CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH D.C. 20433 U.S.A. 1818H St., N.W. Washington, Telephone (Area Code202)477-3592 CableAddress- INTBAFRAD FROM: The Secretariat Consultative Group Meeting October 31 - November 1, 1979 Main Conclusions Reached and Decisions December 7, 1979 Taken The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 1. held its regular yearly meeting (International Centers Week) on October 29 two days, the Plenary Session, the to November 1, 1979. During the first international agricultural research centers and other programs supported by The second the Group made presentations on their programs and activities. two days were devoted to a business meeting of the Consultative Group, the This paper sets out the,main annotated agenda of which is attached. conclusions reached and decisions taken at the Consultative Group meeting on the second two days. An Informal Summary of Proceedings of Centers Week has been drafted and circulated for comment to participants in the meeting. Early in 1980 it will be issued to them in final form and will be available to others on request. In opening the Consultative Group meeting on October 31, the 2. Chairman said that despite recent good harvests, the problems facing the poorest countries in providing adequate nutrition for their growing populaIn ten years food production in tions would continue and probably worsen. the developing countries could fall short of demand by 120 million tons. The CGIAR was an important and long-term part of the very large effort needed The CGIAR system had now come of age, and faced to address these problems. Planning for its long-term future had increasing demands in the future. The objectives should be to reach and become both possible and essential. benefit as many people as possible while continuing to ensure sound management. Attachment Distribution: CGIAR Members Center Chairmen, Board Members, and Directors Mr. Stedman Dr. Odhiambo TAC Chairman, Members and Secretariat -21979 Report The Group discussed the Secretariat's 1979 Report on the 3. Consultative Group and the International Agricultural Research System (the "Integrative Report," Agenda Item 3). This Report described the contribution of the international centers to technology development, set out the funding needs for 1980 and proposed a five-year plan for the Groun and that a second general review of the CGIAR should be carried out. 4. The Report's description of the scientific output of the centers Circulating it widely would lead to a greater was found very useful. appreciation of the centers' achievements. There was agreement that research was a long-term effort in which incremental, rather than dramatic, advances were to be expected. The need for planning, patience and flexibility was emphasized. Collaboration with the research efforts of the developing More emphasis countries and measures to strengthen them were essential. should be given to training. The CGIAR should concentrate its resources on priority research and not scatter them too widely. Five-Year Plan 5. It was agreed that the Group should adopt the five-year plan proposed in the Report calling for doubling the resources of the Group in current terms by 1984, bringing the level of contributions in that year to about $250 million. This would be a rolling plan, revised yearly, and would provide the framework into which the programs of all the international centers and other activities supported by the Group would fit. Review of the CGIAR 6. It was also agreed, as proposed in the Report, that a second Review of the CGIAR and the system be undertaken. This would be planned in 1980 and carried out in 1981. Given the increasing size of the system, the Review would pay particular attention to matters of organization and management. It is contemplated that a special committee, assisted by a small staff, will conduct the Review. Role of Center Boards The Boards of the centers supported by the Group are a key element 7. in the operation of the international agricultural research effort. The role of the Boards and their relation to the other elements of the system was discussed (Agenda Item 4), and a number of concerns expressed. It was agreed that this would be an important topic for consideration by the Review Committee. TAC Chairman's Report 8. The 22nd Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee had been held in July 1979. One of its main tasks at that meeting had been to review the programs and budgets of all the centers and, jointly with the Secretariats, and in consultation with the Center Directors, recommend reductions in proposed expenditure to bring total requirements down to the expected level of contributions for 1980. In conjunction with each center's presentation of its program -3during the first two days of Centers Week, the Chairman of TAC gave TAC's At its July meeting TAC had also considered comments and suggestions. The Chairman reported on these (Agenda Item 5). TAC's other matters. consideration of vegetable research as a high priority for support by the Group continued but it was not yet ready to make a specific recommendation. Research on water management was also under careful study and TAC hoped to bring a recommendation to the Group by late 1980. Aquaculture, another high TAC had not yet determined whether priority subject, was also under study. of to bring a proposal to the Group. A study of the off-campus activities the centers was under way and a report would be available by late 1980. 9. oriented done. IFPRI At its last meeting, in May 1979, the Group had decided in principle 10. In doing so, the to adopt the International Food Policy Research Institute. Group had asked IFPRI to bring a sharper focus to its mandate; to analyze the including the relative costs, of moving its advantages and disadvantages, headquarters to a developing country; and to amend its Constitution to bring it into line with CGIAR requirements. After considering progress made by IFPRI in each of these areas 11. (Agenda Item 6), and noting that IFPRI's Board had not yet reached a conclusion on the location issue, the Group confirmed its adoption of IFPRI. It will be funded through the CGIAR in 1980. ICIPE The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology had 12. applied for membership in the CGIAR system. The Group discussed whether to entertain this application. TAC in its paper on priorities for support of research by the CGIAR had accorded high priority to research on plant pests and diseases. Such research was an example of factor-oriented research, a subject on which the Group was awaiting further recommendations from TAC. It was also noted that ICIPE's program fell within the general area of research on pests and diseases. The Group decided to transmit ICIPE's application to TAC for its recommendations within the context of the recommendations it would be making on the general question of factor-oriented research and the priority it attached to work on pests and diseases. 1980 Funding Having received a presentation on each center's program and budget 13. and commentaries on them from the Secretariats (which incorporated TAC's recommendations), the Group approved funding for 1980, as shown below (Agenda Items 8 and 9). The gross amount is the total core expenditure approved for each center during the year. The net amount is the new contribution required after subtracting funds carried over from the previous year and income expected to be earned: Last May the Group had asked TAC to give further research, including researchTon plant nutrients. study to factorThis is to be -4Center CIAT CIMMYT CIP TCARDA TCKLSAT IITA ILCA ILRAD IRRI WARDA IBPGR IFPRI ISNAR Gross US$ millions 15.0 17.1 8.0 11.8 12.4 15.1 9.0 10.4 16.1 2.7 3.1 2.4 1.2 124.4 1980 Contributions Most of the donor members of the Group were able to indicate 14. specifically how much they would be able to contribute in 1980 (Agenda Item 10). The Secretariat was in a position to make estimates of the The total amount likely to be likely contributions from the other donors. There were contributed in 1980 was estimated to be just over $118 million. some new donors. The OPEC Special Fund and the Leverhulme Trust both Mexico, Ireland and the Philippines announced specific contributions. announced their intention of becoming donor members of the Group. It was noted that requirements and likely funding were close to being in balance. Cash Flow Problem 15. Several of the centers had experienced difficulties because the funds contributed by donors tended to come in too.slowly or too late to This problem was discussed on the match the flow of necessary expenditure. It was agreed basis of a paper provided by the Secretariat (Agenda Item 11). that donors would endeavor to make payment earlier in the year, but centers were reminded that in many instances payment could be made only after requests had been submitted by the centers. Implementation of Review Committee's Recommendations Net US$ millions 14.6 16.2 7.3 11.4 1.0.5 14.6 9.0 10.3 15.8 2.6 3.1 2.4 1.2 119.0 The Secretariat had reported on progress towards implementing the 16. recommendations made by the Review Committee in 1976 (Agenda Item 12). In discussion stress was laid on the need for TAC to review Special Projects along with core programs, the need to introduce systematic forward planning, to establish a desirable maximum to examine the Group's management structure, size for individual centers, and to review the nature and extent of off-campus activities. Centers were to be urged to put into effect those recommendations on which they were still lagging. -5ICRA A number of European members of the CGIAR had set up a working 17. group on the International Course for Development Oriented Research in This group had now prepared a detailed proposal. The Agriculture (ICRA). object was to give scientists of any nationality a one-year course to equip them for technical assistance programs in agriculture in developing countries. No decision on location had yet been taken. Further progress is expected at the next meeting of European donors on March 25-27, 1980 in Switzerland, and it was planned to have the course operating by the fall of 1980. Next CGIAR Meeting The Group agreed to hold only one meeting in 1980. The dates will 18. be October 27 through October 31, 1980 (Agenda Item 14). In response to invitations from both IRRI and the Philippine Minister of Agriculture, it was agreed to hold the meeting in the Philippines under arrangements which would permit those attending to see IRRI in action. , CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL 1818 H St., N.W. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCX i Wasbington,D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Telephone(Area Code202)477-3592 CableAddress- INTBAFRAD Attachment Icw 7912 Consultative Octobar Group Meeting 31 - November 1, 1979 Eugene Black Auditorium, Room C1114, World Bank Washington, D.C. Annotated Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Provisional Agenda - Opening Remarks by Chairman - Adoption of Agenda on the Consultative Group and the International Research System (Integrative Report) '- 1979 Report Agricultural This year's Report is divided into two principal sections. The first section, Chapter 11 of the Report, describes the output of the international centers in terms of the new scientific knowledge and new technology being Y It analyzes the scope of the scientific endeavor within the CG generated. system, the research policies and strategies of the centers, and some of the innovative features of the reiearch and training programs. It does not attempt to raise issues or evaluate the research programs, for which there are other However, it is the first attempt at a comprehensive description of the fora. overall contribution of the international centers to technology development. Members of the Group will be invited to give their views on the output of the CG system, and may wish particularly to comment on the progress being made by the balance between basic research and technology generation .the newer centers, and the research strategies for the-more difficult environnients. The second section, Chapters III and IV of the Report, offers a financial perspective of the CGIAR. Chapter III deals with the needs for 1980 and steps which have been taken to bring requirements into line with expected contributions. The financial situation for 1980 will be considered under items 8 and 9 Chapter IV suggests the need for a longer-term finanof the provisional agenda. cial plan for the CGIAR which would give assurance that long-term research would receive unbroken support and would provide guidance to TAC and the centers, and I... .