Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Technical Advisory Committee Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS This report comprises: (a) Extract from: “Summary of Proceedingsand Decisions”, CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting, Istanbul, Turkey, 19-22 May 1992 (b) Letter from TAC Chairman transmitting the Report of the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies (c) Report of the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies (d) TAC Chairman’stransmittal letter and summary of the CGIAR Medium-Term ResourceAllocation 1994-98 - Analysis and Recommendations Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Technical Advisory Committee .Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS December, 1994 Consultative Group on International AgriculturaI Research Mail Address: 1818H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Office Location: 701 18th Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 473-8951 Cable Address - INTBAFRAD Fax (Area Code 202) 473-8110 From: The Secretariat CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting May 19-22, 1992 Istanbul. Turkey July 1992 CGIAR Priorities, Strategies and Resources’ Context and Consultation At MTM92, the Group resumed discussion of TAC’s proposals for priorities, strategies, structure and resource allocation in the CGIAR system. Discussion began at ICW91 when the Group considered two documents prepared by TAC, A Review of CGIAR Priorities: Advanced Working Draft, which provided a framework for assigning relative priorities by activities, agroecologies, regions, production sectors and commodities; and a secondpaper which was a summary of the first. After a searching discussion of TAC’s draft proposals, the Group reached broad agreement on several themes, raised a number of questions that needed further examination and agreed that a final set of proposed priorities should be presented at MTM92. These final proposals would be presented in the context of their translation into five-year resource envelopes, and their longer-term implications for the structure of the CGIAR system. Endorsement by ‘the Group of the proposed resource envelopes would allow preparation of five-year program plans by the centers. Also at ICW91, there was a strong feeling among all sections of the CGIAR system for working toward the redefinition of a system-wide strategy. There was a consensusthat a synthesizing exercise by a small group could move the process along. Consequently, the CGIAR Chairman convened a consultation at London in February 1992. A report on that consultation has been distributed within the system. At MTM92, Mr. Walter Falcon who served as Moderator at the consultation, reported on its main outcomes. I Extract from “Summary of Proceedings and Decisions”, CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting 1992, Istanbul, Turkey. ii Mr. Falcon said that he would summarize the major themes that emerged from the consultation under 10 points which focused on some organizational issues, some funding issues, some substantive issuesand some communications issues. Most of them were actually talked about. Some were in the undercurrent and in the back rooms. Almost all start with the phrase “a concern about” or “a concern with”. There was genuinely a concern at the London meeting that “business as usual” was not going to work any more. 0 This is becausethe CGIAR system was at a new point in its history that had to do with the proposed expansion, and with the fact that the system was facing new serious budget constraints of the kind that it had not dealt with for a very long time in its history. Adding to this, was the bureaucratization of the system and the maturity problems that arise when an institution such as the CGIAR moves from a first generation to a second generation of leadership, at all levels. Under the same rubric of “business as usual won’t work” is the need to come to grips with environmental and natural resource issues; and to define the system’s most effective relationship with environmental groups. The system also had to take note of the fact that with surpluses and declining real prices of commodities in the developed world, the CGIAR system with its emphasis on agricultural growth in developing countries is a “tough sell” among donors. To deal with this concern, Mr. Falcon suggestedthat the CGIAR system badly needs a new crisp H-page statementpointing the way to the future. There was a general concern that the successstories, of which there are many, had not been told well enough, widely enough and clearly enough. 0 The whole question of impact in telling that story better is a major conclusion of the London group, and it is probably a focus that external managementand program review teams need to deal with much more than they have done in the past. 0 There was concern about the administrative structure of the system. Pointing out that there was great unhappinessat ICW91 on this score, Mr. Falcon suggestedthat some of the problems noted could be handled by the establishment of an executive committee. In the absenceof an executive committee, everything falls to TAC. TAC does five-year planning and strategy, annual reviews of programs, budget allocations and so on. To say this is not to condemn TAC. Alex McCalla and his colleagues perform exceptionally well, but they are caught up in the wrong structure, with too many functions. If an executive committee is not in the cards, he asked, would the Group think about at least creating five standing committees, to deal with key functions such as 111 ... strategies, programs, fund raising, resource allocation and public awareness? That would streamline TAC and permit it to be more of a technical advisory group. There is a concern with International Centres Week, particularly with the size of this undertaking. It is not centers week any more, it is approaching centers month. In terms of participation, it is very hard to get above pro-forma set speeches. Given the growing importance of regional activities, and the growing importance, potentially, of the regional development banks, and the fact that some of the ecoregional activities are going to have to be done on a regional basis perhaps the answer is to hold a couple of parallel sessionsrunning by region at ICW. 0 0 There was great concern on funding levels, and on the need to develop processesthat match supply and demand for funds. Uniformly, the urgent need was recognized to match plans and budgets, There was also a feeling, that it is not possible to cut center budgets or hold them constant in real terms or add centers, and expect the centers to do more on a net basis. a There was concern about resource allocation processes. It was hoped that the envelope system planned by TAC would move toward an equitable process. It was agreed, as well, that the continued role of the World Bank as “donor of last resort” is essential. The seventh point was the role of the private sector. There was general agreement that much could be learned from the private sector, and that this issue needed to be explored further perhaps with an in-depth discussion at ICW. 0 0 There was concern about substantivefocus. There was absolutely no doubt on two fundamental points: gerrnplasm is one pillar on which the system rests, and sustainability is the second. To be quite clear, it was understood that to t‘alk about sustainability, without talking about productivity, was irrelevant, Other matters discussedunder substanceincluded the possibility of including Eastern Europe and nations of the former Soviet Union in the CGIAR orbit. There was a long discussion about livestock, as well, and about the need for clarity in upstream/downstream issues. There was a concern about strategic research. This was most evident during discussions on the ecoregional concept. It was generally felt that clarity was needed on how the existing centers would and should take on the ecoregional resource and environmental systems questions. 0 l There was concern about communication. iv The really good thing about the consultation at London was that 25 people around a table for three days in an information setting could really go at the issues. They found that a lot of apparent disagreementswere simply due to the fact that they did not understand one another. Extending this experience across the system, it is clear that in terms of impact analysis, in terms of ecoregional contact, in terms of organizing meetings and of external relations, much needs to be done. Communication within the system, and in external relations, is crucial. Delegates commended the Chairman for convening the London consultation. They complimented Mr. Falcon both for his written report on the consultation (distributed in advance of MTM92) and for a succinct presentation at Istanbul. In several interventions, support was expressedfor restructuring CGIAR meetings, and for new approachesto disseminating information about the CGIAR. Some delegates regretted the omission of relations with national research systems in the highlights of the consultation presented at the Mid-Term Meeting. In this connection, it was emphatically said that several donors would be unable to continue contributing to the CGIAR system unless specific requests for funding were made by beneficiary countries. Priorities At MTM92 the Group adopted a comprehensive set of priorities arranged by activity, region, production sector and commodity. These priorities will guide the evolution of the system’s programs over the next decade. As a by-product, the Group endorsed a new approach to priority setting developed by TAC and described in its report, Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part I. This section of the report covers TAC’s analysis, conclusions and recommendations on priorities. Part II of the report deals with the impact of CGIAR priorities, structure and resource allocation. A summary of TAC’s analysis follows. Activities. TAC’s analysis showed that the current constellation of activities in the expanded CGIAR is largely congruent with present and future research and researchrelated activity needs, but that much greater emphasis still needs to be given to natural resource conservation and management. TAG listed five clusters of activities and made recommendations for each. Conservation and Management of Natural Resources. TAC recommended an increase in this area, with approximately equal weight for ecosystem conservation and management, and germplasm collection, conservation, characterization and evaluation. V Germplasm Enhancementand Breeding. CGIAR centers have an established record of successin this activity, and TAC recommended a slight increase, particularly in Asia where researchcould help to raise the yield ceilings of food crops. Development and Management of Production Systems. TAC recommended a reduction in these activities over the long term, as national research systems should take over much of this work which is location specific. Socioeconomic, Public Policy and Public Management Research. TAC recommended increasedpriority for these activities for which there is an increasing need in all developing regions. Among the issuesthat need to be addressedare land use, sustainability, poverty alleviation and self-reliance in food. Institution Building (including Training, Information, Organization and Management Counselling and Networks). TAC emphasizedthe need for supporting institution building in developing countries, but recommended a reduction in some of these activities, particularly technical assistance. Agroecologies. TAC recommended an emphasis on tropical agroecological zones, and the cool subtropics. For forestry, priority was recommended for tropical zones. Regions. For the long term, TAC’s recommendation is that the emphasis be shifted from Africa to Asia. The shift will begin in the short term, and evolve to the proposed levels over time. rsduction Sectors. TAC indicated that the magnitude of value of production is greatest in agriculture, followed by forestry, then by fisheries. New initiatives in forestry and fisheries should not be at the expenseof agricultural research. Csmmodities. A detailed analysis of commodity priorities was presented for agriculture 7 forestry and fisheries. This included increased emphasison roots and tubers, oil crops, vegetables, bananasand plantain, and forestry research thrusts endorsed by the 1988 Bellagio Task Force on Forestry. Reviewing this final version of TAC’s recommendationspresentedfor discussion at MTM92, Mr. McCalla said that they reflected views expressedby CGIAR members at ICW91 as well as calculations resulting from updated data. The revised document was not very different from the version discussedat ICW91. The methodology and general approach are unchanged. Some numbers are different, however, partly becauseof new pricing data, but also becauseprojections were made (in the revised version) for 17 centers, not 13 as before. Mr. McCalla said that a major recommendation from TAC was that there should be a substantial increase in priority allocation to the conservation and management Vi of natural resources including germplasm conservation, and an increased emphasis on socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch. These emphases,he added, were endorsed by the Group at ICW91. Ile reminded the Group that at ICW91 TAC had said that on the basis of its analysis it could not find compelling reasonsfor a continued adjustment of CGIAR resources in the direction of Africa and away from Asia. Further analysis had confirmed that view. In the broad area of commodities research, TAC was not recommending major changes, he added. TAC’s analysis suggestedthat there was overinvestment in livestock research. This issue would be re-examined, however, on the basis of the external program and management reviews of ILCA and ILRAD, and the livestock study led by Winrock International. Mr. McCalla reminded the Group that they were engaged in a sequential process. They had to move on from setting priorities to defining strategies and structure and allocating resources. The Chairman drew attention to this point as well, reminding the Group that becauseproposals for strategies, structure and resource allocation were based on priorities, it would be difficult to move ahead with further discussion until agreement was reached on a set of priorities. Delegates commended TAC for the thoroughnessof its approach, for its transparency and for establishing a priority-setting methodology which some CGIAR members might even wish to adopt in their own institutions. They were living through a period of stringency in the availability of overseas development assistancefunds. Efforts, such as those undertaken by TAC, to place ODA finding on a rational basis helped to bring about clarity in donor countries and institutions. TAC’s analysis was uniformly well received. TAC’s recommendation for reemphasizing natural resource managementwas fully endorsed. The need to devise new and concrete research methodology in this area was accepted. At the same time, it was viewed as a high priority for the CGIAR, perhaps requiring reorientation and innovation at centers. Concern was expressedthat livestock research might be downgraded in the CGIAR, despite its importance to the farming sector in many developing countries. The interaction of livestock with other aspectsof farming should also be considered, in the view of some delegates. There was general acceptanceof the principles underlying TAC’s approach to national systems. It was stressed,however, that linkages between CGIAR centers and national systems should not be weakened. More ways should be found - through vii networks, for instance - by which the centers could benefit from their interactions with national systems. The importance of the relationship with national systemswas emphasizedby both the representativesof board chairpersons and center directors. The latter would be meeting with 46 leaders of sub-SaharanAfrica for a two-day meeting in June. Mr. McCalla took note of the views expressed,and said that TAC would continue its examination of some of these issues. The Chairman observed that broad consensushad emerged on TAC’s proposals. The priorities recommended by TAC and endorsed by the Group could, therefore, serve as the basis for a discussion of strategies and structure. Strategies and Structure The Group completed a first round of discussion on TAC’s proposals for strategies and structure, contained in Chapter 13 of the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part II. The Group agreed that TAC’s proposals should serve as the working basis for further elaboration, clarification and development. This will be done in consultation with the centers and other stakeholders. TAC’s approach to strategies and structure flows from its medium- and medium/long-term vision for the evolution of the CGIAR system which was presented to the Group when it was engaged in expanding the CGIAR system. TAC defines the medium term as covering five years, the medium/long terms as 20 years and the long term as extending toward a horizon about which detailed discussion is not practicable. In the medium/long term, TAC envisions the CGIAR system undertaking two separatebut complementary research activities - global and ecoregional. Global programs will concentrate on strategic research on an agreed slate of commodities and subjects. Global research will be conducted with close attention to regional requirements and programs. Ecoregional activities will cover strategic and applied research on natural resource conservation and managementproduction systems and location-specific aspectsof commodity improvement. TAC proposed the establishment of six ecoregional programs two in sub-SaharanAfrica, one in the West Asia/North Africa region, two in Asia and one in Latin America. TAC went on to offer some preliminary ideas on the institutional and structural options for carrying out these activities; the capacities available and those required for the future. TAC stressedthat the relationships between global and ecoregional mechanisms would be “entirely complementary”. Vlll . .. The Chairman reminded the Group that TAC’s proposals should be considered as being in the form of a draft. Vigorous and incisive comment would help TAC as it reviewed its own proposals and as it continued its dialogue with centers, the leaders of national systems and others. Some centers have begun to play a stronger ecoregional role. They would benefit from the Group’s endorsementof that role and from suggestionsfor how best it should be carried out. An important element of ecoregional activities at CGIAR centers should be interaction with national systems. Endorsement and clarification of this connection would be helpful, the Chairman suggested. In a brief overview, Mr. McCalla said that an important characteristic of Chapter 13 was that it fleshed out with even greater detail than before the parameters of ecoregional research, particularly the specific range of expected outputs, the relationship to natural resource management and linkages with national programs. The current iteration would not satisfy everybody, Mr, McCalla said, but it was a further step forward. The next set of responseswould be from the centers which were closely examining the concept itself as well as the operational aspectof the concept. The centers, Mr. McCalla suggested,were better suited than TAC to provide definitions in detail. Mr. McCalla also shared with the Group the process by which TAC selected a set of ecoregions for concentration. TAC’s conclusions were based on a match between the needs of ecoregions and actual or potential activities in existing centers. TAC had undertaken a careful analysis of institutional options for the activities it had recommended; in effect, exploring what structure was best suited to the strategies envisaged. TAC did not present a fixed set of recommendationson structure, however, becausethe relationship between strategies and structure would have to be carefully reviewed with the centers and others before a definitive set of options was presented. Mr. McCalla pointed out that the linkages between ecoregional and global activities were complementary in terms of concept and must be complementary in terms of operation. That critical set of linkages would be the core of TAC’s future consultations. Mr. Eugene Terry, Chairman of the Center Directors Committee (CDC), said that his colleagues would be proactive in meeting the challengesposed by the need for ecoregional research. He said that some of the issuesthat confronted them as they moved forward with this task were the need to define clearly partnership mechanismswith national systems; the need for additional resources; the need to maintain a judicious balance between crop research and natural resourcesmanagementresearch; and ensuring maximum flexibility in putting together the institutions required. TAC’s proposals formed the basis of a vibrant discussion, covering conceptual issuesas well as matters of operational detail. TAC’s proposals representeda “first cut”, and it was felt that the Group had a long way to go before reaching finality on some of ix the issues. For that reason, the opportunity to participate in the development of TAC’s proposals was welcomed. Overall, the Group supported TAC’s approach, while suggesting areas in which further elaboration or clarification are required. The following major subject areas were covered in the discussion. Ecoregional Research. The ecoregional concept was overwhelmingly reendorsed, with both TAC and CGIAR centers being encouragedto move from concept to operations. The need for the CGIAR system to intensify research into the managementof natural resources was deemed to be crucial. There was general appreciation of the series of efforts that had been made to add substanceand working detail to the concept as originally presented. At the same time, it was acknowledged that the responsibility for defining more specifics would continue to challenge the system becausethere were no established guidelines for natural resourcesmanagementresearch. Elaborating the specifics would necessarily involve working out measurementsby which the impact and successof ecoregional research could be determined. National Systems. While acknowledging that ecoregional research presents the CGIAR system with a strategic research challenge of international significance, there was general agreement that the tasks facing the system could be effectively carried out only in full collaboration with national systems. A range of responsibilities that might fall on national systems was described. They included participation in setting out the agenda for natural resources management research, elaboration of criteria governing ecoregional research and full participation in research activities. Capacity building in national systems would have to proceed concurrently with collaboration in research. Innovative forms of collaboration would be required. In this connection, the use of networks was supported. Some national systems had proposed that CGIAR centers should work through nationally managed substations. TAC was encouragedto review these issues in consultation with national system representativesas well as within the system. Selectivity. In several interventions, the CGIAR system was cautioned against attempting to do too much. There are many actors in the arena of agricultural research, and the CGIAR should not seek to accomplish more than what its resourcesand its critical mass of expertise permitted. In this connection, TAC’s suggestion that, at least initially, the system shotild concentrate on a few agroecological regions was commended. TAC could rethink the regions it selected - based on suggestionsat MTM92 or at other consultations - but the principle of selectivity should remain paramount. TAC and the system were urged to choose carefully what activities should actually be undertaken; and to choose scientifically. These activities, it was felt, should be transferable in terms of concepts, principles and methodology. Similarly, the selection process should be ’ transparent, and related to the mission of the CGIAR. Commodities. The emphasis on ecoregional activity should not detract from commodity activities, an area in which the CGIAR has had great successand in which it has a well-established comparative advantage. Moreover, commodity improvement remained so significant a factor in food productivity that its neglect would mean a loss to the international community. There was a clear sensethat natural resourcesmanagement research and commodity research were not mutually exclusive. They had already been X accepted as twin pillars of the system that would foster increased food productivity through sustainable agriculture. It was pointed out, as well, that sustainability concerns should not be restricted to marginal or fragile areas. High potential areas were of equal importance becausethey would be the source of increased productivity in the foreseeable future. Structure. Streamlining the CGIAR system was seen as, potentially, a positive development. The point was made, however, that proposals made so far appearedmore likely to preserve the status quo than to usher in changes. If a large number of options were presented to existing institutions it was likely that each would pick an option with which it felt comfortable; usually, an arrangement closest to its existing method of operations. The question of structure, therefore, needed further scrutiny on the basis of practicality and systemic judgement. Where changeswere required, they should be real and not cosmetic. Old wares should not be repackaged. Many variations were possible as the system sought the most appropriate structure to work on agreed priorities. Some centers might be able to conduct both ecoregional and global research. Existing experience with intercenter collaboration should also be reviewed for any institutional options it might suggest. Notions concerning the amalgamation of existing centers should be cautiously evaluated. Final proposals should be based on a re-examination of options by TAC and the centers. Mr. McCalla, taking note of the points made, said he interpreted the thrust of the discussion as an authorization to move ahead into the next phase of consultation. He will report back to ICW92 and again at ICW93. Resource Allocation The Group accepted a recommendation from TAC which links priorities to resource allocation. It endorsed a set of 1998 resource envelopesas the starting point to guide the centers as they draft new five-year plans and for budget-related discussion among TAC, the centers and the Group. TAC’s recommendations are based on a translation of priorities into program efforts across the system, and on an assumption of constant funding with some additionality for agroforestry, forestry and fisheries. These recommendations are presented as indicative ranges of 1998 core funding for the centers in Chapter 14 of Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part II. An indicative resource envelope is presentedfor each center, and centers were asked to submit to TAC budget proposals and program plans at both 10 percent above and below the resource envelope figure. Opening the discussion, Mr. McCalla outlined the processby which TAC had moved from a system-level review of funds, with 1991 as a point of reference, to individual recommendations for each center, consistent with the priorities adopted by the Group. xi In defining resource envelopes, he said, TAC was mindful of the fact that they were dealing with real well-established institutions (the centers), each with its own programs. The question, therefore, was how to establish the most reasonableinterface between a new set of priorities and functioning centers. Mr. McCalla commended his colleagues for the effort they had put into the exercise. Mr. McCalla pointed out that the resource envelopesrepresentedonly an overall number. Translating those numbers into specific programs and budgets, within the framework of established strategies, would be up to each center. The next steps would, therefore, have to be taken by the centers in the context of their medium-term planning. TAC will present its final funding recommendationsto the Group at ICW93. At this point, he said, TAC sought preliminary general endorsement of the resource envelopes. That would trigger the next phase of planning, and TAC-center consultations. Each center could argue its case for more, and TAC would consider these submissions in relation to the criteria on which resource envelopesare based as well as the overall funding situation. The Chairman reminded the Group that what was expected from them was a close scrutiny of TAC’s proposals, and a preliminary response. This would help both TAC and the centers to move the process along. TAC was commended for its systematic effort to move sequentially from priorities through strategies and structure to resource allocation, and for providing guidelines with which the centers could proceed with the task of reconciling TAC’s calculations with their requirements. The centers were living institutions and should not be expected to approach this responsibility in a mechanistic way. In this connection, there was a senseamong some donors that the guidelines provided should be amplified and made more explicit. Unless that was done, it was felt, the centers would find it difficult to move from Chapters 12 and 13 of the TAC paper to Chapter 14. It was acknowledged that the resource allocation process was evolving, and that the situation would become more clear as consultations progressedbetween TAC and the centers. There would be converging coherencefrom this process. Nevertheless, further clarification was considered appropriate by some delegates. Among the questions raised on matters of detail were the reasonsfor a holdback by TAC, the perception that “older” centers would suffer most, the need to find a place for networks within the CGIAR system and the danger that centers would play off “core” against “complementary” programs and could thereby subvert the allocation process. A very strong preference was expressedfor the continued role of the World Bank as “donor of last resort”. On behalf of the centers, Mr. Terry said that centers viewed the issuesrelating to the reduced funding envelopes in terms of a broader problem, that of declining xii contributions to the CGIAR system. Center directors are sensitive to this problem. They want it to be known that they will be proactive in terms of their efforts to mobilize more resources. He pointed out, too, that the centers have “many masters” such as donors, boards and partners in national programs. In whatever direction the centers move whether it be in terms of resource allocation or any other activity - their actions have to be sanctioned by boards relevant to the needs of partners, attractive to donors and consistent with CGIAR priorities and strategies. As the discussion evolved, two issueswere raised for responseand action: 0 the specifics for ensuring that TAC and the centers would move in tandem toward a final definition of allocations; mechanismsby which program thrusts could be reported both by budgetary categories and program categories, thus making it possible for the CGIAR to present a strong external profile on, for instance, its environmental activities. e In responseto the first point, Mr. McCalla outlined the following schedule: center directors, the TAC Chairman and others will hold preliminary discussions in June; a TAC-nominated panel would conduct a system-wide review between June 1992 and May 1993 of existing ecoregional activity; and an open workshop will be held at Puerto Rico immediately after MTM93. These arrangementswould provide for a high degree of interaction and input. On the second issue, Mr. McCalla undertook to examine methodologies at the World Bank and at USAID that could facilitate such a reporting mode. Reviewing the discussion, the Chairman said that convergencewas achieved on three broad fronts. (1) The Group endorsed the financial assumptionsfor the 1994-98 planning period, which maintains core funding at the current level in real terms, augmented by additional resourcesfor agroforestry, forestry and fisheries. The Group endorsed the resource envelopesrecommended by TAC as starting points for five-year planning by centers. The Group agreed that extensive interactions among TAC, the centers and others should precede final decisions at ICW93. (2) (3) CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Alex F. McCalla Chair 3 April 1992 Dear Mr. Rajagopalan, It is my pleasure to submit to you TAC’s Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. The report is composed of two parts. Part I (containing Chapters 1-12) deals with TAC’s current views on CGIAR priorities, while Part II (Chapters 13 and I4) covers the implications of revised priorities for the strategiesand structure of the CGIAR and for resource allocation. While Part I is very similar to the draft report that was discussedat International Centres Week ‘91, several changeshave occurred reflecting the comments we received from members of the CGIAR, representativesof national research systems, centres and other stakeholders, and the outcome of further discussionsby TAC at TAC 56 and 57. While we would, of course, encourageyou and others to read through the entire document, we recognize that due to time limitations this may not be possible. Readers should, therefore, give particular emphasisto a careful reread of Chapter 12 which summarizes TAC’s recommendations with respect to CGIAR priorities. Other important changes from the previous draft can be found in Section 2.2 on CGIAR activities and Section 4.6 where we have expandedthe commodity coverage and have updated the data on prices and value of production. Due to the latter efforts, the outcome of the quantitative analysis reported in Chapter 9 is also slightly different, although the analytical approach has remained the same. In Chapter 9 we have also added new sections on the importance of particular commodities for the poor, and on spillover effects. Part II of the Report is new. Chapter 13 builds on Chapters 8 and 11 of the report “A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR” (AGR/TAC:IAR/90/24) and contains TAC’s views on future alternatives for strategies, and the structure of the CGIAR. Mr. Visvanathan Rajagopalan Chairman Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington D. C. 20433 USA Mail address: Technical Advisory CommlCGIAR, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 Tel: (916) 7.52~8648/8649- Telex: 4900010239 UCD Ul - FAX (916) 752-8572 Office Location: 219 E St., Suite 2C, Davis, CA xiv Chapter 14 considers the implications of TAC’s current views on CGIAR priorities for resource allocation, with particular reference to the medium-term programme and budget process. TAC discussedPart II for the first time at TAC 57 in March 1992 in Aleppo and we subsequently needed more time to revise this section than Part I. Part II is therefore being forwarded under separatecover. Mr. Chairman, in transmitting this report, TAC completes the current round of analysis of CGIAR priorities as requested. We recognize however that priority setting is a continuing activity in the CGIAR. Over the next 12 months we will start monitoring the implementation of these revised priorities through the assessment of centres’ mediumterm proposals. With respect to Part II of the document, TAC recognizes that it would benefit from further inputs from members of the CGIAR and its stakeholders in the process, so a final version will be submitted to ICW’92. The paper is a report from TAC as a whole, but I must pay special thanks to several people without whose hard work the task would not have been completed. Professor C.T. de Wit and the members of the TAC Standing Committee on Priorities and Strategies developed the methodology and proposed alternative approachesto TAC. John Monyo, Amir Kassam, Eric Craswell and the other staff of the TAC Secretariat have provided continuing and valuable support. Particular thanks must go to Guido Gryseels whose efforts were invaluable and far beyond the call of duty. Special thanks must also be given to the CGIAR Secretariat for their significant inputs in several sections of the report. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the assistancereceived from FAO, ACIAR and many CGIAR institutes, particularly ISNAR and IFPRI. We look forward to a stimulating discussion of the report at the Mid-Term Meeting of 1992 in Istanbul. Yours sincerely, Alexander F. McCalla Chairman, TAC AGR/TAC:IAR/92/ 18.1 THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP QN INTERXATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY CQMMITTEE REVIEW OF CGIAR PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TAC SEQETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS April 1992 TABLE OF CONTENT3 Page SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 2. Background Evolution of the CGIAR and its Priorities Implementation of the 1986 Recommendations Outline of the Report OF THE CGIAR 7 7 9 16 16 17 18 18 19 19 20 23 23 xxvii THE MISSION, GOALS AND ACTIVITIES 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Mission and Goals CGIAR Researchand Research-Related Activities Special Nature of International Research 2.3.1. Activities with a continuing advantageat the international level 2.3.2. Activities justified over the medium term by the current lack of capacity in the developing countries FOR CGIAR PRIORITY SETTING 3. FRAMEWORK 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. Priority Setting at the CGIAR System Level Guiding Factors in the Consideration of CGIAR Priorities A Three-Dimensional Framework Agroecological and Regional Characterization AND RESEARCH EMPHASIS 4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 4.1. Introduction XVlLl ... 4.2. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in a Changing Global Context 4.2.1. Trends affecting food demand 4.2.2. Resource management 4.2.3. Changes in the atmosphereand climate 4.2.4. Equity and gender 4.2.5. Perspectiveson national research Strategies for areas with different resource endowments 4.2.6. Natural Resource and Socioeconomic DataBase Agroecological Zone Aspects Warm arid and semi-arid tropics 4.4.1. Warm subhumid tropics 4.4.2. Warm humid tropics 4.4.3. Cool tropics 4.4.4. Warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall 4.4.5. Warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall 4.4.6. Warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall 4.4.7. Cool subtropics with summer rainfall 4.4.8. Cool subtropics with winter rainfall 4.4.9. Regional Aspects 4.5.1. General overview 4.5.2. Sub-SaharanAfrica 4.5.3. IVest Asia-North Africa 4.5.4. Asia and the Pacific Latin America and the Caribbean 4.5.5. Production Sectors and Commodities 23 23 25 26 26 27 28 29 32 32 33 34 34 34 36 36 36 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 47 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 5. CROPS 5.1. 5.2. Background Cereals 5.2.1. Rice 5.2.2. Wheat 5.2.3. Maize 5.2.4. Barley 5.2.5. Sorghum 5.2.6. Millet 47 48 48 50 52 53 54 55 xix 5.3. Roots, Tubers, Banana and Plantain 5.3.1. Cassava 5.3.2. Potato 5.3.3. Sweet potato 5.3.4. Yam 5.3.5. Banana and plantain Food Legumes 5.4.1. Chickpea 5.4.2. Cowpea 5.4.3. Broad (faba) bean 5.4.4. Lentil 5.4.5. Phaseolusbean 5.4.6. Pigeonpea 5.4.7. Soybean Oil Crops 5.5.1. Oilseeds 5.5.2. Coconut 5.5.3. Groundnut Vegetables Other Crops and the Issue of Self-Rehance 56 56 58 59 60 61 61 61 62 63 63 64 65 66 67 67 68 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 76 76 77 77 78 78 78 78 79 80 81 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 6. LIVESTOCK 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. Background Regional Importance Livestock 6.3.1. 6.3.2. 6.3.3. 6.3.4. Research in sub-SaharanAfrica Feed supply Animal health Genetics Sustainableproduction systems 7. FORESTRY AND AGROFORESTRY 7.1. 7.2. Background Regional Forestry ResearchNeeds Sub-SaharanAfrica 7.2.1. West Asia-North Africa 7.2.2. Asia 7.2.3. 7.2.4. Latin America and the Caribbean XX 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. ResearchNeeds of Common Concern Current Status of Forestry Research Future Directions of CGIAR Forestry Research 81 82 83 86 86 86 8. FISHERIES 8.1. 8.2. Background Research Needs 9. THE ANALYTICAL PROCESS: AGROECOLOGICAL, REGIONAL, PRODUCTION SECTOR AND COMMODITY PERSPECTIVES 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. Introduction The Congruence Approach Initial Priority Setting 9.3.1. An overview 9.3.1.1. Value of production 9.3.1.2. Poverty 9.3.1.3. Land use 9.3.2. 9.3.3. 9.3.4. 9.4. Baseline for agriculture Baseline for forestry Baseline for fisheries 89 89 89 90 90 90 92 92 92 94 96 96 96 98 99 99 99 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 Modification of the Baseline 9.4.1. Standard procedure 9.4.2. Selection of modifiers Modifiers Chosen Efficiency indicator 9.5.1. Yield gap or scope for growth 9.5.1.1. 9.5.2. Equity indicators Malnutrition 9.5.2.1. GDP per caput 9.5.2.2. Sustainabi!ity indicators 9.5.3.1. Urgency of need for production growth 9.5.3.2. Deforestation 9.5.3.3. Soil degradation risk 9.5. 9.5.3. xxi 9.5.4. Strength of national research system indicators 9.5.4.1. Capacity of national research systems 9.5.4.2. Small countries Food import gap Preservation of forest resources 104 104 105 105 106 106 106 109 109 112 113 114 114 114 114 116 120 9.5.5. 9.5.6. 9.6. 9.7. 9.8. Data for Modifiers Modifier Weights Chosen Quantitative Impact of Each Modifier Agriculture 9.8.1. Forestry 9.8.2. Fisheries 9.8.3. Impact of Modifiers Agriculture 9.9.1. 9.9.1.1. Priorities by region, agroecological zone and regional agroecological zone 9.9.1.2. Priorities by commodity and region 9.9.2. 9.9.3. Forestry Fisheries 9.9. 9.10. 120 Impact of Changing Modifier Weights 9.10.1. All modifiers increasedand decreasedequally: 120 agriculture, forestry and fisheries 121 9.10.2. Sensitivity to changing one weight 9.10.3. Sensitivity of adjusted commodity values, and their regional 123 distribution, to modifier weights: agriculture 9.10.4. TAC ‘s conclusions regarding weights 125 Expected Productivity Gains Importance of Particular Commodities for the Poor Spillovers Additional Inputs: The ACIAR Framework Conclusion 125 125 127 127 131 9.11. 9.12 9.13. 9.14. . 9.15. xxii 10. INSTITUTION 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.4. 10.5. BUILDING 132 132 132 134 135 136 137 138 138 139 139 206 Introduction Training Information Organization and Management Counselling Relationships between CGIAR Centres and National ResearchSystems 10.5.1. Appropriate roles for CGIAR Centres 10.5.2. Mechanisms for collaboration 10.5.2.1. Types of collaboration 10.5.2.2. Cooperative research 10.5.2.3. Contract research 10.5.3. Linking centre activities to research assistance 11. RESEARCH ON SOCIOECONOMICS, PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. 11.5. 11.6. Background Policy Researchto Date Global Change and Evolution in the CGIAR: the Implications for New Policy ResearchPriorities Policy Researchand Formulation Capacity in Developing Countries Human Linkages Public Management Research OF TAC’S ANALYSIS FOR CGIAR PRIORITIES 141 141 142 143 144 145 145 146 146 147 12. IMPLICATIONS 12.1. 12.2. Introduction The Analytical Framework xx111 .. . The Status of TAC’s Priority Analysis 12.3.1. By activity category 12.3.2. By agro ecological zone and regional agroecological zone 12.3.3. By region 12.3.4. By production sector 12.3.5. By commodity within the agricultural sector 12.3.5.1. The commodity portfolio 12.3.5.2. The congruencebetween the modified values of production and current allocations Conclusions Final Observations 150 150 153 153 156 156 157 160 166 167 13. IMPLICATIONS OF TAC’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRIORITIES FOR 168 FUTURE CGIAR STRATEGIES AND STRUCTURE 13.1. Introduction and Conceptual Background 13.1.1. TAC’s sequential approach to priorities, strategies and structure 13.1.2. Main conclusions of the priority exercise 13.1.3. TAC’s medium/long- and long-term visions of the CGIAR 13.1.4. Key strategic principles 13.1.5. The ecoregional approach to research 13.1.5.1. Concept 13.1.5.2. Implementation Future Strategies and Structure for the CGIAR 13.2.1. Ecoregional activities 13.2.1.1. Priorities by ecoregion 13.2.1.2. Institutional options 13.2.2. Global activities 13.2.2.1. Global commodity/production sector research 13.2.2.2. Global non-commodity research 13.2.2.3. Inter-centrejglobal initiatives Structural and delivery issues 13.2.3.1. Study of CGIAR delivery mechanisms 13.2.3.2. Other structural issues Timetable 168 168 169 170 171 174 175 176 178 178 179 183 185 186 189 190 191 191 191 13.2. 13.2.3. 13.2.4. xxiv 13.3. 13.4. 13.5. Relationships between Global and Ecoregional Mechanisms Implications for Mandates of Existing Centres Concluding Remarks 192 193 194 ON PRIORITIES AND 195 195 195 195 196 196 197 197 198 198 199 199 199 199 201 201 203 208 208 209 209 211 211 211 211 213 14. IMPLICATIONS OF TAC’S RECOMMENDATIONS STRATEGIES FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION 14.1. 14.2. Introduction CGIAR Medium-Term Planning Process 14.2.1. First round of MTPs - 1987-89 14.2.2. Second round of MTPs - 1992-93 14.3. Setting the Context for TAC’s Recommendationson Core Resource Allocation 14.3.1. Resourceallocation methodology 14.3.2. Time horizon 14.3.3. Availability of core funds 14.3.4. Character of recommendationson resource allocations Priority Setting and Factors Relevant to Resource Allocation 14.4.1. TAC’s focus on the core programme 14.4.2. Priority setting methodology 14.4.3. 1991 distribution of CGIAR core resources 14.4.4. Results from priority setting 14.4.4.1. Categories of activity 14.4.4.2. Production sectors and commodities 14.4.4.3. Regional distribution The Allocation Process The Resource Allocation Methodology 1998 Core Supply Considerations Recommendationsof 1998 ResourceAllocations 14.8.1. System resource allocations 14.8.1.1. Global outcome 14.8.1.2. Regional portfolio of CGIAR investments 14.8.2. 14.8.3. 14.8.4 14.8.5. Linking system allocations to centre allocations Centre resource allocations Specific factors affecting individual centre allocations Financial factors relevant to the interpretation of the centre envelopes 14.4. 14.5. 14.6. 14.7. 14.8. 216 218 222 xxv 14.9. Implementation and Execution of the Medium-Term ResourceAllocation Process - The MTP Process 223 14.9.1. Planning guidelines 223 14.9.2. Timetable 223 14.9.3. Interactive review of the MTPs 223 223 14.9.4. Consolidation and approval of MTPS 14.9.5. Adjusting planned requirements with actual funding 224 during implementation 224 224 224 225 226 14.10. Centres’ 1993 Programmes and Budgets 14.10.1. A transition year 14.10.2. Matching demand and supply 14.11. Conclusion REFERENCES ANNEXES Annex1 Annex II Annex III Annex IV Annex V Annex VI Annex VII - Agroecological Zones Framework and Databasefor the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies Average 1987-89 Value of Production and Shares for Commodities by Region and by Agroecological Zone Price Data and their Sources Land Use in Different Regions and Agroecoiogical Zones Estimated Rates of Progress in Researchon Different Commodities by Region and Agroecological Zone ACIAR Commodity ResearchPriorities by Region List of Acronyms REVIEW OF CGIAR PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES Summary This report presents TAC’s current views on CGIAR priorities and strategies. TAC’s previous report on these matters was finalized during 1986 and led to the request at the CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting in 1987 that TAC produce an updated priority report every five years. In addition to producing broad directions for the CGIAR, TAC’s recommendations on CGIAR priorities and strategiesare used to guide resource allocation in the System, and to evaluate possible new initiatives for their consistency with these priorities. TAC’s present approach to priority setting differs from that used in 1986. It has been modified to take into account the expandedmandate of the CGIAR, the need to give greater emphasis to sustainability issues, to ensure transparency and to develop mechanisms which will allow priority setting to become a continuing activity of TAC. TAC has also made use of a formal analytical framework as an aid to (but not a substitute for) informed qualitative judgement and decision making. It should be stressedthat the framework used is not an optimizing procedure, but aims only at clarifying choices. It allowed TAC to make the process of arriving at priorities transparent so that a reasoned dialogue with other stakeholders, such as national programmes, Centre Directors, Board Chairs, and CGIAR members, was facilitated. TAC started its analysis of CGIAR priorities with an analysis of the mission and goals of the CGIAR which is discussedin Chapter 2. The CGIAR mission statement reads as follows: “Through international research and related activities, and in partnership with national research systems, to contribute to sustainableimprovements in the productivity of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in developing countries in ways that enhancenutrition and well-being, especially of low-income people”. The goals of the CGIAR have been formulated as follows: (i) effective management and conservation of natural resourcesfor sustainableproduction; (ii) improved productivity of high priority crops; (iii) livestock; (iv) trees; (v) fish, and their integration into SustainabIeproduction systems; (vi) improved utilization of crop, livestock, tree and fish products through improved postharvesttechnology; (vii) progress towards equity (including gender equity) as well as improved diets, nutrition and family welfare, through better understanding of the human linkages between production and consumption; (viii) appropriate policies for the increasedproductivity of crops, livestock, trees and fish, and for the sustainableuse of natural resources; (ix) strengthenedhuman resources and institutions for greater researchcapacity in developing countries’ research systems. The level and nature of the CGIAR’s future involvement with each of these goals will vary greatly, but all are recognized as essential concerns. The aim is to contribute to the nine goals through research and institution building. Through research, the CGIAR Centres also contribute to science. All goals converge on the central mission of the CGIAR through a number of CGIAR activities. A comprehensive list of these activities is presented in Chapter 2. - xxv111 ... Chapter 3 reports on the framework for CGIAR priority setting. Several factors guided TAC in its consideration of CGIAR priorities: the CGIAR mission and goals; emerging trends in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors of developing countries; changes in science and the organization of research; the evolution of scientific capacity in developing countries; the relative importance of production sectors and commodities across regions and agroecological zones; the importance and international character of the development problem which generatesthe need for research; the opportunities for international research of a strategic nature and the potential for technical breakthroughs; and the comparative advantagesof the CGIAR System to undertake such research and the complementarity of its efforts with those of other agencies. The analytical framework used by TAC had three dimensions - activities, spatial, and product - each of which is described below. An activities dimension, with five major categories of activities: conservation and managementof natural resources including germplasm conservation (biodiversity); germplasm enhancementand breeding; production systems development and management; socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch; and institution building (including training, information, organization/managementcounselling and networks). TAC recognizes that there is no clear dividing line between these activities, and that a number of CGIAR objectives cut across several categories, such as strengthening of national research systems, and improvement of the sustainability of production systems. A spatial dimension, with four geographical regions and nine broad agroecological zones (AEZs). The regions are Asia (which includes the Pacific); subSaharan Africa (SSA); Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); and West Asia-North Africa (WANA). The zones are: AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: warm arid and semi-arid tropics; warm subhumid tropics; warm humid tropics; cool tropics; warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall; warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall; warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall; cool subtropics with summer rainfall; and cool subtropics with winter rainfall. Applying this AEZ concept to the four regions leads to a total of 23 regional agroecological zones (RAEZs): four in sub-SaharanAfrica, three in West Asia-North Africa, seven in Asia and nine in Latin America. A product dimension, with four main production sectors - crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries - and their corresponding commodities. xxix In Chapter 4 on problem identification and researchemphasis, TAC began its analysis with an investigation of the challengesfacing researchand development in agriculture, forestry and fisheries between now and the year 2010. The analysis showed that food demand is increasing rapidly and its composition is changing in developing countries becauseof population growth, income growth, and urbanization. While the world produces more food per head of population today than ever before in human history, more than 1100 million people in developing countries still are identified as poor. The sustainability of agricultural production is at risk, the degradation of resources is accelerating, and poverty and malnutrition remain widespread in the developing world. During the next two decades,yields of staple foods in developing countries will need to more than double to maintain food production per caput at today’s levels. Meeting the demand for more food will remain the central challenge facing research by the CGIAR System. Producing more food will increase pressureson the natural resource base. It will therefore become necessaryto pay greater attention to research on resource management. Examples of researchtopics at the global level include the substitution of renewable for non-renewable resources, the conservation of genetic resources, and studies of possible or actual changesin global atmosphereand climates. Greater attention will also need to be paid to issuesof poverty, malnutrition and equity, especially gender equity. The strength of national research systems in developing countries will greatly affect the scope and quality of research and its impact. The different capacities and resource endowments of national programmes will alter their collaborative relationships with centres. This must be taken into account in planning future strategies at the international level. While there has been a considerable increase in trained human resources, many national research systemsremain weak or are constrained by a shortage of operational funds. The remainder of Chapter 4 presents a discussion of the challenges to research and development by production sector in each of the regions and agroecological zones. It also gives an overview of the importance of each production sector and of the corresponding commodities in each of the regions. The challenges facing the CGIAR have thus intensified since its inception in 1971. Population growth continues at high rates, particularly in Africa, poverty and malnutrition remain pervasive, the need for increasedproductivity grows more acute as the opportunities for area expansion diminish, and long-term issuesof sustainability have become both more prominent and more severe. Thus TAC finds that the need for applied and strategic research at the international level focused on productivity improvement and sustainable resource managementfor agriculture, forestry and fisheries, is more pressing now than it was when the CGIAR was founded. Chapters 5 to 8 subsequentlyanalyze the research issuesfaced in each production sector (crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries) and their respective commodities in greater detail. A description of TAC’s comprehensivequantitative analysis based on regionally defined agroecological zones is given in Chapter 9. A modified congruence approach was taken using a composite baseline made up of value of production, number of poor people and total usable land area. This composite base was then modified by a series of xxx variables (modifiers) to take into account issuesof efficiency, equity, sustainability, strength of national programmes, self-reliance and potential for agroforestry . The results provided a basis for priority setting by agroecological zone, region, production sector and commodity. They also provided insight regarding the priority need for particular activities. In Chapter 10, TAC presents its views on institution building activities in the CGIAR. The CGIAR was establishedprimarily as a mechanism for funding technological research, but as it evolved, increasing emphasishas been placed on collaboration with national systems in research and institution building. TAC believes a balanced approach to research and institution building to be appropriate. TAC notes that the CGIAR System has provided training to large numbers of scientists from national systems (approximately 25,000 during 1985-89). TAC believes that the training programmes at the CGIAR Centres need to change to take account of the progress made. Group training, especially production-oriented training, should be reduced in favour of individual postgraduatetraining and visiting scientist arrangements. Greater emphasis is needed on training in the areas of research management, fisheries, forestry, agroforestry, and the managementof natural resources. In addition, advancesin information technology will offer the CGIAR Centres new opportunities to collect, analyze and disseminate research information. TAC believes that institutional weaknessesstill place major limitations on the generation and adoption of technology in the national systems of many countries. In the past, the CGIAR Centres have played imbortant roles in institution building, including the organization of research networks, the provision of consulting services and the forging of institutional links. Furthermore, ISNAR provides a comprehensive, integrated and systematic approach to organization and managementcounselling. TAC believes that, in the future, collaborative relationships between CGIAR Centres and national research systems will increasingly augment the traditional institution building activities. Research needs in socioeconomics, public policy and public management research are discussed in Chapter 11. The mission and goals of the CGIAR are unlikely to be achieved without a conducive policy environment. The CGIAR acts primarily as a catalyst in the field of food policy research. Its main tasks are to understand the interactions between government action and human behaviour in relation to agriculture, technology, natural resources, and consumption, and to collaborate with national systems in identifying policy options. The broadening of CGIAR goals to embrace self-reliance extends policy research so as to include cash crops as well as the reduction of staple food costs and the more efficient use of inputs. More policy research on sustainability issues is also needed. The role of policy in influencing human behaviour at the farm and community level will be a key component of multidisciplinary research on forestry and natural resources. Continuing attention will be paid by the CGIAR to research on human linkages, particularly in relation to human nutrition and gender issues. The management of public organizations, such as national research agenciesand irrigation management institutions, is another important topic for research in the CGIAR. Researchon national research systems is needed to accumulate and analyze a knowledge base on these systems and to develop improved managementconcepts and tools. The results of these analysesassistedTAC in formulating its views on priorities in Systemwide terms by: (a) category of research activity; (b) by agroecological and xxxi regional agroecological zone; (c) by region; (d) by production sector; and (e) by commodity. These are discussedin Chapter 12. With respect to the assessment of priorities by activity category, TAC recommended a substantial increase in the priorities allocated to the conservation and management of natural resources including germplasm conservation, and to socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch. The Committee recommended a reduction in the priority allocated to development and managementof production systems and of institution building, and the maintenanceof current priority ranking of germplasm enhancementand breeding. This is illustrated in the following table which shows the proposed shifts among activity categories and an indication of the differential efforts by region relative to the new proposed level of activity. Priorities by activity category by region (core resources only) 1991 Activity Category 1. Conservation and Management of Natural Resourcesincluding Germplasm Conservation (Biodiversity) 2. Germplasm Enhancementand Breeding 3. Devpt. and Mgmt. of Production Systems 4. Socioeconomic, Public Policy and Public Management Research 5. Institution Building (incl. Training, Information, OrgJMgt. Counselling and Networks) base 2010 Rec. SSA Regioni’ WANA Asia LAC 13 21 33 9 17-19 21-23 28-30 10-12 + + - + 0 + + -I0 + 24 19-21 + + + = o= - = more than the new System level priority but possibly lower than current allocation equal to new System level priority less than new System level priority but possibly higher or lower than current allocation the mid points of the ranges add to 100 N.B. This table can be found in Chapter 12 of Part I (Table 12.1). TAC subsequentlyconsidered CGIAR priorities by region. At present, 43 % of the CGIAR’s core resources are allocated to sub-SaharanAfrica, 13% to West Asia-North Africa, 29 % to Asia and 15% to Latin America and the Caribbean. The rapid population growth rates, coupled with declining per caput food production in sub-SaharanAfrica, make a compelling case for that region. The fragility of its tropical agroecological zones, xxxii the generally limited national research capacities and the slow rate of progress in productivity improvement to date add to the apparent urgency. Many of Africa’s development problems are also political in nature, however, and cannot be solved through research alone. In Asia, on the other hand, the magnitude of population numbers, the extent of the poverty problem, the narrowing yield gap and the limited scope for land expansion all argue strongly for more long-term strategic and applied research. On balance, TAC considered that, in the medium term, the current share of resources allocated to sub-SaharanAfrica and to West Asia-North Africa should be modestly reduced, while the share allocated to particularly Asia and Latin America should be increased. TAG recommends that in the medium term, CGIAR resourceswould be distributed with a share of 39% to sub-SaharanAfrica, 11% to West Asia-North Africa, 33 % to Asia and 17% to Latin America. The Committee did not make a recommendation on the level of priority by production sector, but noted that the proposed new programmes in forestry and fisheries should not be funded at the expenseof critical research needs in crops and livestock. TAC reaffirmed the priority it is currently allocating to the cereal and root and tuber crops. Among food legumes, it proposes a modest reduction in the level of priority of phaseolus bean, and a significant reduction in that of pigeonpea. The priority ranking of groundnut and soybean should be increased, while that of lentil, chickpea and cowpea should be maintained. TAC recommended that the current level of effort on banana and plantain should be maintained, and it reaffirmed its views on the priority level for research on vegetables and coconut. Finally, the priority analysis led TAG to note that the CGIAR is currently overinvesting in livestock research, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Part II of this report presents TAC’s views on the implications of revised priorities for future CGIAR strategies and structure, and for resource allocation in the CGIAR. This sequencereflects the approach taken by TAC in its analysis of CGIAR priorities, strategies, and resource allocation. The first step was to develop an analytical framework to addressthe question of what research activities should be supported by the CGIAR, and what the relative emphasis of these activities should be. The determination in relative terms of what to do is the object of priority setting. This was discussedin Chapters 1 to 12 of Part I of the report. The second step relates to the question of how the identified priorities should be addressed. This relates to determining the strategy appropriate for the CGIAR to implement its priorities. The third step, once priorities and strategies are agreed upon, is to explore which institutional entity should do the research and how it should be operationally organized. This is the question of structure. This discussion of strategy and structure is provided in Chapter 13. The final step of course is to link priorities to available financial resources in the context of current thinking on strategies and structures. This is the subject of Chapter 14. Part I of the report has been shared previously with the members of the CGIAR and its stakeholders, and the information contained in Chapters 1 to 12 is therefore considered definitive. Chapters 13 and 14 have been produced since then and are new. xxx111 ... Therefore TAC recognizes that their content will benefit from further inputs by the Group and centres, while the medium-term resource allocation process is being implemented. In developing its views on future CGIAR strategiesand structure, TAC drew on work done previously in the framework of assessing potential expansion of the CGIAR (‘A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR’ AGR/TAC:IAR/90/24). In that document TAC outlined a medium/long and long-term vision for the evolution of the CGIAR System. For the medium/long-term, TAC considered that the CGIAR would have two types of activities: global activities, and regionally defined agroecological activities. For the latter type of activity, TAC has described them as ‘ecoregional’. This approach was confirmed and elaborated upon in TAC’s recent deliberations. Global activities would comprise strategic research on selectedcommodities and subject matter areas, while ecoregional activities would focus on applied and strategic research on natural resource conservation and management, the development and managementof production systems, and on applied aspectsof commodity improvement. Global activities would either have a commodity focus, or a focus on subject matter or discipline. These concepts are further elaborated in Chapter 13. The ecoregional approach was proposed by TAC as a vehicle for increasing research on the conservation and managementof natural resources, needs which were strongly confirmed by the analysis of CGIAR priorities, and for greater rationalization of CGIAR Centre contacts with NARS. Although it recognizes that the primary responsibility for conducting ecoregional research would be with national programmes, TAC notes that the global research community does not yet have an effective paradigm for natural resource managementresearch. Identifying a conceptual framework for conducting such research was a goal of truly international relevance. Thus, TAC carefully defined the nature of the outputs to be expected from CGIAR supported ecoregional research. TAC proceeded with the translation of the strategic concepts in operational terms. With respect to the ecoregional concept, an assessment was made of the need for particular activities in each regional agroecological zone (RAEZ). TAC considered that six ecoregional programmes were justified: two in sub-SaharanAfrica (one on AEZ 1, and one combing on AEZs 2 and 3), one in West Asia-North Africa (AEZ 9), two in Asia (one combing for AEZs 1 and 5, and one that would combine AEZs 2, 3, and 7), and one in Latin America (combining AEZs 2, 3, 6, and 7). In addition, TAC noted the condition to be met for justifying a programme for the cool tropics in Latin America and sub-SaharanAfrica. TAC then considered the institutional options for priority ecoregions. This included comparing identified ecoregional needs with existing CGIAR Centre capacity in order to determine if centre programmes could be adjusted to meet future needs. With respect to global activities, TAC first considered a number of strategic questions, and then explored a number of particular structural options. Both for ecoregional and global concepts, TAC discusseda number of options but did not make firm recommendations pending further consideration by the CGIAR of their feasibilities, advantages,and disadvantages. TAC also considered the relationships between global and ecoregional mechanisms, which programmatically are entirely complementary. Finally, Chapter 13 xxxiv briefly discussesthe possible implications of TAC’s view on strategies and structure for mandates of CGIAR Centres. Chapter 14 describes the background, process and outcome of TAC’s deliberations on linking medium/long-term priorities and strategies to medium-term resource allocation. In its analysis, TAC proceeded in two steps: first at the System level, and then at the centre level. At the System level, data on 1991 core resource distribution among the priority parameters (categories of activity, regions, production sectors and commodities) constituted the point of reference for TAC to identify the change in direction needed (and the scope thereof) to ensure a gradual implementation in the medium term of medium/long-term priorities. This required the setting of intermediate targets by 1998 in a manner that provided a satisfactory degree of compatibility among the various priority parameters. Following a series of iterations, TAC arrived at a consistent set of recommendations of relative distribution of resourcesamong the priority parameters. Throughout this analysis, TAC has assumedthat core funding in 1998 would be essentially maintained, in real terms, at its current I992 level, but with incremental core funding for expansion of new CGIAR activities - fisheries and forestry in particular. This funding assumption may be considered too conservative. It should not be seen as an indication by TAC that the current level of resources is adequateto fully meet the challenges and tasks faced by the centres. It is a conservative approach at this stage of the planning process to ensure that the System has the opportunity to explore the operational implications of zero real growth. Once the relative distribution of core resourceswas determined, it was translated in absolute core funding terms for 1998, i.e., US$ 270 million (in 1992 values). This amount is consistent with the funding assumption described above: it consists of the level of 1992 core funding (US$ 251 million), augmentedby ICLARM’s 1992 core funding (US$ 4 million) and an assumedincrement of core funding of US$ 15 million for fisheries and forestry. A financial spreadsheetprovided for an initial mechanical translation of recommendations on System level priorities into centre allocations. This was the beginning point of TAC’s development of individual centre resource envelopes, taking into account other factors such as the need for minimum critical mass, stage of maturity and recent development in centre programmes, and relevant information from strategic plans as well as programme and managementreviews. TAC also considered the need to have sufficient flexibility at completion of the medium-term resource allocation. Therefore TAC recommends, on the one hand, that centres’ resource envelopes be discounted to set aside a US$ 20 million reserve which could be allocated either following the review of all centres’ MTP proposals, or during the period of implementation of the MTPs. On the other hand? centres are requestedto present their MTP proposals in a range of 10% above and below the indicative resource envelope, thus allowing them to disclose their programme potentials at higher levels of core funding as well as the impact lower core funding would have on the programmes. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR) has several responsibilities with respect to the assessmentof CGIAR priorities. It makes recommendationson priorities to guide the allocation of resources across the System, allowing an appropriate balance among centres, activities, commodities and regions. It also evaluatespossible new initiatives or activities for their consistency with these priorities. Lastly, TAC monitors the implementation of approved CGIAR priorities through its consideration of centres’ medium-term plans and related budget proposals. At its mid-term meeting in Montpellier in 1987, the CGIAR agreed that TAC would produce an updated report on CGIAR priorities and strategies every five years (TAUCGIAR, 1987a). The last such report (TACKGIAR, 1987b) was completed in 1986, and previous reports had been prepared in 1973, 1976 and 1979. The preparation of the present report was initiated at TAC 50 in 1989. Drafts of the report were discussedwith representativesof national research systems in Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, West Asia-North Africa and sub-SaharanAfrica and also with Centre Directors, Board Chairs, members of the CGIAR and other stakeholders. TAC’s recommendations on priorities are made at the broad System level. The Committee does not make recommendationsat the programme level as this is the responsibility of the centres. TAC considers the programme priorities of the centres when it assesses their strategic and medium-term plans. It also evaluatesmechanisms for priority setting at the centres through its periodic external reviews. The CGIAR System is only one component in the global agricultural research system and commands only a fraction of its resources. The System has to be very selective in choosing among the many demandsfor agricultural research, those it will help to meet. The CGIAR has played primarily a gap-filling and bridging role in agricultural research. Centres fill gaps that cannot be filled by national systems and provide a bridge to institutions active in basic and strategic research. As a publicly funded international entity, the CGIAR tries to identify themes and opportunities where individual national programmes have little incentive to make a major commitment, either becauseof economies of scale or becausethe spillover effects are so large that they cannot be captured by them. The principal role of the CGIAR is to strengthen the work of national programmes by undertaking activities that are complementary and non-competitive. TAC has therefore made substantial efforts to seek the views of national research systems in each of the regions with respect to CGIAR priorities and strategies, prior to finalizing this report. 1.2. Evolution of the CGIAR and its Priorities The CGIAR was established in 1971. In its early years it focused on improving the productivity of crops important in the diets of low-income people in developing countries. Initially, highest priority was given to research on cereals, particularly rice and wheat, which are the most important food staples. Attention was also given to food 2 legumes and ruminant livestock for their potential to improve the quality of diets, and to starchy foods for their potential in terms of energy supply per hectare. Gradually, the commodity base was broadened. Besides commodity-oriented research, the need for policy research and for strengthening national research systemswas recognized. Between 1971 and 1980, the CGIAR grew from four institutions initially to thirteen, and the scope of activities broadened considerably (TAC Secretariat, 1973, 1976 and 1979). Research has traditionally received the largest share of CGIAR resources, accounting for 50 to 62% of core expenditures between 1971 and 1990. The remainder was allocated to training and institution building, documentation and information, and administration. Table 1.1 shows how CGIAR researchpriorities by commodity and major activity have evolved over the years. Rice is the crop that still receives the largest share of core resources for research, although this share has declined from 21.5 % in 1971/75 to 17.2% in 1986188. The share allocated to cereals as a whole has declined from almost 58% to less than 39%. Although the share of resources allocated to research on cereals has declined in relative terms, the amount spent has grown in real terms, tripling from a constant US$ 10.1 million per annum during 1971/75 to US$ 32.5 million in 1986/88. The share allocated to roots and tubers has remained relatively constant at around 11%, that to legumes has steadily increasedfrom 8 % to about 13%, while the share of livestock has doubled from 10% in 1971-75 to nearly 20 % in 1986-88. The dominant recipients of resources for non-commodity-specific research have been farming systems, food policy, genetic resources and capacity building of national research systems. TAC’s review. of CGIAR priorities and strategies in 1986 identified a number of issues that required further elaboration: sustainability, resource managementand environmental degradation, income generation, employment and equity, evolving partnerships with national research systemsand the sluggish progress in food production in less favoured areas. The review also identified vegetables, fish and coconut as new cclnmodities to be considered for inclusion in CGIAR research at some future date. TAC recognized that the CGIAR needed to give special emphasisto strategic research, and that a farming system perspective should be adopted for formulating and implementing research programmes. It was further noted that the location of the most urgent food problems had shifted from Asia to sub-SaharanAfrica, TAC reiterated its long-standing perception that the need for factor-oriented research was best met through the multidisciplinary commodity approach. As an outcome of the review, TAC made recommendations on CGIAR priorities and the level of resources to be allocated to eight distinct programme thrusts and to each mandate commodity. In 1988, while these recommendationswere being implemented, the CGIAR asked TAC to examine a possible expansion of the CGIAR by considering whether and how to incorporate the so-called non-associatedcentres, or important elements of their programmes. One year later, the CGIAR also recognized the need to further expand research on natural resource managementby incorporating forestry research into its mandate. At ICW’90, members of the CGIAR considered TAC’s analysesand recommendations regarding the non-associatedcentres and the incorporation of a forestry initiative. TAC’s proposals to redefine the mission statement and to expand the goals of the CGIAR were endorsed. The new CGIAR mission and goal statementsintroduced the 3 Table 1.1. Allocation of CGIAR core research resources by commodity (1971-88) 1’ 1971-75 % Rice Wheat, barley and triticale Maize Sorghum and millet Subtotal, cereals Potatoes Other roots and tubers Legumes Subtotal, crop research Livestock Subtotal, commodity research Farming systems Food policy y Genetic resources NARS capacity building 1’ Subtotal, other research/activity TOTAL 21.5 13.8 19.5 3.1 57.9 4.6 6.8 8.1 77.4 10.2 87.6 12.2 0.1 0.1 12.4 100.0 17.2 10.9 9.3 3.3 40.6 7.0 5.4 11.4 64.4 19.8 84.2 11.7 2.0 2.0 15.8 100.0 17.3 10.3 7.2 4.8 39.6 6.1 4.8 11.2 61.7 19.1 80.8 9.9 3.1 4.2 1.9 19.2 100.0 198648 % 17.2 9.1 7.3 5.0 38.7 6.8 4.5 12.9 62.9 19.7 82.6 8.5 3.7 2.8 2.4 17.4 100.0 Source: Gryseels and Anderson, 1991 I/ Core operating expenditures for research only 21 IFPRI only. Other socioeconomic research is included in commodity research 21 ISNAR only notion of food self-reliance and added improved productivity of fisheries and forestry. It was also decided that IIMI and INIBAP would be incorporated into the CGIAR, while ICLARM would be invited to become a member if certain conditions were fulfilled. The subject matter covered by AVRDC was considered to be appropriate for CGIAR support. At the CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting in May 1991, another two entities were added to the CGIAR, namely ICRAF and a new institution for forestry. TAC was requestedto elaborate on its initial proposals to restructure the CGIAR, while the Group constituted a task force to formulate proposals on how to proceed with a forestry and agroforestry initiative. ICLARM was requestedto develop a strategic plan for fisheries research in the CGIAR and a proposal on those aspectsit intended to emphasize. Between 1971 and 1991, the CGIAR has thus grown from a System which was selective and exclusive to one which is broader and more inclusive. Mandates of CGIAR Centres now cover more than 25 commodities and a wide range of farming systems, agroecological zones and activities. 4 1.3. Implementation of the 1986 Recommendations With respect to programme thrusts, available evidence suggeststhat the most important shifts of emphasis recommended by TAC in 1986 have been implemented. This is illustrated in Table 1.2. The decreasein the level of total core resources allocated to crop productivity research is noticeable, while the share allocated to research on resource management is increasing, in line with TAC’s recommendations. The share of resources to be allocated to strengthening national research capacities has increased well beyond the target level. With respect to particular commodities, the recommendation to reduce the resource allocation to rice research has not been implemented, largely becauseactivities in sub-SaharanAfrica have increased significantly. The proposed increasesto roots and tubers research (mainly cassava)have not materialized, while the share of resources allocated to livestock research appearsto be significantly above target. The resources allocated to grain legumes have been reduced more sharply than requestedby TAC. Recommended and actual resource allocations by commodity are shown in Table 1.3, which also gives a regional breakdown. Table 1.2. Comparison of 1986 TAC recommendations on priorities by programme thrust with actual allocations (% of total core resources) Basis 1986 Resource management and conservation Crop productivity Livestock productivity Food policy Strengthening national research capacities Commodity conversion Human nutrition Integration of efforts TOTAL 7.0 57.1 13.4 2.3 18.1 0.7 0.9 0.5 100.0 TAC Recommendations Long-Term 2010 13.0 48.0 15.0 3.0 15.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 Actual 1991 10.9 50.0 16.7 2.7 19.7 N/A NIA N/A 100.0 Source: CGIAR Secretariat,1991 and TACKGIAR (1987b) 5 Table 1.3. Recommended and actual CGIAR resource allocations by commodity, category and region, 1983, 1986 and 1991 (%) 1983 1986 1991 SSA Base Rice Wheat and barley Maize Sorghum and millet Potato Other roots and tubers Legumes Subtotai, crop research Livestock Farming systems Food policy Genetic resources NARS capacity building Information, communication, library and documentation Training and conferences Total operating expendilre 19 N/A N/A N/A NtA N/A N/A 25 TAC Rec. 18 9 10 9 5 Share?’ 26 9 8 6 6 8 (46) 28 21 43 53 30 45 Asia & Pacific -Y (%I 63 14 18 42 LAC (56) 8 20 34 5 45 55 27 24 21 0 2 25 25 WANA (%) 0 44 6 0 10 9 6 6 15 0 30 33 0 28 55 25 25 10 0 2s 13 I 16 13 15 13 18 30 20 25 8.5 3.7 2.8 2.4 68 43 42 25 25 11 29 = + = + + 1 25 25 a.4 5.6 47 40 33 22 30 26 18 21 21 13 9 14 Source: CGIAR Secretariat, 1991 For commodities, data refer to share of resourcesallocated to commodity research, while for activities the data refer to share of core researchresources. Includes China + refers to a recommendationthat the shareof resourcesallocated to this activity should be increased; - refers to a recommendationthat this share should decline; while = refers to a recommendationthat the share be kept constant. 1.4. Outline of the Report This report on CGIAR priorities and strategieshas four major components. Component 1 provides the context of the priority setting exercise (Chapters 1 - 3), Component 2 identifies the researchproblems and gives background information on issues related to the crop, livestock, forestry and fisheries sectors (Chapters 4 - 8), Component 3 contains the TAC analysis (Chapters 9 - 1l), and Component 4 considers the implications of the TAC analysis for CGIAR priorities, future strategiesand resource allocation (Chapters 12, 13 and 14). Chapters 13 and 14 are presented separately in Part II of this report. Chapter 2 reviews the mission, goals and activities of the CGIAR. The framework for priority setting is discussedin Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides background information, and evaluates the constraints to agricultural, forestry and fisheries research and development at the global, sectoral, regional and agroecological zone levels. An overview of the important factors determining CGIAR priorities and a discussion of the information base available to TAC with respect to crops, livestock, trees and fish follow 6 in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. The analytical process leading to the allocation of priorities by region and agroecological zone is discussedin Chapter 9. Chapter 10 analyses the perceived role of the CGIAR in institution building. In Chapter 11 the important factors determining CGIAR priorities in socioeconomics, public policy and public management research are discussed. Finally, Chapter 12 discussesthe implications of TAC’s analysis for CGIAR priorities. 7 CHAPTER 2 - THE MISSION, GOALS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE CGIAR 2.1. Mission and Goals The logical starting point for a review of CGIAR priorities is a careful assessment of the mission and goals of the CGIAR System. In this important task TAC made considerable progress while assessinga possible expansion of the CGIAR, which also required such an assessment. The last goal statement, adopted by the CGIAR in 1986, reads 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”. In assessingthe proposed expansion of the CGIAR, TAC re-examined this goal and concluded that there were compelling reasonsfor redefining the goal and expanding the objectives of the CGIAR (TAUCGIAR, 1990). TAC suggestedthat the focus on food production should be modified to incorporate the concept of achieving food self-reliance in the developing world. This was an important change from the old concept of food self-sufficiency, and it has major operational implications: 0 non-food commodities can be candidatesfor CGIAR support if they contribute to income generation, especially of low-income people, in ways that enhancetheir permanent well-being; research by the CGIAR ought to reinforce both the comparative advantagesof countries and regions regarding the production of agricultural, forestry and fisheries products, and their reliance on markets and trade to satisfy the basic food and nutritional needs of low-income people. At the Mid-Term Meeting in Canberra in 1989, CGIAR members declared their intention to continue emphasizing the CGIAR mandate for research on sustainable agricultural production and “to expand this emphasis 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 resourcesas an important contributor to the rural economies, energy needs and (the) wealth of partner nations“. It is also important to point out that issuesrelated to equity, and in particular gender equity, and to sustainability have received increasedemphasis from the CGIAR and TAC in recent years. As a result, TAC proposed to replace the CGIAR goal statement with a revised mission statement. The objectives associatedwith the 1986 goal statement have been revised and redesignated as goals. 8 The CGIAR mission statement now reads as follows: “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 enhancenutrition and well-being, especially of low-income people”. This mission statement implies a focus on: e 8 e e 0 international research that complements and supports national research efforts; other activities aimed at strengthening national research capacities, such as specialized training, institution building and information services; satisfying human needs from agriculture, forestry and fisheries, without degrading the environment or the natural resource base; the large numbers of poor people living in developing countries; the role of technological change in generating new income streams for the poor. The ultimate aims are improved nutrition and economic well-being for lowincome people, including women, landless labourers and poor producers and consumers in both rural and urban areas. Research should contribute to self-reliance by increasing the purchasing power of the poor through lower costs and prices and through greater equity in the distribution of incomes. It should also contribute to the quality of plant and animal products, to sustainability and stability in their supply, and to the prevention of environmental degradation through improved resource management. These ultimate aims cannot be achieved solely through research and training. Successdepends on many additional factors beyond the control of the CGIAR, such as efficient government policies, marketing channels for farm products, input delivery systems, and employment opportunities that bring purchasing power to the poor. The goals of the CGIAR have been formulated as follows: (0 (ii) (iii) (iv> W effective managementand conservation of natural resources (i.e. land, water, forests and germplasm) for sustainableproduction; improved productivity of high priority crops and their integration into sustainable production systems; improved productivity of high priority livestock and their integration mto sustainable production systems; improved productivity of high priority trees and their integration into sustainable production systems; improved productivity of high priority fish and their integration into sustainable production systems; 9 (vi) (vii) improved utilization of crop, livestock, tree and fish products in both rural and urban areas through improved postharvesttechnology; progress towards equity (including gender equity) as well as improved diets, nutrition and family welfare, through better understanding of the human linkages between production and consumption; appropriate policies for the increasedproductivity of crops, livestock, trees and fish, and for the sustainableuse of natural resources; strengthenedhuman resourcesand institutions for greater research capacity in developing countries’ research systems. (viii) (ix) The level and nature of the CGIAR’s future involvement with each of these goals will vary greatly, but all are recognized as essential concerns. The aim is to contribute to the nine goals through research and institution building. Through research, the CGIAR Centres also contribute to science. The nine goals are closely related to each other. The first five goals refer to the management of natural resources and the integration of improved commodities into sustainable production systems. The next three goals relate to the socioeconomic and policy environments. The last goal relates to ail the other goals by focusing on the development of human resourcesand on institution building at national or regional level. The nine goals converge on the central mission of the CGIAR through five major categories of activities: l conservation and managementof natural resourcesincluding germplasm conservation (biodiversity); germplasm enhancementand breeding; production systems development and management; socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch; institution building. 0 0 0 l Each of these categories includes specific activities which are elaborated in Section 2.2. 2.2. CGIAR Research and Research-Related Activities The CGIAR Centres use human resources,physical facilities, land, equipment and supplies to undertake research and related activities. These activities in turn form the building blocks of projects designed to produce outputs that contribute to one or more of the nine CGIAR goals. Researchprojects, which are of limited duration, may be based on several activities, and a single project may contribute to more than one goal. Projects are considered to be the concern of centres. 10 Activities, however, require specific skills and facilities that commit the centres, and hence the CGIAR System as a whole, for longer periods. The spectrum of activities within the whole CGIAR System is therefore an important concern of any priority analysis at the System level. For an activity to be considered part of a CGIAR programme it must meet the following criteria. The activity is research or research-related: ii> research: discovery and/or development of new knowledge or technology; research-related: Q 0 (ii) activity designed to enhancethe effectivenessof research; collaboration with other research institutes; training in research methods; assistancein planning, organizing and developing research systems. 0 9 The activity is international in character and contributes to a priority programme consistent with CGIAR goals: international in character: d it must involve more than one developing country; it requires movement of people, materials, information across national boundaries; is non-site specific and/or the results are potentially transferable; involves an opportunity for collaboration with developing country programmes and/or advancedinstitutions. 0 Q 8 (ii) consistent with CGIAR goals: the activity is a necessarycomponent of a programme that has been identified as a priority by TAC and the CGIAR. The activity is undertaken by a CGIAR entity because the entity is better qualified to undertake it: (0 core activities: 0 a centre can conduct an activity at a lower cost (more efficiently and effectively) than any other entity; 11 l continuity (sustainedeffort) is critical to low cost and rapid pay off, and no other entity can assurethe continuity; positive benefits exist in terms of rapid international exchangeof materials and information which no one else can or is willing to do; 0 positive inter-relationships with other centre activities (spillover effects); the potential pay off is high relative to costs. 0 (ii) complementary activities: 0 are those which a centre can do as efficiently and effectively as any other institution, but for which it does not have the unique advantages indicated above; and, those which exceed a centre’s normal scope of core operations but in which the centre’s involvement is steadily declining; often these are of a technical assistancenature. 0 Core activities represent a basic portfolio necessaryfor an international centre to carry out its functions effectively. In addition to research activities, core activities include institution building and the general administrative services which are essential for the efficient operation of a centre. The activities classified as complementary are priority activities - though not at the same level of core activities - in relation to CGIAR priorities becausethey are considered important from a global or regional priorities donor point of view. They are retained to complement and expand the depth and coverage of the core activities either on a station or in collaboration with national research systems and advancedresearch institutions. In developing the new resource allocation process, TAC prepared a tentative list of activities within each of the categories presented in Section 2.1. The list is based on the strategic and medium-term plans of the CGIAR Centres, and on work done by TAC in evaluating a possible expansion of the CGIAR (TACYCGIAR, 1990). Below, each of the important categories of research and research-relatedactivities is briefly outlined. It is important to note at the outset that the activities of all five categories are highly interrelated. CGIAR activities should all contribute to the improvement of sustainability of production and aim at strengthening the capacity of national research programmes. 12 Category 1: Conservation and Management of Natural Resources including Germplasm Conservation (Biodiversity)’ 1.1 - Ecosystem conservation and management (0 Fkosystems analysis, ecological characterization and environmental concerns - the characterization, classification, mapping and analysis of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, especially in relation to the functioning and use of ecosystems including human use patterns and pressures,climate, hydrology, soil and landforrn. Biology and ecology of useful organisms and pests - study of the distribution, production and dynamics of economically important plants, animals and fish and of the weeds, insect pests and diseaseswhich affect them, and vectors related to hazards to human health. Land resourcesconservation and management- research on the maintenance or improvement of the potential productivity of the land resource base and its components especially the edaphic, climatic, hydrological and biological resources. Soil and landform - research on monitoring, maintaining or improving the physical and biological characteristics as well as chemical fertility of soils. (ii) (iii) (b) cc> Water - research on the conservation and managementof rainfall and/or irrigation water. Plants and animals - research on the factors affecting the productivity and conservation of natural vegetation including forests and rangelands, and research to monitor natural populations of wildlife. (iv> Aquatic resources conservation and management- research on the maintenance or improvement of the potential productivity of the aquatic resource base, including research on the population dynamics of aquatic resourcesand their exploitation. 8.2 - Germplasm collection, conservation, characterization and evaluation: Collection and maintenance of in vitro (and in situ) germplasm collections and the distribution, characterization and documentation of collections. Category 2: Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding 2.1 - Crops: Crop germplasm enhancementand breeding: incorporating primitive and novel germplasm into useful material for breeding purposes, as well as germplasm evaluation and conventional breeding. 2.2 - Livestock: Breed improvement. 1 The activities in this category are non-commodity specific. 13 2.3 - Trees: Tree germplasm improvement: breeding of improved trees including multipurpose trees and shrubs. 2.4 - Fish: Breed improvement. 2.5 - Techniques in molecular biology l: Development and application of modem methods in molecular biology such as genetic mapping and genetic markers to assist genetic enhancementand breeding programmes. Category 3: Production Systems Development and Management 3.1 - Baseline studies of production systems (including constraint analysis and monitoring of sustainability) ? Characterization of the socioeconomic and agricultural aspectsof farming systems including analysis of constraints to production and sustainability. 3.2 - Development and management of farming systems ‘: Design and testing of farming systems and components for more productive and sustainablesystems. 3.3 - Cropping systems (4 Plant nutrition - crop and pasture nutrient requirements, the availability, cycling and uptake of nutrients (including the role of mycorrhiza and other symbionts), tillage and fertilizer management. Plant protection (diseases,insect pests and weeds) - the economic control of diseases, insect pests and weeds of crop, pasture and tree speciesincluding systems for integrated pest management. Seed production - increase of seed of elite materials, its certification and release. Postharvest technology - the development of ways of treating commodities to reduce losses in the storage and marketing system and improve the quality and value of foods through processing. 0) cc> Cd) 3.4 - Livestock systems (a> Livestock nutrition including studies on feeds, pasturesand fodder - assessment of the nutritional status of livestock in relation to the availability of feed resources. Animal health - epidemiology, biology, immunology and genetics of animal pests. (b) 1 These techniques are applicable in a wide range of research activities, including categories 1 and 3. For convenience, this activity is placed under category 2. These are generic activities common to the crop, livestock, tree and fish production sectors. 2 14 Livestock reproduction - reproductive biology of livestock and the reduction of reproductive wastage from reproductive diseasesand other causes. 3.5 - Tree systems 00 (b) Silviculture and tree production - the managementof trees in agroforestry, plantation and natural forest systems to enhanceand sustain productivity. Tree nutrition - tree nutrient requirements, the availability, cycling and uptake of nutrients (including the role of mycorrhiya and other symbionts), and fertilizer management. Tree protection (diseases,insect pests and weeds) - the economic control of disease, insect pests and weeds of tree speciesincluding systems for integrated pest management. 3.6 - Aquatic systems G-0 09 Fish reproduction - reproductive biology of fish and the reduction of reproductive wastage from reproductive diseasesand other causes. Fish nutrition including studies on feeds - assessment of the nutritional status of fish in relation to the availability of feed resources. Category 4: Socioeconomic, Public Policy and Public Management Research 4.1 - Economic and social analysis (a) Human nutrition - study of the relationship between such factors as nutritional composition of commodities, food quality, income, price, socioeconomic characteristics and the nutritional status of people. Gender, human health hazards and sociocultural organization - analysis of gender, health and sociocultural organization in agricultural communities. Microeconomic and social analysis - research to determine the economic and social effects and implications of technologies or policies as they affect people, by examining farm, household or village data. Market and trade analysis - research to determine the market level economic conditions that may result from various technologies, institutions or policies and to analyze the impact of trade and macroeconomic policy on markets. Impact assessment and priority setting - research to assessthe impact of research including cost/benefit analysis and to improve the analytical basis on which research priorities are set. tb) cc> (4 (e> 15 4.2 - Policy analysis: Researchto determine the desirability of alternative policies from the viewpoint of society, taking into consideration productivity, equity, sustainability, and environmental concerns. 4.3 - Governance and management of public systems (including irrigation systems): Analysis of organizations for the managementof public systems (including irrigation systems) and the development of innovations to improve their performance. Category 5: Institution Building 5.1 - Training and conferences (a> tw Training - human resource enhancementincluding specialized training courses, postgraduate research, study tours, etc. Conferences and seminars - to foster the build-up of NARS capacities and the effective functioning of international researchcollaboration; fora for discussion of scientific cooperation among the partners in the global system (IARCs, NARS, specialized institutions); stimulating horizontal transfer of information and technology among national research systems. 5.2 - Documentation, publication and dissemination of information: Efforts to use systematically the global knowledge base in areas and disciplines of relevance to centres’ research programmes and to make available to NARS relevant information on progress and output of centres’ research programmes, through newsletters, publications, electronic media, and abstracting services. 5.3 - Organization and management counselling (a> Research on organization and managementof institutes - analysis of research and research managementprocessesaimed at the development/enhancementof approaches, methodologies and tools for conducting these processes. The procedures generated relate to: biological/technological research, i.e. technology generation efforts and organization and managementof NARS. Institution building/advice to NARS - assisting NARS through the provision of advice and counsel. This covers a range of subjects/topicsand includes the biological sciences(conduct of research)and the organization and management field (organization and managementof NARS). Primary objective: build-up of NARS capacities (institution building). (b) 5.4 - Networks: Organizing, coordinating, managing or backstopping of collaborative research efforts among various partners in the global research systems with the primary objective of building up national capacities; the objectives cover a broad range and include: research/technology generation (global germplasm network, global/regional/topic specific information exchange, etc.). 16 2.3. Special Nature of International Research International research has special advantagesin a number of areas. Agroecological environments do not stop at national, nor indeed continental boundaries. Plant material tolerant of acid soils is potentially useful wherever acid soils are found in association with suitable climates, and the principles of managing vertisols are relevant whether in Africa or the Indian sub-continent. In determining priorities in international research, consideration should be given to the maximization of spillover effects. Over the longer term, supranational rationalization of research is a logical goal, with significant savings for partner nations. Currently, weak national research systemsdemand more activities at the international level than comparative advantagewill eventually dictate. Two types of activities are justified for the CGIAR: those with a continuing advantageat the international level, and those justified over the medium term by the current lack of capacity in the developing countries. 2.3.1. Activities with a Continuing Advantage at the International Level These include: assessingthe changing research needs of global agriculture, fisheries and forestry; the collation, processing and dissemination of scientific information; the collection, preservation and exchangeof germplasm, and improvement of the methodology for its use; the enhancementof germplasm for crops, livestock, trees and fish dominant in the economic activity of many countries; the development of resource managementand husbandry principles appropriate for agroecological conditions widely distributed around the globe; strategic research on production processes; specialized training. Developing countries with strong national research systems will develop a capability in some of these areas. However, a large number of mainly small developing countries will remain unable to make the necessaryinvestments in research facilities and specialized, higher education. The needs of small countries may be met through strong outward looking national programmes in larger countries, combined with effective networking. In other areas, a continuing international effort will be justified. 17 2.3.2. Activities Justified over the Medium Term by the Current Lack of Capacity in the Developing Countries These include all of the above activities, plus: l training at several levels required for effective research institutions: governance, managerial, scientific and technical; assistancein institutional and human resource development; assistancein priority setting and in research strategy and programme formulation; transfer of research technology from the industrial countries and its application to the needs of the developing countries; methodology development and training in its application; technical assistanceand financial aid for in-country applied and adaptive research, often through bilateral programmes administered by CGIAR institutions. 0 0 l a 0 The need for international involvement in this type of activities will continue for many years, although there is no inherent advantagein conducting them at the international level. The need for direct support differs from country to country and region to region. China and India are increasingly capable in research; at the other extreme most national systems in sub-SaharanAfrica remain particularly weak. 18 CHmER 3 - FRAMEWORK FOR CGIAR PRIORITY SETTING 3.1. Priority Setting at the CGIAR System Level TAC seeks three major outputs from its review of CGIAR priorities: 0 a report on CGIAR priorities and strategiesthat reflects the major recommendations to the Group regarding its future; the development of a transparent analytical process that enables TAC to adapt CGIAR priorities and strategies to changing circumstances(including those revealed through impact assessment) on a regular basis, while still maintaining sufficient continuity in commitments; a framework to assist TAC in considering resource allocation in the CGIAR System. This framework is in the form of a matrix with broad target values for the relative distribution of resourcesacross categories of activities, agroecological zones, regions, production sectors and commodities for the System as a whole. 0 0 The process of priority setting is necessaryto steer the resource allocation process, to assist centres in programming and budgeting and to guide institution building in the CGIAR. It does not involve setting the research agenda of particular centres, or second guessing the results of strategic and operational planning at the centre level. Priority setting is an interactive process in which each stakeholder of the CGIAR has had the opportunity to make inputs and to respond to evolving proposals. The current approach to the review of CGIAR priorities differs from the analytical framework used by TAC in the previous review of 1986. A different approach was necessarybecauseof the changesin the CGIAR mandate, which now includes forestry and fisheries, gives greater emphasisto sustainability issues, and stressesfood self-reliance rather than self-sufficiency. In pursuing its new approach TAC has also made substantial efforts to ensure transparency in the priority setting process, and to develop mechanisms that allow priority setting to become a continuous interactive process, as requested by the CGIAR at its 1987 mid-term meeting. In considering CGIAR priorities, TAC has made use of quantitative analysis. It is important to stressthat TAC considers quantitative analysis to be an aid to but not a substitute for informed qualitative judgement and decision making. Priority setting cannot be done mechanically. As Cetron and Johnson (1972) point out, “Data plus analysis yield information. Information plus judnement yield decisions”. 19 3.2. Guiding Factors in the Consideration of CGIAR Priorities The main factors that guide TAC in the consideration of CGIAR priorities are: 1. The CGIAR mission and goals. In setting priorities, the relative contributions of alternative activities to the mission and goals of the CGIAR must be explicitly evaluated. Emerging trends in developing countries in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Changes in science and the organization of research. The evolution of scientific capacity in developing countries. The relative importance of production sectors and commodities across regions and agroecological zones. The more economically significant the production sector or commodity, the greater the expected economic return from research resulting in a given productivity gain or cost reduction. The importance and the international character of the development problem which generatesthe need for research. The opportunities for international research of a strategic nature and the potential to achieve technical breakthroughs in improving the productivity of major commodities. The comparative advantagesof the CGIAR System and tRe compiementarity ot its efforts with those of other research and development agenctes,especially national research systems. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 3.3. A Three-Dimensional Framework The analytical framework used in the current approach to CGIAR priority setting has three dimensions 0 an activities dimension. with five categories of activities conservation and management of natural resources; germplasm enhancementand breeding, production systems development and management; socioeconomic. public policy and public managementresearch; and institution building. These categories have been discussedin Section 2.2 a spatial dimension, with four geographical regions and nine broad agroecological zones (AEZs). The regions are: Asia (which includes the Pacific); sub-SaharanAfrica (SSA); Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); and West Asia-North Africa (WANA). The zones are: warm arid and semi-arid tropics; warm subhumid tropics; warm humid tropics; cool tropics; warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall; warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall; warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall; cool subtropics with summer rainfall; and cool subtropics with winter rainfall. 0 20 6 a product dimension, with four main production sectors - crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries - and their corresponding commodities. These four sectors are closely linked and frequently integrated in production systems. Their relative importance, and that of their corresponding commodities, is further discussedin Section 4.6 and in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8. The first dimension reflects the spectrum of activities that must be supported if the CGIAR is to achieve its broader goals. The seconddimension forms the basis for setting geographical priorities. The third dimension provides the basis for setting priorities in the productivity context. 3.4. Agroecological and Regional Characterization Agroecological conditions largely determine the production potential and the population supporting capacity of developing countries. The characterization of these conditions allows farming systems and production alternatives to be compared and research spillovers to be assessed. Agroecological characterization also permits a quantitative assessment of the biophysical resourcesupon which agriculture and forestry depend. It is essential for the improvement of resource managementand for the development of sustainableproduction systemsto meet future demand. TAC has adapted the agroecological characterization originally developed by FAO (FAO, 1978-81). In the FAO classification, a distinction is made between tropical regions, subtropical regions with summer or winter rainfall, and temperate regions. These major ecological regions are further subdivided into rainfed moisture zones, using standard lengths of growing period, and into thermal zones, using the temperature regime prevailing during the growing period. Soils and landform also form important components of agroecological zones in the FAO characterization, but to keep the number of subdivisions to a manageablelevel they were excluded from the framework used by TAC. Instead, soil and terrain characteristics, as well as other climatic aspects, are taken into account in Chapters 4 and 9. At the highest level of aggregation, the following nine basic agroecological zones have been distinguished for the review of CGIAR priorities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Warm arid and semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1); Warm subhumid tropics (AEZ 2); Warm humid tropics (AEZ 3); Cool tropics (AEZ 4); Warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 5); Warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 6); Warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 7); Cool subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 8); and Cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9). Zones 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 include some temperate areas. TAC is aware that, for the purposes of researchplanning at the centre level, variations within the above broad agroecological zones must be taken into account. Furthermore, in the case of forestry, the current framework might well benefit from 21 further refinement, while in the case of fisheries a quite different approach would be necessary. To link the socioeconomic database(which is organized by political units or national boundaries) with the natural resource database(organized by agroecological zones) it was necessaryto reconcile agroecological boundaries with political boundaries. For some of the smaller countries with relatively uniform terrain this presented few problems. Larger countries or countries with non-uniform terrain were mostly assigned to more than one agroecological zone. Zone boundaries were then reconciled with provincial or regional boundaries. Data on population and arable land area were available at this national/subnational level and provided the basis for the disaggregation of other socioeconomic data. The four major developing country regions that are being considered are subSaharan Africa, Asia, Latin’ America and the Caribbean, and West Asia-North Africa. Applying the above classification of agroecological zones to the four regions leads to a total of 23 regional agroecological zones (RAEZs): four in sub-SaharanAfrica, three in West Asia-North Africa, seven in Asia and nine in Latin America and the Caribbean (Figure 3.1). Becausetwo out of the three zones in West Asia-North Africa are relatively unimportant, for reporting purposes the results of the analysesfor the three zones have been aggregated. Throughout the report, results will, therefore, be presented for 21 regional agroecological zones, although the analysis covered 23. The definitions of each agroecological zone framework and the data and the classification of countries by regional agroecological zone are found in Annex I. It is to be noted that TAC’s geographic coverage was limited to developing countries of sub-SaharanAfrica, West Asia-North Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, and excluded the countries of Eastern Europe. TAC recognizes the substantial need for development assistanceand collaborative research efforts in these latter countries. However, TAG’s background analytical work on the review of CGIAR priorities and strategies was undertaken prior to the occurrence of political events in Eastern Europe that led to a dramatic change in the outlook and perspective of these countries. Figure 3.1. 23 CHAPTER 4 - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND RESEARCH EMPHASIS 4.1. Introduction While the world produces more food per head of population today than ever before in human history, more than 800 million people in developing countries do not have enough to eat to lead fully productive working lives (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The sustainability of agricultural production is at risk, the degradation of resourcesacceleratesat a fast pace, and poverty and malnutrition remain widespread in the developing world. During the next two decades,in developing countries yields of staple foods will need to more than double to maintain food production per caput at today’s levels. In assessingpriorities for the next decade, it is essential first to consider a longer range planning horizon. Investment in research today may not have a pay-off at the producer level until two to three decadesfrom now. The context for long-range planning, therefore, should be the food needs, poverty status and natural resource base of developing countries in the year 2010 or 2020. This chapter presents an overview of the challenges facing research and development in agriculture, forestry and fisheries over that longer time horizon. These challenges are presented globally, by sector, by region and by agroecological zone. Much of the information has been summarized from studies by FAO (FAO 1986a, 1987, 1988). Reference is also made to the recent FAO/Netherlands Conference on Agriculture and the Environment, which resulted in the “Den Bosch” declaration stressing the need for specific actions by governments to ensure sustainableagricultural development in each region (FAO, 1991a). 4.2. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in a Changing Global Context 4.2.1. Trends Affecting Food Demand Population growth is the main determinant of increasing food demand. The United Nations medium variant projection estimatesthat the population of developing countries will increase from 3.6 billion in 1985 to 5.8 billion in 2010 and 7.0 billion in 2025 (United Nations, 1988). At present, about 75% of the world’s population lives in developing countries. This proportion will increase to 79 % in 2000, 8 1% in 2010, and 83 % in 2025. The population of sub-SaharanAfrica is expected to expand threefold by 2025. Asia’s population increase will be the largest in absolute terms of any world region; its population will grow from 2.6 billion in 1985 to 4.4 billion in 2025. Income growth is a significant factor determining the composition, as well as the level, of food demand. Estimating income growth over the long term is difficult because such growth is determined largely by highly unpredictable factors such as political developments, the level of energy prices, and national economic and trade policies. The 24 World Bank has projected an average annual growth rate in per caput income of 3.5 % during the next decade for developing countries as a group, but only 0.5% growth is expected for sub-SaharanAfrica (World Bank, 1990). In most developing countries, food consumption will increase and there will be a shift in diets from staple grains to livestock products and vegetables. Increases in the demand for livestock products will lead in turn to a rise in the demand for feed grains. Urbanization is also a major factor determining the composition of food demand. At present 3 1% of the population of developing countries lives in urban areas, but this is expected to increase to 40% by 2000 and to 57 % by 2025. In sub-SaharanAfrica it will increase from 28 % today to 55 % in 2025, in West Asia-North Africa from 65 % to 72 %, in Asia from 25 % to 50%) and in Latin America from 69% to 84 %. The diets of urban consumers tend to consist of high-value cereals, livestock products and vegetables. To cater for the needs of urban consumers, more food processing is required. Urbanization also affects the mode of food supply, since more food has to be produced for market production rather than subsistence. Food produced for urban markets needs to be transported and stored. Cities are usually located on better soils, sizeable amounts of which are taken out of agricultural production as they grow in size. With respect to the demand for forestry products, for many of the poor in developing countries, the demand for fuelwood already greatly outstrips supply, particularly in dry areas. FAO has estimated that more than 100 million people experienced acute fuelwood scarcity during the early 1980s (FAO, 1983). With rising incomes, the demand for other sourcesof energy will increase, reducing the pressure on fuelwood markets to some extent. The demand for fish and fish products has been growing rapidly in recent years. The traditional sources of fish - seas, lakes and rivers - have for the most part already been fully exploited. This has led to rapidly increasing prices for fish and fish products. Malnutrition and poverty remain common features of the developing world. People are malnourished either becausenot enough food is available or becausethey are too poor to buy available food. Increasing food production alone will, therefore, not solve the problem of malnutrition. Poverty has many causes, including inadequate incomes, malnutrition itself, lack of social services, and lack of social and political status. The World Bank has recently estimated that 1.1 billion people, or 33 % of the population of developing countries, live in poverty (World Bank, 1990). About three-quarters (800 million) of them live in Asia, although proportionally Africa has more poor people than any other region. The implications of these numbers are awesome. Even if the agricultural land area continues to expand at the same rate as over the last two decades- an optimistic assumption - yields of the world’s major marketed crops will have to more than double during the next two decadessimply to maintain current per caput consumption. Unless yields increase still further, malnutrition and poverty will remain common, particularly in sub-SaharanAfrica and South Asia. During the past two decades,developing countries have relied increasingly on international trade for their food supplies. Imports of cereals have increasedparticularly rapidly. Meanwhile, exports from developing countries have remained relatively stable. 25 Net agricultural trade surplusesand terms of trade in general have deteriorated considerably. 4.2.2. Resource Management The widespread degradation of the natural resource base has been a growing concern in many countries in recent years. The sustainability of agriculture in some areas of the developing world is under threat becauseof the loss of genetic diversity, depletion of forest and water resources, soil erosion, salinization, acidification, waterlogging, desertification, deforestation, and environmental pollution. The level of external inputs used by farmers is a key factor affecting the resource base, becauseboth underuse and overuse have detrimental effects. Farming systems in which farmers use few or no external inputs but plant crops annually eventually deplete soil nutrient reserves and reduce vegetative cover, thereby exposing the soil to erosion. Many cropping areas of Africa have been affected in this way. Researchis needed to develop integrated nutrient supply systemsbased on a balanced mix of external inputs, organic manures, biological nitrogen fixation and efficient cycling of nutrients. In better endowed areas, high levels of external inputs are neededto sustain high levels of production, but may induce pollution problems. The generally low rates of application of agrochemicals in many developing countries imply that pollution has not yet become an issue for them. However, in some intensive crop production areas, particularly in Asia, Latin America and North Africa, policy measuresare neededto increase awarenessof potential problems, to educatethe public and users of agricultural chemicals, and to ensure that subsidies do not encourage overuse. The successfulmanagementof resourcesis central to the concept of sustainable agriculture. However, the research neededto addressthe many and diverse problems of resource degradation and environmental pollution is beyond the capacity of the CGIAR System. TAC considers it essential that CGIAR research on resource management should be focused on issues which bear directly on the productivity and sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Further, such research should be confined to issues associatedwith those commodities and production systemswith which the System is involved from the point of view of improving productivity. Important resource managementresearch topics at the global level include the substitution of renewable for non-renewable resourcesand the conservation (stewardship) of genetic resources and of various valuable ecosystems(including their wildlife). Other significant global research topics are the contribution of agriculture to changesin the composition of the atmosphere and in the climate, and the impact of those changes on agriculture (see below). Broad issuesrequiring research include the roles of community and government agencies and of agricultural and other businessesin resource management and conservation. In addition to developing new technologies for resource management, research should be focused on the organizational, educational and policy aspectsof resource management, and on institution building. The size of managementunit considered in resource managementresearch is also important in assessingpriorities. For most purposes, the managementunit is the individual farm, but for some research a larger unit such as a landscape, a watershed or an irrigation system is more suitable. 26 4.2.3. Changes in the Atmosphere and Climate The atmospheric content of carbon dioxide and methane is increasing as a result of human activities. The major source of carbon dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels, which releases about 5.6 billion tonnes of carbon annually into the pool of 700 billion tonnes in the atmosphere. The pools of carbon held in forests and in forest soils are being steadily drained by deforestation, which releasesbetween 1 and 3 billion tonnes of carbon each year. Global warming is in itself expected to increase rates of respiration (including the respiration of plants and organic matter in soils), thereby further speeding the release of carbon dioxide and methane from forest lands and other vegetation sources. On the positive side, it should be noted that increasedcarbon dioxide levels will increase photosynthesis, with benefits to plant growth rates and storage of COZ. The contribution of forest burning to global warming has been deemed sufficiently serious to warrant recommendationsby several international agenciesthat governments should take steps to contain deforestation. If, in addition, new forest could be established on a large enough scale, carbon could be removed from the atmosphere and stored. However, between 1 and 2 million square kilometres of new forest would be needed every 75 years to store carbon at a rate of 1 billion tonnes per annum. (This estimate is based on the unlikely assumption that bare land would be used; the carbon fixation of existing grassland should be taken into account to obtain a more accurate estimate). The massive reforestation required to realize these levels of storage would be very difficult to achieve. The keys to the containment of global warming lie in reducing the use of fossil fuels, improving conservation and energy efficiency, and switching to renewable sources of energy, as well as in curbing tropical deforestation. Assessing the possible effects of global climate change on agriculture is a vital task. Climate and weather have been and continue to be dominant factors in agricultural productivity despite technological advances. The Intergovernment Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) recently concluded that climate change could modify both regional production and trade of agricultural commodities and could have severeeffects for certain vulnerable regions (IPCC, 1990). However, it acknowledged that the present state of knowledge was inadequatefor drawing firm conclusions. 4.2.4. Equity and Gender The CGIAR mission statement implies a strong focus on research to benefit lowincome people, including women, landless labourers and poor producers and consumers in both rural and urban areas (see Section 2.1). In setting priorities for the CGIAR, it is therefore important to assessthe location and size of each of these target groups, their consumption patterns and the constraints they face in producing, selling or buying food. It is also important to assesswhether the problems of these target groups should be addressedthrough strategic international research, or whether adaptive and applied research at national level will be sufficient. 27 The implications of equity considerations for CGIAR priority setting are that: 0 higher priority should be given to small-scale farms in developing countries, and not to commercial agricultural corporations; higher priority should be given to commodities that poor people produce and consume (it could also be given to commodities produced by commercial farmers for consumption by the poor, and that provide income earning opportunities for landless labourers); higher priority should be given to geographical areas with large numbers of poor people that depend on agriculture, forestry or fisheries for their livelihood; higher priority should be given to research activities that will particularly benefit low-income people or resource-poor farmers. 