INTERNATIONAL CENTERS WEEK 1990 Summary of Proceedings and Decisions Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) held its annual meeting, International Centers Week, from Monday, October 29 to Friday, November 2, 1990 at the IMF auditorium in Washington, D.C. Mr. Wilfried P. Thalwitz, Chairman, presided. A summary of proceedings and of the main conclusions reached appears on the pages that follow. Verbatim transcripts of proceedings may be consulted at the CGIAR Secretariat. Issued by the CGIAR Secretariat The World Bank Washington D.C. December 1990 Contents Chairman’ s Opening Remarks Adoption of the Agenda . .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . ... .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. . 1 ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. ...... 1 Proposed Expansion of the CGIAR System ... .. .. .. .. .. ... . ... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . 2 Background ................................................................................................................................. Process ......................................................................................................................................... Systemic Restructuring ............................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................. Agroforestry/Forestry Main Decisions ............................................................................................................................ Summation ................................................................................................................................... TAC Chairman’ s Report 2 2 2 4 5 6 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. ..... 6 Report by the Chairman of the Committee of Board Chairpersons . .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. 6 Report by the Chairman of the Center Directors Committee Center Presentations . .. ... . ... .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... 7 .. ... .. .. .. .... . ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .... ........... 8 8 8 9 10 11 CIAT . .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..................... IBPGR .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. ................... ICRISAT .. . ... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... . .. .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ................ IFPRI - Progress report on external reviews and center presentation .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. ... . ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... . .. .. .. .................. ILRAD IBPGR Headquarters Status Report ,......................................................................................................... 12 Review of the Resource Allocation Process .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. 13 Approval of 199 1 Programs/Pledging Other Matters .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. 13 .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ...................... 14 14 14 14 14 Biotask Report .............................................................................................................................. Future Meetings ........................................................................................................................... CGIAR/King Baudouin Award .................................................................................................. TAC Members ............................................................................................................................. Chairman’ s Closing Remarks Annex I Annex II - ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 14 Agenda .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .............. 15 List of Participants . .. ... . ... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. 16 Summary of Proceedings and Decisions CGIAR Chairman Wilfred P. Thalwitz inaugurated International Centers Week 7990 (IC W90) at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, October 29 in the auditorium of the International Monetary Fund, Washington D. C. CHAIRMAN’ S OPENING REMARKS In his opening remarks, the Chairman said that ICW90 would be different from most previous meetings, because of the Group’ s desire to shape a new future for the CGIAR; to restructure the System while reaffirming its mandate at the same time. The character and composition of the CGIAR were at the core of an important agenda item, the TAC report on “A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR.” The report offered the Group a series of policy options for the medium- and long-term future. The Group confronted the challenge and the opportunity to make the correct choices. The Chairman emphasized his commitment to protecting the continuity of the System and to preserving the integrity and achievements of the existing centers, while assisting with decisions that would serve as the groundwork for restructuring and reinvigorating the System as a whole. To place the issue of expansion in its context, the Chairman felt it would be appropriate to keep in mind some of the main trends and events that led up to ICW90. For instance: 0 At its 1988 mid-term meeting held at Berlin, the Group decided to “launch an examination of the potential for expanding the System to include a number of non-associated centers.” Ten centers were listed, and the examination was entrusted to TAC. 0 The decision was consistent with the flexible and responsive character of the CGIAR System. It also reflected the views of those members of the System who had helped to form or had become part of support groups for new centers outside the CGIAR. These are the “non-associated” centers. 0 At discussions which preceded the Berlin meeting, the Group took serious note of international environmental concerns. In response to those concerns, the Group asked TAC to explore how “sustainability” meshed with the productivity thrust of CGIAR centers. 0 The results of the TAC study were embodied in a policy paper (Sustainable agricultural producwhen it was presented at Berlin where the linkages between sustainability concerns and productivity concerns within the CGIAR were discussed in depth. A CGIAR Committee on Sustainable Agriculture headed by Leslie Swindale was named at Berlin, and two reports from that committee were endorsed at subsequent meetings of the Group. 0 During its mid-term meeting at Canberra (May 1989), the Group adopted a Declaration of Intent to include forestry/agroforestry on its research mandate, thus giving this area a special emphasis. The point of repeating these facts was to remind the meeting, the Chairman said, that the mandate given to TAC was clearly circumscribed by the Group itself, and anchored in prior decisions. In preparing the report which was now before them TAC had acted with integrity, transparency, and professionalism. In response, the Group would have to strive for a consensus which harmonized many different requirements. Programmatic restructuring of the CGIAR System would have to respect the cardinal principle of a focus on strategic research, while acknowledging that the effectiveness of international agricultural research centers in practice depends to an extent on the existence of strong national agricultural research systems in developing countries. Strengthening the latter without usurping their role was therefore an important responsibility. Financial resources could not be ignored in their deliberations, the Chairman added. The TAC report pointed to a bulge followed by a flattening out with the System reverting by the year 2005 to its current resource requirements. Others like himself who worked with budgets all the time would consider 2005 as the promised date for “flattening out” very far in the future. A full airing of views would precede decision-making, with opportunities provided both in plenary and executive session for a full exploration of the various questions that affect and will be affected by the conclusions reached at ICW90. Such a broad discussion of issues could result in the creation of a framework combining concept and experience, in which future goals could be embedded. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The provisional agenda circulated in advance of the meeting was adopted. The Group agreed that instead of a 1 tion: implications for international agricultural research) which found great favor among donors formal pledging session at which donors consecutively announced their proposed contributions for 199 1, the CGIAR Secretariat should determine these amounts in consultation with donors and inform the meeting of the funds expected. Donors would be free to comment on the nature of their contributions. Long- and medium-term visions of the CGIAR, Analysis and recommendation on non-associated centers, Integration of forestry/agroforestry, Structural and resource implications, Decisions and next steps. This pattern of deliberation enabled the Group to look ahead at the long-term scenario as conceptualized by TAC, to focus on specific recommendations, to return to a review of the broader picture, and to reach decisions based on both the broader picture and the implications of specific recommendations. The Chairman pointed out how the deliberative process followed at ICW90 ensured that decisions reached by the Group were based on the broadest possible exchange of views - including dissent from TAC’ s views. There was no question of the Group being treated as a “rubber stamp agency.” Donors expressed their appreciation of the consensual process that was followed. PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CGIAR SYSTEM Background TAC’ s report on “A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR” was the centerpiece of discussion at ICW90, requiring far-reaching decisions that could affect the future scope and structure of the CGIAR System. The report was presented to ICW90 by TAC Chairman Alec McCalla. The report was the result of a two-year deliberative process which began when the Group decided at its 1988 mid-term meeting to seek advice from TAC on the desirability of admitting all or some of 10 non-associated centers into the CGIAR. Donors subsequently expressed the view at the Group’ s 1989 mid-term meeting that the mandate of the CGIAR should be expanded to include agroforestry/ forestry research. In responding to the Group’ s requirements, Mr. McCalla pointed out, TAC had re-examined the fundamental objectives of the CGIAR both in the present and in the future, and reviewed the potential of the 10 nonassociated centers in relation to those goals. Based on that analytical and deliberative process, TAC presented ICW90 with proposals for integrating forestrylagroforestry in the CGIAR System, a major expansion of the System, substantial restructuring of the System in the medium term, and for the long-term evolution of the System. Systemic Restructuring Mr. McCalla reminded the Group that the TAC report was based on a process of examination which was both exhaustive and transparent. The Group had been consulted at each stage of the examination, and the next stage embarked upon with the Group’ s prior approval. Furthermore, although TAC had been asked to review 10 non-associated centers for their possible inclusion within the System, the committee