- Distribution: CG Members TAG Chairman TAC Members TAC Secretariat Center Board Chairmen Center Directors r - 2- the Group itself, in drawing up and reviewing future programs and budgets. It suggests as a target a doubling of CGIAR resources for international research over the next five years, to a net amount of about $250 million in 1984. It also proposes that planning should begin for the next general review of the CGIAR and its system, which would focus particularly on governance and management questions, including resource allocation. The objective of discussion arrive at a consensus as to whether acceptable. Item 4 of this part of ;he Report will be to the target is desirable, feasible and within the CGIAR - Role of Center Boards of Trustees The Boards of Trustees of the international centers have primary responsibility for ensuring the scientific relevance and quality, financial integrity and management efficiency of the centers. As competition for funds becomes inevitable, and as the Group takes a more active role in defining the objectives, scope and balance of the overall research effort, the evolving relationship of the Boards of Trustees to one another and to the Consultative Group becomes more important and more complex. The Secretariat has prepared a discussion paper which identifies the main issues in this evolution. It suggests certain ways of enhancing understanding among the Boards and between the CG and the Boards and of clarifying their respective responsibilities, while preserving the independence and autonomy of the individual Boards of Trustees. Members will be invited to give their views on the subjects raised. Item 5 - TAC Chairman's Report on the 22nd TAC Meeting The Chairman of TAC, Dr. Cummings, will report on the outcome of the 22nd TAC meeting in July 1979, at Hyderabad, India. His report will include the status of TAC reconsideration of the proposal for CG support for tropical vegetable research and for factor-oriented research. He will give a progress report on the TAC stripe review of off-campus activities, and the Quinquennial Review of the IBPGR. Dr. Cummings will also report on the status of TAC's consideration of research on aquaculture and soil,and water management. Members' comments will be invited, but no need for decisions by the Group at this time is foreseen. Item 6 - Adoption of IFPRI In May 1979 the Group agreed in principle to adopt the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Support was, however, conditional on certain actions by IFPRI, including development of an express mandate, analysis of the feasibility of moving its headquarters to a developing country, and appropriately amending its constitutional arrangements to bring them into line with those of LARCs recently established by the CGIAR. This would include arranging for the appointment of a certain number of Board members by the CGIAR. Documents relating to these three items will have been circulated to the Group. They may also have been discussed during the IFPRI presentation scheduled for Monday, October 29. However, formal action should be taken during and the aim of discussion will be to arriv& the Consultative Group meeting itself, -/... -3at a conclusion as to whether tion and to record an explicit Item 7 - Application of ICIPE IFPRI has satisfied the conditions for formal decision on adopting IFPRI. adop- The International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) has applied for membership in the CGIAR system. The application letter from the Chairman of the Board of ICIPE has been circulated to the Group, together with ICIPE will be asked to make a brief presentation a note from the Secretariat. on its programs and their funding. While the members of the Group may wish to express views on the broad question of support for factor-oriented research and the merits of ICIPE's application, it would be normal for the Group to ask TAC Provided the Group is at to review these questions and make recommendations. least willing in principle to consider supporting the kind of research done by ICIPE, it is suggested that ICIPE's application be referred to TAC for its exDraft terms of reference for such a review are amination and recommendation. provided in an attachment to the Secretariat note. Item 8 - Report and Recommendations for 1980 (and in some cases 1980/81) Program and Budget Requests of Centers The Executive Secretary of the CGIAR will describe the steps taken to review and reduce the 1980 program and budget requests of the international centers to bring them into line with expected contributions. Item 9 - Approval of 1980 and 1980/81 Programs and Budgets The programs and budgets of the individual research centers being funded by the Group will have been discussed following the presentation made by each Center Director during the presentation days of Centers Week, This item of the agenda of the Consultative Group itself is the occasion for signifying official approval of the programs of the centers and their funding as recommended by the Secretariat in its budget commentaries, subject to any changes resulting from the discussion following each presentation. The Secretariat will briefly restate the amount of funding recommended for each center and the aggregate amount required for 1980. The members will then be asked to give their approval to the whole package. This will be the opportunity for any member to raise any remaining question on the size of a center's budget before the Group's official approval is signified. Item 10 - Donor Indications of Financial Support for 1980 and Beyond Each donor will be asked to give an indication of its intended financial contribution in 1980. For the sake of brevity, only the total amount should be indicated verbally, together with any special or unique features of contributions which should be brought to the attention of the Group and the international centers. The Secretariat has asked each donor to submit separately a statement of the details of its contribution, including allocations to individual centers. Item 11 - Center Cash Flow Problems recently. Several international centers have experienced Members may wish to comment on a Secretariat cash flow problems note circulated to / .. . -4- the Group requesting donors to make contributions 1980, and on the other Secretariat proposals for temporary cash flow problems. Item 12 - Report on Implementation in as early as possible action to help resolve of the CGIAR Review Committee Recommendations The three-year period of consolidation recommended by the CGIAR Review The Secretariat has prepared an Committee in 1976 comes to an end this year. informal summary of the action which has been taken to implement the 22 recommendations of the Review Committee. Members may wish to comment on the status of the implementation Committee's recommendations and on follow-up action. Item 13 - Other Business \ of the Under other business, representatives of the Center Board Chairmen and of the Center Directors will report briefly on the outcome of their respective meetings earlier in the week. (The Centers have commissioned a review of center compensation practices and a summary of the findings of this review has been circulated to the Group), Several members of the Group have been developing a program for training in tropical agriculture; progress will be reported. "Other Business" is the opportunity for members to raise any other The CG Secretarial matters which they wish to bring to the attention of the Group. would appreciate being informed in advance of any item which a member wishes to raise. Item 14 - Time and Place of Next Meeting The Group will be asked to agree upon the 'time and place of the next CGIAR meeting. The Secretariat has suggested that only one meeting will be of holding International Centers Week at some needed in 1980. The possibility place other than the World Bank in Washington is discussed in a paper provided by the Secretariat. The Group will need to arrive at a decision on the place for the meeting. CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH D.C. 20433 U.S.A. 1818 H St., N.W. Washington, Telephone (Area Code202)477-3592 CableAddress- INTBAFRAD January FROM: The Secretariat International and Consultative *** 21, 1980 Centers Week Group Meeting October 29 - November 1, 1979 Washington, D.C. Informal Summary of Proceedings ‘ f The eighth International Centers Week and the seventeenth meeting of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research were held at the headquarters of the World Bank in Washington, D.C. on October 29 November 1, 1979. The Chairman, Mr. Warren C. Baum, presided over the meeting of the Consultative Group. The plenary sessions at which Center Directors made presentations were chaired by Mr. Baum, Dr. Bommer, Dr. Cummings, Mr. Mashler and Mr. Yudelman. Attached are the Informal Summary of Proceedings, the List of 2. and the Center Directors' presentations. Drafts of the first Participants, two were circulated for comment on December 3. Attachments Distribution: CG Members TAC Chairman, Members and Secretariat Center Board Chairmen Center Directors Other Participants INTERNATIONALCENTERS WEEK Washington, D.C. October 29 - November 1, 1979 INFORMALSUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS PLENARYSESSION October 29-30, 1979 The eighth International Centers Week of the Consultative Group 1. on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was held at the headquarters of the World Bank in Washfngton, D.C. from October 29 - November 1, 1979. The meeting was attended by representatives of 29 members of the Consultative Group, by Chairmen, Directors and staff of the international agricultural research centers and other programs supported by a number of observers. Representatives of the Leverhulme Trust and OPEC Special Fund were present During the meeting, representaas members of the Group for the first time. tives of Ireland, Mexico and the Philippines announced the intention of their countries to become continuing donor members. 