0 0 0 With respect to gender, special attention should be given to households headedby women, to enterprises managedby women, to the role of women in agricultural production, and to women’s consumption patterns. Women represent a disproportionately high share of the total population living in poverty. They are disadvantagedby their farming and family responsibilities and by their lack of accessto productive assets. Women, and often children, play an important role in all aspectsof agricultural production, and usually carry primary responsibility for the collection of fuelwood. Significant gender differences in husbandry practices are associatedwith reduced accessto credit. Women are also heavily involved in the postharvest processing of most food products. Often, technology is gender-biasedagainst women. Changes in the allocation of women’s time will influence the well-being of the family through changes in areas such as food availability, food preparation and child care. Technological change may also influence child labour and education. Women’s expenditure patterns may be different to those of men. Lower food prices will favour women and children where these groups are currently less well fed than men. 4.2.5 Perspectives on National Research Pardey and Roseboom (1991) and Pardey et al (1991) have analyzed regional differences in resource allocations to national researchprogrammes in developing countries. Between 1961-65 and 1981-85, the number of researchersgrew four times faster in developing than in developed countries (7.1% against 1.6 %). Asia now accounts for 72% of the developing country total, Latin America and the Caribbean for 12%) West Asia-North Africa for 10% and sub-SaharanAfrica for 6%. In terms of research expenditures, Asia accounts for 59% of the total for developing countries, Latin America and the Caribbean for 20% and West Asia-North Africa and sub-SaharanAfrica each for 11%. The growth in expenditures per caput was considerably slower in developing than in developed countries and, except in Asia, below the rate of growth in the number of researchers. Thus, in general, the levels of support available per scientist have declined during the last two decades,particmarly in sub-SaharanAfrica and in Latin America and the Caribbean. 28 The average size of public-sector national research system in developing countries (excluding China) has more than doubled during the last two decades,from approximately 150 to 350 researchersduring 1981-85. In spite of the increasing number of medium- to large-sized systems, a substantial number of small systems remain with little capacity to undertake anything but highly focused adaptive research on a few commodities. During 1981-85, 39 national agricultural research systems had fewer than 25 researchers. These are mostly located in the Caribbean, the Pacific Islands and subSaharan Africa. In all regions, research is oriented predominantly towards crops, with other sectors accounting for a far lower proportion of the overall number of researchers (Table 4.1). Research on forestry and fisheries has the largest share of research resources in Asia, while crop research is more dominant in West Asia-North Africa than in the other regions. Table 4.1. Allocation of researchers by production sector and by region, 1981-85 Region Sub-Saharan Africa Asia (%) Latin America and the Caribbean (%) West Asia - North Africa (%) All developing countries (%) Expenditures (US$‘million) Researchers (No.) Crops 67.3 63.7 68.7 75.4 68.3 2,480 Livestock 20.0 17.4 24.1 16.2 18.7 679 Forestry 7.3 9.4 5.4 5.7 7.3 266 Fisheries 5.4 9.6 1.8 2.7 5.7 205 Source: Pardey et al (1991) On the basis of a congruence analysis between the share of each production sector in agricultural GDP and in researchpersonnel, Pardey and Roseboom (1991) noted that the share of crops and livestock researchwas smaller than might be expected on the basis of their share in total production. They also noted that many national systems have yet to achieve a critical mass of researchersin forestry and fisheries 4.2.6. Strategies for Areas with Different Resource Endowments The successof the green revolution, with varietal improvement as the prime mover, has been restricted mainly to irrigated areas or areas with favourable rainfall patterns. In such areas, the major constraints to increasing production were agronomic and could largely be overcome through the increaseduse of chemical fertilizers and pest control. The necessaryinfrastructure required to deliver technology and market surpluses was largely already in place. However, the green revolution approach could not be transferred easily to agroecosystemswith less favourable rainfall patterns, soils and land forms. In such systems, severe resource managementproblems have to be overcome before agronomic improvements can be effective. These problems relate to water 29 management, control of erosion, cropping systems and soil amelioration (acidity, alkalinity, toxicities, minor elements, etc.). Although considerable investmentsmay be required before resource management in these less well endowed areas can be improved, the cost of such investments in rainfed agriculture is well below those neededin irrigation systems. The extent to which the potential for increasedproduction is actually used will depend on the economic and policy environment. The task of resource managementresearch is to demonstratethe potential and to develop pathways for incremental improvements that meet increasing demands in an affordable manner for farmer and country. The latter requires support by policy research. Strategies for the improvement of both intensive and extensive production systems must focus more directly on providing institutional and technical support for improved soil fertility, pest and diseasecontrol, and water management. The inevitable increase in fertilizer applications which will be the main source of future agricultural growth and food security must be balanced by efforts to improve the efficiency of fertilizer use and to maximize the contribution from organic sourcesof nutrients, legumes and soil microflora. Such efforts are neededto promote sustainability and to bring more productive practices within reach of resource-poor farmers and the landless poor. Strategies for employment and income creation in the agricultural sector should be based on a thorough analysis of comparative advantage, including the production costs and the processing and marketing requirements of those crops that may be competitive. Questions of economic and institutional stability and development are also central to a considerable number of strategic options for development. Most governments apply various policy instruments such as subsidies and fiscal measuresto their agricultural sectors, but their purpose is often primarily to serve the interests of urban populations rather than those of farmers. Their impact on the well-being of the rural population, on sustainable resource use and on the environment is often negative. 4.3. Natural Resource and Socioeconomic Database To allow priority setting on the basis of regions, agroecological zones, commodities and research activities, a databasewas developed in spreadsheetform containing primary and derived agroecological, demographic and economic information. The information originates mostly from FAO, the World Bank and the CGIAR Centres. The data base includes time series data by country, by agroecological zone, by regional agroecological zone and by region on both urban and rural population and their growth rates, income, poverty, nutritional status, production of and demand for major food commodities and livestock feed, exports of industrial crops, prices and value of production of major commodities and product groups, trends in resource utilization and resource productivity (rainfed arable land, irrigated land, livestock, forests, etc), land-use patterns, soils and soil constraints, land form, lengths of growing periods and thermal conditions, vegetative resources and potential productivity. Table 4.2. gives examples of information compiled by regional agroecological zone. It provides data on total land area, population in 1990 and 2010, population Table 4.2. Land area, population, food demand, arable land and production by regional agroecological mne 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 LAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 149.2 184.0 385.3 178.4 53.7 148.8 935.6 2 038.3 190.8 312.4 743.9 259.5 103.2 16.6 108.7 149.6 153.6 7 517.6 1 634.8 844.8 1631.3 387.8 281.6 70.3 257.5 1085.2 1 324.3 466.2 228.9 474.5 456.6 212.9 485.9 414.7 447.7 37.7 70.3 87.3 130.2 13.5 3.8 62.5 27.8 14.6 3 996.5 676.0 405.5 714.1 206.1 470.1 216.7 548.4 442.5 317.1 666.2 319.0 677.2 645.2 269.8 587.3 513.5 630.1 51.3 100.0 123.9 191.1 18.9 4.7 87.0 34.3 18.9 5 740.7 1 028.6 616.0 959.6 332.7 664.1 274.5 674.3 547.8 503.7 1.80 1.67 1.79 1.74 1.19 0.95 1.07 1.72 1.55 1.78 1.77 1.94 1.70 I .07 1.67 1.06 1.30 1.82 2.12 2.11 2.15 2.42 1.74 1.19 1.04 1.07 2.34 115.4 59.7 123.5 120.7 61.5 138.1 116.9 133.4 10.9 20.8 25.1 38.0 4.6 1.3 18.8 9.5 4.4 1 088.2 165.7 105.1 159.6 54.6 125.3 62.8 156.9 126.4 104.7 167.7 89.2 204.2 190.9 86.3 179.7 155.6 209.4 16.4 33.3 39.7 62.1 7.2 1.7 30.0 12.6 6.4 1691.9 260.0 171.0 276.1 93.0 198.1 88.0 209.7 168.2 183.8 113.0 69.4 124.6 117.9 54.2 138.1 115.6 141.8 11.8 21.1 23.4 33.1 4.4 3.0 20.5 20.6 4.0 1043.8 158.4 113.2 157.9 48.0 122.3 57.2 158.5 136.1 68.0 14.5 25.9 58.3 65.1 36.9 31.4 4.8 118.7 4.2 32.3 27.2 28.3 1.7 1.0 21.5 2.1 0.3 450.1 27.5 71.3 121.2 43.2 66.8 37.9 53.0 6.9 22.3 63.8 32.8 30.5 63.0 22.4 55.6 58.7 147.5 9.2 24.0 20.0 13.4 5.5 6.6 32.6 32.1 4.1 695.1 133.4 100.1 67.3 29.5 68.5 29.0 88.2 90.8 67.2 22.15 7.70 14.50 43.02 10.14 22.77 15.47 14.07 1.76 2.16 1.80 2.02 2.59 0.47 1.14 0.10 2.03 85.9 40.5 45.0 106.0 32.5 78.4 74.2 161.4 10.9 26.1 21.8 15.4 8.1 7.1 33.7 32.2 6.1 GE = Grain Equivalent Source: FAO data files 31 growth, demand for food in grain equivalent in 1990 and 2010, production of food and cash crops in 1990, rainfed arable land, irrigated arable land, and total arable land. Production of cash crops in grain equivalent was estimated by dividing the value of cash crops by the unit value for wheat. Table 4.3. Selected socioeconomic indicators by region Demand in 1990 for food crops (million tGE) Demand in 2010 for food crops (million tGE) Production of cash crops (million tGE) Production of food crops (million tGE) Production of food and cash crops (million tGE) Use of fertilizer (kg/ha) Food self-sufficiency ratio Agr. GDPlagr. labourer (US$) Agr. GPDltotal GDP (%) Agr. Land-labour ratio (ha/worker) Deforestation (1980-90, % p.a.) Total wooded area (1987/89, m.ha) (closed + open t forest fallow) GE = Grain equivalent Source: FAO and World Bank data files 115 224 72 736 1 074 237 133 209 118 104 185 22 1 088 1 692 450 90 413 34 100 341 24 1.0 107 2 116 10 63 1 196 16 7.0 I 1.7 668 0.9 489 1.4 961 1.0 59 16.8 m.ha 2 177 An overview of some important socioeconomic indicators at the regional level is presented in Table 4.3. The major share of the world’s total population and of its poor people live in Asia. Per caput incomes are four to five times as high in Latin America and the Caribbean and in West Asia-North Africa as they are in sub-SaharanAfrica and Asia. In proportion to the size of its population, Asia has a much smaller area of arable land than other regions, but it accountsfor more than two-thirds of all irrigated land. 32 Calorie intake in sub-SaharanAfrica is well below that of the other regions. This region has the highest incidence of malnutrition and the lowest per caput income. Both in subSaharan Africa and Asia a significant amount of foreign exchange is generatedthrough exports of industrial crops. This is of particular importance with respect to the selfreliance of these regions. The food self-sufficiency ratio ranges from only 63 in the West Asia-North Africa to 107 in Latin America and the Caribbean, while it amounts to 90 in sub-Saharan Africa and 100 in Asia. The productivity of agriculture is also highest in Latin America and the Caribbean, where agricultural GDP per agricultural labourer amounts to US$ 2,116, more than six times that of Asia. In Latin America and the Caribbean the agricultural land-labour ratio is 18.8 ha/worker, well above that of Asia, where it is only 1 ha/worker. The use of fertilizers is highest in Asia and lowest in sub-SaharanAfrica. The rate of deforestation is a source of concern throughout the developing world, but is particularly high in sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America. 4.4. Agroecological Zone Aspects Crop and livestock productivity research must take into account the productivity potentials and constraints of target agroecological zones. The following sections highlight some of the major constraints in each of nine agroecological zones identified in Section 3.4. 4.4.1. Warm Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics The warm arid and semi-arid tropics encompassvery large areas of sub-Saharan Africa (1,246 million ha), and large areas of Asia (149 million ha) and Latin America and the Caribbean (191 million ha). The land available per caput is 7.5 ha, 0.32 ha and 5.1 ha respectively on a total area basis and 0.38 ha, 0.18 ha and 0.29 ha on an arable land basis. Rainfall is inadequate and uncertain. During short wet seasons,soils are susceptible to waterlogging or erosion, while wind erosion is a threat to sandy soils during the long dry season. The problems of erosion are exacerbatedby overgrazing in rangeland areas. In rainfed areas the major food crops are sorghum, millet, cowpea, pigeonpea, soybean, groundnut and sweet potato. The introduction of external inputs to increase crop production in these areas is risky. Consequently, the green revolution has largely bypassed these areas, whose large agricultural populations remain poor. Increasing food production in the rainfed areas in ways that conserve and enhancethe resource base is an extraordinarily difficult task, given the uncertainty of rainfall. Population growth and poverty in the ensuing decadeswill continue to put strong pressure on the resource base, especially in Asia and parts of Africa where there is no room to expand the land frontier. A particular problem in Asia and sub-SaharanAfrica is the shortage of fuelwood, reflected in the data for area of forest and woodland per caput which are 0.17 ha and 0.88 ha in the two regions respectively. The only region in this agroecological zone with significant areas of irrigated land (22 million ha) is Asia, although there is some potential to expand the 4 and 33 2 million ha of irrigated land in the semi-arid tropics of sub-SaharanAfrica, Latin America and the Caribbean respectively. Irrigation overcomes the rainfall constraint and reduces risk, encouraging farmers to intensify production by adopting modern varieties and inputs. However, irrigated areas in the semi-arid tropics are prone to salinization unless water supply and drainage are carefully managed. Soil constraints in some low-lying rainfed areas also include salinity, which can move to the soil surface when water tables rise due to the clearing of trees in re-charge areas. Another major soil constraint is acidity, which can develop in poorly buffered soils after they are cultivated and fertilized in an unbalanced way. Systems are needed for recycling nutrients, using legumes and external nutrient inputs. Organic residues will also help to reduce widespread physical constraints such as soil crusting and low infiltration rates. The problems of the semi-arid tropics appear intractable, but in fact there is a great deal of scope for increasing production. Farming systems research is needed to develop low-resource, low-risk production systems appropriate for the harsh environment. Improved stress-tolerant crop varieties will be a key component of these systems, but lowcost soil and water conservation measuresand innovative crop management technologies will be crucial to success. These technologies will be information- and managementbased, so it is essential that they be developed with a full knowledge of the problems facing farmers in the zone. The needs of farmers are strongly location-specific, so in this zone as in others it is essential that national research agenciesplay a major role in applied and adaptive research. 4.4.2. Warm Subhumid Tropics The total area of the warm subhumid tropics is 844.8 million ha, about half of which is found in Latin America (mainly Brazil). The length of the growing period is 180-270 days, adequateto support the open forests and moist savannawoodlands which are the most widespread form of natural vegetation. In some Asian countries, more than half the forests have been destroyed. The soils vary acrossthe different regions, but acid soils are common in upland areas of all regions. Alluvial soils in the lowlands are more fertile and support intensive crop production systems. The land availability ratio is much lower (0.8 ha per caput) in Asia (India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand) than in sub-SaharanAfrica (3.3 ha per caput) and Latin America and the Caribbean (7.4 ha per caput). Irrigated areas total 10.3 million ha, of which most (7.7 million ha) are in Asia. FAO statesthat there is scope to expand irrigation in Asia by 2.3 million ha. If realized, this expansion would reduce the pressure on upland areas, to which considerable migration is occurring at present. In most countries in sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America and the Caribbean the opportunity to expand crop cultivation onto new lands is being taken on a large scale. The Latin American moist savannasare also being used for extensive cattle grazing. The major crops grown are rice, maize, sorghum, soybean, cowpea, cotton, cassavaand sweet potato. Considerable yield advanceshave been made in irrigated areas, but the yields of rainfed crops have generally not improved. A common cause is the reluctance of farmers to invest in the lime and phosphatefertilizers neededto overcome soil acidity and phosphorus fixation. Where these investments have been made in response to market incentives, crop yields have increased and farmers have profited. 34 Livestock production varies considerably in different regions. The presence of the tse-tse fly limits the production of large ruminants in large areas of sub-Saharan Africa. In Latin America and the Caribbean, extensive cattle production is practised, but the sustainability of this system is uncertain. The introduction of ley systemsbased on the rotation of crops and legume-basedpastures show promise. In Asia, the need for draught animal power, as well as milk and meat production, must be taken into consideration in research and development planning. Coastal ecosystems,particularly in Asia, present special problems. Saline water incursion is a serious problem likely to increase if sea levels rise. Acid sulphate soils can be used for rice production, but increaseduse is being made of coastal mangrove areas for aquaculture. The products are a source of animal protein to local people as well as supplying lucrative international markets for shellfish. 4.4.3. Warm Humid Tropics The warm humid tropics occupy a total land area of more than 1,630 million ha, of which just over 82 million ha is currently used for crops. This agroecological zone supports over 627 million people. Potential land availability per caput is high in subSaharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, but is as low as 0.6 ha per caput {on a total area basis) and 0.09 ha per caput (on an arable land basis) in Asia. The economies of most countries in the humid tropics are largely dependant on agriculture and forestry. Inland and coastal fisheries play an important role in some countries. Very few countries have explicit national policies for agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Many national research systems in the humid tropics are weak with respect to institutional mechanisms, quality of human capital, adequacyand sustainability of operational funds, and links with the extension system. There are, however, notable exceptions in parts of Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. Population densities and per caput GNP are generally low. The population is largely rural except in Latin America and the Caribbean, where over 70% live in urban areas. About 70% of the population can be considered as poor. Diseasessuch as malaria and human trypanosomiasis (in sub-SaharanAfrica) are endemic in this zone. The major livestock diseasesinclude theileriosis and trypanosomiasis. The main crops grown are root crops (cassavaand yam), maize, banana and plantain, rice, pineapple, and tree crops (coconut, cocoa and oil palm). The major livestock speciesare cattle, sheep, poultry, and the water buffalo. In the forest areas tropical hardwoods are produced. 4.4.4. Cool Tropics Historically, cool areas in the tropics have attracted human populations because of the favourable climate for health and for crop and livestock production. Cool tropical areas cover 388 million ha and are particularly important in Latin America and the Caribbean (260 million ha), and East Africa (95 million ha). They have high population densities, having for centuries been intensively cultivated, grazed and deforested. In many cool tropical areas the land has been over-exploited, resulting in the long-term decline of soil fertility and in widespread soil erosion. Most farms are small and operate 35 with family labour and animal traction. The main food crops are maize, beans, sorghum, tea, coffee, potato, wheat, and barley. Livestock production, particularly for milk, is also important and offers substantial scope for development. Deforestation has been widespread, due to the ever increasing need to expand the area under crop cultivation. The major soil constraints are shallow soils, acidity and steep slopes. Soil conservation measuresare necessaryas well as the development of technology to improve the efficiency with which inputs are used. The regulating role of vegetation/soil relations in different ecosystemsshould be better understood. There is also a need to develop new, integrated land use systems and to improve the managementof forests and agricuhural land. 4.4.5. Warm Arid and Semi-Arid Subtropics with Summer Rainfall Large areas of Asia (178 million ha) and Latin America and the Caribbean (103 million ha) comprise the warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall. However, while the arable land area in Asia (106 million ha) includes important areas of China, India and Pakistan with a total population of 457 million, the arable land area in Latin America and the Caribbean is only 8 million ha and the population 14 million. The climate is warm and solar radiation is high, but becauseof low and unreliable moisture availability the length of the growing period is generally less than 180 days. Arid areas are not conducive to productive rainfed agriculture. Low nutrient holding capacity and low buffering capacity are important constraints in the soils of this zone. In some irrigated areas of Asia, the high base status soils have salinity and alkalinity problems. Much of the agricultural output of this zone is produced under irrigation (41% and 32% of the arable land in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean respectively). The irrigated areas in India, Pakistan and China are among the most productive in the developing world. High yields of rice and wheat are obtained using modem varieties and high rates of purchased inputs. In many of these irrigated areasthe rapid growth in yields of the past decadesis no longer being sustained. Meeting the future food demand in this zone will require an annual increase in grain production of 3.65 million tonnes (or 2.5 %). This will have to come largely from the intensification of production on existing cultivated land, which is currently available at a ratio of only 0.23 ha per caput. Water scarcity is the major resource problem. In some areas, such as the North China plain, the growing demand for water from urban and industrial development is causing the level of the water table to drop at an alarming rate. Salinity is also a threat when drainage and water supplies are not efficiently managed. Another problem is pollution from external chemical inputs, which are used excessively in some areas. The major cropping system of this zone in Asia is intensive irrigated rice-wheat production. Other crops include cotton, food legumes and sugar cane. Livestock are used for draught power as well as milk and, in some areas, meat production. Forest resources in the Asian part of this zone are particularly scarce, with wooded area less than 0.10 ha per caput. FAO estimates of potential productivity of presently cultivated land are 150% higher than current production in Asia and 500% in Latin America and the Caribbean (FAO, 1984). Achieving such large production increaseswill require further investments in irrigation and much more efficient use of water resources. 36 4.4.6. Warm Subhumid Subtropics with Summer Rainfall Most of the warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall lie in Asia (54 million ha of China, India and North and South Korea), where this zone has a population of 213 million. The only other significant area is 17 million ha of Argentina, with a population of 4 million. The climate is conducive to both rainfed and irrigated crop production. In the Asian part of the zone, large areas of fertile alluvial or loessderived soils are used for irrigated crop production. The land availability ratio is 0.25 ha per caput in Asia and 4.4 ha per caput in the Argentinian part of the zone. Population growth in the Asian part of the zone is expected to increase annual food demand by 1.6 million tonnes (2.35 %) over the coming decade. The theoretical potential production on existing cultivated land is 141 million tonnes of grain equivalent, compared with the current 54 million tonnes. The main crops are rice and wheat, which are largely produced under irrigation with high levels of inputs. Industrialization is expected to reduce the proportion of the population involved in agriculture, so further intensification will require greater mechanization. Intensive agriculture and industrialization are already creating pollution problems, which are likely to become increasingly serious in the future. 4.4.7. Warm/Cool Humid Subtropics with Summer Rainfall The growing period in the warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall is between 270 and 365 days. The zone has a mean daily temperature greater than 20°C during the warm part of the growing period and less than 20°C during the cool part. It occurs in parts of Asia. (China) and Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay) and covers a total land area of about 257 million ha, of which about 110 million ha are arable. The zone has a population of 550 million people, which is projected to rise to 670 million by 2010. The potential productivity of presently cultivated land is high, and the average annual growth rate in production neededto meet projected demand is 1.3 % for Asia and 1.9 % for Latin America and the Caribbean. In Asia this zone comprises the most productive but densely populated areas of the world. Researchis needed on intensive vegetable and aquaculture production. In Latin America, unlike China, 75% of the population living in this zone is urban. 4.4.8. Cool Subtropics with Summer Rainfall The cool subtropics with summer rainfall comprise 1,085 million ha globally, supporting a human population of 443 million. Some 86% of the zone (936 million ha) is located in Asia, with 415 million people, covering Bhutan, Mongolia, Nepal and parts of China, India, and North and South Korea. The rest of the zone (150 million ha) is situated in Latin America, covering Uruguay and parts of Argentina, and supporting about 28 million people. This zone is therefore very diverse in terms of income, stage of development, topography and land use potential. In terms of elevation, some of the areas in Latin America and Northern China are low-lying, whereas elsewhere the zone is mountainous. The population is projected to reach 548 million in 2010. The present population relies on 106 million ha of arable land, 16 million of which is irrigated. The area of arable land per caput in 1990 was 0.18 ha in Asia and 0.22 ha in Latin America. Food 37 production in 1990 totalled 136 million tonnes, of which 115 million tonnes were produced in Asia to meet a demand of 117 million tonnes. The remaining 20.6 million tonnes were produced in Latin America meeting a demand of only 9.5 million tonnes. However, to maintain the current balance in supply and demand, food production will have to grow at 1.44% per annum to meet new demand. The main crops grown in the zone are wheat, barley, maize, beans, Letaria millet, and soybean and rice in warmer areas. The cool and often harsh climate, steep slopes (60% of soils in the zone outside China have slopes of over 30%) and remotenessof many of the zone’s mountainous areas are major constraints to agricultural and infrastructural development. Where cropping is practised in such areas, shallow soil depth is a major limitation, while low clay and organic matter content are a further constraint, particularly in the heavily dissected areas. There is a high risk of long dry spells during the cropping season,and in areas with less than 400 mm annual rainfall it is difficult to produce satisfactory yields without supplementary irrigation or soil moisture conservation. Year to year variations in the thermal and moisture environments are high. In areas with dissectedterrain, topographical shading, aspect and slope lead to a mosaic of growing environments. Due to low nutrient status and low clay content of the major soil types, traditional crop and livestock production systems are closely integrated to maintain soil fertility. Irrigated soils with low clay and organic matter content have an added problem of low nutrient retention. The need to cultivate steeper and steeper slopes increasesthe risk of soil erosion. In the low-lying plains of northern China and Latin America, cold temperatures, a short growing seasonand drought are serious constraints to increasedproduction. Some soils have high alkalinity and salinity, while others offer good agricultural potential, particularly in areas with adequatesoil moisture. 4.4.9. Cool Subtropics with Winter Rainfall The cool subtropics with winter rainfall cover 1,324 million ha, of which the bulk (82%) is located in the West Asia-North Africa region and the rest in Latin America (in Chile and Argentina). The zone is characterized by cool to cold winters and hot summers, and the agriculturally important rainfed land has a semi-arid moisture regime derived from winter rainfall. The ecological constraints and limits to rainfed production in both lowland and highland areas arise from the combined effects of short growing periods with large interseasonalvariations, highly seasonalthermal conditions, and soils that are low in clay and organic matter, shallow and prone to erosion and degradation. In areas of irrigated production, salinity remains a serious risk. There is limited potential in the West Asia-North Africa region for bringing new rainfed land into cultivation or expanding the irrigated area. Moreover, the agricultural resource base in the region is deteriorating, with widespread salinization and waterlogging occurring on irrigated land and serious erosion and degradation on rainfed land owing to uncontrolled mechanization and the extension of cultivation to marginal areas. The deterioration of the resource base is leading to yield stagnation and declining availability of feed for ruminant livestock. This is not so for the zone in Latin America, where there is room for significant area expansion and the land currently under use is comparatively well preserved and does not face major environmental problems. - 38 In the West Asia-North Africa region, there has been some increase in wheat yields following the introduction and selective adoption of modern varieties, but the yields of most other annual crops - barley, pulses, oilseeds, vegetablesand forage crops - have risen very little, partly becauseof the unavailability of appropriate modern varieties and partly becauseof discriminatory price policy. In Latin America, most of the area is planted with improved varieties, including fruits and vegetables. On average, less than one crop a year is grown on rainfed land in the West AsiaNorth Africa region becausethe traditional cereal-fallow system relies on the fallow period for soil moisture conservation and for the maintenance of soil fertility. In irrigated areas, the cropping intensities are not much higher, mostly becauseof inadequatewater management combined with insufficient drainage. Crop and livestock systems are not effectively integrated and diversified, and feed shortage, rather than disease, is the main factor limiting greater livestock productivity. Both the rainfed and irrigated sectors offer unexploited opportunities for diversification and intensification to meet the changing pattern of demand and to enhancethe resource base. In Latin America, the zone appears to be responding positively to such opportunities, both domestic and export. 4.5. Regional Aspects 4.5, I. General Overview TAC’s report on a possible expansion of the CGIAR provided an analysis of the global context in which the CGIAR is likely to operate in the future. Particular attention was given to expectedtrends in world agriculture and forestry during the next two decades. The resulting challenges to agricultural development and resource management, and the implications for research in each of the major developing country regions (Asia and the Pacific, sub-SaharanAfrica, Latin America and the Caribbean, and West AsiaNorth Africa) were discussed. In all regions and zones there is an urgent need for strategic research on natural resource conservation and management, and on improved crop management. Costreducing technologies are necessaryto promote nutrient-use efficiency. Researchto increase the yield potential of major crops and to increase genetic adaptation to particular constraints (such as pests and diseases)should also receive high priority throughout the developing world. There is a need to increase livestock productivity through improved nutrition and health. Policies that promote land use planning with a sustainability perspective and that offer incentives to farmers to intensify land use, in addition to providing infrastructure for the distribution of inputs and the marketing of outputs, are also widely required. The need for strong collaboration between international centres, their national programme partners and advancedresearch institutions should be emphasized. In all four regions, there is also a continuing need to emphasize capacity building in national research systems. Despite having many similar development problems and research needs, the four major regions also exhibit a number of differences with important implications for the allocation of CGIAR priorities. These are discussedin the following sections. Issues related to forestry are discussedin greater detail in Section 7.2. 39 4.5.2. Sub-SaharanAfrica In sub-SaharanAfrica, agriculture remains the mainstay of the economy, providing almost half the region’s GNP and export earnings. The majority of people farm or live in rural areas, and most of them are poor. Dryland agriculture and smallholder farming systems dominate. The use of irrigation is limited to a few countries and delta areas. Less than 2% of arable land in sub-SaharanAfrica is irrigated. The subhumid/humid areas are the most important in terms of population. About 57% of the livestock population is found in the drylands. Only trypanotolerant livestock are found in the humid zone. Although highland areas cover only a small proportion of the total land area, they have the highest human and livestock densities. In East and Southern Africa, recurrent civil war and drought have frequently led to famine. Despite the potential for increased agricultural productivity, progress has been discouragingly slow becauseof poor infrastructure, the diversity of agroecological conditions, the lack of appropriate technology and the failure of most governments to formulate policies to support the smallholder sector. During the past 25 years, population has grown faster than agricultural production. As a result, imports of food now account for 10% of consumption, and food aid for 6% (FAO, 1991b). National agricultural research systemsthroughout sub-SaharanAfrica are often research-stationoriented and insufficiently focused on farmers’ needs. Only a few countries have the minimum critical mass required to undertake advancedapplied research. The gap between actual and potential yields remains very large throughout the region. In sub-SaharanAfrica, special emphasis on resource and crop management research will be required given the fragile nature of the region’s ecosystems. There is scope for substantial productivity increasesin agriculture through the increased integration of crop and livestock production. Demand for increasedagricultural production is very high, but the prospects for self-reliance are poor except in a few comparatively well endowed countries. Sub-SaharanAfrica has the largest area of forest and woodlands of any region, but also the highest rate of deforestation. Fisheries are of local importance in coastal areas and along major rivers. 4.5.3. West Asia-North Africa In West Asia-North Africa, there is limited room for expansion of the rainfed land area, but some increase in the irrigated land area is possible. No increase in agricultural productivity from present land use will be sufficient to achieve long-term food self-sufficiency, a goal which remains well beyond the reach of most countries in the region. Significant increasesin rainfed and irrigated production are possible through crop intensification and diversification, and the integration of livestock production with settled farming. Improvements in water conservation, crop and fallow management(including fallow replacement), nutrient and water-use efficiencies and irrigation system management are needed to increase productivity. Feed shortage is the main factor limiting livestock productivity in the region. The integration of pasture and forage crops, livestock and trees into cropping systems would contribute significantly towards improving the sustainability of production, while at 40 the same time raising total productivity. The ratio between the price of meat and grains Is such that the importation of concentratesto enhancethe productivity of livestock systems is a viable option. The West Africa-North Africa region has limited agricultural potential but many opportunities for trade, and these offer good prospects for achieving food security in the medium term. The national resourcesallocated to the development of the agricultural sector and of national research capacity are generally very limited, 4.54. Asia and the Pacific In Asia, the main problem of development is the sheer size of the human population and the extent of its poverty, making food security vulnerable. More than half the world’s population and two-thirds of that of developing countries live in this region. About 29% of the region’s population, or 800 million people, are poor, while 22% are malnourished. The arable land available per caput is 0.2 ha, by far the lowest in the developing world. In most countries of the region there is no room for expansion of the area cultivated, so future productivity gains must come from intensification. The Asia and the Pacific area is very diverse, although the region’s statistics are overwhelmingly dominated by the two giant countries India and China. Both these countries have strong national research systems, while many other countries, particularly in the Pacific area have only limited national research capacity. High priority must be given in Asia to research on soil and water conservation and nutrient-use efficiency. Irrigation is crucial to the region’s food production. However, in the arid and semi-arid zone the productivity of irrigated areas is threatened by salinization. Improvements in the productivity of dryland farming are also needed. kandlessnessand poverty are serious development problems. The yield gap is narrowing, and in some areas yields of wheat and rice are close to their agronomic potential. The yield potential of rice particularly will have to be raised, and this will require increased efforts in germplasm enhancementand breeding. In Asia, an expanded effort will also be required in policy research, particularly with respect to equity and sustainability issues. Livestock are important, particularly pigs, cattle, poultry and buffalo. Shortage of feed is a major constraint to increasing productivity while demand for livestock products is growing rapidly. Asia has relatively small areas of forest, but deforestation rates are high. Fisheries are important in terms of both income and employment as well as in their contributions to the diet. 43 3 S Latin America and the Caribbean Latin America and the Caribbean are slowly emerging from the deep economic crisis and crippling debt burden of the 198Os,now generally considered as a “lost decade”. Many countries are currently undergoing structural adjustment and economic liberalization. More than two-thirds of the population live in urban areas. About 17 % of ,533 population live in absolute poverty. Although the number of poor people as a percentage of total population may be lower than in other regions, the proportion of poor 41 people in the rural population has been estimated at more than a third, a figure comparable to that of sub-SaharanAfrica. Several countries have a high per caput GNP, but income distribution is highly skewed throughout the region. Efforts are needed to reduce the cost of staple foods for the urban and rural poor. Latin America has large land reserves, but many areas are too marginal for sustainable agricultural production. The productivity of livestock and the demand for livestock products are the highest of any region in the developing world. The region has good prospects for increasing agricultural productivity rapidly without degrading the resource base, and thus for helping to solve global food problems. Resource degradation is often driven by poverty or by inappropriate government policies. The highlands require particular attention for equity reasons, while some savannalands have potential for large productivity increases. The region has the largest area of tropical forest in the world, but the absolute area deforested annually is also very high, partly becauseforests are considered “unused” lands. Although Latin America and the Caribbean have a cadre of well trained scientists working in different agroecological zones, many national research systemshave a chronic lack of operational funds. The region has a strong private sector involved in agricultural research, and links are developing between the public and private sectors. The emerging regional research system needs assistancein preserving and exploiting the region’s considerable biodiversity, through expandedresearch on genetic resources. Research should capitalize on recent developments in biotechnology, although the risk that such research might benefit only the larger scale production systems should be recognized and avoided. 4.6. Production Sectors and Commodities To assessthe importance of each of the broad commodity groups under consideration in this report - crops, trees, livestock and fish - the values of production of each of these groups in each of the major developing regions were estimated by aggregating the value of the respective commodities of each commodity group (Table 4.4). This value had been estimated for each commodity by multiplying its average annual production volume during 1987/89 as reported in the FAO production yearbook, with its corresponding price as reported in Annex 3. The table captures some interesting differences in the relative values of production among commodity groups and regions. It clearIy shows the importance of crop production, which accountsfor 57% of the total value of production of developing countries. Trees account for 19%, livestock for 19% and fish for 5 % . The table also illustrates the predominance of the Asia and Pacific region, which accountsfor 59% of the overall value of production. Latin America and the Caribbean accountsfor 23 %, sub-SaharanAfrica for 10% and West Asia-North Africa for 8 %. Trees are the second most important commodity group. Although Asia contains only 19% of the total wooded area in developing countries, the region’s tree products represent 61% of total forestry value. Largely becauseof the importance of fuelwood in energy supplies, tree products account for 29 % of the overall value of production in subSaharan Africa. In absolute terms, livestock and fish are of primary importance in Asia 42 and in Latin America and the Caribbean, In relative terms, livestock are particularly important in the West Asia-North Africa region, where they account for 25% of the value of production. There are seven major caveatsassociatedwith the valuation of commodities and of commodity groups. First, several commodities (e.g. yam, fuelwood, sweet potato, etc.) have no published price data sources. Second, it has proven difficult to account for intermediate products such as draught power, manure, fodder crops, pasture hay, and certain tree products, becausethese are not usually traded and have no international price. Nevertheless, these intermediate products are indispensableinputs to the production of some of the priced commodities. Third, prices of all commodities may vary considerably by region and over time. In this analysis we used one global international price and did not allow for regional differences. Fourth, the relative importance of commodities depends on how they are aggregated. For instance, each of the many species of vegetable may be relatively unimportant, but the group as a whole is important. A similar argument can be made for fisheries (more than 1,000 speciesare traded regularly) and fruits. Fifth, for several commodities the reported international price refers to only a minor share of the market but which is heavily distorted by subsidies and the effects of other government policies (e.g. sugar, rice, etc.). Sixth, there is no consistency in the way price data are reported (some are FOB, others CIF, others farm-gate, etc.). Seventh, available international prices usually refer to high quality items only (e.g. beef, lamb). TabIe 4.4. Gross value of production of major commodity groups in developing countries by region, 1987/89 &JS$ billion/year) Despite these caveats, the gross value of production of commodities provides a useful initial indicator of the importance and potential pay off of research on them. Value of production allows for meaningful aggregation acrosscommodities so that their importance can be expressedin a common value. Table 4.5 shows the gross values for major commodities for the developing world as a whole. Table 4.6 provides this 43 information for the 50 most important commodities in each of the four regions. These gross values are based on production and price data from FAO. The value of production by commodity and by RAEZ is presented in Annex 2 and the prices used in the calculations are listed in Annex 3. When FAO price data were not available, World Bank data were used. For non-tradeable commodities, the latest domestic prices in major producing countries were used. Production and price data use the 1987-89 annual average. Table 4.5. Gross value of production of major commodities in developing countries (US$‘million, 1987/89) OVEI \LL COMMODITY Rice Fuelwood & Charcoal Sawlog & Veneer (NC) Milk Wheat Marine Capture Beef & Buffalo Meat Pigmeat Maize Orange Sweet Potato Potato Cotton Eggs Coffee Sugar Tobacco Groundnut Grape Soybean Banana & Plantain Cassava Poultry Meat Inland Capture Sheep & Goat Meat TOTAL 85998.6 60978.8 52853.0 45156.9 31147.3 25179.6 24140.7 23208.7 19720.7 17176.8 14037.2 13790.0 13578.5 13447.4 13224.6 12968.5 12434.4 12419.2 12326.2 12197.9 10334.6 9847.7 9378.2 8461.6 8102.3 COMMODTTY COMMODITY Sawlog & Veneer (C) Tomato Beans Coconut Apple Rubber Tea Sorghum Cocoa Onion Palm Oil Lemon & Lime Millet Barley Yam Pineapple Chickpea Broad Bean Cabbage Cowpea Lentil Pigeonpea Jute Sisal Hemp TOTAL 7276.8 5832.7 5491.o 5428.0 5106.3 5103.2 4112.1 4038.0 3846.0 3666.6 3528.2 3339.9 3317.2 3117.9 2959.1 2573.3 2242.4 2031.1 2027.1 1102.6 1066.4 1054.7 864.0 164.5 39.5 NC = Non-Coniferous; C = Coniferous 44 The most important agriculture commodity in developing countries, measured by value of production, is rice, followed by milk, wheat, marine capture fisheries, beef and buffalo meat, pigmeat and maize. The three most important agricultural commodities in sub-SaharanAfrica are cassava,milk and banana and plantain; in West Asia-North Africa: grape, wheat and milk; in Asia: rice, milk and wheat; and in Latin America: beef, milk and orange. The economic importance of forestry should be emphasized. It is mainly due to the production of fuelwood and sawlogs, which are the second and third most important commodities in the developing world as a whole as well as for Asia, while in sub-Saharan Africa fuelwood and charcoal rank well ahead of any other commodity. As for other non-traded commodities, the data for fuelwood were derived from typical household consumption figures, local prices and population data, and should be regarded cautiously. However, the importance of fuelwood in relation to other commodities is well established. Of the non-food crops, cotton, coffee and tobacco rank relatively high in developing countries as a whole. Livestock production is relatively important in every region. In sub-SaharanAfrica, the starchy foods are important, particularly cassava, banana/plantain and sweet potato. The importance of several non-food commodities in the agricultural sector emerges clearly. These commodities contribute substantially to the generation of income and employment and are potentially important for self-reliance. 45 Table 4.6. Gross value of production of major commodities in developing countries by region (US$‘million, 1987/89) SSA TOTAL Beef & Buffalo Meat Milk Fuelwood & Charcoal Orange Sawlog & Veneer (NC) Marine Capture Coffee Soybean sugar Maize Grape Banana & Plantain Rice Poultry Meat Wheat Sawlog & Veneer (C) Eggs Beans Pigmeat Potato Cassava Cotton Tobacco Lemon & Lime Tomato Cocoa Apple Sorghum Sheep & Goat Meat Pineapple Onion Groundnut Inland Capture Coconut Sweet Potato Barley Palm Oil Sisal Cabbage Tea Broad Bean Yi3IIl Chickpea Rubber Lentil Cowpea Pigeonpea Millet Jute Hemp 13809.1 12193.7 11395.3 10708.3 10246.9 9923.2 8269.7 7966.2 6034.1 5569.4 4567.8 3678.9 3594.2 3360.2 3178.8 3086.4 3031.2 2641.O 2530.3 2281.9 2006.3 1994.9 1840.5 1577.8 1328.2 1069.2 1008.2 995.3 669.5 648.8 545.1 480.0 426.4 387.4 260.4 199.4 196.2 116.4 104.4 100.2 92.3 76.5 56.4 56.0 32.8 24.3 16.1 9.6 5.8 1.2 COMMODITY Fuelwood & Charcoal Sawlog & Veneer (NC) Cassava Milk Banana& Plantain Beef & Buffalo Meat YZiIll Groundnut Coffee Cocoa Maize Rice Sheep& Goat Meat Millet Beans Sorghum Cotton Inland Capture Cowpea sugar Marine Capture Tobacco Sweet Potato Poultry Meat Palm Oil k%s Tea Potato Rubber Pigmeat Pineapple Orange Tomato Coconut Wheat Broad Bean Barley Sawlog & Veneer (C) Onion Lemon & Lime Soybean Pigeonpea Chickpea Sisal Grape Cabbage Lentil Apple Jute Hemp TOTAL 16974.1 4798.8 4434.0 3663.5 3564.5 3133.2 2858.1 2703.4 2696.0 2215.4 2034.3 1534.0 1455.7 1371.8 1313.0 1308.9 1208.3 1208.0 1052.9 891.0 862.5 717.5 700.9 605.0 593.8 582.0 504.3 424.2 310.0 287.5 286.0 277.5 275.6 267.2 254.1 180.8 146.2 131.5 103.9 95.2 66.1 64.2 59.8 40.4 27.3 15.0 13.0 4.5 1.1 0.0 46 Table 4.6. cont.d ASIA T@TAL Grape Wheat Milk Tomato Orange Sheep& Goat Meat Potato Beef & Buffalo Meat Barley Eggs Cotton Apple Poultry Meat Marine Capture Fuelwood & Charcoal Lemon & Lime Rice Onion sugar Maize Tobacco Lentil Broad Bean Beaus Sawlog & Veneer (C) Sawlog & Veneer (NC) Tea Chickpea Inland Capture Cabbage Sorghum Groundnut Soybean Banana & Plantain Millet Pigmeat Coffee Sweet Potato Cowpea Jute Hemp Sisal YZilIl Cassava Palm Oil. Pineapple Rubber Cocoa Coconut Pigeonpea 6614.8 5907.0 4792.9 2886.2 2630.1 2411.6 2102.3 2066.8 2055.0 1565.5 1541.7 1507.6 1312.0 1205.2 1075.7 978.8 921.5 859.7 844.6 786.7 755.7 511.0 457.9 429.0 383.9 366.2 357.3 325.7 243.3 182.8 107.3 106.0 105.3 78.0 27.7 26.5 12.0 8.4 4.0 1.6 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 coMMopm Rice Sawlog & Veneer (NC) Fuelwood & Charcoal Milk Wheat Pigmeat Marine Capture Sweet Potato Maize Groundnut Tobacco Potato Cotton Eggs Inland Capture sugar Beef & Buffalo Meat Coconut Rubber Poultry Meat Soybean Sawlog & Veneer (C) Sheep& Goat Meat Orange Cassava Tea Banana& Plantain Palm Oil Apple Coffee Onion Millet Chickpea Cabbage Pineapple Sorghum Tomato Broad Bean Grape Beans Pigeonpea Jute Barley Lemon & Lime Cocoa Lentil Hemp Yam Cowpea Sisal TOTAL 79948.9 37441.2 31533.7 22506.7 21807.5 20364.3 13188.7 13067.0 11330.3 9129.7 9120.6 8981.5 8833.7 8268.6 6583.8 5198.8 5131.6 4773.3 4737.2 4101.1 4060.2 3675.0 3565.5 3560.9 3407.4 3150.2 3013.1 2738.2 2585.9 2246.9 2157.9 1908.2 1800.6 1724.8 1638.5 1626.5 1342.6 1300.2 1116.3 1108.0 974.4 855.5 717.3 688.2 561.4 509.6 36.8 24.5 21.4 7.0 47 CHAPTER 5 - CROPS 5.1. Background Crops and their products provide 57% of the total value of production of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in developing countries. In Asia this share amounts to 58 %, in sub-SaharanAfrica 53 %, in Latin America and the Caribbean 51% and in West Asia-North Africa 69 %. Research to improve the productivity of the most important food crops in developing countries has been the central theme of the CGIAR since its inception. The CGIAR has a multidisciplinary research approach to increasing crop productivity. The research has four main objectives: to increase yield potential; to narrow gaps between potential and actual yields; to improve yield stability; and maintenanceresearch to prevent the erosion of attained yield levels. Crop productivity research in the CGIAR consists of five activities: germplasm enhancementand breeding, cropping systems, plant protection, plant nutrition, and seed technology and production. (These five activities fall into two of the major categories of activities identified in Section 2.1, germplasm enhancementand breeding, and the development and managementof production systems.) The pay off to crop productivity research in the CGIAR has been large, and the impact of research on rice and wheat has been particularly impressive (Anderson et al, 1988). Significant farm-level impact has also been achieved through research on maize, millet (particularly in India), groundnut (in India) and phaseolusbeans. Although encouraging progress in the development of technology for the other crops has been achieved, evidence of impact is still largely anecdotal. Progress has been particularly slow for grain legumes. This chapter discussesimportant factors for the allocation of CGIAR priorities to particular crops. For each crop under consideration, the importance of the commodity in the diet and the production system, research opportunities and history, the strategic breeding goals, and the role of the CGIAR hitherto are highlighted. Implications with respect to the future priority ranking of each commodity are discussedin Section 12.3.5. TAC acknowledges the importance of mixed cropping systems and the difficulty of allocating priorities to the crops involved, which are often of minor importance globally but can play a significant role in particular farming systems. In addition, for many crops, particularly roots and tubers, food legumes and vegetables, the databaseis weak. Estimates on their value of production and yield levels are often crude guesses, and in a quantitative analysis these crops may, therefore, get a lower priority ranking than they merit. 48 2. Cereals 5.2.1. Rice Globally, rice is the most important crop in terms of its contribution to diet and value of production. Of the 147 million ha harvested globally in 1989, more than 142 million ha were in developing countries, producing 460 million tonnes of paddy. Asia is the primary producer, accounting for 91% of production in developing countries. Latin America and the Caribbean accountsfor 4%) West Asia-North Africa for 3 % , and sub-SaharanAfrica for 2 %. Rice provides between 35 % and 60% of the calories consumed by 2.7 billion people in Asia, and 8 % of food energy for 1 billion people in sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America and the Caribbean. Only about 4% of world rice production is traded on the international market; most countries rely almost entirely on domestic production to meet their demand. Price formation on the international market is heavily influenced by subsidies and other protective measures. In West Africa and Latin America rice is a relatively new staple in the diet. Per caput consumption in West Africa has doubled over the past two decades,while in Latin America it has increased by about 25%. Rice production increased in varying degrees in all developing regions during the 197Os,by an average of 2.7 % annually, and during the 198Os,with an overall average of 3 .O%. About two-thirds of the increase can be attributed to higher yield levels in irrigated rice in Asia, attained through the widespread adoption of high-yielding varieties, fertilizer and irrigation. Production increasesin Latin America and the Caribbean resulted largely from the spread of new varieties. However, in sub-SaharanAfrica and West Asia-North Africa they resulted from an increase in the area cultivated rather than from increases in yields. Over the two decades,the rice areas of 11 green revolution countries in Asia showed a mean yield increase of 63 % (from 2.03 to 3.31 t/ha). However, yields vary widely between countries in all developing regions. For example, in Asia the average yield of rice in India, which has one-third of the region’s rice area, is only 2.13 t/ha, whereas it is 5.33 t/ha in China, which also has about one-third of the region’s rice area. Yields in South Korea are about 7 t/ha. If past trends in demand continue, world rice production will need to increase by 21% by the end of the century, and by 65 % by 2020 (1.7 % annually). While Asia has achieved marginal self-sufficiency in rice for the present, further increasesthrough higher yields or increased cropping intensity will be necessaryto keep pace with demand. The leading rice-growing countries in Asia will need to increase their rice production by 100% by 2020 (2.3 % annually). These escalating demand levels will require a concerted research effort to continue the development of improved technologies for production. To date, the pay off from CGIAR investments in rice researchhas been large. The internal rate of return from international rice research over the last 30 years can reach at least 80%) and during this period the new rice varieties allowed for an increase in rice production which was sufficient to feed about 600 million more people (IRRI, 1991). The impact of new technology has so far been confined primarily to irrigated areas - which make up some 50% of the world’s harvested rice area - and to favourable rainfed areas. Further research must be conducted for these areasto protect and build on what has already been achieved. Recent work at IRRI has given strong indications that the high yield levels 49 obtained on farms with favourable managementconditions are not sustainabledue to a variety of factors such as poor quality of irrigation water, the lack of micronutrients, and the vulnerability of improved varieties to pests and diseases. In order to meet the problem of yield erosion, further efforts in maintenanceresearch, as well as in lifting the yield ceiling, will be required. However, if rising demandsare to be met, other rice growing systems will also have to receive attention. These include: shallow rainfed rice, which accounts for almost 25% of the harvestedarea in Asia; deep-water and floating rice, which accounts for about 13% of the harvestedarea in Asia; and dryland or upland rice, which accounts for 75% of the harvestedarea in Latin America and the Caribbean and 50% of that in sub-SaharanAfrica. In 1983, 25 % of total CGIAR allocations were spent on rice. In 1985, TAC recommended that the overall effort for rice be reduced and that the existing shift in research emphasis away from applied research on irrigated systemsbe reinforced. TAC considered that the CGIAR System’s future efforts on rice should concentrate more on non-irrigated systems, and in basic research on irrigated rice in collaboration with specialized institutions. These recommendations reflected the successes that had already been achieved in rice research, especially in the more favourable environments. Today, more than twothirds of the rice lands of developing countries are planted with high-yielding modern varieties. Furthermore, the CGIAR System’s collaboration in rice research has significantly strengthenedmany national researchprogrammes, allowing them to assume an increasingly large share of the responsibility for research. This is particularly true of some of the largest rice producing countries, e.g. India, Thailand, the Philippines, Bangladesh, China and Korea. Non-irrigated wetland and dryland rice systemscomprise almost half the global area under rice production. The production constraints of these systems are more complex than those of irrigated rice becauseof the lack of control in water management and the more limited knowledge base for research. In Latin America and the Caribbean and in sub-SaharanAfrica, CGIAR emphasishas shifted to dryland rice research. The 1986 recommendation for the movement towards basic research was made in the belief that the exploitation of genetic diversity was fundamental to achieving higher and more stable yields, resistanceto major pests and disease, and better drought tolerance. For both irrigated and non-irrigated rice, it will be necessaryto develop new and better breeding techniques, to increase knowledge of the factors determining resistance and tolerance, and to raise yield potential by using biotechnology. The CGIAR System should therefore emphasize strategic research. In so doing it will catalyze and support basic research in other institutes, and play an active role in encouraging the application of new techniques to the rice production problems of developing countries. In considering future priorities for rice research, TAC should also consider the substantial impact obtained from CGIAR efforts in rice research, particularly in Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. 50 52.2. Wheat After rice, wheat is the single most important food source in the developing world, contributing more calories to diets than all other cereals combined. It is higher in protein content than almost all other cereals. Within wheat, a distinction can be made between durum and bread wheats, and between bread wheats, between winter, facultative and spring wheats. Durum wheat accounts for 5% of developing country wheat production, and 70% of it is grown in West Asia-North Africa. In 1989, developing countries accountedfor 42% of world wheat production (538 million t) and 44% of world wheat area (226 million ha). Half the total increase in production in the 1970s and 70% in the 1980s came from the developing world. In 1989, Asia accounted for 71% of the developing world’s production, West Asia-North Africa for 17%, Latin America and the Caribbean for 10% and sub-SaharanAfrica for 2 %. In the West Asia-North Africa region, wheat is the most important food crop in terms of its calorie contribution. Wheat production in the developing regions as a whole increasedby 5 % annually in the 1970s and by 4.3 % in the 1980s. The five largest producers - China, India, Turkey, Pakistan and Argentina - raised production at an average annual rate of 5.4% in the 1970s and 4.3 % in the 1980s largely through yield increases. In the remaining developing countries, the growth rate was only 1.5 % during the 197Os,but increased to 3% during the 1980s. Trends in yield levels over the past two decadeshave varied considerably. China experienced an increase of 75 % in the 1970s and 49 % in the 1980s; India 25% in the 1970s and 45% in the 1980s; West Asia-North Africa 35% in the 1970s and 16% in the 198Os,. sub-SaharanAfrica 55% in the 1970s and 38% in the 1980s; Latin America and the Caribbean 37% in the 1980s. Improved varieties and associated technologies have had a major impact on wheat production in the developing world, causing an absolute yield increase from I .64 t/ha to 2.23 t/ha in the past decade. Today, some 60% of the wheat lands in developing regions are sown with modern varieties. Wheat imports by developing countries doubled in the 1970s and further increased substantially in the 1980s. Many countries financed their purchasesof wheat with limited foreign exchange, indicating the high priority assignedto wheat as a food. Even the countries that produce wheat have become more reliant on imports during the past two decades. Among countries consuming 100,000 tonnes or more annually, per caput wheat imports declined only in Turkey, India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe. Growth rates in consumption are closely linked to rising incomes and urbanization. The correlation with rising incomes reflects not only greater overall food consumption, but also a switch to wheat in preference to other starchy staples, and the use of wheat as animal feed. In West Asia-North Africa, where wheat originated, consumption is high at all income levels and in both rural and urban areas. Other factors contributing to increased wheat consumption are the lagging production of many other staple foods; and food aid and pricing policies, which lower wheat prices and create a bias in favour of wheat products. For the developing regions as a whole, the annual demand for wheat is projected to grow at 3 % over the coming decade. Demand will rise particularly rapidly in subSaharan Africa, at 5.1% per annum, and at 2.9 % in other regions. 