Science-Based Solutions: The Science Behind Growth and Development CGIAR ANNUAL REPORT 2005 Trichomes are minute, highly specialized outgrowths found along any surface of a plant, most often on stems and leaves. Many trichomes help adjust the microclimate of the plant surface by reflecting solar radiation and preventing evaporation. Others produce secretions that protect the plant from feeding insects. Science-Based Solutions: The Science Behind Growth and Development www.cgiar.org CGIAR CGIAR Secretariat A Unit of the CGIAR System Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA ANNUAL REPORT 2005 t 1 202 473 8951 f 1 202 473 8110 e cgiar@cgiar.org Printed on environmentally friendly paper July 2006 C O N S U LTAT I V E G R O U P O N I N T E R N AT I O N A L A G R I C U LT U R A L R E S E A R C H CGIAR The 64 Members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) provide the human, technical, intellectual and financial resources that enable the Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR to find and refine science-based solutions to constraints on agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in developing countries. Members’ core support and dedicated commitment to science allow Centers to undertake the complex and often long-term research that offers the most potential to deliver real benefits with global applications. This valuable support translates into a vital contribution to agricultural development and environmental protection. The Centers build and work through strong research partnerships that embrace the public and private sectors, civil society organizations, farmers, and the scientific communities of industrialized and developing countries. Snapshots of Center achievements during 2005 are included in this report. Ca na da A Global CGIAR Regional Offices IPGRI IFPRI ICARDA CIMMYT ICRISAT IRRI IPGRI IITA IWMI CIFOR World AgroForestry Centre ILRI WorldFish Center CIAT WARDA Africa Rice Center CIP Placement markers are approximate and indicate city locations, not worldwide offices. Fo rd Fo ■ un da Co ■ tio lom nt B ank ■ ■ n bia Ara bF Fra nc Co e mm und for ■ iss Eco Ge ion nom rm of ic a an the nd y ■ Eu Soc Gu rop ial lf C ea De nC vel opm rat ion y ■ De Co un Cô cil o te vel opm d’I ft vo ent he ire Ban k Ar ■ ■ ab De Au St nm stra ate ark lia ■ s ■ Au ■ Ind Ar stri ab a ■ ia Re ■ pu Ban Ind bli gla d on co esh Photo Credits ■ es fE ia gy pt Bel giu ■ ■ m ■ Int erAm Fin lan Bra d zil eri ■ ca Fo nD od ev an elo dA pm gri cu en ltu tB re an Or k ga ■ niz Int ati ern on ati of on the al Un De ite ve dN lop ati me n on s tR es ea rch Ce ntr e Front Cover | Trichome: David Scharf/Peter Arnold | left (top): Jim Richardson/Corbis | left (bottom): Jacob Silberberg/Panos | right: Ton Koene/Still Pictures 3 | CGIAR 4 | CGIAR 7 | left (top): Trichome from CIP | right (top): Trichomes: David Scharf/Peter Arnold | bottom: CIP 9 | Trichome from ICARDA 11 | Trichome: David Scharf/Peter Arnold 12 | IITA 13 | left: CIMMYT | center (Top): ILRI | center (bottom): ICRAF | right: Sidahmed 14 | left: ICARDA | center: IRRI | right: Shanley 15 | CIMMYT 17 | left: ICRISAT | right: ICRAF top: Trichome from NASA 19 | Trichome: David Scharf/Peter Arnold 20 | WARDA 21 | CIAT 22 | CIFOR | Ramadhani Achdiawan 23 | CIMMYT 24 | CIP | Ramiro Ortega 25 | ICARDA 26 | ICRISAT 27 | World Bank 28 | IITA 29 | ILRI 30 | IPGRI | Panis/Leuven 31 | IRRI 32 | IWMI 33 | World Agroforestry Centre 34 | WorldFish Centre | Randall Brummett 35 | Trichome from Dennis Kunkel Microscopy, Inc 37 | Generation 38 | HarvestPlus 39 | IITA 40 | ICRISAT 47 | Trichomes from CIP 61 | Trichomes from NASA Back Cover | Trichome: David Scharf/Peter Arnold Production Credits Design | Patricia Hord.Graphik Design Editing | Peter Fredenburg Printing | Jarboe Printing Production | CGIAR Secretariat with support from Denise Bergeron, Nora Ridolfi, Rick Ludwick ■ Members ore a ■ oo om pe mu ent ■ nit Asi an Supported Centers Thailand ■ Afr ■ ica Ch nD ina eve lop me Tribute to CGIAR Members: Enabling Science-Based Solutions Ro ck e r Fo efell unda tion ■ Turkey ■ ern In t ati on Uganda ■ al Fu nd Ma sia lay for Rom Ag ■ United Kingdom ■ ania ■ ric ult ura lD Me xic o ■ Russ ian F eder ev elo Mo roc co ■ pm en t ■ United Nations De velopment Programm e ■ Isl ation ■ Ne the rla nds am ic Re pu Sout h Af rica ■ bli co ■ f Ir Ne wZ eal and an ■ Ire lan Spai n ■ d ■ ■ Isr Nig eri ae l Swe den ■ ■ a ■ Ita ly No rw ay ■ Ja vironment Programm United Nations En e ■ pa nd zerla Swit ■ ■ n ■ EC OP or df Fun Ke F gg llo a nd ou enta Syng n datio Foun for S in usta ern Int ati ona lD lop eve me nt ■ n tio ■ Ke a ny ■ Re bli pu fK co Pak United States of Am erica ■ n ista Ag able ricul ture ■ xe Lu ■ mb Per u ■ rg ou Phi lipp ine Syria n Ar s tug Por World Bank l epub ab R ic al The 64 Members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) provide the human, technical, intellectual and financial resources that enable the Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR to find and refine science-based solutions to constraints on agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in developing countries. Members’ core support and dedicated commitment to science allow Centers to undertake the complex and often long-term research that offers the most potential to deliver real benefits with global applications. This valuable support translates into a vital contribution to agricultural development and environmental protection. The Centers build and work through strong research partnerships that embrace the public and private sectors, civil society organizations, farmers, and the scientific communities of industrialized and developing countries. Snapshots of Center achievements during 2005 are included in this report. Ca na da A Global CGIAR Regional Offices IPGRI IFPRI ICARDA CIMMYT ICRISAT IRRI IPGRI IITA IWMI CIFOR World AgroForestry Centre ILRI WorldFish Center CIAT WARDA Africa Rice Center CIP Placement markers are approximate and indicate city locations, not worldwide offices. Fo rd Fo ■ un da Co ■ tio lom nt B ank ■ ■ n bia Ara bF Fra nc Co e mm und for ■ iss Eco Ge ion nom rm of ic a an the nd y ■ Eu Soc Gu rop ial lf C ea De nC vel opm rat ion y ■ De Co un Cô cil o te vel opm d’I ft vo ent he ire Ban k Ar ■ ■ ab De Au St nm stra ate ark lia ■ s ■ Au ■ Ind Ar stri ab a ■ ia Re ■ pu Ban Ind bli gla d on co esh Photo Credits ■ es fE ia gy pt Bel giu ■ ■ m ■ Int erAm Fin lan Bra d zil eri ■ ca Fo nD od ev an elo dA pm gri cu en ltu tB re an Or k ga ■ niz Int ati ern on ati of on the al Un De ite ve dN lop ati me n on s tR es ea rch Ce ntr e Front Cover | Trichome: David Scharf/Peter Arnold | left (top): Jim Richardson/Corbis | left (bottom): Jacob Silberberg/Panos | right: Ton Koene/Still Pictures 3 | CGIAR 4 | CGIAR 7 | left (top): Trichome from CIP | right (top): Trichomes: David Scharf/Peter Arnold | bottom: CIP 9 | Trichome from ICARDA 11 | Trichome: David Scharf/Peter Arnold 12 | IITA 13 | left: CIMMYT | center (Top): ILRI | center (bottom): ICRAF | right: Sidahmed 14 | left: ICARDA | center: IRRI | right: Shanley 15 | CIMMYT 17 | left: ICRISAT | right: ICRAF top: Trichome from NASA 19 | Trichome: David Scharf/Peter Arnold 20 | WARDA 21 | CIAT 22 | CIFOR | Ramadhani Achdiawan 23 | CIMMYT 24 | CIP | Ramiro Ortega 25 | ICARDA 26 | ICRISAT 27 | World Bank 28 | IITA 29 | ILRI 30 | IPGRI | Panis/Leuven 31 | IRRI 32 | IWMI 33 | World Agroforestry Centre 34 | WorldFish Centre | Randall Brummett 35 | Trichome from Dennis Kunkel Microscopy, Inc 37 | Generation 38 | HarvestPlus 39 | IITA 40 | ICRISAT 47 | Trichomes from CIP 61 | Trichomes from NASA Back Cover | Trichome: David Scharf/Peter Arnold Production Credits Design | Patricia Hord.Graphik Design Editing | Peter Fredenburg, IRRI Printing | Jarboe Printing Production | CGIAR Secretariat with support from Denise Bergeron, Nora Ridolfi, Rick Ludwick ■ Members ore a ■ oo om pe mu ent ■ nit Asi an Supported Centers Thailand ■ Afr ■ ica Ch nD ina eve lop me Tribute to CGIAR Members: Enabling Science-Based Solutions Ro ck e r Fo efell unda tion ■ Turkey ■ ern In t ati on Uganda ■ al Fu nd Ma sia lay for Rom Ag ■ United Kingdom ■ ania ■ ric ult ura lD Me xic o ■ Russ ian F eder ev elo Mo roc co ■ pm en t ■ United Nations De velopment Programm e ■ Isl ation ■ Ne the rla nds am ic Re pu Sout h Af rica ■ bli co ■ f Ir Ne wZ eal and an ■ Ire lan Spai n ■ d ■ ■ Isr Nig eri ae l Swe den ■ ■ a ■ Ita ly No rw ay ■ Ja vironment Programm United Nations En e ■ pa nd zerla Swit ■ ■ n ■ EC OP or df Fun Ke F gg llo a nd ou enta Syng n datio Foun for S in usta ern Int ati ona lD lop eve me nt ■ n tio ■ Ke a ny ■ Re bli pu fK co Pak United States of Am erica ■ n ista Ag able ricul ture ■ xe Lu ■ mb Per u ■ rg ou Phi lipp ine Syria n Ar s tug Por World Bank l epub ab R ic al Table of Contents CGIAR at a Glance: A Strategic Alliance Message from the Chairman and Director: Tools of Development Science Council: Now to Apply the Priorities Center Alliance: Laying Solid Foundations The Science Behind Growth and Development World Bank: Reflections on a Research Agenda Message from the South: Nigeria Realizing Agricultural Potential Quality Science and Beneficial Impacts: Awards in 2005 Award-Winning Science: Fingers That Form a Fist Half a Decade into Doha: Trading Stasis Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR Spirit of Innovation Challenge Programs: Concrete Results Performance Measurement: Established and Evolving Executive Council: Guiding and Facilitating CGIAR System Office: Services Provided Executive Summary of the 2005 CGIAR Financial Results Who’s Who in the CGIAR in 2005 CGIAR Members CGIAR Executive Council, Committees and System Office Staff Ten Facts about CGIAR 2005 Acronyms and Abbreviations A Global CGIAR 2 3 6 8 9 10 12 13 15 17 19 35 37 41 44 45 47 61 62 64 66 67 inside back cover CGIAR at a Glance: A Strategic Alliance The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a strategic alliance of countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations supporting 15 international agricultural research Centers that work with national agricultural research systems, civil society organizations and the private sector to build the scientific foundations of equitable and sustainable economic growth in the developing world. The Alliance mobilizes agricultural science to reduce poverty, foster human well-being, promote agricultural growth and protect the environment. The CGIAR generates global public goods that are available to all. In 2005, CGIAR Members contributed US$450 million — the single largest investment in generating public goods for the benefit of poor agricultural communities worldwide. The CGIAR has five areas of focus: Sustainable production of crops, livestock, fisheries, forests and natural resources; Enhancement of national agricultural research systems through joint research, policy support, training and knowledgesharing; Germplasm improvement for priority crops, livestock, trees and fish; Germplasm collection, characterization and conservation, as the genetic resources that the CGIAR holds in public trust, and makes available to all, include some of the world’s largest gene banks; Policy research on matters that have a major impact on agriculture, food, health, disseminating new technologies, and managing and conserving natural resources. A global Alliance for agricultural research builds the scientific foundations of equitable and sustainable economic growth in the developing world 2 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Message from the Chair and Director — Science-Based Solutions: Tools of Development The power and reach of science surround us. For instance, science made space exploration possible, revolutionized the technology of communication, and provided poor farmers with the means to cultivate robust plants, thereby increasing their harvests and their incomes. Although the application of science and technology affects many aspects of life in today’s world, consumers of science-based technology rarely pause to think about the effort that has gone into developing and diffusing the products of scientific inquiry. This effort has been substantial, and it continues. We believe it appropriate, therefore, to celebrate the fact that some of the most important human achievements of the past century owe their creation and continued effectiveness to science: cheaper and more abundant food, improved health and nutrition, protection of the environment, better hygiene and sanitation, wider availability of running water, and diverse forms of transport, to name just a few. Science conditions our worldview and offers us options for the future. Regrettably, the potential of science has also been exploited to create technologies of destruction. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) System is sharply focused on creative agricultural science whose impact on life is solely beneficial. The defining commitment of the CGIAR System is to harness the power of science and use it to help solve problems associated, in their many dimensions, with poverty, food security, environmental protection and economic growth. The founders of the CGIAR had a vision of agricultural research of the highest quality, solving problems that stood in the way of increased food crop productivity in developing countries. They were convinced that, when problems were solved in one country or group of countries where research was conducted, the solutions could be moved across national borders and adapted to local agro-ecological conditions in more and more countries and regions. In this way, a single science-based solution would enhance the well-being of millions. That vision has been validated many times over in research laboratories, farmers’ fields and homes. Productivity increases made possible by science-based technologies and appropriate policies have helped in the battle Ian Johnson and Francisco Reifschneider with potato farmer in Shangsuan village, Jinning County, Yunnan Province, China 3 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH against poverty and hunger. Science has also made possible better and more sustainable management of natural resources. As a result, today’s farmers are able to produce enough food from the same land area to feed twice the number of people that would have been fed two decades ago. We cannot, however, be satisfied with celebrating past successes alone, because challenges remain — both known and unknown. With challenges come opportunities. The scientific mind-set encourages Center scientists to be alert to and recognize even the most minute evidence that presages the appearance of a hitherto unknown challenge, and worldclass science enables them to grasp the opportunities for overcoming it. This process requires Center scientists to nurture their own capacity to the fullest and to work in collaboration with a variety of partners. The theme of the CGIAR annual report for 2005 — “science-based solutions: the science behind growth and development” — illustrates the CGIAR System’s commitment to following this course. The many components of the CGIAR System, and their contributions to the System’s effectiveness, are presented in the reports and assessments that follow this introductory message. They touch on much of what is required to maintain the continued emphasis of the CGIAR System on science-based solutions as tools of development. Reports from CGIAR-supported Centers and Challenge Programs highlight specific outcomes of scientific research that were noted and implemented in 2005 — although, of course, the research would have been carried out over several preceding years — and fully realizing the impact of these outcomes may take as many years into the future. Outcomes of scientific efforts such as these, and many others, have enabled the human family to achieve phenomenal progress in the past century. We know, however, that the fruits of progress are unevenly spread. Poverty and destitution coexist with prosperity. Despite the achievements of agricultural research that have all but eliminated widespread famine, hunger is still the lot of too many people. Continued population growth will aggravate hunger unless science-based solutions intervene. Adequate policies will be part of these solutions. The world will be densely populated by 2050, with current migration trends putting more than 65 percent of people in urban areas. The demand for food could double, and demand will grow more complex as incomes rise and consumers become prepared to spend more on better, high-value foods. These trends will intensify pressure on natural resources that are already under stress. These challenges are known. In addition, many issues on the horizon require continued assessment of their specifics. They include the threat of an avian flu pandemic, which has already cost developing countries some US$10 billion in losses from poultry culling to slow the spread of the disease; the potential threat to wheat from the emergence of a new, virulent race of stem rust, Ug99; and rising oil prices’ continued serious impact on the economies of developing countries. In approaching such major challenges, the perspective of the CGIAR System has to be unambiguously pro-poor by first determining the likely impact of each challenge on the poor and then developing policies and science-based technologies to overcome it. Stem rust is already the focus of a special program led by two Centers, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and the 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Ian Johnson and Mr. Yang Wuyun, Wenjiang Experimental Station, Sichuan Province, China 4 International Center for Research in the Dry Areas, as described in this report by an awardwinning Center scientist. Regarding rising oil prices, the search for renewable sources of energy needs to be re-energized. The CGIAR System can continue to harness the power of science — but only if we constantly Because the CGIAR System exists to fulfill the needs of the poor and disadvantaged, it has provided leadership in creating scientific partnerships, developing appropriate institutions and supporting policies that will make this possible. The CGIAR System has acted to synthesize knowledge and make it available to national agricultural research systems (NARS) Our founders shared the conviction that the results of scientific breakthroughs, transferred across borders and adapted to local agro-ecological conditions in developing countries, could generate a shift from handouts to hope renew our practices and institutions so that they are fully suited to meet the challenges of both the present and the future. The current growth of scientific knowledge takes place at great speed. Among current trends, the use of nanotechnology is spreading and may help poor farmers if it is developed to meet their needs, with appropriate safeguards against possible risks. Several studies suggest that nanotechnology could be used to enhance agricultural productivity, improve pest detection and control, and help in the development of food processing. Such exciting possibilities will pass poor farmers by unless certain conditions are met. The technology must be explicitly directed to create science-based solutions as global public goods for specific clients. Networks of distribution must give smallholders access to the solutions, and product promotion must make the existence of new science-based technologies known to the people who can benefit from them. through information technology-based knowledge networks. These are critically important areas in which the CGIAR has to do more. The CGIAR System has also carried out important organizational innovations such as introducing Challenge Programs, developing regional medium-term plans, and continuing efforts to strengthen and expand our partnerships with civil society organizations, NARS and the private sector. Much of what we will be called on to achieve in the years ahead will require increased recourse to partnerships. The value of partnerships is clearly stated in a contribution to this annual report by Nigeria’s minister of agriculture and rural development. New scientific tools and new institutional tools will be needed to enhance the power and reach of partnerships. Also necessary will be developing innovative models for drawing on the knowledge and other resources of the private sector. Reconciling public goods development with intellectual property protection (IPR) requires goodwill and the negotiation and establishment of new mechanisms. In this connection, views and experience need to be exchanged on establishing a hybrid IPR regime that is fair to developing countries and conducive to development. The CGIAR will be breaking new ground by entering into this difficult but necessary discussion. Among other complications that have to be resolved are unfair trade practices, as pointed out in this annual report by the Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute, and the skewed nature of investment in science, which is a focus of an analysis by the World Bank’s chief economist. Science is never static. Nor are scientists. So we must move into the future with a sense of assurance based on past achievements, and with confidence in our ability to ensure that new science, renewed institutions and strengthened partnerships will continue to create effective tools of development. Ian Johnson Chair, CGIAR Francisco J.B. Reifschneider Director, CGIAR 5 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Science Council: Now to Apply the Priorities The Science Council of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was in its second year of operation in 2005. Its work has continued in many areas, including developing new medium-term plan guidelines, piloting the Performance Measurement System, undertaking external reviews of three Centers, and commissioning impact assessment studies on, for example, natural resource management research and the Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Systemwide Program. A key achievement this year was defining and approving new CGIAR System Priorities for research. A key attribute of the new System Priorities is their credibility arising from the multipronged approach through which they were established. For the Science Council, it was fundamental that the process be both analytical and broadly consultative with stakeholders, including NGOs, donors and scientists, both within the CGIAR System and in other research institutions, including national agricultural research systems and advanced research centers. The new priorities had to result from a conscientious analysis of emerging challenges and future global food scenarios, and from the potential to link different areas of research to was to refocus research efforts on producing international public goods — an area in which the CGIAR System has a clear comparative advantage. The expected products of research are therefore goods with broader-than-local impact, a reasonably high probability of success, and little likelihood of being supplied by others, such as the private sector, because no market mechanisms exist to control their use. The new priorities reflect the CGIAR’s renewed focus on agricultural research for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, especially those addressing poverty, equity, the environment and institutions. A new focus on the CGIAR’s role in research regarding long-term issues applies in five key areas: biodiversity, genetic improvement, wealth creation, sustainable resource management, and policies and institutions. Genetic conservation and enhancement will include a new emphasis on livestock and fish genetic resources and on applying modern molecular science to improve staple crops’ drought tolerance and nutrition. The overall focus of System Priorities on poverty alleviation aims to allow farmers to earn higher incomes by adopting improved agricultural technologies and approaches toward natural resource management. A particular emphasis of the new priorities is on income generation by the poor, including research on high-value species — a direct response to the concern that the poor are not making the most of agricultural diversification strategies