2. In addition to the plenary sessions of International Centers Week, there was a meeting of the Consultative Group and a number of other meetings, one of Chairmen of Boards of Trustees, including one of Center Directors, one of donors to the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology ' (ICIPE) and one on the International Course for Developme& Oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA). There were also meetings of the Executive and Finance Committees of CIMMYT, the ICARDA Board of Trustees and the Co-sponsors of the CGIAR. The plenary sessions of October 29-30 were given over to presenta3. tions of programs and budgets for 1980 by the international centers. These covering presentations were of three types: (a) a full length presentation various aspects of a center's program and budget followed by discussion by presentation with shorter discusthe members of the Group; (b) a briefer sions; and (c) very brief mid-term reports from those centers halfway through a biennial budget period. Full length presentations were made by ILRAD, CIAT, ICARDA, IFPRI, ILCA, and IRRI; shorter presentations were made by WARDA and ISNAR; and mid-term presentations were given by CIMMYT, CIP, IBPGR, IITA and ICRISAT. Texts of these presentations are attached as Annex II to this summary. The meetings opened with the Chairman of the Consultative Group, 4. Mr. Warren Baum, reminding the participants that in undertaking to help the world's poorest in their struggle to feed themselves by raising agricultural productivity they had embarked on a long-term effort which imposed a conAlthough the tinuing responsibility to provide a secure flow of resources- -2One absorbing system was still young, it had become a a major enterprise. such substantial amounts of public money must continue to be managed in a manner appropriate to the scale of its responsibilities. In anticipating growth and change he hoped the Group would be able to preserve the pragmatism and flexibility which was serving it well. He commended the achievements of the centers, urging the Group to enable these standards to be maintained and to continue providing an effective level of support. Full Presentation of CIAT was made by its Director General, Dr. Nickel. 5. (The text CIAT's presentation is in Annex II.) 6. The Chairman of TAC, Dr. Ralph Cummings, prefaced his comments on CIAT's program with a brief description of the evaluation process TAC and the CG Secretariat went through before submitting their recommendations on all the centers' programs and budgets to the Group. Congratulating CIAT on the care and quality of its budget prepara7. tion, he noted that TAC had recommended deferring the proposed program on upland rice and the expansion of regional services pending the results of TAC studies currently examining both these issues. a. He also noted the importance which CIAT expected to expand. of the cassava utilization.program Having commended the staff of CIAT for its accomplishments, a 9. speaker asked Dr. Nickel to comment on the problems of low starch content encountered in the cassava breeding program and the "hardcook" quality of certain beans. Dr. Nickel responded that high starch content was important for 10. commercial as well as fresh use of cassava and that CIAT was developing Cooking time had not been considered varieties high in starch content. an important quality factor in Latin America. However, since this was an where firewood for fuel was scarce, important consideration in East Africa, CIAT was devoting more time to this problem. A speaker wanted to know whether CIAT was coordinating its cassava work with other similar programs in the region and was assured that there was close collaboration. 11. In answer to the question of whether national breeding programs were still so reliant on CIAT for material, Dr. Nickel said that their capacity was being strengthened and that eventually they would be capable of doing much of the breeding themselves. 12. In response to other questions, he explained that it would be 'several years before he could say when CIAT's pastures program could develop a successful forage technology which could be used by national and other programs, and that CIAT was working not only to increase the efficiency of phosphate uptake by plants but also their efficiency in utilization of phosphate. -3Another speaker asked how CIAT was making its knowledge on for13. age and pastures accessible to other countries and was told that regional trials, workshops and training sessions helped to disseminate such information. In response to another question he indicated that although CIAT 14. still retained an animal health scientist on the pastures team, priority had shifted from animal health to animal nutrition. Full Presentation of ILRAD Director of ILRAD, presented ILRAD's program. (See Dr. Allison, 15. Annex II.) Not wanting to comment at length on the substance of ILRAD's program 16. until after the Quinquennial Review in October 1980, Dr. Cummings noted that, given the importance of ILRAD obtaining disease-free animals for its work, the purchase and operation of a farm for raising laboratory animals would be a reasonable possibility if there were no other alternatives. Responding to a question about ILRAD's collaboration with other 17. institutions, Dr. Allison assured the speaker that he and his staff were actively involved in the special program on research and training in tropical diseases in which several CGIAR members are involved as well as work conducted by ICIPE and the Kenya Agriculture Research Institute. 18. To another question, Dr. Allison replied that while ILRAD was very interested in studying the mechanism for trypanotolerance in animals, the laboratory was somewhat constrained by regulations prohibiting the importation of cattle from West Africa into Kenya. He added that this was an area in which ILRAD and ILCA could collaborate very effectively. Replying to other questions, Dr. Allison said that ILRAD's Pro19. gram Committee was working on the center's five-year plan, and that ILRAD was continuing negotiations to acquire the farm with the assistance and financial support of the Kenya Government. 20. Referring to the culture and cloning of African trypanosomes at ILRAD, a speaker pointed out that this did not dominate research outside ILRAD and queried whether this achievement had not been overpublicized to give the impression that this was the answer to research on trypanosomiasis. Dr. Allison assured the speaker that the culture and cloning of African trypanosomes were indeed important achievements and major contributions, but that the problem of producing antigens in adequate quantities had not yet been solved. .Short Presentation by WARDA Secretary 21. The presentation was introduced by Mr. Coulibaly, Executive of WARDA, and made by Dr. Enyi, Research Coordinator. (See Annex II.) -4- Dr. Cummings pointed out that the most important changes made in 22. the budget as a result of the Quinquennial Review were to strengthen the staff at headquarters and incorporate the directors of four of the special projects into the CGIAR-supported portion of the core budget. This was done to ensure continuity of good leadership. As at CIAT, the issue of upland rice was deferred until TAC could provide recommendations. Dr. Cummings noted also that WARDAhad proceeded with the development of a five-year plan. 23. project Asked for clarification, in postharvest technology Mr. Coulibaly explained that was being funded by Japan. the special Addressing the concern of one speaker that WARDAwas paying member 24. countries to participate in coordinated trials executed in their own interest, Mr. Coulibaly explained that the member countries paid for a portion of the expenses through the annual budget and were indeed. interested and cooperatHowever, there was not enough WARDAstaff to cover 50 sites in 15 ing. countries and it was necessary to employ the help of local people. Full Presentation by ILCA The Chairman of the Board of ILCA, Mr. Mensah, introduced the 25. presentation, which was then given by Mr. Pratt, the Director General. (See Annex II.) Dr. Cummings reported to the Group that ILCA was expected to make 26. The political situation had stabilized more rapid progress in the future. was completed, and ILCA had changed its somewhat, the headquarters building organizational structure to focus better on the problems of livestock production. In answer to a question, Mr. Pratt explained that ILCA was doing 27. research, particularly in central Mali, on the effectiveness of mixed agricultural systems, where livestock production was introduced into a crop-based system. Another speaker expressed concern that increased demand for 28. land for cultivation and housing was pushing livestock towards semi-zero Mr. Pratt or zero grazing versus the normal pasturing of livestock. responded that this was not a danger in the near future and that, in fact, the outlook for livestock was very promising. One speaker urged the Group to permit ILCA a higher growth rate 29. than some of the other centers, because in his view it was the only one dealing with animal production. In response to another speaker, Mr. Pratt contended that ILCA 30. could achieve a lot by demonstrating improved methods of livestock management, based on the analysis and synthesis of available knowledge, and experimentation at the station and at the farm level. -5Asked about ILCA's plans to develop priorities for the future, 31. Mr. Pratt noted that a five-year plan would be completed before the Quinquennial Review in 1980, which would also help identify what proportions of resources should be allocated to what purpose. Replying to another speaker, he explained that a mechanism for 32. In Ethiopia, transmitting ILCA's systems analysis was still being developed. production. however, their work was already having an impact on livestock Full Presentation of IFPRI Mr. Davidson, Vice Chairman of IFPRI, opened the presentation 33. (See Annex II.) and was followed by the Director, Dr. Mellor. Dr. Cummings said that TAC had commented fully on IFPRI's 34. at the May meeting of the CGIAR and now had little to add. program Responding to a question about post-production technologies, 35. Dr. Mellor said that IFPRI was marginally involved through their programs Also, they were as yet in food security, storage and transporation. uncertain what the right division of work in this area should be between IFPRI and the more production-oriented centers. Asked about resource conservation and particularly soil conser36. vation and its role in food security, Dr. Mellor assured the speaker that this was very important and that IFPRI's immediate task would be to substantiate this from the point of view of the aggregate food supply problem. When asked how IPPRI would set priorities between the four main 37. thrusts, Dr. Mellor was confident that the Institute's staff had the ability to identify in-depth research work , to be translated into policy recommendaIFPRI might draw on outside expertise when required. He expected tions. that IFPRI's information about commodities and other factors would help members of the CG system make decisions, particularly with regard to resource allocation. Another speaker queried whether there was not an inconsistency 38. between IFPRI's stated concern for the world's poor population and the importance given to inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation in IFPRI's Dr. Mellor argued that this was not incompatible. To production policy. a large extent providing additional food to the poor people in the third world would occur through the indirect processes of demand stimulation and Many resource-poor farmers are net exchangers of labor employment growth. for food, and IFPRI was very concerned with growth in employment as it was Also, scientists projected related to increased agricultural productivity. that even small farmers will rely on increased input levels for major productivity increases in the next five to ten years and IFPRI would like to see that the poor farmers had as much access to these inputs as bigger farmers. -6, Full Presentation of IRRI IRRI's presentation was introduced by Dr. Scharpenseel (deputizing 39. for the Chairman, Dr. Gray) and made by Dr. Brady, the Director General. (See Annex II.) Dr. Cummings commended IRRI's program highly and the network of 40. cooperation IRRI had developed among major countries of South and East Asia, With reference to China he pointed out that four other inincluding China. stitute directors had visited China and that opportunities for collaboration existed for other institutes. In his comments he reminded centers that special projects which 41. might impinge on core requirements fn the future should be brought to the attention of TAC and reviewed in the initial stages. He also appealed to the donor members of the CG to make their contributions to the core budgets unrestricted whenever possible. One speaker drew attention to IRRI's high estimates of nitrogen fixed by the Azolla/Anabaena complex, pointing out that high estimates fixed in the rhizosphere of grasses in Braziiwas partially attributable to the technique used. Dr. Brady said that they had not used the acetylene reduction technique for this reason and had run a nitrogen balance experiment which showed that nitrogen was being added to the system in some way. Further experiments were being conducted using this technique to get a more definitive answer in terms of rhizosphere function. 