51 Expansion in wheat area has declined from 1.7% per year in the 1950s to under 1% currently, and is projected at 0.8% in the future. Consequently, wheat yields will need to rise by 2.2% each year to meet the projected demand growth of 3 %. Semidwarf wheat varieties are already sown in most of the wheat area and fertilizer applications are relatively high on much of the irrigated land. However, in most developing countries absolute yields are still comparatively low, less than half the average yield in Europe. Even the current yield levels of the five largest producers cannot be considered high: China, 3.05 t/ha; India, 2.24 t/ha; Turkey, 1.97 t/ha; Pakistan, 1.86 t/ha; and Argentina, 1.85 t/ha. Diseases, insect pests and environmental stresses,especially drought, are important constraints but they are not the only ones: crop and water management, socioeconomic factors and the policy environment are equally important for achieving further sustainable increasesin yield. The impact of CGIAR investments in wheat research has been impressive. Varieties to which CIMMYT has contributed, now cover about 47 million ha, and between 50% and 70% of improved wheat varieties released during the last 30 years have been based on crossesmade by CIMMYT. In the West Asia-North Africa region, where most of the wheat is rainfed, winter rainfall is low and erratic and crop yields are limited by biological and environmental constraints as well as by managementand socioeconomic factors. Except in Turkey, research in this region has not addressedthe needs of high elevation areas, which require winter or facultative wheat varieties with tolerance to a range of environmental stresses, including cold. In the lowland areas of the West Asia-North Africa region, tolerance to heat and salinity, as well as to cold, are required. For the lowland irrigated areas of the semi-arid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall, where the crop is grown during the cool season, varieties with better tolerance to relatively high temperaturesare required. Aluminium toxicity is a constraint to bread wheat production in large areas of highly leached acidic soils in the subhumid and humid subtropical areas of southeastChina. For the higher elevation areas of the cool tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall, spring wheat varieties with better adaptation to biotic and abiotic stressesare required. According to the ACIAR analysis, the highest pay off from future investments in wheat research can be obtained in the warm and seasonally dry subtropics with summer rainfall, and in the cool subtropics. In its 1986 assessment of priorities, TAC considered the importance of wheat as a food crop and the increasing reliance of developing countries on wheat imports. It also considered the strong research programmes on wheat in developed countries and the growing strength of national programmes in Latin America, Turkey, India and China, as evidenced by the remarkable yield and production increasesachieved in those countries during the 1970s and 1980s. The well organized international wheat trade, the export capacity of some developing countries, and the increasing demand for wheat in countries with unfavourable environments for its production make the concept of self-sufficiency inappropriate for many areas. In 1986 TAC considered that the trend of the centres concerned to transfer a number of research functions to national systemswhile continuing to provide them with technical support was reasonable and should be accelerated. This led to the recommendation that the System’s overall efforts in wheat research should be gradually reduced by 10% over the following five years. TAC also recommended that research 52 should concentrate on increasing production on marginal lands, including those in tropical areas. A major share of CGIAR efforts on wheat are now allocated to maintenance research. The pay off from investment in wheat research has been very high, but further efforts are required to sustain the increasedyield levels achieved. 5.2.3. Maize Among the food crops, maize ranks third after rice and wheat both in terms of calorie contribution and in terms of value of production. Developing countries produce an estimated 39% of world production (470 million t) from about 81 million ha (63 % of total maize area). The crop is grown in all the developing regions. Of the total for all regions, China alone accounts for 41%) Latin America and the Caribbean for 27%, the rest of Asia for 13%, sub-SaharanAfrica for 9 %, and West Asia-North Africa for 7%. Where grown for human food, maize is an important source of calories for the poor. The crop is widely grown in mixed cropping systems by subsistencefarmers. For ail developing countries, annual per caput human consumption is only 20 kg, but in Latin America and the Caribbean (the homeland of maize) it is 80 kg, and in sub-Saharan Africa 60 kg; in some countries of both regions, per caput human consumption is as high as 100 kg per annum. Maize provides about one-third of the mean calorie intake in these two regions, but little more than 5 % in the other regions. Maize stover is an important byproduct in many countries. The use of maize for livestock feed has become increasingly important and now accounts for about 54% of consumption in developing countries. In the subtropical areas of South America, it is the main use, and it is important for this purpose in the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, and in the West Asia-North Africa region. In the 1970s and the 198Os,the use of maize as feed in developing countries grew by 5.3 % per am-mm,and in Asia and West Asia-North Africa it grew at three times the rate for direct human consumption. It grew at twice the rate for food use in sub-SaharanAfrica, but from a low base, so that use of maize for feed is still relatively low in that region. During the current decade, demand for food maize for the developing regions as a whole is expected to grow at 1.6 % per year, for feed maize at 4.9 %, and for food and feed maize combined at 3.5 %. Total regional demand is projected to grow at 3.1% for sub-SaharanAfrica, 3 % for the West Asia-North Africa region, 3.8% for Asia and 3.3 % for Latin America and the Caribbean. During the past decade, developing countries achieved a 22% increase in yields. However, this average figure masks China’s considerable gain of 50% (associatedlargely with the adoption of improved varieties) at one end of the scale, and a decline of almost 15% in West Africa at the other. The variation in yields per ha is equally dramatic: these range from more than 3 t in subtropical South America and China, through just under 2 in West Asia-North Africa, to about 1.6 in Central and tropical South America, about 1.5 in South and South-East Asia, about 1.1 in East and Southern Africa and India, and less than 1 in the other sub-SaharanAfrican regions. Sub-SaharanAfrica achieved some increase in production during the 1970s but this was the result of an increase in the area harvested. During the 198Os,yield gains were 16% (from 1.96 to 2.28 t/ha) for the 53 developing regions as a whole, 12% for sub-SaharanAfrica, 7% for Latin America and the Caribbean, 38% for West Asia-North Africa and 27% for Asia. In the long term, the global pattern of use will continue to change with rising incomes and urbanization. Although consumers in developing countries will tend to spend less on maize as they switch to other foods, maize consumption will increase becauseof its increasing use as feed. In the low-income countries, particularly in subSaharan Africa, this scenario is likely to develop more slowly, and in the medium term the problem will be one of increasing demand for maize for human consumption against a background of declining per caput production. For example, in East and Southern Africa, where maize is the staple food and is grown on about 30% of the cultivated crop area, production will need to double by the year 2000 if the region is not to face massive bills for food imports. Increased production in sub-SaharanAfrica will need to come mainly from increased yields. The potential for increasing yields is quite high and the pay off from CGIAR investments in maize research has been substantial, particularly in the lowland tropics. The main constraints are environmental stresses(particularly drought), diseasesand insect pests, and low levels of external inputs. Both improved open-pollinated varieties and hybrids are required, depending on local needs and the efficiency of national seed producers. In the lowland tropics, the development of better varieties and improved management practices relevant to farmers’ needs and constraints would contribute considerably to improved production. In sub-SaharanAfrica, low fertilizer rates and poor management currently pose a greater constraint than does the availability of high-yielding varieties. In East and Southern Africa, where there are extensive lowland and highland areas ideally suited to maize production, the pay off from the development of appropriate technology for small-scale farmers is exceptionally high, as the case of Zimbabwe shows. In some environments with bimodal rainfall, short-cycle maize outperforms both sorghum and millet. In 1986 TAC considered that the CGIAR System’s major effort in maize research was justified and should be maintained over the long term, and that some additional support should be given in the short to medium term to acceleratethe promising results from work in progress. The recommendation took into consideration the crop’s value as food, feed and a source of income for low-income groups and small-scale farmers worldwide; the projected increase in demand; and the expectation that strategic research could successfully addressthe constraints to higher yields in many developing countries. TAC recognized the urgent and specific needs of sub-SaharanAfrica and recommended a shift of effort to those areas where maize is the staple food. 5.2.4. Barley Barley is grown throughout the world and is tolerant of many soils and climates, but like wheat it is not well adapted to warm, humid conditions. It does, however, require less moisture than wheat. Its most important uses are for animal feed and making malt; little is used as human food, although average data conceal its local importance for food in some developing countries. The CGIAR System has not been involved with research for the improvement of malting barleys. Developing countries account for about 14% (1.33 million t) of global production and 16% (16.2 million ha) of the harvested area. West Asia-North Africa accounts for 54 71% of the harvested area in the developing regions, Asia for 18%, sub-SaharanAfrica for 7 % and Latin America and the Caribbean for 4 %. Some two-thirds of the production is in West Asia-North Africa, and in no other developing region is the crop as important relative to other commodities. Asia accountsfor another 28% of production, China for 14% and India for 12%. In West Asia-North Africa, barley is grown primarily as a feed crop and is inseparable from the production of sheepand goats. It is the principal crop in areas that receive 200-300 mm rainfall. It is estimated that barley provides almost half the annual digestible energy needs of sheep in such areas. Grain, straw and stubble all provide important sources of feed at different times of the year. Current yields average 1.43 t/ha for all developing countries and 1.25 t/ha for West Asia-North Africa. In the 197Os,there was a decline in the area sown in developing countries, and the modest production increase of 13% over that period is attributed to increases in yield. The averageyield increase was 30%, from 1.0 to 1.3 t/ha, but China’s gain was an impressive 119%, from 1.1 to 2.4 t/ha, while that of West Asia-North Africa was only 15%, from 0.96 to 1.1 t/ha. During the 1980s there was an increase of about 4% in the harvested area and a 15% increase in production, so nearly three-quarters of the latter increase was due to yield gain. Average yield increase was 11% (from 1.09 to 1.43 t/ha) for all the developing regions combined, 28% for China, 41% for India, and 10% for West Asia-North Africa. The livestock industry accounts for almost one-third of the value of agricultural production in West Asia-North Africa, and the increasing demand for meat will mean an increased demand for barley as feed. The main constraints to improved production are environmental stresses (especially drought), and insect pests and diseases. In 1986 TAC recommended that the overall allocation to barley research be reduced slightly, but that the effort for West Asia-North Africa be strengthenedby phasing out research for other regions. The recommendation took account of the relatively low importance of barley elsewhere (excluding barley grown for malt) and the strength of many national agricultural researchprogrammes. 5.2.5. Sorghum Some 70% (62 million t) of the world’s sorghum production and 89% (45 million ha) of its sorghum area are located in the developing regions. Sorghum is a major crop of the lowland semi-arid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall, where it has a special importance, together with millet, as a staple food for millions of very poor people in drought-prone, high-risk areas. In West Africa, sorghum is an important crop in the subhumid areas, where it is intercropped with millet, maize and cowpea. Sorghum is also an important crop in the medium-altitude areas of Ethiopia. Sorghum tends to have a low or negative income elasticity of demand, and is usually substituted by other foods when income permits. In most areas, the stalks and foliage - used as fodder, fuel and construction materials - are more important than the grain. Although the average contribution of sorghum to diets may be low in most developing regions, in semi-arid West Africa it contributes 13% of calorie intake and 55 over 11% of protein, making it the secondmost important food commodity after millet, In India, it accounts for almost 6% of calorie intake. In Latin America and the Caribbean, most of the crop is used for feed. Of the area harvested in developing countries, Asia accountsfor 46 %, subSaharan Africa for 3 1%, West Asia-North Africa for 12% and Latin America and the Caribbean for 10%. India, the largest single producer, accounts for 39 % of the sorghum area in the developing regions and China for 5 %. In sub-SaharanAfrica, some 60% of the sorghum area is located in West Africa, the rest in East and Southern Africa. However, there is little correlation between area harvested and production share because of the considerable regional variation in yields: these range from 3.5 and 3.2 t/ha in Peru and China respectively to 0.74 t/ha in India and 0.9 t/ha in West Africa, where many national averagesare even lower. In the 197Os,substantial yield increaseswere achieved in China, Latin America and the Caribbean, and India, from a very low level in the latter country. During the 1980s sorghum area in Asia declined by 10% and production by 6%, the balance being offset by a 4% increase in yield. In sub-SaharanAfrica, sorghum area increasedby 17% during the 198Os,and this was associatedwith a yield increase of 9%. In Latin America and the Caribbean, there was a 12% decreasein the sorghum area, accompaniedby a yield increase of 4%. The world’s most urgent food production problems lie in drought-prone areas such as those of India and the Sahelian zone of Africa, where sorghum and millet are the staple food crops. The events of recent years have demonstratedas never before the extreme vulnerability of such areas, where the effects of a series of bad years have led to famine and dependenceon food aid. Crop stands are usually poor in such areas, and a special problem is poor plant emergence becauseof low and erratic rainfall, soil crusts and attacks from shoot flies and stem borers. Striga sp. (witchweed) causesserious losseswhere the land is planted to successivecrops of sorghum; and bird damage, especially due to Quelea sp., is a serious probIem throughout sub-SaharanAfrica. Storage pests are also a problem. In 1986 TAC recommended that the level of effort on sorghum be increased immediately and that the main effort should continue to be directed to sub-SaharanAfrica, where research needs and opportunities were greatest. India, China and Latin America and the Caribbean, due to either relatively strong national programmes or the development of the private-sector seed industry, had less need of assistance. One of the major objectives of this recommendation was to bring research support on sorghum (and millet) in sub-SaharanAfrica to a level comparable with that of maize, so that suitable varieties and other technologies of most value to some of the world’s poorest people could be developed as quickly as possible. 5.2.6. Millet In Asia and sub-SaharanAfrica, pearl millet is the most important crop in the lowland semi-arid tropics and subtropical areas with summer rainfall, where it is a staple food together with sorghum (in sub-SaharanAfrica), or with wheat (in Asia). Millet 56 provides food for some of the world’s poorest countries and poorest people. It can produce under conditions too dry for sorghum, and its straw is a valuable livestock feed. Becausesome countries combine their statistics for sorghum and millet, the data for millet tend to be overestimated, especially for sub-SaharanAfrica. It would appear that the crop is harvested from about 40 million ha in developing countries, with India accounting for about 45 % of that area and West Africa for about 32 %. Millet is the staple cereal in the Sahelian zone of Africa. In semi-arid West Africa, it accounts for about half the daily calorie intake and one-third of the protein. Average yields are only 500 to 700 kg/ha. Yields remained stagnant during the 1970s but showed a modest increase of 12% during the 1980s. Whereas developing world production declined during the 1970 (with a slight increase in West Africa), it increased by 13% during the 1980s mainly due to yield increases(12%). In sub-Saharan Africa, the area under production increasedby 18%) and this was accompaniedby a 14% increase in yield. In Asia, the area decreasedby 12%) but yields rose by 15%) leading to a 3% increase in production. However, unless millet yields can be further improved and stabilized, the future for rainfed food production in the semi-arid tropics will continue to look bleak. In India, ICRISAT’s efforts have met with substantial success: more than 4 million ha or a third of the area cultivated is now planted with improved millet varieties that originated at ICRISAT. The main constraints to production are the same as those for sorghum: environmental stress (especially drought), crop establishment, insect pests and diseases, and Striga sp. In 1986 TAC recommended that the level of effort on millet be increased over the short term, with a greater concentration on the needs of sub-SaharanAfrica. The recommendation was based on the crop’s importance in meeting the needs of the poor in sub-SaharanAfrica and India, the fact that people in the driest areas of the semi-arid tropics depend on it for survival, the short researchhistory, and the weak national research programmes in the millet producing countries of sub-SaharanAfrica. Continuing development of improved varieties and crop managementpractices is required. The control of Striga, drought tolerance, and germination and establishment in crusting soils should remain as areas of particular focus. 5.3. Roots, Tubers, Banana and 5.3.1. Cassava Cassavais an important food crop in sub-SaharanAfrica, particularly in the humid and subhumid tropics. It is also important in parts of Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. The leaves are eaten as a green vegetable in sub-SaharanAfrica and provide a cheap and rich source of protein and Vitamins A and B. The crop is grown mostly by small-scale farmers, mainly under subsistenceor semi-subsistenceconditions and on low-fertility soils. It tolerates drought and can be left in the ground as a food reserve for long periods. Cassavaranks among the 15 most important agricultural commodities in developing countries with respect to value of production, and is the most important in sub-SaharanAfrica. 57 World production in 1989, all from developing countries, was about 148 million t from about 15 million ha - some 40% of the total area in developing countries devoted to root crops. This representsan increase in production of 19% and in harvested area of 8% during the past decade. Sub-SaharanAfrica accountsfor approximately 42% of world production, Asia for about 37 %, and Latin America and the Caribbean for 21% (75 % of this from Brazil, the world’s largest producer). Cassavais the most important root crop in sub-SaharanAfrica, where it accounts for 70% of the harvested root crop area. It is used mainly as a fresh food, or as meal or flour after processing, and provides a major source of dietary energy for over 160 million people. Zaire and Nigeria are the largest African producers, accounting for 53 % (33 million t) of production. In Asia, there are many more end uses and all the principal producing countries have starch industries. In Thailand, cassavais produced largely for export as cattle feed. In Latin America and the Caribbean, its principal use is as food, but some cassavais used to feed swine. During the 198Os,yield gains were about 10% (from 9 to 9.8 t/ha) for the developing regions as a whole, 10% for sub-SaharanAfrica, 7% for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 14% for Asia. Current average yields for China, Thailand and India are 14, 15 and 19 t/ha respectively, compared with 6 to 7 t/ha in sub-SaharanAfrica. With real incomes increasing slowly or not at all in most sub-SaharanAfrican countries, there seems likely to be a continuing demand for cassavaas a human food, at least until the year 2010. Also, the crop has special significance as a food reserve. Besides the need to diminish the HCN content for safety reasonsand to reduce the food preparation time required by women, cassavaresearch in Africa should addressthe following principal issues: improvement of the role of cassavaas a subsistenceand famine relief crop; utilization of the crop’s potential for income and employment generation; and the generation of marketable surpluseswith significant added value to meet rising urban demand for new products. The decline in yields in sub-SaharanAfrica during the 1970s was probably due to the spread of cassavamealy bug and green spider mite. The successful strategy applied during the 1980s for the biological control of mealy bug should be extended to the crop’s other pests. Cassavaproduction in Asia has increasedat an annual rate of over 5 % during the past 20 years. Thailand is the region’s largest producer, with 38% of total production, and has become an important exporter of cassavachips for cattle feed. The market in Asia seems likely to remain healthy due to the demand-led diversification of cassava’send uses. There is still a need for more high-yielding clones and improved management practices in Asia. Cassavaproduction in Latin America and the Caribbean declined during the 1970s especially in Brazil. During the 198Os,production remained more or less steady against a background of a 65% decreasein the area harvested. Cassavaremains a smallfarm crop grown in marginal areas where soil fertility and moisture limit the production of other crops. Nevertheless, cassavafarmers sell a high proportion of their production. Urbanization has led to decreasingper caput consumption, but the crop is increasingly being used in animal and shrimp feeds. In 1986 TAC considered that, for sub-SaharanAfrica, the potential for further pay off from research on cassavawas high and that the region’s young national programmes needed continued support. It therefore recommended that the research effort 58 be strengthened, with the emphasis on diseaseand pest control, the quality of leaves used as a vegetable, and the quality of roots for processing for food and industrial use. In Asia, demand was buoyant and national programmes, though relatively young, were strong. The main requirements from the CGIAR System seemedto be improved germplasm and consultation services on technical problems, especially production agronomy. With respect to Latin America and the Caribbean, the situation was considered more complex and future needs were felt to be unclear. TAC therefore recommended that in the short term the global effort be maintained but that there should be a slight shift of effort from Latin America and the Caribbean to sub-SaharanAfrica. Since 1986, studies carried out in Latin America and the Caribbean have shown that cassavais increasingly being used in animal and shrimp feeds. The rapid increase in demand for feed, coupled with the cereals deficit, suggestsconsiderable future demand for dried cassava. In the absenceof price distortions, cassavais highly competitive with cereal grains. Also, while urbanization has led to a decreasein the per caput consumption of fresh cassava,pilot studies indicate increaseddemand on the part of urban dwellers for new “convenience food” cassavaproducts. Overall, the major areas for market expansion for cassavain Latin America and the Caribbean are seen to be “conserved fresh cassava”, animal feed, refined flours and starch. 5.3.2. Potato Approximately 27% (76 million t) of the world’s potato crop is currently produced in developing countries, mainly by small-scale farmers, compared to only 15% two decadesago. Potato is a labour intensive crop. The nutrient value (including Vitamin C) of potato is high, and the crop is particularly useful as a source of energy and 0 food. High yields are possible, demand is growing protein and as an infant weanin, rapidly due to positive income elasticity of demand for the crop at low income levels, and potato has a high value as a cash crop. It ranks among the five most important food crops in developing countries with respect to gross value of production. In 1989, developing countries accounted for about 34% of the area harvested. China is the largest producer, accounting for 40% of the 76 million t of potatoes produced in developing countries in 1989, while the rest of Asia accounted for 28%, Latin America and the Caribbean for 17%, West Asia-North Africa for 13% and subSaharan Africa for 2 %. Yields vary from about 7 t/ha in sub-SaharanAfrica to 13 t/ha in West Asia-North Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, compared with an average of 17 t/ha in developed countries. During the 1980s yields in the developing regions as a whole increased by 13%, from 10.9 to 12.2. t/ha. Among the major constraints to increasedproduction are the high costs of production, various diseasesand pests, the perishability of the crop during storage, and the difficulty of developing varieties adapted to higher temperatures. As in the case of other roots and tubers, national research capacity in potato research was generally weak at the start of CGIAR activities with this commodity. Only 2% of the world’s potato production is traded on international markets becauseof the perishability of the crop, whose high water content makes its transport over long distancesrisky. Quarantine regulations also restrict international trade in potato. Potato has responded well to research, and plant breeding has already brought about significant improvements in the crop in developing countries. Virology research in 59 the potato has advancedgreatly, and the safe movement of germplasm is now a reality. The adoption of improved potato varieties is often delayed by the absenceof national seed or multiplication systems. There is also a need for greater attention to the integration of potato in sustainable cropping systems. In 1986, TAC recommended that the level of support for potato research should continue in the short to medium term, given the short history of research for tropical and subtropical regions. TAC further recommendedthat, in view of the stronger national programmes then beginning to emerge and the spillovers from research in developed countries, CGIAR support be reduced in the medium to long term. 5.3.3. Sweet potato Sweet potato is now widely grown as a staple food in developing countries outside tropical America, where it originated. Although sweet potato statistics are dominated by the production level of China (the world’s largest sweet potato producer accounting for about 80% of production), the crop is also grown in many small countries with typically very low income levels. Sweet potato has very little research history, and outside the CGIAR only very little research is conducted on the crop. It is well adapted to warm tropical lowlands and produces relatively well under low-input conditions on good soils. Depending on variety, the crop can be harvested in three to six months. Sweet potato fits well into the multiple cropping systemsof Asia. The protein content of the roots is marginaIIy greater than that of cassavaand about half that of potato and yam. Sweet potato provides large sharesof calories, protein and Vitamin C, as well as Vitamin A in yellow cultivars to the diets of the poor. When eaten as a vegetable, the green leaves provide additional protein, vitamins and minerals. Production costs and labour inputs are low in terms of the yield and calories produced. Per caput production of sweet potato has decreasedduring the past 20 years, and the area harvested has also diminished. As income levels have risen the consumption of sweet potato has fallen. There has also been diversification in the uses made of sweet potato. For example, in China, only about 26% of sweet potato production is now used for human consumption, as against 35% for livestock feed, 28% for industrial uses (starch and aIcoho1)and 11% for seed or processedsnacks. Of the 9.1 million ha of sweet potato harvested in 1989 in developing countries, Asia accounted for 9 1%, sub-SaharanAfrica for 6 %, and Latin America and the Caribbean for 3 %. About 131 million t of sweet potato are produced altogether, of which 98% is from developing countries. China dominates world production, producing over 80% of developing country output, and this masks the importance of sweet potato in many small countries such as the Pacific Islands. In terms of gross value of production sweet potato ranks eighth among the major agricultural commodities in developing countries. The demand for sweet potato is increasing in sub-SaharanAfrica, where the harvested area is relatively small. Production is estimated to have increasedby 25 % in the 1970s and by 13% in the 198Os,and is now 2.6 times higher than that of Latin America and the Caribbean, where it declined during the 1970s but increased by 9% during the 1980s. 60 Although current yields in sub-SaharanAfrica average only 6 t/ha, the crop’s high yield potential has been demonstratedby the CGIAR System’s research in that region, which has led to varieties that can produce more than 40 t/ha in four months when grown in the wet season. Similar results have been obtained from new Asian varieties. Current yields in the developing regions as a whole average around 14t/ha, with an average yield of about 18t/ha in China. Substantial potential exists for an expansion of the importance of sweet potato and its foliage as a livestock feed. Pests and diseases,such as the sweet potato weevil, stemborer, viruses and mycoplasma-like organisms, are major production constraints. Unlike cassava,the crop cannot be stored in the ground beyond maturity, as it sprouts easily and is subject to pest attacks. Nor does it store well once lifted, although slicing and drying alleviate this problem to some extent. In 1986 TAC considered sweet potato to be a neglected crop and recommended that the research effort be increased substantially. It recognized a need for greater collaboration between the CGIAR Centres and other institutions involved in research on the crop, such as AVRDC. The role of sweet potato in the development of new foods and food processing technologies could make it a highly valuable cash crop and employment generator in the medium to long term. In 1987, sweet potato was added to CIP’s mandate, and in 1990, AVRDC decided to stop further work on sweet potato. 5.3.4. Yam A crop of the warm humid and subhumid tropics, yam is a favoured food in subSaharan Africa, and in. the Pacific and Caribbean islands. More than 90 % (2.4 million ha) of the current global area under yam cultivation is in sub-SaharanAfrica, where the crop accounts for about 21% of the area cultivated with root crops in the continent’s root-crop belt. Nigeria alone accountsfor about 70% (16 million t) of the world production of yam. Yam is a preferred food and a food security crop in some sub-SaharanAfrican countries. It makes major contributions to energy and protein requirements in the forest zone of West Africa, is a staple food and cash crop for millions of small-scale farmers in densely populated areas, and provides employment in transportation and sales at urban and rural markets. In West Africa, the white yam - Dioscorea rotundata - is the most highly prized type and the one that has received most attention from the CGIAR System. The most important constraint to future production is cost. Production is carried out mainly with hand tools, and labour demandsare high for planting, weeding, staking and harvesting. The cost of planting material is high: 20-30% of the previous harvest. In sub-SaharanAfrica, maximum gross yields are 10 t/ha (7-8 t/ha net, after allowing for next season’splanting material). Diseasesthreaten production and the crop’s shelf life is short. International research efforts on yam are fairly recent and small, but results are promising. Within the CGIAR System, non-stake lines capable of producing 20 t/ha have been produced and new techniques for the production of planting materials should reduce the drain on harvests. These techniques have already led to a small seed-yamproduction industry among yam growers in Nigeria. Researchhas also found ways of triggering flowering, thereby allowing plant breeding to begin. 61 In 1986, TAC recommendedthat the effort on yams be increasedto a level sufficient to make a rapid impact on production and postharvestproblems. TAC viewed the increased efforts devoted to yam as a short-term thrust to determine whether the apparent breakthroughs in seedpropagation and the development of non-staking varieties could make the anticipated impact on production in farmers’ fields. 5.3.5. Banana and Plantain Banana and plantain are staple food crops for millions of people in developing countries. About 90 % of production takes place on small farms and is consumed locally. Only 10%) mainly from commercial plantations in Latin America and the Caribbean, enters world trade. In terms of gross value of production, banana and plantain rank fourth after rice, milk and wheat. Banana and plantain are grown in about 120 countries. Total annual world production is estimated at over 68 million t: 24 million in sub-SaharanAfrica, 26 million in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 17 million in Asia. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, averageper caput consumption is 150 to 300 grarnmes per day, and the crop provides 25% or more of the daily calorie intake, in addition to being a source of Vitamin B, notably B6, and potassium. Plantains are extremely rich in Vitamin A and bananasare high in ascorbic acid. During the 198Os, total production in the developing countries increasedby about 15%. The main challenges to research include breeding for resistanceto Black Sigatoka disease, Fusarium Wilt (Panamadisease), Bunch Top Virus and banana weevil, and the development of improved production systems. In 1990, the CGIAR decided to extend its support for banana and plantain research beyond the humid and subhumid tropics of sub-SaharanAfrica, to include Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. 5.4. Food Legumes 5.4.1. Chickpea The chickpea originated in West Asia. The crop is grown on small-scale farms as a food and cash crop. It is used whole, dehulled or as a flour. The immature pods, shoots and seed may be used as vegetables. In 1989, world production was 7.4 million t from 9.9 million ha, of which 98% was from developing countries. Asia accountedfor 83% of production, West Asia-North Africa 12%, Latin America and the Caribbean 3 % and sub-SaharanAfrica 2%. Yields have remained relatively stable over the past two decades, ranging from 0.6 to 0.7 t/ha in Asia and sub-SaharanAfrica and from 0.9 to 1.1 t/ha in West Asia-North Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. The small-seededdesi types, which account for about 85% of world production, are grown on the Indian subcontinent, in Ethiopia and in parts of Afghanistan and Iran. The large-seededkabuli types are grown in the Mediterranean region, Mexico, and to some extent on the Indian subcontinent. In the tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall, chickpea is grown on residual soil moisture or under irrigation. In the subtropics 62 with winter rainfall, the crop is generally sown during the spring. It usually receives few or no inputs other than labour and seed. Chickpea is an important dietary item in South-East Asia, India and the West Asia-North Africa region. The protein content is 19.4% of the seed. The average yield for all developing countries is about 600 kg/ha, but the Central American yield is almost twice as high, and experiments in India with limited irrigation have produced yields five times the developing world average. The area harvestedglobally has remained stable (around 10 million ha). In most regions, changesin yield and production reflect climatic factors. Consumption has followed production, and it is expected that demand will increase with population in India and in West Asia-North Africa, where chickpea is liked by all income groups. Among the major constraints to production are the low yields of local varieties, variability in yield due to environmental stresses,diseases,pests and poor crop management. CGIAR efforts have already produced significant results, notably the combination of blight resistance and frost tolerance, which has enabled winter sowing (and a potential doubling of production) in the low-elevation areas of West Asia-North Africa region. This has led to yield increasesof 50 to 100%. Higher yielding, diseaseand pest-resistant lines are becoming available to breeders. New, more effective strains of rhizobia have been identified, leading to considerable increasesin seed yields. In 1986 TAC recommended that the overall level of resource allocation to chickpea research be maintained, but with a shift of effort to West Asia-North Africa and East and Southern Africa (mainly Ethiopia). In the former region, research should continue to be directed at increasing productivity and stability through varietal improvement and the development of better production technology. For East and Southern Africa, TAC encouraged research directed at expandedproduction of the desi type in suitable agroecological areas. 5.4.2. Cowpea Cowpea is widely grown in the warm semi-arid and subhumid regions of subSaharan Africa, and to a lesser extent in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. Production is concentrated in West Africa, where about 80% of the African crop is grown. Nigeria accounts for over 50% of the region’s production. Cowpea is locally important in several other regions, particularly the Caribbean islands, Brazil, PDR Yemen, the Indian subcontinent and southeastAsia. Cowpea is usually grown by subsistencefarmers and in mixtures with maize, sorghum, millet and cassava. The dry seed is an important source of Vitamin B and protein (22 % edible protein) and provides an estimated 6.5 % of total protein consumed in semi-arid West Africa. Cowpea haulm is also an important source of livestock feed. Average yields in developing countries are about 240 kg/ha. However, the best short- to medium-duration varieties so far developed can yield 2,500-3,000 kg/ha in field conditions on research stations, and short-duration varieties can achieve over 2,000 kg/ha in 60-90 days. Farm yields are limited by poor plant types, poor husbandry and the crop’s susceptibility to diseasesand pests. 63 In 1986 TAC recommendedthat the resource allocation to cowpea be maintained for the medium term, but with an expansion of efforts in tropical America and Asia. The factors leading to this recommendation were: the importance of cowpea as a subsistence crop in sub-SaharanAfrica; its qualities of genetic diversity, fast maturation, wide environmental adaptability, resistanceto drought, ability to fix nitrogen, and easy placement in cropping systems which, if exploited, could make it the most valuable of the pulses in the semi-arid to subhumid tropics; the potential value in other regions of a shortduration legume; the rapid growth occurring in production and consumption; the already promising results emerging from cowpea’s short researchhistory; and the limited capacity of national research programmes. TAC also recommendedthat research supported by the CGIAR System continue to concentrate on increasing yields and their stability and on improving managementpractices. 5.4.3. Broad (faba) bean Faba bean is a spring crop in temperate regions and a winter crop in subtropical regions with mild winters. It is grown at high elevations in tropical and subtropical regions. Two main subgroups exist: small-seededtypes, found in Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan; and large-seededtypes, found in other parts of West Asia-North Africa. Developing countries account for almost 90% of the global production of 3.8 million t. Of the developing country share, China accounts for 69%) West AsiaNorth Africa 26 %, and Latin America and the Caribbean 5 %. The protein content is high (25% of edible portion), and faba bean is a popular food in West Asia-North Africa, though it provides only 0.9% of the region’s protein. Faba bean is also a source of Vitamin B. Developing country yields of mature seed average 1,100 kg/ha, more than double that of many other pulses. It is estimated that about 20% of the crop is consumed green and is not accounted for in production estimates. Demand is likely to increase as population rises: faba bean is a preferred pulse in North Africa and parts of West Asia, and provides variety to diets elsewhere. The constraints to production include: soil salinity in some areas; diseases; field and storage pests; the parasitic weed, Orobanche; and poor crop management. In 1986 TAC recommended that CGIAR support for faba bean research should be phased out for the following reasons: the crop is not important globally; China, the largest producer, has a strong national programme; and there are only 1 million ha under the crop in developing countries excluding China. The CGIAR should only support the conservation and management of faba bean germplasm collections. TAC understandsthat ICARDA will have phased out its faba bean improvement programme by 1992, but that the faba bean collection will continue to be maintained by the Centre’s genetic resources unit. 5.4.4. Lentil Lentil is grown in the subtropics with winter rainfall, in warm temperate regions, and in the tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall, either during cool dry seasonsor at high altitudes. In no region does the crop make a large protein or calorie contribution to diet, although it is a preferred secondary food at all income levels where it is grown, and a traditional food in its centre of origin, West Asia. The vegetative parts are used for 64 forage and green manure. Two types of equal importance are recognized, large-seeded and small-seeded. Developing countries account for about 85 % of world production from 2.6 million ha. West Asia-North Africa and India contribute nearly 90% of that share, and several countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and in South Asia have small but locally significant production. In the drier areas of West Asia-North Africa, lentil is a key component of the traditional farming system, integrating barley, small ruminants and lentil. The area under lentil production in the West Asia-North Africa region is 1.0 million ha and, except in Turkey, has remained more or less the same over the past 20 years. Yields are low - 500-600 kg/ha on average. A few countries have made gains in production, but these have come largely from an increase in the area harvested. Demand is expected to increase with rising population. Constraints to production are low, unstable yields and high production costs, which cause many farmers to stop production. The harvest is labour-intensive, and a delayed harvest results in loss of seed yield from pod dehiscenceand pod drop. Good progress has been made in obtaining taller, more lodging-resistant lentil ideotypes that are suitable for mechanization. Lines have been found with greater cold tolerance and resistanceto Orobanche. Yield stability in autumn-sown lentils has been enhanced through breeding for cold tolerance. Despite the impressive progress made by ICARDA, it should be noted that the crop is of relatively minor importance in developing countries in terms of the total area under production. TAC endorsed the recommendation of ICARDA’s secondEPR in 1988 that continued CGIAR support for lentil improvement research beyond 1992 should be based on an in-depth assessment of the potential pay off from further research mvestments. Caution should be taken, however, to ensure the continued maintenance and management of the lentil germplasm collection and to continue to addressthe role of lentil in farming systems. 54.5. Phaseolus bean The phaseolus bean originated in tropical South America and is the most widely consumed pulse in that region. Annual growth in bean production in Latin America and the Caribbean during the past two decadeswas slightly greater than 1%, well below the population growth rate of 2.4%. Beans are also important in parts of sub-SaharanAfrica and Asia. They are grown predominantly by small-scale farmers in a wide range of cropping systems and a large number of agroecological zones. About 80% of the crop in Latin America and the Caribbean and in sub-SaharanAfrica is intercropped, often on steep slopes and in low fertility soils. Beans are grown mainly for the mature seed. The immature pods are an important vegetable, especially in Asia, while the leaves are used as a vegetable in sub-SaharanAfrica. Phaseolusbean is a cheap source of high-quality protein, with highest consumption among the poor. It is the leading protein source in Brazil and in parts of equatorial Africa, sometimes contributin,0 up to 30% of protein intake and lo-15 % of calories. It is also a source of Vitamins A and B. 65 Available production data on this crop indicate that during the period 1984-86 about 6.8 million t were produced annually, in developing countries. Latin America and the Caribbean produced 4 million t annually with Brazil and Mexico accounting for about four-fifths of this. Sub-SaharanAfrican production is largely concentrated in the highlands of East and Southern Africa, while East Asia is the centre of Asian production. Production in sub-SaharanAfrica during the period 1984-86 was about 2.4 million t annually. Yields of 500-600 kg/ha have persisted for the past 20 years, and per caput production is declining in parts of tropical South America. The crop’s variations in yields and production result in considerable price fluctuations, from which the poor suffer most. Stabilization of yields through breeding and selection is difficult becauseof the wide variation in consumer preferences for seed colour, shape, etc. Nonetheless, CIAT has developed several improved varieties that have been widely adopted by smallholder farmers in Latin America and the Caribbean and in sub-SaharanAfrica. In 1986 TAC recommended that the level of effort on phaseolusbean be maintained, and welcomed the increasing attention being devoted to East Africa. Although work had been correctly directed towards the problem of stabilizing yields, TAC felt that more emphasis should be given to breeding for higher yield potential. 5.4.6. Pigeonpea Pigeonpea is widely grown by subsistencefarmers in the warm semi-arid and subhumid tropics. It is often grown on poor soils and with few inputs. It is an important food in India, and is popular in parts of East Africa and Central America. The seedsare used whole. dehulled or as a flour; and in the Caribbean and South America, immature seedsand pods are used as a vegetable. The woody stem is valuable as firewood, thatch and fencing, and the leaves are an important source of nitrogen for the soil. World production is about 2 million t, most of which is grown in developing countries. The crop is an important source of protein (20% of mature seed) and Vitamin B. India accounts for 91% of world production, followed by sub-SaharanAfrica (6%). The remainder comes from Latin America and the Caribbean and from Asia. Average developing country yields are 700 kg/ha, but vary from 500-600 kg/ha in central and southern India, sub-SaharanAfrica and Asia to 1,000-l ,200 kg/ha in northern India and Central America when the crop is grown sole. The main production constraints are variable yields associatedwith abiotic stresses,diseasesand pests and subsistenceproduction conditions. The crop’s potential for wider use in semi-arid areas with high temperatures and poor soils is considerable. making it a potential complement to phaseolus bean or chickpea in the drier and more marginal areas of East and Southern and equatorial Africa and Central America. Countries in Asia and in East and Southern Africa have shown an active interest in exploiting pigeonpea’s multipurpose potential in farming systems where drought and heat tolerance are important considerations. Recently: ICRISAT achieved a major breakthrough by producing the first hybrid pigeonpea variety. In 1986 TAC recommended that CGIAR support for pigeonpea research be increased and efforts extended to West Africa and East and Southern Africa. The crop appeared particularly adaptable to mixed cropping systems, either as an annual or 66 perennial; and its wide range of seed colour, size and shape made it potentially more acceptable to some populations. Furthermore, the researchhistory was short and little had yet been done outside India. 5.4.9. Soybean Soybean was originally domesticated in China, and is now cultivated throughout East and South-East Asia, the Americas (particularly the USA and Brazil) and to a very limited extent in sub-SaharanAfrica and West Asia. In the northern hemisphere, its cultivation now extends from the tropics to 52”N. Soybean has high protein (38%) and fat (18%) contents. The crop’s main use is for oil and protein products in the food industry. The residue after oil extraction is used for flour, protein products and animal feed. Although soybean is an important food crop and an inexpensive source of protein and Vitamin B in East Asia, efforts to introduce it as a food crop elsewhere have met with limited success. However, it is gaining importance in many parts of sub-SaharanAfrica. It requires special and relatively laborious processing since, when prepared in the same way as other legumes, it has an unattractive flavour and is indigestible. About 40% of the global area harvested is in developing countries. Tropical and subtropical South America produces 49% of the developing country share (75% of this from Brazil, which has a large export trade), China 28 %, temperate South America 13%, and southeastAsia 5 70. The crop provides nearly 5 % of protein consumption in China and southeastAsia. Its fat contribution to diet is 20% in Brazil, 6-7% in China, India and Thailand, and 4-5 70 in Indonesia. Latin America and the Caribbean produces 26 million t of soybean annually. In the past decadethe region’s area under soybean increased by about 1.4% per year while yields increasedat 2%) reaching 1.8 t/ha (close to the world average of 1.9 t/ha). Among the major constraints limiting production in Latin America and the Caribbean are acid soils, aluminium toxicity, photoperiodism, and pests and diseases. Yields vary considerably, from 0.8 t/ha in sub-SaharanAfrica to 1.8 t/ha in Latin America and the Caribbean. Demand for oilseeds in developing countries is expected to grow at 2.9% annually until the year 2000, and production will need to increase accordingly. In subSaharan Africa, vegetable oil is already in short supply, and several countries of the region imported substantial quantities of both soybeancake and soybean oil during the 1980s. Most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean also have a deficit in vegetable oil. Furthermore. soybean has substantial potential as a source of livestock feed, particularly for poultry. Soybean research has been under way for some time outside the CGIAR System, with AVRDC and INTSOY serving the needs of developing countries. Recently, good progress has been made in the development of multipurpose species. The System’s own work, launched only recently, is based in sub-SaharanAfrica, and has progressed well in addressing four specific problems: increasing the ability of soybean to nodulate with naturally occurring rhizobia; improving seed longevity; developing appropriate cultural and management practices for pure stands or mixed cropping systems; and resistanceto pests and diseases. The principal objectives for future research in sub-SaharanAfrica are to incorporate traits for promiscuous nodulation and seed longevity into otherwise agronomically superior lines, and to develop resistanceto major diseases. 67 In 1986 TAC recommendedthat researchsupport for soybeanbe increased, with efforts continuing to focus on sub-SaharanAfrica, as the needs of Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean were being successfully met by strong national programmes. This recommendation was based on: the crop’s importance, given increasing oilseed demand in sub-SaharanAfrica and globally; the high level of interest in and apparent potential for the crop in sub-SaharanAfrica; the high pay off from the modest research effort to date; and the excellent potential for developing solutions to some of the more important production problems in the tropics. 5.5. Oil Crops 5.5.1. Oilseeds Oilseed crops are a large and diverse group, Soybean has already been discussed in this report under food legumes. Other important oilseeds are: coconut, groundnut, oil palm, sunflower, safflower, rapeseed,sesame,maize and olive. Cotton is also a major source of edible oil, but is grown primarily for its value as a source of natural fibre. Oilseeds are an excellent source of protein and fat and make an ideal complement to root crops, which are predominantly carbohydrate. They are used as whole seed, vegetable oil and cake oil extraction (for animal feed), and their by-products are used for fuelwood, mulch and industrial purposes. The production of oilseeds in the developing world kept pace with demand in the 1970s but, with the exception of soybeanand oil palm, yields declined or remained stagnant during the 1980s. Total oilseed production will have to increase by an average of 3.3 % annually to meet demand to the year 2000. Besides soybean, the major tradeable oilseeds produced in the developing countries are coconut, groundnut and oil palm. Coconut and groundnut are discussedin separatesections below. Oil palm, a perennial, is a major world oil crop, grown largely on plantations in rain forest areas of southeastAsia, West Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. Oil palm production is dynamic and highly competitive in responseto the demand for vegetable oil. Intensive private- and public-sector research has led to considerable increases in yields and improved oil quality. Tissue culture has recently opened the way to raising large numbers of plantlets at low cost from elite clones. Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia and Nigeria have strong national programmes, while international research is conducted by IRHO as well as by the private sector. In 1985 TAC considered that oil palm research needs were already being well addressedand did not require support from the CGIAR System. The oilseeds which do not earn foreign exchangeare less important. Sunflower is harvested from only 3 million ha, safflower from 1.2 million ha, and rapeseedfrom 7.4 million ha in the developing countries. Sesameis widely grown in the tropics and subtropics, mostly for domestic consumption. About 6.3 million ha are harvested in developing countries. and India, Mexico and Venezuela have strong national research programmes for the crop. Current production of olive oil is 1726 million t, of which only 18.5 t is produced in the developing world - 97% from West Asia-North Africa 68 where national and regional research programmes are strong. Maize oil is produced mainly in the developed world. 5.5.2. Coconut The coconut palm is a pan-tropical crop, grown on approximately 11.6 million ha in 82 countries. Many producing countries are small islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and the Caribbean. Coconut is both their primary subsistencecrop and their only significant source of export earnings. There are few, if any, alternative crops which can substitute for coconut in these countries. Coconut is the major tree-crop component in several agroforestry systems throughout the world. Its wide use in home gardens is probably not reflected in official production statistics. At least 96% of the total world production of coconut comes from smallholdings. About 70% of the crop is consumed in the producing countries. Coconut can be grown in harsh environments such as atolls, and tolerates high salinity, drought and poor soils. It plays an important role in sustaining often fragile ecosystemsin island and coastal communities. Coconut is used as a source of food, drink, fuel, animal feed and shelter. It is also a cash crop, used to produce many items for sale at either the local, national or international level. The main internationally traded products are copra, coconut oil, copra meal, and desiccated coconut. In 1986 TAC identified coconut as a priority commodity for support through international research. The CGIAR then requestedTAC to explore the desirability of establishing an international research initiative on coconut, and the form such an initiative might take. There are four major constraints to increasedcoconut production in developing countries: the low productivity of many coconut trees due to old age and poor nutrition; the failure of many replanting programmes; fluctuating productivity due to variable environmental conditions; and inefficient handling and processing, with low farm-gate prices to smallholders. The productivity of the crop can be increasedby the use of locally adapted high-yielding, pest- and disease-tolerantvarieties in replanting or new planting schemes. To increase the productivity of existing plantations it would be necessaryto apply better agronomic practices. including the control of diseases,insects and weeds and the use of fertilizers, and to identify and promote profitable and sustainable intercropping systems. There is a need to develop improved methods of handling and processing coconut, and to further diversify the coconut products traded. Coconut breeding in severai countries over the past 30 years has demonstrated that hybrids are capable of yielding up to 6 t copra/ha/year under favourable conditions improved with average world yields of 0.5 t/ha/year. Progress has also been made in identifying the causal agents of diseasesof previously unknown etiology, such as cadangcadang disease in the Philippines and lethal yellowing diseasein the Caribbean. Nutritional studies have shown that coconut respondswell to fertilizer application, particularly potassium and chloride. Intercropping and the grazing of cattle under trees have shown that the total productivity of coconut lands can be improved, without threatening the long-term sustainability of the system. These findings suggestthat a well organized and adequately funded international research effort could yield a high pay off. The long-term nature of coconut research, the 69 history of discontinuity and lack of support in its funding, the prospects of high returns from research investments, and the likely benefits to smallholder producers, make coconut particularly suitable for an international research initiative. The priority research areas for such an initiative would be: germplasm conservation and improvement; diseaseand pest control; sustainability of coconut-basedfarming systems; post-harvesthandling and processing; and the socioeconomicsof coconut production. It is to be noted, however, that in a number of countries research on coconut is funded by the private sector through levies on producers. 5.53. Groundnut About 18 million ha are cultivated to groundnut in the world, of which 12 million ha are in Asia (India and China have 4 million ha each) and 5 million ha are in sub-SaharanAfrica. North and Central America have 0.8 million ha. Groundnut is grown under a wide range of environmental conditions in areasbetween 40’S and 40”N of the equator. Most of the crop is produced where average rainfall is 600 to 1,200 mm and mean daily temperatures are more than 20°C. The main use of the seed is as a source of edible oil, but the high oil (4550%) and protein (26%) contents also make it an important food crop. As a result, large quantities are consumed in the areas of production. As a combined oilseed and food crop, groundnut ranks second only to soybean. It is a valuable source of B Vitamins (particularly Niacin which is low in cereals), and the cake, after extraction of the oil, is a high-protein animal feed. The green haulms provide good quality fodder and can be made into hay. Groundnut is a valuable cash crop for millions of small-scale farmers in the semi-arid tropics. It generatesemployment on the farm and in marketing, transportation and processing. It is a valuable source of foreign exchange when exported. It also makes an important contribution to the fat content of diets in India (28%) and sub-SaharanAfrica (as high as 62% in Sudan, for example), and to the protein content of diets throughout sub-SaharanAfrica. India is by far the largest producer, accounting for 39% of annual developing country production; 60% of India’s production is used for oil and the rest for cattle feed. China is the second largest producer with 15%, while sub-SaharanAfrica produces 21%, Latin America and the Caribbean and West Asia-North Africa 8% each, and most of the balance is produced in southeastAsia. In sub-SaharanAfrica groundnut is a major food crop and only part of the produce is marketed. The average yield for all developing countries is about 900 kg/ha of unshelled nuts. Production in India has increased in recent years, while yields in semi-arid West Africa have declined by about 5% annually. Unless the latter trend can be reversed, a major deficit will occur in that region by the year 2000. The major constraints to production are pests, diseases,poor management, erratic rainfall, the high labour/energy inputs the crop requires, and aflatoxin production in storage. Strong national programmes exist in India, Brazil and China. The pay off from CGIAR investment in groundnut research has been high, particularly in India. In 1986 TAC supported the current research emphasisdirected towards alleviating environmental stressesand major diseaseand pest constraints, improving nitrogen fixation, developing lines adapted to both high and low inputs, and exploring the potential of wide crossing, which had already led to the development of very promising 70 leaf-spot resistant material. TAC considered that the System’s efforts on groundnut research had been modest and that they should be increased substantially. The factors leading to this recommendation were: the crop’s important dietary contribution; its importance as a cash crop and income generator; its potential in meeting part of the global demand for vegetable oils; its secondary value as animal feed and fodder; its contribution to the sustainabihty of mixed cropping systems; and the belief that the crop’s production constraints can be successfully solved through research. TAC supported the strengthening of efforts outside India, particularly in sub-SaharanAfrica, and agreed with ICRISAT that the needs of Latin America and the Caribbean could be served through the provision of germplasm and advice. Although TAC recommended that increased efforts be devoted to soybean as well as to groundnut, the latter was considered to be of higher priority. 5.6. Vegetables Many vegetablesare grown in developing countries, and the kinds vary considerably from place to place, with strong social preferencesdictating the choice of speciesused. Vegetables provide a valuable source of income to producers near large urban areas. As a group, they are high-yielding and are well adapted to small-scale operations if markets are close, and to large-scale operations as infrastructure improves and transportation and cold storage become available. All income groups need and prefer them as supplementary foods, and demand in developing countries is expected to increase by 3.4% a year throughout the 1990s. Of the current production of 252 million t in the developing regions, Asia accounts for 70%, West Asia-North Africa for 18%, Latin America and the Caribbean for 8% and sub-SaharanAfrica for 4%. Production during the past two decadeshas been growing at 3.2 % . The four most important vegetablesin terms of area harvested in the developing regions are tomato (1.6 million ha), onion (1.3 million ha), peppers (0.9 million ha) and cabbage (0.8 million ha). Inclusion of a vegetable initiative in the CGIAR System would complete the commodity portfolio from a nutritional point of view. The major constraints are diseases and insect pests, and there is much scope for varietal improvement. Poor marketing facilities are also a constraint given the perishability of many vegetables. Modest increases in production can lead to temporary gluts, and a major research need in many areas is to extend the production period. In 1986 TAC indicated that highest priority among new ventures within the CGIAR System should be assignedto research on vegetables. Researchshould be directed at the potential for increased vegetable production in both tropical and subtropical areas, with special emphasis on indigenous tropical vegetables. In 1988 TAC recommended that the CGIAR create and support an international entity which would help establish and coordinate regional collaborative vegetable research networks in Asia, sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America and the Caribbean. CGIAR support was to be limited initially to tomato, pepper, onion. and leafy green vegetables. However, TAC also recommended that studies and consultations with relevant institutions be carried out to determine the importance of other commodities such as okra and eggplant, and to identify the major constraints to production increasesand marketing, as well as their research ability. The 71 new entity would then have the flexibility to phase new researchtopics into its programme as necessary. TAC further recommended that the highest priority be assignedto supporting research for tropical environments, with activities for subtropical environments to be initiated once those for tropical environments had become operational. Two important operational considerations in TAC’s deliberations were the integration of this new initiative with the System’s current efforts on commodities which either are vegetables (green bean, vegetable cowpea, potato, sweet potato and soybean) or produce vegetablesas byproducts (bean leaves and cassavaleaves); and the complementarity of a CGIAR initiative with the work of AVRDC. In 1990 TAC recommended that vegetableswere an appropriate subject matter for inclusion in the expanded CGIAR effort, and that collaborative vegetable research networks in sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America and the Caribbean be implemented. 