felt that it could not approach the task as a simple matter of recommending inclusion or exclusion. TAC saw the potential expansion of the CGIAR as the starting point for institutional and programmatic restructuring. The basis of the changes proposed was an integrated approach which would apply to all aspects of the CGIAR, whether it be commodity research, the broad spectrum of natural resource management, or the agroforestry/forestry sector. In keeping with these principles, TAC had reviewed the goal statement of the CGIAR, in an effort to determine whether the statement should be revised in the light of changed and changing circumstances in the intemational environment. At its last iteration in 1986, the CGIAR goal statement read as follows: “Through international agricultural research and related activities, to contribute to increasing sustainable food production in developing countries in such a way that the nutritional level and general economic well-being of low income people are improved.” TAC proposed, Mr. McCalla said, that the emphasis Process In keeping with the significance and complexity of TAC’ s proposals, the Group spent some 20 hours of ICW90 on the TAC report, both in plenary and executive session. The Group followed a step-by-step procedure in which the information to be dealt with was disaggregated, and discussion moved back and forth between specific detail and the broad picture. Discussions were held under the following main headings: 0 Background to the TAC report and the process by which conclusions were reached, 2 on “increasing sustainable food production” should change to an emphasis on food self reliance in the developing regions of the world. “Food self reliance” was defined as the capacity of a nation to provide a sufficient stable food supply to all of its inhabitants, either from domestic production or from the production of exportable goods to enable commercial imports to cover the domestic deficit. TAC had gone on to develop the following mission statement for the CGIAR: “Through international research and related activities, and in partnership with national research systems, to contribute to sustainable improvements in the productivity of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in developing countries in ways that enhance nutrition and well-being, especially among lowincome people.” This central mission required the following nine goals or priority areas for action: effective management and conservation of natural resources; improved productivity of important crops and their integration into sustainable production systems; improved productivity of important livestock and their integration into sustainable production systems; improved production of important trees and their integration into sustainable production systems; improved productivity of important fish and their integration into sustainable production systems; improved utilization of agricultural, forestry, and fish products in both rural and urban areas through improved post-harvest technology; improved diets, family welfare and equity (including gender equity) through better understanding of the human linkages between production and consumption; appropriate policies for increased productivity in agriculture, food, fisheries and forestry and for the sustainable use of natural resources; and strengthened institutions and human resources in national research systems to accelerate the identification, generation, adaptation and utilization of technological innovations. As a corollary to defining CGIAR goals, TAC developed a medium- and long-term vision for the evolution of the System. In the medium term, research supported by the CGIAR would fall into two clusters: global commodity activities and ecoregional activities. Each of these clusters was explicitly defined and described in the TAC report. Global activities would be focussed on commodities and selected subject matter areas, such as policy, management, conservation of germplasm and the maintenance of biodiversity. Ecoregional activities would focus on applied and strategic research on the ecological foundations of sustainable production systems, commodity improvement in collaboration with global commodity activities, and interaction with national partners. l l Over the long term, the CGIAR would be a smaller, service oriented enterprise and much less of a hands-on applied research System. When that stage was reached, more work would be undertaken by national research systems. In the context of that analysis, TAC made separate recommendations on each of the non-associated centers it was asked to review. As part of its review, TAC attempted to assess the financial implications of proposed courses of action, and suggested an immediate increase of some 10 per cent in funding requirements, followed by a reduction of that increase. There will be something of a bulge in the System, as and when it takes on new responsibilities. The bulge will be flattened as the System is restructured, and it is assumed that funding requirements will drop back to current levels. The implications of the TAC report, as they affected the future philosophy of the CGIAR and as they suggested the extent to which the CGIAR should be expanded, were examined from several different perspectives. The main comments made by participants fell into several broad categories: Endorsement: The transparency of the process which TAC had gone through, as well as the strong analytical base on which the Group’ s decisions could be anchored, were strongly endorsed. Mr. McCalla, members of TAC, the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats, as well as others who had participated in the process were commended. The report’ s comprehensive approach to complex issues was considered exemplary, and the guidance it provided was an important contribution to the development of the CGIAR over both the short and long term. The conceptual thrust of the report was similarly endorsed. Natural resource management: TAC’ s analyses concerning the relationship between natural resource management and agricultural productivity were considered compelling. The recommendation that CGIAR centers should undertake ecoregional activities was welcomed. This approach could create the sustainability/ productivity construct which would ensure the System’ s continued effectiveness and relevance. Some concerns were expressed, however, that there was an inconsistency between the analytical emphasis on natural resource management and individual recommendations regarding some non-associated centers whose programs were particularly oriented towards research connected with natural resources. National research systems: TAC’ s interest in strengthening national agricultural research systems in developing countries was appreciated, but some delegates felt that the relationship between national systems and the CGIAR required further elaboration. The appropriate division between upstream and downstream research 3 formed part of the discussion. Several participants emphasized the view that the task of strengthening national systems could not be looked upon as of secondary importance, because without strong national systems CGIAR centers could not have impact in developing countries. Continued efforts to strengthen national systems and gradually to pass on more activities to them were urged. This relationship would probably elicit additional funding from bilateral “envelopes,” in the view of some donors. Innovation: The suggestion was made that a greater sense of innovation within the CGIAR would enhance support for the System. Whether it was in relations with national systems, or in the kinds of research undertaken, greater innovation and creativity would help to attract funds that were available but would not be directed toward supporting traditional CGIAR programs. Research themes: As the CGIAR moved towards restructuring itself and redefining its priorities, the elaboration of broad themes, particularly in the natural resource management area, could give clarity to future discussions. Themes could be related to institutions, including non-associated centers, and would provide the basis on which the expansion issue could be revisited after ICW90. Resources: The point was made by several delegates that principles and programs could not be separated from the financial resources available to undertake expansion, restructuring, or any other activity within the System. TAC’ s financial estimates for the medium- and long-term future were attractive, but the financial picture had to be assessed in terms of actual availability not just of estimates. AgroforestryiF’ orestry The consideration of agroforestry/forestry issues within the CGIAR derived from the Group’ s Declaration of Intent which drew attention to “the evident and urgent need to investigate the significant research issues of natural resource management for sustained food production and for the long-term maintenance of lands best suited to tropical and sub-tropical forests.” The Declaration also stated the Group’ s desire to widen its mandate “to include research on the optimal management of tropical and sub-tropical forest lands giving particular stress to the interaction of agriculture and forestry, and the use of forest resources as an important contributor to the rural economies, energy needs, and the wealth of partner nations.” Following on that Declaration, and taking into account the priority research areas outlined at the Bellagio conferences which provided to the CGIAR’ s exploration of the agroforestry/forestry question, TAC mounted an exhaustive series of consultations with lead agencies in the field such as FAO, other groups, and individuals. At the culmination of that process, TAC recommended an integrated agroforestry/forestry approach, and a decentralized program under which some 70 per cent of resources would go to regional and national research in agroforestry/forestry and 30 per cent to centralized activity. TAC proposed that the centralized activity should be entrusted to ICRAF, if its Board and Management were willing to revise its mandate to encompass an integrated agroforestry, change its name, and prepare in consultation with TAC the plans and programs that would be subject to normal CGIAR procedures. If ICRAF could not make those changes, TAC proposed the establishment of a new, integrated agroforestry/forestry center. Participants at ICWBO reaffirmed their desire that CGIAR-supported research should be broadened to include agroforestry/forestry as part of natural resource management. Most of them had already made a conceptual commitment to this aspect of expansion. Others said their governments had made a financial commitment in principle as well, but were awaiting the emergence of mechanisms which could be funded. The urgency of going ahead with agroforestrylforestry research was emphasized. TAC’ s view that forestry and agroforestry should be regarded as a continuum was generally supported. The recommendation that the CGIAR should support a decentralized program was also endorsed. However, given a recent decision by ICRAF’ s Board that it did not wish to take on additional responsibilities for forestry and its rejection of TAC’ s suggested conditions for entry of ICRAF into the CGIAR System, the debate centered on alternative centralized mechanisms for forestry. During the Executive Session of donors a consensus emerged that a CGIAR program of work in forestry and agroforestry will most likely require two “entities” functioning in close collaboration with each other and with other stakeholders, including national and intemational institutions active in this area. The specific mandates of these two entities, and the division of labor between them, should be complementary, providing a coherent and efficient approach to global agroforestry/forestry research. The Group agreed that one of these entities should be ICRAF, with its mandate and strategy modified in terms of its relationship with the other “entity.” The mandate and the scope of work of the second entity should be defined between now and the next meeting of the CGIAR (See next page). 