42. In response to another question, Dr. Brady thought that 43. aspects of plant breeding the Chinese were ahead of IRRI and that done more than anyone else on tissue culture and hybrid rice. in some they had In breeding for resistance to diseases and pests, another speaker 44. asked whether IRRI had developed a strategy in its cooperative efforts with Dr. Brady said they were using regard to horizontal or vertical resistance. both techniques but that most of their efforts had been concentrated on vertical specific resistance. Dr. Brady's response to another question was that while IRRI would 45. continue to maintain and provide genetic materials, he hoped that eventually the national programs themselves would acquire and maintain this material. Asked why IRRI had not been using the mutation breeding method, 46. Dr. Brady explained that more variability than could be incorporated into production of rice already existed and this base was used to produce even greater variability rather than introducing more refined techniques. In answer to a question, Dr. Brady pointed out that generally in a four-crop-per-year system the management level was higher and inputs were quite high, including herbicides to control weeds. Weed control was still a complicated problem though because where the herbicides controlled the weeds, 47. -7IRRI was grasses not susceptible to herbicides would grow in their place. a lot of work into the cropping systems program in order putting, therefore, to develop better technologies. At the end of the discussion period, Dr. Brady referred to the 48. Group's consideration of meeting in the Philippines next year, and invited the Group to hold its meeting at the Institute. This would coincide with IRRI's 20th Anniversary. Full Presentation by ICARDA Dr. Obaid, Chairman of ICARDA's Board of Trustees, made a few 49. introductory remarks and Dr. Darling, the Director General, then made the (See Annex II.) presentation. Dr. Cummings explained that because ICARDA was still in the 50. start-up stage, it was allowed a little more growth than the other centers. He also commented briefly on matters of staff , cooperation with other centers and the need to keep core and special projects complementary rather than duplicative. During the subsequent discussion, 51. Dr. Darling informed the Group that the farm centers would be the first phase of the capital development program to be undertaken. 52. Commending the progress ICARDA had made under difficult circumstances, another speaker queried how the farming systems program would develop, given the vastness of the region ICARDA served. 53. Dr. Darling admitted that this was a concern which they were inPresently they hoped to develop a methodology in Syria which, vestigating. transmitted through training and an outreach network, could be used elsewhere. In response to another question, Dr. Darling agreed that there was 54. a basis for collaboration with ILCA on problems of livestock systems and indeed ICARDA would welcome suggestions from members of the Group of candidates for an animal husbandry-management specialist position. 55. He noted that with regard to the IFAD Nile Valley project, $200,000 of approximately $1 million would come from the core budget for overhead support. Short Presentation by ISNAR 56. The Chairman of the CGIAR ISNAR Committee, Mr. Mathieson, made a brief presentation. He was followed by Mr. von der Osten of GTZ who commented on the preparation of the ISNAR budget. (See Annex II.) Noting that it was difficult 57. suggested that leniency be exercised projected estimates. to predict expenditures, in considering deviations Dr. Cummings from the -8Several speakers commended the ISNAR Committee and Executing Agency 58. for their work. Another speaker also extended thanks to the Government of the Netherlands for its cooperation. Mid-term Presentation by CIMMYT CIMMYT's presentation was introduced by Dr. Barco, the Chairman of 59. the Board, and given by Dr. Havener, the Director General. (See Annex II.) Dr. Cummings commended CIMMYT's program. He pointed out that the 60. principle of biennial budgets precluded an increase in funds for additional activities such as a germ plasm facility , and expanded regional programs and It was hoped that CIMMYT might adjust support among wide crossing program. activities or seek extra core funds to finance these worthwhile projects. He also drew attention to CIMMYT's progress in preparing a long61. TAC's off-campus review, he commented further, would help range plan. resolve the problem of balance between headquarters and regionally-based activities. Dr. Havener, asked about CIMMYT's future role with the developed 62. countries as well as those of the developing countries, responded that CIMMYT already collaborated extensively with the developed countries in order to draw on their expertise and that, in turn, North America, Australia and New Zealand had drawn heavily on CIMMYT's work. He expected the transmittal of materials would continue to expand. Mid-term Presentation by CIP was made by Dr. Sawyer, the Director General. The presentation 63. (See Annex II.) Dr. Cummings commended CIP for the realistic long-term plan it had 64. He noted that CIP was intending to spend developed and for adhering to it. The Chairman also noted briefly the less funds in 1980 than approved. progress CIP had made in implementing the Quinquennial Review recommendations. In response to a question, Dr. Sawyer explained that they were not 65. looking to true seed to replace tuber seed, but as a means of making varieties of potato more available to the poor farmers around the world. Another speaker commended CIP for cleaning up its stocks 66. materials readily transferable to national programs and urged that impetus of this be maintained. and making the In answer to another question, Dr. Sawyer said that CIP did con67. tract out work if it could and was hoping to shift the balance eventually from developed to developing countries. -9Asked when true seed might be used in operational projects, Dr. 68. Sawyer replied that presently the seed was being given to national scientists to utilize and that it would be in use in a number of developing countries in in growers' fields through their 1982. India, he noted, would have materials national programs by 1980. Mid-term Presentation by IBPGR The presentation was introduced by Mr. Demuth, Chairman of the 6% Board, and made by Dr. Williams, Executive Secretary. (See Annex II.) The TAC Chairman reported 70. would be completed soon, which was resources information program. He ments, particularly in the area of resources. 71. ties it that the QuinquennPal Review of IBPGR reviewing among other issues the genetic commended the Board for its accomplishconserving , storing and cataloging genetic Another speaker commended the Genes Board and asked what priorihad set regarding vegetatively propagated crops. Dr. Williams said that while the Board had so far only looked at 72. bananas and coconuts, it intended to look at caasava and other crops in the near future. In response to another question, Dr. Williams said that most of 73. the IBPGR's major collections were associated with working collections and available for use. He noted that the collection 74. being analyzed and completed, and that collection of wheat. of genetic resources for wheat was it would include the Saviet Union's Another speaker urged the Board to study the problem of maintain75. ing the current collections on a long-term basis. Mid-term Presentation by ICRISAT Dr. Bentley, Chairman of the Board of ICRISAT, introduced the 76. presentation which was made by the Director, Dr. Swindale. (See Annex II.) 77. Dr. Cummings pointed out that ICRISAT was making substantial progress in implementing the recommendations of the Quinquennial Review conducted in 1978. Regarding the budget, TAC recommended the substance of the program and budget as approved by the CG in November 1978 be maintained.Asked how ICRISAT had achieved such high yields this year despite 78. the drought which afflicted much of India, Dr. Swindale said it was too but the major reasons were probably land early to determine conclusively, management and the good plant stands achieved, which reduced weeds and increased the number of plants and hence the yield. - 10 Another speaker asked whether the centers were collaborating or 79. working individually on experiments with farm implements and mechanization. Dr. Swindale indicated that implements designed at one institute were tested and examined by other centers. However, because the farm power and implements developed in ICRISAT's farming systems program were unique to the semi-arid tropics, they would not be particularly applicable in the humid tropics or flood lands growing rice. Dr. Swindale answered another question saying that ICRISAT would 80. undertake a feasibility study in the next five years as recommended by TAC to explore the possibility of transferring its pigeon pea breeding work to India's national program. Another speaker expressed interest in socio-economic work at 81. ICRISAT. Dr. Swindale said that constraints were identified by analyzing surveys conducted at the village level and experimenting with technology on the village farms. Mid-term Presentation by IITA Following a brief introduction by Dr. Bunting, Chairman of the 82. Board, IITA's Director General, Dr. Gamble, gave the presentation. (See Annex II.) Dr. Cummings praised Dr. Gamble for the excellent job he had done 83. preparing IITA's budget and for his successful efforts to implement the Review Committee's recommendations regarding planning, stabilizing the ties of the Institute and looking at rates of growth and optimum size for the Institute. He said recent progress by the center was in line with the Quinquennial Review recommendations. 