, the shaded extensions of the box representing z,.;io;1a1 research programs are intended to'indicate other responsibilitiet r'-;n just interaction with international technology developmeiGL TX L. .: engage in technology development themselves, not only on Cl--,Y>?-,a on :&;ch the centers work but on other crops as well. As they iliQ';ure, they are likely to engage in some basi: research, as well.

production programs indicate The shaded extensions of the Lox national that many factors other than availabie technologies also affect actual All of these factors enter into the production levels in each country. technology-policy-organizational packages on which national production programs need to be based. Special Problems in Developing Research Organizations Strong National Agricultural

Given the seriousness of the food problem and the acknowledged importance of research'as an essential activity in agricultural development, it is clear that every food deficit; low income country with appreciable agricultural potential needs a strong agricultural research program. Some agricultural research is now conducted developing countries, but it varies greatly in both Some programs are small, others quite substantial. effective, many are not. why A prime question is: not more productive? In large measure it is because constraints that must be faced. in most of the quality and quantity. A few are quite are these programs of the many severe

One major constraint is the lack of well trained and imaginaCompetition for trained tive research scientists and support staff. scientists is great; many are attracted to more highly paid administrative posts in other ministries. Often seniority considerations in promotion restrict the opportunities of young, talented scientists long enough for them to lose their drive and enthusiasm. Other constraints relate to the availability and facilities for servicing and repairing complex equipment, and administrative difficulties causing delays in transportation, communication, and in the provision cf logistic support for research programs involving growing plants, where timeliness is essential. Those well trained, young research workers who do remain in agriculture tend to continue working on the more basic research topics that constituted the thrust of their own theses or the thrust of the research institute in which they worked. This is partly due to scientific inertia and also to the desire to obtain scientific recognition Another factor is the relucby publishing in international journals. tance by many scientists in developing countries to participate personally in field research. Many prefer to direct rather than participate, and without talented support What staff this is often ineffective. these countries need most is a strong interdisciplinary team approach to develop appropriate technologies to solve local problems, rather thaz contributions to the burgeoning growth of journal articles.

31

Good Finally, there is Lhe constraint of inadequate funds. research can be highly produdztive, but it does need an adequate and sustained source of funds. since developing countries need to finance many activities, reRenrch munt compete with many other urgent demands In the past, agriculture in in the planning and budgeting processes. general, and agricultural research activities in particular, have not had a high priority in the allocation of limited budgetary funds in many developing countries. Not all of the constraints mentioned here are peculiar to research programs. Some of them are found whenever a new activity designed to further agricultural growth in a developing country is started. They also interact; the demand for a strong'national research program is likely to be greatest when the other elements of a successful national production effort (credit, extension, price incentives, etc.) are also in place. To lessen these constraints, political and administrative leaders must appreciate the importance of research and understand the kinds of research needed and the contingencies necessary to benefit from it. Secondly, it involves many types of changes in personnel policies and administrative Frocedures, not only within research organizations, but throughout the many governmental departments with which research organizations must deal.

32 V. THE CGI;R FXi%ILY OF ACTIVITIES

In earlier --the world

chapters

we have

reviewed:

food problem;

--the variety of activities that are essential to agriand within them, 'the specialized role cultural growth, of agricultural research; --the characteristics to be considered agency); and in of agricultural research that need conducting research (by-whatever

--the many organizations, national, regional, and international, that are currently conducting research for the benefit of developing countries. The focus of this study is stated in the question: what should the CGIAR do, -and how? This final chapter in Part A, therefore, is a review of the history, and present nature of the CGIAR and the major activities it supports, the International Centers. The chapter is divided into two sections. The first is a narrative sketch describing the CGIAR and the existing centers. The second is a fiscal history, discussing the growth of center budgets and the corresponding trend in donor contributions. Origin and History A Narrative of the Sketch CGIAR:

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research was established in 1971. It was an outgrowth of two earlier conferences of donor-agency administrators at.Bellagio, who agreed on the need to broaden the base of financial support for four International Centers established earlier by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. The mechanism agreed upon was a "consultative group," patterned along the lines of others previously established by the World Bank. Objectives of the CGIAR of the CGIAR, adopted at its first They are listed on the next page. meeting, are in food

worth this

T'ne objectives quoting in full.
__

iT wili be note5 thar "centers," as such, are not mentioned E;: (e-y -'ment of CGIAR objectives. Nor is there any restriction.to

33

Objectives

of the

CGIA.R *

by its

The main objectives of ,the Consultative Technical Advisory Committee . ..) are:

Group

(assisted

as necessary

(i)

On the basis of a review of existing national, regional and international research activities, to examine the needs of developing countries for special effort in agqicultural research at the international and regional levels in critical subject sectors unlikely otherwise to be adequately covered by existing research facilities, and to consider how these needs could be met; L/ to attempt to ensure maximum complementarity of international and regional efforts with national efforts in financing and undertaking agricultural research in the future and to encourage full exchange of information among national, regional and international agricultural research centers; to review the financial and other requirements of those international and regional research activities which the Group considers of high priority, and to consider the provision of finance for those activities, 2/ taking into account the need to ensure continuity of research over a substantial period; to undertake a continuing review of priorities and research networks related to the needs of developing to enable the Group to adjust its support countries, policies to changing needs, and to achieve economy of effort; and to to be on suggest feasibility studies of specific proposals, reach mutual agreement on how these studies should undertaken and financed, and to exchange information the results. '

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(4

Lf

Research is used in this document in a broad sense to include not only the development and testing of improved production technology,. but al so twi&n~ylcAO and other activities designed to facilitate and speed effectlvti ,~.:i widespread use cf improved ,technology. PinaL decisions of funding remain i.%th specific propcsals. corxection Consultsi:.lre Amex ZXI . Group on International a responsibility Agricultural of each member in Research (AGR 71/3)

.-, L,: .::

34

Instead, the objectives crops as the proper focus of CSIAR cczcern. speak of "examining the needs of deveioping countries for special effort(s) in agricultural research at the international and regional levels in critical subject sectors unlikely ocherwise to be adequately covered by existand to consider how these needs could be met," ing research facilities, and other requirements of those international and of "reviewing the financial and regional research activities which the CGIAR considers of high priority." the statement Bf CGIAR objectives contemplated In addition, "undertaking a continuous review of priorities and research networks related to enable the Group to adjust its to the needs of developing countries, L/ support policies to changing needs, and to achieve econotiy of effort." ;o secure maximum complementarity of interIt speaks also of attempting (( national and regional efforts with national efforts in financing and undertaking agricultural research in the future and to encourage full interchange of information among national, regional and international research centers." L/ of the CGIAR are precisely what In other words, the objectives its name states: a consultative group comprised of representatives from donor-agencies concerned with the broad field of international agrtcultural research, that consult on meeting the financial needs of selected activities that the CGIAR had jointly agreed to launch and/or financially support, "taking into account the need to ensure continuity of research over a substantial period." 2/ The first footnote tn the CGIAR Terms of Reference on the previous page should be particularly noted. It defines research in an unusual way: to include "not only the development and testing of improved production technology, but also training and other activities designed to facilitate and speed effective and widespread use of improved technology." &/ In adopting that broad definition, the CGIAR recognized the actual nature of the centers then in existence, and their nature and objectives have continued to characterize both the older and the newer centers. It leads, in fact, to one of the questiocs we shall examine later about the balance in center programs, i.e., to what extent should they concentrate on raising technical and economic ceilings, and to what extent and in what ways is it appropriate for them to seek to raise achievement distributions by other means.

L/ z/ 31

Consultative Annex III. 1bi.l. -Ibid.

Group on International

Agricultural

Research,

(AGR 71/3)

;5

Influences

of Its

Origin

Four International Centers predated the formation of the CGIAR. Those were established earlier by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. with a full set of objectives and operating They were operating centers, As the CGIAR later established five new centers organized procedures. it is important both to review the nature of the along the same lines, earlier centers and to note some of the problems in management that necessitated changes as a consequence of the shift from foundation to CGIAR sponsorship. First, IRRI, CIMMYT, CIAT, and IITA had engaged in applied reusing interdisciplinary teams of sciensearch and technology development, tists backed up by all of the physical facilities needed for first class The emphasis was on solving performance by highly qualified scientists. particular problems, rather than on pushing back the frontiers of knowthe problem was to raise the technical ledge. For two of those centers, rice in the case ceiling for the production of particular commodities: other two centers of IRRI, wheat and maize in the case of CIMMYT. For.the the problem was to try to find more productive ways to use the resource the humid lowland tropics endowments of particular agroclimatic zones: of Central Africa (IITA), and the tropical areas of South America (CIAT). Second, each of the four centers was administered by its own international board of trustees, but the resources of the sponsoring foundations were available to them. Those resources were financial, and they were also administrative. In the latter case, the foundations, according to their normal administrative procedures , provided a mechanism.for (-I>: adjusting budgets to available funds, (2) encouraging uniform administrai tive procedures, and (3) technical review by foundation personnel or the consultants they might enlist. When the CGIAR was 'established, responsibility for fulfilling those functions no longer lay with the foundations. Financing became a function of the CGIAFL The TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat replaced the foundations as far as technical and administrative support were concerned, developing procedures as they went along. Third, a "major breakthrough mentality" was encouraged by the notable achievements of CIMMYT and IRRI in the late 1960's. It was those accomplishments, to the creators of the CGIAR, that legitimized both expanded support of existing centers and the possible creation of new ones. Despite these accomplishments foundation administrators realized and pointed out, that the problems tackled by CIAT and IITA were unlikely to be solved within a short time and that future advances in rice and wheat were much more likely to be of the cumulative, incremental than the quantum jumps experienced in the late 1960's. type, rather Present CGIAR Activities Today there still in its are nine formative International Centers, including stage. ICARDA is to be built ICARDA on the base

which

is

36 , Chart Age of International V-l Research Centers

Rockefeller-Mexico ------Program

CIMMYT
=--

-

---

RockefellerCo1 nbia .-mm-Program

,

.

i--

CIAT

I

IITA

0
CIP --b

----em-

Rockefelle

Potato Program ----

ICRISAT 0

ILCA a--------

Ford

bogram

L

1960 1971 1976

37 In addition to the of ALAD, established‘in 1967 by the Ford Foundation. CIP is an outgrowth and expansion of a previous Rockefeller initial four, Moreover, we have been told by parFoundation program of long standing. ticipants at the Bellagio conference that in 1971 initiatives about arid Thus, ICRISAT, and semi-arid areas and livestock in Africa were considered. ILRAD, and ILCA were comtemplsted by 1971, although not approved by the It should be noted that. from the TAC, the CGIAR, or launched until later. beginning centers could cooperate with national research programs already through international efforts, were organized. in existence when centers, The other activities that have been supported by the CGIAR within WARBA, based in Liberia, is the past five years are diverse in character. a cooperative program in 13 West African countries dealing with rice research and development. The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources seeks to stimulate and coordinate the collection and exchange of materials of The Current potential interest to plant breeders in developing countries. Agricultural Research Information System (CARIS), managed by FAO, has received financial help through the CGIAR, but the support is currently expected to terminate at the end of 1976. Including these in the CGIAR family of activities illustrates the willingness of the CGIAR to support international research that is not cast in the normal center mode; this is further exemplified by several proposals that the TAC is currently considering. Evolution of the Research Centers

Over the past five yaars, the older centers have remained relatively unchanged in certain respects while undergoing considerable change in others. Each remains highly problem oriented with its emphasis on applied research and technology development, and with an associated training program. Each mounts interdisciplinary teams to tackle specific problems. Esch is located in the tropicai or low latitude subtropics. Each has, or 2ians soon to have a well-equipped set of science laboratories, experimental fields, a technic-1 library, documentation center, and training and conference facilities zt its headquarters. Each is international in its staff, financing, and-management. Each operates under a charter that allows a broader program ;han is currently being conducted, and that charter can ?.- sx%ended by its board of trustees. ments in Ar the same time, there the past five years. have been significant evolutionary develop-

: Increasingit, each of several centers (IRRI, CIMMYT, and CIPj has rni&2 away from doing most cf their research at or near their hee.!<uarters and is becoa.:ng -.21: organization for widespread coordinated resezxh activlzfes -- in riz.r.y CoiLntries. In their plant breeding activities, a zr;or technique 0: the centers is to gather germ plasm from diverse rc:.;ions, recombine it in many Gifferent ways, tiien test the resulting cresses over a wide range of ccntrasting envirtnments for yield stability

38

testing in many countries. T'nac requires and pest tolerance, etc. developed varieties are becoming important sources over, nationally materials for such international testing. The core research of ILCA is two in East Africa and two in centers, lished one regional research program in East Africa and South America to sample tropical world.

Moreof

to be conducted in four regional ICRISAT has estabWest Africa. West Africa and plans others in more adequately the semi-arid

In addition, IRRI, CIMMYT, and CIP are placing regional teams in a number of different countries, partly to monitor international testing, but also to encourage and aid national in-country training activities and national production programs. Frequently, one hears it said that "IRRI is at Los Banos" and "CIP is at Lima." Their headquarters are there but their research, and that of other centers is carried on at many places, in many countries. centers under2. There is a movement toward each of several taking research on more crops than were initially intended. Thus, CIMMYT now has programs concerning both bread and durum wheats, maize, barley, triticale, and cold-tolerant sorghum. Groundnuts research has been added at ICRISAT. IRRI has recognized that it must deal separately with shallowwater irrigated rice, rainfed "upland" rice and deep-water rice. systems) are receiving increased 3. Farming systems (cropping attention since the way in which a crop, or a variety of crops, fizs into a combination of different crops or into sequential cultivation of the sa-ile crop vitally affects both its acceptability and its potential contribution to aggregate production. 4. There is an increasing tendency to get involved in a certain amount of basic or fundamental research and to contract for such research. IRRI and CIMMYT had the advantage of being able to draw on an.enonaous amount of previous research related to the commodities with which they deal. The same is not true for millet, cassava, potatoes, and several other crops grown under tropical conditions. This means some basic research will have to be undertaken by centers. CIP, for example, has been contracting with a number of research agencies in developed countries where the facilities and expert research manpower already exist to undertake basic investigations relevant to its program. 5. Over the past five years, centers have become involved in an increasing number of single-country (or regional) technical assistance projects. Some of these are projects to help develop research programs;. others involve assisting national production programs as well. Such projects are peripheral activities as far as the research purposes of centers are concerned, but they may be helpful in accelerating the strengthening of national research capacities and/or accelerating national increases in food production, '

39

All centers are eager to see national research capacity increase, and they are impatient for their own research results to show up promptly In addition, in rising achievement distributions in individual countries. as centers demonstrate research competence they are courted both by national governments and by donor-agencies interested in more rapid agricultural development in particular countries or groups of countries. there has been a change in the method of 6. Administratively, The older centers' boards have selecting members of boards of trustees. places reserved for members from host countries, foundation representaOn boards of centers more and are otherwise self-perpetuating. tives, recently established, places are not reserved for foundation representatives and some or all members (in the case of ICARDA and IBPGR) are appointed by the CGIAR. the increases in the number of cen7. Also administratively, ters, in the widespread international testing of plant materials, in the number of commodities with which various centers deal, and in the number of single-country technical assistance projects in which centers are involved, have led to questions regarding the jurisdictions of different in different capacities in particularly where they are involved centers, the same countries. Up to now, such problems have been worked out, case of the centers by case, by the center directors and boards of trustees involved. Current Form and Function

With the formation of the CGIAR, it became necessary to make new provisions for functions previously performed by the foundations. One of those is embodied in the arrangements and procedures for financing centers. Another is the activities of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAc) . The ways in which the activiArrangements for Financing Centers. ties sponsored by the CGIAR are financed constitute an adjustment to the policies and legislative constraints of the various donor-members of the CGIAR. Some donors can commit funds more than one year in advance; some cannot. Some can give to the overall programs of international agencies; others can only support particiilar activities of an international agency, but not its overall program; still others can give only to, or to programs Some can operate in any on behalf of, individual developing countries. of these ways, making grants of each type out of a separate division of their own budgets. Corresponding to those different situations, centers can accept One is "unrestricted core" funds t.hat can three types of contributicns. be used by a center for any part of its program. Another is "restricted core" funds that can be used only for that part of a center's program as it is designated by the donor. The third is "extra-core" (special project) funds that are bilaterally negotiated between a center and donor for special purposes.

40

program of the tion of for the

Each center, annually in July, presents and budget for the coming caiendar year. Week) give CGIAR, at that meeting (Centers' how much they are willing to contribute in coming year.

to the CGIAR a proposed Individual donor-members a preliminary indicasupport of the centers.

It would be sheer coincidence if the preliminary financing indications of donor-members matched, even approximately, the budget requests of centers and other activities financed through the CGIAR. At the end of Centers' Week the budgets of some centers may be oversubscribed and others undersubscribed, and the total of all subscriptions may be (and usually is) less than the total needed for all CGIAR supported activities. Between Centers' Week and the Pledging Meeting, held usually in October, each donor-agency reconsiders what it will do, frequently in consultation with the CGIAR Secretariat, about programs :that are under- or oversubscribed. In addition, the CGIAB Secretariat frequently takes the initiative to discuss with different donors helpful ways in which their contributions might be reallocated. Many donors are quite flexible in making such readjustments even though they may still be constrained from pooling their contributions for allocation by the CGIAR Secretariat itself. Once donors have made their firm subscriptions in the Pledging Meeting, the CGIAR Secretariat recommends allocation of funds that have been made available by those donors who do not specify to which CGIAR activities they are to be applied. In fact, arranging for the financing of CGIAB activities is a major responsibility of the CGIAR Secretariat. It encourages centers to present their budget figures in a standardized form easily comprehensible by participants in meetings of the CGIAB. It prepares "integrative reports" and comments on the program anIl budget submissions of all centers and other CGIAR supported activities, suggesting topics that may merit discussion. It helps negotiate shifts in contributions to insure that all budget requests are fully covered. It handles requests of centers for supplementary contributions within each year to meet unforeseen needs. In addition to its central program and budget, most centers also have several special projects and their associated budgets. The chief substantive difference is that, whereas, the central programs and budgets are considered simultaneously and by all members of the CGIAR, special projects are negotiated separately between a single center and a s5ngle donor-agency. They are not reviewed by the CGIAB as a whole although each center now reports to the CGIAR, -ex post, all special projects it is initiating. Special projects are dominantly three types. The most numerous are technical assistance projects to strengthen research and/or production programs in individual countries or groups of countries. The second type is special projects to augment activities within the central program. The third type is special project funding of additional physical facilities and equipment.

41 Recognizing that representaThe Technical Advisory Committee. tives of donor-agencies on the CGIAR are not necessarily agricultural scientists, and that they are, in any case, quite busy people, the CGIAR took early steps to establish a Technical Advisory Committee composed of agricultural scientists or research administrators selected for their personal professional capacity and without regard to their organizational affiliations. The Terms of Reference of the TAC, which are reproduced in full on the next page, delineate three basic tasks: (1) to consider the desirability and technical feasibility of adding new areas of research to those already being supported under the aegis of the CGIAR; (2) to suggest an appropriate organizational mechanism for each type of recommended new research; from a technical standpoint, the and (3) periodically to review, CGIAR sponsored research already underway. Meeting two or three times a year in five-day sessions, the TAC makes liberal use of task forces and subcommittees, which usually include people from outside the TAC because of the special topic under review, to prepare agenda papers for its consideration. After the TAC has deliberated, its conclusions are formulated by its chairman, with the aid of the Executive Secretary of the TAC Secretariat and submitted to the CGIAR for consideration. It is understandable, in view of the youth of the CGIAR and of most centers, that most of the attention of the TAC up to now has been devoted to considering new research initiatives for the CGIAR, and appropriate organizational mechanisms for each. That has been a major task in itself, and few of the centers have been,mature enough, until recently, for formal evaluative review of ongoing programs to be merited. Reviews of ongoing programs were begun quinquennial reviews, each conducted by a special purpose by the TAC. should staple but it number field in 1975, in the form of team selected for the

In reaching its conclusions about what new types of research be initiated, the TAC gives first priority to research on basic food crops, favoring those that can benefit large numbers of people, also considers regional needs. 1/ At any one time it has a large of possible activities under review. No matter how important a may be judged to be, it appears that TAC does not recommend it until .

_1!

In its February, 1976, meeting, the Chairman, Sir John Crawford, stated: "TAC has always been flexible in its criteria, recognizing that there is a need for a balanced view of regional needs. Poverty and malnutrition exis" L-everywhere, and all resources should not be directed to one area even if the population served was very large, to the complete neglect of other research of vital importance to people elsewhere." (That statement was madti in response to a member's query as to why a center i- 3 supported just to work on potatoes).'

42

TERMS OF REFERENCE 'TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE L/

The TAC will, Group or on its

acting

either

upon reference

from

the

Consultative

own initiative:

(i)

advise the Consultative Group on the main gaps and priorities in agricultural research related to the problems of the developing countries, both in the technical and socioeconomic fields, based on a continuing review of existing national, regional and international research activities; recommend to the Consultative Group feasibility studies designed to explore in depth how best to organize and conduct agricultural research on priority problems, particularly those calling for international or regional efforts; examine the and present the guidance advise specific results of these or other feasibility studies its vieTws and recommendations for action for of the Consultative Group;

(ii)

(iii)

(iv) (v)

the Consultative Group on the effectiveness of .existing international research programmes; and

in other ways encourage the creation of an international network of research institutions and the effective interchange of information among them. may be amended from time to time by the Consultative

These Terms of Reference Group.

;!

CGIAR,

(AGR 71/3)

Annex

III.

43 it is satisfied (1) that the kind of organizational arrangements for conducting research are the most effective and (2) that existing research in that field is inadequate. This means that its priorities are basically time priorities. Research efforts that need to be put forth now because of their intrinsic importance and because the appropriate research mechanisms, are clear are given a higher order of priority. Thus, for a field of research to be ascribed a lower order of pricrity by TAC does not necessarily mean that it is considered intrinsically less important. The TAC has stated that it does not contemplate proposing any additional centers in the near future, but maintains the prerogative to suggest additional areas of research using other organizational mechancenters. isms, or to add new programs to existing Fiscal History of the CGIAR Family of Activities

In addition to reviewing the narrative history, it is instructive to review briefly the fiscal developments of the CGIAR for the period 1972-1977. This six-year period has seen rapid growth in center budget requests which have been matched by growth in the number of donors and The character of the increases in budgetary expenditheir contributions. It is followed by tures of CGIAR supported activities is treated first. a review of donor sources. Growth of Center Expenditures: 1972-1977

Table V-l displays total expenditures of CGIAR activities from 1972 through,l976. It also displays requested budget levels for 1977. Including special projects, annual expenditures in the five year period have risen from 22 million dollars to 84 million dollars. To complete the picture of CGIAR costs, it is necessary to identify the costs of the two secretariats serving the CGIAR. These costs were 550 thousand dollars in 1974, 750 thousand doilars in 1975, and one mill& dollars in 1976. L/ Part A of Table V-l shows the growth in budgetary cost for each CGIAR supported activity. The same figures are graphically shown in Chart v-2. Chart V-2 clearly shows the rapid rate of budget increase in all centers over the past three years. All rates of increase have been about the same except for CIMMYT (lS74-76) and ILCA (1975-77).