to produce high-value commodities and products. Having defined research priorities with thorough analysis and consultation, and having secured their approval, the System must now implement them The primary aim of the new priorities is to help develop a more cohesive, focused and highquality research program in the CGIAR, and to ensure that the System produces science that alleviates poverty, hunger and malnutrition while protecting the environment. We also believe that, with the new priorities in place, CGIAR research will have a greater impact by avoiding dispersion of research effort, better mobilizing research capacity across the System, promoting coordination and cooperation, and enhancing accountability. The new priorities will also give direction to CGIAR donors and other institutions that invest in ways to alleviate worldwide poverty. poverty alleviation, while also taking into account the current research portfolios of the CGIAR and others. Opinions were gathered from analyses of position papers, expert consultations, regional and global panels, and an electronic forum with over 800 participants. The criteria used to define the new priorities are another key attribute. Fundamental considerations in deciding where CGIAR research efforts should focus were the expected impact of research products on poverty alleviation, food security and nutrition, and sustainably managing natural resources. A major tenet of developing new System priorities for research 6 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Now that we have agreed on new priorities for the CGIAR, we can focus our efforts on implementation. Implementing the priorities will require combining a core set of CGIAR Center research programs and strengthening other mechanisms such as Systemwide and Challenge programs. It will also require placing the CGIAR more centrally in the researchdevelopment continuum. Centers need to concentrate on research for development, moving away from development activities per se, such as extension. We know that agriculture is the driving force in low-income countries for broad-based economic growth and poverty alleviation. We also know that agricultural research is key to getting agriculture moving and contributing to the challenges that continue to face developing countries. The new System Priorities should reorient CGIAR efforts to apply the right science in new ways that support national efforts in developing countries to reduce hunger and poverty. Per Pinstrup-Andersen Chair, Science Council Key challenges will be forging strong partnerships with low transaction costs, building on 7 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Research in this area will involve a new collaborative approach with global sources of expertise in fruits and vegetables. Research on how the poor can benefit from greater participation in markets will now address concerns about quality and food safety, as well as non-tariff trade barriers faced by developing countries. The new priorities also aim to mainstream landscape-level approaches to managing agricultural and natural resources and to combating farmland degradation. This shift toward research for development means that Centers must ensure that they have the right partners to mobilize science at both ends of the continuum. They require further engagement with advanced research centers for upstream, basic science. Research planning will need to define how best to draw on legal and policy advice in complex areas, such as intellectual property rights, to gain access to the best expertise available. National and regional agricultural research systems will still constitute key links for implementing the new priorities and should be further encouraged to take over research nationally, where possible, to allow Centers to concentrate on creating international public goods. Effective and mutually beneficial partnerships with the private sector and civil society organizations, including NGOs, will continue to be critical to scaling up the effects of CGIAR research and translating new priority research into impact. existing structures, and promoting interaction among researchers. Centers should strive to operate with an “innovation systems” approach in which they facilitate delivery through networks. Rather than give in to the temptation to set up delivery systems for particular communities or countries, Centers need to foster the development of delivery systems in partner countries. This will inevitably involve Centers advocating to national governments and development assistance agencies the development of such delivery systems, either through publicly funded national institutions or such international agencies as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development, World Bank, regional banks and NGOs, or through private consultancies. Center Alliance: Laying Solid Foundations As chairs of the Alliance Board and the Alliance Executive,1 we are pleased to report on the important steps taken in 2005 on behalf of the Alliance of Future Harvest Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The Alliance has made significant progress since it was first endorsed at the CGIAR Executive Council meeting in September 2004 and formally established during the 2004 Annual General Meeting (AGM04) of the CGIAR. To date, the Future Harvest Alliance Office, an integral part of the CGIAR System Office, has been operated by two part-time staff members, with consultants hired for specific services. This office has assisted the Alliance leadership with meetings, publications, policy and program planning, including re-establishing the orientation program for new board members. A newly launched electronic newsletter appears quarterly. This newsletter, posted on the CGIAR website, Agricultural Research in Northern and Central Africa. In western and central Africa, the Africa Rice Center and the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (known by its French and English acronym CORAF/WECARD) will take the lead. The focus of their programs is to deliver greater impact and serve as vehicles for program alignment in the region. The MTPs will be submitted to the Science Council in 2006. The Alliance also provided collective input for developing the CGIAR System Priorities, working closely with the Science Council to finalize their formulation. It also provided an analysis of the Science Council’s comments on Center MTPs. A task force from the Alliance Deputy Executive2 drafted an assessment report on the Systemwide and Ecoregional programs, concluding that World Bank funding had successfully leveraged significant resources from other donors. Although we recognize the progress made, we realize that much remains to be done. The Alliance will continue to move forward in line with the declaration made in its guiding principles: “The allegiance of the Alliance is first and foremost to the poor.” Uzo Mokwunye Alliance Board Chair, 2005 William D. Dar Alliance Executive Chair, 2005 The Alliance of Future Harvest Centers drafts a set of guiding principles and looks forward to occupying a new home in Rome Some highlights of 2005 include the following: A set of guiding principles was drafted and agreed on, after which the Alliance leadership appointed a team to draft the Alliance Principles and Procedures (AP&P). This document will serve as a road map for decision making, collective action and convergence among CGIAR Centers. With assistance from the CGIAR Secretariat and the legal team of the World Bank, we were able to approve the document during pre-AGM05 meetings in Marrakech, Morocco. Once the document is endorsed by Center boards, the Alliance leadership will request that the CGIAR include the AP&P in the CGIAR Charter. 2005 ANNUAL REPORT has helped to heighten awareness among the Centers and CGIAR stakeholders of the collective action under way among the Centers and with our partners. Growing demand for heightened collaborative work and collective action led to the decision to hire a full-time chief executive officer to head the Alliance Office. We are extremely grateful to the International Fund for Agricultural Development for its offer to provide a home in its offices in Rome for the Alliance Office, beginning late in 2006. For a complete report on the activities of the Alliance Office, please see www.cgiar.org/pdf/fhao_annual%20report_ 2005_2005.pdf. In the course of the year, the Centers and their partners made progress in developing joint medium-term plans (MTPs) for sub-Saharan Africa. Activities in eastern and southern Africa will be led by the International Livestock Research Institute and the Association for Strengthening Also in Marrakech, the Alliance leadership approved a paper that had been developed to help establish important guidelines for inter-Center conflict resolution. Additionally, the Alliance Board set up five working groups to enhance the performance of the Alliance. 8 1 Formerly the Committee of Board Chairs and the Center Directors Committee. 2 Formerly the Center Deputy Directors Committee. The Science Behind Growth and Development World Bank: Reflections on a Research Agenda Theories of economic growth emphasize the role of research in science and technology as the main engine of development. This is certainly the case for developed countries, which find themselves at the frontier of production possibilities. For them, increases in total factor productivity — that is, of labor and private and public capital — can come only from technological innovations arising from investments in scientific and technological knowledge. The situation is slightly different for middle-income countries, which generally find themselves within the production frontier, rather than on it. This is because they have not yet been able to adopt and adapt production techniques available in more advanced countries. For middle-income countries, generating knowledge and technologies suited to their conditions, as well as adapting current techniques to their circumstances, are effective ways to improve productivity and foster growth. Low-income countries, by contrast, do not have the necessary resources to invest sufficiently in science and technology, whether to adopt new techniques or to adapt them. Moreover, it is not clear whether they would really gain from such strategies given their dependence on traditional agriculture and the huge disparity between poorer and richer countries in the quantity and quality of agricultural production. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) can play a huge role in low-income countries by building the scientific bases for stronger and more competitive agricultural sectors. However, this effort requires some difficult choices in terms of research priorities — choices that are not always made explicit. Investing in science and technology is indeed an expensive business. It requires significant amounts of capital, educated labor and materials. The process of investment is to identify potentially beneficial technologies in a timely fashion; build capability in these technologies in, for example, government-owned research and development (R&D) institutes; and finally, where appropriate, relegate this capacity to the private sector as rapidly as possible. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have invested significant portions of their gross domestic product (GDP) in science and technology, now accounting for about 93 percent of such expenditures globally. In 2003, the United States invested more than US$284 billion in research and development — almost 3 percent of its GDP — and employed more than 1.3 million scientists. European Union countries invested $211 billion in research, which was carried out by about 1.2 million scientists, and Japan invested $114 billion, employing more than 675,000 scientists. Practically all OECD countries are now in the science and technology race, and a remarkable convergence is appearing in the ratio of R&D expenditures to GDP. The structure of the Science and Technology sector in developed countries has evolved con- tors include communications, information sciences and medicine, which now absorb resources on a par with more traditional sectors, such as industry, transportation and agriculture. These investments are usually driven by the development of fundamental knowledge and signals perceived in the market, and they are largely motivated by companies’ need to maintain a competitive edge. The growth and evolution of investment in science and technology in emerging countries has followed a different path. Several developing countries, notably China, India, Korea and Malaysia, have made progress through investments that focused first on the entry stage of technical imitation and adaptation, before moving on to innovation. By adopting and adapting developed countries’ technologies, reallocating productive resources toward dynamic sectors, and attracting foreign direct investment in key activities, several middle-income countries have achieved relatively fast rates of economic growth. In some fields, they have even been able to bridge the technology gap to join the more advanced countries. Yet science and technology activity in middle-income countries relies more on the public sector than on private investment. The public sector provides, on average, more than 74 percent of middleincome countries’ expenditure on science and 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Agricultural research targeting low-income countries must adhere to priorities appropriate for their needs and realistically assess what it can achieve siderably during the last 5 decades. The investment share contributed by the private sector has expanded and is currently more than 60 percent. Leading science and technology sectechnology, nearly double the average of 40 percent in developed countries. Also notable is that publicly funded agricultural research in emerging countries is relatively larger than the 10 amount spent on this sector by public agencies in OECD countries. The case of investment in science and technology in low-income countries is more complicated. Imitation and adaptation are less effective than in middle-income countries for several reasons: A very different combination of productive factors — including the low availability of capital and skilled manpower, as well as markets of limited size — make it difficult to use techniques developed in or for more advanced countries. Low-income countries have limited resources for domestic innovations. Technological progress in the rest of the world has little connection with the goods that are traditionally consumed or exported by low-income countries. Likewise, these goods receive little interest or support from research conducted in developed countries. Most productivity gains in these countries come from adopting a more efficient allocation of resources, achieving progress in governance and integration in world trade, and exporting a limited range of commodities. Because it can help overcome some of the constraints mentioned above, the CGIAR System is an important contributor of advances in science and technology that match the needs of low-income countries. By providing scientific expertise, achieving economies of scale by effectively federating the interests of several countries, and innovating techniques for producing crops with a focus on locally important products, the CGIAR System has greatly contributed to achieving sustainable food security and reducing poverty. Very much remains to be done, however. Although successful in attracting donors, the CGIAR System still works with only limited resources, necessitating some tough strategic choices. An important choice it must consider is between improving the competitiveness of traditional food crops produced in less favorable zones in developing countries and promoting high-value commercial crops cultivated in more favorable areas. The first option directly reduces poverty by allowing farmers to draw more sustenance and income from their land. The second option reduces poverty indirectly through the spillover effect from a region’s increased economic potential in larger domestic and foreign markets. Success in pursuing the two strategies at the same time is unlikely. For instance, low-income countries will find it increasingly difficult to compete with developed and emerging economies that produce cereals or similar food crops. Research conducted by the CGIAR on maize, rice and wheat is paralleled by private and public research in OECD countries. Given that the two lines of research must necessarily be different because of the differences in the quality of land or infrastructure — the presence or absence of irrigation in particular — the question is whether the CGIAR, with more severely limited resources, can ensure a comparative advantage in those crops to low-income countries. On the other hand, another factor to keep in mind is that global trade will increase access for low-income countries to commodity markets if they truly have a comparative advantage and can compete in the marketplace. This question of research priorities is central to improving agriculture in low-income countries, but it requires further study. Related questions address the need for infrastructure in the rural economy. If CGIAR research on food crops in developing countries shifts to high-value crops, supporting that research may require infrastructure investments, for instance into rural roads that allow farmers to transport their output to the marketplace. Establishing research priorities thus depends on factors that go beyond simply deciding on which line of products research should focus. It may also depend on the overall development strategy of the country. The CGIAR needs to continue to discuss its research agenda to assist low-income countries at a time of increasing globalization and expanding international trade in agricultural commodities. Low-income countries need to explore new opportunities created by scientific discovery and new markets, and the CGIAR is the rational network to lead such efforts. Francois Bourguignon Senior Vice President and Chief Economist The World Bank Banking on Agricultural Development The World Bank was a prime mover in establishing the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) more than a third of a century ago. It hosted the inaugural meeting of the CGIAR at its headquarters in Washington, DC, in 1971 and became one of 18 founding Members. The CGIAR has since grown to include 64 members that support the work of 15 international research Centers, but the World Bank remains a pillar of the System’s leadership and finances. It is one of the CGIAR’s four cosponsors, hosting the CGIAR Secretariat at its Washington headquarters. The World Bank’s vice president for environmentally and socially sustainable development simultaneously serves as chairman of the CGIAR. 11 Nigeria: Realizing National Agricultural Potential The Federal Government of Nigeria has been a member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) since 1975. Nigeria’s long history of collaboration with the CGIAR has provided access to many important technologies and ideas that have spurred progress toward meeting growth targets set for the country’s agriculture sector. “We have targeted a 7 to 10 percent annual growth rate in Nigeria’s agriculture sector to ensure long-term food security and alleviate poverty,” states President Olusegun Obasanjo. More than 70 percent of Nigerians depend on agriculture for their livelihood. The administration of President Obasanjo has empowered Nigerian farmers and agro-allied investors to harness the country’s rich resources to produce food and raw materials for industry and export. Funding agro-allied investments has been has played a significant role in developing innovative technologies that have benefited farmers and others in the agri-enterprise system. The Presidential Initiative on Cassava has targeted a fivefold increase in cassava production, and IITA has been a key technical partner in the initiative, developing new disease-resistant, high-yielding cassava cultivars. In addition, IITA has led the value chain approach toward ensuring that the commodity creates wealth for all participants: input suppliers, farmers, processors, traders and end users. Nigeria continues to benefit from other IITA technologies. The country now produces more than 500,000 tons of soybeans thanks to research done by IITA in partnership with Nigerian institutes. Surveys have documented Research collaboration helps Nigeria progress toward achieving ambitious growth rates for its vital agriculture sector made easier, and agricultural banks make loans available to farmers. The government and its partners provide, through farm extension services, planting technologies, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides to ensure high yields at harvest time. Working hand-in-hand with farmers is the Nigerian Export Promotion Council, which helps find buyers for Nigerian food and cash crops. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) was established in Nigeria at the invitation of the government in 1967. IITA enhanced nutrition for children in areas where soybean products are incorporated into the diet. Maize yields have increased using improved IITA cultivars with drought tolerance and resistance to Striga and other potentially devastating diseases such as maize streak virus. Improved IITA cowpea varieties that perform well in savannah intercropping systems and have good disease and pest resistance have fueled a large increase in cowpea production in northern Nigeria, now reaching 2.2 million tons. Nigeria also benefits from collaboration with other CGIAR Centers. The International Livestock Research Institute works closely with IITA and other CGIAR Centers to enhance the productivity of crop-livestock systems in Nigeria. The Africa Rice Center continues to advance the Presidential Initiative on Rice. The International Food Policy Research Institute recently initiated work with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to enhance policy development using new tools to put the most useful information into the hands of decision makers. Other centers work with Nigeria to create new economic possibilities in aquaculture and agroforestry. Nigeria, which in 2004 became CGIAR’s largest contributor in the developing world, looks forward to working with CGIAR Centers to create a future that realizes Nigeria’s potential in agriculture. Mallam Adamu Bello, FCIB Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Nigeria 12 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Quality Science and Beneficial Impacts: Awards in 2005 Scientists battling animal and plant diseases in Kenya and Mexico were named for two key honors in the CGIAR Science Awards 2005. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) names its latest Science Award winners and adds a regional award The Outstanding Partnership Award went to the Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Program, a systemwide program coordinated by Thomas Tomich at the World Agroforestry Centre in Kenya. This global partnership of over 80 institutions conducts research in the basins of the Amazon and Congo rivers, Thailand, Philippines, and Indonesia to curb deforestation while ensuring that poor people benefit from environmental services. 