5.7. Other Crops and the Issue of Self-Reliance In low-income countries the processof development involves a net flow of savings and resources from the agricultural sector to the non-agricultural sectors. In developed countries there is a net flow (via price support or income support) from the industrial and service sectors to the agricultural sectors to ensure that the latter remain sufficiently large and strong to protect the natural resource base and ensure that food . demands can always be met, even in times of political disruption. Taking this into account, the notion of sectoral self-reliance could be defined as the capacity of a nation to provide a sufficient staple food supply to ali of its inhabitants either from domestic production or from the production of exportable goods to enable commercial imports to cover domestic deficits. The original objectives of the CGIAR were stated in terms of “agricultural research”, rather than research limited to food commodities only. Although the System has so far concentrated on food commodities, non-food commodities have long been recognized as important in research on production systems. Commercial crops play an important role in many tropical farming systems in generating income. Most but not all of these crops are non-food commodities. Some are grown in large plantations for export (the plantations often employ poor, landless labourers), others are produced by small-scale farmers for sale on local markets. Historically, the CGIAR Centres have limited their germplasm enhancementactivities to food crops. With the broadening of the CGIAR goal from food self-sufficiency to food self-reliance, commercial crops can be considered for CGIAR support if they contribute to income generation, especially of resource-poor farmers, in ways that enhance permanent well-being. The major crops involved include cotton, coffee, sugarcane, tea, rubber and cocoa. An overview of their importance and value of production globally and each of the regions has been provided in Tables 4.5 and 4.6. The importance of commercial crops in agricultural production in each of the regions is also well illustrated in Table 4.5 by comparing the production values of food crops with those of cash crops. 72 Recognizing the importance of income and employment generation, TAC has carefully considered a range of commodities that are important for cash as well as food. A potential new venture which is both an industrial crop and an oil crop is cotton. TAC recommended CGIAR support for cotton in its 1971 review of CGIAR priorities. Coffee is also an important cash crop for smallholders in many relatively high-potential areas of the developing world. While TAC has encouragedthe centres to incorporate work on these crops within their research on farming systems, it has advised against embarking on a major commodity improvement programme for these crops. TAC considers the current portfolio of CGIAR activities already sufficiently broad, and has noted the lack of comparative advantageof the CGIAR for research on these crops. Crops such as coffee, cocoa, tea and rubber benefit substantially from private sector research, while cotton and fruits benefit from bilateral research programmes. 73 CHAPTER 6 - LIVESTOCK 6.1. Background Livestock and their products contribute about 19% to the total value of production of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in developing countries. In sub-Saharan Africa their share amounts to 15%, in Asia to 17%, in West Asia-North Africa to 25 % and in Latin America and the Caribbean to 25 %. However, as previously noted (Section 4.6), these figures under-estimate the substantial contribution that livestock frequently make to crop production through draught power and manure. Livestock products provide 6% of calorie intake and 19% of dietary protein consumed in developing countries. Animal products are the only reliable sources of Vitamin B12, zinc and iron. Meat and milk are highly income-elastic products. Their consumption increaseswith incomes and urbanization. Given economic growth and technological improvements in developing countries, livestock’s contribution to agricultural production can therefore be expected to increase. Domestic animals enhancethe economic viability and sustainability of farming systems. They diversify production and managementoptions, increase total farm production and income, provide year-round employment, and provide insurance in times of need. Sales of livestock products provide funds for purchasing critically needed crop inputs and for financing farm investments. Livestock often form the major capital reserve of farming households. Among domestic livestock species, ruminants have special importance because they convert into edible products crop residues, byproducts, weeds and other biomass tha1t cannot be directly consumed as food by humans. Ruminants provide the only practical means for using vast areas of natural grasslandsin regions where low, unreliable or seasonally limited rainfall combined with poor, acid soils make crop production impractical. In crop producing regions, traction raises crop productivity while manure enriches the soil. In addition, ruminants provide farmers with the economic incentive required to plant nitrogen-fixing forage crops and maintain pastures in crop rotations, which reduce erosion, conserve soil moisture and enhancesqil fertility. The key to enhancing these positive aspectsof livestock production is good management. It should also be noted that poor management, and especially overstocking, can causedegradation. Population growth in semi-arid rangeland areas is exacerbating these problems. Expansion of grasslandsis the major factor that leads to deforestation in Latin America and the Caribbean. In general, the returns from smallholder livestock development projects in developing countries have been low (World Bank, 1985). This further highlighted the need for research to expand the knowledge base for more effective livestock development planning in the future. Although valuable progress has been made, to date pay offs from CGIAR investments in livestock researchhave been slow to materialize. 74 6.2. Regional Importance Cattle are especially important in Latin America and the Caribbean, and in the warm semi-arid tropics and cool tropics of sub-SaharanAfrica and India (for milk). Sheep and/or goats are important in West Asia-North Africa, East and Southern Africa, semi-arid West Africa and temperate South America. Although small ruminants provide only a small proportion of the global production of meat and milk, the aggregate data mask their importance in some regions. It is estimated that they provide 30% of the meat consumed in West Asia-North Africa and 20% of that consumed in sub-SaharanAfrica. Small ruminants are also important generators of cash income. The first major thrust of the CGIAR System’s research programme on improving ruminant production has been to enhancenutrition through improved management practices and the development of better pastures, forages, and other feed sources. Inadequate year-round feed supply is the major constraint to ruminant production in many areas of Latin America a the Caribbean, West Asia-North Africa! and sub-Saharan Africa. The second major research thrust is to control ruminant diseases,particularly tsetse-transmittedtrypanosomiasis, which is a major constraint in large parts of subSaharan Africa, and a form of theileriosis, East Coast fever, a major constraint in East and Southern Africa. This research is of a basic and strategic nature. Progress being made in understanding the biology of these diseases,the nature of host defence mechanisms and novel means of vaccination provides a basis for developing improved methods of control for other economically important livestock diseasesworldwide. The CGIAR has focused its research on the most important ruminants in developing countries, i.e. cattle, sheep and goats and on sub-SaharanAfrica, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the CGIAR’s resourcesfor livestock research. However, although located in sub-SaharanAfrica, ILRAD has a worldwide mandate for animal disease research. About 21% of CGIAR investment in livestock research is allocated to CIAT in Latin America and the Caribbean, for pasture improvement research, and 1I % to ICARDA in West Asia-North Africa, for the improvement of forage production systems. In general, CGIAR-supported livestock research has not yet led to significant farm-level productivity increases,but CIAT’s technologies for pasture improvement on the acid soils of Latin America and the Caribbean are gradually being adopted, and ILRAD may be on the verge of a breakthrough with recent progress in the development of new vaccines to provide immunity to theiieriosis. TAC has recognized the importance of the domesticatedbuffalo in areas to which it is climatically adapted. However, since 85 % of buffalo are found in only five countries of Asia, TAC’s position to date has been that the research needs for this speciescould best be met through regional efforts. Similarly, TAC has recognized the importance of the camel in arid and semi-arid environments. Again, TAC feels that the research needs for these species could best be met through network activities or by regional institutions. TAC considers that the CGIAR has no comparative advantageto initiate activities on buffalo or camel research. Poultry and swine account for almost half the monetary and nutritive value of livestock in developing countries. However, TAC has not considered their research needs to be of sufficiently high priority to justify their inclusion in the form of commodity 75 improvement programmes in CGIAR activities. Evidence from Asia and from Latin America and the Caribbean indicates that, as the demand for chicken and pigmeat increases, more intensive production systemsare adopted, and technology from developed and other developing countries is rapidly and effectively applied in these systems. Both the poultry and pig sectors also benefit substantially from private sector research. However, consideration needs to be given to the production of feed crops to meet the rapid growth of demand causedby the expansion of poultry and swine productioar as population and urbanization increase in the next 20 to 30 years. Demand for livestock products is rising rapidly in responseto urbanization, population growth and income gains, while yields of both meat and milk are low compared with those of developed countries. Low productivity is associatedwith a number of interacting factors: poor nutrition and acute seasonalfeed deficiencies, limited availability of water in arid and semi-arid areas, poor management, disease, and low genetic potential as feed and health constraints are removed. In some regions, subSaharan Africa in particular, the low productivity of cattle may also result from producers placing greater value on the number of animals owned than on their output of meat or milk, since animals are a means of storing wealth for future expenditures and as an insurance against drought. Overall, there is a significant need for research to increase ruminant production in developing countries. 6.3. Livestock Research in sub-Saharan Africa As already noted, CGIAR efforts in livestock research have focused on subSaharan Africa. At present, livestock production systems in this region are predominantly subsistenceoriented, and concentrated in areasthat are tsetse free or only lightly infested. The majority of livestock is found on mixed smallholder farms, which account for approximately 60% of the region’s ruminant animal units. The productivity of livestock in terms of milk and meat in sub-SaharanAfrica is the lowest of any world region. Nonetheless, it has been amply demonstratedthat sub-SaharanAfrica can produce meat and milk at prices that are competitive with imports, provided that markets are not severely disrupted by dumping, artificial currency exchangerates, and other macroeconomic distortions. Milk accounts for 38% of the value of sub-Saharanlivestock production, beef for 32%, sheep and goat meat for 15%) pigmeat for 3 %, and poultry for 12%. During the past two decades, increases in production have resulted largely from the expansion of herds and flocks, rather than from improved animal productivity. The major constraints to improved productivity are natural resource limitations; technical barriers, such as inadequatefeed supply, diseases,poor genotypes and inadequate management; and socioeconomic factors, such as inadequategovernment policies and marketing opportunities, and the lack of infrastructure. Despite these constraints, there appear to be substantial opportunities for increasing livestock productivity throughout the region. It is felt that sub-SaharanAfrican products can successfully compete with other foods in local markets and with imports. Among the region’s highly diverse agroecologies, the subhumid tropics (AEZ 2), the higher rainfall areas of the semi-arid tropics (AEZ l), and the cool tropics (AEZ 4) 76 appear to have the greatest development potential for livestock production, particularly through integrated crop-livestock systems. In these systems, advancesin dairy production, animal traction, poultry and pig production offer particularly promising opportunities for productivity and income gains. In the drier parts of the arid and semiarid areas, pastoral systems continue to support a large number of ruminant livestock. The opportunities for technical intervention in such systems appear limited, but there is some potential for encouraging offtake through more favourable government policies, especially with regard to prices. In the humid tropics (AEZ 3), the major stressesare pests and diseases, especially trypanosomiasis and dermatophilosis. Where pastures are established, the control of weeds presents a special difficulty. These problems are likely to constrain production in this zone, at least in the short term. Cattle will continue as the predominant source of meat, milk and traction in subSaharan Africa. The importance of small ruminants, poultry and pigs is expected to increase rapidly during the next two decades. Camels will remain important in arid areas, donkeys and horses in the cool tropics, and wildlife for tourism and game/bush meat in arid and semi-arid zones. CGIAR efforts should focus on four principal research areas: feed supply, animal health, genetics, and sustainableproduction systems, particularly for the warm subhumid, warm semi-arid and highland (cool tropics) zones. 6.3.1. Feed Supply Highest priority should be given to improving the quality of animal feed and its year-round availability. To support the intensification and spread of smallholder mixed crop-livestock farming systems, research on the production and feed value of forages, multipurpose trees, crop residues, cereals, root crops, grain legumes and less conventional feeds is needed. Greater efforts are required to enhancecrop-livestock interactions. For example, as shortage of feed is the major constraint to increasing livestock productivity, the latter could benefit substantially from an increase in crop productivity. 6.3.2. Animal Health The vector-borne diseases,trypanosomiasis, theileriosis, cowdriosis. babesiosis, anaplasmosis, and dermatophilosis, as a group constitute the most serious constraint to increased animal production in sub-SaharanAfrica. Existing chemical control methods are often too costly for widespread adoption, and are also unsustainabledue to the development of resistance to drugs and pesticides. Cost considerations deter the development. testing, licensing and introduction of new chemical products for use in subSaharan Africa. Continued strategic research on host-parasiterelationships and control methods is necessaryto provide strategies for overcoming the reduced productivity caused by this complex of diseases. As animal agriculture systems intensify, strategic and applied research will be needed to resolve animal health problems related to intensification. 77 6.3.3. Genetics Sub-SaharanAfrica has valuable indigenous livestock germplasm that needs to be identified, characterized, preserved and utilized to enhancethe productivity of animals while retaining their adaptation to the region’s environments. Strategic research to identify and manipulate genes that confer diseaseresistance,physiological adaptation to the environment, and productivity traits will grow in importance. Advances here will have global application. 6.3.4. Sustainable Production Systems Research is neededto optimize the contribution of livestock to sustainable farming systems in each agroecological zone, particularly in the warm subhumid zone where production potential is high and the tsetse fly is retreating. Farming systems research must take into account agronomic, animal production, epidemiological and ecological factors. Policy research should give particular attention to macroeconomic issues related to natural resource use and the infrastructure needed to support the efficient development of animal agriculture. The ability of governments to establish policies that foster the development of sustainable land use systems is hampered by serious deficiencies in livestock data. Databaseson livestock, organized by agroecological zone, must be improved and expanded. National governments, the development community and the CGIAR should evaluate needs and develop improved methods for surveying and analyzing the current and potential role of livestock by agroecological zone in sub-SaharanAfrican farming systems, especially by applying the new technologies of modelling and analysis provided by geographical information systems. 78 CHAPTER 7 - FORESTRY AND AGROFORESTRY 7.1. Background The CGIAR System decided to incorporate forestry and agroforestry into its activities becauseof the seriousnessof the issuesassociatedwith them and their direct bearing on the CGIAR’s mission to increase the welfare of poor people in developing countries. Research has an important role to play in containing deforestation and reducing its negative effects, and in enhancing the contribution of trees and forests to food and energy security and to the creation of off-farm employment. In its overview of the background factors to consider in devising an institutional framework for forestry and agroforestry, TAC noted that trees not only contribute to economic growth but also provide environmental services. TAC took particular note of the concern emerging worldwide over the impact of deforestation and forest burning on global warming, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, changing water flow patterns, flooding, and fuelwood shortages. The research needed to deal with these problems is multisectoral as well as multidisciplinary, involving a complex blend of atmospheric, meteorological, energy, agriculture, forestry, policy and other aspects. The CGIAR System has neither the capacity nor the comparative advantageto implement effective research in all of these areas. However, it could make a useful contribution in areas such as the conservation of germplasm of endangeredwoody species, and policy research to improve understanding of the underlying causesof deforestation and of the potential solutions. In agroforestry research, the CGIAR should aim at providing shifting cultivators with alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture, and sedentary farmers with alternative sources of fuelwood, mulch and forage, and with more stable and fertile soils. 7.2. Regional Forestry Research Needs 7.2.1. Sub-Saharan Africa About a quarter of the land area of sub-SaharanAfrica is wooded or forested, while nearly half supports grass, with or without shrubs and trees. Much of the latter area is suitable for grazing. Some 135 million ha have been set aside as nature reserves or national parks, providing a habitat for wildlife. These areas play a key role in conserving germplasm and in contributing to the region’s significant revenuesfrom tourism. The increasing human and livestock population pressure has led to overcutting and overgrazing of woodlands. This has drained nutrients from forest soils and has exacerbated soil erosion, acceleratedwater run-off and created serious local shortagesof fuelwood and fodder. Overcutting of trees and shrubs at the farm level exposes soils and crops to wind and can depress yields significantly. 79 Although sub-SaharanAfrica currently has 700 million ha of tree cover, only 210 million ha of this are closed forest. About 490 million ha are open Savannah woodlands. Deforestation is proceeding at a rate of about 3.7 million ha a year. In addition to the more obvious forest products, such as fuelwood, building poles, timber, furniture, pulpwood and paper, the productivity of sub-Saharan-4frica’s forests, woodlands and perennial tree crops can be measuredby their direct contribution to cash income as well as their indirect contribution to agriculture through the maintenance of soil nutrients and the protection of soil and water resources. Non-wood commodities derived from forests, such as animal and fish protein, fruit, nuts and berries, are important foods and sourcesof income. However, it is obvious that the productivity of forest and farm trees in many areas is well below potential. Future research strategies, which also apply to some other regions, have four main directions: first, towards improved understanding of the underlying causesof deforestation and the potential for policy reforms and the conservation of remaining forest resources; second, towards increasing the utilization intensity and productivity of natural closed forests and Savannahwoodlands; third, towards cost-effective incentive policies and technological improvements for encouraging farmer and community involvement in reforestation; fourth, towards the development of mixed crop-livestock-tree systems. 7.2.2. West Asia-North Africa Deforestation in West Asia-North Africa has been going on for centuries, and not more than 25 million ha of closed forests remain (the lowest of all four regions). The main pressureson forest resourceshave been grazing, the demand for fuelwood, and the expansion of the cultivated area. Palatable shrubs form an essential component of rangeland feed resources. They may extend the grazing seasonand help to reduce the impact of erosion, especially where it is impossible to maintain perennial grasses. They are often the main productive component in sheep husbandry systems. However, due to overexploitation much of the palatable woody vegetation of rangelands in West Asia-North Africa has been removed or replaced by unpalatable shrubs. In Iran, Israel, Jordan, and Syria it has been demonstratedthat it is possible to regenerate over-exploited rangelands through controlled grazing, contour furrowing, the construction of micro-catchments, the reseeding of perennial and annual grassesand legumes, protecting seedlings of wood perennials, and the removal of unpalatable species. The widespread application of such approachesdependson policies that will provide incentives to farmers and communities. As in sub-SaharanAfrica and Asia, a high researchpriority for West Asia-North Africa is increasing the productivity of selectedhigher yielding fodder trees and shrubs. The development of salt-tolerant and/or drought-resistant speciesfor the reclamation of agricultural wasteland is particularly important. 80 7.2.3. Asia As forests have been depleted, their contribution to economic growth has declined sharply in Asia during the past decade. Depletion has occurred despite the fact that Asia’s rainforests are among the richest ecosystemson earth, containing nearly half its animal and plant species, many of which have not yet been described. Little research has been carried out to improve understanding of tropical forest ecosystemsand their environmental and biological roles. Large parts of the region’s forest have already been converted to permanent agriculture or encroached upon by shifting cultivators. Although some production systems based on plantation crops have proven sustainable, many attempts to establish mixed crop-livestock production systems have led to widespread land degradation, including the spread of pernicious weeds such as Imperutu, particularly when fire is extensively used. Population pressure has exacerbatedthe problem by forcing farmers onto marginal lands which are either too steep or infertile or too wet for continuous cultivation. Policy research is being directed towards the creation of incentives for local community and small-scale farmer involvement in the sustainablemanagementof forest lands, and in improving the productivity and sustainability of agriculture on the forest margin. Most of the past work on germplasm conservation in the region has focused on food crops. Despite the fact that tropical forest ecosystemssupply many staple foods and contain wild relatives of modern food crops important for future breeding programmes, research programmes for collecting forest-basedgermplasm are weak. Given the shortage of animal fodder, the demand for fuelwood, and the need to maintain soil fertility and reduce soil erosion, there is considerable potential for agroforestry in the region. There is a particular need for research on the selection and breeding of fast-growing multipurpose species, and on the development of sustainable agroforestry systems for the reclamation of saline and other agricultural wastelands, and for the reforestation of upland areas. As industrial and social forestry move towards increasing dependenceon fastgrowing species, there will be a need for expanded research in such areas as soil microbiology (particularly the potential for inoculation with mycorrhiza to improve seedling survival and increase yields); tree selection, breeding and improvement; the potential of modern biotechnology to contribute to improved diseaseresistance; and the development of biological processesfor making use of wood waste. Industry-related policy research in countries that still contain significant areas of tropical forest is being directed towards improved timber concession, timber taxation and revenue collection systems. This research should be complemented by efforts to develop practices for the sustainable management of natural forests. Policy research on forest management in upland watershedsis needed to harmonize agricultural, forestry and energy-related policies and to develop more sustainable land use systems. There is also an urgent need to develop a databaseon forest resources and their uses. 81 7.2.4. Latin America and the Caribbean Indiscriminate deforestation is a major environmental concern in Latin America and the Caribbean. The problems associatedwith deforestation include soil degradation, siltation of water catchments, exacerbation of flooding, increasedatmospheric CO,, loss of natural habitats, and extinction of species. Policy research at present is mainly directed towards understanding the causesof accelerateddeforestation and towards the creation of incentives for increasedparticipation by farmers and local communities in forest conservation and reforestation. In particular, policies encouraging deforestation for pasture development are being reassessed because,in 50% of the large areas now under pasture, weeds are encroaching and the land is reverting to secondary forest. In the eroded uplands of the Andean countries, agroforestry research is being directed towards the identification of tree speciesthat can meet basic needs for fuelwood, fodder, building poles, fruits and other products. Tree improvement programmes and soil microbiology research could contribute significantly to the enhancedproductivity of logged and secondary forests. The plantation sector has recently expanded in some countries and already supplies about 30% of the region’s industrialized wood requirements in addition to sustaining a major export trade. National services seeking farmers’ cooperation in onfarm agroforestry research and development must ensure the supply of improved seedsof multipurpose trees and shrubs. In many areas, incorporating trees in pastures (silvopastoral systems) may provide a valuable source of protein during the dry season,in addition to a number of environmental benefits such as shade for ruminants. Priority areas from a regional perspective include: the development and testing of simple experimental designs and analytical techniques for assessingthe contributions of trees and shrubs to mixed production systems; the development of effective seed exchange systems; and improved understanding of the interactions between soil conditions and tree nutrition, including the role of fertilizer in intensifying production in plantations. 7.3. Research Needs of Common Concern From the above review of regional developments and research issues, TAC developed a list of priority research thrusts of common concern to several regions. The thrusts included: 0 agroforestry, with special reference to researchmethodology, the improved quantification of tree/crop/livestock interactions, and the development of improved agroforestry practices; conservation of woody germplasm, especially of important commercial agricultural and forest tree crops; 0 82 e selection, breeding and improvement of multipurpose trees for agroforestry/fuelwood/industrial and other uses; this includes emphasis on seed and clonal propagation, and on tissue culture research; natural forest management and conservation; this includes research on growth and yield modelling, silvicultural techniques for the sustainableproduction of multiple products, and the managementof secondary natural forests for multiple products; in particular, research is neededon non-wood products and on the management of secondary and swamp forests; man-made forest management; this includes selected areas of silvicultural research relevant to increasing productivity and improving reforestation techniques, particularly growth and yield modelling studies and research on thinning and pruning regimes; special attention would be given to reforestation techniques for the reclamation of wastelandsand for increasing fuelwood/forest biomass output, especially in the arid and semi-arid zones; in addition, research on the environmental services of forests is needed; soil microbiology, nitrogen fixation, mycorrhizal and associatedsoil nutrient relationships; and selected aspectsof pathology and entomological research, especially for plantations; policy, forestry managementand socioeconomic research, including research directed toward improved understanding of the underlying causesof deforestation and of policies that would encouragethe involvement of people in the conservation of natural forests and in acceleratedrural reforestation. This would also include studies on the knowledge of native or local community groups that live in tropical forests. l 0 0 0 The above priorities largely correspond with the priorities of the 1988 Bellagio Task Force on Forestry Research. 7.4. Current Status of Forestry Research Investment in research on forestry and forest products in developing countries has been relatively low. FAO has prepared a list of 538 organizations in developing countries that are formally involved in tropical forestry research, of which 45 % can be found in Latin America and the Caribbean, 36% in Asia and the Pacific, 14% in subSaharan Africa and 5% in West Asia-North Africa (FAO, 1986b). Many of these organizations have few staff (sometimes no scientists), and more detailed information is available on only 238 (or 44%) of them. National/provincial public research bodies (107) make up almost half the total, while universities (67) provide the second largest category, and forestry services branches (37) the third. Few agricultural research institutes (9) or private bodies/development projects (18) carry out research on tropical forestry. FAO has estimated that, in the organizations for which information was available, the total numbers of forestry research scientists in developing countries amounted to 6,7 16, of which 53 % were located in Asia and the Pacific, 32 % in Latin American and the Caribbean, 11% in sub-SaharanAfrica and 4% in West Asia-North Africa (FAO, 1986b). 83 Expenditure on forestry research in developing countries in 1981 amounted to US$ 186 million, of which 60 % was allocated to Asia, 21% to sub-SaharanAfrica and 19% to Latin America and the Caribbean (Mergen et al, 1988). More recent data are not available, but if past trends are an indication, current annual expenditures may be in excessof US$ 200 million. Developing countries account for only 12% of total investment in forestry research worldwide. Forestry research intensity in developing countries is considerably less than one-tenth of agricultural research intensity. Forest research expenditures as a percentage of the value of production have been estimated at 0.019 for low-income developing countries, 0.059 for middle-income developing countries and 0.070 for semiindustrialized countries. The corresponding ratios for agricultural research expenditures were estimated at 0.451, 0.863 and 0.816 respectively (Mergen et al, 1988). 7.5. Future Directions of CGIAR Forestry Research To date, there have been no systematic or quantitative analysesof the likely pay off from regionally supported forestry/agroforestry researchprogrammes. Additional investment in the priority research areas listed above has the potential for making major contributions to human welfare and to sustaining development efforts in fields other than forestry, such as agriculture, hydropower and industrial development. It is impossible to quantify the benefits over time, although the work done by ACIAR has given some indication of the substantial pay off possible from research on fuelwood, and on saw and veneer logs. Nevertheless, it is possible to provide a qualitative assessment of the benefits in terms of the numbers of people who might be affected by an expanded research programme. For example, people in the Sahel and the Himalayan regions rely on trees as a significant source of livestock fodder. In these areas, the potential exists for some 120 million people to benefit from improved fodder production in addition to fuelwood gains. In these same regions, shelterbelt research could contribute significantly to increasing food security for people living in some of the world’s most fragile and hostile agricultural environments. Crop productivity increasesof 1520% can be achieved by planting windbreaks. High priority research thrusts in these regions include above- and below-ground competition for light, water and nutrients; root symbioses (particularly nitrogen fixation); and tree managementoptions for maximizing aboveground leafy biomass production (e~ g . via pollarding and coppicing techniques). In addition to fodder, fuel and shelter benefits, the potential exists to reduce erosion and negative downstream impacts on irrigated agriculture, power production, fish production, etc., by combining the results of tree improvement research with those of policy research on integrated watershed management. Key areas of policy and socioeconomic research that can contribute to improved upland watershed management include tenure and infrastructure policies? the cost-effectivenessof alternative approaches to soil conservation in steep uplands, and incentives for people’s participation. As developing countries expand their reliance on irrigation to increase agricultural productivity and food security, the need to improve upland watershed 84 management also increases. Often, the prevention of future losses (due to watershed deterioration) does not receive the same attention as the expansion of present benefits. Many of the 300 million people who live in moderately or severely desertified arid regions could benefit from an expansion of research on the managementof arid zone woodlands. Effective low-cost managementof natural Savannahwoodlands could provide fuel, fodder and many other locally important products in greater abundanceand on an ecologically sound and sustainablebasis. Researchpriorities for arid zone woodlands include appropriate silvicultural technologies for multiple end uses (fodder, fuelwood, honey, medicinal products, timber, charcoal, etc), tree/grassland competition for moisture and nutrients, and the effect of Savannah woodland on microclimate. Research on tree selection, improvement and establishment could more than double the average productivity of trees used for fuelwood in the tropics over the next 15 to 20 years. The application of such research results could benefit at least 200 to 400 million people out of the more than 3,000 million people projected by FAO to face fuelwood shortages past the turn of the century (FAO, 1983). The selection and evaluation of multipurpose speciesand provenancesfor fuelwood and other uses will require databasedevelopment, herbarium collections, the development of methods for matching species and sites; assessment of genetic variation (isozymes) in natural and derived populations; studies on biochemical, calorific, fodder and food values; studies on tolerance to a range of environmental stresses;and studies on physical properties (e.g., fibre quality, moisture content, charcoal acceptability). Although the benefits are very difficult to quantify, research on the conservation and management of tropical forest ecosystemscould make an invaluable contribution to safeguarding a major proportion of the world’s genetic diversity. This would ensure that present and future generations will be able to broaden the genetic base for food crops, medicines, industrial products, and other useful goods yet to be discovered among the millions of unknown plant and animal speciesin tropical forests. Past experience with the domestication of tropical plants suggeststhat tropical forests are a critical resource which merits protection. The more research can discover additional benefits to be derived from this resource, the better the arguments for protecting it and improving its management. Research related to industrial development could reduce import bills for forest products in developing countries and, in some cases, increase export revenues. Chile and Brazil are examples of countries which have successfully developed major export markets for their forest products. In 1990 Chile exceededUS$ 700 million in exports of forest products. In addition to speciesand provenance selection and improvement, plantationrelated research priorities include growth and yield modelling studies to increase biomass output under intensive managementsystems, soil microbiology, soil mycorrhizal research related to fast-growing species, soil fertility, nutrient cycling, and studies on the hydrological implications of plantation forestry. Tree selection and improvement researchhas already shown the potential for substantially reducing the cost of producing wood in the tropics. Lower costs, if passed on to consumers, imply lower prices for products such as paper. Low-cost paper available to educational programmes could help raise the literacy levels of hundreds of millions of people. ACIAR has recently estimated the benefits to consumers of such research, and found them to be substantial. 85 Policy research to improve understanding of the underlying causesof deforestation would study the impact of agricultural settlement, fiscal incentives, road building and land tenure policies on expansion of the agricultural frontier. Such research could lead to revised timber taxation, concessionlicenses and revenue collection systems that would encourage local community and private-sector participation in improved natural forest managementand plantation forestry. A major objective of all CGIAR activities in forestry and agroforestry must be to ensure that the benefits of research reach the poor. Researchto integrate conservation and production at the local level is bound to be unsuccessfulunless this is achieved. 86 CHAPTER 8 - FISHERIES 8.1. Background Fisheries play an important role in food production, income generation and the provision of employment in developing countries. The number of full-time fishermen in developing countries has been estimated at 12.9 million, of whom 80% live in Asia, 12% in sub-SaharanAfrica, 6% in Latin America and the Caribbean and 2% in West AsiaNorth Africa (ICLARM, 1991). In addition, there are many millions of part-time fishermen. Water covers 70% of the earth’s surface, and the total production of aquatic commodities amounts to 95 million tonnes annually, of which 85% is in the form of finfish, 4% crustaceans,7 % molluscs and 4% seaweeds. Fish and fish products provide 20% of animal protein and 4% of dietary protein in developing countries, but these averagesmask the fact that in several countries this share is at least twice as high. The total gross value of world fisheries production is almost US$ 25 billion per year, of which 52% originates from marine capture fish, 18% from inland capture fish, 16% from inland culture fish and 14% from marine culture fish. Fish account for 4% of the total value of production of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Approximately 55% of the gross value of fish production originates in Asia, 32% in Latin America and the Caribbean, 8 % in sub-SaharanAfrica and 5% in West Asia-North Africa (TACEGIAR, 1990). Of the global aquatic production, only 12% originates from aquaculture, but in value terms this share amounts to 29%. Aquaculture differs from capture fisheries just as agriculture does from hunting and gathering. Aquaculture, as in the case of agriculture, and even more than in capture fisheries, requires ownership or control over the aquatic resources (commodity) and space. It implies action to direct energy flows in the ecosystem towards the commodity produced. During 1986, total world aquaculture production amounted to 11 million tonnes, of which 50% consisted of finfish, 4% crustaceans,21% molluscs and 25 % seaweeds. About 82 % of world aquaculture production originates in Asia, but in terms of value this share amounts to 97%. The value of culture fisheries exceedsthat of many ‘traditional’ CGIAR commodities such as beans, sorghum, milk and groundnuts. 8.2. Research Needs The demand for fish and fish products has been growing rapidly in recent decades,but most of the traditional sourcesof fish, such as marine stocks, are already being fully exploited and in many casesoverexploited. Capture marine fisheries appear to be reaching a production plateau, despite a sharp growth in capture capacity. If so, more research on stock assessment and managementwill be required to sustain production at its current levels. As supplies have levelled off, prices have started to rise rapidly. The increasing demand for fish and fish products will have to be met by expanding aquaculture production and improving fisheries management. Recent attention to fisheries has been fuelled by increasing concern for the conservation of coastal and freshwater environments. 87 Attempts to introduce aquaculture to resource-poor farmers with no previous fish farming experience have met with little success. The major constraints to technology adoption appear to be socioeconomic, but there is a lack of appropriate technology for small-scale production. Previous TAC reports, as well as a recent study undertaken on behalf of several donor agencies, have stressedthe need for more research on fisheries (CEC/FAO/UNDP/ World Bank, 1991). An international effort on fisheries research would contribute significantly to the CGIAR mission and goals, by leading to sustainableincreasesin productivity which improve the nutrition and economic well-being of low-income people. Fisheries research could also contribute to the CGIAR goals of better managing and conserving natural resources, improving the policy environment and strengthening national research systems. At least 1,000 speciesof fish are captured or cultured, and fish production systems in developing countries are usually multispecies. A commodity approach for setting priorities is therefore inappropriate. Instead, a resource system could be used. ICLARM (1991) has distinguished seven resource systemswhich reflect aquatic habitats and the people who rely on them. The freshwater systemsare catchments, reservoirs and lakes, floodplains, and swamps. The marine systems are estuaries, bays and lagoons, coral reefs, soft-bottom shelves, and upwelling over-shelves. Coral reefs offer good potential for increasesin the yield of capture fisheries through improved management. New managementsystems for upwelling over-shelves and reservoirs also offer potential. The sustainability of current capture systems, particularly in coastal areas, is a major concern, however. The major gains in aquaculture could come from catchments, lakes and reservoirs. Despite the potential for increasedproduction, the gap between supply and demand for fish is expected to widen between now and the year 2000. CGIAR efforts should focus on strategic research to improve the managementof fisheries for sustainable increasesin production, with special emphasis on the biological and social basesfor increasing the potential of both capture fisheries and aquaculture. TAC’s report on the expansion of the CGIAR outlined the needs for international research on fisheries in each of the world’s major developing regions. With respect to resource conservation and management, there was a need to examine fisheries management in all regions. Priority areas in fish productivity research included studies on fish nutrition, particularly the nutritional requirements of cultured species, the nutritional constraints in extensive and semi-intensive systems, and the development of alternative feedstuffs. The development of appropriate small-scale fish production systems was of particular relevance to Asia, but with spillover potential for other regions. Such studies should focus on pond productivity and nutrient dynamics, especially in semiintensive systems, and on the carrying capacity of open aquatic systems. Improving germplasm and maintaining the quality of stocks of key specieswas also a priority area. There was a need for constraint analysis on pests and diseases,and for studies on seed propagation methods. Researchon policy and socioeconomicsshould also receive high priority. Given the weaknessof national fisheries institutions, a major effort to strengthen these is necessary. 88 On the advice of TAC, the CGIAR has requestedICLARM to develop a strategic plan for fisheries research in the CGIAR. The Centre was also the subject of an External Programme and Management Review. The report of this review was discussedat TAC 57 together with a draft strategic plan for international fisheries research. TAC’s views on the priorities for fisheries research were formulated at that time. The analysis of ACIAR (Feam and Davis, 1991) on priorities among fisheries commodities was also used as an additional aid to TAC’s deliberations. 89 CHAPTER 9 - THE ANALYTICAL PROCESS: AGROECOLOGICAL, REGIONAL, PRODUCTION SECTOR AND COMMODITY PERSPECTIVES 9.1. Introduction This chapter is the first of three describing the approach used by TAC to develop an analytical framework for the priority setting exercise, The approach began with agroecological zones, which were disaggregatedby region before modifiers were applied to take into account concerns of efficiency, equity, sustainability, strength of national systems, self-reliance, and agroforestry. The results provide insights by agroecological zone, regional agroecological zone, region, production sector and commodity. The analysis is done in three parts - agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The next two chapters (Chapters 10 and 11) present TAC’s analysis of needs and issuesto be addressedby the CGIAR in institution building, and of public policy, public managementand socioeconomic research issues. The current chapter is structured as follows. Section 9.2 describes the nature of a congruence approach to priority setting. The approach requires the establishment of a baseline value for each production sector - agriculture, forestry and fisheries - in each agroecological zone. TAC selected a composite base made up of value of production, number of poor people and land area (agriculture and forestry only). This is described in Section 9.3. The rationale and mechanismsfor modifying the baseline, and the modifiers chosen, are described in Sections 9.4 and 9.5. Section 9.6 provides the raw data for the modifiers chosen, while Section 9.7 discussesthe weights to be attachedto each modifier. Section 9.8 describes the quantitative impact on the baseline of each modifier. The results of the analysis using a uniform weight for the modifiers are presented in Section 9.9. Section 9.10 provides a sensitivity analysis of the impact of modifiers, first when all weights are changed and secondwhen selectedweights only are changed. Section 9.11 presents a discussion of inputs received from CGIAR Centres on the progress that can be expected from investment in research on particular commodities in particular agroecological zones, given critical mass. The chapter concludes (Section 9.12) with a brief review of another approach to quantitative priority setting, namely the framework developed by ACIAR. 9.2. The Congruence Approach The congruence approach is one in which research resourcesare allocated according to the relative value of production by region or commodity. The approach is commonly used to assist in priority setting for resource allocation in agricultural research. It assumesthat the opportunities for researchto generatenew knowledge to increase productivity are equal across commodities. It further assumesthat the value of new knowledge produced by research is proportional to the value of output, ignoring the costs of inputs or the value added by processing. A congruence approach can usefully be applied to the initial distribution of CGIAR priorities among agroecological zones, regions or regional agroecological zones. 90 However, care must be taken to restrict the analysis to parameters that measure extensitv. Examples of such parameters are the value of production, the number of poor people or the area of agricultural land. Other parameters measure intensity. Examples are GDP per caput, or value of production per hectare. The congruence approach cannot be applied when intensity parameters are used becausethey cannot meaningfully be aggregated across regions. 9.3. Initial Priority Setting 9.3.1. An Overview TAC proposed to assign relative priorities by region and by agroecological zone initially on the basis of a weighted average of some important extensity parameters that reflect the three main concerns expressedby the CGIAR in its mission statement: the contribution of research to productivity, to the well-being of low-income people and to sustainability. To the extent that productivity is a major concern, relative priorities can be distributed in proportion to the value of production in each regional agroecological zone. If the well-being of low-income people is a major concern, priorities can be assigned in proportion to the number of poor people in each regional agroecological zone. To the extent that sustainability of land use is a major concern, priorities can be assigned in proportion to land in use (whether for agriculture, forestry, or both) in each regional agroecological zone. The congruence approach, whether applied to value of production, number of poor people or area of. land in use, should always emphasizeefficiency: if research has to enhance production, it is better done where the value of production is large; if it has to alleviate poverty it is better done where the number of poor people is large; and if it has to serve sustainability, it is better done where there are large areas of land in use. Such an initial assignmentof priorities is based on broad demand considerations and does not reflect the many other important factors that have to be taken into account, such as need for research, potential for impact, capacity of national research systems to use the outputs of international research, or advantagesof the research being undertaking by the CGIAR. Furthermore, the approach is based on a static concept (historical data) that reflects the past and does not allow for future changesor evolving trends. To take these and other considerations into account, a standard procedure was developed for modifying the initial priorities by the use of intensity parameters. This procedure is discussedin Section 9.4.1. In the rest of the current section, the three extensity parameters that will determine the baseline for initial priorities are further considered. 9.3.1.1. VaIue of production In Section 4.6, the value of production of the different production sectors and commodities in developing countries was discussed,both globally and by region. Crops account for 58% of the value of production of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, livestock for 18%) trees for 20% and fish for 4 %. The value of each of these commodity groups by regional agroecological zone is presented in Table 9.1. The total value of 91 production of three groups in developing countries amounts to about US$ 600 billion. In subsequentanalysis, the values of crops and livestock have been aggregatedinto a common production value for agriculture. Crops and animal husbandry systems are interrelated to such an extent that the initial analysis is better applied to agriculture as a whole rather than to separatecomponents. Table 9.1. Annual gross value of production of crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries by region, AEZ and RAEZ (developing countries only, 1987-89) OVERALL AEZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 363381.4 34528.0 44102.4 70287.5 12210.3 49440.9 28654.0 66911.0 22008.4 35238.9 100.0 9.5 12.1 19.3 3.4 13.6 7.9 18.4 6.1 9.7 121424.0 17261.4 11173.1 12553.6 8264.9 16735.5 6636.9 18799.3 16773.9 13225.4 100.0 14.2 9.2 10.3 6.8 13.8 5.5 15.5 13.8 10.9 118485.7 12121.0 17854.6 52501.7 3607.2 4296.9 2650.3 9010.1 13421.8 3022.1 100.0 10.2 15.1 44.3 3.0 3.6 2.2 7.6 11.3 2.6 33641.2 1036.0 847.9 2049.5 290.2 816.1 482.6 1502.4 1192.2 1449.9 100.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/ Regional values of fisheries refer to inland and marine capture. while RAEZ and AEZ values only include the value of inland capture fisheries 92 9.3.1.2. Poverty The second factor contributing to initial priority setting is an estimate of the number of poor people by region and agroecological zone. Regional data were obtained from a recent World Bank study, which estimated that the number of people living in absolute poverty, defined as having per caput incomes less than US$ 370 per year, amounted to 1,110 million, of whom 16% live in sub-SaharanAfrica, 5% in West AsiaNorth Africa, 72% in Asia, and 7% in Latin America and the Caribbean (World Bank, 1990). It proved more difficult to obtain reasonableestimatesof the number of poor by agroecological zone. An analysis by IFPRI (Broca and Oram, 1991) provided some indications, but in general TAC considered that the databasewas too narrow and that available evidence did not allow- meaningful conclusions to be drawn. In addition, becauseof migration, any estimate of the number of poor people by agroecological zone would have to be treated with caution. For example, recent studies conducted by IRRI in several locations of Asia suggestthat, becauseof migration, there are only marginal differences in wage rates between areas that have benefited from the green revolution and other areas. In Latin America, many resource-poor farmers of the high Andes have moved to lower, more fertile, areas in the valleys. In sub-Saharan Africa, migration is particularly important in the semi-arid zones of Southern and West Africa. For the purposes of this report, the number of poor people by regional agroecological zone was therefore estimated on the basis of the regional estimates by the World Bank, disaggregatedby regional agroecological zone on a pro rata basis by overall populationand adjusted for the value of GDP per caput. This estimate is to be treated with considerable caution, but was considered the most reliable available to TAC. 9.3.1.3. Land use The third parameter used to determine initial priorities in agriculture and forestry was land use. Three categories of land use can be distinguished: cultivated land (including arable and permanent crop land), grazing land and forest land. The borders between these are not always clear becauseof shifting cultivation, agroforestry and fallowing. All three land-use categories have major sustainability problems (TAC/CGIAR, 1988). The weight attached to each of these categories in the land use parameter of the baseline would vary according to the production sectors. For the agriculture baseline, total area of usable land defined as arable land plus land with perennial crops plus grazing land plus forest and woodland, would be used. For the forestry baseline, only the area of forest and woodland would be incorporated in the land use component. For fisheries, land use would not be part of the baseline. Statistical information on the area of each land use category is presented in Annex 4. 9.3 2. Baseline for Agriculture The next step in the analysis was to determine the weight to be attached to each component of the base. TAC did not wish to weight the value of production unduly becausethe data available were of widely varying quality. Value of production on a global basis is heavily influenced by the degree to which the commodity is traded (e.g. 93 wheat versus yam) and by the price chosento value output. Several commodities have no published data sources, while for others the international price reflects only a minor share of the market which is often distorted by subsidies and other government policies. International prices usually refer to high quality items. The prices used were the best available but varied from prices in the exporting country to wholesale prices in the importing country. The outcome of the analysis of value of production, therefore, has to be treated with considerable caution. On the other hand, TAC could find no reason for giving undue weight to the other two parameters - the number of poor people and the land area. Since each is an indicator of efficiency, it was decided to weight all three equally. In terms of CGIAR goals, the highest pay off will be obtained by developing new technology where: (i) there is the highest level of production; (ii) it will benefit the largest number of poor people; and (iii) the land area available for more sustainableuse is greatest. Table 9.2 presents the results for agriculture acrossthe 21 regional agroecological zones used in the analysis. Value of production across the regions is normalized to sum to 1000, as is the number of poor people and the total land area. These three sets of data are then averaged (equal weights) to determine a baseline value. Table 9.3 presents the same data by region. In both tables it is clear that value of production and number of poor people favour Asia, whereas useable land shifts the emphasis more towards sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America. Table 9.2: Baseline for priority setting by RAEZ in agriculture and its determinants (per thousand of total) AFRS AFRS 2 3 LAC LAC LAC 6 7 8 6.38 44.22 25.96 0.48 8.15 3.37 6.43 36.03 32.78 4.43 29.48 20.71 LAC 9 6.56 1000.00 2.17 1000.00 9.83 1000.00 6.19 1000.00 I’ li 3' VOP = Value of Production As estimated by the World Bank by region (World Bank, 1990). Subsequentdistribution by AEZ pro rata with population adjusted with GDPlcnput. Total usable land defined as arable land plus lad with perennial crops plus grazing land plus forest and wwxiland 94 Table 9.3. Baseline for agriculture: distribution by region (%) Weight = 0.33 Factor Region SSA WANA ASIA LAC WORLD I I I 1 VOP 9.1 9.3 59.0 22.6 I 1 1 72.1 6.3 1 1 No. of Poor 16.2 Usable Land 29.4 7.5 27.9 35.2 I 1 Baseline 18.2 7.4 53.0 21.4 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 9.3.3. Baseline for Forestry TAC debated thoroughly the appropriate weights for the baseline in forestry. Equal weighting, as in agriculture, was initially proposed, but three arguments eventually persuaded TAC to adopt different weights. First, in adopting the recommendations of Bellagio II the CGIAR has agreed that its focus in forestry and agroforestry should be limited to areas which largely exclude large-scale commercial forest production and utilization. Given that much of the global value of production comes from commercial log and timber production, TAC felt less weight should be given to value of production. Second, it is very difficult to value forest products used by the poor, such as fuelwood and charcoal. There was a concern that these and other products and services may be undervalued, again biasing research towards areas with commercial timber production and exports. Third, multiple use of the forest, and the opportunities for preserving it, are both much enhancedby the area of wooded land available. TAC therefore decided that the weighting for the number of poor people should be the same, 0.33, that half the total weight, 0.5, should go to wooded area, and that the residual, 0.17, should be allocated to value of production. These weights are arbitrary but are based on TAC’s best judgement. The results by regional agroecological zone are presented in Table 9.4 and by region in Table 9.5. Value of production and the number of poor people favour Asia, whereas wooded area emphasizessub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America and the Caribbean. 95 Table 9.4. Baseline for priority setting by RAEZ in forestry and its determinants (per thousand of total) Weight RAE2 AFRS 1 AFRS 2 AFRS 3 AFRS 4 WANA 9 ASIA ASIA ASIA ASIA ASIA ASIA ASIA LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.17 VOP 46.14 40.01 71.49 23.31 15.08 46.87 65.48 286.79 34.74 20.86 39.44 105.49 7.12 42.02 75.47 27.59 0.76 1.03 35.00 5.40 9.88 1000.00 ~ 0.33 POOE 52.81 35.77 42.72 30.70 54.00 147.89 58.27 110.81 142.70 35.08 112.05 114.21 5.19 9.13 12.39 20.28 1.84 0.48 8.15 3.37 2.17 1000.00 Forest and Woodland 101.00 56.00 139.00 11.00 27.00 14.00 27.00 102.