L/

Source: CGIAR Secretariat. expenditures.

These costs

include

quinJuennia1

review

44 Table V- 1 .._ __ i972 - 1977 CGIAR - Total'Expenditures: (Thousands of $) 1972 actual 1973 actual A. CIAT CIMMYT CIP IITA IRRI ICRISAT ILCA ILRAD ICARDA WARDA GENES CARIS Total Operating 2,891 4,084 352 3,270 2,607 184 3,363 '5,023 1,02.4 4,898 2,800 1,140 1974 actual Operating 4,503 5,714 1,768 5,959 3,692 2,700 260 142 445 1975 estimated Expendittires 5,270 7,472 2,265 7,201 5,479 3,750 1,272 520 100 555 555 280 34,719 Expenditures 825 286 306 675 3,409 6,500 306 1,886 900 500 747 2,000 2,200 8,900 2,398 2,650 1,000 21,295 72,030 1,400 1,500 1,200 1,400 3,200 4,300 5,400 2,900 3,000 24,300 88,663 6,682 lOi 3,297 8,789 7,292 4,900 4,002 1,921 1,700 760 845 350 50,735 8,614 11,663 4,754 9,999 8,694 5,900 6,247 2,592 3,300 1,500 1,100 0 64,363 1976 budgeted 1.977 requested

13,388

18,248 B.

25,183 Capital 1,000 600 437 500 1,100 1,900 42 600

CIAT C1M.T CIP IITA IRRI ICRISAT ILCA ILRAD ICA.RDA Total Capital Total Expenditure

1,557 975
3,100

353

2,700 1,200 200 1,700 284 1,700

5,985 19,373

7,784 26,032

6,179 31,362 C.
Special

14,193 48,912 Projects 593 1,419 39 951 2,185 190 159

CIAT CIMMYT CIP IITA IRRI ICRISAT ILCA ILRAD ICARDA Total Special Project
na - At Source:

98 1,263 45 1,323

404 1,808 442 1,982

632 1,385 739 755 I+,040 25

902 2,901 1,805 2,074 3,508 1,035 184

na na na na na na na na na

2,729

4,636

5,576

5,486

12,225

emilable Annual Center Program and Budget Reviews.

tji ‘I 1 ‘i i.hiS us $

12
.ll 10

QJ&jSES IN CORE OPERATING EXPENDITURES F.!ght Ceoters: 1970-1976 1977 Budget Requests

CIMMYT

IITA JRRI CIAT

9

ILCA
6

ICRISAT CIP

3

I.LRAD
2

1

1970
Source:

1971

1972
and Table V-l.

1973

1974

1.975

1976

1977

*

CGIAR Secretariat

through

Part B of Table V--l shows expenditures 1976 and amounts recjuested for 1977.

for

capital

from

1972

Three comments on these figures are in order. First, the nearly significantly understates the capital 77 million dollars spent on capital costs of all CGIAR activities because it does not include the major capital investment at the original four centers before the CGIAR was estabSecond, capital expenditures have escalated very rapidly in the lished. past three years largely because the CGIAR established four new centers, Third, unless new centers are each involving a major building program. approved, capital costs should decline substantially after 1977. of centers' expenditures Part C of Table V-l shows the patterns from special project.sources. Until 1976, special project funding increased slowly (or declined as in 1975) in monetary terms and declined in relative importance. In 1976 special project funding increased 2 l/2 times and repreTwo centers sented in that year nearly 2'3 percent of annual expenditures. (CIP and IRRI) received special project funding equivalent to more than On the other hand, two centers (ILCA and 40 percent of core budgets. The major reaILRAU) received very little or no support via this route. son for this increase appears to be the rapid development of regional and Chart V-3 other off-campus programs funded via the special project route. shows the trends in the above factors. Tables V-2 and 3, based on center program and budget papers, attempt to show the distribution of increased costs among four categories: (1) maintenance of previous programs, (2) new programs and expansion of previous programs, (3) inflation, and (4) capital. These tables show the distribution of annual operating expenditures by centers. They show that, in each of the two years for which this kind of data is available, maintenance of previous programs uses about 75 percent of budgets; new programs 15 percent and inflation 10 percent. Table V-4 shows that, if one looks at the distribution of total budgetary expenditures for eight centers in the years 1975 and 1976 the cost of maintaining ongoing programs represented 55 percent of total cost when capital expenditures are included. Obviously, as new centers mature (assuming no new centers are established) the relative importance of program maintenance will rise and that of capital expenditure and of new program cost will decline. Trends in Donor Contributions: 1972-1976

Table V-5, prepared by the CGIAR Secretariat, provides basic information on all donor contribution to core funded programs since 1972. In 1972 there were 16 donors who contributed $20.06 million. Three donors joined and one dropped out in 1973 and total contributions rose 218 percent to $25.735 million. In 1974, two more donors joined and contributions rose 34 percent to $34.525 million. Three more donors joined in 1975 and total contributions increasec 37 percent to $47.345 million. Four new donors joined in 1976 and donations rose 36 percent to $64.390 million. Thus, in five years total contributions have increased more than fourfold and the number of donors have increased from 16 to 26.

Table Sources of Increase

V-2 - 1975

in Expenditures

New Programs k Eqmnslon of Previous ProPranI3 8 3,527rooo
69%

Inflation 8 1,1595ooo 17% 529,lqP 10% 235,000 4% 444,000 8%
192,ooO 9%

Total Operating $ 6,953,ooO lOO? ~5,111,ooo 100% 6,730,ooO 100% 5,453,O~ 100%
2,181,Ooo $

capital

Total
8 7,239,OW 8,520,ooO

140,000 2% 1,054,900 21%
361,000 5% 231,000

286,000

3,409,ooo 675,mo
825;bOO 190,000

IITA CIAT CIP ICRISAT II&A ILRAD Totals Percentages
Source : Annual

6,13b,oq0

7,4os,Q@J
6,278,OCM 2,371,mq 10,250,OOd 2,265,OW 3,096,OOO 5 -

91%

b,778,~

88% 86%

4%
109,000 5%

1,880,OOO
2,650,ooo

100%

71%

717po 19% 996,000
59%

383,ooO 10% II. a*

3,750,~ 100%
1,696,oOO

65500,ooo 569,ooO
2,222,OOO $lb,676,000

7~,ooo 41% lU,ooO 16%

*loo%

732,ooO 84% $ 4,340,%0
13%

874,g&

$ 2,94f&1m

9%

$3?,748,ooo 100%

$47,424,0oo

Center

Program aud Budget

Reviews.

Table V-3 Sources of Increase Maintenance of Previous Programs CIMMYT IRRI IITA CIAT c1p ICRISAT ILCA ILRAD Totals Percentages ICARDA WARDA Genes Board A/ 21 Includes salary adjustnhents. There are arbitrary allocations; $ 7,995,ooo 70% 5,497,ooo 80% 7,638,OOO 90% 5,617,OOO 81% 2,606,OOO 81% 3,925,OOO 80% 1,696,pOO 41% 874,000 41% $35,848,000 74% New Programs d Expansion of Previous Programs $ 1,990,000 17% 526,000 8% 413,000 5% 623,000 9% 260,000 8% 600 , OO&' 12% 2,396,OOO 59% 1,256,OOO 59% 8,061,OOO 17% in Expenditures - 1976 Total Operating $11,483,000 100% 6,877,OOO 100% 8,523,OOti 100% 6,894,OOO 100% 3,226,OOO 100% 4,900,000 100% 4,092,OOO 100% , 2,130,OOO 100% $48,125,000 100% 2,600,OOO 800,000 1,100,000 21 Includes merit increases. they are not shown separately in ICRISAT figures.

Inflation $ 1,498,OOO 13% 854 0001' ' 12% 472 OOg' ' 5% 654,000 10% 360,000 11% 375 00s ' 8% n.a. n.a.

Capital $ 509,000 2,273,OOO 1,995,ooo 992,000, 472,000 5,500,000 1,988,OOO 2,833,OOO $16,562,000

Total -$11,992,000 9,150,000 10,518,OOO 7,886,OOO 3,698,OOO 10,400,000 6,080,000 4,963,OOO $64,687,000 i

$ 4,213,OOO 9%

1,000,000

3,600,OOO 800,000 1,100,000

Source:

-Annual Center Program and Budget Reviews.

---. -_-__I_ _IL-III---.IL.__---. .?__I_

_-

-- C__----.-

--

--y-----

8 i Milli,.,:.!.: of $

I

,/

(

I

TRENDSIN CENTEREXPENDITURES 1972 - 1977-\ .-. ,!',,i .--. ,?':I. ::. i

81

Eight centers

included

,:.li’l

Source:

Table V-l.

50

Table

V-4

Components of Budget Costs - Summary ,(Eight Centers only) (Thousands New Programs and Expansion of Old 4,341 9% +b,O64 12% of $>

Maintenance of Previous Programs 1975 1976 25,465 54% 35,848 55%

Inflation 2,942 6% 4,213 7%

Capital 14,678 31% 16,562 26%

Total 47,424 100% 64,687 100%

Source:

Table

V-2 and V-3.

.

51

Table

V-5

CGIAR Contributions (1972-1976) (US $ Millions) Donor 1972 Asian Development Bank Australia Belgium Canada Denmark Ford Foundation France Germany Inter-American Bank IDRC Iran Italy Japan Kellogg Foundation Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Rockefeller Foundation Saudi Arabia Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom UNDP UNEP United States World Bank Kresge Total A/ Actual 1973 .005 .600 2.530 .225 3.675 1.805 .175 .105 .155 .375 .075 3.990 1.000 .690 .850 3.770 1.260 .750
.

1974 1.015 .380 4.675 .370 3.000 .130 3.040 2.030 .645 .265 .280 .555 .445 3.500 1.490 .140 1.920 1.465 6.805 2.375

1975 .300 1.210 .620 4.340 .400 2.800 .410 3.960 4.120 .985 .675 .290 1.235 .645 .805 2.800 2.275 .460 2.425 1.930 -600 10.835 3.225

Estimate 1976 1.755 1.765 5.735 .465 2.000 .520 4.730 5.000 1.790 1.975 . 100 1.200 .300 1.500 .lOO .640 1.090 2.150 1.000 2.190 .855 2.970 2.360 .300 15.100 6.800

Total

.140 1.160 .250 5.315

.345 .230 .290 .430 .185 4.545 ,150 .410 1.110 1.000 5.390 2.780

.300 3.985 3.505 18.440 1.710 16.790 1.060 13.535 11.150 3.940 1.975 .lOO 2.475 1.315 4.095 ' . 100 1.285 2.600 16.985 1.000 7.105 1.865 9.115 7.605 .900 41.900 16.440 .750
-

20,060

25.705

34.525 amounting

47.3451

64.390 million, . -

192.025 are

Contributions to WABDA, Genes and CARIS, still .estimates. ' Consultative Group and the International grative Report, 1976, Annex II, Table

to $1.390

Source:

Research I.

System

An Inte-

52 Table V-b presents ;1 breakdown of the trends in core and restricted For purposes of analysis we have divided the donors core contributions. contri"Initial donors" are those that have continuously into two groups. (They are identified in footnote 1 of the table). The buted since 1972. remaining donors who have joined the Group since 1972 we have called "additional donors." Chart V-4 shows graphically the trend in total contributions and those components of the total contributions accounted for by initial donors and additional donors. The proportion of the total accounted for by initial donors has declined from 100 percent in 1972 to 74 percent in 1976 showing that an increasing proportion of the rising costs of the Percent of total conCGIAR have been provided for bg additional donors. tribution in each year provided by first time donors in that year are shown in Table V-7. source source section plained for Table V-8 presents data the period 1972-76. for special project funding by donor

In summary, these last four tables provide a perspective on the of CGIAR contributions, whereas tables in earlier parts of this provide expenditure data. Differences between the totals are exin part by year to year carry-overs and earned income at centers.

53

CGIAR Contributions - Analysis 1972-1976 (Core and Restricted Core) (Millions US $) 1972 All Donors % change "Initial" % of total "Additional" Donors /2 % of to=1 -/I Donors /l 20.060 20.060 100 0 0 ACTUAL 1973 25.705
(+28)

1974 34.525 (+34) 28.170 81 6.355 19

1975 47.345 (+371 35.640 75 11.705 25

ESTIMATE 1976 64.390
(+36)

TOTAL 192.025

23.483 91 2.222 9

47.415 74

16.975 26

Donors who contributed continuously from 1972--Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ford Foundation, IDRC, Japan, Kellogg Foundation, Netherlands, Rockefeller Foundation, Sweden, United Kingdom, UNDP, USA, World Bank. Donors who have joined France, Germany, IDB, UNEP. since 1972--Asian Iran, New Zealand, Development Bank, Australia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland,

-I2

Source:

Table

V-5.

54

Table *New Donors Contributions, (in millions

V-7 Annually US $> 1974 2.160 32.365 34.525 6% 1975 1.545 45.800 47.345 3% 1976 3.175 61.215 64.390 5% 1973 - 1976

1973' Total new contribution Previous Total donors contributions 2.220 23.485 25.705 9%

% New donors contribution Source: Consultative Integrative

Group and the International Research Report, 1976, Annex II, Table I.

System --

An

Total
Milliom US$ of

Contributions

TRENDS IN DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS 1972 - 1976

"Initial"

Donors

56 Table Speciai Project V-8 by Source

Contributions 1972-1976 (US $ million) 1974 .107 1;658 ,052 .748 .448 -.093 .372 -.071 .050 .968

Donor Bank Asian Development Australia Belgium Canada Ford Foundation Germany IDB IDRC Kellogg Foundation Netherlands Rockefeller Foundation Switzerland United Kingdom UNDP USA Other FAO MC Foundation Thailand Indonesia N.I.H. Zaire Government Genes Board CIP

1972 --.987 .050 .087 .030 .091 .263 -,656 ----.050 .286 --.-229 2.729

1973 .lOl 1.801 -.161 .068 .077 .lOO .307 me .107 -a .934

1975 .135 .079 -1.544 ,206 .273 .319 -.130 .317 -.079 .248 1.230 .106 .065 .Oll .021 .156 -.lll .050 .075 ,049 .282 5.486

1976 .325 ;145 .127 1.426 1.225 .130 ,938 .914 -.409 .148 .225 0 .976 2.826

Total ~325 .280 .414 1.426 7.215 .388 2.170 1.836 ,107 .823 1.407 .225 .257 1.274 6.614

.

.033 -a -w SW .344 .056 .219 SW --.328 4.636

.059 .015 -.142 .051 .244 WV .458 5.536

.173 0 .OlO -.600 -.418 -.070 .076 1.064 12.225

.371 .080 .021 .021 1.242 .157 1.278 .050 2.361 30.612

This component contains were under negotiation centers. Source: CGIAR Secretariat.

contribution at the time

from NPAC, NIH, of the preparation

CIDA,and Australia which of the budgets of the

57 PART B. ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION The preceding Part A of this report vey of the nature and dimensions of the task duction and a brief account of the activities the past to help meet that problem. this review. In Part B, we turn to the key issues These are presented and analyzed Scope and Boundaries Scope, Boundaries, has been devoted to a surof increasing world food proundertaken by the CGIAR in which are the concern in three chapters: of

VI. VII. VIII.

of the CGIAR and Management of Centers for

Planning, Evaluation, Allocation, and Management the CGIAR and Its Family,of Activities

It will be noted that some of the issues discussed in these The chapters were not specifically included in the Terms of Reference. reason is that as the review proceeded it became obvious that in many cases topics not mentioned in the Terms of Reference were important to For this reason they h&e been included in understand those that were. Part B.

53 VI. SCOPE AX3 BOUiS'ARIES OF THE CGIAR

Although the initial impulse in establishing the CGIAR was to Agricultural Research assure adequate financing for a set of International the Terms of Reference adopted for the CGIAR were much broader &'. Centers, Subsequently, the TAC has recommended that several activities other than suggestions have been centers be financed through the CGEAR. In addition, made by various donors about direct'fgnancing of national research programs, endorsing certain activities as worthy of bilateral support (without trying to arrange direct funding through the CGIAR), and the CGIAR serving as a forum for the discussion of various topics related to strengthening agricultural research to benefit the food-deficit countries ofr.the developing world. The question of appropriate scope and boundaries for the activities of the CGIAR was included in the Terms of Reference for the present review and is the topic of this chapter. Five research research, fora, in the basic questions encompass the issues involved: focus not of the to

1. What should financed through

be the geographic the CGIAR?

and commodity including centers, with other but

2. In what types of activities, should the CGIAR become involved? e.g.,

limited

3. What modes of operation, should the CGIAR support?

consortia agencies

'(networks), active of

4. How should the' CGIAR interface same or complementary activities? 5. What should be the financial

magnitude

of the program

the CGIAR? Geographic and Commodity Focus of the CGIAR

The serious state of the world food problem was one of the major factors leading to the establishment of the CGIAR. This concern has contfnued to dominate discussions about the future focus of the CGIAR.. '. recognized In any approach to increasing food production, it must be that crop and livestock improvement --.. is only one .- .--~ - __._ component _-..--of

&/

See Chapter

V.

59

a more complex food productfo n system and that other key elements, It is especially land and water resources, must also be considered. essential that this resource base be studied-and improved if the latent yield potential of new crop varieties is to be realized. Crop improvement must not be an end in itself but should be considered one component in the improvement of the total system. Because of its present structure and size, the CGIAR cannot possibly be responsible for the total efforts required..to solve the food production problems and should therefore by highly selective in what it For this reason it has deliberately concentrated chooses to support. its efforts on the improvement of specific foods and cropping systems within defined geographic regions of the developing world and within As the organization enters its sixth ecological zones in those regions. Is the work of the CGIAR focused in the year, we raise the question: most relevant areas? And in these areas are the most important food commodities being studied?
l

Criteria for selecting the most important food-deficit regions in which to focus the work should include analysis of demographic and nutritional factors contributing to the food demand, the extent and likely duration of the deficit, the trends in yields per hectare, and This information, together total production of major food commodities. with an understanding of the prospects for increased food production or availability through imports, can give a measure of a region's likely food deficit and need for assistance in the future. This procedure may well identify major food may miss important subregions such as the high altitude sections of the population in the lower socioeconomic serious and chronic food deficits. target areas but tropics or groups that face

having identified the most important region, the next task is to identify the most important or potentially important f&Sods. Importance of food sources could be judged by their contribution to the diet, their nutritional significance, especially their protein levels and other important dietary constituents, and their popularity and widespread adaptation in food-deficit regions. Another factor to consider is the probability the demand for particular foods stemming from shifts resulting from rising incomes of the expanding urban countries. Considered from the point of view of support one could ask, will imporvement in the availability and improve income distribution? and is it likely to be adopted? And, what is on production? Other important aspects include significant improvement and the time involved. 'cerned It about should be emphasized that the problems of the small of changes in in food preferences populations in poor

suitability for CGIAR commodity increase food Will it be transferable the likely scale of impact the potential for conBoth

many donors are increasingly farmer and the rural poor.

groups have tended to receive less emphasis development efforts. It must be recognized these groups cannot be solved by agricultural research supported.by the CCIAR should take needs.

in previous agricultural that the economic problems of teChnology alone. However, special cognizance of their

The Koffsky L/ report commissioned for this study and summarized in Chapter I concluded that emphasis should be given to the major sources of food in food-deficit, low income countries with shortages of foreign exchange. As shown in Chart I-l and Table I-2, these important sources of food are the major cereals, Koffsky's roots and tubers, and grain legumes. conclusions are similar to those of TAC in their revised priorities paper./ TAC, using a comparable set of criteria to those previously listed, has recommended research on the major cereals, roots and tubers, grain legumes and ruminant livestock all of which are widely consumed and which collectively represent 80 percent of the food supply of the developing world.z/ On the basis of our criteria, Koffsky's analysis, and other recent studies of the world food situation,&/ it is apparent that the CGIAR has been making good choices regarding geographic regions and food sources. Some important food crops, and also some non-food crops which can contribute to food availability of rural populations through the increased income they can generate have not been recommended by TAC at this stage. The reasons for not recommending them at this time appear soundly based, but they should not be excluded from consideration in the future. The Koffsky analysis as summarized in Conclusion. Chapter I clearly points out the need for increased food output. In fact, his study in conjunction with the analysis in Chapters II, III, and IV indicate that there is an overwhelming need for research in the future and therefore a need to continue activities supported by the CGIAR. We conclude that the present CGIAR coverage of geographic areas and food commodities is appropriate and that there appear to be no major In addition to the issue of coverage, the fact gaps. that several center programs are not yet fully developed and that there is a reduced likelihood of major increases in fund availability (which is

L/ 2/ 21 i/

Koffsky,

"World

Food Needs."

See Annex 4. Food and Agriculture Vol. II 1970-80," Organization, "Agricultural (FAO, Rome) 1971. Commodity Projections,

"Meeting Food Needs in the Developing Worlcl," IFPRI; and "NRC Study on World Food and Nutrition," Report of the Steering,Committee of the Commission on International Relations, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (Washington, D.-C., 1975).

6:

discussed later in this chapter), suggest that are good reasons for not considering significant expansion of this coverage in the near future. However, TAC should continue to be active in exploring needs. Types of CGIAR Activities

there

From the beginning, the centers supported through the CGIAR have concentrated primarily on research and technology development related to specific food commoditie 8 or to particular ecological zones. In conjunction with that major amphasis they have conducted a considerable amount of training. They ha& participated in efforts to get their technologies adopted in individual countries (technology transfer). They have arranged for information collection and exchange. The current issue is to what extent the CGIAR should support additional activities whose primary focus is different from those presently supported. For example , should the CGIAR engage in direct support of national programs or extension activities? In analyzing (1) Is or would national preferable? particular well with this issue we have considered four questions: to the problem aid, be

an international effort the best approach activities, perhaps supported by external

(2) Roes the CGIAR have a comparative advantage regarding activities or are there other agencies that might deal equally the problems?

(3) Could a particular investment have a direct impact on food production, or are other intermediate links needed before the technology can be used? For example, the development of a new fertilizer technology might depend on substantial national or internqtional investment before the results of the technology could be useful to farmers in increasing food output. On the other hand, an agronomic package requiring no complementary infrastructure or investment might be directly useable. (4) administration Would supporting additional activities unduly complicate or divert resources from existing CGIAR activities?