4 Main Decisions Clear consensus emerged from the discussion of the TAC report on the importance of natural resource management as a twin pillar of CGIAR-supported research. The other pillar would continue to be productivity. Based on that broad view: 0 The Group strongly endorsed the concept of ecoregional activity within the CGIAR System as a means of merging productivity concerns with natural resource management, and asked for a further TAC report elaborating on the nature of these activities and the mechanisms by which they would be undertaken, l The Group urged that in elaborating on the concept of ecoregional activity, TAC should examine a series of natural resource management themes such as the soil/water relationship, soil fertility, plant protection, etc., - and advise the Group on institutional changes required to ensure that those themes were encompassed in CGIAR-supported research, and l The Group sought clarity and specificity on the funds that would be required at each stage of the System’ s envisaged expansion. Responding to TAC’ s analysis of the subject matter areas covered by the 10 non-associated centers reviewed, and to TAC’ s center-by-center recommendations, the Group decided by consensus as follows: AGROFORESTRYIFORESTRY Two entities will be admitted into the System: ICRAF, appropriately modified, and a new institution. A Working Group consisting of Australia (Mr. George Rothschild), Brazil (Mr. Manoel Malheiros-Tourinho), IDRC (Mr. Geoff Hawtin), the Rockefeller Foundation (Mr. Bob Herdt) and Sweden (Mr. Bo Bengtsson) was established to develop proposals for the second institution. The Working Group was expected to report to the CGIAR mid-term meeting in May 1991 on: (a) the spectrum of research to be undertaken by the new entity, (b) the design of an institutional mechanism, (c) options for location and staffing, and (d) the relationship between the new entity and ICRAF. The Working Group should build on the work of TAC, work closely with ICRAF and consult with the CGIAR members and other key actors as necessary. The Working Group was asked to agree on its own organiza- tion and work procedures and to keep the CGIAR informed of its progress. AVRDC The consensus of the Group was that vegetables research should be an important constituent element of the work of the System, and the global contribution made by AVRDC to vegetables research was recognized without dissent. At the same time, however, the Group as well as TAC appreciated the need for political developments to mature before final decisions could be taken. The Chairman will contribute towards a resolution of issues when he visits China next March. COCONUTS Issues relating to coconut research will be taken up as part of the attempt to settle questions concerning agroforestry/forestry research. IBSRAMIIFDC The Group agreed that it was unable at the present time to invite IBSRAM and IFDC to join the System. The themes of the soil/water relationship and of soil fertility are important aspects of natural resource management, and are linked with ecoregional considerations as outlined by TAC. Consequently, the CGIAR will revisit the role IBSRAM and IFDC could play in the System, following elaboration and discussion of a TAC paper on ecoregional activities. ICIPE The TAC recommendation was for ICIPE to remain outside the CGIAR and the consensus of the Group is to accept the recommendation. The issue will be revisited in the context of plant protection as a theme related to ecoregional mechanisms of the future. ICLARM The CGIAR endorses the TAC recommendation to incorporate fisheries research in the work supported by the Group. It also endorses TAC’ s request that ICLARM should develop a strategic plan, and that external reviews should thereafter be mounted by TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat. The CGIAR will consider admission of ICLARM upon completion of the external reviews. IIMI Recognizing the importance of soil/water and plant protection relationships to resource management research, and drawing the distinction with irrigation management research, the TAC recommendation was for unconditional entry of IIMI. The consensus of the Group is to accept the TAC recommendation. INIBAP The TAC recommendation was for INIBAP to be incorporated into IITA but to retain its identity. The consensus of the Group is to include INIBAP in the CGIAR as an independent network and monitor its performance as an innovative operational mode. INIBAP and IITA in collaboration with TAC will work out a sharing of responsibilities and the details of their collaboration. ITC The TAC recommendation was that the CGIAR should await the results of the African Livestock Study led by Winrock International before taking a decision on ITC. The consensus of the Group is to accept the recommendation. TAC CHAIRMAN’ S REPORT Reporting on TAC activities other than its review of the CGIAR System and its possible expansion, Mr. McCalla briefed the Group on the status of several external reviews. Two program reviews covering ICRISAT and IFPRI had been completed. A combined management and program review of IBPGR was underway. All three reviews would be considered by TAC next March and would be on the Group’ s agenda at its 1991 mid-term meeting. A review has been scheduled for ISNAR, for ILCA and ILRAD (joint program and management reviews), and for IRRI and WARDA. The latter two reviews will be combined with an inter-center review of rice research in the CGIAR. Considering the importance of the external review process, TAC expects to present the 1991 mid-term meeting with a report on experiences learned from that process together with some suggestions for future directions. A preliminary review of gender issues had taken place and would continue, in keeping with the sentiments expressed by the Group at the Hague. The committee’ s main preoccupation, however, was the preparation of a policy paper on CGIAR and priorities and strategies. Mr. Kees de Wit, Chairman of the TAC committee preparing the paper, presented the Group with a progress report and outlined the conceptual framework of the policy paper. The approach taken by TAC and the work done so far were endorsed. Summation Summing up the process which began with a broad review of options and ended with specific decisions, the Chairman emphasized that the conclusions reached were inseparable from the intensive discussions which preceded them. The final decision-making session was relatively swift and short, but there was no suggestion of their deliberations on a possible expansion of the System representing a rushed-through operation. Prompt decisions were possible at the end only because of their searching debate at the beginning. Paying tribute to TAC, the Chairman pointed out that the committee had presented the Group with a truly outstanding analytical base. Members of the Group differed from TAC on various details. That was unavoidable and not undesirable. Pallid uniformity can be a sign of weakness. Because the Group had the advantage of a report characterized by vision, analytical depth, and integrity, it was possible for the Group to position itself after several days of sometimes passionate and always earnest discussion on the restructuring of the System and on the themes that underpin the changes proposed. Eventually, the Group was called upon to take specific decisions on individual non-associated centers. But those decisions were based on a solid conceptual foundation involving acceptance of the need for broad changes in the CGIAR. They should thus be clearly seen in terms of their systemic significance and not as piecemeal responses to separate recommendations. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF BOARD CHAIRPERSONS Mr. Henri Carsalade, Chairman of the Committee of Board Chairpersons (CBC), reporting on the work of the Committee, said that they dealt with two major areas of concentration: governance of CGIAR centers, and system-wide issues. The Committee felt that the first of these areas should be their primary concern, and that strengthening mechanisms which would improve governance at the centers should be their primary objective. Reaching this objective would enhance accountability within the System. In pursuing this objective, the CBC felt that it should acquire a “corporate memory” which would be a source of information, a working tool, and an aide to training. A document embodying and analyzing past experience was under preparation. Mr. Carsalade said that recent events at one of the CGIAR centers had demonstrated beyond doubt the need for boards of high quality consisting of trustees of high 6 caliber. Professionalism by nominating committees, system-wide efforts to identify suitable board members, training for new trustees, and an end to automatic renewal of appointments to boards would help to fulfil this need. The process of evaluating boards and chairpersons was underway and would contribute to further strengthening governance at CGIAR centers. Self-assessment exercises pioneered by CIAT and ILCA were spreading to other centers. In this connection, the CBC felt that evaluation of a Chairperson should go hand-in-hand with the principle that each Center Chairperson should be able to serve at least three years in that position. The appointment, tenure, and evaluation of the performance of Center Directors, were a crucial responsibility of boards. The CBC had decided to recommend that all boards should adopt the following principles: (9 except for transitional arrangements, each appointment of a Center Director should be for five years, (ii) a Center Director’ s potential second term should be contingent on a performance evaluation during the fourth year of his/her first term, and (iii) a board could dismiss a Center Director if circumstances warranted such action. Turning to system-wide issues, Mr. Carsalade said that Board Chairpersons had worked closely with Center Directors to define common positions that would benefit the CGIAR. In the interests of coherence and clarity, the Chairman of the Center Directors Committee would present these positions, particularly on proposed expansion of the System, on behalf of both Board Chairs and Directors. Mr. Carsalade announced that Mr. Fred Hutchinson, Chairman of CIAT, will head the CBC for the next two years. Mr. John Dillon, Chairman-elect of ISNAR, will be Vice Chairman. Mr. Carsalade sought continued logistical support as a means of facilitating the work of the CBC. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTER DIRECTORS COMMITTEE Presenting the joint views of Board Chairpersons and Center Directors on the expansion issue, CIMMYT Director General Don Winkelmann, Chairman of the Center Directors Committee (CDC), said that they wished to work together with TAC in implementing whatever changes emerge in the System, especially in identifying the critical decision points. TAC had produced a well focussed and well executed study. The CDC and CBC supported much of what it espoused, and was pleased that TAC had incorporated in its report some of the ideas that Center Directors had expressed earlier - for example, the principle of extending support only to research and research-related activities, the emphasis on food, and the emphasis on the international character of work supported by the CGIAR System. The two committees supported the move to change the goal statement, moving from sustainable food production to sustainable food self reliance. They shared the emphasis placed on forestry and agroforestry by TAC and others, and felt that the shared commitment had already manifested itself in the approach of CGIAR centers. They found no inherent difficulties with recommendations for the medium term. There were questions about the nature of ecoregional mechanisms, but given the experience of some centers in this area relevant programs could no doubt be formulated and carried out. The two Committees wished that greater attention might have been given to livestock. They would also have wished that the point they had made earlier on financing had been taken up. Reverting to the TAC’ s priority setting exercise, Mr. Winkelmann said that Center Directors recognized the fundamental importance of the theme, and the urgency of developing transparent relationships between CGIAR goals and CGIAR resource allocations. Center Directors recognized that there was mounting international concern about the environment. They saw the role that environmental groups could play in helping the centers to understand these concerns and in informing others about what the CGIAR was doing, and what more it could do, in the overall area of sustainability. Center Directors had met in Washington with a consortium of environmental groups, who felt that CGIAR centers were sensitive to environmental issues and who saw in the System a mechanism through which the effects of agriculture on the environment could be modified. At the Washington meeting, Les Swindale, Chairman of the Center Directors Committee on Sustainability, reported on some significant trends within the CGIAR System. Among the developments he described were integrated pest management for tubers, agroforestry in Southeast Asia and the Sahel, and efforts to combat productivity declines in the rice/wheat cropping systems of Asia. Mr. John Walsh (ILCA) will be Chairman of the Center Directors Committee next year. He will be succeeded by Mr. Eugene Terry (WARDA). The Center Directors’ executive committee will consist of Messrs Terry, Walsh, and Winkelmann. 7 CENTER PRESENTATIONS In keeping with the principle of accountability in the CGIAR System, full presentations are made by centers at the Group’ s annual meeting each year. At ICW90 presentations were made by CIAT, IBPGR, ICRISAT, IFPRI, and ILRAD. CIAT Opening the CIAT presentation, Mr. Frederick Hutchinson, Chairman of CIAT’ s Board of Trustees referred to several developments that took place over the last two years. A new Director General had been recruited; the Board and management had reacted to the recommendations of the EPR and EMR; and a strategic plan was developed. Mr. Gustav0 Nores, CIAT’ s Director General, said the CGIAR System and CIAT both faced crucial decisions. The previous Director General, Mr. John Nickel, had led CIAT to a high level of scientific quality and to being of great service to national programs. With those achievements firmly in place, CIAT confronted questions which were being considered throughout the System: future directions, natural resources management, and organizational mandates. Mr. Nores went on to describe some highlights of CIAT. He outlined examples of research with a strong potential for impact in developing countries, and gave the Group an assessment of CIAT’ s comparative advantages in dealing with particular issues that would dominate agricultural research in the future. He focused on an emerging rice/pasture technology capable of leading to a new sustainable production system in the vast savannas of tropical America. Currently, agricultural production in the fragile soils of the savannas is accomplished with heavy liming and fertilization. Under continuous monocropping the soils compact, erode and become deficient in nutrients. CIAT has developed a legume-based pasture which doubles the liveweight gains per head of cattle and increases the carrying capacity of the native savanna by a factor of more than ten. In order to encourage savanna development a cash crop is needed and CIAT has introduced semi-dwarf upland rice lines. When associated with the pasture technology, rice yields increased from one ton to three and a half tons per hectare without nitrogen fertilization. This agropastoral rotational system is based on adapted pastures and adapted crop germplasm. It improves the structure and fertility of the soils, thus substantially contributing to sustainable development of the savanna’ s land resources. Mr. Nores drew attention to the inter-center collaboration between CIAT and IITA on integrated pest manage8 ment which had achieved demonstrable success in controlling mealybug damage and thereby increasing cassava production in Africa. An intensive search was underway for a green mite predator that could be introduced to Brazil as well as several African countries. CIAT, IITA and EMBRAPA are cooperating in the green mite program. He recounted CIAT’ s experience with biotechnology and its collaboration on strategic research with other advanced laboratories. He dealt with the increasing trend of regionalization of the agricultural research and development process. This could create a better structured research and development environment which would increasingly allow CIAT to move out of activities that are more cost effective when handled at national and subregional levels. He emphasized that in view of the interrelated and growing concerns for economic growth, poverty alleviation and protection of the resource base for agricultural production, CIAT’ s criteria for future projects will be agricultural growth with social equity and sustainability of production. Activities that do not have the potential to promote these goals will not be candidates. Some questions were asked about the impact of CIAT’ s research on small farmers versus large ranchers. The effectiveness of CIAT’ s wide range of cooperative arrangements, future directions in seed production and biotechnology research and CIAT’ s commitment to gender issues and specifically the role of women in small holder agriculture were discussed. Several questions focused on adaptive and strategic research and the role of private producers. Mr. Nores referred to the increased participation of producer organizations in the research and technology transfer process and the increased role of NGOs in rural development and environmental preservation. He said that national research and development systems are utilizing alternative funding arrangements, such as externally financed programs and networks, joint ventures with the private sector, bilateral donor funding and external credit from development banks. Mr. Nores was commended for a highly persuasive presentation. He was encouraged to persevere with the important new directions he was pursuing at CIAT. IBPGR Introducing the IBPGR presentation, Board Chairman William Tossell drew attention to the importance of plant genetic resources to a number of major issues such as food security, increasing food production, and environmental protection. He explained the long and complex challenge of repositioning IBPGR that the Board had undertaken. Restructuring the institution with an international legal personality; establishing an appropriate location for the new international institution; searching for an entrepreneurial and visionary leader to be the new director; providing good physical working space; ensuring an interim administrative arrangement with FAO; and maintaining good arrangements between IBPGR and FAO for program activities were among their major tasks. In addition, the Board is also re-examining its own structural and operational procedures. Mr. Dick van Sloten, Acting Director General, examined the progress of IBPGR’ s program activities over the first 15 years and assessed possible future directions facing an autonomous IBPGR and its partners in conservation for the next decade. He noted that when IBPGR was founded in 1974 there were fewer than 10 functional genebanks; today there are over 100 national genetic resources programs. This level of involvement is changing the scope of activities. Summarizing past activities, Mr. van Sloten noted three primary areas of effort: research which resulted in the production of guidebooks and handbooks on genebank management, “in vitro” conservation and safe movement of genetic resources; germplasm conservation and establishing a “global network” of genetic resource centers and base collections at national and international centers; and the European Cooperative Program (ECP/ GR) which combines activities in eastern and western Europe. Referring to IBPGR as it functioned at present, Mr. van Sloten said that 50 per cent of its international professional staff are located at headquarters in Rome and the rest are at regional offices, at other CGIAR centers, or at strong national programs throughout the world. He noted that 29 per cent of the professional staff are women. In developing a new strategic plan, extensive consultations were held with staff and “partners.” This included consultations with national programs through six regional meetings, FAO, and commodity centers within and outside of the CGIAR. National programs have emerged as the major operational elements of the international plant genetic resources effort, and IBPGR’ s emphasis should now shift toward building the capacity of national genetic resources programs by strengthening their technical capabilities and advising them on program planning and development. International crop genetic resources networks will also be encouraged and strengthened. They will be composed of institutes and scientists on a crop-by-crop basis and will encompass all genetic resources activities including collecting, documenting, active and base storage and preparing resources for utilization. He commended an inter-center working group established in 1987 which constantly reviews the relationship between the genetic resource units of the commodity centers and IBPGR. Mr. van Sloten acknowledged the cooperation of other organizations, citing in particular the Memorandum of Understanding which was recently signed with FAO. Reviewing some possibilities in the next decade, he listed conservation of biodiversity, integrating different approaches to conservation, achieving sustainable production, ensuring germplasm accessibility and maintaining the overall effort in plant genetic resources as the major issues. He indicated it would be appropriate for IBPGR to take the initiative in identifying crop genetic resources and .wild relatives most