13 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Ravi Singh of India was Outstanding Scientist for developing “slow-rusting” wheat varieties with improved resistance to leaf rust, yellow rust, powdery mildew and spot blotch, among other diseases (see Fingers That Form a Fist on page 15). These wheat varieties, bred at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico and now planted on 26 million hectares worldwide, have spared poor farmers an estimated US$5 billion in production losses. Simon Paul Graham, a Briton at the International Livestock Research Institute in Kenya, was named Promising Young Scientist for seminal research leading to a novel, sensitive and robust immunological assay that screens target parasite molecules that cause East Coast fever, a debilitating disease that is the bane of cattle pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa. Moatasim Sidahmed, a Canadian at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, won the new Regional Award for Outstanding Agricultural Technology for developing a cutterand-feeder mechanism that allows mechanical harvesting of lentils, a drought-resistant crop grown widely in Central and West Asia and North Africa. The equipment harvests lentils with a moisture content ranging from 14 to 29 percent, catching pods close to the ground while avoiding stones. The Outstanding Scientific Support Team Award went to the Program for Sustainable Agricultural Production in Central Asia and the Caucasus in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, which is convened by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas in Syria, and was represented at the award ceremony by a member of the team, Ilona Kononenko, who is from Ukraine. 14 2005 ANNUAL REPORT The winning Outstanding Scientific Article was Rice Yields Decline with Higher Night Temperature from Global Warming, published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences in 2004. Shaobing Peng and co-authors Jianliang Huang, John Sheehy, Rebecca Laza, Romeo Visperas, Xuhua Zhong, Grace Centeno, Gurdev Khush and Kenneth Cassman provided the first direct evidence that higher nighttime temperatures associated with global warming harm rice yields, based on research conducted at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. Patricia Shanley, a US citizen, won the Outstanding Communications Award for her work coediting, in conjunction with Gabriel Medina, the book Fruit Trees and Useful Plants in the Lives of Amazonians (Fruitiferas e Plantas Uteis na Vida Amazonica in Portuguese), a joint publication of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Amazon Institute of People and the Environment, and Center for International Forestry Research in Indonesia, used by over 1,000 literacy trainers working with 14,000 adults. Award-Winning Science: Fingers That Form a Fist Ravi Prakash Singh with wheat seedlings. Since wheat first emerged as a cultivated crop in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, periodic rust epidemics have inflicted severe crop losses and human suffering. Modern plant breeding and the advent of chemical controls significantly reduced the frequency of such devastating epidemics in recent decades, but poor farmers who cannot afford fungicides are still at the mercy of rust. The best control strategy for these farmers in the developing world — and the most environmentally friendly and profitable strategy for farmers everywhere — is to grow genetically resistant cultivars. More than a century of research has shown that wheat possesses many genes that can be used to breed resistant cultivars. Unfortunately, rust pathogens also display remarkable diversity and can evolve, often in only three to five years, into new races (or biotypes) that sidestep the resistance genes, which are racespecific. Boom turns to bust when a new race attacks widely popular wheat varieties that resisted earlier races. Rust pathogen spores can travel long distances on the wind. Although stringent monitoring can reveal a new race long before an epidemic occurs, most poor farmers do not change varieties until after they have suffered terrible losses. The search for alternative, longer-term strategies to combat rust disease led to a different approach to finding durable resistance. While individually conferring only slight to moderate resistance to rust diseases in wheat, when combined, minor slow-rusting genes can deliver near resistance near the site of invasion, thus restricting the establishment and further spread of the pathogen. Slow-rusting resistance contrasts with race-specific resistance, which generally functions through cell death or a hypersensitive response to infection that locks the pathogens in dead cells. near-immune resistance arising from crosses of wheat varieties that carried different minor resistance genes, followed by field selection under high disease pressure. Testing at many international sites against locally prevalent pathogen races has shown 15 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Characterizing and selecting for durable leaf rust resistance began at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT by its Spanish acronym) in the early 1970s. Led by S. Rajaram — now director of CIMMYT partnership with the International Center for Agriculture Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) called the CIMMYT-ICARDA Wheat Program for the Central and West Asia and North Africa region - researchers soon developed varieties with moderate resistance. In the late 1980s, research focused on better understanding the genetic basis of resistance to leaf and stripe rusts and applying this knowledge to breeding bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). We learned that race-nonspecific resistance in wheat was controlled by socalled slow-rusting genes that have effects that are only small to intermediate - but, importantly, additive. Plants defend themselves by accumulating dense substances — papillae or cell wall appositions —inside infected cells Slow-rusting genes confer only limited protection, but their cumulative behavior means that resistance increases when they are combined. Researchers predicted that a plant would be nearly immune, even under high epidemic pressure, if it combined four to five minor slow-rusting resistance genes. This model was the basis for new wheat lines that carried that slow-rusting resistance is highly effective worldwide. A newly formulated breeding scheme, “single-backcross, selected-bulk,” enhances simultaneous selection for high grain yield, durable rust resistance, and other desirable traits. Today, some of CIMMYT’s highest yielding spring bread wheats also enjoy highly effective durable resistance. These wheats are at various stages of testing by national programs prior to their release, but the latest results indicate their yield potential will be at least 10 percent higher than that of currently grown cultivars. Their adoption will significantly increase production. Perhaps more important, they will resist leaf and stripe rusts for a long time, adding significantly to overall profitability. Economic impact analysis shows that CIMMYTderived wheat cultivars with two to three slowrusting minor genes for leaf rust resistance currently occupy more than 26 million hectares in developing countries, contributing yield savings worth over $5 billion (1990 US dollars) in epidemic years. Long-term control of rusts also depends on maintaining genetic diversity for resistance. Using traditional and molecular genetics approaches, collaborative research involving CIMMYT, Mexico’s National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Animal Research (INIFAP by its Spanish acronym), Sydney University, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Kansas State University, Banaras Hindu University in India, Norwegian University of Life Science, and others has identified about 10 different slow-rusting genes in modern wheat. Further, researchers have discovered that some slow-rusting genes confer a degree of resistance to multiple diseases, including leaf rust, yellow rust, powdery mildew, spot blotch and barley yellow dwarf viruses. We have formally designated 12 genes for specific resistance: Sr8b for stem rust resistance; Lr31 and Lr46 for leaf rust resistance; Yr18, Yr27, Yr28, Yr29, Yr30 and Yr31 for stripe rust resistance; Bdv1 for barley yellow dwarf virus tolerance; SuLr23 for suppressing leaf rust resistance; and Ltn for leaf tip necrosis. Four of these genes are involved in race-nonspecific resistance. We aim to clone two slow-rusting genes with multiple effects, Lr34/Yr18 and Lr46/Yr29, to better understand their genetic makeup and identify new candidate genes likely to be present in wheat and other crops. We have made significant progress in understanding and breeding race-nonspecific resistance to leaf and stripe rusts. Unfortunately, this progress created complacency regarding other diseases, notably stem rust, which had been successfully controlled since the Green Revolution. A new race of stem rust, Ug99, was first detected in Uganda in 1999 and has now established itself throughout East Africa. It has the potential to wreak vast destruction on most of the popular wheat varieties currently grown in this region, as well as in North Africa, the Middle East and Asia, to where it will likely migrate via the Arabian Peninsula. Other large areas of the world, including developed countries, also grow susceptible cultivars. Our foremost challenge is to shake off complacency and work quickly and diligently to replace susceptible varieties with resistant ones before epidemics disrupt the food security and livelihoods of millions of households, both rural and urban. The recently launched Global Rust Initiative is spearheading the aggressive genetics and breeding efforts needed to develop and deploy resistant cultivars. If matched by a worldwide commitment in resources, we can diffuse the threat posed by Ug99, and perhaps the next Ug99, for many decades to come. Ravi Prakash Singh Plant Pathologist, CIMMYT, and 2005 CGIAR Science Award Outstanding Scientist 16 Half a Decade into Doha: Trading Stasis After 5 years, the Doha Development Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations have yet to reduce domestic support to farmers in rich countries or increase market access for farmers in developing countries. At the Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting in December 2005, negotiators made little progress. Trade talks are now far behind schedule, and rapid progress looks unlikely. Why does this matter? Most of the world’s poor depend on agriculture for much of their livelihood. The future of about 350 million small-scale farms and the workers employed by them in low- and middle-income countries around the world depends on improved access to well-functioning markets. The food and nutrition security of the poor is greatly affected by market and trade reforms in agriculture, as research by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has pointed out. This makes agriculture a critical sector in which a rules-based global trade system must work to the benefit of the poor. Yet agriculture has long been treated as an exception to the rule, as a special case left outside of the process of trade liberalization. As a result, extensive subsidies, border protection and other trade barriers continue to block opportunity for those poor people in the developing world who can best make their living from farming and value-added farm products. Five steps must be taken to make agricultural trade liberalization work for the poor. 2. Developing countries must also open their markets. Nearly one-third of the agricultural trade of developing countries is with other developing countries, and this share is growing. But these countries also have substantial trade barriers on agricultural products. If developing countries join in agricultural trade liberalization, IFPRI researchers estimate that they will gain nearly $40 billion in overall gross domestic product (GDP) annually — more than twice the gain in developing-country GDP if only the developed countries undertake agricultural reforms. These gains, however, will not be universal or evenly distributed among poor countries. Targeted assistance 17 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 1. Developed countries must reduce their farm-sector support and trade barriers. The wealthy countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) maintain domestic farm support policies and trade barriers worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Support policies include price guarantees, income support measures, subsidies on inputs, crop insurance, and export subsidies that move what would otherwise be high-priced farm products competitively into world markets. Barriers include tariffs and tariff-rate quotas that restrict market access. Farmers in developing countries pay a heavy price for these policies. Early IFPRI research showed that, by blocking market access and driving down world prices for agricultural commodities, developed-country policies reduce agri- cultural exports from the developing world by an estimated US$37 billion annually. policies will be needed for some countries or regions and population groups who are poorly positioned to benefit under new trade rules for agriculture. 3. Participants must avoid a hollow Doha Round agreement on agriculture. The lack of progress before and at the Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting raises concern about how much agricultural trade liberalization will be achieved in the Doha Round. Those seeking to limit the negative effects of production-stimulating and trade-distorting subsidies will have to be vigilant and forceful in calling for an end to export subsidies — one of the most egregious interventions — and in ensuring that real progress is made toward reducing domestic support policies. What must be avoided is a hollow final agreement that leaves intact the subsidies and protection that harm agriculture in poor countries, thus impairing the rule-setting system itself. 4. Safety and quality regulation must not be protectionist instruments. Developing countries are finding that the fastest-growing world agricultural markets are for fruits and vegetables, livestock products, and other high-value commodities. For these products, regulations and standards on safety and quality play a large role in determining trade opportunities. Dispute settlements show that the WTO has imposed modest restraint on unnecessary agricultural and food regulatory measures. There are many examples in which developing countries have successfully raised food safety and quality standards to meet the requirements of export and domestic markets. But there have also been costly trade disruptions based on food safety criteria. Poor countries face a daunting task in implementing food safety standards that can be traced and monitored “from farm to fork.” A great need exists to build developing countries’ capacity to meet the exacting standards of importing markets. strong trade liberalization components from United States and European Union proposals made before the Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting, offers greater benefits both globally and for developing countries than a less ambitious scenario. Under the more ambitious scenario, global welfare increases by $103.7 billion, world protection falls by 2.2 percent, and trade expands by 4.1 percent. In the less ambitious scenario, global welfare increases by only $41 billion, world protection falls by 1.4 percent, and trade expands by only 2 percent. Despite a long history of bending the rules in agriculture, policymakers need to take decisive steps that will allow agricultural trade liberalization to work for the poor 5. Development assistance must complement a trade agreement. To complement trade policy reforms, public investments in areas like infrastructure are essential. Turning trade-related market opportunities into concrete gains requires investment to make markets work and endow the poor with the assets they need to compete. Responsibility lies primarily within the countries themselves, but developed countries and international institutions need to increase their support for these efforts. Recent IFPRI research continues to illustrate the global economic stakes of current trade negotiations. Researchers have found that an ambitious cooperative reform scenario, with Multilateralism is at a crossroads. Partly because of a lack of progress in WTO negotiations, a host of bilateral trade negotiations are in progress. Bilateral agreements may be easier to negotiate than multilateral ones, but they yield smaller economic benefits. Moreover, bilateral agreements among large players further marginalize the low-income countries they exclude. In this global setting, restoring the effectiveness of multilateralism through the WTO is essential. Joachim von Braun Director General International Food Policy Research Institute 18 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR Africa Rice Center Cultivates Cooperation The NERICA family of new rice varieties for Africa now includes lowland cultivars. The success that the Green Revolution enjoyed in Asia in the second half of the 20th century has yet to be replicated in sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century because of the latter continent’s diversity of farming systems, variable climate and small local markets. The challenge for agricultural research is to provide African farmers with the right technologies using approaches that work in conditions less favorable than those of the Green Revolution in Asia. A search for suitable approaches, combined with partnership-owned research for development led by national programs in Africa and the Africa Rice Center (WARDA), has made a difference in the production of rice, a strategic crop for African economies. The initial impact came through developing and disseminating the NERICA family of new rice varieties for Africa, which unleashed the potential of the upland, rainfed ecosystems. This partnership, especially with national programs in West Africa coordinated through the West and Central Africa Rice Research and Development Network (ROCARIZ by its French acronym), has recently led to a new generation of NERICA varieties adapted to lowland rice ecosystems. The potential of the lowlands is much greater than that of the uplands, as the lowlands’ suitability to cropping intensification makes it possible to grow two or three crops per year, making rice more valuable economically. But agriculture in African lowlands is complex because of lack of water control, iron toxicity, weeds, diseases and pests. Yields from traditional rice varieties in this ecosystem are usually less than 1.5 tons per hectare, only 40 percent of the world average. To develop suitable rice varieties, a breeding program was initiated using WARDA’s germplasm collection and led by a team of scientists from the national programs of West Africa and WARDA. Initial national partners were Burkina Faso, Mali and Togo. ROCARIZ facilitated shuttle-breeding in these countries to accelerate the evaluation of 740 intra- and interspecific breeding lines and ensure that widely adaptable lowland NERICA varieties were selected. To reduce the time between on-station trials and varietal release, WARDA scientists conducted farmer-participatory varietal selection in collaboration with the national programs, through which farmers selected about 60 lowland NERICA varieties. The national partners, who were closely involved in this process, immediately saw the value of these new crosses, which have a yield potential of 6 to 7 tons per hectare and good resistance to major lowland stresses. This led to the official release in 2005 of two lowland NERICA varieties in Mali and four varieties in Burkina Faso. Given the high potential of the African lowlands, these new varieties are expected to have an even greater impact on African food security than the original upland NERICA varieties. Partnerships speed the breeding, selection and dissemination of a new generation of lowland rice varieties bred for African conditions The most promising lowland interspecifics show low susceptibility to pests and diseases, which is vital for their success in the hardpressed lowland ecosystem. The lines’ disease susceptibility scores were mostly lower than 5, on a scale of 1-9, for leaf blast and yellow mottle virus. The new NERICA varieties suffered less than 2 percent damage from insects. 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 20 Africa Rice Center (WARDA) Headquarters: Cotonou, Benin www.warda.org CIAT Fosters African Partnerships Full of Beans A seed-distribution partnership brings improves beans to African farms and markets. Over 2.4 million rural households in eastern and southern Africa, or at least 13 million people, have received seed of new common bean varieties in the last 18 months. In the 12 countries involved — Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia — farmers (mostly women) are now evaluating 108 new varieties and nine other bean technologies, mostly to manage pests and diseases. This achievement of the Pan-African Bean Research Alliance required African breeding lines with relevant traits, strengthened regional bean research networks, cost-effective seed production, and links for research and development combining national agricultural research systems (NARS), international agricultural research centers, NGOs and the private sector. The NARS responsible for promoting new varieties became conscious of the need to understand the demands of farmers and consumers. This is especially true for a crop such as the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Although markets grew rapidly along with Africa’s urban population in the 1990s, their development was hindered by fragmentation in preferences regarding color, size and culinary qualities, and by a range of production constraints. The Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network, managed by the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa, and the Southern Africa Development Community Bean Research Network — both managed by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT by its Spanish acronym) — convinced their memberships to adopt market-oriented strategies. National scientists learned to use participatory selection methods, following success with this approach in Rwanda by the Institute des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda and CIAT. They also became more aggressive in developing a portfolio of varieties adapted to a range of growing conditions. Initially, varieties developed at CIAT headquarters near the common bean’s Latin American center of diversity brought rapid gains. Then national breeding programs, regional breeding hubs (notably at the University of Nairobi), and network exchange mechanisms spurred further progress. Consumer-oriented varietal development and vibrant networks to disseminate seed bring a fragmented, underperforming bean market to life While the common bean is not yet attractive to commercial seed companies, CIAT research shows that small farmers will happily pay to obtain starter packets of interesting new bean varieties and that these farmers can disseminate them further through low-cost, decentralized local seed systems. A recent impact study across several African countries showed that, where farmers have access to seed, the adoption of new bean varieties is often above 70 percent. agencies, farmer organizations, local seed companies and unconventional actors in seed dissemination such as women’s groups, people living with HIV/AIDS and tobacco companies. Many NGOs copublished local translations of CIAT training manuals on small-scale seed production and sales, which are now available in eight languages. Training courses, often organized across crops with sister Centers, reached the staff of 105 partner organizations. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) Headquarters: Cali, Colombia www.ciat.cgiar.org 21 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH This approach started to work well on a large scale only when NARS bean researchers started systematically building local partnerships — signing at least 80 cooperation agreements in 2004 alone. NARS reported 343 local partner organizations in bean seed dissemination in 2005, including NGOs, government extension CIFOR Becomes Part of the Policy Furniture Lifting the export ban encourages global demand and increases incomes of rattan producers and harvesters The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) conducted and disseminated research that contributed to an Indonesian government decision to rescind an export ban that harms rattan farmers and producers. The ban was lifted following a 2005 invitation from the Ministry of Trade to a range of stakeholders, including CIFOR, to participate in a review of Indonesian rattan export policy. During the review, CIFOR and its research partners drew on long-term research and an established network of collaborators to demonstrate the importance of rattan to the livelihoods of rattan producers in the province of East Kalimantan. Although rattan has been a steady livelihood for Indonesian farmers for hundreds of years, extreme fluctuations in the rattan sector over recent decades have often badly affected farmers’ income. According to CIFOR “Most recently, in 2004, the rattan furniture industry lobbied the Ministry of Trade to restrict unprocessed and semiprocessed rattan exports,” he continues. “Twelve months later, after listening to agricultural researchers and not industry lobbyists, the ministry lifted the restriction.” The 2004 ban reflected concerns about the Indonesian furniture industry’s international competitiveness. Banning unprocessed and semiprocessed rattan exports reduced supplies of raw materials to overseas competitors of the local furniture industry, especially to much more efficient, mechanized producers in China. These arguments had been the mainstay of past rhetoric supporting the export ban through the 1980s up until the Asian economic crisis in 1998, when International Monetary Fund influ- better judge the pros and cons of a rattan export freeze. “Because we had such strong research, and perhaps because CIFOR is seen as apolitical, people trusted our data showing that the ban reduced rattan demand and hurt the incomes of rattan producers and harvesters,” explains Brian Belcher, Mr. Achdiawan’s research collaborator. “Our facts and figures also proved that the restriction did not make Indonesia’s rattan furniture industry more competitive, which was the main argument for the ban.” The moral to this story is that good research and solid facts are essential to making good policy. “Policymakers need impartial and sound data when making decisions that affect people and their environment,” concludes Mr. Achdiawan. ”With its rattan research, I think CIFOR fulfilled that need.” Research results help convince the Indonesian government that banning rattan exports hurts farmers without helping furniture makers researcher Ramadhani Achdiawan, these negative impacts reflect changes in the market and policy environment surrounding rattan. “Indonesia’s rattan industry has ridden a rollercoaster over the past 25 years,” Mr. Achdiawan reports. “The export ban has been imposed and lifted several times, causing drastic price oscillations and uncertainty and hardship among small-scale rattan farmers. ence saw the ban withdrawn. The rhetoric had its seductive way again 6 years later, when the ban was retrieved from Ministry of Trade archives, dusted off and put back into force. By this time, however, a considerable body of reliable information was at hand. CIFOR could draw on more than 8 years of research and provide NGOs, government agencies and industry representatives with the data needed to 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 22 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Headquarters: Bogor, Indonesia www.cifor.cgiar.org CIMMYT Offers Maize with No Striga Attached The parasitic weed Striga infests 40 percent of Africa’s arable savannahs, threatening the livelihood of more than 100 million people who depend on cereal crops for food and income. Also called witchweed, Striga fastens directly to the roots of maize seedlings and sucks out nutrients, slashing yields by 50 to 100 percent. Maize farmers in Kenya, where Striga has invaded 400,000 hectares of farmland, lose at least US$50 million annually to the weed. Taking advantage of a natural variation in maize, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT by its Spanish acronym) and its partners have conventionally bred tropical maize varieties that withstand imidazolinone, the active ingredient in several herbicides. “The resistant maize seed is coated with a low dose of the herbicide, which kills Striga as it germinates, allowing the maize to grow clear of the weed,” explains CIMMYT agronomist Fred Kanampiu, adding that several years of the practice helps clear fields of residual Striga seed. Four new maize hybrids have been released for marketing in Kenya under the name Ua Kayongo H1-4, which means “kill Striga.” Farmers are enthusiastic, as their comments in the Nairobi Daily Nation show. “I have already seen major changes in my farm compared to my neighbors’, whose parcels remain covered with the purple flowers of the parasitic weed,” says one, Zedekiah Onyango of Nyahera, Kisumu District. “My maize yield is many times higher since I started using this maize, and I look forward to even higher yields.” Another small-scale farmer, Beatrice Ayoo, argued that the technology would be a costeffective investment for the government, according to the Daily Nation. Three Kenyan seed companies have initiated seed production for imidazolinone-resistant maize. A consortium of farmer-educating nongovernmental organizations and extension services led by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation are conducting on-farm An innovative technology to control the parasitic weed Striga takes root in maize-growing areas of the African savannah CIMMYT sourced the resistant gene from the German chemical company BASF, bred imidazolinone-resistant maize varieties adapted to East African conditions, and developed, with the Weizmann Institute of Science, a seed-coating practice appropriate for poor farmers. Other partners in the project are the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Israel, the Rockefeller Foundation and private seed companies. Farmers evaluating the technology plant the new maize the normal way, including intercropping with legumes and root crops. “I’ve been pulling and burying Striga on my 5-acre (2-hectacre) farm for the past 17 years, and the problem has only grown worse,” says Rose Katete, a farmer in Teso District. “Ua Kayongo has provided the best crop of maize that I’ve ever grown.” “Under Striga-infested conditions, the new maize hybrids out-yield the checks by more than 50 percent and provide near-total Striga control,” confirms CIMMYT Maize Program Director Marianne Bänziger, citing several years of field trials. demonstrations in western Kenya. Over the next five years, farmers in Tanzania, Uganda and Malawi will receive the new Striga control package. Blue flowers betray the parasitic weed Striga as it attacks maize in Kenya. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Headquarters: Mexico City, Mexico www.cimmyt.org 23 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CIP and Andean Farmers Wise to Weevils Flute-playing Peruvian children en route to a class on integrated tuber management. An integrated approach to managing the Andean weevil has dramatically reduced losses in several crops important to villagers in the high Andes. In this environment, weevils are the most dangerous pest of the starchy Andean tuber oca (Oxalis tuberosa), able to severely damage nearly all tubers. Other weevils, just as damaging, are present in the Andean potato (Solanum spp.), mashua (Tropaeolum tuberosum), and ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus). Potato is a staple food, and mashua, oca and ulluco are important complements. Over the last four years, International Potato Center (CIP) researchers, with support from the McKnight Foundation, have worked with local groups and staff of Peru’s Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco and the University of California Davis in the United States, to develop and apply a system of integrated management to Andean weevils. The approach combines ancient indigenous knowledge and modern scientific research. The first problem was to identify, from among the many types of weevil found in fields, the actual species that do the damage. In one village, 32 They were rewarded with notebooks, pens, pencils and erasers to use in school. Project workers subsequently identified for the first time the main weevil species attacking oca. Those that attack ulluco and mashua appear to be different but have yet to be positively identified. “Strategies are oriented to reduce the infestation from the over-wintering weevil population,” explains CIP researcher Jesus Alcazar, adding that, in 2003, a species of nematode was isolated from potato weevil larvae in soil taken from an Andean potato storage shed. “Lethal dose experiments showed that it is highly virulent to the oca weevil larvae, pupae and over-wintering adults inside oca tubers.” Researchers introduced this nematode into the weevil population and popularized a range of simple, low-cost techniques for pest control. These include planting weevil-free sprouts, putting ash at the base of the plants, using chickens as predators, early harvesting, using sheets at harvest to keep larvae from pupating, destroying crop residues, and winter plowing after the harvest. Together, these methods have more than halved — and in some cases cides, benefiting the health of farmers, their families and consumers. “The impact of the work is spreading as farmers adopt the techniques in more than 30 communities around the experimental site,” observes CIP Andean crop specialist Carlos Arbizu. Research results have attracted great interest when disseminated through schools, farmers’ schools and workshops, seminars, and local radio. Hundreds of farmers, agronomists, technicians, and school and university teachers in Peru’s Cusco and Apurimac departments are becoming involved. “These outputs will strengthen the on-farm conservation of Andean tubers,” concluded Willy Roca, head of the Genetic Resources Conservation and Characterization Division at CIP. Integrated pest management improves weevil control and helps keep traditional tuber crops down on the farm in the high Andes 2005 ANNUAL REPORT children were trained to recognize weevils and went out to collect 57,000 adult weevils over a two-week period for taxonomic identification. almost eliminated — the weevils and their damage to oca, Andean potatoes, and ulluco. They have also reduced the need for insecti- 24 International Potato Center (CIP) Headquarters: Lima, Peru www.cipotato.org ICARDA Revives a Horn of the Fertile Crescent Desertification and global warming lend urgency to conserving dryland agrobiodiversity, which sustains livelihoods in many local communities and provides useful genes for plant breeding worldwide. The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), working with national partners, has collected more than 131,000 accessions of crop landraces and their wild relatives from all over the world for storage in the Center’s gene bank. Conservation on site in farmers’ fields or protected areas is a complementary method that conserves a larger portion of the gene pool and benefits from natural selection and local knowledge. Success depends on suitable policy reforms in national programs. With funding from the Global Environment Facility provided through the United Nations Development Programme, ICARDA has collaborated for 6 years with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute and the Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands to operate the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dry-Land Agrobiodiversity project in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria. The project develops technological, socioeconomic, institutional and policy options to promote in situ conservation of landraces (or traditional cultivars) and wild relatives of cere- als, legumes and fruit trees that originated in the region. Policy guidance to governments has fostered the institution of agrobiodiversity programs and units in national research bodies, ministries of agriculture and forestry departments. Syria has introduced a new biodiversity curriculum in the 9th and 10th grades. Palestine is in the process of implementing it, and Jordan and Lebanon will follow in 2006 or 2007. School children entered more than 1,000 paintings in a contest to demonstrate their understanding of agrobiodiversity conservation, and four students from each country were selected for awards. Government forestry nurseries in Syria, Palestine and Jordan are propagating diverse wild relatives of fruit trees, and more than 500,000 seedlings of target landrace species have been planted in Syria. In Lebanon, NGOs are propagating and distributing the seedlings. In Jordan, the Forestry Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture has created a unit to establish nurseries. Heightened awareness of agrobiodiversity conservation has facilitated collaboration with tourism and education ministries, other projects, and NGOs. Working with communities, governments have identified sites rich in agrobiodiversity, and many target species have been collected and placed in gene banks. Protocols for managing databases derived from ecogeographic botanic surveys have been set, and a policy framework has been developed and shared. The project has provided training and technical support for more than 1,500 people, including 850 women, on various value-adding technologies and alternative income sources such as dairying, honey and mushroom production, food processing, and ecotourism. Mass media, documentary films, posters, biodiversity fairs and rural theater have increased public awareness. Further success will depend on full recognition of the role of local communities, inviting their participation and ensuring their empowerment and benefit sharing. The project has highlighted activities that will improve local livelihoods while conserving agrobiodiversity, but more national and international support is needed. Efforts to conserve dryland agrobiodiversity in West Asia benefit from successful policy reforms and awareness-building activities Researchers study a native forage grass that helps crops use nitrogen fertilizer. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Headquarters, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic www.icarda.org 25 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ICRISAT Gets the Drop on Downy Mildew Collaborative research between the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and Haryana Agricultural University in India has created a new pearl millet hybrid, HHB 67-2, that resists downy mildew caused by the fungus Sclerospora graminicola. HHB 67-2 is the firstever product of marker-assisted breeding in pearl millet to be released for cultivation in India. The Haryana State Varietal Release Committee approved the release of HHB 67-2 in January 2005, providing ample time for seed to reach farmers before the rainy season. The new hybrid is an improved version of the popular pearl millet hybrid HHB 67. The original HHB 67, released in 1990 by Haryana Agricultural the ICRISAT campus at Patancheru, India. The gene for downy mildew resistance was added Marker-assisted breeding speeds the timely replacement of a popular pearl millet that was starting to succumb to fungal disease University, is grown on at least 400,000 hectares in the northern Indian states of Haryana and Rajasthan. The cultivar is popular because it matures in 65 days, thereby escaping end-of-season drought and providing an opportunity for double cropping. In recent years, however, the highly preferred HHB 67 began to succumb to downy mildew. Attempts to improve the parental lines of HHB 67 for downy mildew resistance were successful, and after being tested for 3 years, the best of the resulting hybrids was identified for release. By rapidly adopting the improved hybrid HHB 67-2, farmers in Haryana and Rajasthan can avoid grain losses of about 288 million rupees (US$6.4 million) in the first year of a major downy mildew outbreak, in which up to 30 percent of the pearl millet harvest can be lost (estimated from an average grain yield of 800 kilograms per hectare and a minimum selling price of 3 rupees per kilogram). To develop the new hybrid, the parental lines of the original hybrid were improved for downy mildew resistance through marker-assisted and conventional backcross breeding programs at to the male parent, H 77/833-2, through markerassisted breeding using ICRISAT elite parent ICMP 451 as the resistance gene donor. The gene for downy mildew resistance was added to the female parent, 843A/B, from ICRISAT line ICML 22 through conventional backcross breeding. The All India Coordinated Pearl Millet Improvement Project field-tested the new hybrid at various locations over 3 rainy seasons. Modern, molecular marker-assisted selection allowed breeders to develop the male parent for HHB 67-2 in one-third of the time required for developing the female parent by conventional selection. Marking the gene responsible for downy mildew resistance in ICMP 451 meant that its transfer to the next generation — progeny of ICMP 451 and the male parent of HHB 67 — could be checked at the seedling stage, saving precious breeding time. In conventional breeding, the presence of a gene can be verified only after the plant grows to maturity and seed from it is sown to screen for downy mildew resistance. ICRISAT has now produced breeder seed of the parental lines of HHB 67-2. 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Early-maturing pearl millet escapes end-of-season drought and allows double cropping. 26 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Headquarters: Patancheru, India www.icrisat.org IFPRI Tackles Another Gender Gap When programs directly target women and girls, development outcomes improve. Across much of the developing world, women are on the front line in the fight against hunger, poverty and environmental degradation. Donors, policymakers and development practitioners have increasingly come to understand that, to be effective, their programs must empower women. With its long track record of gender research, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has contributed significantly to this understanding. Gender considerations can strongly affect the control and allocation of family resources. Understanding them is critical to designing and implementing effective programs and policies. IFPRI recently completed a 10-year research initiative to examine the dynamics of resource allocation within households and suggest ways to ensure that programs achieve their development goals. This research has been disseminated through 59 journal articles, nine book chapters, four books, four research reports, 45 discussion papers, 125 presentations and six media events. The implications of this research are clear. It is not enough to target resources to poor families. When programs directly target women and girls, development outcomes improve. These studies have had considerable impact in Bangladesh and Guatemala, and have influenced the design of several conditional cash-transfer programs in Latin America. The impact of IFPRI’s overall program of gender research has been broader, changing minds about the importance of gender issues. For example, IFPRI studies have documented the importance of improving property rights for women, quantified the benefits of increasing women’s human and physical capital, established the critical link between women’s status and child nutrition, and demonstrated the productivity impact of targeting agricultural technology and inputs on women. IFPRI’s gender research was prominently featured in the World Bank’s Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources and Voice; United Nations Population Fund’s State of the World Population Report 2004; and Millennium Project’s 2005 report, Taking Action: Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women. The challenge now is to bridge the gap between research and action. While practitioners often know about general development or technical issues, many lack the understanding and resources necessary to effectively inte- More than a decade of IFPRI research has demonstrated that empowering women is essential for winning the fight against poverty and hunger. Equally important, this work has provided policymakers, donors, and NGOs with tools to create more effective programs on the ground. Through its recently established Gender Task Force, IFPRI continues to focus Publications highlight a decade of gender research and help development programs apply research results toward achieving their goals grate gender issues into projects and public policy initiatives. A recently published IFPRI attention on gender issues and share findings with researchers, donors and policymakers. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Headquarters: Washington, D.C., United States of America www.ifpri.org 27 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH guide for practitioners, Food Security in Practice: Using Gender Research in Development, by Agnes Quisumbing and Bonnie McClafferty, makes IFPRI’s body of gender research accessible to people who design and implement development programs and projects. The guide provides practitioners with both empirical evidence and specific guidance on how to incorporate these findings effectively into projects and policy instruments. IITA Refines Traditional Strip Cropping More productive planting practices in West Africa mean more harvest to carry. Food production on the savannah of West Africa is not keeping pace with population growth. Agriculture continues to be based on traditional intercropping systems with few inputs. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), in collaboration with national, regional and international partners, has developed an intercropping system that holds great promise for increasing food and fodder production without harming the environment or degrading the soil. Improved strip cropping using durable, high-yielding varieties of cowpea and cereals has shown gains in productivity and gross income compared with traditional intercropping systems, in which a single row of cereal alternates with a single row of legume. In the improved strip-cropping system, two rows of maize, millet or sorghum are planted between four rows of improved cowpea varieties. Minimal inputs of fertilizer and pesticide are applied as needed. The system enjoys the benefits of traditional cropping knowledge and methods but is not limited by them. New, dual-purpose (food and fodder) cultivars of cowpea, maize, sorghum and millet produce enhanced quantities of biomass. This means more crop residues to feed to small ruminants penned in permanent enclosures at the homestead, from which manure is easily gathered for spreading on croplands to enhance system productivity and sustainability. Cowpea is an important source of nutritious food and fodder in the semi-arid tropics, especially in West Africa. Traditional varieties spread laterally as they grow and take over 130 days to mature, offering a yield potential of less than 1 ton per hectare. Systematic breeding has produced cowpea varieties that offer improved grain quality and more fodder from plants that stand erect or semierect and mature in only 60 to 75 days. Some yield up to 2.5 tons of grain and fodder per hectare, with protein representing 25–29 percent of grain weight and 15–18 percent of residual hay weight. The improved varieties fit well in the niches of existing cereal-based cropping systems, maintain soil fertility and reduce the seed bank of the parasitic weed Striga, thereby enhancing cereal productivity. New intensive strip-cropping systems of maize-double cowpea, sorghum-cowpea, and millet-cowpea have increased total biological productivity and gross income by 100 –300 percent over that of traditional intercropping systems. In 2005, 1,500 Nigerian producers tested IITAimproved pest-resistant cowpea varieties using the new cowpea-cereals strip-cropping system. West African farmers grow more food and fodder with a new interplanting system that uses improved cowpea and grain varieties Hajia Rabo Abdulrahman, president of Albarka Women Farmers Association in Yakasai Ward of Nigeria’s Kano State, reports that adopting improved cowpea strip cropping financed most of her domestic needs in the last year and allowed her to buy her first piece of farmland. “I never dreamed of ever having a field of my own,” she says. “Now that I have one, I’ll increase my production.” 