It is understandable that individual donors may wish to undertake additional research activities under the aegis of the CGIAR, using the unique mechanism which it provides. We are fully sympathetic: with the desire in the long run but,for the next three years we counsel against it because of the need to bring present centers to maturity and to limit the administrative load on the CGIAR instrumentalities &ring their formative years.

62

Although the exislIng centers have many characteristics in common, they also have unique characteristics related to their respective mandates. ILCA, ILRAD, and IITA have distinctive mandates that require the application of different criteria to.evaluate and fund their programs. heterogeneity of CGIAR The same is true of WANDAand IBPGR. Increasing activities makes it increasingly difficult for a consultative, informal organization with funding designated independently by donor-members to keep its activities in perspective. Consequently, it is our judgement that quite apart from questions of available funds, the CGIAX's capacity to add new activities and bring Therefore, any suggestion for taking on them to maturity is limited. activities different from those now supported should be carefully reviewed with regard to their potential impact on existing activities and on the CGIAR mechanism. The one activity that we would advise adding is a formal forum function. Establishing the CGIAR resulted in representatives of a large number of donor-agencies meeting twice annually, thereby creating a situation that makes it easier for them to confer, not only about international agricultural research and activities of the CGIAR, but -Informally about many other matters in which they have mutual interests; i.e., research activities other than those of the CGIAR, bilateral aid to various types of national programs, etc. Discussions of CGIAR activities at these meetings tend to be focused on individual centers. With proper preparation, they could provide opportunities to discuss specific issues and program components that characterize most or all centers as well as other problems relating to research and technology in developing countries. These meetings should include researchers from developing countries. We suggest that a program of forum discussions be organized by the CGIAR. S.ome discussions would be designed for representatives of donor-agencies to participate; others would be more appropriate for technical personnel from those agencies, from the centers, from other aid agencies, and from national programs in the developing countries. Topics for such discussions might include problems of developing national research activities; the.impact of centers cn national programs; the magnitude, nature and quality of research in selected developing countries, etc. There will need to be careful planning of these discussions. We suggest the TAC or other agencies be asked to commission discussion papers about specific aspects of research programs, both national and international to be presented at these forai Conclusion. We conclude that the CGIAR should limit its efforts for the next three years to the support of its present activities which concentrate largely Other on research and technology development. agencies, including donor-members of the CGIAR, now engage directly in activities, other than researtih, funded both bilaterally and multilaterally. We believe it would be both confusing and competitive for the CGIAR, apart from its support of centers, to mount programs in these other fields, important as they are.

63

The only new activity we recommend for the CGIAR is the organization of fora to discuss issues of relevance to the CGIAR, donors, and develcping countries. After the next three years, we suggest that the four questions disi=ussed above would still be appropriate when considering new activities that the CGIAR might co&template undertaking. Modes of Operation in Research and Technology Development

Supporting research and technology development to raise technical and economic ceilings Zor food production has been the focus of and we recommend that this continue. CGIAR activities from the beginning, To accomplish that, the CGIAX has chosen to establish and support centers and other activities mandated to do so. However, the kind of center Centers could have supported has not been, and need not be, homogeneous. a global, regional, or ecological zone focus, and they could be focused on a commodity or systems approach or some combination of the above. They also could have an interdisciplinary production, factor, or disciplinary focus. To date, the CGIAR has focused primarily on the interdisciplinary production approach. Other modes of operation have been proposed. and the CGIAR has, in certain instances, such as WARDA, IBPGR and CARIS,, adopted them. The choice of mode is necessarily be based on experience and the particular Centers. are in many respects International Centers, unique fnstitutions. a pragmatic circumstances. the dominant one and leas to mode of the CGIAR,

Their strength and comparative advantage is that they have a great deal of independence, are strongly mission oriented, and have a sharp focus on applied research and technology development in relation to commodities that are of crucial importance in increasing food production in low-income food-deficit countries of the world. Members of centers work in interdisciplinary teams which permit direct personal interaction and maximize the potential for increasing production of specific food commodities. Simultaneously, this approach has an important demonstration effect for national programs that have, heretofore, been strongly discipline oriented. Because of the ethos and excellent reputation of the centers, the emoluments, and good working facilities, each center has been able to attract a critical mass of first class scientists from all parts of the world. The mode of operation of the centers has provided those scientists with a stable and well-equipped research environment.

64

Because of their ;;fernational status, the centers have been able to assemble and rrcomb<ne extensive gene pools of the crops on which they concentrate and to maxisize the genetic variability in these for use in breeding programs. Largely on the basis of the early success with wheat and rice, the centers have developed a global reputation that allows them freedom in scientific exchange that no national program could hope to achieve. As a result, they can assemble and subject to testing in many countries new technology built around improved genetic material at a faster rate and on a greater scale than any natlonal program. This results in a greater potential impact of the new technology and a considerable saving in time in its development. As a byproduct of the centers' special character and their commodity or activity focus, the quality of the staff, equipment and facilities, emphasis on an interdisciplinary~team approach, and their ability and willingness to develop cooperative working links with approthey have excellent possibilities priate research groups in national programs, for training technicians and scientists from.developing countries. Altfiough.. there is a limit to the amount of time and effort that the centers can put into training, it clearly contributes to the strengthening of national research programs and the building of a collegiate network of scientists and technicians who cooperate in the breeding work at the centers. In summary the centers have for success and have identified areas It is our judgment that this uniqueness or systems oriented centers whose forte approach. It is less clear that these factor or discipline oriented centers developed country research approaches. center approach has much.mer5.t and is the CGIAR. already demonstrated their capacity in which they are uniquely successful. applies particularly to commodity is the interdisciplinary team characteristics could apply to that are more comparable to traditional Therefore, we conclude that the uniquely fitted to the character of

Consortia (Networks). The consortium approach (sometimes referred to as the network approach).,, to supporting international research has many attractive features. It attempts to build on existing institutions rather than creating new ones. It is, therefore, significantly cheaper than the center approach, to the extent that it need not involve major capital expenditures. Finally, it appears to involve the intended users of the research more directly in the process. However, there are also potential weaknesses. First, a consortium is only as good as the quality of its components. Creating a cooperative research consortium to work on a commodity is unlikely to succeed unless the prerequisite of established research institutions has already been met. Here the situation in various countries of the developing world is very uneven. Second, the allocation of research funds by a committee of potential recipients of research funds is likely to lead more to political allocations than to hard programmatic judgments. While this defect might be overcome

65

by some other arrangements for fund allocation, there are few examples of suticess. History should no; be allowed to rule out promising new proposals, but past experience suggests caution with respect to using consortia as a major mode of operation. Direct Support of tiational Programs. Centers, as an integral have considerable interaction with part of their research methodology, national research programs. One purpose of their training activities is to strengthen national programs; a major focus cf their seminars, conferences, and of the exchange of scientific personnel is similar. Important as they are, such activities are confined largely to the commodities on which each center works, and the competence of center staff by no means covers the manifold problems to be faced in strengthening national research programs.&/ Strengthening national research programs is a topic of concern to many other bilateral and multilateral agencies, and there is -widespread recognition that this critical issue does not receive nearly the emphasis For that reason there have been proposals that the CGIAR that it deserves. adopt direct support of national research programs as an additional major activity. However, the magnitude and geographic dispersion of needed support for national research programs is so overwhelming that it would overburden the CGIAR approach to such an extent that other activities would suffer. Conclusion. We conclude that, for the next three years the CGIAR should continue to concentrate on the support of centers and the current set of related activities and caution against undertaking any major new activities. This does not preclude continuing exploration by TAC of possible additional activities. Beyond that period, careful analysis should precede expansion of CGIAR activities. Interfaces with Other Agencies

It is important that the CGIAR be constantly aware of what is being done by other agencies in the same or related field. It is our judgment that the centers by and large are quite well informed about complementary activities that relate to their mandates. The procedure of having related activities, e.g., IFPRI, IPDC, AVRDC, etc., report on their activities to the CGIAR is also valuable. Finally, the forum role discussed in the preceding section, if adopted by the CGIAR, could further increase interaction among agencies if some personnel from other agencies are invited to participate.

&/

See Chapter

IV and VII.

66

Conclusion. If the CGIAR continues to restrict activities to those where it has a strong comparative advantage, we seethe question of relating to otherorganizations as not presently a serious problem. We, therefore, conclude that no formal mechanism for dealing with interfaces need be developed. Financial Magnitude of CGIAR Program

As shown above in Chapter V the cost of the CGIAR program has risen rapidly, matched thus far by equally rapid increases in donor support. As key question for the future is whether donor funding can be expected to continue to rise as rapidly as it has in the past. Donor opinions on the rate of cost increase and availability of Some are relatively optimistic and feel that the fund availsupport vary. ability need not be a constraining factor if the research programs continue to be highly productive and useful. Others feel that the total annual cost of the program is approaching a limit and that some way must be found to control future growth., What is needed followed in consider&a of the probable cost of on different assumptions potential fund availability. are (1) suggestions about procedures to be new activities in the future; (2) better estimates present activities over the next five years, based about program; and (3) some indication of

Procedures for Future Decisions About New Programs. First, there is need for a careful analysis of the magnitude of commitments in terms of both initial costs (primarily capital investment) and anticipated,annual program:costs. One of the factors often overlooked in assessing the rapid increase in costs these past three years has been the fact that they have included a large component of capital costs because several centers are still in the developmental phase. If no new activities are undertaken in the next five years that component of costs will decline. Second, an estimate of the minimum length of required time commitment to a center or related activity is needed. The CGIAR is supporting research enterprises whose life before payoff can be expected to be long because of the.incremental nature of research results as Thus, the time horizons of commitments need careful discussed in Part A. \ ittention. Third, as a minimum, some qualitative judgment is needed about the potential payoff in terms of expected results anu the length of time required to produce those results. We have pointed out in Chapter III the difficulties of quantitative cost-benefit ratio or rate of return analysis being applied to research activities. This does not, however, obviate the need for paying continuing attention to the goals of research enterprises, to the costs of reaching them and to the progress being : -de

67

Proiection the Terms of Reference estimate the level of other CGIAR supported different assumptions

of Costs Under Alternative for this review state in financing required by the activities over the next with respect to programs."

Item VII- of Assumptions. part -- "The Committee will international centers and five years based on &/

The projections that follow are restricted to a limited set of alternative models, all of which assume that the recommendations outlined At the end, we give some examples of earlier in this chapter are accepted. additional costs that would be added in case of CGIAR should decide to undertake additional activities. The estimates of cost through the five-year period 1977-1981 are presented in terms of constant 1977 dollars and also in terms of current monetary value for each year assuming a 10 percent per year inflation rate. The advantage of presenting both estimates is that it allows the substi; tution of alternative inflation rates to ascertain their effects on total costs. It should also be borne in mind 'that while the constant dollars cost estimates are more reassuring in terms of magnitudes, when the financing occursy the actual cost will be in terms of that year's dollars. Four alternative in turn. levels of cost are presented. Each is described

The "Austerity" model assumes that once a center has reached Model I: maturity, it will receive no new funds for fixed capital or new programs. Budget increases would reflect only inflationary and normal non-cost-ofThis model is perceived to represent the minimum living salary increases. that the current system would cost with no new centers or activities and without a real decline in existing programs. This model is based on the following assumptions: (1) no new activities are added, (2) present activities are continued at existing levels to maintain approved programs, and (3) the newer incomplete centers are completed to originally plAnned staff and physical size. IRRI, CIMMYT, IITA. and CIAT were classified as mature centers, and their 1976 budgets were trsed as the base. For budgets 1977 through 1981 their core operating budgets were increased by 3 percent per year for non-cost-of-living related salary increases such as merit increases and promotion. / For these centers no fixed capital expenditures were included.

L/ 21

See Introduction. The 3 percent is based on the fact that for most established centers salary costs are approximately 60 percent of operar1r.g budget, and that merit and promotion increases in some comparable research institutions average abcut 5 percent of salary costs.

68

Second, maturity dates for the remaining centers were assigned as follows: CIP, 1977; ILIAD and ICRISAT, 1978; and ICARDA and ILCA 1980. In the years prior to maturity the centers own projected costs for both staff and capital were used. The one exception was ILCA where their budgeted For the years after maturity, inflation estimates were deflated beyond 1977. we allowed'the same 3 percent per year for salary increases as for the mature centers. Also, after maturity no capital expenditures were included. Regarding other activities, the 1976 budgets of WARDA and IBPGR were increased by 3 percent per year: No fundang beyond.1976 for CARIS was included. After the basic projections, 10 percent inflation per year was added to core operating budgets to get monetary-totals. Model II "Normal": This model accepts budget costs as projected by the centers until 1980 and increases budgets beyond 1980 with allowances for increased salary costs and modest increases for new programs and capital. It probably indicates lower annual costs that would prevail with unrestrained growth because the levels of increase in nw.programs and capital it indicates are below the actual averages of the last several years. The model is based on the assumptions: that no new activities are added and all existing activities are funded at projected levels until 1980 with allowance for modest program growth for 1981. For all centers their projected core operating and capital costs through 1980 were used as presented in their 1977 program and budget proposals. Beyond 1980 we increased core operating budgets by 8 percent per year on the basis of 3 percent salary costs and 5 percent new program growth. Capital budgets were increased by 5 percent of the previous year's core operating budgets. For IBPGR and WARDA, which have not projected budgets beyond 1977, their subsequent core budgets were increased by 3 percent per year. Again current (monetary) dollar cost were derived by using a 10 percent per year inflation rate. Model III "Limit on Senior Scientists": Model III is a modification of Model II in that senior sciestists were frozen at the 1976 level if that exceeded 60 or were frozen at 60 when that number was reached. The only center affected is IITA and tis a result there is little cost difference between this model and Model II. It is recommended later in the report Model IV "Budgetary Growth' Paths": centers be requested to develop budgetary growth paths using the concept of a desirable size for centers. The model presented here is a preliminary estimate of what these growth paths might look like. that

Four centers are new at least seven years old and can be presumed to be at a stage of maturity where they might level off either in number of staff or in the size of their core budgets if the pr5nciple of a maximum reasonable size of center is to be adopted. They are IRRI, CIMMYT, CIAT, and IITA.

69

For the other ce'icters, it seems reasonable to preaume that ICRISAT, ILCA, and ICAF.DA may ultimately be comparable in size to the four older centers and that they should be allowed (for the next three years) to grow toward that size as rapidly as is (a) prudent internally and (b) supportable by the overall level of donor financing likely to be available. CIP and ILRAD, because of the nature of their current mandates, should probably have a smaller ultlmte size. Taking all of the of the above factors into account, it is assumed that for the next tbree years, a maximum size of core operating budgets be set at $12 million (in 1977 dollars) and that the permissable rate of growth of individual centers be as shown inChart VI-l. !ChiS model sets as an upper limit an amount just above that requested for CIMMYT in 1977 which, excluding inflation, is only slightly above its budget in 1976. It sets growth paths for the other three older centers, IRRI, CIAT, and IITA, that begin to level off but continue to grow at a modest rate toward CIMMYI's size.in the period 1977-79. This is done in order to give some priority to the'needs of newer centers that are younger and should now be growing rapidly. It would allow the operating budgets of ICRISAT, ILCA, and ICARUA to grow at the rate of $1 million annually, in real terms. Historically, that is approximately the rate at which the older centers grow at similar periods in their development. It would allow CIP and ILRAU to grow slightly less rapidly than other centers in the next three years, in anticipation that an ultimate size for each of them might be.set somewhere in the range of $7.5 million for CIP and $5.5 million for ILRAU. It is recognized that these assumptions are somewhat arbitrary and can be criticized from many standpoints. However, they are workable; they would allow forward planning by both centers and donors; they would leave substantive allocations within centers to the centers and their trustees. Under these assumpiions the requested for 1977 as presented at centers week were used was reduced from the $6.247 ;;lillion requested to is an increase of $1.246 million over estimated All other the proposed growth budgets lie paths wotild within, indicate core operating budgets except for ILCA, which $5 million. This still expenditures in 1976.

or reasonably near, the amounts if the base year had been 1976.

Capital estimates In this model are generated by excluding working capital items in the 197': budge t and by deferring $3.5 million of capital expenditures requested for 1977 to 1978. The results of the four models are presented in Table VI-l. The range of projected costs in 1981 is from $73.5 million to $95.1 miliion in 1977 dollars. Comparable monetary (current) dollar figures range from $108.7 million to $131.3 million. The lower figure is the Austerity Model, the higher the Growth Path Model. The so-called Normal Model is'S88.5 million In real terms and $121.4 in current monetary terms.

Chart Model IV GrwTh 14 Paths

VI-l - Core Operating Budgets

,
MilliOnS

1977 us $ 12

Cm IITA IRRI CIAT ICRISAT ILCA

10

8

XAWIA CIP

6

1976

i977

.

71

It should be noted that the ,iTormal Model fs still very conservative even In many instances, centers though center projections are accepted. project no increase in. budget in real terms beyond 1978. This is unrealistic. All models show a leveling between 1977 and 1978, because be largely completed and any capital programs at the newer centers will contemplated new activities would not yet be on stream. The Austerity Model is perhaps unrealistic in the sense that it allows no replacement of Finally, all estimates in current equipment or capital in mature centers. dollars, especially as we ap:>roach 1981 are uncertain because of the allowances for inflation. The above four models assumed no additional new activities. If the CGIAR were to take on additional activities it would simply have to add the additional cost to any one of the models presented above in 1977. As examples, the water buffalo proposal djscussed by TAC and the IDRC. post harvest proposal are used in Table VI-2,. The estimates for the water buffalo program presented to TAC through 1980 were used. The 1981 budget simply increased by 3 percent. For the Post Harvest Technology Project we began with a basic cost of $600,000 based on $100,000 per year total cost per member of a five-person technical committee and $100,000 per year for administrative and advisory committee costs. In years beyond 1977, we increased the previous year's budget by 3 percent. In both cases no capital costs were included. The detailed projections are in the upper portion of Table VI-2. costs If the CGIAR chose to add one or more new centers, are presented in the lower part of Table VI-2. the potential

The actual costs of ICRISAT and projected costs at ICARDA were used as general guidelines. ICRISAT had capital costs of $21.150 million and core costs of $18.149 million for the years 1973 to 1977. ICARDA is projected to have capital costs of $17.9 million and core costs of $26.756 million for the years 1976-80. We asumed that a new center beginning in 1978 would have fouryear capital costs of $14 million and core costs of $16 million. For a second center beginning in 1079, we assumed a three-year cost of '$6 million for capital and $3 million for cre for the years 1979-81. In both cases the full start-up cost would not incurred by the end of 1981. We estimate full capital costs of new centers of the scope of ICRISAT and ICARDA would exceed $25 million. In summary, if the CGIAR were,to adopt two new activities and two new centers the total the CGIAR family by 198; would be $148.8 million. to compute other combinationc. the Normal Model, add current monetary cost of It is left to the reader

Puture Funding Potential. The Terms of Reference also requested that some estimate be made of future fund availability. Our basic view is fund availability is even more hazardous than t&t projecting future projecting costs. Almost every donor interviewed reported that if thfy had been asked three years ago if their contributions would be at the level they are for 1976 they would have answered emphatically "no" Thus to some extent demand creates its own supply.

72

A. PROJECTIONS IN CONSTANT i973

DOLLARS 1981

MODEL I:

AUSTERITY

Capital Operating TOTAL MODEL II: NORMAL .

15.9 51,o 66.9

16.7 57.9 74.6

7.3 63.2 70.5

5.9 67.7 73.6

6.0 72.3 77,3

0.0 73.5 73.5

Capital Operating TOTAL MODEL III: NORMAL WITH MAXIMUM SIZE (IITA 1976, CIMKYT 1977) Capital Operating TOTAL INTERIM BUDGETARY GROWTHPATHS

15.9 51.0 66.9

m

24.7 62.2

80

12.3 67.8

83.3 IET
10.5 72.0 82.5 8.7 76.2
84.9

10.5 72.8

8.7 76.6

4.8 83.7 88.5

15.9 51.0 66.9

24.7 61.3 sB,o

12.3 66.7 79.0

4.8 82.6 87.6

MODEL IV:

Capital Operating TOTAL

15.9 51.0 66.9

18.9

62.4 81.3

84.2

13.3 70.9

7.6 78.3
85.9

5.7 85.2
90.9

4.5
90.6 95.1

B. PROJECTIONS INCLUDING 10% INFLATION MODEL I: MODEL II': MODEL III: MODEL IV:
l

PER YEAR (millions 80.9 89.0

of current 90.7 99.4 93.8 101.6

dollars)

AUSTERITY - TOTAL NORMAL TOTAL SIZE LIMIT TOTAL GROWTHPATHS TOTAL

66.9 66.9 66,9 66.9

78.2 88.8 88.2 81.3

102.3
109.0

108.7 121.4 120.4
131.3

88.4
91.3

108.8
116.4

&/

Does not

include

costs

of secretariats.

Futy+

Poteritial A-

Cpstqfor New Activities

CG+R with

New Aettvities

Included

B - New Center(s)

$977

:
.millions

1978.
of

i979
constant

1980.
1977 dollars

198i

A.

New Activities Water buffalo-core

.3 '- 6 :. 9 -

1.5 A 7 2.2

168. A 8 2.6 X

2.1 A 8 -2.9

2.4 i.0 -3.4

PoSt harvest-core Total

B.

New Center(s) (1) 1978 Capital Core operating Total (2) 1979 Capital Core operating Total

With both added

centers

1.0

-6.0

-14.0

-24.0

74

Donors we interviewed mainly anticipated continued CGIAR with modest increases in real terms and, as a minimum, contributions to cover inflation. A few project significant Few if any project declines. Most donors, however, are firm the rate of increase of CGIAR costs over the past four years sustained. practical emphasize depend on appear in

support of the increased real increases. in the view that cannot be

Practically all donors tie possibilities of increases to the achievements of the CGIAR centers and other activities. Many strongly that the possibilities for increased contributions the extent to which the results of CGIAR research activities practical farming in-developing countries.

We have consulted :dth the CGIAR Secretariat and others regarding the potential for new donors. It appears that the obvious pool of potential donors is smaller than in previous years. The EEC and IFAD are seen as possibilities. With a lesser degree of certainty, some additional OPEC countries and regional banks are also suggested. One thing fs clear ! however, that potential new donors are likely to have more regional OF Thus, special interests in supportfng activities than previous donors. as in the past, future contributions to the CGIAR will depend on established donors maintaining or increasing their contributions. Conclusion. On the basis of discussions with donors about future fund availability, and analysis of potential new donors9 we conclude that the CGIAR will be able to finance modest real growth in the existing centers for the next three to five years. However, we doubt that the climate is right for undertaking major new activities. This conclusion coupled with the previous conclusions fn this chapter argue strongly that the next three years should be a period of consolidation. While we conclude that only modest real growth of the centers as a group is realistic in the near future, we recognize that the rate of growth should vary among centers because several of them are young and need to reach maturity.