at risk and in developing appropriate plans of action. He stressed the urgency for ensuring germplasm accessibility. This includes proper storage, documentation, multiplication and regeneration capabilities (land and labor to grow and assess the germplasm accessions) and finally the ability and willingness of the holder to release the germplasm. This encompasses the issues of plant breeders’ rights, farmers’ rights, intellectual property rights and biotechnology. Much of the discussion which followed the presentations covered the “rights” issues and the need for a position to be formulated by the CGIAR on these issues soon and certainly prior to the U.N. Conference on the Environment in 1992. Mr. van Sloten indicated that the position of the Board is that all naturally occurring genes should continue to be freely available. He said that IBPGR should be building up an in-house capacity to start developing a policy statement for the CGIAR System. Other concerns were for more training, more taxonomists, and better characterization of accessions. ICRISAT Mr. William Mashler, Chairman of the ICRISAT Board, described to the Group how ICRISAT had initiated an intensive series of reviews of its management and research programs to determine what improvements in capacity are needed to meet future requirements of people living in the semi-arid tropics. This process was the foundation of ICRISAT’ s lo-year strategic plan. Announcing the retirement plans of the center’ s Director General, Mr. Mashler noted with pleasure that Mr. Leslie Swindale had agreed to remain in office until the end of May 1991 to conclude ICRISAT’ s reviews and the strategic plan. Mr. Mashler paid tribute to Mr. Swindale’ s long and distinguished service. The task of selecting his successor was a formidable challenge. Mr. Swindale said that the semi-arid tropics constituted a harsh and demanding environment, but he was confident that pathways to better livelihoods for the people were opening up. For example, in Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali, cereal production had risen 63 per cent since 1981-82. Good weather and new government policies had contributed to this situation, along with the new technologies based on international agricultural research. Specific examples of improved technologies and varieties include good progress with improved pearl millet varieties in West Africa and the release recently of a new Indian variety, following adaptive research by the SADCCXCRISAT program, in Namibia. Pearl millet cultivars are not so well adapted in Tanzania which requires late, photosensitive types, so a joint research program has been developed with Tanzanian scientists. Sorghum adaptability is demonstrated by the release of the new variety ICSVl12 in India, Zambia, and Zimbabwe and more recently in Mexico and Nicaragua. This variety has also been scoring well in trials in Tanzania, Sudan and Ethiopia. Production increased slowly in India, even with a 30 per cent decrease in the real price of sorghum, which benefits the consumer. Legume research success is measured by the increased productivity of short-statured, short-duration pigeonpea, ICPL87. Its potential is widely recognized, and the Seeds Division of the Indian Tobacco Company, a Government of India Corporation, is producing the seed. Research on its adaptability and potential in Sri Lanka is underway, along with integrated pest management research to minimize insect attack. Both chickpea and groundnut research are also showing encouraging results in recent trials. Chickpea varieties are being adapted in parts of Turkey and some of the groundnut research is being extended to Thailand, Viet Nam and Indonesia. Groundnut researchers in Africa have identified the main nematode pest and are developing screening methods for resistance to this pest. In resource management research, a five-year program on management of sandy soils confirmed the value of soil tillage in some sandy soils and established the optimum depth for seedling planting at 3 to 5 centimeters. Hand weeding resulted in the best yields of grain with a 10 per cent decrease with the intermediate treatment combining some inter-row tilling and only one hand weeding. Agroforestry research continues with pigeonpea being investigated in intercrop systems with both legumes and cereals. Windbreaks of trees or tall grasses help increase millet yields by protecting the seedlings from sandstorms at the beginning of the rainy season. The trees can later be coppiced and harvested for fuelwood. African multipurpose trees are being examined for adaptability in the Sahel. 10 In economics, a recently released book by Tom Walker and Jim Ryan distills the essence of ICRISAT’ s ten-year study in villages in semi-arid India. Results include a significant increase in wage rates for farm labor, both men and women; a massive decrease in the percentage of people living in poverty, from 60 per cent to 40 per cent. Rural credit is documented as a major development constraint to farmers, especially for women farmers. ICRISAT’ s cooperative projects include establishing sorghum and millet programs in the SADCC region which included postgraduate scholarships for over 100 students from the region; setting up a regional West and Central Africa pearl millet cooperative research network; and assisting with the creation of research stations in Burkina Faso, Mali and Kenya. Following up a well-received presentation; there were several comments and questions about the ecoregional approach proposed by TAC. In response, Mr. Swindale said that the semi-arid tropics formed a global ecoregion. ICRISAT’ s stations are all in this agroecological region, and it is only because of the great interchange between different parts of the ICRISAT network that advances have been made in this difficult environment. He further elaborated on how positive results on sustainability in ecoregions could be measured - reduced soil loss, reduced soil acidity, and increased organic matter, for instance. IFPRI l Brief progress reports from the external review panels set the backdrop for the IFPRI presentation. Mr. William Gormbley, Chairman of the EMR panel, said that despite the recent crisis of management and personnel, IFPRI is in no danger of floundering. The crisis did not materially affect the quality of IFPRI’ s research nor the dedication and ability of its staff. The panel has concentrated its recommendations in the areas of improved Board operations and governance, and the need for a top management cadre whose style and methods are transparent, decentralized and participatory. The response to these recommendations by the Board, management and staff have been favorable, he added. Mr. Alain de Janvry, a member of the EPR panel speaking on behalf of the Chairman, said that the review focused on two major issues: excellence in research and greater policy relevance. This panel was satisfied that IFPRI is highly respected and has had impact in different countries. Research conducted by IFPRI was important to the CGIAR System and the donor community. Pointing out some areas of inadequacy, Mr. de Janvry suggested that IFPRI should develop a strategic plan; reorganize its structure of management and research; promote greater excellence in research; and seek to have an even greater policy impact. IFPRI should move into the field of natural resource management and the environment by initiating a new program in this area. Much of what the panel recommended could be achieved within IFPRI’ s existing budget. However, additional resources will be needed to move IFPRI into the environmental area and to create new senior staff positions for this endeavor. The IFPRI presentation was introduced by Mr. Gerry Helleiner, Chairman of the Board. He paid tribute to the work of IFPRI’ s Director over the past 13 years, John Mellor, and indicated Mr. Mellor will be continuing to do research and write under the IFPRI banner for a few more years. He said that IFPRI was fortunate to secure the services of Mr. Just Faaland as its interim director. He said Mr. Faaland commands enormous worldwide respect for his research, advisory, and managerial record in the sphere of development economics. He reported that the Board has established a Search Committee for the new director under the chairmanship of Professor Vernon Ruttan. He announced that the Board will hold a special Executive Committee meeting in December to address major issues regarding its own governance and the rules and procedures within the institute. Mr. Faaland, who summarized IFPRI’ s past accomplishments and highlighted current programs and future directions, said that IFPRI’ s research is founded on the identification and analysis of alternative strategies for improving the food situation in developing countries and in the reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Its research also has a strong policy orientation and over the past few years has been conducting field level data collections in all regions of the world as it expands its microeconomic research capabilities. He highlighted several projects including a collaborative project with IRRI and national research institutes in several Asian countries which is analyzing the mediumand long-term implications of future rice supply and demand; a related project which is examining irrigation investments in Asia; work in Africa that is focused on identifying options for increasing the productivity of agricultural labor and alleviating poverty; and collaborating projects with 18 Subsaharan African countries. Emphasizing IFPRI’ s commitment to poverty alleviation as a major objective of its work, he cited three areas requiring increased attention: high rates of population growth, highly diversified income structures of the poor, and highly unstable incomes because of production, market, and policy risks. He commented that the set of policy instruments designed to guarantee food security needs to be better understood and better tailored to specific country circumstances. He explained that IFPRI is well placed to examine women’ s food-related roles in agriculture and at the household food consumption and nutrition level. IFPRI is currently studying the effects of technological change on women’ s income and economic role, on labor allocation patterns, on expenditure and food consumption patterns and on the health and nutritional status of household members. Other studies have looked at the impact on nutrition of increased commercialization of smallholder agriculture. IFPRI is monitoring the transition of countries which have implemented structural adjustment programs. And it is assessing the results of prior studies showing the positive effects of well-planned infrastructure on the production and distribution of goods and services. This remains a largely unexplored and underrated issue. IFPRI’ s new frontiers will involve linking food with environmental policy, linking research more strongly with other CGIAR centers, and linking capabilities more closely with those of developing country partners. IFPRI will look for the right mix of macroeconomic policies and local interventions that will work best in each region. Several participants commended IFPRI on its commitment to undertake environmental and gender issues research. Dealing with another area of interest, participants suggested that in taking a higher profile