2005 ANNUAL REPORT The new system itself was tested by more than 3,000 farmers and, from 2002 to 2005, spread to more than 250,000 farmers. This demonstrates that combining the new extra-early maturing Striga-resistant and droughttolerant cowpea varieties with improved strip cropping has great potential to sustainably increase food production by smallholder farmers throughout West Africa. 28 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Headquarters: Ibadan, Nigeria www.iita.org ILRI Pours On Tsetse Protection for Cattle The protozoan parasites that cause African animal trypanosomosis, known as sleeping sickness in humans, are transmitted by the bite of infected tsetse flies. Trypanosomosis is a major constraint to African development across a swath of the continent as large as the continental United States or the whole of Australia. The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) has been working in the Ghibe Valley of southwestern Ethiopia for more than Development, Ethiopian Science and Technology Agency (ESTA), and regional bureaus of agriculture and rural development (BoARDs) have made several visits to the Ghibe Valley to learn from ILRI’s experience in controlling the disease. ESTA, in collaboration with the BoARD of the southern region of Ethiopia, has adopted the pour-on technology as an important component Project. Agriculture bureaus in two other Ethiopian regions — as well as NGOs in Ethiopia, including Farm Africa, SOS Sahel and ActionAid Ethiopia — have taken up and applied research outputs from ILRI’s long-term research project on controlling tsetse flies and trypanosomiasis in the Ghibe Valley. The main ILRI research output being taken up is how to use pour-ons in a village setting as an effective way to control trypanosomosis. The Bureau of Cooperative Promotion of the Southern Region has approved two farmer cooperatives for animal-health services in the Ghibe as licensed service cooperatives. Successful research prompts farmers to organize Ethiopia’s first communitymanaged animal-health services to ensure sustainable delivery two decades to develop, test and demonstrate effective methods of controlling tsetse fly populations, as well as to develop communitybased mechanisms for sustainably delivering animal-health services to control this and other livestock diseases. ILRI’s research has demonstrated that using socalled “pour-ons” — regularly administering a protective treatment by pouring pesticide along the backs of cattle — offers an effective way to control trypanosomosis and protect farmer incomes. This research-cum-control project was so successful that communities in the Ghibe Valley have recently begun to organize their own animal-health service cooperatives to ensure the sustainable delivery of this and related animal-health services. In recent years, representatives of the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural in its strategy to suppress tsetse populations in its Southern Trypanosomosis Eradication Ethiopian herders willingly pay for proven ways to protect their cattle from disease. ILRI International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia www.ilri.org 29 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IPGRI Applies a Light Touch to Weak Links The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) concluded the first phase of an ambitious project in 2005. The project, “Enhancing the contribution of neglected and underutilized crops to food security and to incomes of the rural poor,” perhaps the first of its kind conducted on a global scale, involves activities in eight countries that address the entire value chain, from conservation of genetic resources to cultivation by farmers, and on to food processing and final marketing to consumers. An evaluation for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), which supported the project, concluded that it “delivered very substantial value in return for the grant received.” The project met or exceeded its ambitious goals in too many ways to enumerate, but tracing the benefits that flowed from a single activity is instructive. In the Kolli Hills of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, the project worked through the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation with self-help groups established by farmers who had abandoned local millet varieties in favor of the cash crop cassava. Diets and health had suffered because millet is much more nutritious than the substitutes bought with the cash from cassava, and the sustainability of local farming systems was at risk. Research found that one reason farmers had abandoned millet was the long hours of hard labor required to process it for consumption. The project introduced to the self-help groups mini-mills that do in 10 minutes what had taken a woman 2 or 3 hours to do by hand. The mini-mills both reduced drudgery and spurred enterprise as families established themselves as specialist mini-millers. Paradoxically, laborsaving devices increased employment as the recommendations to accommodate the preferences of local farmers, whose needs often differ from those of an experimental farm. Farmers also learned to adapt the advice they received, and many who were not officially part of the project successfully emulated their neighbors. Constraints on growing underutilized crops may occur anywhere along the value chain, and simple solutions can be surprisingly effective ability to process millet for sale boosted demand, which farmers met by employing more farm labor. Family disposable income grew with higher grain sales and the savings that accrued as home-grown millet reduced household spending on food. Farmer demand for high-quality seed of specific varieties created opportunities for seed-producing specialists. In Bolivia, an IFAD evaluation noted the unforeseen benefits of partners’ working together. When people from the agroindustrial firms that process Andean grains such as quinoa met the farmers who grow them, they realized that one reason grain was delivered dirty and of poor quality — and so expensive to process — was that farmers harvested it onto the ground. The firms simply supplied farmers with tarpaulins and shared their processing savings with them, improving farmers’ income. Scientists also benefited. In India, university researchers learned to modify their “ideal” The evaluation had high praise for IPGRI’s “light touch” in managing a complex, global project and the professionalism of the regional implementing partners. Storing plant tissue in liquid nitrogen now conserves the genetic diversity of some underutilized crops. 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 30 International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) Headquarters: Rome, Italy www.ipgri.org IRRI Leads Information System Expansion The International Crop Information System leverages breeding progress across crops. Developing new crop varieties is becoming simpler, more efficient and less expensive thanks to the International Crop Information System (ICIS, http://icis.cgiar.org), a general information-management system for crop improvement. Early development arose from collaboration convened by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT by its Spanish acronym) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the 1990s. More recently, IRRI has led an expanded collaborative effort to develop ICIS as an opensource global public good for managing information in gene banks and seed inventories and for tracking intellectual property associated with germplasm transfer and use. The effort involves the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT by its Spanish acronym); national agricultural research systems in India, China, Philippines and Thailand; advanced agricultural research institutes in Australia, Canada and United States; and private sector companies in Australia, Netherlands and Singapore. Philippines and Thailand; CIAT for beans; ICARDA for barley and chickpea; and private companies in Europe, Australia and Asia for rice, wheat, canola and vegetables. ICIS operates by first being customized for a particular crop and breeding program and then managing information using system applications that track pedigree; manage nomenclature, characterization and evaluation; and permit the production of field books and reports facilitating selection and evaluation. The International Rice Information System (www.iris.cgiar.org) and the Global Wheat Information System (http://gwis.lafs.uq.edu.au) are examples of ICIS customized for rice and wheat. Having decided in 2005 to pursue an alliance in research informatics, IRRI and CIMMYT established in January 2006 a joint Crop Research Informatics Laboratory (CRIL) by amalgamating staff and new facilities at CIMMYT with an existing unit at IRRI. One major thrust of CRIL will be adapting and developing ICIS for use in the maize and wheat projects of CIMMYT and its partners. wheat and maize that will greatly facilitate breeding new crop varieties. The three staples provide 60 percent of global food needs and cover more than 70 percent of productive cropland. “After several years of talking about a common platform for developing new rice, wheat or maize varieties, we are now ready for realworld implementation,” says IRRI Director General Robert S. Zeigler. “Because all three are cereals and so share a range of common characteristics, this will reduce the time needed to develop new crop varieties and the cost. Particularly exciting is that this platform will be useful for other crops — often referred to as ’orphans’ — that have yet to benefit from significant investments in genomics research. And, as we expand our data coverage, research in areas such as natural resource management and climate change will benefit from our combined capacities.” CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH The International Crop Information System helps genetically improve major crops and provides a platform adaptable to minor ones Several partners around the world already use the system in cultivar improvement: IRRI for several rice projects in India, Indonesia, Scientists at the new joint facilities are developing a single crop information system and comparative biology infrastructure for rice, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Headquarters: Los Baños, Philippines www.irri.org 31 IWMI Wastes Not to Help Alleviate Want Recent surveys in 50 cities across Asia, Africa and Latin America show that wastewater irrigation is a common reality in three-quarters of them. Poor farmers in urban and peri-urban areas rely on untreated but nutrient-rich wastewater to grow cash crops for a living. Wastewater irrigation supports a quarter of all vegetable production in Pakistan and nourishes 60 -100 percent of the perishable vegetables consumed in most cities in most areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Wastewater irrigation provides jobs and incomes for traders who market the produce, input suppliers and other service providers. In sub-Saharan Africa, women in particular benefit, as in many African countries more than 95 percent of vegetable vendors are women. However, untreated wastewater carries many health risks. The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and partners in Africa and South Asia are looking at how wastewater can be safely used, maximizing the benefits of this resource while minimizing its risks to farm families and consumers. Research shows that washing vegetables with the correct salt solution, combined with appro- wastewater use in agriculture by reducing the risks associated with it. Subsequently, several publications appeared from IWMI, WHO and the authors of the new guidelines. IWMI became, with a panel of internationally recognized experts, further involved in formulating Where water is too precious to waste, ensuring the safety of wastewater irrigation protects farm families and consumers alike priate sanitation and hygiene, can reduce health risks. In addition, on-farm adaptations such as using safer irrigation techniques, improved shallow wells, low-tech water filters and sedimentation methods can help safeguard public health. The World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations developed guidelines for wastewater use in 1973 and 1989. These guidelines were influential in many developed countries, but IWMI research showed that they had much less impact in developing countries where using wastewater irrigation is an important livelihood strategy. In 2002, as WHO launched a review and revision of the guidelines, IWMI invited its representatives to an international workshop organized on the topic with Canada’s International Development Research Centre. The resulting joint Hyderabad Declaration on Wastewater Use in Agriculture recognized the value of wastewater to farmers in low-income countries and recommended improving the practice of the new guidelines through expert consultations. The guidelines will be finalized and launched in September 2006. Richard Carr, WHO project coordinator for the new guidelines from 1999 to 2005, reports that the guidelines were positively influenced by IWMI through the Hyderabad declaration and publications, correspondence and collaborative articles involving the Institute. “Because of IWMI, the guidelines include greater consideration of livelihood issues,” he adds. “They also benefited from practical studies of real-life situations with regard to vegetable washing, and from case studies in Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, India and other countries. The guidelines emphasize the beneficial aspects of wastewater for many poor communities, citing research conducted by IWMI in India, Pakistan, and other countries. The widespread use of wastewater in agriculture is highlighted, as is the need for practical ways to safeguard health protection measures that are applicable to low-resource settings.” Growing vegetables with wastewater offer benefits and pose risks, as in the market in Hyderabad. 32 International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Headquarters: Battaramulla, Sri Lanka www.iwmi.cgiar.org World Agroforestry Centre Sees the (Infrared) Light An infrared spectrometer cost-effectively scans soil samples in a simple lab in Mali. Infrared spectroscopy (IR) detects minute differences in soil composition and structure, providing precise, timely information about how to improve depleted soils and boost crop productivity. Scientists at the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), cooperating with private sector researchers at Analytical Spectral Devices of the United States and the German company Bruker Optik, have adapted the technology to African farm conditions. IR is currently being used in western Kenya as part of the Millennium Villages Project and in a World Bank initiative to halt land degradation and restore thousands of hectares of degraded farmland. Today, IR instruments the size of suitcases cost US$70,000, or little more than 5 percent of the cost of equipping a conventional soil analysis laboratory. Handheld IR units may be available within 3 years, allowing the technology to help farmers in much the same way that mobile phones provide service access without costly infrastructure. World Food Prize-winner Pedro Sanchez predicts that, within a decade, agricultural extension providers in many countries will be using handheld IR equipment as their principal tool for soil and plant analysis. “With IR, we have a tool that can collect data on soil quality and plant nutrition from thousands of locations, georeference it, and predict quickly and inexpensively how improved crop varieties will respond to fertilizer at a given location,” says Dr. Sanchez, director of the United Nations Millennium Project’s Hunger Task Force. does not require the costly chemicals used in conventional soil analysis. Tests have shown that IR is highly effective when used with global positioning systems and satellite sensing to produce inexpensive maps that can pinpoint areas with soil and plant nutrition problems. Keith Shepherd, project lead scientist, explains that a single IR instrument allows rural laboratories to analyze not only soils and crops, but also a range of agricultural inputs and products, including manure, animal feed, grain and tree products. He points out that the equipment is easy to maintain and operates at almost no cost, compared with more than $50 per sample in a conventional laboratory. CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH The effectiveness of the technique was first demonstrated in 2000 when ICRAF scientists discovered massive soil erosion pluming into Lake Victoria. The problem was all but unrecognized until IR made possible a cost-effective diagnostic survey. In a more recent test, IR pinpointed soil degradation in the 3,500square-kilometer basin of the Nyando River and helped Kenyan scientists set targets for a World Bank and Global Environment Facility initiative. IR equipment was recently installed in a rudimentary laboratory at Mali’s Institut d’Economie Rurale. IR technology is currently slated for use in India, Mozambique and Uganda. Where millions of farmers ply hand tools to prepare the soil, researchers envision widespread use of a hand tool with a difference IR uses light for rapid, nondestructive analyses of soil and plant materials. Reflectance from a soil sample is collected across a range of IR wavelengths to create a digital scan, from which a reflectance fingerprint is obtained, allowing technicians to detect multiple soil properties. The technique is fast and economical World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya www.worldagroforestrycentre.org 33 WorldFish Center Primes Farm Output with Ponds Integrated aquaculture and agriculture has boosted fish pond output in Malawi by more than elevenfold The southern African country of Malawi is one of the world’s poorest. This increasingly crowded country of 12.1 million people is prone to natural disasters, including both drought and flooding. Malnutrition is a leading cause of child mortality. Limited resources and low farm fertility are serious problems. The country’s single major natural resource, agricultural land, is under severe pressure as slash-and-burn cropping continues under rapid population growth, dramatically shortening fallow time for restoring exhausted soil. Many Malawians must strive to meet all their family needs with less than 1 hectare of land. To make that land more productive, the WorldFish Center, working with Malawi’s Department of Fisheries, has pioneered locally appropriate techniques of integrated aquaculture and agriculture (IAA), under which farmers set aside a small portion of their land for fish farming, recycling nutrients between ponds and fields to improve yields in both. In 1986, when WorldFish began its research and on-farm trials in Malawi, the country had only 400 fish farmers. Today it has more than 4,000. The spread of IAA has boosted fish pond output by tenfold nationally, from 90 tons per years to more than 1,000. Between 1996 and 2001, aquaculture productivity in individual ponds has improved by some 22 percent. In rural areas that practice IAA, child malnutrition has fallen by about 15 percent because farmers are able to feed their families fish with high-quality protein and essential micronutrients. Nationwide, per capita fish consumption has surged by a massive 160 percent. IAA farms are more productive, sustainable and profitable than traditional farms. Raising farm productivity by 10 percent, IAA has boosted farm income by 28 percent and technical efficiency by nearly half. The techniques used in IAA are simple and low-cost. Kitchen and farm wastes — including maize bran from the main traditional crop and manure from goats and chickens — provide food for fish species such as tilapia. Pond Recycling nutrients between fields and fish ponds boosts yields and sustainability in both, improving farm family nutrition and livelihood water is available in the dry season to irrigate maize, cabbage and tomatoes. Pond sediments make great fertilizers for crops, and some farmers have found that depleted ponds are good for growing rice. Farmers also grow cash crops like bananas and guava on the banks of their ponds. In addition to storing water for irrigation, ponds recharge local aquifers as water percolates through the soil. WorldFish has found that IAA farms in Malawi are 18 percent more productive under drought conditions than traditional farms. One reason for the scheme’s success has been its inclusive and participatory nature. The IAA project engages farmers directly, using resources readily available to them and recognizing their constraints. The return on investment has been an impressive 15 percent. In other words, every US$100 invested in developing and disseminating IAA generates an annual return of $115. IAA is being adopted by other countries in subSaharan Africa, notably Zambia, Mozambique, and Cameroon, promising to improve livelihoods and nutrition in a region where many live on only $1 a day. 