VII.

SCOPE, BOUNDARIES, m

MANAGEMENT. OF CEWTERS

Our analysis so far has concluded that the CGIAR should supresearch and technology development on as its primary focus, port, important food sources primarily through international centers. The next task is to discuss issues that arise in conjunction with the scope, boundaries, and management of center programs.L/ The chapter begins with the concept of an integrated program because it is our conclusion that defining programs by source of funds Is misleading and does an injustice to the or as on-campus or outreach necessarily integrated way in which centers approach their tasks. We, that potentially distort a center's therefore, discuss only those factors program. of an integrated program we discuss the Within this context the thorny question of cooperation with question of program balance, interfaces with advanced research institutes, LDC national programs, and the issues relating to the different sources of funding (the so We then proceed to a discussion of the called special projects issue). desirable size of centers and the longevity of programs within centers and the necessity for developing more effective forward planning procedures. Finally, issues of center management are addressed, including the problems of inter-center relationships, the selection and appointment of board members, and the maintenance of the vigor and quality of the staff. Concept of a Fully Integrated Program

As discussed in Chapter V, centers are involved in a range of research activities in many countries. The program of a center is multifaceted and is influenced by a number of factors. It is influenced by the mandate of the center, the location of the center, the geography of its crop or crops, the research strategy adopted, the mix of activities undertaken, the necessity for cooperation with national programs, the desirability for interaction with advanced country research Lnstitutes, and by the sources of funds. The first three of these factors are determined when the center is created and the fourth is clearly specific to the center. The latter four are of relevance to this discussion. A center in developing its program attempts to achieve a ' rational balance between the various research projects and other related activities in which it is engaged, but a number of factors can distort this balance. The most serious have been the existence of two independent sources of funds, the practice of defining Programs by the source of the funds and the lack of any attempt by centers to describe end

A/ We have deliberately focused our analysis on centers because they account for over 95 percent of cost of the system. However, U:.OE? of the principles, expressed in this chapter apply equally well to the other activities,supported by the Group.

76

present an integrated program for review. The funds derived from indiindependent of the CGIAR, have been used to fund a range vidual donors, of projects especially those involving support for cooperative programs in LDCs and other off-cAmpus activities involving interactions with These are the so called advanced research institutions and training. special. projects which are discussed in greater detail later in this In the absence of any agreed upon principles to guide centers chapter. and the lack of integration in the acceptance of special. projects between these and the projects funded through the CGIAR, there is a real danger that the ba1anc.e of the center program can be severely distorted and deflected from the primary research objective. The task of the center, given these multiple influences, is to create--and maintain an internally consistent, integrated program. Conclusion. Our purpose in this section has been to draw together a set of apparently different components into the concept of a holistic program. It is essential that a center's program be considered as an integrated whole. To recognize the interdependence of these factors underscores the importance of balance, and the need for integrated It also explains use of multiple sources of funds. why it is difficult to deal with these factors in any crisp policy manner. Our overall judgment is that the centers and their boards are best qualified to make the ultimate decision on these important issues. What we are proposing in the subsequent sections are some possible guidelines for making these decisions.' Program Complementarity and Balance

The character and composition of different centers' programs rightly vary in accordance with their-mandates and the ecological zones in which they operate. Some research programs are commodity oriented with a strong emphasis on genetic improvement. Others are cropping systems oriented. Increasingly, however, centers do both, and in addition are involved in socioeccnomic research and training. programs Some idea by different of the relative emphasis given centers in 1976 is indicated to these in Table various VII-l.

These data confirm that interdisciplinary commodity research, including off-campus cooperative research with national programs is the dominant activity at the developed centers. IITA and IRRI are currently spending about 25 percent of their core funds on cropping systems research which is closely integrated with their commodity programs. The figures quoted for training are probably underestimated. Much of the cooperative research with national programs has a training component

Table

VII-1

Proportion of Core Operating Funds Devoted to Various Aspects of Research and Training in 1976 Commodity e--..a.- Researc&' includ:ing cooperation with national programs _-.,. a1-.-.,. I C'IAT 54 cm.w~ CIP 53 56 Support Services Operating

Systems Research

Socioeconomic Research

Training and Conferences

General mnistration

Total -.

-- 21 me -28 26

--a 3 3 --- 31 4

12 16 13 6. 5

24 18 17 21 23

10 13 11

rim 100 100.

IJ 2/ A/ A/

Cooperative Economic Economic Research

research and systems research support

involves research

a training integrated with systems

component. with commodity programs* ._ No separate budget ftem.

integrated allocated

research. research in proportion 3.2.

to commodity

and systems

Source:

1977 Program

and Budget

Proposals

of centers.

that has not been identified. A similar analysis of cooperative research (country) programs supported by special project funds for these same centers in 1976 indicates that approximately 80 percent of the funds were devoted to cooperative commodity research and 20 percent to trainingL/. The integration and balance between the major thrusts in a centerLs program is important and the only issue would appear to be, what constitutes a desirable balance and how is this judgment made? ment the expansion program. Below four major program thrusts are summarized which compleSignificant overcentral commodity program of the centers. total integrated of any of these could unbalance the center's animal production systems research has been centers as the most effective framework in which program. Frequently the approach has been to underlying constraint in the ecological zone or soil management in the case of IITA and particular crops or cropping systems to meet There is no evidence that current investment by is excessive or out of balance with the remain-

Cropping and adopted by a number of to develop its research identify the most critical involved, such as water ICRISAT, and then tailor these major constraints. centers in such activities der of the program.

Cooperation with national programs is an integral component of the research activities of all centers. It is essential to their international testing programs. It is also necessary to ensure that the technology developed at the centers is transferable, suitably adapted, and useable in target areas. Investment in this activity has grown as centers have,matured,.and there is no reason why this may not continue, provided the projects are appropriate and in balance with the centers' research program. All centers (except ILRAD) now conduct some socioeconomic research. In some centers mucir of it is separately organized and conducted. In others it is integrated into commodity and cropping systems research. Whichever route is followed, a prominent part of it is the identification of technical, economic, and social constraints to the adoption of specific new technologies in target ccrlntries. This approach, coupled with research on the consequences of adopting new technologies, has pioneered an important new field which will help to sharpen research objectives both in the programs of the centers and in the countr:es which they serve. The training and conference activities of centers are vitally important to assist in strengthening national research programs. Training by centers at technical and professional levels provides scientists in these countries with highly relevant on-the-job experience and provides

&/ From conversations

of the

study

team with

center

directors.

79

the centers with trained cooperators in future collaborative research Since the investment in training varies between centers, programs. and over periods of time at any one cendepending on the stage of growth, ter, it is not possible to recommend desirable investment guidelines for all centers.' Conclusion. All of,the program activities discussed are highly complementary elements in each, center's Each'center makes decisions about the balprogram. ance among them in preparing its budget, but the criteria used in arriving at those decisions are seldom It is important that the centers retain made explicit. flexibility in developing center programs and the CGIAR should simply monitor shifts in emphasis and seek explanations of these rather than attempt to set firm guidelines. We conclude that each center should draft a set of criresearch proteria for its own use both in selecting jects and in determining how much to allot to each of its other activities. Such a set of criteria would be useful in any center reviews that may be undertaken. It would also demonstrate to donors that programs are in fact determined on the basis of objective criteria in order to maintain the most productive balance among the center's activities. Cooperation with National Programs

As noted above, cooperation with national programs, or outreach as it Las been called an important and necessary in the past, constitutes component of the research programs of all centers. It extends the scope of the center's own research program and at the same time, through example and training, is helping to strengthen national research capacity. Some of this cooper;ltive research is carried out through freIn other cases, formal cooperative by center scientists. participating. projects are arranged with re .;ident center scientists Investment in cooperative projects of this latter type has increased as centers have developed new technologies and have acquired sufficient staff a::d the capability to extend to more areas.

quent. visits

;ine important feature it of5za fez ren:ers to play networic of co;+etent national with the strengthening of the tunities for a two-way flow of

of cooperative research is the potential a catalytic role in building a collegial scientists. This is a dynamic process and national research capability, the opporideas and technology are enhanced.

80

is not whether cooperation with The question, therefore, national research programs is a legitimate activity; but rather, how far centers should go in this activity. What are the boundaries, and how can these be defined in broad terms to guide centers, while allowing them to retain their flexibility to assist countries with widely different levels of development and available expertise? In considering this lem from anumber of differeot question angles. it is necessary to see the prob-

Donors tend to be ambivalent about this issue. They are eager that centers not become too ingrown in their research, but they are concerned also that the centers may deploy their limited resources too widely, causing their programs to become unbalanced and their efforts dissipated over too broad a tange of activities. It is not difficul;. to state an appropriate principle for centers. The central thrust of each center should be to engage in research and technology development and to cooperate with national research and production programs to the extent necessary to further the center's own research activities. (Although this may be a conservative view, it and centers will vary in setting their leaves scope for interpretation, boundaries.) In general most outposted, staff whose primary responsibility is in research, do inevitably become involved in some extension and production activities as a result of their normal research commitment. The research staff in the national programs are the clients, and they do not believe that cooperation should be limited to assisting the centers' research programs. They see the centers as valuable resources they can tap to help strengthen their own adaptive research and production programs even though the centers' Gcompetence may be restricted to particular commodities. The result of these varying viewpoints is that centers are under considerable pressure to cooperate with national programs teyond This pressure the needs required by the center's own research program. comes from the national country programs and also from the donor-agencies eager to assist programs in particular countries. In this regard, donormembers should not feel that centers have an obligation to accept such projects just because the same donor-agency also contributes to the center's central program. Another reason for center involvement in national programs stems from some centers' belief that they have a global mandate not just with respect to research but a global mandate -to raise national production of their particular commodities all over the low latitude world. The terminology in which the mandates of some centers are couched justifies that attitude. To succeed, cenWe believe that to be a mistake. ters would have to become active in the whole range of necessary and sufficient conditions to increase production, described in Chapter II, If the term global mandate is to continue to be used at all, it should

81

be interpreted to mean global leadership among centers It should not be particular commodity or commodities. to national yields imply.a.responsibility with respect duction. Nevertheless the centers should remain vitally yield and production levels and must continuously be in is happening in farmers' fields.
analysis

in research +nterpretsd or national concerned touch with

on a to prowith what

In any of the problem 2t is obvious.that the technology available in international rz.search centers is far ahead of that currently practiced in the developing world and that there is an urgent need to raise the achievement distributions of the small farmers in thesa countries. The centers are very conscious of this need and are anxious to help in strengthening national programs and in particular to see their technology used. However, the general strengthening of national programs requires major changes in national administrative procedures, to forge effective links between research and training research workers. Many other kinds of research in addition to that engaged in by centers are the dimensions of the Moreover, required to strengthen national programs. problem throughout the developing world far exceeds the capacity of the centers to respond. If they tried to respond they could readily be swamped with a volume of requests that would divert them from their principal and essential mandate. Thus the problem for the centers is not the existence of this need or their obvious desire to help, but the magnitude of the effort In approaching this problem we believe that required to bridge this gap. centers should be receptive and responsive to opportunities to assist with this task, provided funds are available and their boards of trustees approve. At the same time they should be mindful of the areas in which they are adept and in which they have a comparative advantage. The extent of their involvement in cooperative programs should also be determined by the need to avoid distorting their central research thrust, the need to maintain a balanced program,:and not to overreach their managerial capacity. Cur study of this problem has led to the conclusion that the definition of discrete boundaries to delineate the appropriate range of cooperative activities for a center is very difficult and probably not useful. Flexibility is needed in this respect because the appropriate boundary will vary to some extent with the type of commodity, its stage of development, the strength of the national research program, and the availability of staff and resources at the center to conduct the program. A list of the types of activities that might appropriate, sometimes appropriate and inappropriate, circumstances, are listed on the next page. be considered depending on the

Conclusion. We conclude that cooperation with national programs 2s a vital component to the research activities of all centers. As a general rule the primary purpose of such cooperation should be research to advance the central mission of the

Range of Cooperative Appropriate Participation in national research progrdms to further the cen:crs' resrarch mandate and to assist in the develop:nent of tile national research capacity. Such activities might include: of promising new brc~vd~n=, mdter3dl for ad?pt‘ll.lcm, proJuctLviLy, tend pest Loicr4nce Two-way exchange of superior breeding lines from internatlonal and local testing prograu~b On site evaluation of hiological and socioeconomic constraints to farm production and studies of the consequencea of new technology 'I'esLing key components of F.trldlrl,: systems dnct evaluating farm mdchincs suited to the needs of smdll farmers ldentifylng potential trainees and training trainers in reb~.lZC!i Fl&Ll productLou Lit Ltkg~ondl. center5 or in conjunc:ion with couutry progrdms ':taff vlbits and sponsorship ot worksllops and conferences at rtigiondl anll country cen'-t-Lb I.0 cilssemindtt: results :~~C~ITUL 11 information .A *id . Evaluation

Activities

with National

Programs
Inappreptiate

Sometjmes Appropriate , ' * . "lOn-1arm trials to demonstrate the applicability . of a center's new tech,. nology . .In-country production and advice sys t tws training of 1 1 personnel on production' ,

' : 1

Management of national
research PartiCipation organizations in full tie

extension .
activities

and delivery

Management of national agricultural production programs Responsibility for technical assfstmicc

'* , *.. Consultation on problems relating to reglonal or 1 country production probi ,lems Assistance in the devel- ! opnient of a national research institute involved in research and extension in a commodity or technology of direct relevance to center
on research orga-: j staff recruitmat, personnel policies; and equipment *
nization

general
projects

&king recommendations to national governments on agri-

cultural
related

economic policy
issues

and

0

-

Advice

1

83

However, centers should be alert and center. responsive to opportunities for additional cooperation with national programs, provided extra-core the project is.appropriate, funds are available, it does not distort their central research thrust an undue burden on the center's adminisor place and the review procedures enuntrative personnel, ciated on pages 96 - 98 are met. If -the proj-ect .. does not conform tn these guidelines, the center should question its involvement and sugge,st that the requests for assistance be channeled to another donor or agency. Interactions with Advanced Rosearch Institutions

Although centers by design are primarily concerned with applied research, it must be remembered that elements of basic research are essenWithout this component of tial components of all good applied research. basic research and the capacity to communicate and draw on relevant recenters will rapidly lose their search findings from all over the world, special character and become regular field experiment stations. Thus the question is, how can centers, while retaining their primary mission orientation and focus on applied objectives, remain actively involved in basic research to keep abreast of the latest scientific developments and serve the basic research needs of their principal crops? Two recent centers to link with institutions. developments have increased relevant research programs the opportunities for in advanced research a center to contract specifor the progress of the use of such contracts in the necessary equipment.' core funds or from external percent of its 1977 concore expressly for this

One of these is the opportunity for fic research projects that are deemed important center's research. CIP is mking considerable lieu of enlarging its own staff and acquiring Such arrangements are sometimes financed from sources. One donor in 1977 is designating 10 tribution to centers in the form of restricted purpose.

.The other new development is the availability of special funds for research in North Americs and in Europe to support research relevant to problems of food production in developing countries. Scientists in advancedlresearch institutions are eager to work cooperatively with the centers and several majcr donors are particularly keen ,to increase the opportunities for their countries' scientists to collaborate with the centers. The only danger with this approach might be that centers could be overwhelmed by requests for cooperation and in the process they could

84

be diverted

from

their

main research

purpose.

in-any arrangements for research to be done by To avoid this, or in coY:labora,tion with advanced research. institutions!, it is important that the @ark be of significance to the center's program as seen by the center iX%eEf, and that there be an effective return. for the investment of time, devoted to the project. Centers must be protected from being stiamped by requests for cooperation or for certification of pr0j:ect.s su-bmittied as part of an a~pplicatian to granting agencies. Alsp, they must be! #rd.tected from donor pressure to undertake projects that are of littIe direct interest. Finally, there should be a minimum of formality and maximum contact between the scientists participating in the joint research. Opportunities for reciprocal visits and periodic reviews of programs involving staff from both the center and the external institute are important and necessary to ensure the 'success of such projects. It may be preferable that funding for such projects go directly to the advanced institution and no,t through the center, provided the above conditions: are honored. Conclusion. Interaction between centers and advanced research institutions is important for centers (1) to sustain interest and activity in basic research in the center's program, and (2) to gain access through contracted research to the special professional qualifications and equipment resources of other research agencies. Centers should also take advantage of the increasing interest and funds available for scientists in advanced COWtries for research of relevance to LDCs, provided this does not divert them from their ongoing research. Multiple Sources of Funding

Two sources of funds are available to centers. The first is those provided under the aegis of the CGIAR which are known as core funds. Their application can be unrestricted or restricted in accordance with the wishes of the donor. The other source comes in the form of bilateral contributions, obtained independently from donor agencies, many of whom are also substantial donors withfn the CGIAR. These have been used to fund what have been called special projects, however, in the future we propose to designate all funds from these sources as extra-core. The rational for this nomenclature is that those funds generated by the CGIAR from its donor-members are seen as the core funds of the group, either freely allocated by a center or restricted to particular projects, whereas those flowing to the centers independently of the CGX are categorized as outside the core funds, or extra-core. Core funds, and to a large degree restricted core funds, because of their greater reliability, are used to support the central and critical components of each center's Frogram. The only difference in these two

85

'.

categories is that restricted core, fund specific aspects of a center's

as the name suggests, central program.

is used to

Extra-core funds represent a valuable additional source of They can be used to supplement the central thrust funds for centers. of the program or to finance additional activities which, nevertheless, One of the are relevant and contribute to the center's approved goals. most common uses of these funds has been to finance cooperation with national programs in individual countries. Extra-core funds provide centers with a greater degree of flexibility in developing their programs because they can be negotiated at any time and because they provide a way of obtaining additional money from dcnors who may have funds available for single-country or regional projects that are not available to supPort the program conducted at the center. In the past, as a general rule, projects supported by extra-core funds have not been reviewed by TAC or the CGIAB. The availability of extra-core funds can undertake tasks that may be inappropriate to their can be placed in a delicate position if approached posal for a particular project who is also a major ter's core budget. encourage centers.to Centers also mandate. by a donor with a procontributor to the cen-

One of the main problems associated with multiple scources of funds is that programs have frequently become identified more with the source of funds than with the activities involved. Also, the acceptance of a large number of extra-core projects may unbalance a center's program and distort its emphasis. This same criticism could also apply to the excessive use of restricted core funds by donors. Both of these factors can also impose additional strain on the center's administration and may have long term implications for expenditures on maintenance and personnel. This, is particularly relevant if the respons%bility for funding these projects is subsequently transferred to the CGIAR and becomes a charge against core funds. In the past, projects funded from extra-core sources were not reported in the program and budget proposals of centers (as of 1976 this is now done) and thus, donors were not certain how much of a center's actual program was being repcrted at Centers' Week. Conclusion. To help meet the problems caused by multiple sources of funding, we urge that each center's legitimate activities be viewed as a single integrated program, and judgments about the activities each center should undertake should be made by its board of trustees on that basis. To implement the concept, we suggest that all vities of centers ba covered in their program regardless of the source or sources of funds. actipapers, Their

86

budgets should identify all sources of funds All whether core, restricted core, or extra-core. activities should be subject to the review proce,=. dures adopted by the CGIAB. Desirable Size of Centers V)

Maturing centers'have grown rapidly in recent years (see Chapter both in terms of their staffs and budgets, Because of the concern about the resources for the future, one question being asked is, how large should centers become? Our perception abcut the desirable size for centers, supported by the CGIAB, grows directly out of three considerations. One is the special nature of centers' research methodology. The second is their location in developing countries. The third is the fact that there are a number of centers still to be completed at a time when the availability of additional'funds is in some doubt. The'research methodology of the centers includes interdiscipliFor such teams to nary teams of scientists tackling specific problems. work effectively,. each must be big enough to provide a critical mass of research talent and small enough to permit continuous and intimate interaction. After extensive sampling of the opinions of center directors and other experts, there appears to be a consensus that the optimum size of an interdisciplinary team varies between five and ten people, depending on the problem. The number of such teams that can be combined effectively in a single center, without losing the interaction between them, is about
Six.

should be bility to because of grams may of critical disciplines, a suitable

In addition, the locations of centers in the developing world taken into consideration. Centers do not have a primary responsiassist in the development of national research programs, but their locations they can serve as patterns that national protend to copy. Few national programs fully meet these principles mass and of close interaction among scientists of different and therefore, centers and programs of reasonable size may be pattern for national governments to follow.

Finally, for the next few years it is more important to fully develop Lhe newer centers than it is to enlarge the budgets and programs of the older centers. Even if it is financially possible to do both, we believe that a modest amount of budgetary restraint for more mature centers has advantages. It would encourage them to consider eliminating activities that have outgrown their usefulness, and it would encourage general economy of 0Ferations. These factors appear to be more important than the possible economies of scale that can Jometimes be achieved in providing support services for larger institutions.

87

In many ways the number of senior scientists L/ would appear to be a useful criterion-by which to decide on the maximum size for centers, because of the central need for close interaction. That number obviously should not be the same for all centers because of differences the number of commodities involved, and the among centers' mandates, Translating such a measure mixture of research activities undertaken. into budgetary terms is difficult because of,the wide differences in salaries and wage rates for research support staff, cIerica1 staff and field workers among the countries in which centers are located. However, it is the.size of centers in budgetary terms that presses on the availFor these reasons both ability of funds for ali centers collectiveIy. these criteria should be considered. We conclude that there is a desirable Conclusion. and that each center's board size range for centers, of trustees should propose to TAC and the CGIAR such a size, taking into account the foregoing consideraThat size should tions and the nature of its own task. be used to develop a growth path for the center's budget and in turn be used as a financial guideline for determining the subsequent growth of the center. In our judgment some of the older centers are approaching a desired size. Because of the current fiscal constraints and the need to complete the development of the newer centers, the largest centers should not be Any significant encouraged to grow much further. growth beyond their present size should be questioned and accepted only after adequate justification. Longevity of Individual Generally while Research Programs of centers should be continued

indefinitely

some programs speaking, others should not.