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 57.00 39.00 118.00 178.00 46.00 10.00 2.00 23.00 13.00 12.00 1000.00 Baseline 75.77 46.61 95.75 19.59 33.88 63.77 43.86 136.32 57.50 18.62 48.18 84.12 22.42 69.16 105.92 34.38 5.74 1.33 20.14 8.53 8.40 Table 9.5. Baseline for forestry: distribution by region (%) 96 9.3.4. Baseline for Fisheries TAC has far fewer data on fisheries than on forestry and agriculture. Further, land area is less relevant to most fisheries research issues, and the terrestrial agroecological zones identified for agriculture and forestry are much less applicable to fisheries. Thus the base for fisheries consisted of two factors only - value of production and number of poor people - each weighted equally (0.5). The results by region are presented in Table 9.6. Having determined the baseline values for agriculture, forestry and fisheries, TAC then turned to the question of modifiers. Table 9.6: Baseline for fisheries: distribution by region (%) Weight = 0.5 VGP I 8.0 1 4.0 56.0 32.0 100.0 No. of Poor 16.2 1 5.4 72.1 6.3 100.0 11.2 4.9 65.4 18.5 100.0 Baseline Factor Region SSA WANA ASIA LAC WORLD 9.4. Modification of the Baseline 9.4.1. Standard Procedure The initial allocation of priorities based on value of production, number of poor people and land area does not take into account several other important factors that also determine CGIAR priorities. A standardized approach was therefore developed for modifying the initial baseline by the use of intensity parameters. As an example, GDP per caput is used as a possible equity modifier for agriculture. The CGIAR is particularly interested in improving the welfare of low-income people. Although the number of poor people by region and agroecological zone is one of the three elements that compose the baseline, there are good reasonsfor modifying this baseline with measuresthat reflect the intensity of poverty in a particular area. For reasons of equity, higher priority should be given to areas where income levels are generally low. In such areas, GDP per caput is usually also low. 97 Table 9.7. Example of a modifying step SSA I I I WANA I ASlA LX TOTAL I I 7 I Baseline reduction (row1 *total row6/1000) 8 I Net change to baseline (row6-row7) I I 51.1 +24.5 I 21.0 -15.1 I , 1 150.9 +51.3 I 1 60.7 -60.7 1 283.7 I 1 -0.0 Table 9.7 shows how the modifier GDP per caput affects the allocation of priorities by region. The modifier is weighted at 0.5. The initial baseline for agriculture is given in row 1. The values for GDP per caput by region are presented in row 2. In row 3, the range is then standardizedby dividing the values in row 2 by the highest value of GDP per caput in row 2. Becausein this particular case highest priority will be given to the region with the lowest GDP per caput, the order is reversed in row 4 by subtracting the values in row 3 from 1. This value is now adjusted for the weight of the modifier .5 (row 5). The values are only half those of row 4, becausea weight of 0.5 was attached to this modifier. The baseline data of row 1 are multiplied with the numbers in row 5 to give row 6, which estimatesthe gross redistribution. The baseline reduction is estimated in row 7 and the net change to the baseline in row 8. The value obtained in row 8 indicates the difference and the effect of the modifier by region. The relative priorities of Asia and sub-SaharanAfrica, where GDP per caput is low, increase by 5 1.3 and by 24.5 respectively, while the priority rankings of West AsiaNorth Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are reduced. It should be stressed that Table 9.7. is for illustrative purposes only and is simplified, as it only takes into consideration regional values. As will be discussedin Section 9.8, the analysis has been done for each modifier by agroecological zone, by region and by regional agroecological zone. The values obtained through this procedure for each modifier are then aggregated for each agroecological zone, region, and regional agroecological zone and added to the initial distribution of relative priorities, keeping the overall total constant at 1,QOQ.As a result, the modified baseline is also obtained on an overall total of 1,000. The order in which modifiers are applied does not influence their impact. The effect of a modifier dependson the weight it has been assignedand on the spread or variability of its value across regional agroecological zones. One may attach a large weight to a certain modifier, but if its values do not differ much among regional agroecological zones, its effect on the distribution of priority will be small. For example, if the value of GDP per caput had been 100 in sub-SaharanAfrica, 105 in Asia, 110 in West Asia-North Africa and 115 in Latin America and the Caribbean, the effect of this modifier would have been negligible. The greater the spread of values, the stronger the 98 effect of the modifier. The variability within the data set therefore gives a certain implicit weight to the effect of a modifier. Another issue is the direction in which intensity parameters are weighted. In the example of Table 9.7, greater weight was given to areas where GDP per caput was small. One could argue, however, that for reasonsof efficiency, greater weight should be given to areas where GDP per caput is high. Such areas are likely to have strong national research systems, so that the CGIAR could limit its activities to the strategic germplasm research for which it has a strong comparative advantage. If this argument were accepted, row 4 in the table would then have to be deleted and the effect of the modifier altered accordingly. The same data set can be used to estimate both extensity parameters and intensity parameters. A good example is the number of poor people. This was used as an important extensity parameter in calculating the baseline, but it can be logically transposed into an intensity parameter by expressing it as a percentageof the total population in the region. Using the data on the number of poor people in both parameters is not double counting, for it expressestwo different concerns. Using the absolute number of poor as an extensity parameter would ensure that higher priority was given to areas with large numbers of poor. Using the proportion of poor people out of the total population in a region could ensure that higher priority is given direct to regions where poverty is particularly severe. The proposed framework is not an optimizing procedure, but aims only at clarifying choices. By following this approach in its priority setting exercise, TAC makes it clear how priorities are arrived at, and the process remains transparent. TAC is then in a better position to engage in reasoneddialogues with other stakeholders in the process. A more detailed discussion of the use of this analytical framework is provided in De Wit, Gryseels and Van Kraalingen (1992). 9.4.2. Selection of Modifiers TAC considered over 20 possible modifiers for agriculture and 10 for forestry that might be used to take into account: (1) the special nature of the CGIAR as an international organization; (2) alternative sourcesof research supply; (3) the strength of national research programmes; (4) the nature of self-reliance; (5) concerns for the efficiency of research; (6) equity issues; (7) sustainability; and (8) special issues. In the end TAC retained 10 modifiers, 9 of which were used for agriculture, 6 for forestry and 1 for fisheries. The evaluation first attempted to determine whether or not the modifier was appropriate for the task. For example, a modifier for the share of urban population was proposed but rejected becauseit was not clear why urban dwellers should get more or less attention than other members of the population. Secondly, TAC discarded modifiers which duplicated others. For example, agricultural GDP per labourer as a measure of rural poverty is already captured by GDP per caput as a measure of overall poverty. Some modifiers were deemed appropriate but inadequatedata were available to quantify them, particularly, for example, with respect to sustainability issues. Since the baselines already representedconsiderations of efficiency, only one further efficiency modifier was chosen. This is the yield gap, or in other words the difference between potential yields and actual performance. Where that gap is narrow, it was judged that higher priority should be given becausestrategic research would be 99 critical to raising the yield potential. Two modifiers - intensity of malnutrition and GDP per caput - reflect different concerns about equity. Three - “urgency”, magnitude of deforestation, and soil degradation risk - addressissuesof sustainability. Two attempt to deal with issues of strength of national research systems- capacity of national system and country size. One attempts to addressthe issue of self-reliance and one the preservation of forest resources and the potential for agroforestry. Each of these modifiers is described in more detail in the next section. In its selection of modifiers, TAC chose those which in its judgement best reflected the multifaceted character of the CGIAR’s mission and goals. For example, sustainability is multifaceted and involves soil erosion, agricultural encroachment on forests, siltation of reservoirs, inappropriate deforestation and many other problemsjV TAC chose three modifiers to reflect these multiple dimensions, recognizing that the intensity of particular dimensions would vary across agroecological zones. The selection of more than one dimension lessensthe regional distortions that might occur if one modifier only was relied on. 9.5. Modifiers Chosen 9.5.1. Efficiency Indicator 9.5.1.1. Yield gap or scope for growth In developing countries, the actual productivity of agricultural land is well below its sustainablepotential. Potential crop productivity can be defined as the productivity of cropping systems with varieties that are optimally adaptedto the prevailing agroecological conditions, free of insects, pests, diseasesand weeds, and under optimal nutrient conditions. The larger the difference between potential and actual productivity, the greater the opportunity to obtain yield increases. When the difference approacheszero, efforts are needed to increase the stable biological yield ceilings of crops. On the basis of studies by FAO, an estimate was made of the ratio between actual and potential land productivity by region and by agroecological zone. It was assumedthat production potentials reflect maximum attainable productivity using current production technologies. Maximum attainable yields vary by crop and by agroecological zone, and the total current productivity potential for each zone is conditioned by the current crop mix. Estimates of production potentials of presently cultivated land in each agroecological zone (Table 9.8) were derived from the FAO Agriculture Towards 2000 information base, using current cropping patterns. Estimates of productivity potentials (C) vary from 22 million tonnes in.AEZ 9 of Latin America and the Caribbean to 406 million tonnes in AEZ 7 of Asia. At the aggregateregional level, C varies from 229 million tonnes in West Asia-North Africa to 1,841 million tonnes in Asia. Information on the current production of food crops (Bl) and of cash crops has already been provided in Section 4.3 (Table 4.2). Setting current food production (Bl) against production potentials (C) permits a quantification of how much additional food production is possible without further expansion in the cultivated area. The ratio (C-Bl)/C therefore provides an estimate of the “yield gap” or scope for growth of food production on presently cultivated land. The yield gap is generally greater in sub-Saharan 100 Africa (0.82) and in Latin America and the Caribbean than in Asia (0.60) and West AsiaNorth Africa. Table 9.8. Potential productivity (C), scope for growth in food production (C-Bl)/C, Production of Food and Cash Crops in 1990 (B2), annual growth in food demand over the period 1990-2010 (D) and the need for production growth (U) by RAEZ c ::; a- .. : (lO%E) SSA 1 2 3 4 WANA 1 4 9 Asia 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 LAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :. .: 0.82 0.72 0.88 0.84 0.77 0.72 0.48 0.80 0.71 0.60 0.45 0.46 0.60 0.64 0.62 0.66 0.64 0.79 0.61 0.84 0.77 0.53 0.84 0.90 0.82 0.86 0.82 0.68 0.55 0.74 0.70 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.72 (10% GE) 176.5 42.0 35.9 69.1 31.5 87.6 0.4 1.2 86.0 969.3 127.5 95.3 182.9 183.0 91.1 169.5 120.4 260.5 16.0 53.4 50.6 61.4 6.1 4.0 42.0 22.7 4.3 1 493.9 185.9 184.5 279.1 91.2 189.1 95.1 211.5 143.0 90.3 D Ii%) 3.38 3.30 3.45 3.50 3.16 2.93 4.02 3.90 2.89 1.91 1.89 2.03 2.55 2.32 1.71 1.33 1.44 2.28 2.06 2.38 2.32 2.49 2.27 1.35 2.36 i .42 1.89 2.23 2.28 2.46 2.78 2.70 2.32 1.70 1.46 1.44 2.85 2.21 2.98 2.37 1.83 1.77 3.47 15.07 6.80 3.37 1.45 1.71 1.27 1.72 1.53 1.15 1.08 1.40 1.17 1.41 0.99 1.15 1.54 1.71 0.44 1.06 0.60 1.93 1.63 2.00 1.40 1.66 1.62 1.53 1.12 1.08 1.27 3.41 574.3 117.2 183.7 210.1 63.3 229.0 0.6 4.4 224.0 1 840.7 206.6 128.7 309.5 329.0 141.3 406.0 319.6 669.3 30.0 129.6 103.4 70.5 27.6 29.5 111.9 144.8 22.0 3 313.3 354.4 442.0 519.6 133.8 356.6 170.8 517.9 464.4 246.0 GE cBl B2 Du- Grain equivalent Potential productivity of presently cultivated land. Present annual production of food crops. Present annual production of food and cash crops. Annual growth in demand for food over the period 1990-2010. Increase in food demand as a percentage of 1990 food and cash crop production. 101 The CGIAR takes an interest in both situations. In sub-SaharanAfrica there are many opportunities to obtain improvements in crop productivity through the application of technology resulting from applied and adaptive research. In Asia there is a much greater need for strategic research that aims at fundamental biotechnological breakthroughs that increase yield potentials. Given the capacity of the CGIAR to conduct strategic research, TAC considers that, among regions and agroecological zones, higher priority should be given to those in which the scope for growth is low. This would particularly favour all the regional agroecological zones of Asia (except RAEZs 7 and 8), and RAEZs 1 and 4 of Latin America and the Caribbean. All the regional agroecological zones of sub-SaharanAfrica and West Asia-North Africa would be assignedlower priority as a result. TAC considers that in the latter areas there is a particular need for greater efforts in institution building. The yield gap or scope for growth modifier is therefore particularly useful in providing guidelines on the type of activity that could be undertaken by the CGIAR. 9.5.2. Equity Indicators 9.5.2.1. Malnutrition The CGIAR mission statement stressesthat the System’s activities should enhance nutrition and well-being in developing countries, especially among low-income people. In determining the baseline values, the absolute number of poor in each region and agroecological zone was therefore explicitly considered. TAC considers that, in addition, higher priority should be assignedto areas where poverty and malnutrition are particularly severe. Malnutrition is reflected in the number of children under five that are underweight, defined as two standard deviations below desirable weight for age. According to UNICEF, about 36% of children under five in developing countries excluding China, or 150 million children, are malnourished by this criterion. About 39% of children are stunted, as measuredby height for age, while 8.4% or 35 million children are wasted, as measuredby desirable weight for height (Carlson and Wardlaw, 1990). Thus, in the developing world, more than one child in three is suffering from malnutrition. In the case of wasting, which indicates acute malnutrition, one child in 12 is affected. Of the 150 million children that are malnourished (excluding China), 75 % live in Asia, 1970 in sub-SaharanAfrica and 6% in Latin America and the Caribbean. Data for West Asia-North Africa and data on the intensity of this measure (number of children malnourished as a proportion of total number of children in each region) are not available. Pending the availability of a more appropriate data set, TAC considered that the number of malnourished people in proportion to total population for each region would serve as an adequateproxy. This proportion has been estimated at 35% in sub-Saharan Africa, 22% in Asia, 9% in West Asia-North Africa and 14% in Latin America and the Caribbean (FAO, 1991b). 102 9.5.2.2. GDP per caput GDP per caput is generally acceptedas an indicator of the income status of a country. To allow its use as a modifier, an analysis was made of GDP per caput by regional agroecological zones. For reasonsof equity, TAC considers that higher priority should be given to areas where GDP per caput is low. This would favour areas with generally low income levels. There was a second reason why TAC considered that GDP per caput would be an appropriate modifier. The CGIAR is only one component of the global agricultural research system. Many other institutes and agenciesconduct research, in both the public and the private sectors. In assigning priorities to geographic areas, the existence of these other suppliers of research should be taken into account, since the CGIAR should conduct only those activities that it can undertake more effectively than any other agency. It is difficult, however, to quantify the extent of alternative sourcesof supply. The data are incomplete, relate to certain countries and commodities only, and particularly to the public sector. In view of the lack of a quantitative indicator of alternative sourcesof research supply, TAC considered that an appropriate alternative would be an indicator that would reflect the ability of an area to finance its own research services. GDP per caput is a suitable indicator for this purpose. Where it is low, the area has limited capacity to finance its own research services. Such areas should receive higher priority. The use of GDP per caput as a modifier favours all the regional agroecological zones of sub-SaharanAfrica and Asia, except RAEZ 6 in Asia. On average, GDP per caput amounts to US$ 294 in sub-SaharanAfrica, US$ 448 in Asia, US$ 1544 in West Asia-North Africa and US$ 1847 in Latin America and the Caribbean. 9.5 m 3. Sustainability Indicators 9.5.3.1. Urgeucy of need for production growth An important factor determining priorities among different geographic areas is the pressure on agricultural production to meet future demand. As already discussed, the sustainability of agricultural production is at risk in many developing countries as a result of population growth, increased and changing demand for food, and the depletion of natural resources. In Section 4.3, an estimate was made of the increasesin agricultural output required between 1990 and 2010 to achieve food self-reliance for each regional agroecological zone. Information was also presentedon present (year 1990) and future (year 2010) demand for food, as estimated on the basis of population size and demand per caput. Given the production of food and cash crops in 1990 (B2 as shown in Table 9.8), an estimate can now be made of the annual growth in food demand over the period 1990-2010 (see D in Table 9.8). Growth in demand varies from 3.38% in sub-Saharan Africa to 1.91% in Asia. Increases in food demand in grain equivalent as percentagesof food and cash crop production in 1990 can now also be estimated (see U in Table 9.8.). This parameter reflects the urgency of the need for production growth. The value of U is calculated by using the value of D to estimate the actual demand for food in 1990 and stating this as a 103 percentage of the present annual production of food and cash crops (B2). The value of U averages 1.63 % when all developing countries are combined, but varies from 3.47% in West Asia-North Africa, to 2.21% in sub-SaharanAfrica, to 1.45 % in Asia and to 1.17 % in Latin America and the Caribbean. Urgency also varies considerably within each region. In sub-SaharanAfrica, for example, it is 2.98% in the semi-arid tropics but only 1.83 % in the humid tropics. In Latin America and the Caribbean, it ranges from 0.6% in AEZ 8 to 1.93 % in AEZ 9. The higher the value the more urgent the need for growth in production, the greater the pressure on marginal and fragile land, and the higher the priority of the area. When taken together, the parametersU (urgency) and (C-Bl)/C (yield gap or scope for growth) reveal the different nature of the production challenge in different agroecological zones. An urgent need for production increasesin an area with relatively small scope for growth (e.g. in AEZ 9 of West Asia-North Africa and AEZ 1 of subSaharan Africa) will probably lead to a food crisis and to heavy pressure on natural resources. For areas where high demand for growth is combined with relatively high scope for growth, as in AEZs 6 and 8 of Latin America and the Caribbean, the prospects are more favourable. 9.5.3.2. Deforestation Researchhas an important role to play in combatting deforestation. Often, it is not practical to preserve forest on good agricultural land becausecultivation would provide a higher return, but trees in farmland play important roles in sustaining agricultural production. In many cases,deforestation can be slowed down by improving productivity and resource managementin adjacent agricultural areas. However, this approach is unlikely to halt deforestation altogether. The higher the rate of deforestation, the higher the priority that should be assigned to a particular area. Deforestation rates vary considerably, from 1.7 % in subSaharan Africa, through 1.4% in Latin America and the Caribbean, to 1% in West AsiaNorth Africa and 0.9 % in Asia. However, the absolute area deforested is much larger in Latin America and the Caribbean than elsewhere. TAC considers that, rather than rate of deforestation, a more appropriate indicator of CGIAR priorities would consist of the share of each region’s deforested area in the total area deforested in developing countries annually. It has been estimated that a total of 16.8 million ha are deforested in developing countries every year, 45 % of this in Latin America and the Caribbean, 38 % in sub-SaharanAfrica, 15% in Asia and 2% in West Asia-North Africa. The modifier is estimated as the total area deforested in each region each year divided by the priority baseline. 9.5.3.3. Soil degradation risk The sustainability of agricultural production is a key issue in considering CGIAR priorities. Soil degradation is a major threat to sustainability in several areas of the developing world. A case could be made that the higher the degree of degradation of arable land in a given area, the higher the priority that should be assignedto that area. Distilling a single quantitative indicator of the state of soil resourcesin different regional agroecological zones was difficult. Soil constraints data could not be used becausethey concern total rather than arable land area. Furthermore, it is necessaryto 104 select particular constraints becausethe sum of all constraints is not useful in discriminating amongst different regional agroecological zones. The latter problem is also presented by the data on human-induced land degradation, which are, in any case, only partly quantitative. It was therefore decided to use estimatesof the effects of water and wind erosion on the productivity of rainfed land; these are based on the FAO population supporting capacity study (FAO, 1982). This model uses climatic (rainfall and wind erosion) indices, soil, terrain, texture and vegetation/land use factors under situations where no conservation measuresare applied. It overcomes some of the problems mentioned above. Over the four developing regions as a whole, the area of potential rainfed cropland is reduced in the long run by 24.7% if the full rate of soil erosion remains unchecked. At the regional level, the highest risk of degradation exists in Asia (35.6% decreasein cropland), followed by West Asia-North Africa (20.1%) and sub-Saharan Africa (16.5 %). Latin America and the Caribbean are less at risk from soil erosion (11.4%). Within the tropics, the humid zones carry the highest risk of soil erosion, followed by the subhumid zones. Cool tropical zones and the warm semi-arid tropics carry similar levels of risk. In the subtropics with summer rainfall, the warm humid zone and the cool zone in Asia are at high risk. In Latin America and the Caribbean, all the subtropical zones are at low risk. 9.5.4. Strength of National Research System Indicators 9.5.4.1. Capacity of national research systems The effectiveness of the CGIAR dependson the ability of national research systems to identify a priority research agenda, use the products of international research, a;id conduct collaborative research. The CGIAR mission to help resource-poor farmers implies a need to build capacity in national research systems, so that they can do an effective job in bringing new technology to these ultimate clients. However, the equity consideration implied by the objective of strengthening weak national systems may compromise short-term economic efficiency by diverting resourcesaway from servicing strong national research systems which are already effective partners. The CGIAR works with both strong and weak national research systems. The strength of a national system to some extent determines the kind of collaborative activity it undertakes with CGIAR Centres. Traditionally, research activities with weak national systems have involved a higher level of collaborative applied and adaptive research partly as a means of transferring technology, partly as a form of capacity building and technical assistance. Work with stronger national systemstends to be more strategic in nature. However, although conducted in collaboration with stronger systems, strategic research neverthelessproduces results that eventually reach smaller, weaker systems. TAC has considered both quantitative and qualitative information to incorporate the status of national research systemsby region and agroecological zone into its priority setting. Some of this information is contained in a background paper from ISNAR (Pardey and Roseboom, 1991). 105 It proved difficult to select a single indicator for the strength of national research systems, but one good proxy is the number of scientists by regional agroecological zone. This was estimated also by Pardey and Roseboom (1991), and of the total number of 76,174 scientists in developing countries, 6% were located in sub-SaharanAfrica, 72% in Asia, 12% in Latin America, and 10% in West Asia-North Africa. The ratio of number of scientists by RAEZ representsthe density of scientists in each area. The strengthening of national research systems is an important mission of the CGIAR. TAC therefore considers that greater weight should be given to areas with lower densities. 9.5.4.2. Small countries Large countries such as India and China have strong national research systems. However, many small countries lack the resourcesand the capacity to set up a comprehensive research system of their own. To provide effective research services, they rely especially on networks and on collaboration with other national and international research institutions. The smaller the country, the greater the difficulty in achieving a critical mass of resourcesand scientists for a given researchactivity. TAC considers that higher priority should be given to areas that consist predominantly of small countries. The modifier used was the average size of countries within a regional agroecological zone, related to the baseline value of priorities. This indicator particularly favours Central America and the Caribbean, West Africa, and West Asia-North Africa. 9.5 S. Food Import Gap The CGIAR has included the notion of self-reliance in its mission statement to replace the previous implicit goal of self-sufficiency. TAC wished to introduce a modifier to reflect this new consideration. A comprehensivemeasure would require a complex analysis of each country’s comparative advantagesacross sectors to determine whether it had a resource base sufficient to feed its population either by domestic production or by exports to pay for imported food. This could not be done. However, TAC was aware of a recent IFPRI study (Ezekiel, 1989) which projected food aid needs by country and region for the year 2000. The study used standard methods to make linear projections of potential production. It projected aggregatedemand based on population and income growth rates weighted by the income elasticity of demand. Agricultural (food) exports were projected to increase at the rate of production growth while commercial imports were projected to grow at the same rate as GNP. Thus, the difference between production plus imports and demand minus exports was identified as the gap that would need to be filled by food aid. The gap indicates the potential magnitude of import needs after taking into account potential agricultural exports. TAC used these estimatesby region as an indicator of the difficulty the region would have in feeding itself. In the analysis, regions with larger food aid gaps were given greater weights. 106 9.5.6. Preservation of forest resources As already discussedin Section 9.5.3.2, deforestation can often only be slowed down by improving productivity and resource managementin adjacent agricultural areas. The encroachment on forests by agriculture not only has unfavourable environmental consequences,but also causesfuelwood scarcity. In such areas, high priority should be given to agroforestry . TAC considered wooded area per caput to be an appropriate indicator of the pressure on forest resources. Greater weight should be given to areas where the wooded area per caput is low. Wooded area per caput amounts to 2.15 ha in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1.33 ha in sub-SaharanAfrica, 0.19 ha in West AsiaNorth Africa and 0.18 ha in Asia. This indicator particularly favours the Asia and West Asia-North Africa regions, as well as the cool tropics of sub-SaharanAfrica. 9.6. Data for Modifiers Table 9.9 presents an overview of the values of the data used to estimate the modifiers chosen, by region and agroecological zone. Data on malnutrition and deforestation were available only at the regional level. TAC acknowledges that the quality of the data set could be improved. It was particularly difficult to disaggregatedata available on a country basis so that they would fit into an agroecological zone framework. However, TAC considered that, as priority setting is a continuing activity, well informed “guestimates” could be used when more reliable data were not available. The Committee will seek to improve the quality of the data set over time. 9.7. Modifier Weights Chosen Having selected the modifiers listed above it remained for TAC to decide what weights should be attached to each. In the debate on weights, TAC had three major concerns. First, different weights among modifiers could re-introduce undesirable distortions. Second, the level of a weight directly impacts on the baseline in a particular agroecological zone in proportion to the inter-regional differences in the value of the basic indicator. Thus, there are already implicit differences in the impact that each modifier will have on the base. And third, unless compelling reasonscould be found to weight modifiers differently, equal weights would be the least distorting option. At the end of the debate it was TAC’s collective judgement that weights should be equal across modifiers. The remaining question was, at what level should those weights be fixed? The initial approach was to assumea weight of 1 as it seemedthe most neutral. But clearly, any weight, including zero, is arbitrary in the absenceof objective explanatory variables. TAC decided that weights in excessof 1 would give undue importance to modifiers that strongly discriminated among regional agroecological zones. In its analysis, the Committee examined the impact of three levels of weights - 0.25, 0.5, and 1.O. Given the linearity of the analytical process these were sufficient to determine the trend in the impact of each modifier. Table 9.9. Value of Modifiers by Region and Agroecological Zone SSA 1. Yield gap or scope for growth 2. Malnutrition (X population malnourished) 3. GDPlcaput (US Dollars) 4. Production growth needed to meet demand (% p.a.) 5. Deforestation (‘000 ha) 6. Soil degradation hazard (% rainfed cropland) 7. Capacity of NARS (no. of scientists) 8. Size of countries (no. of countries) 9. Food import gap by 2000 (MMT) 10. Wooded areakaput (ha) 25.95 1.33 0.82 35 294 2.21 6400 16.5 4917 1 0.72 2 0.88 3 0.84 4 0.77 WANA 0.72 9 291 2.98 25.5 2.37 379 1.83 185 1.77 1544 3.47 300.0 10.8 1974 26 15.2 1150 16 28.8 1101 15 10.6 612 8 20.1 7836 21 19.07 1.32 1.14 1.98 0.31 0.19 ASIA 1. Yield gap or scope for growth 2. Malnutrition (% population malnourished) 3. GDPkaput (US Dollars) 4. Production growth needed to meet demand (% p.a.) 5. Deforestation (‘000 ha) 6. Soil degradation hazard (% rainfed cropland) 7. Capacity of NARS (no. of scientists) 8. Size of countries (no. of countries) 9. Food import gap by 2000 (MMT) 10. Wooded areakaput (ha) 2.55 0.18 0.60 22 448 1.45 2500 35.6 54558 1 0.45 2 0.46 3 0.60 5 0.64 6 0.62 7 0.66 8 0.64 298 1.71 424 1.27 490 1.72 304 1.53 1043 1.15 504 1.08 368 1.40 29.2 4436 2 31.1 2630 4 63.0 6095 17 17.9 9884 3 17.9 4772 4 46.0 14416 2 46.2 12325 7 0.07 0.26 0.47 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.30 Table 9.9. cont.d LAC 1. Yield gap or scope for growth 2. Malnutrition (% population malnourished) 3. GDPkaput (US Dollars) 4. Production growth needed to meet demand (% p.a.) 5. Deforestation (‘Ooo ha) 6. Soil degradation hazard (% rainfed cropland) 7. Capacity of NARS (no. of scientists) 8. Size of countries (no. of countries) 9. Food import gap by 2000 (MMT) 10. Wooded areakaput (ha) 6.3 2.15 0.79 14 1847 1 0.61 2 0.84 3 0.77 4 0.53 5 0.84 6 0.90 7 0.82 8 0.86 9 0.82 1887 2061 1758 1504 2029 2458 2109 2422 1750 1.17 7600 1.41 0.99 1.15 1.54 1.71 0.44 1.06 0.60 1.93 11.4 8861 12.0 636 9 17.1 1664 14 26.0 1702 21 10.4 1367 9 9.1 392 2 12.1 169 1 4.9 1831 3 5.0 2813 2 7.3 289 2 2.62 2.48 5.10 0.77 1.68 0.93 0.99 1.04 1.76 109 In the tables that follow in Section 9.8 the impact of each modifier by agroecological zone, region and regional agroecological zone is explored using a uniform weight of 0.5. In Section 9.10 the sensitivity of the results to different levels of uniform weights and different weights among modifiers are presented. This is done in the interests of transparency, and to allow other stakeholdersin the System to present arguments for proceeding differently in subsequentrounds of the analysis. 9.8. Quantitative Impact of Each Modifier 9.8.1. Agriculture In Table 9.10, the actual impact of each modifier when weighted at 0.5 is displayed by region, by agroecological zone and by regional agroecological zone. Looking down a column shows two things: (i) whether the modifier had a positive or negative impact on the distribution of priority; and (ii) by how much. For example, modifier 1 (yield gap) has a relatively small negative impact on all four agroecological zones of sub-SaharanAfrica (AFRS l-4) and a large positive impact on Asia 1. Looking across a row shows how a regional agroecological zone is impacted by a modifier and by how much. For example, looking acrossWANA 9 we see that yield gap (modifier 1) subtracts 1.9 from the West Asia-North Africa baseline, malnutrition (2) subtracts 13.46, GDP per caput (3) subtracts 11.0, but that urgency (4) adds 18.9 to the base, and so on across the row. The net effect of all of the modifiers is to increase the West Asia-North Africa base by 6.34, despite the fact that six of the nine modifiers subtract from it. Clearly the largest impact on the West Asia-North Africa base comes from modifier 9 (food import gap). The table also allows the reader to compute what would happen to a regional agroecological, regional or agroecological base if one or more modifiers were removed. If you wish to change the direction in which a modifier is used, simply invert all the signs (for example, if in your opinion greater weight rather than less should be given to areas where the density of scientists is high and national programmes are strong). The impact of alternative weights can also easily be considered by adjusting the impact value proportionally. For example, the impact of a modifier weighted at 1.O can be computed by doubling the value of impact of the modifier at 0.5. Table 9.11 displays the quantitative impacts (plus or minus) of each of the modifiers on each of the regional agroecological zones, regions and agroecological zones. Several things are clear. First, the various modifiers impact differently on each agroecological zone and region: no agroecological zone or region is favoured or disfavoured by all modifiers. That is, looking across any agroecological zone or region one does not find a consistent pattern of all pluses or all minuses. Second, the net effect of all modifiers is positive for all tropical agroecological zones (AEZs l-4) and negative for all subtropical agroecological zones (AEZs 5-9) except AEZ 9, which is found mostly in West Asia-North Africa. Third, it follows from the agroecological impacts that the sub-SaharanAfrica base is increasedby the net effect of all modifiers becausethis region contains only tropical agroecological zones. The West Asia-North Africa base is also increased by the application of all the modifiers. Table 9.10. Quantitative impact of agricultural modifiers at weight = 0.5 -____-ll_--- Table 9.11. Relative impacts of agricultural modifiers by agroecological zone and region (weight 0.5) MODIFIEI AEZI Region Yield Gap (1) (2) Malnutrition (3) GDP/ Caput (4) Urgency (5) Deforestation (6) Soil Degradation (7) Cap, Qf NARS (8) Small Country (9) Import Gap., AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -I+ + + + + + + + + + + + Region SSA WANA ASIA LAC + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 112 9.8.2. Forestry The same results for forestry are displayed in Tables 9.12 and 9.13. For the forestry analysis six modifiers were used (five are the same as for agriculture). Again, it is clear from Table 9.12 that no agroecological zone or region is consistently Table 9.12. Quantitative impact of forestry modifiers (w = 0.5) WEIGHT = 0.5 180.0 74.4 531.6 214.1 165.3 123.3 199.3 49.5 108.9 43.4 124.9 104.6 80.6 SSA WANA ASIA LAC AEZ 1 AEZ2 AEZ3 AEZ4 AEZS AEZ6 AEZ7 AEZX AEZ9 25.5 -4.9 37.2 -57.8 10.7 -8.0 -1.2 -2.1 4.9 -i .2 -1.9 5.3 -6.4 42.7 -4.5 -90.5 52.3 5.1 12.7 10.0 10.0 -10.4 -3.5 -5.8 -15.2 -2.9 -19.6 -2.5 47.9 -25.8 -14.2 -11.3 33.3 -8.1 -6.1 -1.9 2.5 9.6 -3.9 -4.7 4.0 49.9 -49.2 2.9 -4.2 -30.3 3.5 6.5 2.3 5.1 10.6 3.6 42.6 -6.5 -2.9 -33.3 10.5 -0.3 3.5 -0.6 -1.1 -0.3 -2.7 -1.6 -7.5 15.4 1.2 -32.8 16.2 -4.0 9.1 22.2 3.3 -12.7 0.7 -20.5 0.2 1.8 discriminated against or favoured by all modifiers. The net effect of the forestry modifiers is to increase the base in all tropical agroecological zones (AEZs l-4) and reduce it in all subtropical ones (AEZs S-9). This again favours sub-SaharanAfrica. 113 Table 9.13. Relative impacts of forestry modifiers by agroecological zone and region AEZI Region : .: MODIFIER. -1---1--------““1--1--*-l------IcI------------~---------- (1) .. m : GDP Deforestation per caput (3). (4) Soii Deg. .-Risk .. Woodhnd/ Caput M& nutrition (3 AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ AEZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 + + + + + + + Region SSA WANA ASIA LAC + + + + + + + + 9.8.3. Fisheries The baseline value for fisheries was modified by only one variable, the malnutrition modifier, and only on a regional basis. The results are presented in Table 9.14. The malnutrition modifier increasesthe base for sub-SaharanAfrica and reduces it in each of the other regions. This modifier had the same impact on each of the regions for agriculture and forestry as well. Table 9.14. Impact of modifier on fisheries base (weight 0.5) t- Region SSA WANA ASIA LAC Base 11.2 4.9 65.4 18.5 Modified Base 13.9 4.2 64.4 17.5 114 9.9. Impact of Modifiers 9.9-l. Agriculture 9.9.1. I. Priorities by region, agroecological zone and regional agroecological zone The effect of all the nine modifiers (all weighted at 0.5) on the priority analysis for agriculture is shown in Table 9.15. The most striking cumulative effect of the modifiers is the shift in priority from the subtropical to the tropical agroecological zones. The only subtropical agroecological zone whose priority rating increased significantly was the cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9), which predominates in West Asia-North Africa. One of the main consequences of this shift is to boost the priority for subSaharan Africa by more than 80% relative to the baseline. Asia, on the other hand, declines by almost 30% relative to the baseline. The other regional changesare relatively minor - an increase of 9% in West Asia-North Africa and a decreaseof 14% in Latin America and the Caribbean. On a regional basis, the analysis results in a final ranking of Asia at 395, subSaharan Africa at 340.24, Latin America and the Caribbean at 184.10 and West AsiaNorth Africa at 80.66. On an agroecological basis, the warm humid tropics (AEZ 3) receive the highest ranking at 274.64, the semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1) rank second with 220.78, while the subhumid tropics (AEZ 2) score third with 148. According to the analysis, the lowest priority zone appearsto be AEZ 6, the warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall. 9.9.1.2. Priorities by commodity and region Setting priorities by region and agroecological zone using the baseline and modifiers chosen by TAC would have considerable consequences for priorities among commodities. To quantify these, a method was developed for adjusting the value of production of each commodity in each regional agroecological zone by the ratio between the final priority ranking with modifiers weighted at 0.5 and the initial ranking based on value of production. The ratio is calculated by dividing the final value by regional agroecological zone as given in Table 9.15 by the value of production by regional agroecological zone as presented in Table 9.2. If modifier weights change, the ratio will have to be adjusted also. The ratio ranges from a high of 5.07 in RAEZ 1 of subSaharan Africa (AFRSl) to a low of 0.20 in RAEZ 7 (ASIA7) of Asia. Next, the value of production of each commodity in each regional agroecological zone is multiplied by the ratio obtained for that zone. This means that a crop with a high production value grown mainly in an area that is accorded low priority may end up with lower priority than a crop with a low production value grown mainly in an area that is accorded high priority. Commodities produced in RAEZ 1 of sub-Saharan Africa would increase almost fivefold in their value of production. Those produced in RAEZ 7 of Asia will reduce by more than four-fifths. These adjusted values of production of a commodity can then be aggregatedby region and by agroecological zone. The results are shown in Tables 9.16 and 9.17, which show the unadjusted and adjusted values respectively, globally and by region. 115 Table 9.15. Outcome of agriculture analysis (w = 0.5) : RAEZ/AE& REGION- : RAEZ AFRS 1 AFRS2 AFRS3 AFRS4 WANA ASIA1 ASIA2 ASIA3 ASIA5 ASIA6 ASIA7 ASIA8 LAC 1 LAC2 LAC3 LAC4 LACS LAC6 LAC7 LAC8 LAC9 Total AEZ AEZl AEZ2 AEZ3 AEZ4 AEZS AEZ6 AEZ7 AEZ8 AEZ9 Total Region AFRS WANA ASIA LAC Total : BASELINE FINAL 70.35 37.65 52.69 21.61 74.18 78.17 41.49 92.68 100.24 38.82 95.02 83.63 16.48 43.88 53.50 30.44 8.36 4.43 29.48 20.71 6.19 l~oom 165.00 123.03 198.87 52.05 108.60 43.26 124.50 104.34 80.36 1000.00 182.30 74.18 530.06 213.47 1000.00 136.41 68.01 98.31 37.51 80.66 67.66 42.82 120.15 52.75 21.20 27.17 63.26 16.71 37.17 56.18 32.12 6.86 2.47 17.15 9.68 5.75 10oq*00 220.78 148.00 275.64 69.63 59.62 23.67 44.31 72.94 86.41 1ooo.00 340.24 80.66 395.00 184.10 1000.00 116 The last column of Table 9.16, labelled “Global VOP”, shows the percentage share of each commodity in the global value of production of 35 major agricultural commodities. The total is standardized at 100. Thus rice represents 17.8% of the global value of production, wheat 6.4%) etc. The first part of the table illustrates the regional distribution of this value of production by commodity. Since regional price differences were not used in calculating the total value of production, this regional distribution reflects production only. For example, 2% of rice is produced in sub-SaharanAfrica, 1% in West Asia-North Africa, 93 % in Asia and 4% in Latin America and the Caribbean. Barley is produced predominantly (66%) in West Asia-North Africa, cassava (45 %) in sub-SaharanAfrica, and soybean (65 %) in Latin America and the Caribbean. The unadjusted baseline data are dominated by the value of production of the staple cereal crops (rice, wheat and maize), and by the large differences between regions in the production not only of cereals but of many other commodities. Banana and plantain, beef and buffalo meat, and milk are the other CGIAR commodities with a significant (> 4%) share in the value of production. The most significant aspect of the regional distribution is the dominance (> 80%) of Asia in the production of rice, sweet potato, chickpea, coconut and cabbage, which are all either CGIAR commodities already or else under consideration. Rubber and pigmeat are also of particular importance in Asia. The bulk share of sweet potato and pigmeat is produced in China. Table 9.17 presents the outcome of the weighting process. The first column repeats the basic share of each commodity in unadjusted value of production. The second column represents the adjusted share in value of production of each commodity (with modifiers weighted at 0.5). Commodities that are mostly produced in Asia and in the subtropics generally reduce in importance, while commodities produced in the tropics and in sub-SaharanAfrica generally rank higher. The right hand side of the table shows the distribution of this adjusted value of production by commodity and by region. The weighting process generally shifts the ranking of commodities in favour of sub-SaharanAfrica and away from Asia, as might be expected from the analysis above (Section 9.9.1.1). Overall, rice shifts from 17.8 to 13.2%, and on a regional basis rice in sub-SaharanAfrica increasesfrom 2% to 9%. Similar regional shifts can be seen in the casesof wheat, maize, millet and sorghum, although the overall ranking of maize does not change and those of millet and sorghum increase. In the case of wheat, the priority for West Asia-North Africa increasesfrom 9% to 26%. Other significant regional shifts include large improvements in the ranking in sub-SaharanAfrica of cassava,sweet potato, bananasand plantain, phaseolusbeans, broad beans, groundnuts, beef and buffalo meat, sheep and goat meat, and milk. 9.9.2. Forestry The results of the analysis for forestry are summarized in Table 9.18. The impact of the six modifiers on the allocation of priority by regional agroecological zone is quite variable. For example, the warm humid tropics (AEZ 3) increase in importance in sub-SaharanAfrica and Asia but decreasein Latin America and the Caribbean. The impact on the allocation to global agroecological zones is little changed. The situation is different for the regions, however. The allocation to sub-SaharanAfrica increases significantly (up 102), while the allocation to Asia increasesslightly, and that to Latin America and the Caribbean decreases(up 9 and down 102 respectively). The analysis suggeststhat Asia should receive a ranking of 461.2, sub-SaharanAfrica of 339.6, Latin 117 Table 9.16. Value of production by agricultural commodity and its regional distribution not adjusted for RAEZ priorities (% of total) COMMODITY Rice Wheat Maize Barley Sorghum Millet Cassava Potato Sweet Potato Yam Banana & Plantain Chickpea Cowpea Pigeonpea Broad Bean Lentil Beans Soybean Groundnut Coconut Tomato Onion Cabbage Orange Lemon & Lime Pineapple Grape Apple Sugar Coffee Tea Cocoa Tobacco Rubber Cotton Jute Hemp Sisal Palm Oil Beef & Buffalo Meat Sheep & Goat Meat Pigmeat Poultry Meat Milk Em Sum Grain crops Starchy crops Leguminous crops Vegetables & Fruits Other Crops Livestock 30.4 10.5 7.8 10.7 15.5 25.0 VOP 17.8 6.4 4.1 0.6 0.8 0.7 2.0 2.8 2.9 0.6 2.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.1 2.5 2.6 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.4 3.5 0.7 0.5 2.5 1.1 2.7 2.7 0.8 0.8 2.6 1.1 2.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 5.0 1.7 4.8 1.9 8.9 2.8 AFRICA 1.8 0.8 10.3 4.1 32.4 41.3 45.0 3.1 5.0 96.6 34.5 2.7 95.5 6.1 8.9 1.2 23.9 0.5 21.8 4.9 4.7 2.8 0.7 1.6 2.8 11.1 0.2 0.1 6.9 20.4 12.3 57.7 5.8 6.1 8.9 0.1 0.0 24.5 16.7 13.0 17.9 1.2 6.5 8.5 4.3 WANA 1.1 19.0 4.0 65.9 2.7 0.8 0.0 15.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 14.5 0.4 0.0 22.5 47.9 7.8 0.9 0.9 0.0 49.5 23.4 9.0 15.3 29.3 0.0 53.7 29.5 6.5 0.1 8.7 0.0 6.1 0.0 11.4 0.2 3.9 0.4 ASIA 93.0 70.0 57.5 23.0 40.3 57.6 34.6 65.1 93.1 0.8 29.2 80.3 1.9 92.4 64.0 47.8 20.2 33.3 73.5 87.9 23.0 58.9 85.1 20.7 20.6 63.7 9.1 50.7 40.1 17.0 76.6 14.6 73.4 92.8 65.1 99.0 93.1 4.2 77.7 21.3 44.0 87.7 43.7 52.2 61.5 LAT. AM 4.2 10.2 28.2 6.4 24.6 0.3 20.4 16.5 1.9 2.6 35.6 2.5 2.2 1.5 4.5 3.1 48.1 65.3 3.9 7.1 22.8 14.9 5.2 62.3 47.2 25.2 37.1 19.7 46.5 62.5 2.4 27.6 14.8 1.1 14.7 0.7 2.9 70.9 5.6 57.2 8.3 10.9 35.8 28.3 22.5 SUM 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 8.6 29.8 0.1 14.0 11.1 11.6 118 Table 9.17. Value of production by agricultural commodity adjusted for priorities by RAEZ (% of total) WEIGHT 0.5 AND BASELINE PRIORITY COMMODITY Rice Wheat Maize Barley Sorghum Millet Cassava Potato Sweet Potato Yam Banana & Plantain Chickpea Cowpea Pigeonpea Broad Bean Lentil Beans Soybean Groundnut Coconut Tomato Onion Cabbage Orange Lemon & Lime Pineapple Grape Apple Sugar Coffee Tea Cocoa Tobacco Rubber Cotton Jute Hemp Sisal Palm Oil Beef & Buffalo Meat Sheep & Goat Meat Pigmeat Poultry Meat Milk Eggs Sum Grain crops Starchy crops Leguminous crops Vegetables & Fruits Other Crops Livestock VOP 17.8 6.4 4.1 0.6 0.8 0.7 2.0 2.8 2.9 0.6 2.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.1 2.5 2.6 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.4 3.5 0.7 0.5 2.5 1.1 2.7 2.7 0.8 0.x 2.6 1.1 2.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 5.0 1.7 4.8 1.9 8.9 2.x 100.0 30.4 10.5 7.8 10.7 15.53 25.05 ADJIJSTED 13.2 4.0 4.2 0.6 1.5 1.5 4.5 2.1 1.4 1.9 3.6 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.6 1.5 3.7 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.0 0.6 0.7 1.9 0.7 2.9 3.8 0.9 2.0 1.9 1.3 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.1 5.9 2.3 3.3 2.0 9.7 2.4 100.0 25.0 13.6 8.9 8.9 18.07 25.5 33.665 AFRICA 9.0 4.3 36.1 13.4 72.6 80.8 74.7 12.3 34.2 98.7 62.0 9.2 98.8 20.6 31.2 3.8 54.4 3.5 62.5 15.1 19.2 13.2 3.3 7.1 12.9 30.9 1.0 0.4 27.2 44.1 31.1 81.4 30.2 18.2 40.6 0.7 0.0 62.9 36.8 42.5 53.5 6.6 23.7 33.5 18.5 WANA 1.2 26.4 3.3 63.7 1.3 0.3 0.0 17.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 14.4 0.1 0.0 21.9 46.5 4.9 1.2 0.5 0.0 44.9 23.3 11.1 15.9 27.3 0.0 62.7 41.1 5.2 0.1 7.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 10.7 0.2 7.4 0.2 0.0 6.3 19.0 0.1 11.9 8.9 11.5 ASIA 84.8 60.3 39.0 17.9 15.4 18.9 16.3 51.9 62.7 0.3 16.2 73.7 0.5 77.9 42.5 46.9 12.0 23.9 35.2 79.4 15.7 49.2 77.6 15.7 19.4 49.7 7.0 37.3 27.9 13.0 60.4 6.6 45.9 80.9 34.9 98.5 87.0 1.0 58.5 14.6 23.0 78.7 32.5 36.2 46.2 LAT. AM 5.0 8.9 21.5 5.1 10.7 0.1 9.0 17.9 2.9 1 .o 21.4 2.8 0.6 1.5 4.5 2.7 28.8 71.3 1.x 5.4 20.2 14.3 8.1 61.3 40.4 19.4 29.4 21.2 39.6 42.8 1.3 12.0 16.6 0.9 13.9 0.7 5.6 35.9 4.x 36.6 4.5 14.6 31.8 21.4 23.8 SUM 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 loo.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 109.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 39.7228 18.5053 100.0 119 Table 9.18. Outcome of forestry analysis (w = 0.5) RAEZ AFRSl AFRS2 AFRS3 AFRS4 WANA I ASIA1 ASIA2 ASIA3 ASIA5 ASIA6 ASIA7 ASIA8 LACl LAC2 LAC3 LAC4 LACS LAC6 LAC7 LAC8 75.77 46.61 95.75 19.59 33.88 63.77 43.86 136.32 57.50 18.62 48.18 84.12 22.42 69.16 105.92 34.38 5.74 1.33 20.14 8.53 104.51 67.27 138.52 29.34 20.74 53.67 43.84 178.62 40.45 15.25 31.98 97.42 14.71 46.54 58.40 30.69 3.84 0.84 13.00 4.28 6.10 1000.00 AEZ AEZI AEZ2 AEZ3 AEZ4 AEZS AEZ6 AEZ7 AEZ8 AEZ9 rota1 Region 161.97 159.62 337.99 53.98 63.23 19.96 68.32 92.65 42.28 1000.00 237.72 33.88 452.38 276.02 1000,OO 172.89 157.65 375.54 60.03 44.29 16.08 44.98 101.70 26.84 1ooo.00 339.64 20.74 461.22 178.40 1ooo.00 AFkS WANA ASIA LAC I Total 120 America and the Caribbean of 178.4, and West Asia-North Africa of 20.7. The most important zone appears to be the warm humid tropics (AEZ 3), which receives 375.5, while the warm subhumid subtropics receive only 16.08. 9.93. Fisheries Table 9.19. Outcome of analysis on fisheries with weight = 0.5 The impact of the malnutrition modifier on the priority allocation across regions for fisheries is shown in Table 9.19. The modifier increasesthe ranking of sub-SaharanAfrica but decreasesthat of the other three regions. The analysis suggestsan allocation to sub-Saharan Africa of 138.8, to West Asia-North Africa of 42.43, to Asia of 643.83 and to Latin America and the Caribbean of 174.9. INITIAL SSA WANA ASIA 111.77 48.53 654.37 185.32 1ooo.00 FINAL 138.81 42.43 643.83 174.92 1000.00 LAC TOTAL 9.10. Impacts of Changing Modifier Weights 9.10.1. All modifiers increased and decreasedequally: agriculture, forestry and fisheries So far, TAC has reported the values of the baseline adjusted by all modifiers weighted at 0.5. TAC also conducted analysesusing weights of 0.25 and 1.OO. Because the model is linear, three observations are sufficient to enable the reader to extrapolate to further weighting levels. The results for the regional distribution of priority for agriculture, forestry and fisheries are presented in Table 9.20. The modifiers have significant impacts on regional distribution. For example, agriculture in sub-SaharanAfrica has a base priority of 18.0. Weighting all modifiers at 0.25 increasedthat to 25.8. Weighting at 0.5 increased it still further to 33.7; and a weight of 1 increased it to 47.4. Choosing a weight of 1 nearly doubles the African value over its level at a weighting of 0.25. The agricultural modifiers favour both sub-SaharanAfrica and West Asia-North Africa, so their share rises as the weights are increased. In contrast the share of Asia is almost cut in half when the modifiers are weighted at 1. In forestry, the modifiers favour sub-SaharanAfrica at the expense of all other regions. In this region the importance of forestry rises from 28.9 % at a weighting of 0.25, to 44.1% at 1. All other regions decline, but more slowly than for agriculture. This results from using only six modifiers instead of nine. The analysis of fisheries used only one modifier. It favours sub-Saharan Africa, but not heavily. The result is that the redistribution across regions when weights are adjusted is much less pronounced. Clearly, the choice of the level of weight to be attached to modifiers changes the priority ranking considerably. 121 Table 9.20. Impact of changing all modifier weights equally: regional distribution for agriculture, forestry and fisheries Region/Production Sector SSA Agriculture Forestry Fisheries WANA Agriculture Forestry Fisheries ASIA Agriculture Forestry Fisheries LAC Agriculture Forestry Fisheries Total 1.00 6) 18.2 23.8 11.2 7.4 3.4 4.8 53.2 45.2 65.4 21.4 27.6 18.5 100 25.8 28.9 12.5 7.8 2.7 4.5 46.4 45.7 64.9 20.0 22.7 18.0 100 34.0 34.0 13.9 8.1 2.1 4.2 39.5 46.1 64.4 18.4 17.8 17.5 100 47.4 44.1 16.6 8.4 0.8 3.6 29.1 47.0 63.3 15.1 8.1 16.4 100 I 9.10.2. Sensitivity to Changing One Weight TAC also explored the sensitivity of the results to changing the weight attached to a single modifier. The framework for agriculture was changed for each of five modifiers receiving a weight of 2 while all others stayed at 0.5. The analysis was done one at a time for the following modifiers: GDP per caput, deforestation, soil degradation, small country, and import gap. The results are reported in Table 9.21. The analysis is very enlightening. Heavily weighting one of the modifiers causessubstantial changes in the regional distribution of priority. Weighting GDP per caput at 2 more than doubles sub-SaharanAfrica’s share, while cutting Latin America and the Caribbean by a factor of 3. On the other hand, weighting deforestation at 2 doubles Latin America and the Caribbean and cuts Asia by more than half. Weighting soil degradation risk at 2 reduces sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America and the Caribbean but increases Asia substantially. Weighting the small country modifier at 2 slashesAsia and increasesthe other three regions. Finally, weighting the self-reliance modifier at 2 doubles West Asia-North Africa’s allocation, mostly at the expenseof sub-Saharan Africa. The results reinforced TAC’s initial decision to select uniform weights. Trying to determine different weights for each modifier would open the process to special interest Table 9.21. Sensitivity of regional baselines to change in the weight of a single modifier (agriculture) Modified Baseline Baseline all at 0.5 % GDP/Cap = 2 Others = 0.5 % Defores. = 2 Others = 0.5 %’ Soil Deg. = 2 Others = 0.5 % Small C = 2 Others = 0.5 % Imp. Gap ‘= 2 Others = 0.5 ,,% % SSA WANA ASIA LAC TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 123 groups, each campaigning for higher weights on a modifier known to benefit its own region. For the remainder of the analysis, uniform weights are therefore used. 9.10.3. Sensitivity of adjusted commodity values, and their regional distribution, to modifier weights: agriculture The method by which the value of production of agricultural commodities was adjusted for priorities by region and by agroecological zone was outlined in Section 9.9.1.2. The results there reflected the use of a uniform weight across modifiers of 0.5. To explore the sensitivity of the distribution of adjusted values of production of commodities, TAC tested the impact of weighting all modifiers at 0.25 and at 1. Table 9.22. Sensitivity of modified relative commodity value to baseline and modifier adjustment (selected CGIAR commodities - % global value) Baseline Modified with. , Weighted ----------, VOP 1/ 0.25 15.6 5.7 4.4 0.6 1.1 1.0 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.6 5.3 14.4 4.9 4.3 0.6 1.3 1.2 3.7 2.4 1.9 3.1 5.6 saselir VOP E: eights ----- ------a 0.50 1.00 13.2 4.0 4.2 0.6 1.5 1.5 4.5 2.1 1.4 3.6 5.9 11.6 2.5 4.1 0.6 1.9 1.9 5.9 1.6 1.0 Selected CGIAR Commodities Rice Wheat Maize Barley Sorghum Millet Cassava Potato Sweet Potato Bananas Beef and Buffalo Value of Production (VW 17.8 6.4 4.1 0.6 0.8 0.7 2.0 2.8 2.9 2.1 5.0 1 - 4.4 6.3 Columns will not add up to 100 because only selected CGIAR commodities are included The results for selected CGIAR commodities on a global basis are presented in Table 9.22. Some commodities are very sensitive to the weight given to all modifiers while others are not. The higher the weight attachedto modifiers the smaller the shares of rice, wheat and sweet potato, and the higher the sharesof cassava,sorghum, millet and banana. The first three commodities are produced mainly in Asia, while the latter are associatedmore with sub-SaharanAfrica. Given that the modifiers on balance give more weight to sub-Saharan Africa and less to Asia, the higher the weight, the more the modified commodity base shifts toward sub-SaharanAfrican commodities. However, it should also be noted that other commodities are redistributed less by the analysis: the relative values attached to maize, barley, beef and buffalo meat change little at different weights. 124 The regional analysis for five CGIAR commodities is contained in Table 9.23. Comparing unweighted values of production by region to modified values weighted at 1 reveals that modification in some casescausesenormous shifts among regions. The most extreme is in sweet potato, where the share with modifiers weighted at 1 is 69% for subSaharan Africa compared to levels of 5 % for unweighted value of production and 12% for weighted baseline. The inter-regional shifts are also pronounced in sorghum (away from Asia towards sub-SaharanAfrica), wheat (away from Asia towards West Asia-North Africa) and beef and buffalo (away from Latin America and the Caribbean towards subSaharan Africa). Even in rice the relative allocation to sub-SaharanAfrica increases sixfold over the unweighted value of production. Table 9.23. Sensitivity of regional distribution of commodity VOP unweighted, baseline and modified (selected CGIAR commodities: distribution across regions) Selected CGIAR : Region Commodities SSA Valuelof Production. jvopj 2 Baseline Weight&l ’ .VOP 4 Mr+fied ElaselineVOP 6 8 14 r-- SSA I I / 1 10 32 I I9 2 I 19 3 1 LAC 1 SSA WANA SORGHUM ASIA LAC SWEET POTATO SSA WANA ASIA LAC SSA WANA ASIA LAC 4 26 60 9 10 44 38 8 53 1 64 1 21 13 34 0 63 3 BEEF AND BUFFALO 13 9 21 57 25 6 19 49 34 6 17 43 43 6 15 37 56 6 11 26 9.10.4. TAC’s Conclusions Regarding Weights The sensitivity analysis helped TAC reach two conclusions on weights. First, as noted above, TAC firmly believes that all weights across modifiers should be equal, Second, given the sensitivity of the regional, agroecological and commodity distributions of priorities to higher weights, TAC in its analysis used a uniform weight across modifiers of 0.25 and 0.5. 125 9.11. Expected Productivity Gains The rate of progress that can be achievedby a centre in raising the stable biological yield ceilings of its mandated commodities is an important factor to take into account when setting CGIAR priorities by commodity. The centres have provided TAC with an estimate of the productivity gains they hope to achieve in each of the regional agroecological zones for their mandate commodities (Annex 5). The rates range from less than 1% per annum for unfavourable environments to more than 3 % for favourable environments. For cereals, the expected productivity gains in most zones are l-2% per annum, but exceed 3 % in the case of wheat and maize for some zones in all four regions. For roots and tubers, the expected gains in general are less than 2% per annum, and in some zones less than 0.5 %. Estimates for cassavaand sweet potato differ markedly depending on the centre concerned. For banana the expected gains in all zones are less than 1%) except in the humid tropics in sub&aharan Africa where they are l-2% per annum. For grain legumes and oilseeds, expected gains are generally 0.5-l % per annum or lower, except for cowpea and soybean in the subhumid zone, and cowpea in the semi-arid zone, where gains of l-3 % per annum are expected. (However, the AVRDC estimate for soybean in the subhumid zone of sub-SaharanAfrica is much lower, less than 0.5% per annum. For vegetables, expected gains are generally in the range 0.5-2% per annum. For livestock products, the expected.gains estimated by ILCA are generally in the range 0.5-2% per annum, but estimates from ILRAD are generally 0.5-l % higher. These estimates have to be considered with caution. The agroecological zonation used by the centres is generally very different to that used by TAC, making the estimates problematic. The difficulty of disaggregating the progress made by the centres from that made by other agenciessuch as national research institutes and extension services further complicates the estimating process. 9.12. Importance of Particular Commodities for the Poor In allocating priorities by agricultural commodity, an important criteria is the importance of particular commodities for the poor, either as a staple food, as a source of income or within farming systems. In order to incorporate such an equity perspective in CGIAR priority assessment,TAC made substantial efforts to collect information on the location of the poor and the use they make of particular commodities. Some of this information was compiled for TAC in a background paper prepared by 1FPR.I(Broca and Oram, 1991). In sub-SaharanAfrica, poor people depend heavily on millet and sorghum, and, to a lesser extent, on maize (especially in Eastern Africa) and on wheat and barley (in the highlands). Groundnuts and beans are the main source of non-cereal protein. Cassava, plantains, sweet potatoes and potatoes also contribute to the diet. Livestock and their 126 products are particularly important for income and employment generation, in addition to providing high quality protein. In South Asia, rice and wheat are the most important staples of the poor, although millet and sorghum remain the staples of the poorest in the driest areas. Pulses are important sources of protein, and consumption of potato is increasing rapidly. Milk and fish are also of importance, for nutrition and income generation. In SoutheastAsia, rice is the dominant food crop, followed by maize and cassava. Coconuts, oil palm and sweet potato are important energy sources. Pulses, groundnut, soybean, poultry and fish are major sourcesof non-cereal protein for the poor also. In South America, diets of the poor are dominated by maize and rice. Cassava in the warm tropics, potatoes in the highlands and banana/plantain are also important sources of energy. Pulses, particularly phaseolusbeans, are the main source of protein for the poor together with cereals, meat and milk. Vegetable oil and sugar are also important energy sources. In Central America, maize is even more dominant in the staple diet of the poor. Banana and plantain are the main starchy staple, phaseolusbeans an important source of energy and protein, together with sugar and fats and oils. The study by Broca and Oram (1991) highlights the importance of key cereals in the diet of the poor. These are millet, sorghum and maize in Africa, rice and wheat in South Asia, rice and maize in SoutheastAsia, and maize and rice in South and Central America. Information on the West Asia-North Africa region was not available. In addition to rice and maize, cassava,coconut, sugar and plantain are dietary staples in the more humid zones; in the drier zones cereals are supplementedby cassava,bananas, sweet potatoes, groundnuts and pulses. Potatoes are increasing in importance, and surveys show that horticultural crops, and oil seedsmake a significant and probably under-rated contribution to the nutrition of the poor. While the rising productivity of rice and wheat has increased their dominance in the diet in Asia and in the warm tropics and subtropics of South America, surveys also indicate a trend toward greater diversification of the diet, with increasing contribution of pulses, vegetable oils, horticultural and livestock products over time. It is difficult to assessthe importance of particular commodities for the poor in a quantitative way. One possible indicator would be the value of income elasticity of demand by commodity. Where this value is low, the commodity is likely to be consumed mainly by low-income groups. The indicator does have an important conceptual weakness however. Many commodities with high income elasticity of supply, such as beef, are also preferred commodities of the poor and are often important staples. Each CGIAR mandate commodity is important for the poor in at least one of the regions, and there is not really a basis for discrimination among them while allocating global CGIAR priorities. It should also be recalled that the selection of particular crops as CGIAR mandate commodities has usually been based largely on the criterion of their importance for the poor. 127 Although other commodities under consideration, particularly industrial crops, may not appear to be directly important for the diet or farming system of the poor, they may contribute substantially to an income and employment generating capacity for landless labourers. While TAC had no quantitative basis in priority setting to discriminate between commodities on the basis of their importance for the poor, it incorporated this perspective in a qualitative way. 9.13. Spillovers An important consideration in the planning of international research is the likely size of spillover effects that will result from a researchactivity, i.e. benefits of research undertaken in one region or agroecological zone but applicable to other areas, especially in those with similar agricultural environments. Spillovers are one of the prime justifications for international agricultural research. They are particularly relevant at the strategic and, though less so, the applied research levels. They constitute the CGIAR’s primary comparative advantage. An efficient CGIAR programme will seek spillover effects and avoid duplication of strategic and applied research activities. The only spillover coefficients available to TAC are those derived by ACIAR for their research priorities framework as discussedin the following section. Spillovers are most valid for research done in an RAEZ acrossthe rest of the same AEZs. The criterion of spillovers is not relevant to adaptive research (not a major activity of the CGIAR) or directly to.capacity building where the impact is restricted to the country or region concerned. The spillover effects by commodity by RAEZ, as estimated by the ACIAR framework, were considered by TAC in its consideration of priorities by commodity. 