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 34 WorldFish Center Headquarters: Penang, Malaysia www.worldfishcenter.org Spirit of Innovation The Spirit of Innovation informs the work of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) at every level and has driven the research of CGIAR Centers for over 3 decades. The reform program, which was initiated at the System level in 2001, has brought innovative change to the way the CGIAR does business. From the evolving Performance Measurement System, which promotes excellence in performance and accountability, to the System Office, which provides cost-effective services to Centers, and to the transparent governance of the Executive Council, innovation is central to the CGIAR. Possibly the most fundamental and innovative change has been the emergence and growth of the Challenge Programs. These are time-bound, independently governed programs of highimpact research for development that target the CGIAR’s goals regarding complex issues of overwhelming significance, either globally or regionally, and require partnerships combining a wide range of institutions to deliver their products. The four Challenge Programs currently under way are Generation, which uses plant genetic diversity and advanced genomics science to develop tools and technologies to enhance plant breeding programs; HarvestPlus, which evaluates needs and develops biofortification techniques to alleviate micronutrient malnutrition by breeding nutrient-dense staple foods; Sub-Saharan Africa, which aims to improve rural livelihoods, food security and sustainable natural resource management in subSaharan Africa; and Water and Food, which works to improve water productivity in agriculture to enhance rural livelihoods and leave more water available for other uses. 36 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Generation Challenge Program Delivers Products in Second Year The Generation Challenge Program uses plant genetic diversity and advanced genomics science to develop tools and technologies to enhance plant-breeding programs targeting poor farmers in marginal environments. In 2005, Generation’s second year of operation, its focus shifted from organizational underpinnings to implementing research activities. The research portfolio nearly doubled with the initiation of the first round of competitive grants — 17 projects funded for 3 years with about US$1 million each — and work began on a fresh round of commissioned projects. In total, Generation initiated 67 research projects and capacity-building activities in 2005. Generation’s partnerships also saw healthy growth in 2005. The Challenge Program now engages more than 30 national programs from developing countries and more than 25 advanced research institutes, in addition to its 18 consortium members comprising nine Future Harvest Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), five advanced research institutions, and four national agricultural research system institutes. With so many projects involving a wide range of experts, scientific achievements abounded in 2005. One commissioned project that systematically evaluates the world’s major rice mutant collections brings together the biggest players in the rice genomics arena to explore the functions of genes that control stress toler- ance attributes, such as drought resistance, in rice and other crops. Another project achieved an important breakthrough in 2005 by cloning the aluminum tolerance gene AltSB in sorghum. Both projects represent milestones in arming staple crops for better survival and yield in marginal environments. Many other exciting achievements are showcased in Generation’s first annual research highlights publication, available online at www.generationcp.org/brochure.php. Only two years into the Challenge Program, products are already being delivered. Thanks to a network of committed partners, Generation researchers now have access to the major sources of genetic diversity for all of the Challenge Program’s 22 mandated crops: Andean roots and tubers, barley, cassava, chickpea, coconut, cowpea, finger millet, forages, groundnut, lentil, maize, Musa (banana and plantain), pearl millet, Phaseolus (beans), pigeon pea, potato, rice, soybean, sorghum, sweet potato, wheat, and yam. Generation’s ized protocols and markers used to analyze the diversity of each crop — called microsatellite kits — allow researchers at any institution, anywhere in the world, to evaluate the genetic diversity of their germplasm collections or breeding material. In 2005, Generation also began developing a delivery strategy to ensure that all Generation products are delivered effectively to downstream researchers, who use them to develop products that improve poor farmers’ livelihoods. An expanding portfolio of projects addresses all 22 mandated crops and achieves notable progress in gene discovery and product delivery genotyping and analyses of these crops in 2004 and 2005 produced a massive set of data representing the most comprehensive look at crop genetic diversity ever. A key outcome has been reference sets of germplasm for all 22 crops that can be used directly by breeders as sources of new genetic alleles. The standardGeneration demonstrated in 2005 that, though it pioneers a new mode of operation for the CGIAR, the principles and spirit of the CGIAR remain at its core. 37 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH HarvestPlus Challenge Program Sets Targets According to Needs Sometimes the smallest things make a big difference. Lack of micronutrients in the diets of the poor compromises immune systems, hindering cognitive development in tens of thousands of children in the developing world each year and stunting the growth of millions of preschoolers. The goal of alleviating micronutrient malnutrition by breeding nutrientdense staple foods drives the HarvestPlus Challenge Program, a partnership of over 70 research and implementing institutions in agriculture and human nutrition. Eight Future Harvest Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) form the core of the HarvestPlus partnership, which interweaves expertise from the developing and developed worlds to produce, test and disseminate staple crops that are biofortified, or bred to grow rich in micronutrients. In 2005, its second year of operation, HarvestPlus made progress in screening and breeding for nutrient density while refining, publishing and sharing research protocols. consumption of staple foods. In 2005, plant breeders worked with nutritionists and impact specialists to establish targets for iron, zinc and provitamin A content in the principal staple food crops. Crop varieties show significant genetic variation regarding micronutrient content. The International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center has developed wheat varieties with elevated iron and zinc. Orange-fleshed varieties of sweet potato have proved to be reservoirs of beta-carotene, the building block of vitamin A. With support from HarvestPlus, the International Potato Center is breeding sweet potatoes to meet agronomic requirements and consumer preferences. Breeders at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT by its Spanish acronym) have substantially increased the iron content of beans, but whether the level will be high enough to improve human nutrition remains to be seen. The International Rice Research Institute found significant variation in the iron density of rice, the staple of many of the world’s undernour- cols for measuring nutrients when screening breeding materials. HarvestPlus has also developed protocols for measuring nutrient retention during processing and cooking. CIAT, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA by its Portuguese abbreviation) and many partners in national nutrition research institutions are addressing the retention of provitamin A in cassava, maize and orangefleshed sweet potato. Nine laboratory analysts from developing countries have been trained at the University of Campinas in Brazil to measure beta-carotene content in target crops. The results of the first efficacy trial for highiron rice in humans, published in the December 2005 issue of the Journal of Nutrition, provided proof of concept that biofortifed iron-rich rice raises blood iron levels. These results pave the way for intensifying iron biofortification in agronomically superior rice varieties. Protocols for measuring micronutrient levels in staple crop breeding materials, and in prepared foods, help ensure that targets are met Nutritional needs must guide breeding targets. In other words, targets must be high enough to measurably improve human health. They must consider micronutrient retention after processing and cooking, nutrient bioavailability once consumed, and target populations’ average ished, but much of the iron is lost when rice is polished to commercial standards. Accurately measuring nutrient density requires standard protocols. HarvestPlus nutritionists and breeders have developed standard proto- 38 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program Ready to Enter Implementation Phase The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program (SSA-CP) is hosted by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, the apex organization for agricultural research on the continent. The Challenge Program’s geographical focus is on sub-Saharan Africa, where it aims to improve rural livelihoods, heighten food security, and promote sustainable natural resource management to meet the broad goal of reducing poverty and hunger in the region. It will achieve this by transforming the way agricultural research institutions in Africa do business, thus validating a new paradigm called integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D). SSA-CP’s 18-month inception phase ends in June 2006. The Challenge Program has recently completed strategic and medium-term plans and will enter the 5-year implementation phase as soon as the Science Council gives approval to proceed. SSA-CP will operate at the landscape level at pilot learning sites in which “innovation platforms” will focus on problems and opportunities. Innovation platforms are creative spaces that enable collaboration by bringing together in one location a broad group of relevant actors Zimbabwe through central Mozambique to southern Malawi. Each site presents different problems, opportunities and settings that represent much larger constituencies in Africa. Necessary institutional Innovation platforms in three African pilot learning sites will enable collaborative research on enhancing productivity and livelihoods Three subregional pilot learning sites have been selected for the first phase: West-central Africa: Kano-Katsina-Maradi (Niger and Nigeria); East Africa: Lake Kivu (Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda); and Southern Africa: a transect from northeastern Some important lessons that emerged during the inception phase will guide future implementation of SSA-CP, in keeping with the IAR4D philosophy of “learning by doing.” Capacity building is needed so that broad partnerships can form and function effectively in pilot learning teams and as actors in innovation platforms. It is also apparent that the competitive grant approach is not the most suitable option, as it necessarily excludes proposals from weaker teams who can benefit most from capacity building and support. Expressions of interest have come mainly from research organizations, leaving for-profit and development organizations underrepresented. The Challenge Program must adopt a more proactive and targeted approach to appeal to these sectors. 39 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH such as farmers, pastoralists, rural communities, researchers, extension agents, development specialists, traders and processors, wholesalers and retailers, policymakers, regulators, and consumers. Institutional arrangements at innovation platforms facilitate effective, efficient, targeted research for development, as well as the uptake and dissemination of innovations that deliver the benefits demanded by end users. Innovations are usually productivity-enhancing technologies, processes and approaches, but they may include marketing strategies, improved approaches to achieving food and nutritional security and income generation, or more enabling policies and institutional arrangements based on scientific evidence. arrangements and management structures are in place at each site, including diverse pilot learning teams, and capacity-building activities have begun. Calls for concept notes under a competitive grant scheme went out for each site, and projects have been selected. Challenge Program on Water and Food Addresses Water Productivity and Policy The Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) is a multi-institutional, researchbased initiative that aims to improve water productivity in agriculture to enhance rural livelihoods and leave more water available for other users and environmental conservation. In 2005, CPWF diversified its research portfolio and welcomed several new partner institutions. In addition to ongoing first-call projects, new basin focal projects, small grants to broaden impact, synthesis research and collecting case study evidence to show the considerable payoffs offered by systems of multiple water use. In all cases, the stage has been set to use established partnerships to create new knowledge in the area of water for food. Basin focal projects — designed to conduct basin-wide analyses of agricultural water use and identify strategic opportunities for alleviating poverty by improving such use — have water-holding capacity; market-based approaches to raising on-farm water productivity; farmer-to-farmer exchange and farmer-led experimentation; and best practices for outscaling successful strategies. Progress was also made in the area of synthesis research. This component of the program brings together outputs from a broad range of work to draw out new insights to make available as international public goods. Using inputs from theme leaders and basin coordinators, the first program synthesis document will be released in 2006. Building on its research portfolio, CPWF started its capacity-building strategy in earnest. Researchers in developing countries were identified as the primary target group for capacity building, and an initial needs assessment of Mekong River basin organizations was completed in November 2005. Activities in nine benchmark river basins, including impact and synthesis research and capacity building, advance program objectives capacity-building activities are now producing results that advance CPWF objectives. CPWF is currently active in nine benchmark basins in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Thirty-three first-call projects, as well as three others, have made great strides during the first phase of research. Highlights include working with farmers to improve the efficiency with which rainwater and soil nutrients are used by a variety of crops and retained in the soil; using water-accounting methods to increase water productivity in livestock rearing and to determine where in integrated systems water can be freed for other uses; demonstrating how multistakeholder platforms can bring water policy and policymaking into the public domain; and moved beyond the inception phase and are currently being executed in the basins of the Karkheh (Iran), Mekong (Indochina), Sao Francisco (Brazil) and Volta (West Africa). The projects have established a set of methodological guidelines, opening the way for additional projects in another six basins by the end of 2006. During the last quarter of 2005, CPWF awarded small grants to broaden the impact of 14 new projects and associated partners. Projects were selected according to their ability to identify existing small-scale or local agricultural watermanagement strategies or technologies with potential to improve agricultural water productivity on a wider scale. The range of technologies and knowledge being investigated cover surface water, groundwater, runoff and rainwater harvesting; water storage and distribution techniques; training women to increase soil’s 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Improving water-use efficiency in the Volta Basin. 40 Performance Measurement: Established and Evolving The new Performance Measurement System of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was piloted for 1 year and is now a regular feature of the Monitoring and Evaluation System of the CGIAR. Centers are measured in terms of their results, their potential to perform in the future, and the perceptions of stakeholders (CGIAR Members and Center partners) about Center performance (see table 1). The following is a snapshot of the results from the Performance Measurement exercise for 2005. Research Outcomes. Centers reported their five most significant research outcomes — in terms of partners’, stakeholders’ or clients’ using, adopting or being influenced by an output — that came to fruition in 2005 as the result of outputs that the Center produced in 2002-2004. Some of the outcomes are reported in the chapters of this report focusing on individual Centers. Culture of Impact Assessment. Impacts are the long-range social, environmental and economic benefits of a Center’s research that are consistent with CGIAR goals and the Center’s mission and objectives. While these impacts certainly cannot be measured annually, a prerequisite for positive research impact are a Center’s ex post impact assessment activities, outputs and outcomes, particularly related to (i) ex post impact assessment studies, (ii) innovation in and advancement of ex post impact After a year of piloting, the Performance Measurement System is now fully operational, while remaining open to improvement assessment, (iii) communication and dissemination and capacity enhancement, and (iv) impact culture. The Science Council therefore assessed Centers’ overall impact assessment performance on a scale of 0-10, based on reports from Centers using the four criteria above. The results show that there is scope to further develop the practice and culture of impact assessment throughout the System (see figure 1). Table 1. Performance Measurement Indicators Results Outputs Outcomes Impacts CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Potential to Perform Quality and Relevance of Current Research Institutional Health Financial Health Stakeholder Perceptions (the survey was in progress as this report was prepared) Figure 1. Overall Impact Assessment Performance (0-10) 10 9 8 7.7 7 6 5 4 3.8 3 2 1 0 5.6 4.6 4.2 6.5 6.4 5.9 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.2 Average 6.0 5.9 5.5 A ca fri Ri ce CI AT R YT FO M CI M I C CI P IC AR DA IC RI T SA IFP RI A IIT ILR I IP GR I IR RI IW M I r o of re st ry or W ld Fis h ld or W Ag 41 Quality and Relevance of Current Research and Publications. One of the indicators of research quality is the number of peer-reviewed publications. On average, each Center scientist published slightly more than two peer-reviewed articles, books or book chapters in 2005, which holds up to publication standards in comparative research institutes (see figure 2). However, it is also apparent that Center research programs should be not only of high scientific quality but also of high relevance to clients. This is reflected by almost half of all publications being co-authored with partners from developing countries, in many cases by partners working in national agricultural research systems. Institutional Health. The institutional health of a Center is assessed by measures of diversity, culture of learning and change, and governance. The following provides some insight on each of the three components. Diversity. Diversity is a vital asset of the CGIAR and constitutes a critical pillar for continued research and management excellence. The Performance Measurement System therefore tracks measures of diversity in terms of nationality, gender and the renewal of expertise. Figure 3 shows the percentage of management positions occupied by women. Culture of Learning and Change. The Centers’ culture of learning and change is another critical element for continued research excellence. This includes Center investment in staff training; the use of modern staff performance-management systems; regular external reviews of the Center’s research program, management and governance (including an effective follow-up); and effective preservation of institutional memory, among other factors. 2005 ANNUAL REPORT The following illustrates some of the efforts that Centers make as they strive for excellence: All Centers have regularly conducted Center-commissioned external reviews of their programs. In the case of nine Centers, more than 50 percent of the program budget was covered by such reviews in the past 3 years. All Centers invest in staff development by supporting staff members’ attendance at international conferences and professional society meetings, and also through training in leadership, project management, software, etc. Three Centers valued staff development particularly highly, as it received more than 4 percent of the total Center budget. Governance. Governance is a third important pillar for assessing Center performance. Good governance entails (i) effective organization and management of board business, (ii) full board engagement with their Center’s strategic business, and (iii) transparency and accountability. The following demonstrates some of the good governance mechanisms in place at Centers: Figure 2. Number of Peer-Reviewed Publications per Scientist in 2005 3.5 3.37 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.66 1.43 1.17 1.23 0.82 3.05 3.05 2.72 2.48 2.27 2.31 2.43 Average 2.10 1.78 1.72 A ca fri Ri ce R YT AT FO CI M CI M I C CI P IC AR DA IC RI T SA IFP RI A IIT ILR I IP GR I RI IR IW M I o of re st ry ld or W Fis h ld or W Ag r Figure 3. Percentage of Mangement Positions Held by Women as of 31 December 2005 100 90 80 70 60 40% 40% 50 40 35 30 39% 36% 30% 26% 30% 33% 21% 15% 20 15 10 5 0 20% 25 23% 12% 13% A c fri a Ri ce AT CI CI FO R M CI M YT CI P T DA SA AR RI IC IC IFP RI A IIT ILR I IP GR I R IR I IW or W M I 42 ld re fo ro Ag st ry or W ld h Fis 21% Average 27% 58 87 99 93 77 61 422 2004 2005 400 Conclusion. The CGIAR Performance Measurement System has proven to be a useful tool for decision-making and performance management by the Centers, CGIAR Members and the CGIAR System as a whole. It continues to be a work in progress as, over time, knowledge expands regarding the reliability, validity and usefulness of particular indicators. 300 144 143 121 124 122 121 162 200 100 50 74 58 87 63 47 82 Recommended range is 75-90 days 0 A ca fri Ri ce R YT AT FO CI M CI M I C CI P A IC RD A R IC IS AT IFP RI A IIT 1 ILR I IP GR I IR RI IW ld or W 2 M I r o of re st ry ld or W Fis h Ag 1 ILRI indicators for 2004 were re-computed to exclude investment in subsidiary. 2 IWMI data are not comparable between 2004 and 2005. The 2004 data included components of the Challenge Program on Water and Food that were implemented by other Centers and Partners, while in 2005 these data were excluded. 43 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Financial Health. Financial Health in 2005 is measured in terms of short-term solvency (liquidity, defined as current assets plus long-term investment minus current liabilities, divided by per-day operating expenses excluding depreciation) and long-term financial stability (adequacy of reserves, defined as unrestricted net assets less net fixed assets, divided by per-day operating expenses). Figures 4 and 5 show results from these two standard indicators for the past 2 years. In addition, two more indicators are being piloted in 2006 to measure the financial health of Centers: (i) indirect cost ratio and (ii) cash management on restricted operations. 