Those which should be continued indefinitely are the programs with international implications, such as the widespread testing of promising breeding lines, the exchange and recombination of genetic materials, and the development and maintenance of major collections of important food crops. Other activities'and projects may be appropriate for centers temporarily, until national programs become competent to handle them. is these that need to be periodically re-examined and perhaps discontinued, either because they have fulfilled their original objectives or It

L/

Senior scientists might be classified as“those experienced,research scientists, irrespective of their location or source of funds, who are actively engaged in research and responsible for a program or part thereof.

This model of a relatively permanent C.oncLusion, . ‘&i~~~ of’m~derafq s$ie yith programs evolving and changing in response to new initiatives and research demands'is the type of flexible organization we view as the most appropriate for support through the CCIAR. @portunitiesto develop in this way should be built using‘ periodic reviews as occasions into all centers, to terminate or to rejustify the continuance of particular prfxvams, Poward -. Planning . . _and _. . Program Development

With annual budgets: and minimum resource constraints, there has been little incentive for centers to devote much time to long-range planconduct annual in-house program reviews, along with n&s t Most centers the development of the budget for following years, but these budgets tend to have a limited time horizon. The need for centers to remain innovative and flexible in terms of program devtAspwnt has made many persons skeptical about the value however, the need for forward planning of l.on&ange program planning; ~411 become more urgent if centers adopt longer range indicative plans as re~wmended later iii tWs report, The only issue is the definition of.the most desirable mechanism for centers to use in longer range program development. This requires that a center should begin with the planning of individual center projects or program thrusts9 One of the most effective ways to approach this is to invite several independent authorities in the particular field to join the staff at the center and work together on formulating priorities and developing a realistic program for the next three to five years. It may not be necessary to review all of the centers' programs in this way. The visits should be informal and could be spread over a six month period. This approach has been used by CIP in developing priorities for individual program thrusts and has much to recommend it.

89

Once plans for individual program thrusts are developed and these can be integrated into the total budgetary implidations determined, Participants center program using a type of in-house review procedure. in such a program development exercise should include center staff, the and other invited program committee of the board, TAC representatives participants (e.g., representatives from other centers who could make a useful contribution). If such internal program reviews were scheduled during the last year of a center's budget cycle, .it would enable the center to update its existing program and extend it to cover a filrther cycle. All centers need to,develop more effective Conclusion. forward program planning and development procedures in conjunction with the formulation of their long-range The use of independent authorities indicative plans. to assist the center staff in this exercise is strongly supported. Interaction Among Centers

In recent years all centers have become more active in cooperating with national programs in developing countries. Because much of this cooperative research is concerned with commodities which are widely adapted in the low latitude tropics, it is not surprising that two or more centers may wish to work in the same region or with the same commodity in different regions. In Kenya, for example, the base for ILRAD, two other centers, CIMMYT and CIP, have cooperative programs with wheat and potatoes respectively, and ICRISAT is planning a program involving -:millet and sorghum. Also, with rice, IITA, CIAT, and WARDAall draw on the materials and expertise available from IRRI and in some cases draw direct support in the operation of their own breeding and regional testing programs. The responsibilities for the staff of a center involved in an inter-center cooperative program and the costs involved may be the responsibility of either center depending on the particular circumstances. Close coordination among centers is desirable because this can have a synergistic effect on their cooperative programs. Overlapping efforts and programs related to commodities and regional activities are the natural outcome of the centers' desire to extend their research into food-deficit regions and is evidence that centers are evolving their own informal networks with respect to their commodity research. The other important considerations in the inter-center issue are the clients, the national research organizations. Although it is important that the relationships among the centers are well organized it is equally important that they are effective in jointly serving the interests of the national research programs. actions The main issues that arise as a consequence of these interare (1) problems of c.>mpetition when centers choose to work inde-

Where SWQor IWX ecnl;ers are working sn the same comodOty program, as is the case with rice, ,maPze, wheat, cassava, and chickpea, iS wuld be desirable Pf the center that Bas been g;lven the major responthe "lead center," This .s~bW.fy For SW crop were to be cnnsidered ~uld -invoXve the xespoas9bWty for a major breeding program, collection and F@;Lnf~~~~r-lee of a germ plasm bank, and the recombfnation and dfstribuOther t.&3n .Sf genet$c: resa&x?a $or other breed?ng and testing programs. centers &rklng with the same commodity involving regional testing or The resources even bseedgng work could be designated as "relay centers." and assistance provided by the lead center and the reciprocal exchange of materials and inform&-ion in this type of arrangement can be very produicitsve. The recent major I-ncrease Pn the yields and total production of ri!Ze $R Colombia is a good example of this type of collaboration between and with CIAT and TCA (the Colombian TART&f,act@@ as the lead center, IPsf:itute Of AgrSculfure) acting in a relay capacity. The initiative to undertake such joint ventures and the details of the financW, and other personnel and administrative arrangements are matters for the respective centers and their boards. Center directors should collect$vely identify the principles undertying the achievement of effective cooperation between centers and national programs. Territorial 'disputes with‘respect to regions or commodities that cannot be resolved by the centers should be referred to TAC for assistance and ultfmately, because there LY every ;Lndfcation if necessary, to the CGTAR. Pin&y that interactions between centers to assist in developing cooperative research with national. programs are likely to increase, it is important that centers make formal records Qf.these agreements and file a copy wfth the CGIAR Secretariat. Conclusion. Centers should collaborate whenever necessary"in executing their cooperative research activitPes with natgonal programs when working in the same region or with the same commodity, This can be enhanced by sharing the same working facilities and participating In jo.:.nt research programs. Organization and administration of these informaLlinks is the responsibility of the cenr:ers and their boards. TAC or the CGIAR should serve only to advise and assist in reaching a settlement in dis:utes that cannot be resolved by the centers.

91

Beards

of Trustees in the structure quality and in connection the members appointment.

Boards of trustees are an important ccmponent of the CGIAR and an essential element in maintafning the The principal issues that arise independence of centers. with them are those concerned with the qualifications of and the criteria and procedures for their selection and

These issues have been raised in discussions with donors who express concern about the competence of some boards, and in particular, about their ability to develop realistic budgets when they do not have full responsibility for mobilizing the funds that they use. There are also some misgivings about how board members are selected, a concern that boards through their election and replacement procedures tend to become closed, and a desire to see more extensive advertising among CGIAR members regarding forthcoming board vacancies. In effectiveness that they are and his staff centers.
boards and

raising these of any of the performing a in developing

issues, there is no reflection on the quality or boards; in fact our general impression is valuable role in conjunction with the director and reviewing the programs and budgets of the the autonomy
and decision

Because of the need to maintain
their critical role in planning

and freedom
making, it

of
is

important that and appointment

each board define its own guidelines of members. These might include: Personal competence , and professional ing of the field.

for

the

selection

0)
(2)

understand-

Balanced representation of expertise in relevant scientific discipline, research management, business experience, and familiarity with the problems of developing agriculture. Members, with the exception of those representing the host countries, elected not as national representatives but as members in their own right to ensure the nonpolitical character of the board. In making SUC:~ nominations, the candidates' governments should be fully informed to ensure cooperation. Host country and ex officio membership kept to a minimum. FoundatLonsTnd aid agencies should not be given reserved seato on boards, although it is hoped that the invaluable professional contribution of these organizations will continue to be availabie through membership on boards.

(3)

(4)

92

(5)

More effective having on each in conjunction boards that dr, move slowly ii1 constitutional these centers.

donor participation achieved by board at least three members selected with and ratified by the CGIAR. Older not have this provision may have to this respect because of the legal and obstacles in the original charters of *

(6)

Boards should thoroughly canvass all CGIAB members, and pertinent research organizations LDC countries, before selecting new members. Lists of potential candidates could be maintained by the CGIAB secretariat. The boards and the CGIAR (when appropriate) should be given ample time to consider candidates before making recommendations. Staggered appointments are recommended to avoid loss of continuity and to avoid any tendency to become closed. A fixed term of office is desirable (three years is suggested) with the provision that no member can be elected for more than two consecutive terms.

(7)

Conclusion: Boards of trustees are of central importance' in the development and planning of center programs. Each board should define its own criteria-and procedures for the selection and appointments of boards members. It would be appropriate for those boards without CGIAR representation to broaden their membership by their inclusion. Staffing Issues

The reputation and success of the CGIAR. and its individual centers is largely a reflection of the motivation, vigor, and high caliber of the scientific staff, the excellent facilities and working conditions at the centers, and the enlightened personnel policies that have helped bring this about. It is essential that these be maintained to attract and retain good scientific staff since they collectively represent the It is also important that the organization's most valuable resource. centers have access to good leadership, and ways to develop this potential in the younger staff members should be explored. Although the general conditions are good, there are some issues that require consideration ir, the interests of iuproving conditions for existing staff and also to ensure that the centers continue to retain an advantage in attracting new s:aff of the highest quality. concern Most of the issues listed here are matters of center management, and as such are outside that are the direct the purview of the

93

The only justification, for including them is because present review. any matter that influences the performance of a center is also inevitably the concern of the CGIAR. (1) Many senior scientists claim that they have little opportunity to publish in reputable international journals because of the-nature of their research commitment and the time constraints under This limitation has:had a negawhich they work. tive influence on the recruitment of younger scientists and can restrict the ability of center scientists to ire-enter national research institutes and universities in developed countries. especially those appointed :o Some outposted staff, cooperative country programs on extra-core funds, lack any form of tenure and often feel insecure. Also, under present policies, they have few opportunities to return regularly to the center to exThey teud change scientific ideas and information. to feel isolated from the mainstream of center activities. Although the scientific staff at most centers are still young and highly motivated, every research institution ultimately faces the problem of aging staff. This might be avoided by continual investment in postdoctoral students and sabbatical visitors, regular sabbaticals for senior scientists, includ:Ing outposted staff regardless of source of funds; greater opportunity for center scientists to transfer to other centers and obtain renewed stimulus from new problems; rotation of staff from LDCs to share the experience of working in International Centers; and more active interfacing tith basic research programs in advanced research institutions to maintain a strong scientific competence in the center's program. The disparity in salaries and working conditions of scientists at the centers, in comparison with other scientists living and working in these same countries, presents a prcvblem which is not restricted to the CGIAR centers. All centers are well aware of this and have attempted to reduce the visible disparity in living standards. Despite these problems, it is essential that incentives be maintained to attract talented scientists and their families to live and work in LDCs. Recruitment pclicies for open and every opportunity centers should be made more should be taken to identify

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

94 new 8tafS from the widest of pQt.sntial applicants, possible cross section

Conclusion, _ All o< thege issues are germane to the C~LItrai problem of the qua&y and perforqzance sf center staff, and for this renwxa'they should be treated as 3 m+tter of high pr$ority by center mapagement, The per-Lodic meetings of center directors provide an appropriatg forum for the diswssion of these and other iQsues of COTQIWQ concern such as length of tenure and perquisites. SpecifiCally, atteat:ion needs to be Given to the issuea of open recruiting, maintenance of the vitality of staff, and sabbatical privileges of outpasted staff,

95

VIII.

PLANNING, EVALUATION, ALLOCATION, AND IUNAGEMENT FOR THE CGIAR AND ITS FAMILY OF ACTIVITIES

The CGIAR has experienced rapid growth and change over the past five years. Five new centers plus two additional activities have been added; budgetary costs have increased fourfold; and the number of This growth has occurred within the formal donors has nearly doubled. The next three to five structure of the CGIAR with minimal problems. The newly approved years promise to be a period of further growth. centers will be crystalizing their programs, older centers will continue to adjust their programs to changing needs, and as projected in Chapter VI, financial requirements will continue to grow. Thus, the basic question is whether any changes in the CGIAR's structure or mechanisms for planning, evaluation, allocation, and management should occur. Our analysis of this question is divided into five topics: (1) structure of the CGIAR, (2) mechanisms for long-range planning and evaluation, (3) mechanisms for budget planning and development, (4) mechanisms for budget allocation including the distribution of shortfalls, and (5) technical and management needs of the CGIAR. Structure of the CGIAR came within the was asked whether

The overall structure of the CGIAR necessarily purview of the review. the question In looking at it, any major changes were necessary.

of the CGIAR has the following characteristics: The "structure" (1) it is a consultative group made up of independent donors who in the final analysis make individual allocative decisions regarding distribution of resources to centers and related activities, (2) it supports independent research institutes, constituted under national law with international boards of trustees, (3) it receives its technical advice from an independent Technical Advisory Committee @AC) composed of internationally recognized scientists and science administrators from both developed and developing countries, (4) membership in the CGIAR is gained mainly by participating as a donor, (5) acting through group consensus, it makes rules for its own conduct as it deems appropriate, and (16) its administrative functions are provided by two secretariats. Two'of these structural characteristics, donor independence and center independence, represent an inherent contradiction if hoth are purs;led to the extreme. To date the CGIAR has operated by pragmatic modifications of these characteristics to avoid irreconcilable differences. Our conclusions and recommendations seek mechanisms which retain as much of this independence as is consistent with effective operation of the CGIAR and minimizes bureaucratic formalization as the soluticn.

96

The only

structural

issue

arising

is the need for more

effective partgcipation In the affairs of the CGIAR by users.and potenThe provision-for regional repretial beneficiaries of CGIAR research, In addition represensentatgon on the CGIAR offers one opportunity. tation on TAC and Center Boards provide other opportunities. Finally, if the forum activitjes recommended in this report are implemented, this It is our judgment mechanism can be used for increased participatI,on. that if all of these avenues are fuJ3.y utilized, the desired objectives would be achieved, No basic changes should be made in the CGIAR's Conclusion. structure, including the composition of its membership. However, several changes in mechanisms employed within that structure Evaluation are needed and are addressed in subsequent sections.

and Long-Range

Planning

The CGIAJX has relied on TAC for advice on both the future directions of the CGIAR and for evaluation of ongoing activities. To date, TAC has dealt predominantly with proposed initiatives in a sequential fashion, however, always within the context of the priorities as stated in the TAC priorities paper. Evaluation of ongoing programs has begun recently through the initiation of quinquennial reviews. The basic $ssue is whether these procedures are sufficient to maintain continuing surveillance of future needs and current activities in an integrated fashion within the broader context of food needs. If the conclusions of this review about the number and size of centers are accepted, then in the future the balance of CGIAR activit&es will shift more toward maintenance of already approved activities. Thus a mechanism which provides for a periodic overview of the family of CGIAR centers, gaps and.overlaps in can identify new needs, monitor CGIAR activities, can establish fiscal requirements and availabilities, and assign priorities within and between programs is very important. Our analysis is that, to date, TAC has done a good job in its assigned tasks and we see no reason why TAC cannot continue to provide siuilar services to the CGIAR. It may, however, be appropriate to spell out in more detail the mechanisms TAC might use to maintain an overview of the activities of the CGIAR family in the broader context of food research needs. These mechanisms are: (1) review of proposed inftiatives, (2) quinquennial reviews, (3) Wstripc" anaiysis, (4) review of indicative plans of centers, (5) periodic pricrity reviews, (6) continuing interaction with center programs. posed could TAC should continue to play the major role in reviewing proinitiatives. These would include completely new proposals that involve establishing nsw research activities and reviews of new

97

All new or large or large initiatives within existing center programs. regardless of the source of funds, activities being proposed by centers, should be reviewed by TAC regarding their appropriateness to the center and implications for future mandate, implications for administration, commitment of CGIAR resources. The quinquennial reviews initiated this past year show much promise. With experience it may be appropriate to sharpen the definiThe reviews should be concerned with tion of the purpose of the reviews. (1) to evaluate the scientific quality of current three principal tasks: programs, (2) to comment on the scope and balance of current programs, and (3) to evaluate future plans including the explicit review of center the onus Clearly, proposals to continue projects of long standing. This latter function of should be on centers to justify continuance. reviewing future plans is particularly important for TAC and the CGIAR. The quinquennial reviews should be planned well in advance, giving the TAC time to establish a high quality review committee which can be briefed well in advance and allow centers time to Carefully develop The reviews should be analytic and probtheir long-range future plans. ing in their treatment of programs, particularly regarding the relative distribution of efforts within center programs. A concise summary of the report should be prepared for the CGIAR. To date, reviews have tended to focus on current programs and generally have recommended more of everything. In addition to these main areas of investigation, common to all centers, specific questions for review could be posed by TAC, the CGIAR, or individual donors. TAC should continue periodic across-center analysis of particular internal program components such as training, documentation, These "stripe" analyses would be useful cropping systems research, etc. to TAC and the CGIAR in maintaining an overview of the system and also would provide a useful mechanism for centers to compare their diEferent program components and learn from each other. They are termed analyses rather than reviews because we would not like to see them become mechanisms that encourage conformity. In the next sectioat, a longer term budget cycle is proposed including two-year (biennial:; budgets and an additional two-year indicative or perspective program plan. TAC's role would be to review the indicative plans in the context of budget proposals, modify them if necessary after discussion with the centers and recommend to the CGIAR for approval the center's budgetary growth path. Each center would develop its next biennial budget within that plan. lent five about Using the above pr-cedures, position to reassess the program years) and to recommend priorities Finally, particular TAC in time could be in an excelof the CGIAR periodically (every for the future.

TAC needs to have members who are knowledgeable center programs. One possible approach TAC may want

to considef would be if subsets of TAC members weke sPetiific~4ily responsible for ktiowing about parti&&& Cente!fSi If TAC member A were assigned specific respoaslbilities for ceriters I., 3 and 5; B for centers be parficulally famil1, 2 iiiid 4; etc,, then three m&hbers of TAC ijodd but rio tw& ib&thbetB orbu& hair@ tdiizimn fddpsnbiiar with three 4tateb3, ZAc! members iadd dedop this hiiitfe~ far more thaii NIB keaf&t, k&wledge bg ettefidiag in-house pjt;ogitem development i&views and possibly ptirtioipatiug in quinqueritiial revietis. The redefinition of TAC's.role apparently implies an expanded tiowever, TAC is already Pnvolved iti priorities, set of responsibilities. stripe enalystii,reViews of proposed initiatives, quinquennial reviews, With effective staff work from more and reviews of center budgets. we believe the task is manageable6 closely coordinated secretariats, In addition to reviews undertaken by the TAC, there, is need for periodic review of the overall CGIAR program afid of the mechanisms The current approach and management of the CGIAP by the CGIAR itself. A simiof constituting a review committee within the CGIAR has merit. lar review should be conducted within three to five year intervals. The review committee could have the option of commissiouing a study team or teams, if it saw the need. TAC's recommendations on future program priorities would be a major input into that review. Conclusionc We conclude that TAC with an appropriate redefinition of its role should provide the mechanism for continuing review of ongoing programs in the context of changing broader needs. TAC should be asked periodically (every five years) to produce an updated broad program perspective for the CGIAR. This review as a part of a quinquennial review of the CGIAR itself would provide adequate mechanisms for long-range planning and evaluation for the CGIAR and Its family of activities. Mechanisms for Budget Planning and Development

.

The preceding section discussed the need for end proposed mechanisms for long-range forward planning in conjunction with substantive reviews of ongoing programs. There are also intermediate-term planning issues related to budgetary forward planning for centers. These plans have implications for total CGIAR financial commitments. At the moment, financial arrangements are mde mainly on an anndal basis between. donors and centers. The basic issue is whether or not there is a need for better intermediate-range budget planning and development, We are convinced t1iat the annual budget process, in the absence of regular, comparative formal consideration by the CGIAR cf longer range plans of centerwill constitute a critical problem in the

99

future, particularly if repc:Arce shortfalls occur. The centers are long-term. research institutes that must in their internal operations Therefore, to assure greater resource look fur-her than one year ahead. stability over a long period some mechanisms seem needed as far as Many centers and their boards have developed; centers are concerned. longer range program plans using diffor their own planning purposes, ferent approaches and time horizons. However, analysis suggests that the three-year projections now made by the centers lack reality. The conclusion is reached by comparing both actual budget requests in subsequent years with previous projections and by evaluating 1977 proMost of these are completely gram.and budget projections to 1980. static with only variable allowances for price increases included. It would be in the centers' interest (as well as the CGIAR's) to have longer range budgets. Discussions with centers suggest a receptiveness to longer term budgets provided that they are used in the allocation process. This would require that centers develop an improved capacity to do long-range planning. Discussions with donors also led to the conclusion that many donors would prefer longer range plans even though some donors may not be able to commit resources beyond one year. All donors would like, for planning purposes, some longer range perspective of potential financial demands of the CGIAR supported activities. We have used by some other for considering at an additional two maximum desirable realistic biennial could be developed. reviewed approaches to longer range budget planning research institutions and find persuasive arguments least two-year budgets, with indicative plans for years. If centers were asked to use the concept of a size (discussed in Chapter VII) as a beginning point, budgets, plus additional two-year indicative plans,

Projections for the second two years would necessarily be more general, but could identify future staffing needs, proposed major adjustments in programs, anticipated major capital needs, requirements . for equipment replacement and such other major changes as the expansion of regional activities that the center contemplates. Conclusion. Each center should be asked immediately to define its desirable size and then to use that size in developing a biennial budget and a further two-year indicative plan. The biennial budget and the indicative plan, after analysis by the secretariats and review by TAC, in consuitaticn with the centers, would serve two purposes. First, it would constitute a formal budget proposal to the CG:AR and, second, it would provide a framework (budgetary growth path) within which the centers' next bienrlial budget could be prepared. A necessary component for such a plan would be an explicit and reasonable system for centers to define and forecast

100

Sotie donor:4 catn~ot CCMB& funds be)ioild one year. l&wever, ih&re ie nothtng incensistest between If eSGer some Bt;lnual pledges arid bistllrial, bqdgeisi experienqe with biennial budgees atid twobyaaf indicative plans they'work well, then triennial budgets might well be considered. If half of the centers were budgeted each year it would equalize the work load for TAC, the secretariats, the CGIAR, and the ceritersj and would perhaps allow for more meaningful interchanges at Centers' Week on past program performance and future plans. Mechanisms for.@udget Allocation Including the Distribution of Shortfalls

The particular character of the CGIAR creates two potential problems that would not occur in a centralized or hierarchical, unitized organization. These are: 1) the potential for between-year instability in center support resulting from a large number of independent fund sources, and 2) the absence of a formal decision-makj.ng mechanism to alloThe latter issue becomes very cate resources among CGIAR activities. important if resource shortfalls occur. The problem of between-year instability could occur even if total resources available were sufficient to meet total budget requests, if some centers were oversubscribed and others undersubscribed and if the donor of last resort chose not to make up the difference. However, the problem would become more serious if an overall shortfall did occur. For long-term research instituticpns to have to depend on 20 or more donors for resources pledged, on an annual basis, late in the previous year, poses potentially serious problems of instability. This potential instability results mainly from annual provision of funds by donors but the centers' dependence on a multitude of independent donors also contributes to the instability. That element, however, has additional potential implications in periods of shortfall, when the donor of last resort cannot cover the deficit. With complete retention of donor autonomy, some centers could, when the columns are added up, suffer severe budget cutbacks on short notice, and thus be incapacitated. At the other extreme, other centers might receive more support than they really require. If the CGIAR is going to adopt longer range planning it is reasonable that it adopt some minimal policy guidelines give longer term stability tc program funding. for that centers, would