on policy reforms, IFPRI should not compromise itself and its autonomy. The hope was expressed, as well, that IFPRI should not become too much like an academic institution. Further discussion will take place on the reviews and TAC will report to the Group in May with their commentary. ILRAD Mr. Ingemar Maansson, Chairman of the ILRAD Board, reminded the Group that ILRAD’ s mandate is clear - improved control of livestock diseases. To fulfil this mandate, ILRAD’ s strategy is to improve immunological methods through basic research. Mr. Ross Gray, ILRAD’ s Director General, affirmed that animal agriculture can contribute decisively to the efforts of African countries to combat poverty and increase food production and that good animal health is a major prerequisite for productivity. Animal trypanosomiasis adversely affects livestock production, the development of mixed farming and the rural economy in 38 African countries. East Coast Fever, theileriosis, causes major cattle losses in 12 countries. Related forms of these diseases also occur in regions of South America and Asia. An ILRAD economist recently 11 estimated annual economic loss for trypanosomiasis at about $500 million and $150 million for East Coast Fever. He presented the four components of ILRAD’ s fiveyear work plan: research on tsetse-transmitted trypanosomiasis; research on tick-transmitted theileriosis; research on epidemiological, socioeconomic and environmental aspects of improved disease control; and a program of cooperative research, training and information. The trypanosomiasis program has four sets of activities - gaining a precise understanding of the epidemiology of trypanosomiasis; researching the biology and biochemistry of trypanosomes; defining resistance to infection and the potential for enhancing immune responses; and researching the pathology and genetic resistance of different breeds of livestock. The theileriosis program includes the following three activities - increasing knowledge of the epidemiology of bovine theileriosis; identifying protective antigens on the surface of the sporozoite form of the parasite and their use for immunizing livestock; and research antigens of the intracellular schizonts of Theileria parva. The objectives of the socioeconomic program are to identify factors which govern the successful applications of improved control measures for livestock diseases and to assess the likely impact of improved disease control in economic, social and environmental terms. This program also seeks to bring together biological scientists and social scientists and economists to improve their level of mutual understanding. Under training and information there are regular training programs for scientists, post-doctoral workers, graduate students and technologists. ILRAD’ s extensive experience in state-of-the-art molecular science is a strong attribute and is helping to meet some of the emerging needs of Africa for expertise in molecular biology and biotechnology. Mr. Gray went on to highlight some of ILRAD’ s cooperative programs and the transferring and sharing of new techniques. In particular there are strong demands for improved diagnostic tests for both human and animal trypanosomiasis which are being met by cooperative field evaluation trials of new diagnostic monoclonal antibodies developed by ILRAD. Projections for future work on trypanosomiasis will focus on trypanosome metabolism, genetic control or differentiation processes, the immune response, and aspects of disease pathogenesis. The theileriosis program will look at consolidating recent information on immunogenicity of the theileria sporozoite antigen, identifying the schizont-derived molecules which can be used to protect animals, and researching the possibility of parasite strain recombination, and making use of newly 12 delineated chromosome and gene mapping of the parasite as it relates to vaccines. ILRAD is participating in a global scientific effort to map the bovine genome which is expected to lay the foundation for work in many fields of animal science for some years to come. Specifically ILRAD is concerned with genes and traits associated with genetic resistance to disease and in the immune system response to infecting organisms. The ensuing discussion focused on vaccine production and intellectual property rights and patenting, concern for sustainability and the environment if livestock numbers increase and cooperation between the many existing and emerging organizations who are doing similar research. Mr. Gray explained that they were advised to patent the gene concerned as an experimental vaccine in order to get input from commercial and industrial organizations which have adjuvant materials. Commenting on the possible increase in numbers of animals, he said that their objective is better, smaller, more productive, well-managed herds of cattle which will deal with the current problem of large, extensive, inadequately managed herds which do the damage. IBPGR HEADQUARTERS STATUS REPORT Mr. Nyle Brady, Chairman of the CGIAR Committee on the IBPGR, presenting the final report of the Committee which was established at the CGIAR mid-term meeting at Canberra (May 1988), reported progress on both issues entrusted to the Committee: long-term programmatic interaction and cooperation between IBPGR and FAO, and the location of IBPGR headquarters. A Memorandum of Understanding had been signed between FAO and IBPGR providing for collaborative working relations between them now as well as after IBPGR is established as an independent international institution. The FAO representative said that his organization was satisfied with the agreement which had been signed and he, personally, would help to ensure that its provisions would work to the benefit of both organizations and to the benefit of the FAO’ s member countries. He emphasized in particular the provision for joint (IBPGR-FAO) programming, which required consultation at a working level between the two institutions. In another important development, the Government of Italy had expressed its willingness to host IBPGR as an independent institution. Mr. Alexander von der Osten, Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, had opened negotiations with the Italian authorities to work out appropriate details. The assistance of three or more donor nations as sponsors would speed up the process. The Italian delegate confirmed the position described by Mr. Brady. The representative of Denmark indicated his country’ s willingness to support the proposed international status of IBPGR, and hoped this would not prevent Denmark from being considered as the site for IBPGR should that possibility arise. The Chairman thanked and congratulated all those who had contributed to a set of positive developments, which were fully supported by the Group. REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS Mr. Jim McWilliam presented the final report of the Task Force established to review the CGIAR System’ s experience with the five-year resource allocation process adopted in 1987. A progress report was presented at the May 1990 mid-term meeting of the Group. The Task Force chaired by Mr. McWilliam was set up when the first round of the current resource allocation process was completed and all 13 CGIAR centers were operating on a five-year program and budget plan. The Task Force was expected to determine what aspects of the resource allocation process might be improved or modified before the second round of the process commenced. The broad view among those involved in or familiar with the resource allocation process was that the current practice was a great improvement on past experience, Mr. McWilliam reported. Its main advantages were that it provided for a longer time horizon than before, and that it allowed TAC to look across programs as a whole. Some problems were encountered, however, Mr. McWilliam said. These concerned mainly the need to link program expenditures with System priorities, the nomenclature in use, and the disparity between approved budgets and funds available. To overcome these problems, Mr. McWilliam said, the Task Force brought forward three main proposals: the allocation of resources to individual centers should be explicitly linked to the priorities and strategies of the CGIAR, (ii) the terminology used to describe center programs should be changed from “essential” and “desirable” to “core” and “complementary,” and (iii) a formula should be adopted for adjusting recommended funding levels to the level of available funds, so as to eliminate the recurring disparity between funding approved by the Group on a programmatic basis and actual resources. The existing process and the review of the process were both commended by donors. The review opened the way to fine tuning of the process based on experience, and that was considered a welcome step forward. Some donors felt that the most effective test of the validity of the resource allocation process would be the extent to which it led to rational decisions, and the process would have to be continuously monitored to ensure that it did so. The attempt to improve the transparency of the process and to establish explicit links between priorities and expenditures on programs was strongly supported. In this connection, it was said that uniformity across the System in budget presentations would be desirable. There was general agreement that from the perspective of CGIAR centers it would be helpful to “reward” entrepreneurship by individual centers so that both the center concerned and the System as a whole could benefit from increased resources. The Group endorsed the report of the Task Force and adopted its three main proposals. APPROVAL OF 1991 PROGRAMS/PLEDGING The Group’ s approval was sought for core programs at the 13 CGIAR centers requiring expenditures of $296 million, and for a mechanism which would bring funding requirements into line with resources actually available for 199 1. Complementary programs in the amount of $66 million were also proposed. Commenting on the figures, Mr. von der Osten said that $296 million for core programs, an increase of 23 per cent over the 1990 operating level of $240 million, represented the funds required for centers to undertake programs previously recommended by TAC and endorsed by the Group. The mechanism proposed, he explained, was that annual increases of funds available should be shared among centers in proportion to their approved budget growth. This was the recommendation of the McWilliam Committee which also recommended as a matter of equity that no center budget should grow by more than 150 per cent of the aggregate funding increase in the CGIAR. For instance, if we have an overall growth of 4 per cent in the CGIAR, no center would receive funds for more than 6 per cent growth. The formula respects program priorities as approved by the Group, seeks to ensure that all centers are equitably treated, and enables the System to deal with the reality of resource constraints. If the Group agreed, this formula would be used to allocate $244 million which was expected from donors in 1991. The estimated total of $244 million for 1991 was $10 million or 4 per cent higher than the amount funded in 1990. The increase was partly due to higher pledges in national currencies and partly to gains from exchange rates. 