0 54 79 95 Af r ica Ri ce R YT AT FO CI M CI M I C CI P I R CA DA IC S RI AT IFP RI A IIT 1 ILR I IP GR I IR RI IW ld or W 91 96 In all Centers, the board implements clear policies for appointing and rotating external auditors. In all Centers, risk management and establishing adequate risk-management systems have become important matters explicitly overseen by the board. Center boards increasingly recognize as vital their continued involvement in policy development regarding, for example, human resource policy and fiscal oversight. In light of increasing transparency, policy governing the compensation structure of five Centers allows for the compensation structure to be publicly accessible. Figure 4 Liquidity in Days of Expenditure 490 500 2004 422 2005 400 287 280 300 216 231 230 277 138 152 160 162 208 Recommended range is 90 -120 days 124 124 2 200 205 175 191 100 112 M I r o of re st ry or W ld Fis h Ag Figure 5 Solvency (Reserves) in Days of Expenditure 500 490 207 224 271 174 112 91 92 95 91 65 71 92 94 203 Executive Council: Guiding and Facilitating The Executive Council (ExCo) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) had a substantial agenda in 2005, helping to steer the reform program and providing oversight to bring clarity and coherence to the System. Key activities and achievements include the following: CGIAR System Priorities. ExCo facilitated developing System Priorities by providing feedback to the Science Council and endorsing the priorities, which were approved by the CGIAR at the 2005 Annual General Meeting (AGM05). Monitoring and Evaluation. ExCo discussed two external program and management reviews (of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and the International Food Policy Research Institute) and made recommendations stemming from them, which were endorsed by the CGIAR. ExCo also followed up on recommendations from previous reviews. It reviewed pilot-year 2004 results of the CGIAR’s new Performance Measurement System, recommending refinements. Developed under ExCo’s guidance, the system has filled a major vacuum in terms of annually reporting perform- ExCo is a 21-member subsidiary group of the CGIAR that incorporates perspectives from all components of the CGIAR System. As stipulated in the CGIAR Charter, ExCo’s main functions include acting on behalf of the CGIAR between AGMs on matters delegated to it by the CGIAR; facilitating CGIAR decision making by reviewing issues and submitting recommendations for CGIAR consideration; providing oversight as CGIAR decisions are implemented; reviewing, extending or curtailing the terms of the CGIAR committees; and considering how the CGIAR could improve its dialogue with civil society and the private sector. ExCo meets twice annually in May and October, conducting business the rest of the year by telephone and email, with regular support from the CGIAR Secretariat and, as needed, from ad hoc committees, study groups and task forces it establishes. ExCo makes recommendations and reports to the CGIAR at AGMs and through e-mail updates. task forces established to study alignment needs and options. Engagement with Civil Society. ExCo facilitated the development of a new strategic framework paper for strengthening the CGIAR’s engagement with civil society organizations reviewed proposals from a task force established to explore mechanisms to fund the System Priorities and activities of the Science Council and its secretariat. An ExCo ad hoc committee will facilitate donor coordination in funding the System Priorities. Administrative Issues. ExCo concluded a study, initiated in 2003, on making compensation in Centers more transparent and coherent. It also facilitated, through an ad hoc committee, identifying CGIAR nominees to serve on Center boards. Reflecting Members’ appreciation of ExCo contributions in 2005, 75 percent of them “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that “decision making by the CGIAR at AGM05 was facilitated by ExCo’s guidance and recommendations.” Contributions in 2005 address System priorities, performance measurement, alignment in sub-Saharan Africa and engaging civil society ance data and has been a useful tool for both Members and Centers. Programmatic and Structural/ Organizational Alignment. ExCo has facilitated ongoing programmatic and organizational alignment in sub-Saharan Africa, starting with the set of recommendations made by the two (CSOs). The proposed CSO forum at AGM06 is expected to further strengthen CGIAR ties with civil society. Finance and Governance. ExCo reviewed financial results for 2004 and program and budget plans for 2006, receiving CGIAR approval of its recommendations. ExCo also 44 2005 ANNUAL REPORT CGIAR System Office: Services Provided In 2005, the System Office of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) provided a wide variety of services to Members and Centers as well as to other stakeholders. The following is a snapshot of key initiatives in 2005 and other highlights of the eight units of the System Office. CGIAR System priorities. The Science Council Secretariat played a key supportive role in preparing the Science Council report System Priorities for CGIAR Research 20052015, which the CGIAR endorsed at the 2005 Annual General Meeting. The priorities will help guide the CGIAR’s research directions over the next decade. The secretariats of the Science Council and CGIAR are now working together to prepare the ground for the priorities’ implementation. Center collective action. With assistance on legal matters provided through the CGIAR Secretariat, the Future Harvest Alliance Office (FHAO) facilitated developing Alliance principles and procedures, including the functions of the Alliance Board and the Alliance Executive. This reflects a major development in facilitating collective action by the Centers. It also brings greater clarity to the role and responsibilities of the FHAO. agreed process for identifying and nominating CGIAR nominees to Center boards. The first two pilot cycles were completed in 2005, identifying 11 individuals as new CGIAR nominees to serve on Center boards. The process is continuing on a pilot basis for a second year in 2006. Ties with civil society and the private sector. Activities for strengthening the CGIAR’s rela- The multifaceted System Office facilitates better coordination among Centers, improves their operations, and enhances the System’s external links CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CGIAR nominees to Center boards. In collaboration with the Alliance Board, the CGIAR Secretariat began to implement the CGIAR- tionship with civil society organizations (CSOs) and the private sector included the following: Developing a new strategic framework for strengthening CGIAR engagement with CSOs. The draft paper Toward a Strategic Framework for Engagement Between the CGIAR and Civil Society Organizations was discussed by the Executive Council and the CGIAR. Further consultations with CSOs will follow. Launching the Scientific Knowledge Exchange Program (SKEP) between the CGIAR and the private sector. A first exchange between the International Food Policy Research Institute and Bayer CropScience took place in 2005. System Office Units CGIAR Secretariat Science Council Secretariat Central Advisory Service for Intellectual Property Chief Information Office Future Harvest Alliance Office Gender and Diversity Program Internal Audit Unit Strategic Advisory Service for Human Resources Unit Heads Francisco Reifschneider Ruben Echeverria Victoria Henson-Apollonio Enrica Porcari Meryl Williams to October 2005, then Geoff Hawtin (interim) Vicki Wilde John Fitzsimon vacant 45 Holding a senior CGIAR-private sector meeting in Washington, DC, on 30 September 2005. Among the participants were the CGIAR chair and director, seven Center directors, and executives from the private sector, including Bayer CropScience, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Syngenta, Monsanto and Emergent Genetics. Both the SKEP and the CGIAR-private sector meeting were designed and implemented through close collaboration of the Private Sector Committee, CGIAR Secretariat, Centers and FHAO. Gaining System-Wide Efficiencies. Support from the Information and Communication and Knowledge Management Program and the chief information officer, who oversees it, brought about CGXchange, an integrated intranet/extranet system that spans the CGIAR’s 15 Centers and beyond, giving more than 8,500 scientists and staff members the opportunity to come together as a unified system, regardless of their location. In addition, the chief information officer helped the CGIAR System save US$2.7 million over the last 3 years through joint purchasing. Inclusive Workplace Resource Center. The Gender and Diversity Program created the Inclusive Workplace e-Resource Center, which allows better sharing throughout the System of best recommendations for policies and practices essential for good staff management in multicultural organizations. The Center includes new and improved guidelines for diversity-positive recruitment; preventing harassment and discrimination; spouse, partner and family issues; HIV/AIDs; flexible workplace; and many more tips and tools for Centers and stakeholders. Center Intellectual Property Management. The Central Advisory Service on Intellectual Property continued to foster Center capacity in intellectual property (IP) management in 2005 with activities that included organizing regular exchanges among IP practitioners at Centers and providing legal advice to Centers on IP issues. Broadening the Internal Audit. In 2005, the Internal Audit Unit conducted or managed audits covering some new, untraditional areas and provided examples of how it can add value to Center operations and help verify risk-mitigation plans reflected in Center risk analyses. Audited areas included occupational health and safety in offices, laboratories, workshops, food and housing facilities, and experimental farms; resource mobilization strategies; research pipeline management; and publications performance data. This is only a sample of activities conducted by the System Office in 2005. The full Annual Report of the System Office can be found at www.cgiar.org/soar/2005/index.html. 46 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Executive Summary of the 2005 CGIAR Financial Results The 2005 financial results reported here are based on the audited financial statements of the 15 Centers and four Challenge Programs supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The aggregation, analyses and reports, including this summary, were produced through a joint collaborative effort between the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the CGIAR Secretariat. The IRRI team was led by Kwame Akuffo-Akoto and included Loriza E. Dagdag and Rodelita D. Panergalin. 48 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Executive Summary of the 2005 CGIAR Financial Results Compliance with Financial Guidelines Table A Summary of 2005 CGIAR Approved Program vs Actual Outcome Table B Top Contributors for 2004 and 2005 Figure 1 CGIAR Funding Figure 2 Expenditure by Center Figure 3 Expenditure by Object Figure 4 Expenditure by Output Figure 5 Expenditure by Region Table 1 CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights, 2001-2005 Table 2 CGIAR Funding to the Research Agenda by Member Group, 1972 -2005 Table 3 Results of Operation by Center, 2004 -2005 Table 4 Center Finances, 2005 Table 5 CGIAR System Financial Position, 2001-2005 50 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 57 58 59 60 Compliance with Financial Guidelines The Future Harvest Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) are institutions governed by their respective boards of trustees. To ensure transparency and consistency in financial practices and the presentation of financial information, the Centers are required to follow financial guidelines approved by the membership. Developed by the CGIAR Secretariat with the input of Center finance personnel and external financial experts, these guidelines aim to bring CGIAR financial practices into conformity with those generally accepted worldwide. As part of the annual review of substantive financial performance, and in keeping with practice established in 2004, a peer group of finance directors has reviewed the 2005 externally audited financial statements of the Centers to assess their compliance with CGIAR accounting policies and reporting guidelines, and to validate the analysis underpinning the CGIAR financial report. The guidelines CGIAR Accounting Policies and Reporting Practices Manual were recently updated to reflect international financial reporting standards. The peer review also made a number of recommendations to promote best practice in fiduciary management and financial reporting. Another mechanism to strengthen accountability in the CGIAR is a joint CGIAR Secretariat/Centers initiative to strengthen internal auditing by providing strategic internal audit advice and services to the Centers. The Internal Audit Unit is part of the System Office. In 2004, three Centers joined the consortium, bringing to 13 the number of Centers participating in this initiative. By the end of 2005, the two remaining centers had committed to joining the consortium. 50 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Executive Summary of the 2005 CGIAR Financial Results Members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) support the CGIAR Centers and programs of their choice. The 2005 financial outcome, reported here in US dollars, is an aggregation of the audited financial statements of the 15 Centers and the four Challenge Programs supported by the CGIAR. Overview In 2005 the CGIAR achieved a positive financial result. Total resources (funding and earned income) reached $460 million in 2005 compared with $453 million in 2004, an increase of $7 million or approximately 2 percent. Of the total resources available in 2005, $450 million represented contributions from Members and nonmembers, an increase of $13 million (3 percent) over 2004, and the remaining $10 million was Center earned income. Meanwhile, expenditure in 2005 reached $452 million, an increase of $27 million (6 percent) over 2004. The difference between resources and expenditure was an excess of financing over expenditure of $8 million, which was added to reserves. This compares with $28 million added to reserves in 2004. The $13 million increase in funding resulted from a $16 million increase for Challenge Programs (84 percent over 2004), which was offset by a reduction of $3 million in support to Centers. This result affected the financial indicators for liquidity and reserves for the System as whole. Although reserves expanded by $8 million in absolute terms, their adequacy indicator dropped slightly at the System level, from 145 days of operations to 137 days. The liquidity indicator also dropped, from 170 days to 163 days. The drop in these two indicators is largely explained by the higher rate of growth in expenditure (6 percent) over that of resources (2 percent). Centers continued to make progress in improving their efficiency of operations. This improvement was attributed to an increase in collaboration with partners and decreasing indirect costs. The share of resources going to collaborators as a percentage of total expenditure increased from 14 percent to 16 percent, while the indirect cost ratio fell from 24 percent to 21 percent at the System level. Background The financial statements were reviewed and aggregated according to fiduciary management and reporting standards approved by the CGIAR to guide the Centers in these areas. Additional information on financial compliance is on page 50. Overall Financial Outcome The positive outcome for 2005 ensured that the overall CGIAR financial position remained strong at the end of the year. Table A summarizes the approved CGIAR program and the outcome for 2005 by its major components, with actual outcome in 2004 for comparison. Highlights of the System’s 2005 financial performance are shown in table 1, with information for the previous 4 years for comparison. Contributions to Centers and Programs The year 2005 showed a further increase in aggregate contributions to the System. Contributions to Centers and programs totaled $450 million compared with $437 million in 2004, an increase of $13 million (3 percent). Unrestricted contributions remained unchanged from the $195 million of 2004. Restricted contributions totaled $255 million compared with $242 million in 2004, an increase of $13 million (5 percent). Table 2 provides a schedule of contributions for 1972-2005 by Member. As shown in figure 1, the increase in contributions in 2005 came from two groups: Europe increased by $15.5 million (9 percent) and North America by $4.5 million (5 percent). In contrast, contributions from the other groups decreased, most significantly from the Pacific Rim, with Japan reducing its contribution by about 20 percent. Many of the European 51 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Table A. Summary of 2005 CGIAR Approved Program vs Actual Outcome (millions of US dollars) Actual 2004 Outcome Expenditure Centers Challenge Programs Total expenditure Financing Funding Centers Challenge Programs Subtotal funding Earned income Total financing Carried forward for future use Actual 2005 Outcome 417 25 10 452 2005 Plan Approved at AGM04 439 25 464 –[ –[ Centers Partners 406 14 5 425 Centers Partners 418 14 5 437 16 453 28 415 25 10 450 10 460 8 416 41 457 7 464 Members make their contributions in their national currency, which Centers then convert into US dollars. In 2005, these currencies generally weakened against the US dollar, as did the yen, further reducing the Japanese contribution in dollar terms. The impact of exchange rate movements on 2005 contributions was a net loss of about $2.4 million, compared with a gain of $4 million in 2004. Fifteen contributors accounted for approximately 77 percent of contributions for the research agenda in 2005. The United States of America, contributing $54.8 million, was the 2005 ANNUAL REPORT single largest contributor, followed by the World Bank ($50.0 million) and the United Kingdom ($44.2 million). The top five contributors held the same rankings as in 2004. Table B shows the top contributors in 2005 and 2004. Resource Allocation Total CGIAR expenditure in 2005 of $452 million was 6 percent higher than in 2004. The following summarizes expenditure by Center and resource allocation at the System level by (i) object, (ii) output, and (iii) region. Distribution among Centers: Figure 2 shows the distribution of expenditure by Center in 2005. Expenditure by Object: Personnel costs, at 45 percent, were unchanged in 2005, as shown in figure 3. However, total staffing increased from 7,791 to 7,874. Expenditure by Output: Illustrative allocations based on the 2005 financing plan ratios by the five CGIAR output — germplasm improvement, germplasm collection, sustainable production, policy and enhancing national 52 Figure 1. CGIAR Funding (millions of US dollars) 200 197 181 150 2004 2005 agricultural research systems (NARS) — remained about the same in 2005 as in 2004 (table 4). Expenditure by Region: Illustrative allocations by region using the 2005 financing plan ratios appear in figure 5, which confirms that there were no major shifts between 2004 and 2005. 100 87 50 40 37 26 24 0 Europe Pacific Rim North America 91 73 72 Center Perspectives The growth noted at the System level reflects a range of outcomes at individual Centers. Total contributions increased for 8 Centers compared with 12 in 2004. Five Centers, (Africa Rice, CIAT, CIFOR, ICARDA and IFPRI) had increases of between 10 and 17 percent. Three Centers (ICRISAT, IPGRI and World Agroforestry) had increases of below 5 percent. Contributions to seven Centers were lower. CIMMYT, CIP, IITA, ILRI, IWMI 1 and WorldFish had reductions of 10 percent or less, while IRRI had a 12 percent reduction. Operational results (contributions plus earned income, less expenditure) show that 10 Centers ended the year with resources higher than expenditure compared with 14 in 2004. As a percentage of total resources, four Centers (Africa Rice, CIMMYT, IITA and ILRI) had resources more than 5 percent higher than expenditure, six Centers (CIP, ICARDA, ICRISAT, 17 15 Developing countries International and regional organizations 13 14 Foundations Non-members Table B. Top Contributors for 2004 and 2005 (millions of US dollars) 2004 Industrialized Countries and Multilateral Organizations United States of America 54.2 United States of America World Bank 50.0 World Bank United Kingdom 35.3 United Kingdom Canada 32.5 Canada European Commission 26.3 European Commission Developing Countries Nigeria India Brazil China South Africa 2005 54.8 50.0 44.2 36.4 30.6 4.6 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.0 Nigeria Colombia Mexico India China 3.2 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.0 1 IWMI data are not comparable between 2004 and 2005. The 2004 data included components of the Challenge Program on Water and Food that were implemented by other Centers and Partners, while in 2005 these data were excluded. 53 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Figure 2. Expenditure by Center (millions of US dollars) 50 40 30 20 IPGRI, IWMI2 and World Agroforestry) had surpluses below 5 percent. Five Centers incurred deficits. Three of these (CIAT, CIFOR and IFPRI) had deficits of 5 percent or less, while two had deficits above 10 percent (IRRI 19 percent and WorldFish 13 percent). Table 3 provides 2005 and 2004 results of operations by Center and for the System as a whole, including results for that portion of Challenge Programs implemented by CGIAR partners. Table 4 provides an overview of System finances (expenditure allocations and revenue) for 2005. Table 5 summarizes the System’s overall financial position for the years 2001- 2005. Summary of Challenge Programs 10 0 CIAT IITA IFPRI CIMMYT IPGRI IRRI ILRI World ICARDA ICRISAT Agroforestry IWMI CIP CIFOR WorldFish Africa Rice Figure 3. Expenditure by Object 2004 Travel 8% Depreciation 4% Personnel 45% Collaboration & partnerships 16% 2005 Travel 8% Depreciation 4% Personnel 45% Collaboration & partnerships 14% The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program, which was approved at the 2004 Annual General Meeting with funding of $2.3 million, became in 2005 the fourth Challenge Program. In 2005, $38 million was available for Challenge Programs compared with $37 million in 2004. Of that amount, $35 million was spent compared with $19 million in 2004. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation increased its support to HarvestPlus from $7 million to almost $9 million. Table 6 summarizes Challenge Program resources and expenditure. Supplies & services 29% Supplies & services 27% 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 2 See Footnote 1. 54 Figure 4. Expenditure by Output 2004 Enhancing NARS 20% Germplasm improvement 17% 2005 Enhancing NARS 20% Germplasm improvement 17% 2005 Progress Report on Requested Action Plans Germplasm collection 12% Germplasm collection 12% Policy 16% Sustainable production 35% Policy 18% Sustainable production 33% Following the review of 2004 performance indicators (liquidity and reserves), the Executive Council requested seven Centers to submit action plans to address deficiencies in their performance indicators. Four of the Centers (Africa Rice, CIAT, CIMMYT and IWMI3), were cited for indicators that were near or below CGIAR recommended minimum targets. At the end of 2005, all cited Centers except CIAT showed progress towards meeting the targets. Africa Rice now has reserves within the recommended range, and the reserves of IWMI and CIMMYT, though still lagging, showed an improvement over 2004. 2004 Central and West Asia & North Africa 9% Sub-Saharan Africa 47% 2005 Central and West Asia & North Africa 10% Sub-Saharan Africa 46% Latin America & Caribbean 12% Latin America & Caribbean 14% On the other hand, three Centers (IRRI, WorldFish and ILRI) were considered in 2004 to have excessive reserves. In 2005, IRRI and WorldFish made progress in reducing their reserves, while ILRI’s positive operating results increased its reserves. Conclusion The 2005 results show an improvement in CGIAR finances in the aggregate. As in the last several years, however, there was significant variability in financial performance among the 15 Centers according to several indicators of financial health. This suggests a need for continued vigilance both at the Center and System level. Asia 32% Asia 30% 3 See Footnote 1. 55 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Figure 5. Expenditure by Region Table 1. CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights, 2001-2005 ACTUAL Center income (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding (of which unrestricted) Earned Income Total revenue Member funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe Pacific Rim North America Developing countries International and regional organizations Foundations Subtotal Non-members Total Top three contributors 2001 337 43% 16 353 2002 357 44% 14 371 2003 381 44% 17 398 2004 437 45% 16 453 2005 450 43% 10 460 131 38 57 13 64 12 314 23 337 USA World Bank Japan 147 26 66 12 69 13 332 25 357 USA World Bank United Kingdom 161 24 76 12 70 12 355 25 381 USA World Bank E.C. 181 26 87 17 73 13 396 40 437 USA World Bank United Kingdom 197 24 91 15 72 14 413 37 450 USA World Bank United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited staff Support staff Total Agenda program expenditure by output1 Germplasm improvement Germplasm collection Sustainable production Policy Enhancing NARS Total (millions of US dollars) Object of expenditure Personnel costs Supplies & services Collaboration & partnerships Travel Depreciation Expenditure by region Sub-Saharan Africa Asia Latin America & the Caribbean Central and West Asia & North Africa Result of operations [Surplus /(deficit) in US$m] Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excluding fixed assets Liquidity indicators Working capital (days expenditure) Current ratio Adequacy of reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) Capital expenditure / depreciation Efficiency of operations indicator Indirect cost ratio Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 1 Starting in 2003 the research agenda is presented in terms of output. 1,013 7,477 8,490 1,060 6,699 7,759 1,065 6,837 7,902 1,063 6,728 7,791 1,100 6,774 7,874 18% 10% 36% 14% 22% 355 49% 40% 7% 4% 43% 31% 16% 9% (1.7) 100 129 1.9 107 15.9 104% 18% 10% 35% 15% 22% 381 49% 40% 7% 4% 43% 33% 15% 9% (9.6) 96 125 1.8 96 9.3 65% 17% 11% 34% 16% 22% 395 46% 31% 12% 7% 4% 45% 32% 14% 9% 3.2 127 151 1.8 124 9.7 63% 17% 12% 35% 16% 20% 425 45% 29% 14% 8% 4% 47% 32% 12% 9% 28.0 156 170 1.9 145 15.5 90% 24% 0.68 17% 12% 33% 18% 20% 452 45% 27% 16% 8% 4% 46% 30% 14% 10% 8.0 158 163 1.9 137 15.8 101% 21% 0.83 56 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Table 2. CGIAR Funding to the Research Agenda by Member Group, 1972-2005 (millions of US dollars) MEMBERS Europe Austria Belgium Denmark European Commission Finland France Germany Ireland Israel Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Subtotal North America Canada United States of America Subtotal Pacific Rim Australia Japan Korea, Republic of New Zealand Subtotal Developing countries Bangladesh Brazil China Colombia Côte d’Ivoire Egypt, Arab Republic of India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Kenya Malaysia Mexico Morocco Nigeria Pakistan Peru Philippines Romania Russian Federation Saudi Arabia South Africa Syria, Arab Republic of Thailand Turkey Uganda Subtotal Foundations Ford Foundation IDRC Kellogg Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Syngenta Foundation Subtotal International and regional organizations ADB AFDB Arab Fund FAO Gulf Cooperation Council IDB IFAD OPEC Fund UNDP UNEP World Bank2 Subtotal Total Members Non-members TOTAL 1972-1981 1982-1991 6.0 23.4 20.3 87.3 23.5 24.4 91.2 3.7 68.9 0.3 51.2 32.0 5.0 44.5 72.9 88.4 643.2 119.6 439.3 558.9 37.2 159.6 0.5 0.1 197.4 1992-2001 17.4 47.4 117.4 174.6 12.6 50.1 147.1 8.0 34.7 5.2 122.6 68.8 1.8 10.1 84.3 164.0 120.5 1,186.7 135.7 389.2 524.9 63.7 338.8 6.9 2.0 411.4 1.0 3.0 6.1 17.1 0.9 7.6 7.9 2.7 10.6 1.3 6.5 3.7 1.5 1.5 3.7 0.2 2.0 3.0 2.7 1.0 1.1 0.6 80.7 27.1 17.0 1.3 27.0 72.4 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.6 11.6 1.3 2.4 0.3 7.5 1.4 13.0 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.6 12.4 0.8 1.9 0.3 7.8 1.1 11.