84. In response to a question, Dr. Gamble said that IITA had initially adopted a narrow frame of reference, studying cropping systems, in order to achieve results as soon as possible, but that the Institute was planning to do work on the role of tree crops and livestock in farming system. While the farmers' major income is from tree crops and livestock, they allocate their labor first to their food crops. Noting that Dr. Bunting's term as Chairman, and Dr. Gamble's as 85. Director, would shortly be coming to an end , two speakers expressed on behalf of the Group their appreciation to them both for their hard work and dedication to IOTA and the CGIAR system. Reports on Complementary Activities Dr. Bommer introd'uced Dr. Butler of the International 86. for Science to report briefly on the Foundation's activities. no discussion. Foundation There was The IFDC had also been invited to make a brief presentation. This 87. was done by the Director, Dr. McCune, who was followed by the Chairman, Dr. Hannah, with a few remarks. There was no discussion. - 11 CONSULTATIVE GROUP MEETING October 31 - November 1, 1979 Items 1 and 2 - Chairman"s Opening Remarks and Adoption of Agenda The Chairman of the Consultative Group, Mr. Warren C. Baum, opened 88. by welcoming those members who had just joined the meeting, including the representative of a new donor, the Director General of the OPEC Special Fund. The Chairman reminded members of the continued seriousness of the 89. problems confronting developing countries in their efforts to feed themselves. tremendous international efforts would be Despite recent good harvests, needed if per capita food supplies were to be assured, even at present levels The CGIAR was now a significant, of nutrition, which were often inadequate. visible and continuing part of that effort. The Group had passed its early experimental stage, and was firmly 90. It was now essential to plan ahead on a longer-term basis. established. Such a plan should assume that the Group's activities should expand, but in such a way as to ensure their sound management. He outlined the main topics 91. adopted without change. Item 3 - 1979 Report on the Consultative Research System (Integrative Report) on the Group's agenda, which was Group and the International The discussion provided a wide-ranging review of the Group's 92. activities, and the future direction they might take. It seemed generally accepted that the Group had embarked on a very long-term enterprise, with no end in view, and some frustrations in store. Caution was expressed about a too undiscriminating expansion of 93. the system. However, a number of speakers proposed particular areas where they felt the Group should become involved or do more. These included: training, work aimed at the small farmer or the poorest populations, agricultural engineering, soil management, soil fertility, pest management, socioeconomic factors, vegetable research, aquaculture, water management, plant nutrients, energy conservation, and human resources* Many speakers stressed the need to build up national research 94. capacity. Among the aspects of this general objective mentioned by members were: the possibility of contracting more research to competent national institutions; the need to inform national scientists better about the work of the international centers; the need to assess the achievements of national programs; greater efforts to employ‘ scientists from developing countries within the system; against that , the problems of depriving national programs of some of their best people; and the danger of successul international efforts inhibiting funding for national efforts. Related issues were the need to secure better participation by developing countries in the Group's and to improve communications with policymakers in those countries. affairs, - 12 Recognizing that the Group was entering a new phase, there was 95. nevertheless some reluctance to see any sweeping change in its basic structure, characterized by flexibility and lack of bureaucracy. However, there was repeated concern for improved planning, both for the system collectively and for individual activities within it, and for sound and responsive management. These concerns, among others, led to strong support for an early start towards a new Review of the CG system. This Review should be carefully prepared and comprehensive, and should have terms of reference based on a diverse range of informed opinion. The financial plan outlined in Part IV of the Report called for a 96. doubling in the Group's resources (in terms of current dollars) by 1984. It was felt by many speakers to be soundly based, feasible, and realistic. The plan provided for a projected total budget for all core activities by 1984 of $184 million in 1980 dollars, or $259 million in 1984 dollars. Members were generally able to offer strong support for amounts of this kind, even though some were currently in a period of budget constraint. Members accepted the proposal for a five-year rolling plan, updated annually. It was recognized that many donors were still unable to commft funds for longer than one year. It was generally agreed the Group should continue to allow only 97. very modest real growth in the programs and budgets of centers reaching The question of the optimum size of research maturity and full development. The growth of the system should be institutes needed further examination. accompanied by management that did not unduly interfere with thework of the and cost-effectiveness, and centers, but at the same time ensured efficiency that expenditures were fully defensible. The Group's attention was drawn to the communique of the Tokyo 98. meeting of heads of governments of several industrialized countries, which included the following: "We will place more emphasis on cooperation with developing countries in overcoming hunger and malnutrition. We will urge multilateral organizations to help these countries to develop effective food sector strategies and to build up the storage capacity needed for strong national food reserves. Increased bilateral and multilateral aid for agricultural research In these and other ways, we will be particularly important. will step up our efforts to help these countries develop their human resources through technical cooperation adapted to local conditions." A similar view was reached at the UN Conference on Science and Technology for President Carter had reminded participants at the Tokyo meeting Development. and the Prime Minister of the UK had responded as follows: of this resolution, - 13 "I efforts confirm tional do indeed recall the Tokyo decision to intensify our to overcome hunger in the developing countries, and I the importance to attach to research on an internacooperative basis as a contribution to this end. part in support in this "The work of CGIAR has played a significant raising food production, and it has had strong country from the start.' A representative of the United States noted a number of features of 99. However, some growing the CGIAR framework which were thought worth emulating. Models other than that of the traditional type of center pains caused concern. He confirmed the importance of national research. He gave should be tried. He agreed with the examples of the need to improve the efficiency of inputs. He went on to convey the followneed for a framework for financial planning. ing message from President Carter: "As delegates tional Agricultural front in the effort to the 1979 Consultative Group on InternaResearch, you are engaged on a critical to overcome the menace of world hunger. "The World Bank has called my attention to the opportunity you have to fulfill these pledges. 'Ihe [Secretariat's] Report for 1979 includes a proposed five-year plan for expanding the scope and intensifying the activities of the International Agricultural Research Centers. The plan would increase the resources made available to these highly successful research and training programs over the next five years by about 10 percent annually in real terms. "This is at a somewhat lower rate of growth in the Consultative Group's budget than was achieved in the past five years. While we have not yet fixed the levels of proposed future U.S. contributions, my advisors believe that the proposed pace of growth is realistic. "The developing nations will attach great importance to your actions in this matter+ Positive action by our governments also will encourage greater support by countries able to contribute to the International Agricultural Research System. This would mark a major advance in international cooperation to end world hunger. "Signed, Jimmy Carter." Members noted with satisfaction that a number of new donors had 100. just joined the Group, and asked that the Chairman and the Secretariat continue their efforts to attract more. - 14 - In summarizing the Group's consensus for continued growth, better 101. five-year plan, and the planning and management, acceptance of a rolling initiation of a new Review, the Chairman urged members to convey these collective decisions back to their governments or other authorities. Item 4 - Role of Center Boards of Trustees within the CGIAR Boards of Trustees, the creation of some of which predated the 102. CGIAR, were of fundamental importance. Their role was changing with the growth and internationalization of the system, though this had not created Boards needed to be kept informed of CGIAR any urgent or serious problems. policies and of the concerns of individual donors. Various means were discussed whereby communication between Boards 103. and the Group could be improved. These included: information from the Secretariat on CGIAR goals and policies; bringing to the attention of Boards particular Group or donor concerns; distribution of CGIAR papers and proceedings to Board members; attendance of Secretariat staff as observers at Board and coordination between Boards; and committee meetings; more cooperation and on all Boards some members named by the CGIAR. Recognizing that the role of Boards would be an important subject 104. for the next Review, members aired some areas of possible concern? These the need to maintain autonomy; the self-perpetuating included: nature of Boards; the need to ensure that Board members neither overlooked the general interests of the CG nor Pf appointed by the CG become a special class serving the CG rather than the center; lack of continuity of membership, and in some cases the tendency to rely unduly heavily upon poor attendance, the Center Director; lack of forward planning; and the need for accountability. 105. Dr. Bunting, speaking as the current Chairman of the informal group of Board chairmen, reminded members that under their terms of reference, the formal responsibility of Boards was to the individual center, though they recognized that informally they also had a collective responsibility for the integrity and efficiency of the system. As to the accountability for funds, a Board could, in a formal sense, be accountable only for funds disbursed to its center, but they accepted a moral responsibility to ensure the system's efficient use of resources generally. With some exceptions, Board members needed to be better informed about the CGIAR and about the recommendations of TAC, but the Chairmen were not attracted by the suggestion that there should be Board members guided by the Group and specially charged with keeping touch It was important to ensure better coordination between centers. with it. 106. He suggested that CG members also exercise some self-discipline and not take one position in the CGIAR deliberations and another when asked by a center to fund a Special Project. The Boards would wish to participate 107. there were too many reviews in the CG system. in the second Review, but felt The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations had the right to seats on the 108. Dr. Bunting emphasized that this arrangement Boards of the older centers. held benefits for the system. The center Chairmen would be pursuing the question 109. can best help the collective purposes of the Group. Item 5 - TAC Chairman's Report on the 22nd Meeting of how Boards Dr. Cummings noted that the work of TAC continued to grow as the 110. Group's activities expanded. This had prompted TAC to review what its future role should be, and it would have the question on the agenda of its At the 22nd meeting (July 1979 in Hyderabad) TAC members had next meeting. become much more involved in the scrutiny of programs and budgets than had and Secretariats previously been the case. TAC had worked with the Directors to work out reductions in budgets made necessary by the gap between total funds requested and those likely to be available. To handle its work load within its budget, TAC had reduced the 111. Working groups number of meetings to two a year, but of longer duration. were established to make recommendations on various topics to the full TAC, and special study teams had been commissioned. One major exercise had been the preparation of the third Priorities 112. Paper, which had been accepted by the Group at least as a guideline for the time being. Five possible areas of new activities had been identified. TAC had carefully considered the Group's comments on the Priorities 113. to distinguish between priorities for internatinal Paper. It was essential support for agricultural research on the one hand and priorities for gap filling by the CGIAR on the other. The Paper could not be expected to reflect every particular interest of individual CGIAR members. It would be periodically revised. 