L/

The definition and a?plic=tion of this system to deal is an appropriate task fo;. the CGIAR Secretariat.

with

inflation

101

that donor autonomy ConclnSiOiI. i-i is ou conclusion with the following modifications be retained rather Donors should than resorting to a pooling arrangement. be encouraged to accept the following guidelines: (1) that donors designate a portion of their contribution as flexible or unspecified funds; (2) that when donors undertake support of a center they accept an obligation longer than one year; (3) that donors provide two years' notice before discontinuing support of a center or one of its activities; (4) that donors agree to cooperate so that no center or activity is overfunded, including supplementary requests; and (5) that the donor(s) of last resort should fund a seriously underfunded center,. but if that situation persists for two or three years, the future of the center should be reviewed by the CGIAR. The second problem relating to resource allocation stems directly from the consultative nature of the CGIAR composed of many autonomous donors. The problem is that no mechanism for making collective budget Given that we have recommended that the character of decisions exists. a binding mechanism for decision the CGIAR be retained with modification, making is not recommended. However, it is clear that some mechanism for collective advice should be available in the event shortfalls occur. A standby committee of the CGIAR should be authorized to give because it is our such advice. The committee is proposed as "standby" judgment that if growth paths are well defined within the limits of potenon donor behavior tial resource availability, and if the guidelines suggested previously are adopted, the likelihood of annual shortfalls will be minimized. In the event a shortfall is likely, the committee should be called on to recommend a course of action to the CGIAR. The following guidelines could be followed: in the event of a shortfall the lowest priority should be given to capital requests of mature centers that can be deferred; requests for additional funds for new program proposals at mature centers; and significant additions to original plans at maturing centers. by these guidelines are not sufficient If the reductions implied to cover the shortfall, the committee should review center budgets and make recommendations for adj*lstments, recognizing the stage of development at maturing centers and the need to maintain ongoing activities of all CGIAR activities. To the, extent in addition to the donor that donors, of last resort, designate portions of their funds as flexible, the advice of the standby committee could be used in the allocation of these flexible funds. It is appropriate for donor representatives to be involved in the. proeess of budget reduction. increased participation of Further, donors in the direct affairs of the CGIAR would be useful to sustain donor commitment. The alternative would be for TAC to be the primary budget advisor. Because of the expanded role assigned to TAC, the additional work load would be difficult to handle. More important, TAC's main role

102 Further, it should be forward 'program planning and program evaluation. is our judgment that to mix the roles of scientific advisor and fiscal decision maker is not necessarily desirable. TAC and the two sccretariats tiould provide invaluable analysis and input to the committee. In the following section a mechanism for this is proposed. The existence of a committee of this sort a possible mechanism for the CGIAR, or the chairman use if other pressing policy issues arise. would also provide of the CGIAR, to

Conclusion. A standby committee of ,the CGIAR should be established to consider and give advice on center budget requests in the event of a serious'shortfall. Its membership shculd include the chairman of TAC and the Executive Secretary. as well as other members that the CGIAR might designate. Having the chairman of TAC on the committee is a mechanism to get a TAC input without formally involving TAC in short-term fiscal issues. The committee could also be called on for advice on such other policy issues as deemed important by the CGIAR. Once the allocative decisions are made on the basis of donor allocations with advice from the committee, TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat, the allocation of budget shortfalls within each center or other CGIAR activity should be the responsibility of the board of trustees and the director-general. Technical and Management Needs

In this section two topics are discussed. These are: (1) the staffing and budgetary analysis requirements of the CGIAR and TAC, and (2) the problem of cash flows. Despite the preceding conclusions that the informal nature of the CGIAR be preserved, there are administrative and analytic functions that'must be performed. .these functions are provided by two Currently, separate secretariats -- the TAC Secretariat attached to FAO and the Increasingly, donors are' CGIAR Secretariat provided by the World Bank. requesting integrated program and fiscal analysis both of current budget requests and of longer term financial needs. The Integrative Reports and center commentaries are useful documents as far 'as fiscal and budSimilarly, the TAC minutes and the TAC getary matters are concerned, chairman's reports to the CG-iAR are useful inputs as far.as program content is concerned. 30th suffer from the deficienc:y of focusing on only a part of the total picture which encompasses both program and fiscal issues. When the two secretariats were initially to draw upon the technical and professional skills established, it was of the two organiza-

103

tions concerned having separate

(FAO and IBW), staffs.

despite

obvious

inconveniences

of

Implementation of the recommendations of this report will require closer coordination between the two secretariats and a functional This closer cooperation is essential integration of some of their work. and the situif the two secretariats are to serve the Group effectively, ation should be watched carezully to ensure that it takes place. The TAC and CGIAR secretariats exist to serve the needs of Their independence and integrity are critithe CGIAR and its agencies. It must be clearcal in assuring donors of effective use of their funds. ly recognized that the secretariats exist to serve the Group and that they To fulfill all report to the Group through <heir respective chairmen. their functions, including reviews, the secretariats must be adequately funded and staffed. It is in the Group's interest to assure that the funding and staffing requirements of the secretariats are adequately met. Therefore, an annual report of the proposed budget and staffing for the secretariats, accompanied by a statement from the co-sponsors about their capacity to support the secretariats is needed. In the event the cosponsors cannot fund the full needs of the secretariats, donors should be prepared to make the necessary funds available. Given the urgency of this issue , the co-sponsors at the meeting of the CGIAR in October 1976, as to whether difficulty in meeting these obligations. should report they foresee

Conclusion. The effective review of current (biennialj program and budget proposals of centers and related activities requires integrated fiscal and program analysis, particularly as it relates to significant changes and trends in budget proposals. This will require coordinated inputs from TAC and its Secretariat and'the CGIAR Secretariat. The Group should ensure the functional integration of the secretariats and their adequate support. It must also be agreed that the secretariats report to the Group through their respective chairmen. The final management issue discussed is that of short-term funding difficulties. Xulti:.le sources of funding and varying fiscal years are creating very sericus short run cash flow problems for some centers. The cash flow prob&m primarily results because some donors provide funds late in the fiscal year causing early year cash flow problems for some centers. The most obvious and easiest solution is for donors to make their contributions earlier. Failing this, better information about when funds wili actually be provided would.also help. The CGIAX Secretariat could make this information available to the donors or centers. If this is not sufficient, an option to seriously explore is asking the World Bank (IBRD) to handle it, perhaps by rotating its residual contribution among cash short centers prior to final allocation. In our judgment, independently expanding working capital at each. center or creating a separate fund to meet cash flow problems are both inefficient and unnecessarily complicated.

_

Conclusiqn. The cash flow problem fs serious attention. The easie$t solution woufd be for provide their fun&s early in the fiscal year. this, alternative solutions need to be sought.

and needs donors to Failing

AENEX

WORLD FOOD NEEDS: FOOD GAPS AND PERFORMANCE

Prepared Nathan

by

M. Koffsky

Report

to the

CGIAR Review Committee Washington, D.C. May 1976

Study

Team

Report CGIAR Review

to the Study Team
.

Committee

Findings

and Implications of the seriously,

for

Research world, up food there is crops report performance shortfalls an urgent in which need to

In many countries food could improve sible. guidelines ties production well lags

developing building Thus, array

become unmanageable. in most of the which

yields

of food from this

as soon as possuggest needs crops. to the less needs than certain

The findings for directing

surface attention areas

as to research and specific urgent (i.e. food . attention

and priori-

in terms 1. There

of specific is a clear

case for

of the \ $200) decade

low income where large

countries food

GNP per capita threaten these over

shortfalls

the next, India, 8

and beyond. Indonesia

Most importantly, (probably) Africa

include

Bangladesh,

, Nigeria

and most other This group also

low inc-ome Sub-Sahara contains world.

countries. people

most of the malnourished Food crop yields

in the

developing

are generally This where is

low and.performance especially a matter cultivable of land

in improving concern is 2. ically stantial

them is poor. countries

in Asian

additional

a constraint. Next are those and in food food deficits cour:tries, production, somewhat but better also off face economsub-

which

and financial

constraints

to purchase

j;..

This, does: nob mean, that

otrhen~,

w&e.ge im~rtoxedj incomes

crag.

y%el;ds are a: maj@r det:erm$n,ant of Livings

o.f? higher:

and! levels focus.

,shoul-.d: be den.i+ed: attenti.ioni.. to.! the is

Buti. th.e, maj:or the: food

s~hould be diYect,edi i.nl deae-loping.

groups. aboue.itf, t.o, be resolved;., continue ce.neals directed: - rice,,

problem.

countries.

4:.. Whil,e att.ention. proving y&elds.

should

toward'

irn-*

of the. maj:or

wheat; and and.

ma,ize- -.thene sorghum, which preva.lent for root

&s need also. for are associated:

emphas5s. on millets the dry; land

with

cultivation

in many: food.defiicit crops and for the primary, the major pulses.

countr%es. and, groundnuts.

The same, is, true

5 a’ In: Asia,, of rice spect

need. continues food..

to be improvement in this in re-

y:Felds:,, appea,rs

Perfbrman.ce ad.equate

to be more+ or less In Ind:.a!,

or&y poor

Pakistan

and Indonesia. in sorghum,

additionally,, also

pe,rformance substancassava The situunsatisfactory

millets food yields maize the

and pulses problem.

contributes; where trend.

tially is

to the

In Indonesia,

important, for

are on a declining is

ation

and groundnuts region.

generally

throughout

Page 3

6.

In Sub-Sahara - maize, for the

Africa, millets

yield

performance - is

of the major poor, particulRoot rank region, with are

cereals larly crops cereals

and sorghum

latter

two where yields

are declining. -'which

- cassava, as a major

yams and sweet potatoes food source

in much of the historical

having.difficulty Yields 7. crops of pulses

in maintaining and groundnuts East,

yield

levels. trend. in food

are on a declining the major although sorghum, problem

In North remain

Africa/Middle wheat

and barley, it involves

in the

low income and pulses,

countries

of Sudan,

'cassava

and in Afghanistan,

millets

as well

as wheat.

8. the

In Latin

America,

where maize

is

the

dominant

food,

main problem (except the

countries Mexico) group only

are in the Mid America/Cariband in Bolivia have not slowly potatoes yields and Peru. Maize

bean area yields past tries. in

former

changed latter

much in the two counin Haiti

and have risen Cassava

in the

and sweet

are important

(a low income

country),

but

show no significant and Peru, country. yields of wheat of to im-

change historically. are low and declining potatoes prove. lags 9. It

In Bolivia in the latter

Yields

in Peru are low and also In most of Lat!n America, growth. that there in

show no tendency production

of pulses

behind should

population be noted food

is

an immediate food

and urgent deficit

need to improve

production

low income

10, At the other

same time,

it

is

recognized food

that policies,

there

are lack of lack reTo narto identify of

constraints

-inappropriate institutions impede the

incentives, inputs, search row this etc.

inadequate -which

and management, adoption of available cultivator. is needed

and technology gap,

by the

ultimate research

more intensive overcome such

and to help

constraints.

Introduction This on potential sort out the report food is designed to provide background market the food information economies-.; ll/ to is crops likely which

shortfalls

in developing where the

countries

and regions and to.identify

problem food

to be most difficult, require attention if

principal

food

needs

are to be met. performance Whether in crop yields and proagriculthe come provides is the a nat-

Food shortages duction tural ional out of may reflect research research the either system analysis

and poor

many constraints. at the is in to look situations. international a major this in

inadequate or in not it that

level factor does Rather if

report. order

framework

in which

to determine closer

case in particular

To get

to such an evaluation,

-ll/

This excludes the Centrally Planned

Republic Peoples' Economies.

of ChIna

and other

Asian

Page 5

it

might

be well

to mobi';ize if the

the

expertise being the

in the

International and the agro-climatic dir-

Centers ections and other

to determine of research requirements the

varieties with

developed specific need.

are in accord in food

the areas problem

of greatest in the cerea.ls recent

Essentially, largely of calorie consumption provide Thus, tries, food for

developing provide findings

world

is source that

one of cereals. intake (Table

Generally, 1). Further,

the major suggest

of enough of the

cereals other

to satisfy nutritional

minimum

energy

needs will

enough

requirements , particularly is a meaningful

as well. low income measure counof their

most developing cereal

countries deficit

the potential problem. Attention is also

given

to the

starchy America, While

root root

crops. crops

In Indoare an imindicates

nesia, portant 'that less

Sub-Sahara alternate over bulk time

Africa source

and South of energy.

experience because they

cereals

come to be preferred equivalent calories

require in protein of the regions, would a ,

to provide root crops for

and are higher part In these growth

content, diet, lag

will

continue

as a substantial cultivators.

especially of root the crop

subsistence

production for

relative cereals.

to population

increase

requirements production sources

Similarly, groundnuts

performance of vegetable vegetable protein.

of pulses, protein protein

soybeans - is

and

- major

evaluated.

In most low income tant the tries in the diet diet

countrie.3, than animal

is much more imporin coun-

Meat becomes important - beef in beef exporting

in higher

income

countries in Asia

of Latin

America,

pigs

and sheep and goats

imported

'The _.... Cereals ..- ..Cereal Deficits Projections in this Institute. provides by major report l/ 2 - 1985 of the cereal of the only deficits International set of published incidence for 1985 (table Food Policy projections of cereal 2) used Research which deficits

are those This is the

a complete countries

breakdown and regional for

of the

groupings.%/ the deficit employed by IFPRI,

The methodology and used as well projecting from the

projecting

by FAO and the World gap which and income historical the if results growth trend from

Bank,

basically cereals

involves arising the Thus, to satisfy into the other the ,

demand for

population the indicates cereals

on the of cereal would

one handandon production. be needed

projecting deficit

amount which past ;sroduction

demand for future.

trends

continued

Y Meeting

Food Needs in the Developing World: The Location and Magnitude of the Task in the Next Decade. Research Report No. 1, Washington, DC, February, 1976. 1/ Projections for a number of countries have been made by FAO and the World Bank for internal use. In general, those projections using approximately the sam? methodology as IFPRI yield about the same results. The major exception is Indonesia where FAO data deficit than the IFPRI projection which was indicate a much smaller based on USDA data. Other projections prepared by OECD, the Univ. of Calif., and Iowa State Univ. were not usable for various reasons, mostly because of lack of comparability in coverage of countries.

Page 7

Such projections face: mercial sionary either whether imports imports by higher The ranges deficits less income stemming Further,

indicate

the extent by increased is not

of adjustments production, constrained, per capita

countries by comor concesconsumption

to meet deficits if if foreign it prices in IFPRI is;

exchange and/or

by reducing

or by rationing. projections income of consumption growth assumption capita) the and cereal (more or and a low slowdown countries. econoin-

are based the historical growth from the

on a high trend

in growth which situation takes

in GNP per into

assumption the energy

account

in many developing according

countries into income.

were three

categorized income

to their

mic circumstances come, and high

groups;

low income,

middle

Table

3

Gross Cereal

Deficits (million

by Income tons)

Groups Projected 1985/86 High Low Income -Income Growth Growth 48.0 25.2 34.8 108.3 94.5 41.9 22.9

Food Deficit Countries Low Income Middle High Income Income

wS/u Ave. 5.4% 10.9
9.3

197v75

Ave.

12.6* 17.1 13.0 42.7%

TOTAL

25.6s

*Does not include deficits for Pakistan which are projected to become exporters

and Brazil by 1985.

Low Income .Food Deficit - _,-..._... .,,- ..x, As noted low incqe in 1972), in Table

Countries ..-,....-. .,. .*"* /P_, .. _ 3, the major cereal less deficits than Countries, number about are in the oapita a

countries

(i.e,

those the

yith

$200 per

These include
Afpica/Mlddle

South

Asian

Indonesia,

few in North countries,ple tries. sumption. ly than in "

East,

and a large to contain

of Sub-Saharan peo-

They are expected some 60 percent growth cereal Middle

1.5 billion

1985,

of the total

population increasing

in DME counfood con-

FoPulation Their in the

iS the main factor crop yields Group, are lower

and rising

more slow-

Income

and genera.lly These countries

are more subject have little inasmuch of either in most there generally is as the comlow little

to weather option Size mercial income 'room for impact

and other

uncertainties. production

except Of the

to increase deficit appears

more rapidly, the bounds Further,

to be beyond transfers,

impo'rts countries downward

of food average

aid

since

diets

are, already in that regard

deficient, which

adjustment on the

would ,

most severely According

poor

who already people,

are underfed. most of whom are 1: things go on as that shown

to FAO, some 440 million countries, will tons

in Asian they are,

low income their

are underfed. increase by 1985.

numbers 20 million

FAO estimates the intake deficit

an additional for ories the 1985,'would per day. additional

of cereals, to supplement

beyond their Cther tons.

be required This

by 250 calplace

may be conservative. 6.t 35-40 million

estimates

requirement

L/ See Annex's A and B for lation in 1985.

countries

included

and expected

popu-

Page 9

Middle

Income This group

Food Deficit (per capita

Countries GNP above $200) includes the Philippines, East, region's In

Egypt,

Turkey,

most non-OPEC countries Africa countries America contain

of North about

Africa/Middle l/6 of the

some Sub-Sahara population, tota,l, these

containing excluding about

and Latin countries

Argentina 20 percent

and Brazil. of the deficit income than population for groups the the this

in DME countries. group

In recent than

years, those for

the the

cereal other future

has been larger to increase are generally food

but

is

projected While grow, they

more slowly in a better exist

in the

others.

position in Egypt,

than

low,income

chronic area

problems

much of Mid America/ America.

Caribbean

and the

Andean countries

of South

High

Income

Food Deficit

Countries capacity to generate and diversified With high income livestock, rapidly, foreign ex-

These countries change. in Asia the They include

have a high the

OPEC countries Korea. for will

economies growth rises they is only have 0

such as Taiwan cereals, the

and South particularly deficit

demand for While

feeding increase Their

rapidly. the

cereal

resources

to import total.

commercially.

population

8 percent

of the

Cereal

Exporters Presently Argentina indicate within for and Thailand that Pakistan 10 years. of total are significant and Brazil Population will exporters. move into in these coun-

The projections that tries category will

the next

account

13 percent

DME population

at that

Page

2.0

time.

While

cereai

production Tate,

for

this

group

generally expansion yields

increases of crop is the major

at a satisfactory' area factor in Thailand in Pakistan

most of it

comes from

and BraBi.1

where.as rising

crop

and Argentina.

Cereal

Deficits.

by Countries of the countries

- 1985 U.N. World which it this Food Council has identified

The Secretariat those developing

considers group

as Food Priority is countries in

Countries. accord noted which ion with above. are not of the

For the most part, the (It category should

substantially deficit

of low income be noted that

food Burundi,

Togo and Zaire are in the opin-

listed

under

Food Priority margin

Countries and could well range

Secretariat Table 4.shows for

at the the

have been inof the deficits all

cluded.) projected ..other

upper

end of the Countries data for

by IFPRI

Food Priority

as well each country are

as for

countries. in area,

The accompanying yield

on rates from FAO.
,

of growth

and production

of cereals

Speculation According countries 2000. will

on 1985-2000 to U.N. increase medium projections, from 2.5 billion increase America will but is in population of DME in

1985 to' 3.6 billion slow in Asia, North

The rate

of populati<?n East and Lati:l Africa.

Africa/Middle slightly grain L/ This tries

expected

to increase of maintaining and coun-

in Sub-Sahara consumption

Under an assumption constant from

per capita

1985 to 2000.A' low income

assumption would with inadequate

still leave most of the eel,eal intake per capita

Page11

continuing increase which increase Sahara

the past by 30-35

production million tons

trend, over

the 1985.

cereal

deficit

would

Under such assumptions, in Asia would stabilize, in Subwould outrun

are only slightly Africa

suggestive, in Latin and North

the de-ficit America,

and rise Eastwhere margins. that cereal

substantially population

Africa/Mid

cereal-production

by, substantial

Under a more realistic to grow and add to demand, ble between 1985 and 2000,

assumption the total

incomes deficit tons

will could

continue well dou-

reaching

200 million

o,r more.

Performance In order countries growth duction (wheat, crops

of Cereal

Crops - 1961-74 the particular food crops in specific

to determine performance

where rates

needs to be improved, harvested, data yield

historical per hectare and pro6 cereals 4 root

(1961-74)

of area from

have been computed rice (cassava, paddy, barley, sweet

published

by FAO for and millets),

maize, potatoes

sorghum,

yams,

and potatoes)

and pulses,

groundnuts

and soybeans. Tables in the group, 5 and 6, yields low income food of all deficit in yields income countries the grains

As can be seen in are significantly than in the middle lower

countries have come group is

income pace.

and increases in the high

at a much slower mixed with high South

Performance of rice and very East. higher

yields Korea

(paddy)

in Asian

such as

Taiwan.and of North average tively

low yields

of wheat

in OPEC countries of maize are relahave

Africa/Middle significantly low. Increases

For food btit those

exporters, of rice

yields and wheat

in production

in the

exporting

group

Bangladesh, somewhat there future less

Thailand5 than

tiepal &ve.rageii growth

and Burma; For India', in paddy will

Yields

in

India

have risen and Burma, in the

Bangladeshi area, indicating

Nepal that

has been little increases

in production

have to come from

higher

yields

per hectare. Performance main tant not India, 1 ton/ha Yields countries in dry for in wheat involved; areas of India, has been good in For millet yields India and Pakistan, which for with the

and sorghum are low, rising

are impormillet maize are less but than

sorghum; Indonesia, eircept have risen for

In the. major Philippines Thailand, significantly concerns yields

countries

concerned - yields

and Thailand which only which of rice exports in the come out in India, yields

most of its Philippines. of these

maize.; a

Thus, improve

the

major

data

are to Nepal,

more rapidly with

Bangladesh, of millet

and Burma; in India;

Thailand

close

behind; in India,

and sorghum and

and yields

of maize

Pakistan,

Indonesia

Thailand..