9.14. Additional Inputs: The ACIAR Framework ACIAR has developed an information system to assist with its own resource allocation decisions. The system consists of a multi-regional international trade model using the concept of economic surplus to derive ex ante measuresof the relative economic benefits of alternative commodity and regional researchportfolios. Its starting point is the research expenditure neededto cause a 5 % reduction in the unit cost of production of a commodity. The economic benefits of such research are proportional to the value of production of the commodity. The distribution of these benefits among consumers, producers, importers and exporters is also estimated. The model allows for an assessmentof the spillover effects of research on particular commodities to other environments. It also enablesjudgements about the relative strength of research and extension systems and rural infrastructure to be made. The ACIAR framework allows analysis to be conducted at the international level, includes all major production and consumption regions of the world and is based on FAO’s agroecological zone concepts. Details on the system and its results are provided in Davis et al (1987), Ryan and Davis (1990), Davis et al (1988), Feam and Davis (1991) and Ryan et al (1991). 128 Table 9.24 shows the results of an analysis using the ACIAR framework for 24 different agricultural commodities for the developing world as a whole. Table 9.24. Expected returns from commodity research in developing countries according to ACIAR 1 Commodity Rice Milk Wheat Potato Maize Sweet Potato Sugar Cotton Soybean All Pulses Beef/Buffalo Meat Oil Palm Sheep/Goat Meat Bananas/Plantains Coffee Rubber Oranges/Tangerines Cassava Groundnut Coconut Sorghum Millet Cocoa Wool 828 249 206 176 171 171 105 98 89 88 77 69 51 49 44 40 33 32 25 24 23 19 18 16 Agroecological Zones (as used in ACIAR framework): 1 2 3 4 5 = = = = = Warm, seasonally dry tropics Warm, humid tropics Cool tropics Warm, seasonally dry subtropics (summer rain) Warm, humid subtropics (summer rain) Source: Compiled from Ryan et al., 1991 129 Researchon rice has, by far, the highest expectedeconomic benefits to producers and consumers. The expectedbenefits are more than three times those for milk, the second most important commodity. Researchon wheat, potato, maize and sweet potato also generateslarge economic benefits. With respect to tree products, the analysis shows the attractivenessof fuelwood as a high priority research commodity, even when compared with agricultural commodities. Substantial benefits could also be derived from research on saw and veneer logs. Taking all the developing countries together, only rice, potato and sweet potato seem to have less investment by the CGIAR than suggestedby ACIAR’s analysis. The other CGIAR commodities appear to receive more resourcesthan merited. This applies especially to ruminant livestock, pulses, sorghum, millet, banana/plantain and cassava. ACIAR also notes that there are many commodities receiving no CGIAR support yet which could be expectedto generateeconomic benefits to developing countries far in excessof some of the current commodities included in the CGIAR portfolio. ACIAR has also assessed researchpriorities by commodity assuming that maximization of regional benefits would be the primary objective. The table that reports the results of this analysis is attached as Annex 6. The commodities used in this analysis are separatedinto six research priority groups for each region. The allocation of a commodity to a priority group in a specific region is based on the estimated economic benefits of research on it, relative to the benefits of research on the commodity which has the highest expected benefits for that region. For example, in West Asia-North Africa, investment in wheat research is expectedto provide the greatest benefits. If the benefits for this commodity are divided by the expectedbenefits for each other commodity in the same region, an indication of relative benefits is obtained. Using the West Asia-North Africa example again, the benefits to the region of investment in wheat research are twice as high as those resulting from milk research, eleven times those of maize research, and 641 times those of groundnut research. According to ACIAR, priority ranking 1 is allocated when the range of break-over relativity is between 1 and 3, priority ranking 2 when between 3 and 7, priority ranking 3 when between 7 and 15, priority ranking 4 when between 15 and 25, priority ranking 5 when between 25 and 40, and priority ranking 6 when over 40. When the priority ranking is 1 or 2 it is considered high, when 3 or 4 medium, and when 5 or 6 low. Table 9.25 summarizes the results of this analysis for selected CGIAR commodities and regions. According to these results, investment in rice research should receive high priority in every region except sub-SaharanAfrica. Investment in wheat research should be high priority in West Asia-North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South Asia. The table reveals some interesting differences between the ACIAR analysis and that of TAC. For example, TAC’s analysis suggestsa high ranking for banana research in sub-SaharanAfrica, while ACIAR allocates only medium priority to banana research. TAC’s analysis also allocates greater priority to millet and groundnut research in sub-SaharanAfrica than does the ACIAR analysis. ACIAR has also investigated the relationship between the share of each commodity in each region in total CGIAR commodity research and the relative 130 contributions research on each commodity can be expected to make to the generation of regional economic benefits (Ryan and Davis, 1990). In Asia, there appearsto be significant overinvestment in millet, sorghum and groundnut, and some overinvestment in pulses and rice. These commodities benefit at the expense of wheat and livestock. In addition, non-CGIAR commodities such as cotton, sugar, pahn oil, demersal and small pelagic fish, rubber, herring, soybean and coconut appear to be neglected given their potential to contribute to economic growth. In Latin America and the Caribbean, pulses, sweet potato and millet would appear to have an over-generous share of CGIAR funding, while ruminant livestock, banana/plantain and cassava,rice and sorghum seem relatively underfunded. Table 9.25. Priority ranking by commodity with maximization of regional benefits as research objective according to ACIAR South:East Asia H L M L L L L L H L L M L M L Commodity Rice Wheat Maize Sorghum Millet Cassava Potato Sweet Potato Banana Groundnut Soybean Beef & Buffalo Milk Sheep Pulses South Asia H H M H H M H L M H M M H H H SSA M L M L M H L L M M L H H H L WANA H H H L M L H L M L M H H H H LAC H H H M L H M L H L H H H H H H = high priority ranking, M = medium priority ranking, L = low priority ranking Source: Ryan et al., 1991 In sub-SaharanAfrica, most CGIAR commodities with the exception of banana/plantain and cassava,millet and groundnut appear to have sharesof funding considerably in excessof their likely contributions to economic growth. This applies especially to livestock, rice, pulses, sorghum and maize. Again, the opportunity costs of neglecting other, non-CGIAR commodities are substantial. In West Asia-North Africa, there would appear to be an overemphasison wheat and pulse research, especially on the latter. Rice research appearsto deserve some attention, but currently there is little CGIAR investment in this crop, no doubt because ICARDA’s mandate precludes irrigation research. As in the other regions, there are 131 several non-CGIAR commodities that offer equal or better prospectsof enhancing economic growth than do current CGIAR commodities. 9.15. Conclusion This chapter reports on the quantitative analysis TAC has undertaken to supplement the more qualitative analysis of Chapters 4 to 8. The aim of the quantitative analysis was not to derive conclusions but to clarify the implications of making particular choices. The results provide further inputs for TAC’s consideration prior to making recommendations on CGIAR priorities. How TAC has arrived at its recommendations is reported upon in Chapter 12. 132 CHAPTER 10 - INSTITUTION BUILDING Introduction The CGIAR was created as an international mechanism for funding technological research at specialized institutes (the centres), with the aim of transferring the products of that research to the developing countries. As the CGIAR System has evolved, however, the centres have devoted an increasing share of their efforts to strengthening national research systems. In so doing, they have fostered a multiplicity of relationships with these systems that contribute directly to research and, indirectly, to institution building. CGIAR support for centre activities appearsto be increasingly influenced by the policies of some of the System’s donor members, who seem to believe that the CGIAR should be used as a mechanism for direct support to national research systems. More than a quarter of the System’s resourcesare now allocated to institution building, while the other CGIAR activities also directly contribute to strengthening natural research capacity. The involvement of the CGIAR in strengthening national research systems has reached a ceiling. TAC’s view is that the CGIAR should not be directly involved in technical assistancebut focus on its complementary role through technology development and partnership. TAC stressesthat, to maintain the momentum of its achievements, the CGIAR must not allow its support for a balanced approach to international research and institution building to become distorted by activities that are more appropriately undertaken by development agenciesthan by research institutes. The alternative could be to restructure the centres so that they are better equipped to fulfil a development role. 10.2. Training The centres have made a major contribution to strengthening national research capacity through training. Broadly defined, training receives high priority in CGIAR efforts and in 1990 accounted for more than 8 % of total CGIAR resources. Table 10.1 provides information on the number of CGIAR trainees by type of training by region. During the past five years alone, more than 25,000 professionals have been trained through CGIAR efforts. More than a third of these came from sub-SaharanAfrica. More than SO%of people trained were group trainees, while 8% received graduate training. Training in the CGIAR servestwo purposes: transferring technology from the centres to national research systems, and building national capacity to identify problems, conduct research, and develop and adapt technology. The System’s contribution is enhancedby the intimate link it provides between training and technology development. Due to the heterogeneity in national capacities and needs, there is a wide spectrum in the types of training offered. Centres provide courses on the production and breeding of a broad range of commodities. In the more specialized courses, a broad range of disciplines and skills is encompassed,such as onfarm researchmethods, sophisticated techniques for strategic research, and the managementof research programmes and institutions. The CGIAR System also provides degree-relatedand mid-career training for 133 Table 10.1. Regional training in the CGPAR (198589) Source: CGIAR Secretariat individuals. It considers these to be vital, both to the process of technology transfer and to the process of forging more fruitful collaboration between centres and national research systems, universities and other specialized institutions, TAC’s views on training have largely been shapedby the outcome of its training study (TACKGIAR, 1986). In 1985, TAC recommendedthat training should continue to receive high priority within the CGIAR System. However, there should be some shifts in emphasis in the long term corresponding to the changing roles of partners in the global research system. As the System’s training efforts have progressed, some programmes (mainly production courses) have been successfully transferred to national institutions, with backstopping from the centres. TAC encouragesthis process as an effective way of expanding the impact of the centres’ training efforts, and recommends that it be intensified in the future. To this end, centres should collaborate with national systems to help them strengthen their capacity to organize and conduct production-oriented courses. TAC has already advised that the centres should scale down their production and breeding courses at headquarters. Decentralized training is more applicable to national needs and conditions, as well as less expensive. Instead, centres should concentrate on the training of trainers to work at the national level, and on the preparation of training materials. In 1985, TAC recommendedthat the centres should continue to offer at headquartersthe short, highly focused courses in researchmethods and specialized skills. In both of these areas, TAC encouragedgreater inter-centre cooperation, which would result in enhancedcost-efficiency. TAC considered that midcareer training should continue and that the degree-relatedprogrammes should be strengthened, primarily at the M.Sc. and Ph.D. level. For most commodities and regions, there is a need to continue to reduce CGIAR involvement in production-oriented courses. Such courses should not be funded through core resources of the CGIAR. Complementary funding for courses is readily available from bilateral donors. Responsibility for the organization of production-oriented courses should be transferred to regional mechanismsor to strong national programmes willing to accept regional responsibilities. CGIAR Centres have already provided training 134 to a high proportion of national programme scientists, and diminishing returns to further investments may be experienced. In the future, the CGIAR will have to give greater attention to training that will equip national scientists to deal with the mounting concern for sustainability and resource management issues. It will also have to develop training activities in fisheries, forestry and agroforestry, as national capacities in these areas are very weak at present. With respect to agricultural research, the System should give higher priority to training in research management, possibly through close collaboration between ISNAR and the centres, and to postdoctoral fellowships. Although efforts will be required in the new areas of forestry and fisheries and the managementof natural resources, it must be recognized that there is a need for lead time for research to develop a training capacity. 10.3. Information In any research institution, information is required as a key input into its activities (as data, methods, techniques, etc), but it is also an output of those activities (as published results of experiments, annual reports, etc). The CGIAR Centres have a requirement for information inputs similar to those of other research institutes, but they have a much more important information output function. They exist to serve the developing countries in research and training; they have a commitment to assist them in strengthening their own capabilities; and they also have a truly international role to play in bringing national research programmes closer together to promote collective activities, including the free exchange of knowledge, information and genetic resources. Advances in information technology provide unprecedentedopportunities for increasing the speed and reducing the cost of conducting agricultural research. New ways of collecting, storing, processing, communicating and disseminating information have already begun to influence how agricultural researcherspractise their profession. New communication technology has opened new avenuesfor collaborative research, providing links among programmes that are scattered around the globe. The individual CGIAR Institutions and the System as a whole need to take full advantageof the opportunities offered by the information revolution. Not only do individual centres need to adjust their internal information managementmechanismsto take full account of advancesin technology, but the System needs to examine its component mechanisms to ensure appropriate inter-centre “coupling” and information compatibility. As part of the same process, centres also need to examine how their systems could be coupled to those of national institutions in the developing countries, as well as to those of other actors on the international scene such as FAO and CABI. In the long term, national research systems in developing countries should be able to participate as fully fledged actors in the global research effort. To do so, they need to narrow the widening gap in information technology between themselves and their partners in international research. In the short and medium term, the centres have an obligation to collaborate with others in helping the national systems to build or upgrade their information management capacities. Also in the long term, emerging information and communication technology will enable the components of the global agricultural research community to be linked to 135 each other more closely than at present. As the demand for new information products and services increases, cost-effective ways of meeting that demand will be sought. Whether under the CGIAR umbrella or not, there will probably be a need for an international mechanism to coordinate global information products and services, using decentralized nodes around the globe. 10.4. Organization and Management Counselling The needs and demands on the CGIAR System for assistancein organization and management counselling are great - well beyond its capacity to respond. The most pressing needs arise in the poorer and smaller countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where research capacity must be strengthenedif the current problems are to be solved. The CGIAR System’s responseto national needs for institution building, although modest in terms of resources, is broadly based. The centres have all played important roles in institutional development including, the organization of research networks, the provision of consulting services, and the creation of links between national systems and specialized research institutes. The impact of these efforts has been somewhat uneven, however, as much of it has been limited to the context of specific activities determined by individual centre mandates. For almost ten years, the centres’ efforts have been complemented, however, by those of the lead centre ISNAR, which provides, on a country-by-country basis, a comprehensive, integrated and systematic approach to strengthening national agricultural research systems. The impact of this approach has not yet been systematically evaluated, but its appeal has been demonstratedby the number of demands for assistancereceived from national systems, which outrun ISNAR’s capacity to respond. With its limited resources, ISNAR plays an essentially catalytic role, focusing on the diagnosis and analysis of institutional constraints and the development of managementapproachesto overcome them. ISNAR’s objective is to help national systemsto help themselves, in cooperation with other centres and with multilateral and bilateral development assistance agencies. ISNAR is currently revising its strategy and has recently undergone an external review. The report of the external review will be presentedto the CGIAR in 1992. At that time TAC will make specific recommendationson the role of ISNAR in an expanded and restructured CGIAR. In 1986, TAC considered that institutional weaknesseswould continue to place major limitations on technology generation and adaptation in the national systems of many countries in the short to medium term. This would reduce the potential impact of CGIAR research, which relied on further applied and adaptive research at national levels to facilitate technology adoption. TAC therefore recommendedthat institution building should remain a high priority area for the CGIAR System in the future. TAC considered that the essentially catalytic role of the CGIAR in institution building was highly appropriate for the challenges ahead. It recommended that the System should continue to play a lead role in developing closer links and more effective collaboration between national systems, the centres themselves, and external sourcesof 136 expertise and funding, such as the multilateral and bilateral development assistance agencies. Experience had shown that innovative approachesto institution building on a comprehensive country-by-country basis will be necessaryfor strengthening agricultural research in the poorer countries. TAC believed that the CGIAR System should play a lead role in stimulating and organizing such approaches. Building national research capacity is one of the goals of the CGIAR. As the Impact Study and the external reviews have indicated, the CGIAR Centres have made enormous contributions to strengthening national research systemsthrough their activities in training, information and the development of technology. In future, collaborative relationships between the CGIAR Centres and national research systems will increasingly augment the System’s more traditional contribution to institution building. 10.5. Relationships between CGIAR Centres and National Research Systems The term national research system is now used by TAC to include all those institutions in the public and private sectors, including universities, that are potentially capable of contributing to research related to the development of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. These institutions vary greatly in their strengths and weaknessesin a multiplicity of ways and for a wide variety of reasons. Research capacity in national research systemsmay suffer from deficiencies such as an insufficient number of trained scientists, the quality of their education, or the effectiveness of their leadership. The suitability of the environment to engender productive research may also vary enormously. Researchmay be inhibited by deficiencies such as lack of adequateresearch facilities, lack of accessto information, lack of prospects for career development, or unstable budgetary support. By inference there is a large array of potential weaknessesin national research systems. In this document the terms “stronger” and “weaker” national research systems are used to imply that the stronger are more likely, and the weaker less likely, to deliver a worthwhile research output, whatever the causesmight be. Currently, there is no comprehensive statement of CGIAR policy on the relationships between CGIAR Centres and national research systems in the developing countries. The policies applied by TAC in assessingcentre programmes and budgets are based on the series of policy documents that have come before the Group from time to time. Among these, the most relevant are the First Review of the CGIAR (1976), the Second Review of the CGIAR (1981), and the 1985 TAC Review of CGIAR Priorities and Future Strategies (TACKGIAR 1987b). The documents are consistent in that they regard the CGIAR Institutions, with the exception of ISNAR and IBPGR, as being primarily research institutions, but with additional roles in closely related aspectsof training, information services and, in some instances, the dissemination of germplasm. They are also consistent in recommending that the centres should not become directly involved in national research programmes, except when there is a clear need to do so, on a selective basis, in order to fulfil their mandates. 137 None of these earlier documents has penetrated deeply into such questions as the extent to which centres should or should not become directly involved in strengthening national research systems. Nor have they discussedin detail the extent to which the international research funded by the CGIAR might be undertaken by the national systems themselves rather than by the centres. 10.5.1. Appropriate Roles for CGIAR Centres Individual scientists and research institutions collaborate in many different ways to undertake research. Any of these relationships can also involve an international organization, or a donor agency, not in the role of research, but in a facilitating or strengthening role. Becauseof the involvement of centres in roles of this type, TAC has distinguished among several different, but inter-related types of activity, some of which it regards as entirely legitimate for CGIAR Centres while others appear more controversial. It is important to distinguish between strengthening the relationships among the participants in collaborative research, and strengthening the research capacity of one or more of them. Examples of strengthening relationships in research may be seen in the ways in which many different international organizations seek to fulfil their mandates. For example, most of the organizations operating under the auspicesof the ICSU function in this way. Typically, an ICSU organization acts as a catalyst to collaborative research by convening symposia, paying travel expenses,assisting in the publication of conference proceedings and, generally, encouraging or strengthening the relationships among the participants. The CGIAR Centres do likewise for the networks they support. To function effectively in these roles, the centres have often outposted staff members to regional offices to act as liaison scientists and in coordinating and consultancy roles. TAC defines this type of assistanceas “catalytic assistance”- aimed at increasing output through stimulating the reaction, rather than by augmenting one of the reagents. Strengthening the relationships among scientists and institutions in developing countries, and between them and the centres, through catalytic assistancehas an important institution-building function. In this respect, catalytic assistancecan make important contributions to strengthening national research capacity. Other forms of assistanceare designed to augment national research capacity more directly. This type of assistanceto national research systemscomprises various forms of technical and financial assistance. Financial assistance in this context includes capital grants for laboratories, equipment, vehicles etc, as well as any funding designed to supplement the normal research budget of a developing country, or the emoluments of its staff. Most donors define technical assistanceas the provision of expertise that is a substitute for national expertise. It is sometimes difficult, however, to distinguish clearly between substituting for national expertise in a “technical assistance”role and working with national scientists in an “institution-building” role. In general, outposted centre scientists are regarded as fulfilling an institution-building role when they work with a group of countries, rather than with a single country. But working with individual countries on a strictly temporary or consultancy basis can also be regarded as a contribution to institution building, especially if training or scientific exchange is 138 involved. TAC has used the term “research assistance”to include technical assistance, financial assistance,or any combination of the two. It uses other terms only when they are essential for clarity. “Research assistance”, as defined above, is central to the controversy surrounding what the CGIAR Centres should or should not do. It hinges on the extent to which centres should become involved in the provision of research assistance,or its administration, within bilateral projects. Although research assistancedirectly strengthens national research capacity, it does not necessarily do so on a sustainablebasis. TAC’s view is that the CGIAR Centres should make their main contributions to strengthening national research systemsthrough scientific collaboration, and by providing the outputs of their work in the form of information and improved genetic material. As they were created to serve the needs of developing countries, however, they are also expected to contribute to institution building through training and other activities. As already described, their training activities extend well beyond those associatedwith post graduate degrees into specialized training courses for scientists at all stagesof their careers, reflecting changing needs and perspectives. The centres are also expected to provide catalytic assistanceto strengthen collaboration among scientists and institutions in every way that is possible and appropriate. Some or all of these activities might also involve the outposting of centre scientists to work with groups of countries in the most important regions served by that particular centre. All these functions of the centres are largely uncontroversial and are supported by TAC. None of the above measurescan be effective, however, unless there is a certain minimum capacity within the national system to do research, as well as to establish effective links both with the centres and with local producers through the extension services. Where this minimum capacity is lacking, the centres have collaborated with bilateral donors in the provision of research assistance,rather than face the frustration of not being able to transfer the benefits of their work. The issue of strengthening national research systems is ver-ymuch broader, however, than finding appropriate mechanismsfor administering research assistance. It involves all the considerations with which ISNAR and IFPRI, among many others, are especially concerned and also involves several different mechanismsfor collaboration. 10.5.2. Mechanisms for Collaboration 10.5.2.1. Types of collaboration In any research relationship, whether between scientists or institutions, two fundamental questions are: (i) “Who sets the research agenda?“; and (ii) “Who provides the financial resources and through what channels?“. In the continuum of possible relationships between two hypothetical institutions, A and B, TAC seestwo extremes. In one, the aims of the research are mutually agreed by A and B. They share the work; they fund their own participation; they share the results; and there is no net flow of financial resources, either from A to B or from B to A. TAC defines this type of relationship as “cooperative”. 139 At the other extreme, A determines what the aims of the work should be and pays B to do it. This TAC calls “contract” research, or a “contractual” relationship. In this relationship, B is usually described as the contractor (the one who does the work) and A the customer (the one for whom the work is done). If both A and B are research institutions, A could equally be a contractor for B. Clearly, there are many variations between these two extremes in the ways in which institutions collaborate with one another. The term “collaboration” is used in this general sense. Where these collaborative arrangementsare neither wholly cooperative nor wholly contractual, they usually contain elements of both. These terms can also be used when several institutions are linked in a networking mode. The relationships can be described as cooperative, when the participants jointly define the aims and share the costs, or contractual, when a customer determines the aims and pays the other institutions to do the work. The customer could be a single institution or a group of institutions working collaboratively. Moreover, all these relationships can be further analyzed taking into account the two types of assistance already identified above, namely, “catalytic assistance”, designed to strengthen relationships and thereby contribute to institution building, and “research assistance”, designed to strengthen national researchcapacity more directly. 10.5.2.2. Cooperative research The motivation for cooperative research is primarily one of self-interest. Individual scientists or institutions agree to participate so that the results of their own research can be interpreted within a broader context. In the developed countries, cooperative research of this type may involve organizations in both the public and private sectors. It is often organized under the auspices of an international organization or scientific society, and may involve no external input of funding whatever. Frequently, all the participants fund their own attendanceat meetings and share the organizational and analytical work among themselves. In other instances, catalytic assistancemay be provided by the organization acting as the umbrella for the cooperation. In the developing countries, only a small proportion of research institutions are able to muster the financial resourcesto operate without the external injection of at least some catalytic assistance. In many instances,however, even the provision of catalytic assistanceis not enough. There are many national institutions which would like to participate but cannot do so without some additional funding, defined here as research assistance. 1052.3. Contract research The main advantageof contract research is that it provides a means of exploiting specialized capabilities or special circumstancesand, consequently, of doing research in a cost-effective manner. In the context of the CGIAR, the principle of contracting to institutions, in both the developed and developing countries, has already been applied by the centres to take advantageof special skills or particular environmental conditions within a national system that can be used to further the purpose of the international programme. 140 With respect to the developing countries, such contracts provide opportunities for making use of well trained personnel, giving them greater motivation and helping generally to strengthen national research capabilities. The direct costs involved might be less than those of doing the work at an international centre, but the administrative costs of awarding contracts, monitoring their progress, and evaluating their successtend to be high, especially when large numbers of small contracts are involved. Further, contract research precludes the involvement of weaker national systems. And even those with well trained scientists may not be able to undertake contracts becauseof the lack of basic facilities for laboratory or field research. Consequently, many potentially important institutions, in terms of the agroecologies or ecosystemsthey represent, might be excluded from undertaking contracts unless they could also be provided with research assistance. 10.5.3. Linking Centre Activities to Research Assistance While TAC strongly supports the involvement of the centres in both cooperative and contractual relationships with national research systems, it has reservations on the extent to which the centres should become involved in the administration of bilateral research assistance. Clearly, there is considerable diversity of views on this issue among members of the CGIAR, especially becausethere are organizations other than the centres that specialize in what are, essentially, the activities of development agencies. Within the matrix of activities relating to international research and the adoption of its results, there is a need to define the framework within which the centres should operate. Ultimately, such a framework must be defined by consensus,otherwise it will simply evolve as a result of the ways in which donors express their preferences through the appropriatenessand their selective support of centre activities. TAC can assess balance of core programmes and make recommendationsto the Group accordingly. It is less well placed, however, to assesscomplementary programmes, which are influenced by a great diversity of needs, relationships and sourcesof funding. TAC therefore considers that the centres themselvesshould determine the extent of then- involvement in research assistance,taking a pragmatic view of the opportunities for productive collaboration with national systems, and keeping their activities within the boundaries of their agreed strategic plans. Centre Boards should be held accountable to the Group for all complementary programmes, especially with respect to safeguarding the integrity of unrestricted core funding. TAC assumesthat both the Group and the centres would wish to guard against centre strategiesbecoming distorted by the wishes of individual donors or groups of donors. 141 CHAPTER 11 - RESEARCH ON SOCIOECONOMICS, POLICY AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT PUBLIC 11.1. Background The mission and goals of the CGIAR are unlikely to be achieved without a conducive policy environment. National policies in developing countries have to strike a delicate balance between the interests of different groups, but they must be favourable enough towards small-scale producers to persuadethem to adopt the technology produced by research. Government policy must also favour the strengthening of national research systems, if CGIAR efforts in this direction are to succeed. Well managedpublic-sector research systems are more likely to gain the confidence and hence the support of government. This is the foundation of the Group’s commitment to research on socioeconomics, public policy and public management. The effects of policies on innovation and thus on research and development are profound and multifaceted. The designation of policy beneficiaries, the setting of economic goals and ranking of national priorities, the regulation and de-regulation of product, input and credit markets, the raising and allocation of government revenues each has implications for the relative importance of new technology in different sectors and in the different enterprises of each sector, and for the ease of technology mobilization and adoption. Policy issues in each of these areas carry major implications for targeting and priority setting in research. National policies interact in the international arena. Developed country policies, and increasingly regional policies, with the EEC and the Inter-American trade agreementsas examples, affect the export and production opportunities of developing countries. Restrictive policies mask their true comparative advantage, distort their priorities for research and inhibit their development. It can be argued that on the whole, with some exceptions to meet the need for equity targeting, a policy environment that seeksto exploit long-term comparative advantagewill provide a sound basis for identifying researchpriorities. Policies disguising comparative advantagemay radically distort priorities and may render longterm research prograrmnes unsustainable. The CGIAR’s main group of beneficiaries, small-scale producers, have frequently been neglected and even disadvantagedby the policy environment in developing countries. Political considerations have biased policies towards meeting the needs of the more vocal urban populations, at the expenseof agriculture. In addition, much of the stagnation in developing countries dependenton agriculture has its roots in the unfavourable terms of trade, national and international, for their agricultural products. Structural adjustment programmes are now promoting the role of agriculture as the engine of development in such economies. New technology is widely perceived as the fuel for the engine of agricultural development. The CGIAR, as an international agricultural research organization, has an unrivalled overview of both the agricultural technology needs in developing countries and 142 of the global technological opportunities in agriculture relevant to those needs. This overview, and the importance of equity in the mission and goals statement of the System, are primary components of the perspective which the CGIAR brings to policy research. At the country level, policy research institutions are primarily driven by national considerations. At the international level, the UN agencies, the World Bank, the regional banks, and some developed country universities which do policy research, have missions and intended beneficiaries in common with the CGIAR. They lack, however, the CGIAR’s capacity to identify and generate new agricultural technologies to meet developing country needs. It is this capacity, together with its political independenceand its established reputation and track record, that allows the CGIAR a unique stance in policy research. The CGIAR recognizes that its capacity for policy research will of necessity remain modest. TAC has emphasizedthat the CGIAR will remain no more than a catalyst in the field, as the resources invested will continue to be but a fraction of the total national and international resources invested. Where there is no advantagefrom its unique perspective, the CGIAR should rely on other agencies. Its main inhouse tasks are to understand the interactions between government action and human behaviour in relation to agriculture, technology, natural resources, and consumption, and to collaborate with national systems in identifying policy options that will improve the welfare of the System’s beneficiaries. 11.2. Policy Research to Date The CGIAR System’s lead centre in policy research is IFPRI. Many other centres, notably ISNAR and IIMI, but also the 11 commodity and regionally mandated centres, cover certain policy topics. The policy focus in these centres is always closely related to their mandates, while IFPRI addressessituation- and country-specific questions tc, which the research approachesand findings of .other centres can provide only partial answers. IFPRI implements research at global, regional, national, community and household levels to determine the impact of policies on small-scale farmers and lowincome people generally. Five programme divisions reflect the current emphasesin IFPRI’s research: Environment and Production Technology, Markets and Structural Studies, Food Consumption and Nutrition, Trade and Macroeconomics, and Special Studies. New global and regional economic trends and the evolving role of the CGIAR bring changing emphasesfor policy research as well as for other research activities. In increasing the priority for policy research in 1986, TAC emphasizedthat problems arising from policy distortions of comparative advantagewere likely to grow more acute with the increasing pressure of population on finite natural resourcesand the continually escalating demand for food. These problems call for new priorities in policy research, with greater attention to the issues of environmental degradation and its relation to poverty. 143 11.3. Global Change and Evolution in the CGIAR: for New Policy Research Priorities the Implications The new emphasis on generating income streams for poor people widens the horizons of the CGIAR from the earlier, narrower objective of self-sufficiency in food. However, the ripple effects of new technology have always required researchbeyond the immediate, explicit policy dimensions. Important work has already been done in these wider policy areas in the CGIAR. For example, IFPRI has completed a number of studies which found no evidence of negative impacts from the introduction of cash cropping on household food supply and family nutrition. Embracing the goal of selfreliance does not, therefore, require new CGIAR priorities in policy research, which has always ranged over a wider field to understand interactions at each level from the farm to the global. As noted, the CGIAR expansion into forestry, and possibly into fisheries, and the new priority given to research on natural resource managementimply new priorities in policy research. Historically, the CGIAR has focused mainly on commodities, with some incursions into research on farming systems. In 1990 TAC concluded and the CGIAR accepted that effective research in natural resource managementmust address both the technical and the human sides of the problem at both the farm and community levels. It is clear from the forestry research agendathat small-scale cultivators must have a say in deciding optimum land use strategies for forestry or agriculture. The forests themselves are a subset in the common property issuesraised by land and water. They too warrant policy research to improve our understanding of alternatives for their management. An early priority is to understand more about how people degrade the natural resource base - and especially the effects of poverty on the environment. Degradation in the marginal agricultural areas and at the forest edges highlights the need to reduce the human pressures on them. This need brings with it an important set of policy research issues: 0 the creation of alternative employment opportunities in both the farming and non-farming sectors; the management of migration, both intra- and internationally; the management of community resources; the balance between research to generatetechnology and the development of marketing channels and investment in infrastructure; the choice between investments in the high-, medium- and low-potential agricultural areas. These issues have major implications for the future focus of agricultural research efforts, at both national and international levels. There are considerable differences in the research needs for high- and low- potential agricultural areas. At one extreme, in the high-potential irrigated areas of Asia, biological limits are beginning to constrain further development. In some areaseven the current high yields may not be 144 sustainable. At the other extreme, managing risk in the variable rainfall conditions of the vast semi-arid and subhumid areas of Africa remains a challenge to both technical and policy research. Policy is a key tool for influencing human behaviour at the farm and community levels. Centres involved with forestry and natural resourcesresearch will increasingly be involved in the analysis of policy options for dealing with resource management problems. Policy research, including better understanding of the ways of using policy to promote technology diffusion, will receive increasedpriority in the CGIAR and will be a vital component in the search for sustainablenatural resourcesmanagement. This increased priority will be manifest in greater policy researchcapacity, particularly at those centres taking on ecoregional mandates. The role of international trade in providing food security for developing countries is gaining in importance. This leads to greater reliance on international markets, the need to encourage the development of exports, and an obligation to develop appropriate policies regarding food aid. Intraregional trade is also gaining in importance. These areas of policy research merit continuing attention by the CGIAR. 11.4. Policy Research and Formulation Capacity in Developing Countries In its 1986 priorities and strategies report, TAC highlighted the need to build a capacity for policy research in developing countries. The emphasis was placed on training in methods of-policy analysis useful in developing countries. Capacities remain limited, particularly in sub-SaharanAfrica, with the result that training in policy analysis should remain a priority. A new priority is research to identify policy processesand organizational models which are friendly to disadvantagedgroups. The disadvantagedhave always faced difficulties in having their voices heard and making their needs felt. That is why they remain disadvantaged. Women in agriculture face special difficulties, often because authority and wealth, in both the rural community and the research and extension system that is intended to serve it, remain in the hands of men. A lack of grassroots information on disadvantagedgroups distorts policy formulation. Policy processesshould allow policymakers to weigh the needs of such groups and, after decision, implementation channels should take programmes to the intended beneficiaries without dilution or distortion by stronger interest groups. Policy research can also play a role in securing sustainedfunding for national research services. Researchbudgets are always cut in times of recession; those in developing countries have been particularly vulnerable in recent years, owing to structural adjustment. Highlighting the link between research in agriculture and national economic development can be a powerful tool for convincing politicians of the need to reverse this trend. Impact studies can serve this purpose and satisfy other needs at the same time. If focused on technologies that the international centres have helped to generate, such studies can also meet some of their needs for evidence of impact. 145 11.5. Human Linkages Researchon human linkages, particularly the analysis of human nutrition and of gender issues, merits continuing attention. To incorporate nutritional objectives into agriculture, forestry and fisheries researchprogrammes, functional classifications of target populations are required. There is also an urgent need to identify more robust indicators of malnutrition, and to collect relevant information on time and labour allocation of members of the household. Decision-making processesare often still poorly understood, as well as factors that influence adoption of improved technology. The CGIAR should support research on household food consumption linked with key social and economic variables, spanning the seasonswithin regional agroecological zones. National research systems should provide information on food production and consumption by rural households as a component of onfarm research studies. Nutrient content, value and bioavailability can be modified by plant breeding and agronomic practices. The goal of CGIAR research should be to retain or improve the content of key nutrients and minimize content of anti-nutritional or toxic factors. In general, the CGIAR also needs to pay greater attention to the structures and processesby which its researchproducts reach and are utilized by rural producers and rural and urban consumers. 11.6. Public Management Research Concern about the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of public-sector organizations has spawned substantial programmes of research on this problem, especially in developed countries. In the CGIAR context, research in this field is neededto underpin the strengthening of national research systems and to improve the managementof common property resources such as irrigation. Researchis neededon the policy context of national research and on the organization and managementof national research systems. Examples of specific research topics are the development and analysis of a knowledge base on national research systems, and the development of improved management concepts and tools, including methods for researchpriority setting and management information systems. To ensure that the research is relevant, close collaboration with national research agencies is required. In terms of agricultural productivity, irrigation water is undoubtedly the most important common property resource. Poor managementof irrigation systemsby government and farmer organizations leads to the wastage of water through leakage, poor control and timing of water delivery, and commonly to the inequitable distribution of water. Field research is needed to diagnose constraints to effective irrigation management and to develop management innovations to overcome the problems. TAC believes that some of the principles developed from research on the organization and managementof irrigation systems may be applicable to other common property resourcesunder public or communal management, such as wastelandsand some types of rainfed farming. This is an area for further consideration in the future. 146 CHAPTER 12 - IMPLICATIONS OF TAC’S ANALYSIS FOR CGIAR PRIORITIES 12,l. Introduction As demonstrated in the preceding analysis, the task of priority setting for the CGIAR is multidimensional, complex and not easily reduced to a single analytical approach. As one element in the analysis, TAC attempted to use a framework allowing the formal consideration of a range of issuesreflecting the nature of the CGIAR’s mission and goals. The advantagesof the spreadsheetapproach used are many: it allows both sequential and simultaneous analysis of modifiers; it requires TAC at every stage to recognize that increasing some activities means decreasingothers; and it is fully transparent since if, for example, TAC is asked how sustainability was taken into account and what were its impacts, the results are clear from the analysis. But there are also disadvantagesto the approach. Transparency brings with it the temptation to choose modifiers and weights to yield particular outcomes. The databaseon which TAC had to rely had many limitations. The many caveatsassociated with the estimation of value of production of commodities already gave strong indications of the utmost care that has to be taken in interpreting the results of the analysis. The spreadsheetdoes not maximize any goal function. It simply reallocates relative weights in proportion to previous levels when a modifier, change of base or weight is introduced. It is therefore a mechanical means of accounting. Finally there is always the danger that in an analysis producing numbers - i.e. relative allocations to commodities - those numbers will be given greater credencethan they deserve. Thus TAC presents its current views on future priorities for the CGIAR with a strong request that the whole analysis, not just the spreadsheetanalysis, be taken into account. Priority setting in the CGIAR has been and should continue to be an interactive process. Major stakeholders in the process have had the opportunity for reasonedinput. TAC has consulted with a significant number of leaders of national programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean, in sub-SaharanAfrica, in Asia and West Asia-North Africa. In each of these regions, meetings were held under the auspicesof regional institutions (IICA, SACCAR, CORAF, AARINENA and APAARI) to discuss TAC’s draft proposals on CGIAR priorities and strategies with representativesof national research systems. Board, management and staff of CGIAR Institutes have major stakes in the outcome and have made most valuable contributions. Members of the CGIAR and other interested parties commented on an earlier draft at ICW’91 and provided further comments in writing. TAC has carefully considered these inputs prior to finalizing its views. This process of consultation was very valuable but in no way does it imply an endorsementby its participants. This final document is the responsibility of TAC alone. We begin this chapter by reviewing how the Committee proceeded. We then discuss TAC’s views on: (a) priorities by category of research activity; (b) the implications of the agroecological and regional agroecological analysis for CGIAR priorities; (c) the implications of the analysis for the distribution of CGIAR resources 147 across regions; (d) the implications of the analysis for the distribution of resourcesacross production sectors; and (e) the implications of the analysis for the distribution of resources across commodities within production sectors. This sequential approach allows the Committee to put before the Group the multidimensional results of its analysis. 12.2. The Analytical Framework The approach taken by TAC can be depicted in two diagrams (Figures 12.1. and 12.2). Figure 12.1 lists, on the left-hand side, the five major activity categories TAC has used. These are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. conservation and managementof natural resources, including germplasm conservation (biodiversity); germplasm enhancementand breeding; development and managementof production systemsfor agriculture, forestry and fisheries; socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch; institution building (including training, information, organization/management counselling and networks to strengthen national researchcapacities). TAC’s analysis began by adopting an agroecological zone approach using nine agroecological zones defined in the main by moisture and temperature regimes. These agroecological zones were then rationalized into 21 regional agroecological zones - four for sub-SaharanAfrica (SSA), one for West Asia-North Africa (WANA), seven for Asia and nine for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). These appear acrossthe top of Figure 12.1. The same numbers refer to the same agroecological zones. For example SSA 1, Asia 1 and LAC 1 are all in agroecological zone 1, which is the warm arid and semi-arid tropics. The regional agroecological zone became the basic building block for both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The vertical lines indicate that the regional agroecological zones were most useful for developing TAC’s analysis under activities 1, 2 and 3, whereas regions were used for all five activities. In this analysis, TAC could look across both regions and agroecological zones by activity, and down a regional agroecological zone or region across activities. The next stagesof the analysis are depicted in Figure 12.2. Again beginning with activities, TAC considered production sectors and commodities in the light of the analysis by agroecological zone and region. Under activity 1, certain resource management issues transcend production sectors, while others are specific to a single production sector and germplasm conservation is specific to commodities. Activity 2, germplasm enhancementand breeding, is necessarily commodity- and production-sector specific. Activity 3, development and managementof production systems, can focus at several levels: (1) commodity-based cropping systems; (2) multiple cropping systems; (3) crop-livestock systems; (4) agroforestry systems, including crops and trees, livestock and trees, or crops, livestock and trees; and (5) integrated production systems involving c.rops, livestock, trees and fish. The diagram implies that production sectors and commodities are less important divisions for activities 4 and 5, socioeconomic, public FIGURE 12.1. CGIAR PRIORITIES I: ACTIVITIES/REGIONAL AEZ, REGION, GLOBAL REGIONS AND REGIONAL AGRGECQLOGICAL ‘ZOI !S (RAEZ) -i ..--..-..-.....w -i---------------i-----n--*-*r--.“---“-,--z.+,T T--3b’-” .’ ” SSA ” &x4 LAC ‘, WANA __y ____-_______________------“‘4-------,,,, ---- &,A----mI _3__-____-ACTlVITIES 1. Conservation and Management of Natural Resources including Germplasm Conservation 2. Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding 3. Devt. and Mgt. of Production Systems for Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 4. Socioeconomic, Public Policy and Public Management Research 5. Institution Building a. Training b. Information c. Org/Mgt . Counsel. d. Networks 2 2 4 9 1” 2 3 5 6 7’ :8 :;l 2 FIGURE 12.2. CGIAR PRIORITIES II: ACTIVITIES/BESOURCE PRODUCTION SECTOR AND COMMODITY MANAGEMENT. ACTIVITIES 1. Conservation and Management of Natural Resources Including Germplasm Conservation RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, PRODUCTION SECTOR, COMMODITY, ETC. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE CROPS COMMODITIES Rice Wheat Sorghum Cassava etc. Cattle LIVESTOCK SPECIES Sheep etc. SECTORS FORESTRY FISHERIES 2. Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding 3. Development and Management of Production Systems for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (I) COMMODITY-BASED (2) MULTIPLE CROPPING SYSTEMS CROPPING SYSTEMS (3) CROP-LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS < -____---__________ LAND USE CONTINUUM __________________ > 150 policy and public managementresearch, and institution building, though clearly some activities under this category are differentiated by production sector and commodity. 12.3. The Status of TAC’s Priority Analysis 12.3.1. By Activity Category TAC began its priority analysis by considering, in Systemwide terms, what should be the relative distribution of CGIAR efforts among the five broad activity categories. The Committee acknowledged that there is no clear dividing line between these categories and that in many instancesactivities may overlap into several categories. Furthermore, a number of CGIAR objectives cross-cut all these categories, such as the strengthening of national research systems, and improvement of the sustainability of production systems. TAC was also mindful of the fact that the categorization of activities differed from that of the 1986 priority analysis in two major ways. First, in 1986, TAC had differentiated the activities relating to germplasm and production systemsby production sector. Second, in 1986, separatecategories had been used for product utilization and human linkages. For the reasonsalready discussedin Chapter 3, TAC felt that, given the addition of agroforestry, forestry and possibly fisheries to the CGIAR mandate, integrated categories were preferable with differentiation by production sector being a subsequent component of analysis. The little utilization work that is done by the System could be considered as one of the activities under the production systemscategory. Human linkages are considered as part of socioeconomic, public policy and public management activities. However, the overlapping and the cross-cutting nature of CGIAR activities, and this redefinition of activity categories make a precise determination of current CGIAR efforts by activity category difficult. TAC’s best estimate, based on analysis of the CGIAR Secretariat, is that in 1991, approximately 13% of CGIAR resources were in natural resource conservation and management(including germplasm conservation), 21% in germplasm enhancementand breeding, 33 % in the development and management of production systems, 9% in socioeconomic, public policy and public management research and 24% in institution building. These estimatestake account of the recent expansion of the CGIAR and include activities with respect to agroforestry, irrigation management and banana and plantain. Setting current levels aside, an assessment was made of the optimal future balance of CGIAR core resourcesbetween activity categories, acrossproduction sectors by the year 2010. Throughout this report, considerable thought has been given to the challenges faced by the CGIAR during the next two decades,and their implications for was made of the international research research emphasis. In Chapter 4, an assessment needs by region and agroecological zone. Furthermore, in discussing important factors that determine CGIAR priorities by region and agroecological zones, attention was given to the implications of the weights attached to particular modifiers. In all regions and agroecological zones, there was a perceived need for an expanded effort in research on natural resource conservation and management. These 151 Table 12.1. Priorities by activity category by region (core resources only) Regi # - :: Activity Category ..:::. 1. Conservation and Management of Natural ResourcesIncluding Germplasm Conservation (Biodiversity) 2. Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding 3. Devpt. and Mgmt. of Production Systems 4. Socioeconomic, Public Policy and Public Management Research 5. Institution Building (incl. Training, Information, Org ./Mgt. Counselling and Networks)z’ TOTAL 1991.. ‘Base .; - SSA. WANA Asia LAC 13 21 33 17-19 21-23 28-30 + + + 0 9 10-12 24 100 19-21 lo@’ + + + zzc 0 - = = more than the new System level priority but possibly lower than current allocation equal to new System level priority less than new System level priority but possibly higher or lower than current allocation the mid points of the ranges add to 100 networks of category 5 refer to capacity building networks only. Research networks are included in the other categories. additional efforts refer both to activities in ecosystemconservation and management (currently receiving 7% of core resources)and germplasm collection and conservation (currently at 6% of core resources). This need emerged even more strongly when modifiers such as yield gap, soil degradation risk, and deforestation were considered. TAC therefore recommends a substantial increase in CGIAR efforts in this category, from 13% to between 17 and 19%. However, the analysis suggeststhat, relative to the new level, more attention should be paid to resource managementin sub-SaharanAfrica, West Asia-North Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean and less in Asia. Nevertheless, 152 the investment in research in natural resource managementshould be increased in all areas. Germplasm enhancementand breeding has been the central thrust of the CGIAR since its inception. Increased emphasis is warranted on this activity in Asia, where substantial efforts are now required to lift the yield ceiling, particularly of rice. In West Asia-North Africa and sub-SaharanAfrica, the emphasis on germplasm enhancementand breeding could be somewhat reduced where a greater effort on resource management is required. Overall, the conclusion is that research on germplasm enhancementand breeding should continue at the marginally higher Systemwide level of between 21 and 23% of total activities. Overall, in the long term, there should be a reduced need for CGIAR research on the development and managementof production systems, becauseof increasing national capacity to deal with this category, which consists mostly of applied research. It is important to note, however, that the results obtained from applied research activities in this category feed into the planning of, for example, strategic resource management research. Continued emphasis is warranted in West Asia-North Africa, and more emphasis relative to the reduced System level is needed in sub-SaharanAfrica, particularly to exploit the scope for growth. In Asia and in Latin America and the Caribbean, the resources devoted to this activity could be reduced below the new System level. As national research systems assumegreater responsibility for research on the development of production systems, the modes of operation should evolve towards greater use of networks and consortia. Overall, TAC tentatively concludes that at the System level, efforts in this category could be reduced from 33 % to between 28 and 30% of total activities. Throughout this report, reference has been made to the need for an expanded effort in socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch. In all regions and in mest agroecological zones, there was a need for greater emphasison policy research with respect to land use and sustainability issues, poverty alleviation and equity (particularly gender equity), irrigation management, and issuesrelated to self-reliance. It is therefore proposed to increase CGlAR efforts in socioeconomic, public policy and public management research, from 9% to between 10 and 12% of System activities. Even more emphasis relative to the new System level may be needed in Asia and in Latin America and the Caribbean, becauseof pressing problems of sustainability, deforestation and equity. TAG considered whether, in the long term, the resourcesallocated to institution building could be reduced. It is to be recalled that this category of institution building refers only to specific activities and that CGIAR Centres also contribute to strengthening national research systems through their work in the four previously discussedcategories of activities in natural resources, germplasm enhancement,production systems and policy. The study by Pardey and Roseboom (1991) has revealed the considerable increase in trained human resources in national programmes. For many national systems, the major constraint is now a shortage of operational funds rather than of trained manpower. As already noted in Chapter 10, TAC’s view is that the allocation of CGIAR resources to institution building has reached a ceiling and that the CGIAR should focus on its complementary role of strengthening national research systemsthrough technology development and partnership. 