114. The Quinquennial Review of the IBPGR was in progress. Dr. Camus would lead the Quinquennial Review team for ILRAD in 1980. CGIAR members were asked to let TAC have any concerns they wished to see reflected in the ILRAD team's specific terms of reference. TAC was involving Center Boards more in the Quinquennial Review 115. As in the case of ICRISAT, there should be consultation with process. Board members prior to the Review, and the Board should be able to provide an input to the report. 116. Tropical vegetables had been before TAC and the Group for some In view of the .time, and had been considered at the May 1979 CGIAR meeting. constraints, TAC was not planning to lack of consensus, and of financial TAC would however be bring forward any further recommendations at present.. looking at possible institutional arrangements within a broad context. - 16 Some factor-oriented problems were being addressed by commodity 117. Those others, to which TAC accorded high priority, centers. were water management, and pest and disease physiology and management. TAC had reviewed a report on water management, commissioned by IDRC, but was not yet in a position to give a recommendation. A subcommittee had been established, and the subject would be thoroughly examined. It was hoped to give the Group a report by the fall of 1980. The issue of factor-oriented 118. on the best approach hard to achieve. research was complex, and a consensus TAC was aware of the work being done by others in the high priority 119. It had reviewed a study based on extensive inquiries. area of aquaculture. TAC was keeping the question under review, but it was too early to say whether a proposal would be made to the Group. The stripe analysis of off-campus activities was under way, and 120. information was coming in from the centers. A workshop might be held once a paper was available, but was not yet scheduled. A report should be available TAC had the complex question of plant nutrition under by the fall of 1980. but had not yet set a study in motion. review, In the discussion following Dr. Cummings' report, a speaker noted 121. that TAC had addressed the question of contracting work to national programs, and hoped it would advise on the best mix of national and international As for vegetables, he hoped that Indonesia might be considered research. as the location of the proposed small center. Dr. Cummings agreed on the general suitability of Indonesia, but the government's view was not clear. Its research capability had been built up, but a new center might impose too much on it at present. 122. nology, A speaker drew attention to a recent report which was available to those interested. on postharvest tech- Noting the heavy load on TAC, a speaker nevertheless urged that 123. progress be made in the area of plant nutrition. Dr. Cummings confirmed that TAC would be working on it during the coming year. In response to a question it was said that TAC's report on off124. to be available in the fall of 1980, was not currently campus activities, A speaker felt that one main expected to include a comprehensive directory. reason for doing the study was to ensure that off-campus activities were not diverting too many resources away from the core responsibilities of the He felt the need for detailed quantitative and qualitative inforcenters. Dr. Cummings noted difficulties mation on such activities and their funding. of classification and definition. A speaker stressed the great importance his agency attached to 125. plant nutrition, fertilizer, and nitrogen fixation, in relati'on to the work He of the centers, and its relevance to the problems of the small farmer. felt that, given the volume of information and experience available within - 17 FAO, the study might be speeded up, particularly in view of its connection His agency would be prepared to provide some with energy requirements. financial help towards moving the study forward. Item 6 - Adoption of IFPRI At its last meeting, in May 1979, the Group had decided in prin126. ciple to adopt IFPRI. Bearing in mind TAC's recommendations, the Group had asked IFPRI to bring a sharper focus to its mandate to reflect better its role in the system. IFPRI was also asked to analyze the advantages and disadvantages, including the relative costs, of moving its headquarters from the United States, and to amend its Constitution to bring it into line with CGIAR arrangements. 127. Dr. Cummings felt that the reformulation of the mandate still needed further examination. While TAC's recommendation on IFPRI was still positive, the emphasis of the mandate should be on the problems of developing countries, and its work should focus on linkages between the micro-level problems of adoption of new technology and the wider aspects of agricultural development. Work on trends analysis and international food trade should be secondary. 128. A speaker urged IFPRI's Board to make every effort to move to a developing country, though he recognized that the contribution of IFPRI's work to solving the world food problem was more important than where that work was based. 129. Another speaker, conceding that IFPRI's program should not be unduly restricted, wanted to see a well defined set of priorities, adequately reflected in budgetary terms. He regretted that IFPRI's Board had not yet reached a conclusion on the location issue. Full international status was an important consideration for his authorities. Mr. Davidson, on behalf of IFPRI's Board, confirmed that the 130. mandate would be re-examined in the light of the discussion. The legal position regarding international status under U.S. law was being clarified, and it seemed that adoption, and the appointment of Board members, by the CGIAR, would be helpful. 131. The Chairman concluded that IFPRI could now be considered to be formally adopted into the CGIAR system of international centers. The Group Careful continued to be interested in the Board's decision on location. consideration should be given to a move to a developing country, on which Steps should be taken to get the Group appeared to have an open mind. proper international status for IFPRI, and any problems in this respect should be brought to the Group's attention. 132. The concerns that members had expressed could be dealt with in the course of the regular process of program and budget review, of which IFPRI was now a part. - 18 Item 7 - Application of WIPE The Chairman of ICIPE's Board, Mr. Stedman, emphasized the advan133. tages which he felt would accrue to the Group by the adoption of ICIPE. Its program was relevant to the Group's goals. Collaborative agreements were in operation tith three CGIAR centers, in addition to other cooperative activiCG members were already supporting ICIPE; others could do so more ties. readily if it were adopted by the Group. ICIPE had built up its scientific staff under strong African leadership. It enjoyed great goodwill in Africa and elsewhere. It was strongly supported by the Government of Kenya, which had provided ample land. Its capital program was well launched. It had a distinguished international Board. Dr. Odhiambo, Director of ICIPE, briefly reviewed ICIPE's programs. 134. Priorities were set according to whether problems were regional or international in character, whether they needed new scientific work for their solution, and whether they had a crucial bearing on food production. He outlined the successes achieved by ICIPE with IRRI on the rice brown plant-hopper. ICIPE did not do basic research per se, but sought to solve fundamental problems which were impeding systems of pest management. ICIPE was trying to build up the scientific capacity of developing countries. However, lack of physical facilities was becoming a serious constraint. 135. ICIPE's operating budget would be held below $7 milliona year for the next three years. Capiial expenditures over the next five years were expected to be of the order of $15 million. Mr. Stmwenyi, on behalf of the Government of Kenya, noted that 136. Kenya's new Development Plan for 1979 to 1983/84 gave research high priority. Increased food production was urgently needed. His government strongly supported ICIPE, and had provided funds since 1974. In addition to support from Kenya, ICIPE's application 137. was supported in the course of discussion by representatives of the Ford Foundation, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Australia, the UNDP, France, Nigeria and FAO. Other speakers felt that ICIPE's application should be seen. in the light of TAC's analysis of factor-oriented research. 138. A speaker suggested that in considering factor-oriented research of which ICIPE was one, TAC should address the question of the activities, fundamental concept of a system of international agricultural research. Originally the centers were conceived as a means of addressing a limited range of questions, like developing improved varieties, pending building up national research capacity in developing countries. Currently, the concept was more of a network of international centers of a more permanent character collaborating with national research efforts which were becoming The international system was seen to have the strong in themselves. ecological zones, capacity to work across different regions, different different kinds of experience in a way not possible for national programs. A question to be addressed in considering ICIPE and other factor-oriented - 19 - research was whether the Group conceived of itself no longer as meeting only specific temporary research needs but as a broad effort to build up international scientific capacity of a longer term and more general character. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then TAC 139. should consider whether ICIPE fitted into this concept. Was it seen as a temporary institution pending national establishment or a continuing part of an international research system? Was it conceived of as a worldwide enterprise or regional in scope? Should it, according to some priority, deal with all insects or does the problem of the relationship between insects and food production call for a number of specialized insect research establishments? Another more specific question was what should be the Group's attitude towards research which related not only to agricultural production but human health? How did it fit into the CGIAR system? The speaker doubted whether it was feasible to distinguish in ICIPE's budget between work related to food production and that related to human health, though TAC might be able to devise some arbitrary formula if the Group only wished to support part of ICIPE's program. It was concluded that the Group was referring ICIPB's application 140. to TAC for review in the context of its work on factor-oriented research. The Chairman said the verbatim transcript of the discussion would.be helpful in refining the terms of reference for the TAC team's review, and in TAC's own consideration of ICIPE. Dr. Cummings urged members having other questions for the TAC team to address to send them to the TAC Secretariat. 141. The Chairman noted that the Group's decision to refer ICIPB's application to TAC should be taken as a commitment to consider early action on TAC's recommendations, which would be before the Group in the fall of 1980. Items 8 and 9 - Report and Recommendations for 1980 (and in some cases 1980/81) on Program and Budget Requests of Centers, and Approval of 1980 and 1980/81 Proprams and Budgets 142. The explicit approval of individual center budgets had recently become a routine practice at the fall CGIAR meeting. Such explicit approval did not mean any greater rigidity in the Group's procedures, nor did it imply a commitment on the part of any individual donor. 