North

Africa/Middle

East

Non-OPEC: with

In this

region,

wheat sorghum

and barley in Sudan

are the most important and millet in Afghanistan, where rice

.cerea.ls, both land is

additionally countries. cropped the

low income largely are about

In Egypt, yields of wheat,

the

and irrigated, in the

crop itrreloping

and maize

highest

Page 13

world. the past, Turkey,

While it where

wheat

and maize

yields this limited,

have increased will continue yields

rapidly unchecked.

in In

seems unlikely crop area is

that also

of wheat, for

barley wheat

and maize and maize

are somewhat but stagnant

above average, for barley. income

and increasing

For the rest Morocco, somewhat grain is Syria, lower

of the higher Tunisia

group

- Jordan, of wheat

Lebanon, and barley are

and Cyprus

- yields

than

in Turkey Except downward for

and in most countries Morocco and Tunisia, wheat,

the

area

of yields in yield

declining.

barley the trend

show a substantial is slightly For the in the situation yield
\

trend,

and for

down. low income yields in slowly, of priority be given courltries, are declining. sorghum. but wheat area is expanding extent wheat rapidly the area same and

Sudan but prevails are rising

To a lesser both

In Afghanistan millet for yields low income

are declining. countries, downtrend special in yields latter of ,

As a matter should

attention sorghum country, Viewing in wheat

to reversingthe

in Sudan and of millet the the slight region uptrend as a whole yields,

in Afghanistan. in wheat there particularly yields

For the needs

to be accelerated. improvement Syria

is need for

general

and barley

in Jordan;Lebanon,

and Cyprus.

Sub-Sahara millet whereas country

Africa:

The important Maize yields averaged

cereals averaged about

in this

region in

are maize, 1974, the all

and sorghum. millet with

1.1 tons/ha 0.6 tons/ha.

and sorghum the largest

Nigeria, yields for

population,

shows declining

little

ehai-ge

6r

dktc!kheS dtiihk?&9

it?

yikldg Migerj

indiude

!Jialagasyi

~atizanitl,

Chad, EthiOpiai Yields for are higher

Mali,

Rutianda,Upper High Income

Volta group,

and Zaire. a.nd except in this yields. to group,

in the

sub-Saharan

millets,

yields Ghana, the

are on an uptrend. largest, that record

Most countries downtrends should in millet

including It reversingthe yields

tiould

appear yield

special for

emphasis millet for

be directed

downtrends

and s,orghum and to improving tiigeria and other low in-

of maize

faster,

particularly

come countries.

Latin region,

America: vary

Yields-of significantly

maize,

the most important ranging

cereal from 0.8

in the tons/ha Yields still in the b

among countries country) 1 ton/ha, growth to 2.8

xin Haiti in Mexico fall world. short

(a low income average about

tons/ha

in Argentina. increasing, highest

and although which is

of population

among the

The most difficult Caribbean group, past sub-region

food

problems

are in the

Middle

America/ former

and in the

Andean countries. have not is

In the changed

mairze yields 15 years.

in most countries exception Rice all

much in the maize hand, show yields ave-

The major substantially. and almost

El Salvador on the in the

where other

have increased rage strong 2% tons/ha uptrends. In Bolivia,

yields,

countries

sub-region

Colombia

and Peru,

maize

yields

run

1% to 14 tons/ha

‘r

Page 15

and rising less growth portant than

slowly.

.However,

the maize is

area

has remained behind

more or

unchanged

and maize

production

lagging

population which running Peru, run is im-

and demand for in Bolivia 1 ton/ha, the

cereals.

In the yields is rice,

case of wheat, low,

and Peru,

are fairly declining (paddy)

less yields 4 tons/ha

area harvested In Colombia, uptrend. to improve countries wheat

and in yields

are on a downtrend. and are on a strong

The main need is Middle the America/Caribbean group

maize

yields,

primarily

in the

and in the yields

Andean Group and for

latter

to improve

as well.

Recent

Trends

in Area and Yields seven-year period, variation

(1967-74) particularly in weather, in trend. since is too it was a to prothe

The recent period vide with a reliable data

considerable indication suggest
“.

short

of changes as follows:

Nevertheless,

more recent

Asia: torical sion

Wheat and rice in yields area

appear (1961-74).

to be maintaining However, whereas the the

hisexpangrowth

trends in rice area

has slowed

further,

in wheat

has accelerated. East Non-OPEC; than earlier, The area but in wheat

.North has increased slowdown both area

Africa/Mid

more rapidly

an offsetting trends in

has occurred and yield

in yield. have turned

For barley, down. in maize

Sub-Sahara come to a halt; decline. While

Africa: yields area

The uptrend of millets in maize

yields continue

has to to

and sorghum and sorghum

continues

Root Crops As noted of the diet in Africa crop in Table cereal 1, root deficit crops countries make up an important including in South Indonesia, America. growth part Sudan, A shoJ?tplaces inthe most area in yields sweet I

Sub-Sahara fall in root

and, in

some countries relative the supply

production

to population of cereals.

xadded burden creasing supply important harvested potatoes of cassava and potatoes clined sweet root

on increasing crop production is not

Conversely., where the

may alleviate

a situation is by far

of cereals root

forthcoming.

Cassava world,

crop

inthedzveloping

involving with
2.8

a total million average

of 11.6hectaresin and'2.0 million

1974 compared in yams. only wF!ile During

1961-74, a year,

have increased 1.8 percent, ayear,

0.6 percent yields

yams 1.0 percent, have deand

of sweet

potatoes

?,6 percent potatoes Although

Increases from only

in production expansion 20-30

of cassava

have come lai+gely these crops contain

of area. of the yields caloric in more

percent crop

content
the

of cereals food

and are hegligible deficit countries

in protein, average about

low income

7 times

Page 17

in tonnage about

per hectare

relative sorghum

to wheat, and millet.

rice

and maize

and

15 times

more than

Performance

1961-74

(Tables

7 and 8)

Indonesia: consumed,

Cassava with the

and sweet former

potatoes for

are the main about

crops

accounting Yields

80 percent

of consumption the tries average for

of root cassava

crops. in for about

are somewhat food deficit

below counis

low income sweet
2.6

and above average to increase in both

potatoes. a year

Population to 1985. for both

projected The trends cassava

percent

area

and yields thus cereal

are negative operating deficit. of root rest.

and sweet for

potatoes, a widening

to reinforce

the prospect Sudan: sumption of cassava sweet duction creases population. the developing

Cassava represents with sweet potatoes

85 percent

crop

con-

most of the

Yields while Proinfor in

have shown little have increased crops, largely

change historically 1.4 percent from area to a year. expansion, 3.2 percent

potatoes of root
3.6

percent Yields world.

a year of both

relative crops

are among the

lowest

Sub-Sahara

Africa: Nigeria: Cassava Yields and yams are about of' both are higher equally than important with

in the

diet.

average,

Page 18

yields

of cassava

increasing a year. little

0.7 percent However, so that a year

annually the crop area proconsidof 3.0

and yams l.5 in root crops

percent

has changed

annual falls

duction erably percent High to be in generally, Coast.

increases short

of 1.1 percent population

of projected

increases

annually. Income: deficit with, Yields All for countries cereals. in this Cassava yams in group is are projected

most important Ivory yields but Coast supFor of a in appre-

additionally, of both historically have occurred

Ghana and the low. Cassava a year Ivory the

are relatively about in

have increased the major where Ply* gains

1.2 percent Ghana and the important change mostly Root crop in

cassava fttis,relatively less Other countries show little declined drop off 1.2 percent, in Ghana.

food

or declines. as a result production

yam, yields substantial Mozambique, ciably behind

Zambia,

Liberia

and Senegal growth. and sweet

has lagged

population Cassava also

Low Income: root tries, early crops. yields 1960's.

potatoes average. very

are the

major

Yields

run below

In most counlittle since the

of cassava

have changed

Rut prcduction expansion in area

has increased cropped. throughout cropped cereal

substantially Yields of sweet coun-

due to rapid potatoes tries the but drop

have declinec increases in yields. in

sharply area

most of the

have more than deficit

cffset

The major

countries

where ulation

root

crop

prcciuction are Benin

lags

seriously Guinea,

behind Kenya,

popMali,

growth

(Dahomey),

and Tanzania. Mid America/Caribbean: significant Dominican but quite yields slightly in the Republic. low in Haiti. rising, Cassava cereal Yields and sweet deficit potatoes are of Haiti latter and country where lag of castend of root to

countries in the

are high

In the Dominican production growth. those

Republic crops yields

and area are behind

of root In Haiti,

population slowly while area is

sava increase decline. crops growth South \ also which

of sweet

potatoes

Although lags is Brazil is not

expanding, the

production rate

slightly quite is low.

behind

of population

America: Thus, there in

projected

to become a cereal concern

exporter, over perfaster I of

likely

to be a major which

formance than the great

cassava

production,

has increased

population fact that

growth. root crop

In Venezuela, production that part foreign of its is

an OPEC country, stable exchange is also is not not a

moment consideri;lg and a large

constraint commercially.

food

supply'is

imported

The food cereal is tries tons/ha deficit

problem

irl Bolivia, with

Colombia foreign root

and Peru,

all

countries

exchange crops

constraints, in these range in counfrom
5-6

another

matter.

The! important

are potatoes in

Potato yields and cassava. I Peru and Bol.ivia to over 12 tons/h& are
8-g

Co:Lombia. and

Cassava yields

tons/ha

in

Peru and Colombia

14 ton/ha

in Bolivia. yields of potatoes have increased almost rapidly, 2 percent root almost a year. crop promarli6 perwith exceeds hand, slight shows posi-

In Bolivita, 3 percent With duction gin& cent rapid area 8 year, of the

and of cassava latter population yields expanding growth

exceeds

by a considerable have risen

In Colombia, a year

of potatoes over root

and of caesava of area,

4 percent. production on the yields area of root

Coupled also other

expansion

crop Peru,

population a slight tive trend

by a wide negative in the

margin.

trend

in potato yields.

.and‘a cropped crops

cassava trend

With

relatively is slightly

unchanged, negative. It \sing sidary tries less is evident

of production

that

major in

emphasis

should

be given

to increawith the subcounis in '

yields

of cassava

Indonesia to sweet

and much of Africa potatoes

attention noted acute earlier.

in Africa

and yams in

The same applies America except for

to Haiti. Peru where

The problem performance

in South

potatoes

has been disappointing.

Pulses, This calories content. countries. for pulses group per unit Pulses Yields and 0.8

Groundnuts,

and Soybeans provides about the same amount the protein of

of commodit:es as cereals and groundnuts are relatively tons/ha :'or

but

roughly

2-3 times

are prevalent low, averaging

in most developing about shell. 4 ton/ha Yields per

groundnuts.in

the

Pas
_’ . . . : _ I_ _. I. ‘. . ,’

21

.-

hectare have not changed much historically, in.,fFct ::'they.show . ;_/ : .' .I :.:*., ,. .(' a slight downtrend. The trend of production particularly in the : .' , . .,.,-, .:: , ; ;:,,. : ,(.,. .:_I :, ., low income food deficit countries is also sidewise, thus ,on.a..per ._. .i,,; ?'I,_.. )' ,/' ..'. 1.. capita basis_ the supply of <'these food commodities.,is diminishing. .; .. I :..' .'.. .//_ ._ s Most of the in the developing market economies are: -... soybeans : .'. _ .-: . -. : .., '.. grown in Brazil, where a substantial export trade'has developed, .' .,i 1 It is also taking hold rapidly ^ in other Latin American ccuntries. : :" 'I :, : ._ . Yields average over 14 tons/ha in this region and are rising I. , ,. *.. : ._ -... about ,2% percent .a' year. j Per-formance-1961-74 _. ..: '.: . ., . ._ ^<,

.- (See 'Tab'ieB 8 and'g) '. 'I '. .' ... '. :_ '. ., ~ "P 4: _'., . 'I, ., :. .:. , _-_' :: . .._. Asia: Excluding the Asia High Jncome Group,.where : ."* perform- '. .I.: : ._j , _." ante has been,quite good, yields,of pulses have shown. little :., :. . : .' .. .i. .; _. . . . change historically throughout the regi.on. w.hich ac,: ,' 2,' In , India, .. ._.L ._',I, . ,,.. '. '. .' ,.',' _'_, ,counts for 90 percent of the area harvestedinthe region,', pulses. . : _ :. make up about 10,percent of the foo,d grain supply, (Pulses have ." .' _' _ .: . ! been included in computing the cereal deficit in India shown.C+n_ , .~ ,' . '. ,, .. Table 2.) Both yield,and area have tended to,deciine historically, ,--_&. ,.'. 4: .' _ with production diminishing almost 1 percent a year. The result : is This an increasing situation The trend With production gap between is much the in yields rising the supply same throughout is of pulses the only and population. _. region. slightly there better.. is also

'

2

of groundnuts less than

1 percent

a year,

.

a widening

gap relative production

to population is Yields rate relatively in these than

growth. unimportant, countries except

Soybean nesia sing

: _ in Indo-

and Thailand. at a much slower

are low and increa-

in Latin

America.

Page

22

NOPtH _Afr,l.eBi~id~,i,e._-E~S_t;l f the region exkept i;n the

Yieldti low income

of p,uises countries latter line

have risen of Sudan, group, 'with

in most of Yemen expansion of

Arab Repllbldc area

and Afgh&nistanc production , yields

For the about in

have Increased

population historically area.

growth. through
l-

show a sharp

decline

out

the

region, .faster

again, than

compensated population. in the of pulses

by enlarging

Production

has risen

Soybeans Sub-Sahara age in large growth. but hind bique, are also with Niger. production fairly

are negligible Yields

region. are substantially historically. exceeding are about lags significantly below aver-

Africa:

Nigeria increases

and show a rapid .in area Higher result

decline

However, population average' bein MozamGroup, yields

in production Group, yields

Among the

Income

1ittleBhangedhistorically. population Ivory about growth Coast

Production in most of-the group,

particularly Income

and Senegal.

In the

Lower

average

and show a tendency in Burundi, group, expanding of population are also declining is also

to decline Gambia, brings

historically, Mali, and

sharp

declines

Chad, area

In most of this slightly

increasing

in excess , yields a rapidly production the trend

growth. below with average sharp

For groundnuts in Nigeria, declines Higher down, Group, trend. so than in with area,

significantly trend. dropping

Together rapidly.

In the is also

Income particularly yields

Group,

in yields and Seneg%l.

and production In the Lower

in Angola are relatively also lags

Income

low and show a moderate behind region. population Significant

declining less yield

Production in the rest

growth,although declines in

of the

Page 23

have occurred and Zaire. There what there is is,

in

Chad, Mali,

Niger,

Tanzania,

Togo,

Upper Volta

very yields

little

soybean are very low.

production

in

this

region.

Of

Latin than yields lags

America: average

Yields

of pulses

are somewhat uptrend

higher

in this

region

and show a modest close to

historically. a year. Pulses Even so,

In Mexico, production important about

have risen somewhat diet

3 percent

behind

population

growth.

are also rise

in the

in Middle a year,

America/Caribbean, increases

where,.yields fall short

1 percent growth. Honduras, or declines, Brazil, 'duction a sharp duction.

and production show little

of population Haiti, change in

Yields

change In South

or declines America,

in Guatemala, yields than show little population

and Nicaragua. with production Ecuador

increasing and Peru.

slower Performance

Venezuela, in Bolivia downtrend

of yield

and pro-

and Colombia in yields with

are more satisfactory. a slight decline

Peru has in trend of pro.

Groundnuts ning trend

are of minor

significance. region with

Yields

are on a decliin area

throughout more than

most of the offsetting. soybean

increases

somewhat

Soybeans: yields very not year

Most of the about

area

is

in Brazil, with

where area expanding while a

are increasing rapidly. as high

3 percent
in

annually Latin

Performance as in Brazil, by fairly where

other

American over in area.

countries, 1% percent The major

shows yields r apid both

rising

accompanied is Peru,

increases

exception

yields

and area

have declineh.

some other in other

South reg$ons

&~&can has hardly

c.ountries. been tested,

At this

time,

their-

potential

.

1. Aeie Group Singapore BXWlQi south Korea Hong Kow Teimn Melepaie Middle Beat QPEC: North Africa 2. Algerie Iran Libya Iw mm. Bahrain United Arab Ewirstae

N&W

Seudi Arebie Z'

B. DEVELOPINGCalNMIESvI'igPORRIGN ExcBBK;E colmBAINrs (Camtrier esteriaked sre oil exporters vbicb era likely to kPeroPe reaerm poaitifma.) 1. Other Ad NerkW Econaaiea: a. Philippines a. India f. Tbeilaod b. FmWedeah g. Other Aaie: Bhutas Nepal, c. Pakistell Sri La&e, Burma, Pacific Islenda. l d. Idoneaie Pepue-NewGuinee. Sikkim, Meldive 1aleZl& 2. North Africa-Middle a. nmQt
b. --prey

Rest (Non-OPEC):

C. Remining Countries (from Afghaeiatae to Norocco): (1) Eigh Incorns (52Ooc): Syria JorQn Tunisia Lebanon EIorOCCO CJlp=a (2) Lcw ;I; (leas tbae $200): pemen w=) Af&eeUCee Yemen (San.)
3.

*a.
b.

Sub-Sahara

Nig~iRb

AMCP
:

liemaining Sub-Sahara: (1) ~dl~~~~~200+) Bhodesie 2embie

*Angola Cemeroao Congo *Gabon Rquetoriel Guinee nrory Coert Llberie Low Income (leas then $200): Kwa Helagnsy Republic Meleui TAllZAlliA Dgenda Surundi Ceetrel Africe Rep. Ethiopia GAlSbiS Guinea 4.
Chad Dd==Y

Neuritiua Reunion S--%~ SpeniahSebere French Terr. Afero h Isaea Gufnee-Bisaeu Cape Verde Isles cent 6 lwille Se0 TIM & Principe Seychellee Ialenda EUlli Neurftenie NigW Sierra Leone Samelie Togo Upper Volte Zaire Lesotho Comoro Islends

(2)

a. b. 4: *o.
f:

Latin Amarice:

Breail Veneauele ECUd0r - _ OUaer Middle America and Caribbean: Bebemea Guammele Benmde Haiti Costa Rice mmdurea Cube British Honduran Dominican Republic Jamaica El Salvador Nicerague

Argentine Nexico

qrinided 6 TobeSo Other Ceribbeee Iale. &rtinique, etc.)

Pananu

5.

RNbing Latin America: BollVie Preech Guiana Chile Guyana C0loIsbie Pareguey

Peru Surinam u=wmY

Incame Grmp Lou Income-Food DMXcit (under $200 per capita): India Bangladesh ‘IndopeS~ Other Asia NA/ME Non-OPECLow Inoome Nigeria Sub-Sahara Low Income Total Lo6 Income
Middle

1970 Eat* (a3llions)

4%*i
121:o 52.1 su;fi 13ok 1,012.z

'792.4

99.4 177.7
.73.7

iz;*';
197:o

134.9 _299.9 2,054.L

1,479.3

Income-Food Deficit ($200+ per capita): Kilippines Egspt -eY NA/ME Non-OPECHigh Income Sub-SaharaHigh Income Mexico Other MA/Carib. . Ecuador Other Latin America Total Middle Income
38.2

61.8

33.7 35.7 32.3 b8.3
51.1 ';iY &

47.7

64.6
72.6

89.7

75.4
110.6 2: 132.2 78.2 118.9 14.8

g
518.1

339.0

759.0

High Income-Food Deficit (high foreign exchange capacity): Asia Group High Income N&E OPEC Venezuela Total High Income Total DME-Food Deficit Grain Exporters: Pakistan Thailand
Argentina

62.2 62.7 10.7 135.6

87.8 100.8

115.0

151.0

16.6 205.2 2,202.6
.

23.6 289.6
31101.0

.

1,&86.8

61.4 36.3

Brazil Total Exporters TG'IAL DME Source: United Nations Projections

23.9
96.6 218.2 1,705.o

98.9 58.7 28.8
147.1
333.s

‘Z 32:9
212.5 477.9

for 1985 and 2000 are U. N. medium-medium vaz%mt

1974.

ccuntq Couarrflorarpicu

CWUlS a

oils aad F.r,. z
1.s
.9 19.2 1.8 9.9 30.2 22.6 10.3 2.9

196b
199s 1760 2066 2071 2166 2133

60.4
70.9 60.b 72.7 65.2

201 83
b.1 bd b3 a 2b

2:
a.9 7.1

l.b 1.b .7 I.3

l.b

.3

1.3 1.0
1.3 2.0 .6 .a

.a 1.1 1.3
4.0

.l .l :: *I ::

4.0

.2

5.i
5.9 1.0 6.3 b.6 6.6 3.6

6.9 .I 2:: .7
1.7

1:: 1.2
.2 .3 .5

1.0
1:

51.S
53.6

10.0

::I;

1911 2639
2769 2248 2200 2620 21%

62.7 69.6 61.9 60.0 07.1 52.0 31.3 00.5

S.6 ::: 30::

2.6 3.1 5.0 3.6 6.3 6.6 c: i8 10.6 4.0 16.0 2:: 2.0 I.5 .6 .3 1::

3.6 3.3 5.8 4.1 1.0 2: 6.1 2.6

2:
2:7 3.4 2.6 2: 7.7 6.6

.5 .z
.3 .b :: 1.2 .b .5

2.7 :$a 3:v 3.b ::: 4.6 3 :: ;b

1848
2302

46.9

1.5
8.1 15.3 12.5

1.1
.2 .7 ::

_

6.1
::;

lS.8
16.0 16.2

1.1

0.7 6.6 9.b 11.6 s.3 7.7 7.2 7.2 7.6

_

2329 2367

69.5 63.6 37.6

7.2 1.7

3.3 2:

5.0

1.8
1.2 .b 2: 2:o

13.b

11.8 1S.b

4.5 3.3 9.1

.b ::

.a 3.3 6.b

1.6

1::

:4 9:1

:

1995 2226 2665 2361

70.9 72.1 36.6 33.9

.v
3.0 6.2 16.1

2.9 5.8 .a 12.2

.

a.3 tie 2:

Lb 1::
.b

1.3
3.3 3.0 1.9

.a 3.7 21.3 8.0

:: .a .7

6.9 .a 7.1 5.3

5.9
2:; .b .s

1.9 11.3 5.1

i969-7jt
miVO2QigV

19aSb&
PrOj~ird

(Hsl; Pt.

Tonri)

(IfIr.. ht.