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 16.6 0.9 2.9 0.4 8.5 0.8 13.3 1.0 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.2 15.3 0.9 3.2 0.4 8.7 0.8 14.0 2002 0.2 4.9 10.2 24.5 1.5 7.8 10.5 2.1 4.1 0.8 17.0 10.4 0.3 1.3 10.7 16.0 24.8 146.9 10.7 54.9 65.6 7.3 17.1 1.1 0.7 26.2 2003 0.8 6.4 9.1 27.2 1.7 7.6 11.6 2.6 4.4 0.7 19.2 11.2 0.0 2.3 13.6 15.6 26.4 160.5 20.9 55.5 76.4 7.3 15.0 1.2 0.8 24.4 2004 1.7 7.0 8.2 26.3 1.9 6.3 15.3 3.4 0.1 7.2 0.6 20.9 11.7 2.3 14.6 18.1 35.3 181.0 32.5 54.2 86.7 8.8 14.4 1.5 1.2 25.9 2005 2.1 5.1 7.4 30.6 2.0 5.0 15.4 5.0 0.4 7.5 0.6 24.1 12.6 1.9 14.3 18.2 44.2 196.5 36.4 54.8 91.2 10.6 10.9 1.8 0.8 24.0 0.2 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.5 1.8 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.5 3.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 Total 28.3 111.4 179.0 387.9 43.2 105.3 343.5 25.1 0.5 129.0 8.2 270.7 159.3 2.1 23.4 204.0 316.3 376.1 2,713.1 409.2 1,217.6 1,626.8 152.1 584.2 13.1 5.8 755.2 1.2 6.8 13.2 24.4 0.9 10.0 18.9 3.3 19.3 2.8 0.1 14.1 1.5 24.4 2.2 3.9 8.2 0.0 0.2 5.0 6.1 3.0 1.5 1.2 2.3 174.6 63.5 46.9 5.5 93.1 4.1 213.1 17.2 6.4 17.4 4.2 52.4 0.4 2.0 15.7 12.6 0.5 22.0 11.4 36.5 198.4 53.4 169.7 223.1 17.3 28.4 0.2 45.9 1.2 3.0 0.5 5.0 5.0 0.9 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.3 1.0 2.3 0.5 1.3 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.5 1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.9 0.6 1.4 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.5 4.6 0.2 0.6 0.4 6.7 4.7 0.7 2.7 0.9 0.2 16.3 23.0 9.6 1.9 23.8 58.3 21.8 9.5 9.9 1.0 9.8 30.2 1.5 0.1 1.1 1.0 5.9 3.3 26.9 11.2 12.8 1.7 35.8 30.6 2.0 51.8 3.1 447.5 623.4 2,899.5 83.6 2,983 6.5 0.6 1.0 1.8 0.5 5.8 0.2 1.5 1.3 50.0 69.3 332.4 24.8 357 6.0 0.2 0.8 2.0 0.3 5.7 0.3 1.1 3.6 50.0 69.9 355.5 25.4 381 43.4 11.1 2.0 29.1 1.4 69.4 159.1 701.1 1.9 703 91.4 26.8 10.7 75.2 0.4 278.9 493.6 1,945.1 3.4 1,949 5.0 0.4 1.2 1.5 0.1 0.3 6.2 0.5 1.1 6.6 50.0 72.7 396.2 40.4 437 4.1 0.2 1.2 1.4 0.1 0.2 7.5 0.4 0.9 6.1 50.0 72.1 413.1 36.6 450 51.0 18.5 21.4 8.4 0.3 171.8 93.7 16.1 160.6 22.6 995.9 1,560.1 7,042.9 216.9 7,260 1 2003 revised for correction. 2 Before 2002 excluded support allocated to the CGIAR Secretariat. 57 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 1.4 2.2 Table 3. Results of Operation by Center, 2004-2005 (millions of US dollars) 2004 Center Africa Rice CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI IITA ILRI IPGRI IRRI ISNAR1 IWMI 2 World Agroforestry WorldFish Subtotal System level System Office and committees Unallocated Member funding 3 Advance Subtotal Less inter-Center activities TOTAL Plus Challenge Programs partners TOTAL CGIAR PROGRAM Member funding Center income Total Expenditure revenue Result Member funding Center income 2005 Total revenue Expenditure Result 10.4 36.3 14.8 41.2 22.3 24.8 27.7 32.8 42.8 32.9 34.8 32.4 5.8 23.6 29.7 14.3 426.5 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.5 2.3 0.8 1.5 2.1 0.0 4.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.9 16.1 10.5 37.2 15.0 42.5 22.6 25.3 30.1 33.6 44.3 34.9 34.8 36.4 6.2 23.8 30.2 15.2 442.6 10.1 36.7 15.1 41.1 21.5 24.6 26.8 31.4 42.6 31.7 32.0 32.9 2.4 23.1 28.5 14.1 414.6 0.4 0.5 (0.1) 1.4 1.1 0.7 3.3 2.2 1.7 3.2 2.8 3.5 3.8 0.7 1.8 1.0 28.0 11.6 40.3 16.7 39.3 21.8 28.7 28.4 38.2 41.2 31.7 35.6 28.5 23.1 30.2 13.3 428.5 0.2 1.2 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.3 1.5 2.5 (0.4) (0.4) 0.5 0.3 0.1 10.3 11.7 41.5 17.2 40.8 22.0 29.6 29.5 38.6 42.8 34.3 35.2 28.1 23.6 30.5 13.5 438.8 10.9 42.4 17.5 38.8 22.0 29.1 28.4 39.7 40.2 32.2 34.6 33.4 23.1 30.0 15.2 437.5 0.8 (0.9) (0.4) 2.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 (1.1) 2.6 2.1 0.7 (5.4) 0.4 0.5 (1.7) 1.2 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.7 9.7 9.9 0.5 436.0 (4.7) 431.3 5.3 437 16 16.1 16.1 0.5 452.1 (4.7) 447.4 5.3 453 423.6 (4.7) 418.9 5.3 425 0.5 28.5 28.5 4 3.0 3.9 445.0 (5.4) 439.6 10.2 10.3 10.3 3.0 3.9 455.3 (5.4) 449.9 10.2 3.0 3.9. 3.9 447.5 8.0 (5.4) 442.1 8.0 10.2 452 8 28 450 10 460 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 1 2 3 4 ISNAR closed in March 2004. IWMI data are not comparable between 2004 and 2005. The 2004 data included components of the Challenge Program on Water and Food that were implemented by other Centers and Partners, while in 2005 these data were excluded. From Italy, Brazil and Morroco. Inter-Center activities netted out at the system, not center, level to maintain the integrity of Center accounts. 58 Expenditure Allocations Germplasm improvement Germplasm collection Sustainable production Policy Enhancing NARS Total expenditure Europe Pacific Rim North America Developing countries Intl & regnl organizations Foundations Nonmembers Inter-Center activities Total funding Center income Reserves Addition (+)/ Draw(-) Revenue (millions of US dollars) Table 4. Center Finances, 2005 Center 0.8 7.1 4.5 10.1 2.0 2.5 2.5 0.3 1.2 2.7 10.3 3.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.6 4.3 0.1 52.0 140.6 80.3 88.3 437.5 187.2 24.0 90.8 13.7 58.7 0.4 0.6 3.0 12.7 8.3 9.2 8.6 13.9 3.3 2.7 15.4 20.3 5.5 9.4 10.0 9.9 8.3 13.6 35.0 5.4 428.5 0.9 2.4 3.0 3.0 1.7 1.7 10.6 20.1 6.8 3.2 3.9 3.4 7.8 7.1 4.5 4.0 6.3 1.8 6.1 3.4 5.0 4.6 12.9 9.8 2.8 9.4 7.5 5.4 8.0 1.6 10.9 42.4 17.5 38.8 22.0 29.1 28.4 39.7 40.2 32.2 34.6 33.4 23.1 30.0 15.2 5.0 13.7 10.9 10.1 11.9 11.9 12.2 14.1 13.7 14.8 19.5 13.9 13.3 14.5 7.9 1.7 1.3 1.0 5.3 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.6 2.1 4.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 2.0 11.7 1.7 9.1 4.3 5.2 5.0 12.4 13.1 9.0 3.3 4.8 2.3 5.0 2.0 0.3 0.9 0.1 1.9 0.4 1.7 1.1 1.0 3.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3 1.7 5.1 1.3 6.8 1.8 5.7 5.3 5.4 3.5 3.3 6.3 2.9 4.5 3.4 1.6 0.6 2.5 0.6 2.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.2 4.7 1.0 3.4 1.6 1.7 2.5 2.4 6.6 2.4 2.5 0.5 0.8 4.3 0.4 11.6 40.3 16.7 39.3 21.8 28.7 28.4 38.2 41.2 31.7 35.6 28.5 23.1 30.2 13.3 0.2 1.2 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.3 1.5 2.5 (0.4) (0.4) 0.5 0.3 0.1 10.3 Africa Rice 2.3 CIAT 13.9 CIFOR CIMMYT 10.5 CIP 6.3 ICARDA 6.0 ICRISAT 7.4 IFPRI 3.6 IITA 6.9 ILRI 3.2 IPGRI 5.4 IRRI 9.4 IWMI2 World Agroforestry 0.7 WorldFish 0.7 76.3 0.8 (0.9) (0.4) 2.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 (1.1) 2.6 2.1 0.7 (5.4) 0.4 0.5 (1.7) 1.2 Subtotal 9.9 1.4 1.6 System level System Office and Committees Unallocated Member funding 1 Advance 76 (5.4) 76 2.1 3.2 2.8 0.9 1.2 52 141 80 88 442.1 10.2 188.6 7.8 24.0 90.8 0.4 52 141 80 88 447 188.6 24.0 90.8 9.7 9.7 3.9 15.3 72.3 13.6 35.0 5.4 (5.4) 15.3 72.3 13.6 0.4 35.0 1.6 3.0 3.9 445.0 (5.4) 439.6 10.2 10.3 10.3 3.0 3.9 8.0 Subtotal Less inter-Center activities TOTAL Plus Challenge Program partners 8.0 TOTAL CGIAR PROGRAM 78 55 143 81 90 452 197 24 91 15 72 14 37 450 10 8 1 2 From Italy, Brazil and Morocco. IWMI data are not comparable between 2004 and 2005. The 2004 data included components of the Challenge Program on Water and Food that were implemented by other Centers and Partners, while in 2005 these data were excluded. 59 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Table 5. CGIAR System Financial Position, 2001-2005 (thousands of US dollars) 2001 Assets Current assets Cash and cash equivalents Accounts receivable Members Employees Others Inventories Pre-paid expenses Other current assets Total current assets Non-current assets Net property, plant and equipment Investments Others assets Total non-current assets Total assets Liabilities and net assets Current liabilities Accounts payable Members Employees Others Accruals and provisions Total current liabilities Long-term liabilities Total liabilities Net assets Unrestricted Unrestricted net assets excl. fixed assets Fixed assets Unrestricted net assets Restricted Total net assets Total liabilities and net assets 2002 2003 2004 2005 142,339 63,346 2,498 13,342 6,040 3,265 3,515 234,345 149,076 72,864 3,078 14,864 4,447 3,673 3,327 251,329 201,662 87,768 2,797 14,527 4,165 3,262 4,567 318,748 237,047 69,717 3,594 17,147 4,540 2,994 16,924 351,963 221,853 83,907 4,105 22,280 4,593 3,401 6,580 346,719 89,058 33,495 122,553 356,898 77,172 41,828 119,000 370,329 79,585 37,838 117,423 436,172 78,433 34,985 3,012 116,430 468,393 77,869 46,642 1,223 125,734 472,453 54,078 12,020 29,192 47,223 142,513 25,814 168,328 78,749 11,877 34,177 42,377 167,180 27,906 195,086 110,925 13,805 47,181 28,925 200,836 25,876 226,712 115,904 12,435 49,216 24,294 201,849 30,486 232,335 119,497 14,514 44,430 24,086 202,527 31,897 234,424 99,512 89,058 188,570 188,570 356,898 96,039 77,172 173,211 2,032 175,243 370,329 126,820 79,585 206,405 3,054 209,459 436,172 155,539 78,433 233,972 2,086 236,058 468,393 157,966 77,869 235,835 2,194 238,029 472,453 60 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Who’s Who in the CGIAR in 2005 The CGIAR Members Countries Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Brazil Canada China Colombia Côte d'Ivoire Denmark Egypt, Arab Republic of Finland France Germany India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kenya Korea, Republic of Luxembourg Malaysia Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Pakistan Peru Philippines Portugal Representatives Peter Core Marcus Heinz M.A. Hamid Miah Patrick Hollebosch Silvio Crestana Bruce Montador Lijian Zhang Arturo Vega Tiemoko Yo Finn Norman Christensen Badawi El-Tantawi Kari Jantunen Denis Despreaux Christoph Kohlmeyer Mangala Rai Hadi Pasaribu Jafar Khalghani Eamon Mckee Nachman Paster Gioacchino Carabba Takeshi Mizoguchi Romano Kiome Kyung-Han Ryu Arsene Jacoby Abdul Shukor bin Abdul Rahman Victor Villalobos Arámbula Hamid Narjisse Theo van de Sande Peter Adams Bamidele Folorunso Dada Aslak Brun Muhammad Ismail Quteshi Ricardo Sevilla Panizo Nicomedes P. Eleazar Armando Trigo de Abreu Cooperating Institutions Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Federal Ministry of Finance Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply, EMBRAPA Canadian International Development Agency Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DANIDA ARC, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of National Education and Research Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development Ministry of Agriculture, ICAR Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Ministry of Agriculture Department of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Finance Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture, INRA Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education 62 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Countries Romania Russian Federation South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Representatives Mihaiu Radulian Gennadi A. Romanenko Njabulo Nduli Mario Gomez Perez Eva Ohlsson Martin Sommer Adel Safar Chakarn Saengruksawong Luftu Tahtacioglu Denis Kyetere Joy Hutcheon Franklin Moore Cooperating Institutions Ministry of Agriculture and Food Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs Ministry of Science and Technology Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SIDA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Reform Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs National Agricultural Research Organization Department for International Development United States Agency for International Development Foundations Ford Foundation International Development Research Centre Kellogg Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture Representatives Jeff Campbell Jean Lebel Rick Foster Peter Matlon Andrew J. Bennett CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH International and Regional Organizations African Development Bank Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development Asian Development Bank Commission of the European Community Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Gulf Cooperation Council of the Arab States Inter-American Development Bank International Fund for Agricultural Development OPEC Fund for International Development United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme World Bank Representatives Frank Simona Kufakwandi Abdulatif Y. Al-Hamad Tumurdavaa Bayarsaihan Marc Debois Hosni El-Lakany Hilal Ambusaidi Marco Ferroni Rodney Cooke Suleiman Al-Herbish Philip Dobie Shafqat Kakakhel Kevin Cleaver 63 The CGIAR Executive Council CGIAR Chairman Ian Johnson, Vice President, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, World Bank CGIAR Director: Francisco J.B. Reifschneider Cosponsors and Their Representatives Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Hosni El-Lakany International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rodney Cooke United Nations Development Programme, Philip Dobie World Bank, Kevin Cleaver Chairman: Ian Johnson Cosponsors: Kevin Cleaver (World Bank) Rodney Cooke (IFAD) Hosni El-Lakany (FAO) CBC Chair: A. Uzo Mokwunye CDC Chair: William D. Dar Science Council Chair: Per Pinstrup-Andersen Global Forum on Agricultural Research Chair: Mohammad Roozitalab OECD/DAC Americas: Jimmy Smith (Canada) Asia-Pacific: Peter Core (Australia) Europe: Pilar Castro-Martinez (Spain) Eva Ohlsson (Sweden) Marina Puccioni (Italy) Developing Countries Americas: Victor Villalobos Arámbula (Mexico) Asia-Pacific: Mangala Rai (India) CWANA: Badawi El-Tantawi (Egypt) Regional Fora: Njabulo Nduli (FARA) SSA: Frank Simona Kufakwandi (African Development Bank) Foundations: Jean Lebel (IDRC) Partners: Usha Barwale Zehr (Private Sector Committee Chair) Civil Society (temporarily vacant) Executive Secretary, ExCo: Francisco J.B. Reifschneider CGIAR Secretariat: Selçuk Özgediz Jason Yauney Standing Committees Advisory Committees Science Council Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Chair Virender Lal Chopra Ken Fischer Michael Gale Keiji Kainuma Onesmo ole-MoiYoi Jim Ryan (ex-officio) Lisa Sennerby-Forsse 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) Jim Ryan, Chair Hermann Waibel Standing Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation (SPME) Ken Fischer, Chair Virender Lal Chopra Beatriz del Rosario Leslie Cooksy Standing Panel on Mobilizing Science (SPMS) Keiji Kainuma, Co-chair Lisa Sennerby Forsse, Co-chair S.S. Acharya Maggie Gill Standing Panel on Priorities and Strategies (SPPS) Michael Gale, Chair Christopher Barrett Reynaldo Martorell Onesmo ole-MoiYoi Genetic Resources Policy Committee (GRPC) Carlos Correa, Chair Orlando dePonti José Esquinas-Alcázar Emile Frison Michael Gale Anthony Gregson Masaru Iwanaga Leonardo Montemayor Juan Lucas Restrepo Maria José Sampaio Carl-Gustaf Thornstrom Partnership Committees NGO Committee (temporarily inactive) Private Sector Committee Usha Barwale Zehr, Chair Alejandro Delfino Bruno Ferrari Bernward J.H. Garthoff Robert B. Horsch William S. Niebur Mumeka M. Wright 64 CGIAR System Office CGIAR Secretariat Francisco J.B. Reifschneider, Director Feroza Vatcha, Administrative Officer Josephine Hernandez, Senior Executive Assistant June Bitutu Nyanchoka, Team Assistant Science Council Secretariat Ruben Echeverria, Executive Director Beatriz Ávalos Sartorio, Senior Agricultural Research Officer Peter Gardiner, Senior Agricultural Research Officer Sirkka Immonen, Senior Agricultural Research Officer Timothy Kelley, Senior Agricultural Research Officer Robert Chapman, Agricultural Research Officer Jenny Nasr, Agricultural Research Officer Britta Killermann, Program Assistant Irmi Braun-Castaldi, Program Clerk Nathalie Silvestri, Clerk Central Advisory Service for Intellectual Property Victoria Henson-Apollonio, Manager Chief Information Officer Enrica Porcari, Chief Information Officer Florine Lim, Program Associate Future Harvest Alliance Office Geoff Hawtin, Interim Executive Officer Kerri Wright Platais, Executive Secretary Gender and Diversity Vicki Wilde, Program Leader Pauline Bomett, Administrative Assistant Internal Audit John Fitzsimmon, Director John Mwangi, Associate Director Virginia Maria Salazar, Senior Internal Auditor Erwin Lopez, Internal Auditor Strategic Advisory Service on Human Resources Temporarily Vacant Center Committees Committee of Board Chairs A. Uzo Mokwunye, ICRISAT, CBC Chair Isher Ahluwalia, IFPRI Trond Bjorndal, WorldFish Margaret Catley-Carlson, ICARDA Angela Cropper, CIFOR Remo Gautschi, IWMI James Godfrey, CIP Anthony Gregson, IPGRI Gaston Grenier, WARDA James Jones, CIAT Lene Lange, CIMMYT Mortimer Neufville, IITA Keijiro Otsuka, IRRI Eugene Terry, World Agroforestry Uwe Werblow, ILRI Center Directors Committee William D. Dar, ICRISAT, CDC Chair Pamela Anderson, CIP Adel El-Beltagy, ICARDA Emile Frison, IPGRI Dennis Garrity, World Agroforestry Stephen Hall, WorldFish Peter Hartmann, IITA Masaru Iwanaga, CIMMYT David Kaimowitz, CIFOR Kanayo Nwanze, WARDA Frank Rijsberman, IWMI Carlos Sere, ILRI Joachim von Braun, IFPRI Joachim Voss, CIAT Robert Zeigler, IRRI Marketing Group Executive Committee Helen Leitch, WorldFish, Chair Fionna Douglas, CGIAR Secretariat Peter Ninnes, CIMMYT Klaus von Grebmer, IFPRI Governance and Partnerships Selçuk Özgediz, Management Adviser Manuel Lantin, Science Adviser Daniel Rocchi, Senior Liaison Officer Masayoshi Saito, Liaison Officer Maria Iskandarani, Technical Specialist Jason Yauney, Operations Analyst Iman Hassan, Program Assistant Investor Relations and Finance Shey Tata, Lead Finance Officer Salah Brahimi, Senior Co-financing Officer Zewdnesh Abegaz, Senior Program Assistant Su Ching Tan, Finance Associate Information and Corporate Communications Fionna Douglas, Communications Advisor Sarwat Hussain, Senior Communications Officer Danielle Lucca, Information Officer M. Caryl Jones-Swahn, Communications Associate Adriana de Riva, Junior Professional Associate Florencia Tateossian, Junior Professional Associate Barbara Eckberg, Program Assistant 65 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Ten Facts About the CGIAR in 2005 The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a strategic alliance of countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations supporting 15 international agricultural research Centers that work with national agricultural research systems, civil society organizations and the private sector. Among the 64 CGIAR Members, 25 are industrialized countries, 22 are developing countries, 13 are international and regional organizations, and 4 are private foundations. Thirteen of the 15 CGIAR Centers are located in developing countries. By 2005, the CGIAR had trained over 75,000 scientists and researchers from developing countries. CGIAR financial resources increased from US$337 million in 2001 to $450 million in 2005, and its Membership increased from 58 to 64 Members in the same period. In 2005, the CGIAR Alliance employed over 8,500 scientists and technical staff in over 100 countries. The 10 countries providing the most CGIAR research staff were, in alphabetical order, Australia, Colombia, France, India, Japan, Nigeria, Peru, Syria, United Kingdom and United States. In 2005, all 15 CGIAR Centers had boards whose membership numbers balanced representation from the South and the North. A recent study of the CGIAR System showed that approximately 19 percent of CGIAR scientists completed a PhD between 2001 and 2005. In 2005, women occupied 27 percent of CGIAR managerial positions. In 2005, the average number of papers published in peer-reviewed publications per scientist was 2.1. Around 45 percent of all scientific papers published in refereed journals and in conference and workshop proceedings were co-authored by developing country partners. 66 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Acronyms and Abbreviations AB AE AGM AP&P ARC BoARD CGIAR CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP CORAF/WECARD CRIL CWANA DAC DANIDA EMBRAPA ESTA FAO FARA GDP GRPC IAR4D HIV/AIDS IAA ICAR ICARDA ICIS ICRAF ICRISAT IDRC IFAD IFPRI IITA ILRI INIFAP 67 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Alliance Board (Board Chairs of the Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR) Alliance Executive (Directors General of the Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR) Annual General Meeting of the CGIAR Alliance (of Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR) Principles and Procedures Agricultural Research Center, Egypt Ethiopian regional bureau of agriculture and rural development Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical International (International Center for Tropical Agriculture), Colombia Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), Mexico Centro Internacional de la Papa (International Potato Center), Peru Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development Crop Research Informatics Laboratory at CIMMYT and IRRI Central and West Asia & North Africa Development Assistance Committee of OECD Danish International Development Agency Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) Ethiopian Science and Technology Agency Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa gross domestic product Genetic Resources Policy Committee of the CGIAR integrated agricultural research for development Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome integrated aquaculture and agriculture Indian Council of Agricultural Research International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Syria International Crop Information System World Agroforestry Center, Kenya International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India International Development Research Centre International Fund for Agricultural Development International Food Policy Research Institute, United States International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya and Ethiopia Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias (National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Animal Research), Mexico INRA IPGRI IPR IR IRRI IWMI MTP NARS NERICA NGO OECD OPEC ROCARIZ S&T SIDA SPIA SPME SPMS SPPS SSA-CP Ug99 UNDP US, USA WARDA WHO WTO Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (National Agricultural Research Institute), Morocco International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Italy intellectual property right infrared spectroscopy International Rice Research Institute, Philippines International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka medium-term plan national agricultural research systems new rices for Africa nongovernmental organization Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Reséau Ouest et Centre Africain du riz (West and Central Africa Rice Research and Development Network) science and technology Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Standing Panel on Impact Assessment of the CGIAR Standing Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation of the Science Council of the CGIAR Standing Panel on Mobilizing Science of the CGIAR Standing Panel on Priorities and Strategies of the CGIAR Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program of the CGIAR new race of stem rust in wheat detected in Uganda in 1999 United Nations Development Programme United States of America Africa Rice Center (formerly West Africa Rice Development Association), Côte d'Ivoire World Health Organization World Trade Organization 68 2005 ANNUAL REPORT