143. The Group's attention was drawn to the steps taken jointly by the centers, TAC and the Secretariats to apply a uniform approach to the reduction of 1980 and 1980/81 budgets to meet foreseeable resources, as explained in Annex IV of the Integrative Report. Speakers emphasized the importance of adhering to limits on the growth of established centers, and of newer centers as they reached their planned full development. 144. Ihe Group approved the budget requests for 1980, in the amounts as listed in Table 10 (page 38) of the Integrative Report, except for a small upward revision in the case of IRRI. The amounts approved for 1980 were as - 20 - shown below. The gross amount is the total core expenditure approved for The net amount is the new contribution required each center during the year. from donors, after subtracting funds unexpended during the previous year and income expected to be earned. Gross US$ millions CUT CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IITA ILCA ILRAD IRRI WARDA IBPGR IFPRI ISNAR 15.0 17.1 8.0 11.8 12.4 15.1 Net US$ millions 14.6 16.2 7.3 11.4 10.5 14.6 9.0 10.4 16.1 2.7 3.1 2.4 1.2 124.4 9.0 10.3 15.8 2.6 3.1 2.4 1.2 119.0 Support for 1980 and Beyond Item 10 - Donor Indications of Financial Indications of support made during the meeting were as given below. 145. The US In some cases they were still subject to app.roval by authorities. dollar figure in the second column is the equivalent used by the Secretariat based on exchange rates of October 31. They may vary slightly from dollar Where verbal estimates quoted by donors quoting amounts in other currencies. statements vary slightly from figures given in writing to the Secretariat, the latter are used. - 21 In alphabetical order: Currency of statement AS US$ '000 equivalent 3,008 3,427 1,235 1,300 850 10,455 6,700 1,340 4,200 500 2,200 600 2,000 1,000 1,600 3,350 2,400 6,000 4,618 29,000 12,000 Australia Belgium Denmark Ford Foundation France Germany, Federal Republic of Inter-American Development Bank IDRC IFAD Leverhulme Trust Netherlands Nigeria Norway OPEC Special Fund Rockefeller Foundation Sweden Switzerland UK UNDP us World Bank approximately 2,686,OOO BF 100,000,000 DKr 6,500,OOO uss 1,300,000 uss 850,000 DM 19,500,000 6,700,OOO L/ uss 1,600,OOO bn$ 4,200,OOO z/ uss uss 500,000 uss 2,200,000 uss 600,000 NRr 10,000,000 uss 1,000,000 A/ 1,600,OOO uss SKr 14,200,OOO 2,400,OOO uss E 3,000,000 uss 4,617,900 uss 29,000,000 US$ 12,000,000 A/ The total contributions for 1980, including amounts not announced 146. in open session but communicated to the Secretariat, and some subsequent Secretariat estimates for minor contributions, would amount to $118.3 million. Two new donors announcing the amounts of their contributions were 147. the Leverhulme Trust and the OPEC Special Fund. The representatives of Mexico, Ireland and the Philippines announced their countries' intentions of becoming continuing donor members of the CGIAR. 148. Many CG members provide funds for activities at the international centers which, as Special Projects, lie outside the core programs of the centers and some contribute to the support of centers (such as ICIPE, AVRDC and IFDC) which are not part of the CGIAR network. Some of these donors took the occasion to announce the amount of their support for these outside activities. A/ 1/ 11 21 kl 51 Equivalent - in local currencies. Total figure of $5 million includes a Special Project of $800,000. Announced as US$2 million for 1980 and 1981 combined. Up to 10 percent of total. Revised estimate. Figure as at the time of the meeting was $117.1 million. - 22 In addition to statements on their financial contributions, donor 149. The OPEC Special Fund representatives made a number of additional points. would distribute its initial contribution between WARDA, IRRI, ISNAR and ICARDA, after consultation with the Secretariat. Agreement would be reached with each center on the specific activities to be financed. The Fund hoped to make a larger relative commitment, in a lump sum, for the period 1982-84. Such amounts would be in addition to any support for national programs at the request of governments. Germany planned to continue its support 150. with the agreed indicative five-year plan. in future in accordance The Inter-American Development Bank had chosen rural development as the 151. main thrust of its lending and technical assistance in the period 1979-1982. It intended to devote at least half of its resources to benefit low-income It had tried to assess the fmpact of the work of the centers in groups. Latin America, and concluded that this had not been wholly satisfactory. More needed to be done towards effective transfer to the ultimate benefiThis suggested the need for more outreach work, strengthening of ciaries. national programs, and improving transfer of results from the national The Bank was proposing an initiative in strengthenprograms to the farmer. ing national outreach, and expected to need help in this from the CGIAR and the centers based in Latin America. The Netherlands hoped the centers would note its interest in 152. proposals for studies of the constraints hindering small farmers' efforts to take up improved technology. 153. The United States commended successful efforts donors into the CGIAR, and welcomed the two new centers, both of which would get U.S. support in the usual way. to bring new IFPRI and ISNAR, 154. UNEP was pleased to note that the work of the system seemed to be moving even closer to their own concerns, as for example, the preservation of natural resources. UNEP would hope its resources could be directed to nitrogen fertilizer research, insect resistance, and soil and water management. 155. The Leverhulme Trust, though a new donor in been concerned with agricultural development, due to founder and sponsoring company. The Leverhulme Trust ICRISAT's farming systems research and training work 156. The Government of Mexico had decided to join amount of its contribution was under review. the CGIAR, had long the interests of its intended to support in West Africa. the CGIAR, and the 157. Ireland's overseas development program was of recent origin, but program was currently had grown rapidly to reach 0.2% of GNP. The bilateral concentrated on Lesotho, Sudan, Tanzania and Zambia. - 23 The Government of the Philippines 158. member of the CGIAR. 159. available planned to become a continuing to make $lOO-$120,000 The Government of Kenya was prepared for the purchase of land for ILRAD. Item 11 - Center Cash Flow Problems The Chairman urged donors to be as prompt as possible in paying 160. Late payment had their announced contributions to individual centers. It also imposed a created substantial cash flow problems for some centers. significant cost on the system, in interest payments, additional working Several donors undertook to speed and management time. capital provision, up payments. Centers were reminded that some donors required a formal request before payment could be authorized. Item 12 - Report on Implementation of the CGIAR Review Committee Recommendations 161. The Chairman drew the Group's attention to the Secretariat's report (Memorandum of September 17, 1979) on progress towards implementing the Review's recommendations. Speakers stressed the need for TAC to review Special Projects along with core programs; for systematic forward planning; for examination of the Group's management structure; for establishment of a desirable maximum size for individual centers; and for a review of the nature and extent of off-campus activities. A Center Director 162. the alteration of a Charter long and difficult process. noted that meeting a recommendation by means of to which a host government was party could be a Centers were to be urged to put into effect those recommendations 163. The proposed new Review would take account on which they were still lagging. of the results achieved by its predecessor. Item 13 - Other Business a) Sinning of Memorandum of Understanding Establishing ISNAR 164. At the conclusion of Item 6 on the agenda , the Memorandum of Understanding establishing the International Service for National Agricultural Research had been signed on behalf of the UNDP and the World Bank by Mr. Mashler and Mr. Baum respectively. b) Report from Dr. Bunting on Meeting of Center Chairmen 165. The Chairmen had been meeting informally for a number of years, but their collective role was now becoming more clearly recognized within The Chairmen would be studying in detail the roles of the CGIAR system. Chairmen and Boards. Mr. Greenwood would be replacing Dr. Bunting as Chairman of the group of Center Chairmen. - 24 C> Report from Dr. Sawyer (substituting Meeting of Center Directors for Dr. Swindale) on the Centers felt that different reporting requirements involved 166. duplication. The Directors hoped that as many as possible of donors' reporting requirements could be met by routine CGIAR reporting procedures. The Directors supported the proposal for another Review of the 167. CGIAR system, and hoped they would be invited to participate in the process They would be prepared to offer their suggestions as at an early stage. soon as required. 168. The centers had commissioned a consultant to review staff compensation. His report, of which a summary was available, was felt by the Directors to justify the policies of the centers. 169. Centers wished to maximize contacts with bilateral agencies active For this purpose, representatives in relevant fields. of bilateral agencies had been attending the Directors' meeting. Donors were invited to attend the next meeting of Directors as observers. It would be in Lima in the first week of July. The Directors welcomed the approach taken by the Secretariats in 170. their interaction with the centers to solve the 1980 funding gap problem. The Directors found the 1979 Integrative Report positive in its approach. 171. While endorsing the possible addition of other activities to the urged prudence to ensure continued support for CGIAR system, the Directors the existing ones. d) Report from Dr. Cunningham on the International Course for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) 172. ICRA had been developed on the initiative of European members of the CGLARwho had set up a working group which had now prepared a detailed proposal, of which copies were available. The object was to give scientists of any nationality a one-year course to equip them for technical assistance programs in agriculture in developing countries. No decision on location had been taken, and members were asked to send suggestions to Dr. Lampe at GTZ right away. Further progress was'expected at the next meeting of and it was planned European donors on March 25-27, 1980 in Switzerland, to have the course operating by the fall of 1980. e) Draft Press Release After minor modifications to wording, and agreement to attach 173. the draft press release was approved. A member additional information, noted the need for more publicity for the Group. - 25 Item 14 - Time and Place of Next Meeting 174. The Group agreed to hold a single meeting in 1980 in the week from both October 27 through October 31, 1980. In response to invitations IRRI and the Philippine Minister of Agriculture, it was agreed to hold the meeting in the Philippines under arrangements which would permit those The Secretariat would notify the members attending to see IRRI in action. of the Group of the detailed arrangements once they were worked out. 175. The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. - 26 - Annex I - 27 CONSULTATIVE GROUPON INTERNATIONALAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH List of Participants in Centers Week October 29 - November 1, 1979 Chairman Mr. Warren C. Baum Vice President, Projects World Bank Staff INTERNATIONALAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS Centro International Dr. Werner Treitz Chairman de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Dr. John Nickel Director General Dr. Douglas Laing Director for Crops Research Centro International Dr. Virgilio Chairman Barco de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) Dr. Robert D. Havener Director General Dr. R. Glenn Anderson Director, Wheat Centro International de la Papa (CIP) Dr. Richard L. Sawyer Director General Dr. P. Roger Rowe Deputy Director Mr. Joab L. Thomas Secretary Dr. John Niederhauser Mr. Charles T. Greenwood Chairman International Mr. Richard Chairman Board for Plant H. Demuth Genetic Resources (IBPGR) Dr. J. Trevor Williams Executive Secretary - 28 International Center for Agricultural ." Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Dr. Harry S. Darling Director General Dr. Mohamed A. Nour Deputy Director General for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Dr. Taher Obaid Chairman Dr. Omond M. Solandt Vice Chairman International Crops Research Institute Dr. C. Fred Bentley Chairman Dr. Leslie Director D. Swindale Mr. V. Balasubramanian Executive Assistant to the Director Mr. E. W. Nunn Station Manager International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Mr. Ralph K. Davidson Vice Chairman Dr. John W. Mellor Director Mr. Peter A. Oram Deputy Director International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Dr. A. Hugh Bunting Chairman Dr. William K. Gamble Director General Dr. W:B. Ward Communication Specialist International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA) Mr. Moise C. Mensah Chairman Mr. W. Schaefer-Kehnert Vice Chairman Mr. David J. Pratt Director General Dr. Beyene Chichaibelu Board Member Dr. Alain Provost Board Member International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases Dr. Anthony C. Allison Director (ILRAD) Dr. John A. Pino Chairman - 29 International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Dr. Nyle C. Brady Director General Dr. Marcos R. Vega Deputy Director General Dr. D. J. Greenland Deputy Director International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Mr. Hans W. Scharpenseel Board Member Mr. William A.C. Mathieson Chairman of the Committee Mr. Alexander von der Osten Representative of Executing Agency, GTZ Eschborn, Germany Mr. Frerk Meyer GTZ West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) Mr. Sidi Coulibaly Executive Secretary Dr. B.A.C. Enyi Research Coordinator DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE CONSULTATIVEGROUP Australia Dr. D. G. Blight Head, Science & Technology for Development Secretariat Australian Development Assistance Bureau Canberra, Australia Belgium Mme. S. Vervalcke Director of Administration Ministere des affaires etrangeres Brussels, Belgium Professor G. R. Boddez Dean of Faculty of Agronomic Sciences University of Leuven Heverlee, Belgium Mr. Paul Jadot Executive Officer Embassy of Belgium Washington, D.C. Professor University Armidale, James R. McWilliam of New England N.S.W., Australia Director Mr. R. J. Kirk Assistant to the Executive World Bank - 30 ? Canada Dr. P. Roberts-Pichette Senior Programme Officer Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Ottawa, Canada Mr. T. G. Willis Chief, Agriculture CIDA Sector Mr. George Weber International Liaison Ottawa, Canada Service Commission of the European Communities Dr. Gunter Gruner Head of Division Brussels, Belgium Denmark Mr. Henning Kjeldgaard Head of Department, DANIDA Ministry of Foreign Affairs Copenhagen, Denmark Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Professor Dieter F,R. Bommer Assistant Director General Agriculture Department Rome, Italy Ford Foundation Mr. David E. Bell Executive Vice President New York Dr. John H. Monyo Chief, Research Development Centre Dr. Lowell S. Hardin Program Officer, Agriculture Mr. E. Walter Coward, Jr. Program Officer France Dr. Guy Camus Director General Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-mer Paris, France 'Mr. Gilbert Constant Inspecteur General Ministry of Agriculture Paris, France Mr. Guy T.M. Vallaeys Deputy Director, IRAT Cesson, France Mr. Jean-Claude Trunel Agricultural Attache Embassy of France Washington, D.C. - 31 - Germany Dr. Werner Treitz Head, Agriculture, Forestry, Fish & Rural Development Ministry of Economic Cooperation Bonn, Germany Dr. Klaus Lampe Head, Department of Agriculture German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) Eschborn, Germany Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Mr. Enrique Domenech Advisor Mr. Jose C. Kohout Technical Cooperation Officer Economic and Social Development Division and Development (IBRD) Mr. James M. Fransen Agricultural Research Advisor Agriculture and Rural Development Department Mr. George Darnell Senior Adviser, Agriculture and and Rural Development Department (IDRC) Mr. Christopher W. MacCormac Research Officer Dr. Erhard Kruesken Director, German Foundation for International Development Bonn, Germany Dr. Ute Grtifin Rothkirch Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Forestry Bonn, Germany Mr. Jose D. Epstein Manager, Department of Plans and Programs Washington, D.C. Mr. Mauricio Herman Chief, Agricultural Development Division International Bank for Reconstruction Mr. Montague Yudelman Director, Agriculture and Rural Development Department Washington, D.C. Mr. Donald C. Pickering Deputy Director, Agriculture and Rural Development Department International Development Research Centre Mr. Joseph Hd Hulse Program Director Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Division Ottawa, Canada International Fund for Agricultural DeveloDment (IFAD) Mr. Eric M. Sicely Senior Technical Adviser Rome, Italy - 32 Ireland Dr. A. Austin Mescal Deputy Chief Inspector Department of Agriculture Dublin, Ireland Italy Dr. G. T. Scarascia-Mugnozza Plant Breeding Institute University of Bari Bari, Italy Japan Mr. Yoshihito Miyairi Researcher Multilateral Cooperation Division Economic Cooperation Bureau Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tokyo, Japan Kellogg Foundation Mr. Kiyohiko Nanao First Secretary Embassy of Japan Washington, D.C. Dr. Robert C. Kramer Program Director Battle Creek, Michigan Leverhulme Trust Dr. Ronald C. Tress Director London, England Netherlands Dr. Dick de Zeeuw General Director, Agricultural Research Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries The Hague, Netherlands Dr. Heiko A. van der Borg Coordinator of International Research Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Mr. Kees Soels Head, Research Section D.T.H. Ministry of Foreign Affairs The Hague, Netherlands Mr. D.P.D. van Rappard Assistant Agricultural Attache Embassy of the Netherlands Washington, D.C. . . - 33 New Zealand Mr. Douglas R. Andrew Technical Assistant to the Executive Director World Bank Nigeria Dr. D. E. Iyamabo Director, Department of Agricultural Sciences, NSTDA Ibadan, Nigeria Norway Professor Ola M. Heide Agricultural University Aas, Norway OPEC Special Fund Mr. Pablo Eleazar Economic Officer Linares of Norway Mr. Ibrahim F.I. Shihata Director General Vienna, Austria Rockefeller Foundation Sciences Dr. John A. Pino Agricultural Director, New York Sweden Dr. James E. Johnston Deputy Director, Agricultural Sciences Mr. Lennart B&ge Head of Section, Department for International Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Stockholm, Sweden Professor Ewert Aberg Department of Plant Husbandry Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala, Sweden Mr. Bo Bengtsson Research Officer, Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries Stockholm, Sweden Switzerland Dr. Rolf Wilhelm Director of Projects Swiss Development Cooperation Berne, Switzerland Dr. Martin Wieser Agricultural Adviser Swiss Development Cooperation 1 34 United Kingdom Mr. K.R.M. Anthony Principal Agricultural Adviser (Research) Overseas Development Administration Mr. John A. Anning Head, Agricultural Research Section Overseas Development Administration Mr. J. K. Wright Under Secretary, Science and Technology Overseas Development Administration London, England Dr. Robert K. Cunningham Chief Natural Resources Adviser Overseas Development Administration United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Mr. K. N. Satyapal Principal Technical Officer Mr. William T. Mashler Senior Director Division for Global and Interregional Projects New York United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Dr. Reuben J. Olembo Acting Director Division of Environmental Nairobi, Kenya United States Management Mr. Tony Babb Deputy Assistant Administrator USAID Washington, D.C. Dr. Dean Peterson Director Office of Agriculture, Mr. Curtis Farrar International Development Cooperation Agency Washington, D.C. . Dr. Nicolaas Luykx Senior Specialist ISTC/PO Washington, D.C. Dr. Ruth K. Zagorin Associate Director, Office of International Cooperation, USDA Washington, D.C. Dr. Orville Bentley Dean of Agriculture University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois USAID Dr. Floyd Williams Associate Director of Research Office of Agriculture, USAID Dr. Dana Dalrymple Agricultural Economist Office of Agrfculture, USAID . - 35 Representing Asia and Far East (India/Philippines) Dr. J. D. Drilon, Jr. Director General, Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines Dr. Edgardo C. Quisumbing Deputy Executive Director National Food and Agriculture Quezon City, Philippines Representing Africa Council (Kenya and Senegal) Dr. Jacques Diouf Secretary of State for Scientific and Technical Research Dakar, Senegal Dr. Mademba-Sy Ambassador of Senegal to FAO Rome, Italy Mr. Stachys N. Muturi Science Secretary Ministry of Agriculture Nairobi, Kenya Mr. A. M. Simwenyi Senior Assistant Secretary Ministry of Agriculture Nairobi, Kenya Representing Near East and South Asia (Egypt/Syria) Dr. M. Naguib Hassan Scientific Adviser to the Minister Ministry of Agriculture Cairo, Egypt OBSERVERS Finland Mr. Juhani Hyytiainen First Secretary Embassy of Finland Washington, D.C. University of Hawaii Mr. Ken W. Bridges Assistant Director University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture Honolulu, Hawaii International Foundation for Science (IFS) .Dr. Gordon C. Butler Vice-President Stockholm, Sweden Mexico Mr. Victor M. Horcasitas Agricultural Counselor Embassy of Mexico Washington, D.C. National Academy of Sciences Dr. Joel Bernstein Project Director Washington, D.C. Spain Dr. Jesus de la Maza Director Tecnico de Servicios des INIA Madrid, Spain World Food Council Mr. Maurice J. Williams Executive Director Rome, Italy OTHERPARTICIPANTS Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) Dr. Jose L. Sainz Agricultural Counselor Embassy of Spain Washington, D.C. Dr. James J. Riley Acting Director International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) Dr. John A. Hannah Chairman International Centre of Insect Dr. Donald L. McCune Managing Director Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) Mr. Bruce R. Stedman Chairman Professor T. Ajibola Vice Chairman Taylor Professor Director Thomas R. Odhiambo Mr. Lucas Z. Mosha Financial Manager - 37 - TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE(TAC) Dr. Ralph W. Cummings Chairman Raleigh, North Carolina Dr. Hidetsugu Member Tokyo, Japan Ishikura Mr. Philippe J. Mahler Executive Secretary Mr. S. A. Risopoulos Deputy Executive Secretary Professor Carl Thomsen Member Copenhagen, Denmark CGIAR SECRETARIAT Mr. Michael L. Lejeune Executive Secretary Mr. Daniel G. Ritchie Deputy Executive Secretary Dr. John K. Coulter Scientific Advisor Mr. Andrew J. Hayman Senior Program Officer Ms. Olivia Vent Research Assistant Miss Violet B, Mooney Mrs. Monica M. Stillwell Mrs. Audrey P. Mitchell Mrs. Be1 V. Liboro .. - 38 - -39- - 4nnex II CONSULTATIVE GROUPON INTERNATIONALAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Center Directors' Presentations at the 1979 International Centers Week CIAT ILIuD WARDA ILCA IFPRI IRRI ICARDA ISNAR CIMMYT CIP IBPGR ICRISAT IITA