13 (9 The formal pledging session did not take place at ICW90, but 15 pledges were received by the Secretariat, Mr. von der Osten said. Of the 15, seven donors planned to increase their contributions: the US, the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, Finland, Switzerland, Denmark, and the UK. Mexico was rejoining the Group as a donor. One donor had indicated that its contribution would decrease. The US delegate said that his country’ s increase of $2 million was explicitly to strengthen the System’ s focus on natural resources and agroforestry/forestry. The Swiss delegate suggested that future strategic thinking on resources should identify gaps in relation to the System’ s revised goals and come up with specific proposals for bridging those gaps. The need to keep decision-makers in donor countries informed about how the CGIAR was working and what it had achieved was stressed in several interventions. The Chairman agreed to participate in this process. The Group approved the System’ s funding requirements, as modified by the resource allocation mechanism proposed. The Chairman announced that the formal pledging session which had been suspended at ICW90 would be reintroduced next year. collaboration in classical biological control of the cassava mealybug in Subsaharan Africa. Mr. Nicholas Mumba, Chairman of the IITA Board of Trustees, and Mr. Gustav0 Nores, Director General of CIAT, received the awards. Mr. Hans Herren, Director of the IITA Biological Control Research Station at Benin, Cotonou, explained the details of the award-winning program and its impact on farmers and consumers in Africa. Belgian Ambassador to the US Herman Dehennin and the Belgian delegate at the CGIAR D. Ghekiere congratulated the winners on their achievement. TAC Members Certificates of appreciation were presented to Charan Chantalakhana (Thailand), Ibrahim Nahal (Syria), and Ernest0 Paterniani (Brazil) who were leaving TAC on the completion of their terms. CHAIRMAN’ S CLOSING REMARKS Bringing the meeting to a close, the Chairman said that much had been achieved over five days in terms of expansion of the System, but this was not just a numbers game. What had been attempted and accomplished was a truly systemic restructuring. The Group had linked the concept of expansion with the reaffirmation of the System’ s guiding principles. Concerns for incremental food production in the entire chain from germplasm all the way to the consumer’ s table had to be protected. At the same time, they had to respect limitations inherent in resource systems. One imperative could not be enhanced at the expense of the other. Productivity and sustainability go together. It is the understanding of this symbiosis, and the acceptance of a balance of tradeoffs between sustainability concerns and productivity concerns that formed the bedrock on which the Group’ s decisions were based. In making a set of decisions that dealt with System reordering, the Group had also greatly clarified the relationship between CGIAR centers and national research systems in developing countries. The final session of decision-making at ICW90 went smoothly, the Chairman said, but that would not have been possible without the intense exploration of issues, concerns, and concepts which preceded decisions. The Chairman thanked Mr. McCalla, TAC and the TAC Secretariat; CGIAR centers, management and staff; Mr. von der Osten and the CGIAR Secretariat; the conference staff; and, most of all, members of the Group, for having made the achievements of ICW90 possible. OTHER MATTERS Biotask Report Mr. Hans Wessels, Chairman of the CGIAR Task Force on Biotechnology, reported on recent developments. A draft report on the impact on developing countries of intellectual property protection in biotechnology and plant breeding had been prepared by a working group in the Netherlands. Intellectual property protection, biosafety and policy issues would be the subject at a seminar to be organized by BIOTASK and ISNAR next April. A biotech bulletin board would soon be established on the CGNET. Interested donors had recently reviewed the question of biotechnology advisory services. Their report would be submitted to the Group. Future Meetings The 1991 mid-term meeting will be held at the World Bank office in Paris from May 20 to 24. ICW91 will be held in Washington, D.C. from October 2X to November 1. CGIAR/King Baudouin Award The CGIAR King Baudouin Award for 1990 was presented jointly to IITA and CIAT for their successful 14 Annex 1 Agenda Agenda Number’ Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chairman’ s Opening Address Adoption of the Agenda Report by the Chairman of Board Chairpersons Report by the Chairman of Center Directors TAC Chairman’ s Report Proposed Expansion of the CGIAR System (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Background and Process Medium- and Long-Term Visions of the CGIAR TAC Analysis and Recommendations on Non-Associated Centers Structural and Resource Implications Decisions and Next Steps TAC Analysis 7 Integration of Forestry/Agroforestry: and Recommendations 8 Center Presentations -CIAT, IBPGR, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRAD IBPGR Headquarters Status Report Resource Allocation Process Approval of 1991 Programs Pledging Progress Report on IFPRI External Reviews CGIAR/King Baudouin Award 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Future CGIAR Meetings Other Business Chairman’ s Closing Remarks ‘ Not necessarily in order of discussion 15 Annex 2 List of Participants Chairman Wilfried P. Thalwitz Senior Vice President International Bank for Reconstruction and Development E. K. Langtry Director General CIDA Iain C. Macgillivray Senior Programme Officer CIDA Ralph Roberts Director, Forestry and Conservation Sector CIDA DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP African Development Bank (AfDB) Sheridan D. Chirwa Division Chief, Agricultural and Rural Development II Division 2: Irrigation, Agro-Industries and Forestry China Liu Congmeng Division Director, Department of International Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture Asian Development Bank (ADB) M. Zaki Azam Director Agriculture Department Barin N. Ganguli Senior Forestry Specialist Commission of the European Communities (EEC) Gunter Gruner Head of Division Directorate-General Development Timothy J. Hall Head, Sub-Programme Tropical Agriculture Science and Technology for Development Programme Australia George H. L. Rothschild Director Australian Centre for International Agricultural (ACIAR) Research William S . Brown Assistant Director Development Research Australian International Development Assistance Bureau WDm) Denmark Ebbe Schioler Head of Research Section Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) Finland Ilkka Kimmo Adviser Finnish International Development Agency (FINNIDA) Valtteri Hirvonen Programme Officer FINNIDA Austria Walter Rill Adviser for Austria The World Bank Group Belgium D. Ghekiere Head, Multilateral Service Ministry of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Philippe J. Mahler Special Advisor to the Director-General and Assistant Director-General for Environment and Sustainable Development Mohamed S. Zehni Director Research and Technology Development Division B. Sigurbjomsson Director, Joint FAO/lAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture Canada Martha ter Kuile Section Head Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Yves Boulanger Director, Agriculture Sector CIDA John Copeland Senior Country Program Director CIDA 16 L. Roche Forestry Research Gale Rozell Senior Economist Agricultural Division, Project Analysis Department Ford Foundation Norman Collins Director Rural Poverty and Resources Program (RPRP) Walter Coward, Jr. Deputy Director, RPRP Cheryl D. Danley Assistant Program Officer, RPRP International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) Michel J. Petit Director Agriculture and Rural Development Department (AGR) Anthony J. Pritchard Agriculture Research Adviser (AGR) International Development Research Centre (IDRC) France Francois Vicariot Delegate for International Affairs Institut Francais de Recherche Scientifique pour le Developpement en Cooperation (ORSTOM) Danielle Barret Adviser Ministry of Cooperation Jean-Paul Rivaud Adviser Ministry of Foreign Affairs Guy Perrin de Brichambaut Adviser Ministry of Agriculture Geoffrey C. Hawtin Director, Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Sciences WW Greg Spendjian Deputy Director, AFNS Patricia A. Thompson Program Officer Brian Belcher Research Officer, AFNS International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Abbas Kesseba Coordinator, Technical Unit Vera Gathright Liaison Officer Washington, D.C. Germany H.-Jochen de Haas Deputy Head, Agricultural Section Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation (BMZ) Jurgen Friedrichsen Division Head German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) Erhard Kruesken Director German Foundation for International Development @SE) Barbara Becker Liaison Officer to CGIAR Germany Council for Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural Research (ATSAF) Ireland Etain Doyle Head, Bilateral Aid Section Department of Foreign Affairs Joseph Lynch Counsellor, Embassy of Ireland Washington, D.C. T. O’ Connor First Secretary Embassy of Ireland Washington, DC. Italy Annamaria Bruno Officer - Multilateral Desk Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DC=3 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Enrique Ampuero Senior Agriculture Specialist Agriculture Division, Project Analysis Department Jose Kohout Senior Technical Officer Technical Assistance Division Economic and Social Development Department Japan Shinzo Adachi Asst. Director, Multilateral Cooperation Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs 17 Shinya TSUN Director General Tropical Agricultural Research Center (TARC) Motoi Kodaira Deputy Director International Cooperation Division Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Sweden Bo Bengtsson Director General Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries (SAREC) Carl-Gustaf Thornstrom Senior Research Officer, SAREC Kellogg Foundation Manuel Pina, Jr. Assistant Program Director Switzerland Rolf Wilhelm Deputy Director Swiss Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid Federal Political Department Paul Egger Head, Agricultural Service Swiss Development Cooperation Mexico Emesto Samayoa Armienta Vocal Ejecutivo Instituto National de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias (INIFAP) Netherlands Hans Wessels Research and Technology Department International Research and Biotechnology Coordinator Ministry of Foreign Affairs William van Vuure Senior Scientific Officer for International Relations Ministry of Agriculture United Kingdom John Cecil Davies Deputy Chief Natural Resources Adviser, NRED Overseas Development Administration (ODA) Mair Townsend Higher Executive Officer, Research Section, NRED ODA Simon R.J. Robbins Principal, Research Section, NRED ODA M. J. Iles Secretary IPM Working Group Natural Resources Institute ODA William Howard Senior Forestry Adviser, NRED ODA Nigeria Oladeji A. Odegbaro Acting Director Agricultural Sciences Department Federal Ministry of Science and Technology Norway Stein W. Bie Director Norwegian Center for International Agricultural Development (NORAGRIC) Philippines