Tone)

* 4.li
(-3.7) p&2?? &jl;i dOi -b;8 -1.3 -0.7 43.2 &Q -8.3 (-11.5) (+3iZ'L N. AfrjMdBast OPEC &hE Non-i.JPBC izgypt
Turkiiy

pu,@. tij -ib;b
-P&O ti, 4s.3 (-i&Q CI -&4) o-g*0 to +9.4x

Ll4,i kb ;I&.6
-$;3 +3;7 i&f '165 to td to -3;s -S.&l -1.8 +s.6 -45.9 -54.8) +9.4)

to -+3i9

+5.3 to -1.7 -36.8 to (-46.2 to c+9.0 to

Nut-la rli Inc. NA/ME to Inc. Total h/k& Nigeth Sub-Sahara Hi Inc. Sub-Sahara LO Inc. Total Sub-%&are
HeXit

-2,6 -5.3 -2.0 -0.4 -2.4 -6.4 -7rP -0.4 -0.8 -0.3 * -0.1 -2.4 w.2 -1.7 -0.9 : -0.1 -2.0 +1.0 (-7.3) (+8.32 -16.7 (-28.2) j+11.51

-10.7 to -11.4 -10.6 to -11~2 -3.6 -2.0 to -2.2 -2.7 to -2.9 '2.3 to -2.4 -2lr4 to -22.5 -7.6 to -8 . lz/ -2.0 -4.1 to -4.8 -13.7 to -14.9 -.8 to -2.2 -4.2 to -4.4 +15.7 to +16.1 Cl.1 to -2.1 to +3.4 -3.1

Other Mid-h.!Carib. Argentina Brazil iflnesuel;a Ecuador Other Lat. Am. Total Lat. Am. Total DME

-.7 to -.8 -5.4 to -5.6 +.7 to +6.4 (-13.2 to -16.1) i+16.8 to +19.5j -65.5 to -82.6 (-94.5 to -108.3) (+25.7to_+29,01

Source: IPPRI Research Report #I Parenthesis sum deficits and surpluses separately. Note: Net deficit or surplus shown without parenthesis. -. _. Y For listing of countries see Annex A. Y If recent production growth rates prevail, the deficit would be reduced to l-3 millioo tons. 2/ Projected deficit from other sources ranges from 3-6 million tms.

19.3 73.7 3.1 31 .a 6.k Il.0 37.5 IA.1 28.0 LA lr.6 J.0 613.2 >J&O 13.3 8.0 lb.9 5.7 9.2 12.6 L.6 70.6 Y.L Il.2 Lb 3.0 3.2 IL.0 18.3, 1j.b 1l.L 6.0 6.1

2.7 2.9 2.8 2.b iv)

.t .7

1.1 5.5 .I

0.2 I.0 -1.2 0.h 1.8 -2.: 0.5 I.‘ l.l, ,.o 0.9 0.5 0.0 I.1 I.3 2.2 2.0 3.6 0.L IA 0.2 1.6 1.5 3.3 0.L 2.1 UfA l.j j.0 3.0 1.6 -6.1 -1.2

I.0 0.4 2.2 0.4 0.1 -j.8 2.1 IA.0 0.6 -0.5 1.6 4.1 >.a 3.1 1.6 -0.6 1.5 -2.5 1.7 -0.8 -1.1 L.l 2.2 -1.9 -0.7 1.8 ?(/A, 3.0 -1.6 0.2 ,.a -0.7 I.9

1.2 1.5 1.0 0.8 1.9 -6.1 2.6 5.5 2.0 2.5 2.8 04 2.6 L.3y 2.9 1.6 L.b -1.9 2.1 0.6 -0.8 5.8 3.8 1 .I8 -0.3 L.0 WA It.6 3.3 3.2 3.L -0.8 0.7

.7 ?/ 0 2.0 ?I ?I Jf 2' 2 2.2 l.J (i/J ?I I/ I/ Y

.5 .3 ?/ 3.6 Ii 1 .o Y .2 .2 16.8 O.Y .b .3 (?/) .5 .2 .b .3 0.7) 1.8 ?/ .6 .2 WA 1.0 .7 I.1 (l/l .3 n/i.

2.3
2.2 2.3 3.2 2.5 2.6 1.8 3.L 2.5 2.6 34 3.1 2.6 2.6

2.1
2.6 2.8 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.9 1.9 3.2 J.2 3.1 2.b 3.0

(4
0 .a .7 (.I) .z If VA .9 .2 2 0 ?/ n/A

16.R 6.L 25.h 5.4 109.7 3.5 IO., 25.9 9.L 5.1 7.1 9.9 6.1 il.2 32.Y 11.1 It.9 33.9 12.0 59.2 17.5 62.9 15.3 9.0 7.3 w.l 5.7 39.9 3.1 12.2 a.5 5.1

3.h 2.6 1.2 2.6 2.8 2.7 1.8 3.1 2.1 J.ll J.2 3.1 J.0 1.L 3.2 J.5 2.1 2.0 2.9 34 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.h 3.2 2.8 2.6 1.0 2.9 2.8 3.3 ,3::,

.6 (2/j (a.2) .2 1.7 0 .B A I., .1 .I .2 .I .6 .6 .5 .2 2.6 .7 .I .7 A .7 .5

3.1 .I (15.7) .h 0.1) C.2) 2.0 .9 2.0 .ld .a I/ .2 .a tI.2 1.Y .3 6.0 A 2.2 C.5) 8.1 1.9 1.0 1.1 (5.J) .I& 2.2 C.1) 3.1 .J ?/

.il 0.2 1.5 0.5 3.9 7.1 -0.9 J.lr 1.L 0.6 -0.s 5." 2.L -9.7 J.6 -1.0 L.L -0.7 L.3 1.6 2.0 1.1 0.7 ,.3 -0.2 2.2 -0.L O.lr -?.O 1.8 10.0 -0.1

.a -0.0 2.1 I.> 0.1 2.1 1.6 3.6 3.L 3.9 2.9 1.2 u.1 2.1 .2 2.9 2.L 2.1 1.6 2.b 3.1 -1.6 0.7 4.2 -1.6 .6 6.1 1.6 3.2 1.L -2.0 0.7

7.2 0.2 3.6 1.9 b.0 9.h 0.7 lb.0 Il.7 Lt.6 2.3 6.3 2.J -7.4

>.a l.a
h.1
2.0 6.0 L.2 5.2 -0.5 1.b 3.0 -1.8 2.9 5.7 2.0 2.1 3.2 7.8 0.6

.I4 .b ?/ .9 .z ll

Table

5

Ilice. (P-w)

miu

I4illet

1.36 A. Indh 1.16 (19.1)

4.25 (3::: 1.74 (9.9) (2: 2.68 (8.5) 1.61 (3.5) 1.70 (7.7) 1.82 m 1.80 (75.6)

(2.6)

2.35 LB1 .89

.91

(5.8)

.47 (17.0)

.49 (18.5)

PJIi#LLII

(6.1)

1.25

(2.8) (2.8)
2.14 (1.1) 1.51 J&l .83

1.08 (.6) .97

.63 (.5)

C.6)

.51

FhilippiM~ TtWilMd othu Asia orhu Asia Eem*r g. Af./MidEart WFPt
Turkmy
nuket

1.16 (25.6) .74 d?& 3.45 1.29

(2.9)
g& .71

.a7

(1%

.49 (17.6)

.49

(19.3)

WEC

C.6)

4.90 (3

(8.6)
.9? (4.8) 1.17 -. :'g .

(2.6) (3.2)
1.09

1.28

3.83 (.7) 1.72

C.6)
.ea
(3.0) .44 3% . r1.41 .57 (4.9) .59 (2.3) &g .57 (:3.5)

N4m El Inc.

NAM Non-OFEC
NigUiA

1.19 (6.4)

(2.3)

2.14

(3$

(5.6)
1.30 (.7) 1.31 &&a 1.31 0.9)

.62

(2.8)
Jg 1.12 (11.3) .99 (7.8) .92 (3'::

1.66

C.8)
.67 (3.91 .65 (10.4)

.a1

rndco
0th~ Argantilu Mid-Am./Catfb.

3.55 (.78) 2.23 (3:: 1.10

0.2)

2.31 1.08 (.3) .78 (.3)

C.6)

(2.1)

, Brmil

(2.5)

(2::

Ecu&Or other rota1
Lat.

AAn*

$J 1.49 (8.7) (2:::) (1:::) &

2.86 C.1) 2.55 C.1) 3.43 a (E (6:::) (2:) s (7ks9, 1:l 1.89 (89.5)

(1::: 1.09 (.5) (:$ 1.38 u 1.39 (27.9) (5::) (2:) _(;rs1 (12) (2, ,l& (1;: i, & (3:::) (lZ, 1.28 (55?4) (35::) 2.32 (4.4) (29::) (31::) (2:;) & (34::) & .55 (34.9)

1.18 A&l

Lat. Am.
Deficit

LOU Iclti

Mddle Incw

Daficit

(Z) -&
(32:;)

Total Food Daficit Food Exportera

(4:::) &

TOtAl DUB
Scurc*:
PA0 Roductfm u For listlag

(61.6).

1.17

(l:::,

Yearbook 1974 of comtrles 8~ Annex A.

Table Cereels: Growth Bate6 of Ares,
(Percent

6
/

Yield
per

end Productian
year cmpnunded)

1961-74

by IPPBI

cetegorlee

Tote1
A

Cereala Y P u 2&g

A -9.67$5Js
?.29

Nbeet Y

Rice

P
-3.63

A
0.86 0.87

(Paddy) Y 1.30 H. 1.30 0.47 5.20 3.38 2.58 0.48

P 2.1L 2.35 1.69

A
-J3&#-

iluley Y

P. 2.77

A,

Weire Y

P

A

Sorghum P

P

A

nillets Y

P

Asia

lllgb

Income

0 02 & pJl.el&& 0.80
1.04

Other Aeie Hsrket economies India BenSledeeh Pskis tan Indonesia Philippines Thailand

4.2a7.67 4.41

11 -1.72 1.30 -0.44

2.14
2.49

0.73
-0.02

2.89
2.47

-0.79
-0.85

0.08
-0.16

-0A 71

0.26
0.35

r.sa
1.67

1.82
2.02

1.81
cl.45 4.14

2.63 1.49 5.7tl

3.61

6.18
6.26

0.59 0.98

-1.00
2.47

1.45
7.14

1.57
1.15

2.17

4.01

1.85 1.74 0.62

2.81
-0.40 2.77 10.20

0.80
-0.03 2.44 0.55

3.64 -0.43 5.28

0.11

2.35

-2.52

0.42

-2.11

3.12
2.23 0.63 gJg

4.30
3.76 2.86 J&

5.18
3.22

1.50
2.21 0.71 -

.5
Qgg&u

1.46

1.95

10.80 -0.38

0.54

o&64= -J&300&?&

0.14

-0.52

L

Af./Hldl!ast ‘%YPt Turkey

OPXC

!.66mm

0.16
0.47 0.37 0.7. 1.55am 1.08

L.48 2.11 1.62 2.38

m 2.59 2.00 3.10

L2QuQL!u
-0.32 1.03 0.98 1.09 2.13 1.97 2.14 L.!E 1.80 3.02 3.14 &g 3.92

LJ
-0.16 3.75

-&lJM -1.00
0.79

1.24 1.00
2.86 -0.02 3.62

-2.29
-0.45 -0.74 3.30 2.13

1.98
2.83 1.37

NAhlX Non-OPEC HL Inc. NA s NiglSl* Sub-Sebere Sub-Ssbare ~1 IOC. ~a IOC.

-1.57

-0.51 2.30

0.91
0.19
?,63 2.9aQJ&&g 2.68 -0.68 2.07 2.92 1.74 2.53 2,09 0.84 1.40 0.89 0.96 3.16 $.44 3.05 2.03 1.60 .5.82 4.24 1.5; 5.06 1.68 1.53 1.2) 0.26 ?.66 3.23 11.61 m 0.47 0.98 0.89 20.63 1.70 9.99

-2.84 0.79 -0.09 -0.89 aL0.61 0.62 1.31 2.27

-1.96 1.26

1.29 0.67 -0.37 A 0 38

-0.49 -0.60 -0.62 -0.577

0.79 0.07 -0.98

1.02
I.peQ&a u4!Lui&

1.28

Herlco Other Kid-Am./Cerlb.

1.65 1.18 1.4Y

2.45 1.71 2.10 0.07 1.37 2.86 3.09 1.43

4.15 2.90 3.60 4.02 3.19 2.22 ?.sa 3 64 2.70 2.35 2.85 2.47 2.45 3.88

-1.32

5.03

3.64

1.18
0.59 ?.16 0.68

21.38 3.07 12.49 0.72 0.91 1.63

1.98
-1.26 10.60 0.65 1.57 -1.22 13.44

4.03

6.09

Lb0 2.58

Uraril
VelleZUfh

3.94

2.59
3.22 -2.76

-0.83
3.81 5.04 3.29 0.53

1.74 7.15 2.13 4.(i4 2 06 7.40 2.28 3.62 2.51 2.38 2.51

3.54 1.32 2.02

1.80
-0.53

0.19
2.98

Ecuador Other Total Total Let.
Let.

Am<
Am.

0.18 2.18 --A 1.19 0.96 0.87 1.26 0.96 2.48

-1.85
0.52 --A

1u-o,7(,
0.52 104

1.31 2.31 --A _l.os

_1,35-0.11m

0.321.31 ?.lo

IJ
-0,55 -0.64
-0.03 -1.07 -0.49 -1.66

2.77 1.67

14.77 2.38 0 43 LAO.97 0.52 0.48 -2.29 0.50

Y
0 49

DHE Food oeflclt
Food Deficit

?.M 1.37 1.96 1.36 1.31 1.36

1.34 1.37 2.67 1.35 1.42 0.61

L.43 0.89
1.43 2.12

0.86
0.24 1.40 1.16 0.97 -1.35

_2.09 1.70

Lad Inc. lUd Inc.
Sl@h

3.24 0.58 2.53 2.13 1.74

3.73 2.06 0.65 2.16 1.22

7.10 2.65 3.22 4.59 2.98

0.90 0.93 1.21 0.91 1.89

1.96
2.46 2.94 2.22 5.16

-0.10
5.97'

-0.46
5.74

-0.56
12.05

0.60 0.13 3.95 LD4 0.32

1.12 0.62 1.66 1.05

1.07
1.70 1.37 3.59

1.37
1.20 0.96 1.51

Inc.

Food Dcfkit WUE

1.98
0.26 7.64

0.16
0.65 4.11

2.14
0.92 12.06

Total

Food Deflclt

1.06
0.31

Food Exporter*

-1.95

-1.64

wt hUtO.8

?ouCou 10.4 f9.a 6.7 (533) 9.1 mQ) 20.2 WV

14.7 alla

17.3 (367)

7.0 (13500) s.4 W) 19.7 (32OY %a 8.8

7.6 c-) 10.5 (61) 9.2 (3) 6.2 (3500) 4.8 (i32)

iilL 6.6 c-)

ii&
0.27 (74.9)

(23%6)

17.0 (*o)
12.2 mo)

11.4 <w & 4.0 (220) 10.0 woo) 6.1 11.1 u35m 6.3 ON ii& 9.6 (18%) :;tll 3.9 (IQ11 12.7

(284)

(15m

4.9 (1%) 2 :ii92&
11.2 W)

& 7.4

(630606)

6.3 (79)

6.7

(32)
16.2 (111) 9.8 (271, LO.1 9.2 (u) i&l 9.0 (974) 7.7 (919) 8.2 (8oz) 6.6 (174) 8.0 (lU%) 12.1 (MI)

13.7 (21%) 6.6 OJ) 9.2 (59) 10.1 ma 12.6

6.3 01) 11.9

(162)

(12)

0692)
10.4 (1569) 6.6 (373)

9.9 (329)

8.0 (6601) 6.8

f&$1 5.9 (429) 16.6 (low 5.7 (2532$ 10.3 (=6) 6.2 (2763)(1973)

(210))

7.7

(8962) (2642)

9.7 (1970)

12.9

8;s
(11606)

9.7 (1970)

:i:02,

Source:

PA0 RoductiOa Y1974' 1973 deta what* 1974 crop failed.

For

llU&&

of

eeuntriu

."

Ammex A.&'

Selected

Food Crops:

Growth

ilstee.

Area.

yield

and

Productlw

1961-74

by IPPBI Categories

nooot crops

CO”ntrY/Re,$tO~ ~sirr Wih lncon+ Other &ssie Ismarket
ECWDlJtliCB

A mm 0.95 3.30 A.67

Y 0.93 u 4.16 3.30 m

P

A

Yame Y

P

Sweet A mQ&QQ

Potetoee 1

P

A

Potetoea Y

P

A

Pulses Y

P

2.70 7.61 a.00 4.32 -1.93

D.85
3.52

a
7.24

&&
11.01

ggJgo.el 4.69 5.26 1.21 1.65 2.02 0.41 -DA 4.M 6.42 7.38 1.63 -3.49 -1.13

mg&g
2.63 3.w 4.25 2.29 4.57 2.21

India
Sanglsdesh P&I8LM Indonella Pbillpploes

2&k 4.97 8.62 6.55

m-o&ao!&?g
-0.66 0.05 -1.41 4.00 -2.11 12i63

-0.13
0.92 0.03 -o.ub LO.59 -1.65

-0.99
0.97 -1.36 4.00 -2.6%

2.80
-1.47 -0.56

1.41
-0.46 -0.79

-1.14 -0.13 10.22 m-2-&f&

-0.47 -1.49 4.74

-1.60 -1.62 9.41

-3.06 -0.76

I.%
-1.4u 11.62 M s

1.03 -0.&2 O.*i

2.83 -zm 12.32 3g&

-1.34 9.09 * m

Ihailend other ASiS
N.Af. /iUdEsst OPEC

9.18 m au

-o.Du G!Q

IO.96

&g&g &&a

u.s &g 285 0.54
1.14 0.77 5.55 3.40 4.50 s

g&&&m

utkL4QLQft
SaYPt TUh=Y NAft63 utm Nlget-i* Sub-Sahara Sub-Satmra yJot*l lkxico Other Al-pNitl~ Mid-Am. /Cex ;b. Hi Inc. Hi Inc. 4.21 2.22 3.78 m -0.06 0.44 1.14 0.78 0.33 1.17 4.67 3.40 4.58 m

1f

ulwn 4.90
2.22 3.78

.‘-2.66

m J& aAtpztpz
3.12 0.22 1.93 s -2.75 9.37 0.77 2.44

222.
0.18
0.99 4.42 .&g 1.14

1.54

5.47

7.10

Lo he,

m-o.04 1.50
1.82 g& &&3=&g s

m 0.72 1.18
2.23 3.02 * -1.05 1.70 m u 1.49 -1.17 mu -m 0.42 0.51 5.26 8.02 mum -0.12 -m 5.12 g&

!L!sL?z!

m

1.10
2.64 m

8.19
1.89

2.12
=m. gg -0.95 2.27 -1.09 2.60 2.10 3.95

0.51
-0.84 3.88 1.33 1.71 0.62 -1.98 2.04 x

I.52
a-m.

Lo Inc,

mgg Y
-1.19 3.95 2.62

Sub-Sehare

E 2.89 3.63 0.60 3.52 0.09 6.07 u

a g& u-o.w= -0.21
O.# 4.66 2.49 0.66 0.38 2.96 1.04 -1.79 -0.45 -2.26’

2.74 1.49 2.11

1.93

1.39

3.35

1.65

0.15
-3.99

1.60
0.73 -2.32 0.24 -0.32 2.76 &al3.12 3.37 1.65 2.80 m 0.73 3.62 1.33 5.63 m m 1.85 2.37 5.30 2.61 2.42 3.73 2.25

1.74
3.30 3.56 6.65 1.73 m&&z a.eoo.s; L&Ii 0.41 3.17 0.24 -4.00 0.66 1.45 3.54 -0.57 7.36 3.20

WUll Venetush Scuador Other Let.

1.40

1.71

3.14

32.99 a.81 %.9s 2b.w 9.03 lB.60
67.46 u -g&&g 12.32 a -l.w 0.61 3.59 3.a2 2.97 Gas A La3 24.59 4.42 7.43 27.36 -2.51 && 63.91 -w

-1.62

Am.

u& u2l&2L%!

IA m&&g&

-0.51 w

-0.13 M

u u -u.Ub 1.68
-0.40

mm mm
3.42 1.63

g&m m 2;86

fotsl

Dlq
2.90 1.63 1.86 -0.33 0.60 -0.31 -0.08 0.75 2.56 2.52 1.54 2.50 3.64

u 1.36
-0.91 Lf

0.58 CL%
0.76

5.47 5.23
1.02 0.78

Lou Inc. Food Deflclt Mid Inc. Food Deficit Hi Inc. Food Deficit Total
Food

2.75

0.52 0.66

-0.41 1.49

0.10
2.16 2.59 0.47

1 CJ to;85 1.1 3.4% 24.29

1.81
2.51 3.92

1.17 .u0.58

3.OD
3.10

-0.15
9.83 -2.99 1.25

1.67
1.62

1.05
2.50 2.01 -0.61

1.55
-0.08 1.68 2.87

1.4U
0.3-b

1.11
-0.07

Pood Deflclt Lrpofterr
Source:

Dt4Z

2.59 3.06

0.97 If

0.58

4.67

1.54
2.91

0.19

4.12

1.64

1.58

-0.02

1.56

Data

FAO Production untmportent In

Yearbook regional

Tapes total. 8

LI

Relatively

il.61 w o.wI 0.U (zmb) Q.t5 (341)
0.51 (1588) OSQ (572) 0.w (61) 1.09

3
0.83 iul 0.81 0.76

(6%)
1.38 w 1.32 (%) 1.26 (UO) 0.37 (35) 1.58 (1U)

0.79 ow gb 1.13 (loa z 1.55 ml 1.23

(25)))

0.58

2.09 UL 1.25 1.88 (lb)

ii& &
2.10 (163) 1.12 mu 0.73 (W9) 1.17 UZL 0.19 (l&O) 0.51 (a) 0.51

1.23 (5)

jiiy
1.25 w 1.22 u

0.38 (17f.J) 0.60 (4 s

0.50

(12~) .

0.8b (1955)

0.37

0.39

0.61 t2685) 0.61

0.69 (1921)

1.67 e&d

1.27 (51) 0.90 ma

o.tll
WN 1.08 (135) 0.61 (3588) 0.39 (lo61 0.58 (113) 0.11 <a5901

I.&8 wb) 1.56 um3)

O.& @lb) 1.37 mo) 0.85

(20) 02)

l.lp

03)

0.92

1.98 ua z&L g li.% 0.75 (12312) 0.88 (2261) 1 .Yb (38) 0.77 (l&511) 1.19 (878)
0.80

O.&l (33X7) 0.73

O.tl (893,

WW

wa
0.12
(LOO,) 0.97 (17l9) 1.55 (5229) 1.81 (b9W

1.78

0.61 wu %kP, 0.62 (5661) 0.U
(WILIO)

(lyl89)

IFPRI FOODDEFICIT COUNTRIES BYINCOME CATEGORIES
m LOW !NCOME MIDDLE HIGH FOOD iooo DEFICIT FdOD DEFICIT

INCOME INCOME

FOOD

DEFICIT

EXPORTERS

” ‘. /

’