Manuel M. Lantin Assistant Secretary Department of Agriculture United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Timothy S. Rothennel Director Division for Global and Interregional Projects Alva A. App Scientific Adviser Sciences Nyle C. Brady Senior Consultant Philip S. Reynolds Rockefeller Foundation Robert W. Herdt Director Division for Agricultural JoyceMoock Associate Vice President Spain Francisco Javier Garcia-Ramos Head, External Relations Service Instituto National de Investigaciones Agrarias (INIA) Senior Program Officer K. N. Satyapal Senior Adviser 18 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Reuben J. Olembo Deputy Assistant Executive Director Timo Maukonen Sr. Programme Officer Nazmi Demir Ministry of Agriculture Turkey Representing Latin America and the Caribbean (Brazil and Venezuela) Manoel Malheiros-Tourinho Executive Director Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (EMBRAPA) Brazil United States Richard Bissell Assistant Administrator Bureau for Science and Technology Agency for International Development (AID) William R. Furtick Agency Director for Food and Agriculture Bureau for Science and Technology, AID Jack Vanderryn Agency Director for Energy and Natural Resources Bureau for Science and Technology, AID David Bathrick Director, Office of Agriculture Bureau for Science and Technology, AID Dana G. Dalrymple Research Adviser, CGIAR Staff Directorate for Food and Agriculture Bureau for Science and Technology, AID Robert B. Bertram Research Officer, CGIAR Staff Directorate for Food and Agriculture Bureau for Science and Technology, AID Representing Europe (Poland and Portugal) Augustyn Wos Institute of Agricultural Poland and Food Economics Manuel Barradas Director, National Plant Breeding Station National Institute for Agricultural Research Portugal INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Frederick Hutchinson Chairman Gustav0 A. Nores Director General Filemon Torres Deputy Director General Douglas R. Laing Deputy Director General Anthony Bellotti Entomologist, Cassava Program Douglas Pachico Leader, Bean Program Representing Africa (Mauritius and Zambia) J. Robert Antoine Director, Regional Sugarcane Training Centre Mauritius Representing Asia and Pacific (Bangladesh and Thailand) Praphas Weerapat Rice Specialist Rice Research Institute, Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Thailand Marasee Surakul Asst. Secretary-General National FAO Committee of Thailand Office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Thailand Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) Burton C. Matthews Chairman Donald L. Winkelmann Director General Roger Rowe Deputy Director General for Research Claudio Cafati Deputy Director General for Administration Representing Near East and North Africa (Jordan and Turkey) Sammi Sunna Secretary General Ministry of Agriculture Jordan and Finance 19 Centro International de la Papa (CIP) David Call Chairman Lindsay Innes Board Member Richard L. Sawyer Director General Jose Valle-Riestra Deputy Director General Peter Gregory Director of Research Kenneth J. Brown Director of Regional Research Edward W. Sulzberger Assistant to the Director General Max N. Birrell Board Member P.M.A. Tigerstedt Board Member Leslie D. Swindale Director General Ronald W. Gibbons Executive Director West Africa Programs L. R. House Executive Director Southern Africa S. P. Ambrose Assistant Director General (Administration) N. S. Randhawa Consultant M. Wedeman Special Consultant Joyce Gay Senior Administrative International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) William E. Tossell Chairman Dick H. van Sloten Acting Director Alison McCusker Head of Research Secretary International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Gerald Helleiner Chairman Just Faaland Director Gregory B. Votaw Director, Development and Administration NUNS Islam International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Enrico Porceddu Chairman Nasrat R. Fadda Director General AartvanSchoonhoven Deputy Director General for Research James T. McMahon Deputy Director General (Operations) Robert Booth Assistant Director General (International Cooperation) V.J. Sridharan Budget Officer Afaf Rashed Administrative International Senior Policy Advisor International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Nicholas N. Mumba Chairman Laurence D. Stifel Director General Lukas Brader Director General Designate Assistant for the Semi-Arid Kenneth Fischer Deputy Director General, Research J. P. Eckebil Deputy Director General, International Cooperation Program Crops Research Institute Tropics (ICRISAT) William T. Mashler Chairman 20 Hans Herren Biological Control Programme Benin Research Station John McKelvey Mr. Thackway Christian H. Bonte-Friedheim Director General Howard Elliott Deputy Director General Deborah M. Merrill-Sands Senior Research Officer International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA) Ralph W. Cummings, Sr. Chairman John Walsh Director General Hank Fitzhugh Deputy Director General (Research) Jack Reeves Public Awareness Specialist West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) Heinrich Weltzien Chairman S. Sompo-Ceesay Board Member Eugene R. Terry Director General Gordon B . MacNeil Director of Administration Peter Mather Development Officer International Laboratory for Research on Animal Disease (ILRAD) Ingemar Maansson Chairman A.R. Gray Director General John Doyle Director of Research B.C. Lloyd Financial Controller and Finance TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Alexander F. McCalla Chairman Davis, California Michael H. Arnold Cambridge, United Kingdom Gerard0 Budowski San Jose, Costa Rica Charan Chantalakhana Bangkok, Thailand Kamla Chowdhry New Delhi, India Comelis T. de Wit Wageningen, Netherlands Raoul Dudal Leuven, Belgium Hans M. Gregersen St. Paul, Minnesota Ken-Ichi Hayashi Tokyo, Japan Mitsuma Matsui Tokyo, Japan International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Walter P. Falcon Chairman Klaus J. Lampe Director General Michael F.L. Goon Deputy Director General, Finance and Administration Hubert Zandstra Deputy Director General, Research Edward Sayegh Director for Finance Gerry Egan International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Henri Carsalade Chairman John Dillon Chairman Elect 21 Eugenia T. Muchnik de Rubinstein Santiago, Chili Amir Muhammed Islamabad, Pakistan Ibrahim Nahal Aleppo, Syria Salleh Mohd. Nor Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Emesto Patemiani Piracicaba, Brazil James G. Ryan Canberra, Australia K. Kumazawa Board Member Marc Latham Director General Chalinee Niamskul Administrative Officer International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) Thomas R. Odhiambo Director Bo Bengtsson Chairman ICIPE Governing Council Bernard Zagorin Vice Chairman, Governing Council Lynn M. Riddiford Chairman, Programme Committee, Governing Council TAC SECRETARIAT John H. Monyo Executive Secretary Eric Craswell Senior Agricultural Guido Gryseels Senior Agricultural Amir Kassam Senior Agricultural Research Officer William T. Mashler Member, ICIPE Governing Council Lennard Okola Manager for Administration R. A. Odingo Chief, Planning Officer A. Hassanali Head, Chemistry and Biochemistry Research Unit B. A. Muganda Senior Secretary John K. Coulter Member Third ICIPE Periodic External Review Montague Yudelman Friends of ICIPE, Inc. Research Officer and Information Research Officer Marioara Lantini Programme Assistant CGIAR SECRETARIAT Alexander von der Osten Executive Secretary NON-ASSOCIATED CENTER PARTICIPANTS Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) Paul C. Ma Chairman Guy Camus Board Member Emil Javier Director General International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) Roy Jackson Chairman Martin Bilio Board Member Alban F. Gumett-Smith Board Member Peter A. Larkin Chairman Elect International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM) Werner N. Treitz Chairman 22 James A. Storer Board Member John L. Maclean Acting Director General Kenneth MacKay Director General Designate Basillio M. Rodriguez, Jr. Director Edmond de Langhe Director Mehdi Abdelwahab Assistant Director Thomas Thornton Financial Officer Tonie C.J. Putter Plant Protection Susan M. Faure Secretary International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) Howard Arthur Steppler Chairman Robbi Mupawose Board Member Bjom Olofsson Lundgren Director General Robert Bruce Scott Senior Director Dirk Augusti nus Hochstra Regional Coordinator, East Africa International Trypanotolerance Center (ITC) Anthony J.S. Davies Chairman Bakary N. Touray Acting Director Maxwell Murray Chairman Programme Committee Hugh A. Hanley Financial Controller International Union of Forestry Research Organisations (IUFRO) John R. Palmer Deputy Coordinator, IUFRO/SPDC Wien. Austria International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) W. David Hopper Chairman Paul J. Stangel President and Chief Executive Officer David Edwards OBSERVERS C.A.B. International (CABI) Don Mentz Director General Dennis J. Greenland Director. Scientific Services Colin P. Ogboume Acting Director, Information Services D.J. Greathead Director, IIBC Curtis Farrar Senior Adviser International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI) David E. Bell Chairman Robert J. Lenton Director General Marian Fuchs-Carsch Project Development Officer International Network for Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP) Anson Bertrand Board Member Barry Nestel Board Member Gabrielle Persley Board Member Centro Agronomic0 Tropical de Investigation y Ensenauza (CATIE) Rodrigo Tarte-Ponce Director General Eduardo Casas-Diaz Deputy Director General for Research 23 Oscar Fonseca Deputy Director General Jose G. Flores Program Director Victor M. Villalobos Director, Program I Rafael Celis Program Director William K. Gamble Consultant for Agricultural OTHER PARTICIPANTS Alain de Janvry Consultant Pierre Dubreuil Director for External Relations Centre de Cooperation International en Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement (CIRAD) Charles E. French Consultant Research William P. Gormbley, Jr. Consultant John Lewis Consultant James R. McWilliam Consultant Ahmed Momtaz Director, Agricultural Research Center Ministry of Agriculture Giza, Egypt James Peacock BIOTASK Research and Technology Gabrielle Persley Secretary, BIOTASK M. S. Swaminathan President, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation Moctar Toure Executive Secretary Special Program for African Agricultural (SPAAR) Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) Calixte George Executive Director St. Clair Forde Director, Prof. Services Hugh Saul Deputy Executive Director, Development Instituto Interamericano de Cooperation para la Agricultura (IICA) Edgardo Moscardi Director. INTA Eduardo Trigo Director of Agricultural Program Winrock International Robert D. Havener President Dilbagh S. Athwal Senior Vice President Ned S. Raun Regional Representative, Washington Floyd J. Williams Program Officer Hugh Murphy N.S. Peabody Elise Smith Research Eric Verkant Developing Countries Manager International Division Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA) J. Trevor Williams The International Fund for Agricultural Research (IFAR) *Printed on recycled paper. 24