153 Although additional efforts in training will be required in the new and expanded areas of CGIAR activity (forestry, fisheries, natural resourcesand irrigation management), the overall emphasison training can be reduced in the medium and long term from its present level of 9 % to about 7 %. However, in the medium term, a continued strong effort in training will be required in sub-SaharanAfrica. In the area of information services, TAC considered that the current level of activity (8%) could only be reduced slightly since these are essential activities for partnerships with national research systems. In the area of organization and managementcounselling (now 2%), efforts should clearly increase. The responsibility for networks intended to strengthen national research capacity could increasingly be handed over to national programmes and the level of support to this type of activity could, therefore, be reduced from its present level of about 5% to 4%. In TAC’s view, therefore, the overall proportion of CGIAR activities in the category of institution building should be reduced from 24% to between 19 and 21% , but with less in training, information and capacity building networks, and more in organizationimanagement counselling. These judgements are displayed in Table 12.1, which shows the proposed shifts among activity categories, with an indication of differential efforts by region relative to the new proposed level of activity. These judgements were then used as indicators as TAC proceeded to evaluate other dimensions of the matrix. 12.3.2. By Agroecological Zone and Regional Agroecological Zone TAC evaluated carefully the analysis of researchpriorities by agroecological zone developed in Chapter 4, along with the results of the analysis in Chapter 9, in making judgements as to whether or not the shifts in emphasis implied by the analysis were appropriate. It should be recalled that the analysis had suggestedthat in agriculture, the relative emphasis should increase for tropical agroecological zones (AEZs l-4) and the cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9), while in forestry the relative emphasis should increase for the tropical agroecological zone in general (AEZs l-4), with greater increasesin sub-SaharanAfrican agroecological zones than in those of other regions. TAC supported these shifts in emphasisbecausethe other areas benefit to a much greater extent from ongoing research in developed countries. The current allocation of CGIAR resourcesby agroecological zone or regional agroecological zone is not available. The proposed new allocations cannot therefore be compared with existing allocations. However, based on its knowledge of current efforts, TAC felt that the shifts in emphasis implied by the analysis were already well under way in the CGIAR System. There is some evidence to support this perception in the regional analysis which follows. 12.3.3. By Region In the 1986 analysis of priorities, TAC began at the global level, made recommendations with respect to priorities among activities and among commodities, and then evaluated the regional implications. The current exercise began with regional agroecological zones and, therefore, allowed a more comprehensiveanalysis of the regional distribution of CGIAR resources. The details of the regional analysis are given 154 in Chapter 9. Here, TAC summarizes the changing pattern of regional allocations that the use of a modified base and the application of modifiers suggest. Table 12.2. Impacts of Baseline and Modifiers on Regional Distribution of Values Relative to Current Allocation: Agriculture Base yiop % :nts Usable. land : % a33 Current MO’ &seline 0.5 ine (1931) Allocation of Core Weight Region SSA WANA ASIA LAC TOTAL 0.33 1.0 Resources 9.1 9.3 59.0 22.6 100 72.1 6.3 29.4 7.5 27.9 35.2 18.2 7.4 53.0 21.4 25.8 7.8 46.4 34.0 8.1 39.5 18.4 47.4 8.4 29.1 15.1 43.0 13.0 29.0 100 100 Table 12.2 summarizes the previous analysis and adds a column containing TAC’s estimate of the 1991 regional allocation of CGIAR resources. As pointed out in Chapter 9, the effect of using a three-part base (incorporating land use and the number of poor people, as well as the more usual starting point, value of production) already substantially shifted baseline values in favour of sub-SaharanAfrica and away from West Asia-North Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean (value of production only, 9.1; three-part baseline value, 18.2). Applying the modifiers and increasing their weights further shifted resourcestowards sub-SaharanAfrica, and also towards West Asia-North Africa. For example, with the modifiers weighted at 0.5 each, the subSaharan African modified baseline value is almost four times the original value of production. One might conclude that modification had gone too far. However, when one considers 1991 estimates of CGIAR allocations by region, one discovers that the allocation to sub-SaharanAfrica in fact lies between the analytical results obtained with modifiers weighted at 0.5 and 1.0. Applying the modifiers with a weighting of 0.5 reduced Asia’s percentageshare in value of production from 59.0% to 39.5 %. A weighting of 1.O suggeststhat Asia’s share should be similar to the current allocation A weighting between 0.5 and 1.0 would give a result resembling the current CGIAR allocation, except for the West Asia-North Africa region. As noted in Table 12.2, current regional allocation of CGIAR core resourcesis as follows: 43% to subSaharan Africa, 13% to West Asia-North Africa, 29% to Asia and 15% to Latin America. It should be noted here, however, that the benefits of research are not necessarily only accrued by the region where the investment occurs. The benefits of 155 research investments often spillover into other regions and agroecological zones particularly with respect to investments in strategic research. TAG considered the implications of the analysis for the balance of allocations between regions very carefully. TAC is aware of the strongly divided opinions held both within and outside the CGIAR on the special needs of agriculture in sub-SaharanAfrica. Some argue that the CGIAR has gone much too far in reallocating resourcestowards subSaharan Africa, given the massive needs in Asia. Others argue that even more resources should be transferred to sub-SaharanAfrica becauseof that region’s rapid population growth rates, pervasive poverty, severe sustainability problems and lack of progress to date in improving the productivity of crops and livestock important to the poor. The analysis presented here supports neither of these extreme views. TAC feels that-the 0.5 weighting should be the maximum one used if undue influence by particular modifiers in favour of any given regional agroecological zone is to be avoided. Thus, using the analysis only as a rough guide, the Committee is of the view that there is no substantial case for a further shift of CGIAR resourcestowards sub-SaharanAfrica. As the forestry analysis also suggests,there are pressing problems in Latin America and the Caribbean and Asia, as well as in sub-SaharanAfrica. In considering the results of the analysis, TAC expresseda preference for the use of 0.5 weighting as a guide for allocating priorities by region by the year 2010. A case could then be made that the regional reallocation, which has taken place over the past 10 years may already have gone too far towards both sub-SaharanAfrica and West Asia-North Africa. As noted, rapid population growth rates, coupled with declining per caput food production in sub-SaharanAfrica, make a compelling case for that region. The fragility of its tropical agroecological zones, the generally limited national research capacities and the slow rate of progress in productivity improvement to date add to the apparent urgency. Many of Africa’s development problems are also political in nature however, and cannot be solved through research alone. On the other hand, the magnitude of population numbers, the extent of the poverty problem, the narrowing yield gap and the limited scope for land expansion all argue strongly for more long-term strategic and applied research in Asia. In addition, TAC is concerned about the generally low rate of progress in obtaining impact from international researchefforts in sub-SaharanAfrica. Although significant breakthroughs have been achieved (such as biological control of cassavamealy bug, and the adoption of improved wheat and maize varieties), in general the impact obtained in the region has been below expectations. TAC’s position is that in the medium term a modest reduction in resources allocated to sub-SaharanAfrica and West Asia-North Africa, and an equivalent increase in resources allocated to particularly Asia and also Latin America should be scheduled, moving the CGIAR toward a distribution of resourcesby the year 2010 not unlike the priority index suggestedby the modified baseline (weight 0.5). TAC recommends that, for the purposes of guiding the resource allocation process, by 1998 the target distribution by region should be 39% to sub-SaharanAfrica, 11% to West Asia-North Africa, 33 % to Asia and 17% to Latin America. TAC recognizes that the analytical basis of this recommendation refers mainly to the agricultural sector, but on balance considered this proposed distribution appropriate for the System as a whole. Within the forestry and fisheries production sectors, the regional emphasis could be shifted more towards the distribution suggestedin Tables 9.18 156 and 9.19, which calls for a much greater emphasison the Asia region, particularly in the fisheries sector. 12.3 4. By Production Sector The analysis undertaken to date gives much less insight into the question of what ought to be the relative balance of CGIAR efforts among agriculture (crops and livestock), forestry and fisheries. This is so for two main reasons. First, for valid analytical reasons, different baselines were chosen for agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The results of the modification analysis cannot therefore be added together. As a result, one can compare relative distributions within sectors but not across them. There is no obvious way of obtaining cross-comparability unless one reverts to annual gross value of production as a basis. But TAC had rejected value of production as a direct congruence indicator for a variety of reasons, one of which was the fact that it includes a large number of commodities not covered by the CGIAR mandate. Non-CGIAR commodities account for approximately one-third of the value of crop production and for 45% of the value of livestock production in developing countries. In addition, about 60% of the value of production of forestry is from sawlogs and veneer, which are not priority items for CGIAR research, while approximately 55% of fisheries production is from deep sea or ocean fishing which, according to TAC, should be outside the scope of the CGIAR. Second, CGIAR activities in forestry are only just beginning and those in fisheries have yet to be finally accepted. The current allocation of CGIAR resources across sectors cannot therefore be used as the starting point for analysis. What can be said is that TAC’s detailed analysis of the research needs in agriculture, presented in previous chapters of this report, does not provide grounds for an absolute decline in support for agricultural research. On the contrary, it portends increasingly urgent needs to meet the rapidly rising demand for food. TAC’s judgement at this juncture is that, whatever the level of support earned by the yet to be proposed long-term research programmes in agroforestry, forestry and fisheries, these should not be funded at the expense of critical research needs in crops and livestock. TAC will review the issue of balance between sectors as further information becomes available on research needs in agroforestry, forestry and fisheries. 12.3.5. By Commodity Within the Agricultural Sector The final dimension of the analysis relates to the relative priority to be assigned to specific commodities, TAC carefully considered the information on particular issues related to each individual commodity as presented in Chapter 5 on crops and Chapter 6 on livestock, and the outcome of the in-depth quantitative analysis on modified value of production of commodities discussedin Chapter 9. It is very important to recall that through the process of modification of the baseline and the development of priority indices by RAEZ, several indicators related to efficiency, equity, sustainability, strength of national research systems, and food import gap were incorporated explicitly already in the quantitative analysis related to each individual commodity. 157 In developing its recommendationson assigning priorities by commodity, TAC also took into account, qualitatively, appropriate additional considerations such as: l projected growth of demand for that commodity between 1990 and 2010; importance of the commodity for the poor; alternative sources of research supply, particularly the role of the private sector, universities and advancedinstitutes; regional distribution of production; concentration of production in one country; impact achieved through previous and ongoing research on the commodity; possibilities for technical breakthroughs; comparative advantageof the CGIAR; expected productivity gains as discussedin Section 9.11; size of spillover effects as discussedin Section 9.13. 0 0 l l 0 0 0 0 0 TAC began its analysis by comparing the modified values of production of the top 45 agricultural commodities of importance in developing countries with the current list of CGIAR commodities (Table 12.3). First, TAC addressedthe portfolio issue. The question asked was: Are there strong candidates, with high modified values of production, that should be considered for inclusion in CGIAR activities? TAC then looked carefully at current CGIAR commodities which have relatively low modified values of production but which are important for limited subsetsof regions and/or countries. This led to a discussion of whether any current activity should be discontinued. Next, TAC looked at the congruence between the modified values of production and current allocations to determine if there was a need to consider altering the relative distribution of resources among agricultural commodities. The following sections present the information TAC considered and the recommendations of the Committee. X2.3.5.1. The commodity portfolio Of the 45 commodities listed in Table 12.3, 22 are already CGIAR commodities, and tomato is on the list of vegetablesrecommendedby TAC for inclusion in 1988. Three major vegetables(tomato, onion and cabbage)were explicitly considered in the analysis discussedin Chapter 9. The modified value ranking (2.1%) for the three vegetablescombined (Table 9.17) would place vegetableswithin the top 16 commodities, thus further supporting TAC’s earlier recommendationsthat they be included in the CGIAR portfolio (TACKGIAR, 1990). 158 Table 12.3. Ranking of commodities ‘basedon value of production, weighted baseline and modified baseline VOP (74) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Rice* Milk* Wheat* Beef & Buffalo* Pigmeat Maize* Orange Sweet Potato* Cotton Eggs Potato* Coffee Sugar Groundnut* Tobacco Grape Soybean* Banana* Cassava* Poultry Sheep & Goats* Tomato Phas. Bean* Coconut* Apple Rubber Cocoa Onion Sorghum* Tea 17.7 8.9 6.4 5 .O 4.8 4.1 3.5 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Weighted Baseline (W) 1. Rice* 2. Milk* 3. Wheat* 4, Beef & Buffalo* 5. Pigmeat 6. Maize* 7. Orange 8. Coffee 9. Groundnut* 10. Cassava” 11. Eggs 12. Sugar 13. cotton 114. Potato* 15. Banana* 16. Sweet Potato* 17. Tobacco 18. Grape 19. Soybean* 20. Poultry 21. Sheep & Goats* 22. Phas. Bean* 23. Coconut* 24. Cocoa 25. Sorghum* 26. Tomato 27. Yam* 28. Millet* 29. Rubber 30. Apple 15.6 9.5 5.7 5.3 4.7 4.4 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 Modified Baseline ( %) (W = 0.5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Rice* Milk* Beef & Buffalo* Cassava* Maize* Wheat* Coffee Groundnut* Banana* Pigmeat Orange Sugar Cotton Eggs Sheep & Goats* Potato* Cocoa Poultry Grape Yam* Ttibacco Phas. Bean* Millet* Sorghum* Soybean* coconut* Sweet Potato* Rubber Palm Oil Tomato 13.2 9.7 5.9 4.5 4‘2 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 159 Table 12.3. cont.d VOP (%) 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Lemon & Lime Millet* Palm Oil Barley* Yam* Chickpea* Pineapple Broad (Faba) Bean* Cabbage Cowpea* Jute Lentil* Pigeonpea* Hemp Sisal 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Weighted Baseline (%) Palm Oil Tea Lemon & Lime Onion Barley* Pineapple Chickpea* Cowpea* Broad (Faba) Bean* Cabbage Lentil* Pigeonpea* Jute Hemp Sisal 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Modified Baseline (%) (W = 0.5) 3 1. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Cowpea* 0.9 Tea 0.9 Apple 0.7 Onion 0.7 Pineapple 0.7 Barley* 0.6 Lemon & Lime 0.6 Broad (Faba) Bean* 0.4 Chickpea* 0.4 Cabbage 0.3 Lentil* 0.2 Pigeonpea* 0.2 Jute 0.1 Sisal 0.1 Hemp 0.0 100.0 99.5 * CGIAR Commodities 100.1 Of the remaining commodities, coffee, pigmeat and cotton rank within the top 15 commodities. However, as noted in Sections 5.7 and 6.2, TAC’s view on these and the other non-CGIAR commodities (eggs, pigmeat, cocoa, poultry, sugar, tobacco, rubber, tea and fruit of different types) is that for a variety of reasons(such as the existence of private sector research or other sourcesof research supply), there is no compelling case for considering major commodity improvement efforts in these commodities at this time. TAC recognizes the importance of these commodities for smallholder farming systems and for incomes of landless labourers, but would encourage centres to undertake research on these commodities within the framework of production systems research. Furthermore, the CGIAR is now in the process of giving much greater attention to resource managementissueswhich implies a shift away from the original focus on plant breeding that characterized the CGIAR. TAC considers that the CGIAR should consolidate its commodity portfolio before embarking on new initiatives. 160 12.352. Tbe congruence between the modified values of production and current ahcations TAC considered the relative distribution of resources among existing CGIAR commodities. It looked at the results of TAC’s modified congruence analysis and of the analysis by ACIAR. The modified values for CGIAR commodities and estimates of current (1991) actual allocations of core resources in the expanded CGIAR are presented in Table 12.4. The regional breakdown of the modified values with weights of 0.5 is given in Table 9.17 (Section 9.9.1.2) and with weights of 0.25, 0.5 and 1.O for selected commodities in Table 9.22 (Section 9.10.3). For ail the developing regions combined, the relative modified values of commodities are: cereals 36.3%; roots and tubers 14.5%; food legumes 13.0%; oil crops 2.0 % ; vegetables 3.2 %; banana and plantain 5 -2%; and livestock 25.8 %. These figures compare with 1991 core resource allocation of cereals 44.3 %, roots and tubers 11%, food legumes 16.3 %, banana and plantain 2.3 % and livestock 26.1% . In the strictest senseof congruence analysis, divergences between allocations and modified values could be used to raise the question of whether CGIAR resources should be reallocated from cereals and food legumes towards roots and tubers and bananas. In so doing, TAC also recalled the caveatsassociatedwith the estimation of value of production of commodities, and prior to making recommendations the outcome of each analysis was therefore considered with great care. Cereals Actual allocation to cereals is approximately 2% higher than indicated because investment in rice breeding networks has been considered within the category of institution building. TAC notes that in 1986, it had recommended that the relative emphasis given to rice should be reduced. TAC had based its recommendation both on the over-emphasis on rice relative to the commodity’s importance in global food supplies and on the strength of national programmes in Asia. For a variety of reasonswell known in the CGIAR, the relative funding for rice has not declined as much as recommended by TAC. This reflects increasesin nominal expenditures in both Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The Committee debated reaffirming the earlier recommendation to reduce the relative allocation to rice, particularly in Asia, primarily becauseof now even stronger national programmes. The West African question is more complex. Rice is rising rapidly as a component of diets, substituting for traditional staple cereals and roots and tubers, especially in urban areas. Further, weaker national programmes and higher research costs make African research in general more expensive. Finally, the CGIAR has already decided to have a major upland rice improvement effort in sub-SaharanAfrica. TAC had, therefore, recommended a minimum effort that has a reasonablechance of success. TAC recognizes the importance of rice as the staple food of a large number of people in developing countries and the substantial pay off from CGIAR efforts on rice research in Asia and Latin America. TAC has also considered the large benefits from rice research that accrue to consumers and producers. TAC therefore recommends a continuation of current levels of CGIAR investment in rice research, but a shift in focus 161 Table 12.4. Modified values of production and 1991 estimated allocation of core resources among CGIAR agricultural commodities’/ Modified VUP Baseline (w = 0.5) 03 36.3 19.2 6.7 6.1 2.2 2.1 14.5 6.6 3.1 2.0 2.8 13.0 2.3 0.9 0.6 1.3 5.4 0.3 2.2 16.3 5.4 2.2 2.2 3.2 2.2 1.1 N/A 5.4 4.3 1.1 0.2 18.4 10.8 9.7 3.2 2.2 Commodity Cereals Rice Wheat & Barley Maize Sorghum Millet Roots & Tubers Cassava Potato Sweet Potato Yam Food Legumes Beans Broad Beans & Lentil Chickpea Cowpea Groundnut Pigeonpea Soybean Oil Crops Coconut Vegetables Banana& Plantain Livestock Beef & Buffalo Meat Sheep & Goat Meat Milk 1991 Allocation (%) 3.2 5.2 25.8 8.5 3.3 14.0 N/A not available 1’ commodity research only 2.3 26.1 N/A N/A N/A of rice research towards more strategic germplasm researchnecessaryto lift the yield ceiling of the crop, and to sustain current yield levels. TAC is mounting an inter-centre review of rice in the CGIAR in conjunction with external reviews of IRRI and WARDA. This inter-centre review will also consider 162 ongoing efforts on rice research at CIAT, IITA, IBPGR, IIMI and at the stronger national programmes. Thus TAC will continue its discussion of relative rice priorities in its March 1993 meeting and provide the Group with updated views at that time.* With respect to wheat, TAC has been impressed by the continued large pay off and impact in the farmers’ fields of CGIAR investments in this commodity. While a comparison of modified value of production with current CGIAR resource allocation would suggest an over-investment in wheat research, TAC recognizes the many distortions in the marketing and trade of wheat. It noted the existing of wheat research programmes in developed countries but reaffirmed the special role of the CGIAR in catering for the needs of developing countries. TAC also took into account the higher costs associatedwith strategic research and the need to maintain efforts in maintenance breeding. TAC recommends that CGIAR efforts on wheat should give primary attention to strategic germplasm research. Overall, TL4C recommends a continuation of efforts in CGIAR investment in wheat research in the medium term, recognizing the potential for further gains to be made in increasing the productivity of wheat. In the long term, the priority of wheat is likely to decline given the growing importance of alternative sources of research supply. TAC recommends, in the short to medium term, maintaining current efforts in maize research, given the importance of the crop in mixed cropping systems of resource poor farmers. TAC has noted that the private sector is rapidly becoming involved in the maize seed industry, particularly with respect to hybrid maize varieties. In the long term, a reduction in the priority of maize research is therefore likely. Pearl millet is an important crop in sub-SaharanAfrica, particularly in Sahelian West Africa, where approximately half the world’s production is found. Millet is generally an important crop for the poor and is grown in farming systems in less endowed regions. In Asia, millet is mainly produced in India. In 1986, TAC recommended a greater concentration of effort in pearl milled on sub-SaharanAfrica over the short term. This was becauseof the short research history and the weaknessof national programmes in the millet producing countries of sub-SaharanAfrica, compared with the programme of India. ICRISAT responded positively to this recommendation by transferring some of the millet responsibilities from the ICRISAT Centre to West Africa and the SADCC region. The pay off from CGIAR investments in research on pearl millet has been substantial, particularly in the more endowed farming areas of India. ICRISAT is now shifting its focus towards the drier areas of more limited potential, and towards more strategic issues. TAC endorsesthis view and recommends to maintain current CGIAR efforts on millet research. With respect to barley and sorghum, TAC saw on balance no reason to alter ongoing CGIAR efforts and recommended that the level of investment in these commodities should continue. Researchon these commodities should continue to focus on those areas where poor farmers are heavily dependenton these crops. 1 TACKGIAR, 1993. Investment in Rice Researchin the CGIAR: A Global Perspective Report of the Inter-Centre Review of Rice. 163 Roots and tubers - With respect to investment in roots and tubers, TAC noted the divergence between modified value of production and CGIAR allocations. Nevertheless, TAC recommends maintaining current efforts in cassavaand the other root and tuber crops. The Committee recognized the rapid rate of progress in cassavaresearch, and the importance of cassavafor low income consumersand producers. It also considered the negative income elasticity of cassavain most regions, and the need for the development of post-harvest technology. On balance, TAC recommended a continuation of efforts in cassavaresearch. TAC noted that over 80% of the global production of sweet potato is in China (which has a relatively strong national research system), that there has been a steady decline in the importance of sweet potato as a staple food, and that there have been shifts in product utilization towards livestock feed in Asia. The Committee recognizes that very little research on sweet potato is conducted outside the CGIAR, that ongoing CGIAR efforts are of very recent origin, and that outside China sweet potato is a very important crop in a large number of small countries typically with very low income levels. For the medium term, TAC therefore recommends that CGIAR efforts be maintained at their current level. The relative importance of another root and tuber, potato, fell in the modified ranking, mainly becausethe crop is predominantly grown in the subtropics and cold tropics. The production and consumption of potato is growing rapidly in developing countries, and good rates of progress have been obtained from CGIAR investments in potato research. Furthermore, potato is an important crop for low-income farmers and consumers. TAC recommends that, in the medium term, current efforts in potato research be maintained. TAC noted that yam is produced mainly in West Africa, with Nigeria accounting for 70% of world production. In its 1986 review of priorities, TAC had recommended the continuation of efforts on yam in the short term, followed by a performance review in five years. The assessment of the Third External Review of IITA was that the comparative advantagein crop managementresearch related to yam lay with the Nigerian national research system. IITA should concentrate on germplasm conservation and focus its research on the critical constraints to germplasm improvement. TAC endorsesthis view, and suggeststhat a review of the effectivenessof CGIAR research on yam should be part of the next external review of IITA, which has the global mandate for this commodity. Food legumes In 1986, TAC had recommended that investments in research on faba bean (broad bean) and lentil be phased out. A CGIAR involvement was to be limited to the maintenance of genetic resource collections. The responsibility for faba bean research is in the process of being transferred to a national programmes. While ICARDA’s efforts in this regard have been successful, it will take more time than expected before its responsibilities can be fully discharged. ICARDA has also been requestedto undertake an in-depth assessment of the potential pay off from further research on the improvement of lentil. The outcome of the assessment will be considered by TAC when ICARDA’s 164 next medium-term plan is presented. TAC notes that lentil is an important crop in farming systems of resource poor farmers of the West Asia-North Africa region, and that outside the CGIAR very little research is carried out on lentil. In the short term, therefore, current efforts in lentil could continue, while reaffirming TAC’s view that in the long term the role of the CGIAR in faba bean and lentil research should be primarily in maintaining genetic resource collections. In view of the progress made by the centres concerned on phaseolusbeans in Latin America and the Caribbean, and sub-SaharanAfrica, and on pigeonpea in India, TAC proposes to reduce the emphasis on these two commodities. CIAT has successfully developed several improved varieties of phaseolusbeans that are being widely adopted by farmers. The pay off from CGIAR investment in research on this crop has been substantial. TAC also recognizes that phaseolusbeans are an important crop for poor farmers and of substantial significance in the diets of low income consumers. On the basis of congruence criteria, the CGIAR is overinvesting in phaseolusbeans however (Table 12.4). CIAT is already proposing a substantial reduction in the scale of its research programme on phaseolusbeans. TAC endorsesthis trend, and recommends a modest reduction in the priority of this crop. Pigeonpea is an important crop in one country only (India) which in addition has a strong national research programme. The rapid progress achieved by ICRISAT in developing a hybrid pigeonpea variety, adds further weight to the argument that responsibilities for pigeonpea research, particularly in India, can now gradually be transferred to the national researchprogramme. TAC recommends that CGIAR efforts in pigeonpea research be progressively reduced in the long term to limit its activities to maintaining genetic resource collections only, and be diminished significantly in the medium term. Chickpea is an important dietary item for poor consumers in southeastAsia, India and the West Asia-North Africa region. In the short to medium term, the priority of this crop could be maintained. TAC recalled that cowpea was largely produced in Nigeria, but that the crop could be an important commodity for resource poor farmers throughout different agroecological zones and cropping systemsof West Africa, where national systems are generally still weak. TAC concluded that it would therefore be appropriate to continue CGIAR support for this commodity in the short to medium term. TAC noted that soybeanranked above several other legumes and the rapid progress of research on soybeanconducted in Asia, particularly with respect to multipurpose varieties. TAC recognizes that soybeanhas substantial potential in developing countries and that the demand for livestock feed is growing rapidly. The Committee recommends an increased resource allocation to this commodity in subSaharan Africa, in view of the likelihood of rapid progress, particularly with respect to its potential as a nutritious food, cash crop, and protein-rich livestock feed. Among food legumes, the only commodity that appearsunderfunded is groundnut. TAC has noted the substantial pay off from CGIAR investments in groundnut research in Asia as reported by the Third External Review of ICRISAT. In sub-Saharan Africa, progress has been slow. TAC recommends increasing current efforts in 165 groundnut research modestly given the opportunities for further gains to be made through research on this commodity. Oilcrops The modified ranking of coconut is only 2.0% (Table 9.17). However, TAC observed that its earlier recommendation to include coconut in the CGIAR portfolio was based on its importance as a smallholder multipurpose tree crop in several farming systems throughout the tropics. TAC hereby notes the prospects of high returns from research investments, the benefits to low-income producers, and the lack of continuity in historical research efforts. Coconut is also an important crop for the sustainability of agricultural production in coastal ecosystems. The priority ranking of another oilcrop, groundnut, has been considered within the category of food legumes. Banana and plantain The CGIAR has recently expanded its activities in banana and plantain research through the incorporation of INIBAP. Most of the investments of this Centre are not incorporated in the allocation figure given in Table 12.4 becausethey have been classified as network expenditures. Actual CGIAR efforts in banana and plantain are thus substantially higher than indicated. TAC recommends maintaining current efforts in CGIAR research on these commodities. Vegetables The analysis undertaken for assessinga possible expansion of the CGIAR and for the current review of CGIAR priorities, confirms TAC’s 1988 recommendation that research on vegetables is a high priority for the CGIAR. Livestock TAC has carefully considered the relative priority assignedto livestock research. In particular, TAC noted that while congplence on livestock research appears close, in practice the modified value of production figure has to be treated with considerable caution. The figure includes the value of all cattle meat and milk, and small ruminants across all regions. The CGIAR does not conduct any livestock research in Asia however, nor does it conduct research on small ruminants in Latin America or on large ruminants in the West Asia-North Africa region. When adjusting the modified production value for these factors, the figure would be reduced from 25.8 % to 16.5 %, with a distribution of 40% to sub-SaharanAfrica, 9% to West Asia-North Africa, 27% to Asia and 24% to Latin America. Actual resource allocation to livestock research amounts to more than 26%, distributed as 73 % to sub-SaharanAfrica, 9% to West Asia-North Africa, 16% to Latin America and only 1% to Asia. This would, in turn, suggestthat the CGIAR is substantially overinvesting in livestock research, even when considering the important role of intermediate livestock products such as traction and manure. A disproportionate share of CGIAR resourcesfor livestock research is allocated to subSaharan Africa. In addition to the regional emphasis, major questions remain about the distribution of speciesemphasis and between animal production and health research. Furthermore, it is now increasingly clear that in the future, much greater emphasis will 166 have to be given to enhancing crop-livestock interactions. The major constraint to increasing livestock productivity is a shortage of feed, and this could, to a greater extent, effectively be addressedthrough more adequately focused crop productivity research. TAC is also concerned about the generally slow rate of progress in obtaining impact from CGIAR investment in livestock research. TAC, therefore, recommends a modest reduction in the priority the CGIAR currently allocates to livestock research. In the medium term, the allocation to livestock research in sub-SaharanAfrica could be reduced substantially. When the livestock study, currently being undertaken by Winrock International, and the external reviews of ILIAD and ILCA are completed, TAC will revisit livestock research priorities. 1 12.4. Concllusions With respect to the assessment of priorities, in Systemwide terms, by activity category, TAC recommended a substantial increase in the priority allocated to conservation and management of natural resources including germplasm conservation, and of socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch. The Committee recommended a reduction in the priority allocated to development and managementof production systems and of institution building, while the current priority ranking of germplasm enhancementand breeding is to be maintained. TAC considered that in the medium term the share of resourcesallocated to sub-SaharanAfrica and to West Asia-North Africa should be reduced modestly, while the share allocated to particularly Asia and Latin America should be increased. The Committee did not make a recommendation on the level of priority by production sector, but notes that the proposed new programmes in forestry and fisheries should not be funded at the expenseof critical research needs in crops and livestock. TAC reaffirmed the priority it is currently allocating to the cereal and root and tuber crops. Among food legumes, it proposes to reduce the level of priority of phaseolusbean modestly, and that of pigeonpea significantly. The priority ranking of groundnut and soybean should be increased, while that of faba bean and lentil, chickpea and cowpea should be maintained. The current level of effort on banana and plantain will also be maintained, and TAC reaffirmed its views on the priority level for research on vegetablesand coconut. Finally, TAC considered the priority ranking of livestock and noted that the CGIAR is currently overinvesting therein, particularly in sub-SaharanAfrica. With respect to recommendations on forestry and fisheries, TAC reaffirms the outcome of the analysis made in Chapters 7 and 8. Furthermore, TAC is pleased with the good progress that is being made in the implementation of a new forestry research initiative in the CGIAR through the establishment of the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and in ICLARM’s efforts to develop a strategic plan for international fisheries research in the CGIAR. 1 TACKGIAR, 1993. Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR. 167 12.5. Final Observations The approach taken by TAC to this priority analysis is more comprehensiveand a great deal more quantitative than previous TAC efforts. We have attempted to bring into the analysis quantitative indicators of the most important dimensions of the CGIAR mission and goals. We have also carefully reviewed the outputs of similar efforts such as those of ACIAR. A major conclusion arising from TAC’s analysis is that the current constellation of activities in an expandedCGIAR is largely congruent with present and future research and research-relatedactivity needsbut that much greater emphasis still needs to be given to natural resource conservation and management. Although in the medium term further changeswill be required in the overall balance of effort, these will not require a dramatic departure from current activities. Stated another way, TAC’s review of activity balance, regional distribution of resourcesand commodity congruence suggeststhat the “founding fathers” of the CGIAR, and its changing membership since, have charted a course that allows for evolution and change and continues to addresshigh priority issues. This should not be surprising, becausethe challengesthat faced the CGIAR at its birth have, if anything, become more serious since 1970. Population growth continues at high rates, particularly in sub-SaharanAfrica, poverty and malnutrition remain pervasive, the need for increasedproductivity grows more acute as the opportunities for area expansion diminish, and long-term issuesof sustainability have become both more prominent and severe. Thus TAC finds that the focus on applied and strategic research of international importance focused on the twin needs of productivity improvement and sustainableresource managementfor agriculture, forestry and fisheries is indeed more important now than it was in 1970. Despite a broadening commodity portfolio and additional interests in natural resource management(particularly in agroforestry and forestry), the CGIAR remains a highly focused organization. The System still devotes critically necessarylevels of resourcesto selectedcommodities of major importance, and still focuses on a set of research activities that are most efficiently and effectively conducted internationally. The ability of the CGIAR to continuously adapt to changing circumstances should be seen as a strength of the CGIAR. The Group has always been forward looking. The CGIAR in 1991 is both similar to, and different from, the innovative model created in 1971. It is similar in its commitment to improving the lot of the poor in developing countries by increasing their accessto an affordable and sustainablefood supply. It is different in its scale, breadth of activities, and emerging partnerships with developing countries. The challenge ahead remains enormous. 168 CHAPTER 13 - IMPLICATIONS OF TAC’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRIORITIES FOR FUT.URE CGIAR STRATEGIES AND STRUCTURE 13.1. Introduction and Conceptual Background 13.1.1. TAC’s Sequential Approach to Priorities, Strategies and Structure The approach taken by TAC in its analysis of priorities and strategies proceeded in three stages. The first step was to develop an analytical framework to addressthe question of what research should be supported by the CGIAR and what should be the relative emphasis attached to the identified activities, The determination of what to do in relative terms is the setting of priorities. The second step asked the question of how the identified priorities should be addressed. This is the issue of determining the appropriate strategy for the CGIAR to follow in implementing its priorities. The third step, once priorities and strategies were agreed upon, was to ask who should do the research and how should it be organized, by centre, network or consortium. This is the question of structure. Each step preceded the other. The future structure of the CGIAR will evolve according to the collective views of the CGIAR, centres, and national partners. TAC seesthat its role is to provide reasoned input to the debate, not to recommend a particular structure. This chapter does not, therefore, contain a single set of specific recommendationsfor the future structure of the CGIAR. Rather, TAC is sharing with the CGIAR how it analysed what is, in the Committee’s judgement, a plausible set of alternatives. The Committee is also providing a coherent proposal on how it intends to undertake, during the next five years, a strategic analysis of different research activities and commodity groups supported by the CGIAR with the aim of recommending more cost-effective ways of organizing CGIAR efforts in those areas. The analytical framework developed by TAC to translate the complex dimensions of the CGIAR mission and goals into an array of relative priorities among activities, agroecological zones, regions, production sectors and commodities has been described in Chapter 12 of this report. The results of the analysis are TAC’s recommendations on future priorities. In this chapter, TAC addressesissuesof strategy and structure. In approaching its task, TAC drew on previous work done in the analysis of the potential CGIAR expansion (‘A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR’, AGIUTAC: IAR/90/24). In that analysis TAC developed medium/long and long-term visions of the CGIAR (Chapter 8) and discussedpossible institutional (structural) options (Chapter 11)‘. In addition TAC over the past four years has considered many centre strategic plans, external reviews, medium-term proposals and inter-centre commodity and other special purpose reviews. I To prevent confusion in terminology between medium-term programme and budgets (five years) and TAC’s medium-term vision (2010), the term medium/long is used for the 2010 target. 169 Using these as a basis, as well as Chapters 1 to 12, TAC presents in this chapter some further thoughts on strategiesand structure. The analysis reachestentative conclusions with regard to strategies. For example, the issue of ecoregional approaches is addresseddirectly - which ecoregions merit CGIAR programmes, can priority ecoregions be combined to reduce the number of mechanismsneeded, and how well do current centres match with ecoregional needs. Similarly TAC addressesmore fully the medium/long-term needs for global mechanisms. The Committee also addressesissues related to restructuring the CGIAR. This chapter proceeds as follows. TAC first reviews briefly the major conclusions of the priority exercise and updates the Group on its emerging medium/longand long-term visions of the CGIAR. This is followed by a further elaboration of the ecoregional concept and a possible medium/long- and long-term model for the CGIAR in, say, 2010 and beyond. TAC then presents the key strategic principles it used in its analysis and updated views on the ecoregional approach to research. It proceeds by making a proposal on how the ecoregional approach could be implemented and presents current views on the organization of global activities. The chapter concludes with some thoughts on linkages between ecoregional and global entities, and on the implications for existing centre mandates. 13.1.2. Main Conclusions of the Priority Exercise TAC’s analysis of CGIAR priorities, in Systemwide terms and by activity category, led the Committee to recommend a significant increase in the research efforts on natural resources conservation and management, and on socioeconomics,public policy and public management. It recommendedthat the current priority ranking of germplasm enhancementand breeding should be slightly increased. The Committee also recommended that CGIAR investment in research on the development and management of production systems and on institution building should be reduced becauseof increasing strength of national programmes and lack of special advantagefor the CGIAR. TAC considered that in the medium term the share of resourcesallocated to sub-SaharanAfrica and to West Asia-North Africa should be modestly reduced, while the share allocated to Asia, in particular, and LAC should be increased. The Committee did not make a recommendation on the level of priority by production sector, but considered that the proposed new programmes in forestry, agroforestry and fisheries should not be funded at the expense of critical ongoing research in crops and livestock. In the agricultural and forestry sectors, the analysis indicated that, relative to the baseline, emphasis should increase in the tropical AEZs l-4 and, for agriculture, additionally in the cool sub-tropics with winter rainfall AEZ 9. In both cases, greater increaseswere suggestedfor the tropical AEZs of SSA relative to those of Asia and LAC. However, it is noted that TAC does not have adequateinformation on the current distribution of CGIAR efforts by AEZ and therefore did not make recommendations on the distribution of effort by agroecological zone. TAC reaffirmed the priority currently given to the cereal and root and tuber crops. Among the food legumes, it proposes reducing the level of priority of phaseolus beans modestly, and that of pigeonpea significantly. The priority of groundnut and soybean should be increased, while that of lentil, chickpea and cowpea should be maintained. The current level of effort on banana and plantain should also be maintained. 170 TAC reaffirmed its views on the priority level for research on vegetablesand coconut. With respect to livestock research, the balance of the CGIAR effort should be redirected from its current focus on sub-SaharanAfrica to a more global programme. 13.1.3. TAC ‘s Medium/Long- and Long-Term Visions of the CGIAR In its report ‘A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR’ , TAC outlined a medium/long (2010 +) and long-term (2025 +) vision for the evolution of the CGIAR System which was endorsed in principle by the CGIAR in 1990. Realization of that long-term vision would depend heavily on improvements in the capacity of national research systems and the development of effective regional and transnational mechanisms of cooperation. The long term was defined in terms of the period when most national research systems in developing countries would be strong enough to meet their own national research needs. The underlying assumptionsare that, in the long term, the capacity of NARS would become stronger; that there would be strong and effective regional and transnational mechanismsfor research collaboration; that research and information networks would become a major mode of operation; that sharing of research responsibilities as well as joint planning of research between NARS and IARCs would increase; and that the private sector would become an important alternative supplier of research. Consequently, the CGIAR System would be expected to be smaller and quite different from what it is at present. TAC, recognizes, however, the continuing particular needs of sub-SaharanAfrica where, in general, national research systemscontinue to be weak, and in some casesare even getting weaker. It is TAC’s judgement, based on considerations of international public goods, economies of scale, and spillovers, that there would be a continuing need for international efforts in the long term in: germplasm collection, conservation, characterization, evaluation and enhancement, and basic genetic manipulation of plants and animals of transnational and/or global significance; strategic research on global issuesof natural resourcesconservation and management; strategic research on public policy and public managementissuesof global significance; and global information services related to research in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Currently, many CGIAR Centres are involved in applied, and even adaptive, research on germplasm improvement and breeding and on the development and management of production systems. This type of research is properly the province of national systems in the long term. To get from where the CGIAR System is now to the long term, a transitional period is essential. The challenge confronting the CGIAR is how to manage the transition period in ways that ensure effective coverage of the spectrum of urgently-needed research, while helping to strengthen NARS’ capacity. TAC has therefore developed a medium/long-term vision, in terms of concepts, activities and mechanisms. In Chapter 8 of the Expansion Report and in the elaboration papers ‘An Ecoregional Approach to Researchin the CGIAR’ (1991 b) and ‘Relationships between 171 CGIAR Centres and NARS’ (1991 a), TAC attempted to define a possible evolutionary path from the present situation through the medium/long term to the long term, in the context of possible institutional arrangements. In the medium/long term TAG envisagesthe CGIAR as having two major types of activities: global and agroecological, regionally defined (for which TAC has used the term ‘ecoregional’). Global activities would comprise strategic research on selected commodities and subject-matter areas while ecoregional activities would focus on applied and strategic research on conservation and managementof natural resources, the development and managementof production systems, and on applied aspectsof commodity improvement. These views provided the basic framework for what TAC called ‘the ecoregional approach to research’ which is elaborated upon in Section 13.1.5. 13.1.4. Key Strategic Principles Priority setting was TAC’s starting point in strategic planning for the CGIAR. The implementation of priorities by activity, region, agroecological zone, and commodity is a major consideration in developing the strategy for the CGIAR in the medium/long term. However, TAC is aware that the priority analysis covers a broad spectrum of research needs, and recognizes that the CGIAR, as only one relatively small actor in the international research system, must be very selective. The strategic approach must take account of the important role of NARS, advanced institutions in developed countries, and other relevant research organizations. The role of the private sector must also be considered, particularly in the light of recent developments in biotechnology, postharvesttechnology, plant breeders’ rights, and intellectual property rights. Such developmentscontribute to the complexity and dynamism of the task facing the CGIAR. Although TAC has taken these issuesinto account in developing the CGIAR strategy, it has to be recognized that major breakthroughs in particular fields, and dramatic changesin institutions or policy regimes, are unpredictable and cannot therefore be factored into the strategy. It should also be noted that TAC has focused its consideration of strategic principles largely on research programmes and institutional matters. However the Committee has been cognizant of the limits in funding and has therefore preferred to recommend adjustments to existing institutions rather than proposing the creation of new ones in restructuring the System to achieve its goals. Among the guiding principles for translating TAC’s medium/long- and longterm visions into strategies and structures is the idea of building on the current strengths of the CGIAR. These include the System’s: apolitical and international character; decentralized management(independentcentres, autonomous donors and a system of checks and balancesthrough reviews); concept of critical mass; hands-on research capability; 172 relationships with partners; stable but flexible funding; and sound experience in research with a commodity and subject matter focus. However, the CGIAR System should also make every effort to overcome its own shortcomings, such as: overlapping commodity responsibilities; overlapping resource-management mandates; lack of a clear designated responsibility for strategic research on resources management issues; uncoordinated decentralization of a variety of activities; lack of coordination of centres’ capacity-building efforts and national research systems; and inadequate accountability to partners. In the medium/long term, a major challenge for the CGIAR Centres will be to improve their collaboration with NARS, particularly their contribution to strengthening national programmes, devolution of activities to the stronger NARS, and development of transnational mechanisms for scientific cooperation. While there is wide recognition that the CGIAR is not equipped to play a direct and leading role in these types of activities, it should, in association with other actors, actively support efforts focused on strengthening NARS and transnational collaborative mechanisms. ISNAR is expected to play a major role through its research-basedservices in a restructured CGIAR. Joint work between CGIAR Centres and NARS through networks, consortia and other collaborative programmes of the proposed ecoregional mechanismswill certainly help strengthen NARS’ capacity at the scientific level. However, the CGIAR efforts should not be a substitute for institution-building or capacity-strengtheningactivities in national research systems by governments and development agencies. Among the concerns expressedby NARS’ leaders about the nature of CGIARNARS relationships are: the unbalanced resource endowments; the top-down prioritysetting mechanisms; the stratification of tasks, resulting in frustration of NARS; competition between centres for NARS collaboration, which has at times overburdened national scientists and caused internal fragmentation of NARS programmes. There has also been a tendency for bilateral one-on-one initiatives between centres and NARS, which have sometimes been set up at the cost of integrated regional cooperation between NARS. In TAC’s judgement, some of the main weaknessesof the CGIAR could be overcome by a sharper delineation of responsibilities between CGIAR global and ecoregional mechanisms, and this is the key organizing principle in TAC’s options for restructuring the CGIAR System. As pointed out in the ‘Report of the TACKentre 173 Directors Working Group on the Ecoregional Approach to Researchin the CGIAR’ (1993), the ecoregional approach will entail a deliberate move along the following lines: filling gaps and minimizing overlaps in the coverage of research relating to natural resourcesconservation and management; rationalizing overlapping commodity responsibilities; providing focal points within an organized agroecological framework for coordinating decentralized research activities; and streamlining interactions between NARS and CGIAR Centres to avoid confusion at the national level, by coordinating institution-building efforts and other activities. TAC notes that these principles are all consistent with the CGIAR mission and goals, but that given the current realities of the CGIAR System and its components, and the present and potential heterogeneity in the capacity of national research systems, they may not be easy to follow. A pragmatic rather than a doctrinaire approach must therefore be taken in applying them. In approaching the delicate issue of recommending future structures for the CGIAR, TAC debated three possible approaches,all of which were aimed at achieving the medium/long- and long-term visions of the System. The first was the ‘clean slate’ approach in which a structure for the System at a funding level of US$ 240 million is devised, with no attention being paid to the current structure. The secondapproach suggestsonly the minimum necessarychangesto the current structure in order to accomplish the inclusion of the specific new activities. The third “pragmatic’ approach was intermediate between the first and second approaches,in which the possibilities of restructuring were considered with respect to the existing structure. TAC adopted the third approach, and emphasizedthat the CGIAR should: Build on the high-quality and efficiently-operated parts of the System. Keep firmly in mind the medium/long-term vision and the objective of delineating responsibilities for activities and reducing the potential for conflict and confusion. Clearly distinguish between an activity and an institution. TAC is pressing for clear responsibilities for tasks but seesno particular reason why an institution could not undertake two activities, one global and one ecoregional. The guiding principle for a centre with dual responsibilities should be that each activity brings its own clear priorities and that neither activity should dominate the other, either intellectually or in terms of resource availability. Maintain the principle that an institution is an organizational form with governance, managementand operational functions. There can be varying degrees of decentralization, both of decisions and the geographic location, of the management and operations. 174 Use the most appropriate forms of decentralization to achieve a balance between maintaining a critical mass for the effective pursuit of particular research projects and the possible diseconomies of very large congregations at single sites. Ensure that scientists at all levels have opportunities to collaborate directly or indirectly with the ultimate partners, the national programmes, and have access to necessaryglobal discipline and basic research links. The global centres must not become basic research enclaves isolated from applied and adaptive problems. Nor can the ecoregional mechanismsbecome provincial islands isolated from advancesin science. Fostering effective collaboration is a key to the future successof the CGIAR. 13.1.5. The Ecoregional Approach to Research The ecoregional approach to international research was first introduced by TAC when considering the possible expansion of the CGIAR System, within the context of the development of its medium/long and long-term visions of the evolution of the CGIAR. The ecoregional approach was proposed by TAC as a vehicle: (i) to achieve sustainable improvements in agricultural production by balancing commodity improvement research with increased research on natural resourcesmanagement; and (ii) to rationalize relationships between CGIAR Centres and NARS. Since the ecoregional approach is a new, key organizing principle for the CGIAR, the main concepts and implementation considerations are reiterated here. TAC had presented its views on ecoregional approachesto research and the priorities for a CGIAR involvement in this area at MTM’92. At that meeting, members of the CGIAR had expresseda strong desire for a mechanism that would assist in developing a coherent CGIAR approach. As a result, TAC and the Centre Directors’ Committee for Sustainability and the Environment worked together to develop proposals fJr such a mechanism, and a joint TAC/Centre Directors Working Group was commissioned to prepare a discussion document’. The report of this Working Group was submitted in February 1993 and was discussedby both TAC and the Centre Directors, who each issued a commentary on it. The report was also distributed to heads of national research systems and members of the CGIAR, and was further considered at a workshop on 29 May 1993 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and by heads of national research systems in sub-SaharanAfrica at a meeting organized by the Special Programme for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) on 29-30 April 1993. The ideas presented in the remainder of this section are drawn from the various materials developed by TAC and the joint TAC/Centre Directors Working Group as the concepts evolved. 1 TAC Secretariat, 1993. The Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR. TAUCentre Directors’ Working Group. FAO, Rome. Report of the 175 13.1.5.1. Concept The TAC concept of an ecoregional approach is that of a strategy for bringing a new balance to international agricultural research in order to enhancethe sustainable improvement of productivity, and for gradual transition in the organization of the global agricultural research system to meet the sustainability challenge. TAC recognized the inherent advantagesof organizing research on the physical and biological aspectsof the conservation and managementof natural resources, including biodiversity , along agroecological zones. In contrast, the Committee recognized that the socioeconomic circumstancesshaping such research, and the support needs of national programmes, are better differentiated by national and regional boundaries. TAC therefore developed the idea of regionally-defined agroecological zones, and coined the phrase ‘ecoregional’ to describe them. There are three aspectsof the ecoregional approach to research: e conducting applied and strategic research on the foundations of sustainable production systems in the ecoregion; improving productivity in the ecoregion by drawing in appropriate global research activities; and strengthening the cooperation with national partners and developing transnational mechanismsfor collaboration. 0 0 The global community does not yet have an effective paradigm for the sustainable improvement of productivity. Identifying such a paradigm and making it operational is an urgent goal of truly international relevance and significance. New modes of operation will be neededfor both the implementation of the ecoregional approach and for closer collaboration with other international sources of expertise. These include expertise in the biophysical resource base of the ecoregion, in policy or institution-building capacity, and expertise in the improvement of crops, livestock and trees which do or could contribute to the production systemsunder research. The complexity of the task will demand a wider range of skills than currently resides in the CGIAR Centres, and thus the need for a wider range of partnerships, including other international and national institutions. The policy dimension of the approach will require not only strong sociopolitical understanding but political support in participating countries. Consortia of institutions are one possible mechanism for collaboration. CGIAR successwill continue to depend on close working relationships between centres and the NARS. TAC is aware of difficulties persisting in these relationships (many caused by the existence of global and regional mandatesfor the same commodity at different centres), and of their often one-sided nature. As the CGIAR restructures, TAC stressesthe need to rationalize overlapping centre mandates, resolve the duplication of efforts in capacity building, and modify CGIAR-dominated planning processes,all of which have aggravated relationships and overburdenedweaker NARS. Such rationalization will bring greater effectivenessto the global research system. 176 During the transition from the medium/long to the long term and as national systems become stronger, CGIAR ecoregional activities will be progressively replaced by work in national programmes and transnational mechanisms. As regional entities take on .a greater share of responsibility, the winding down of its ecoregional initiatives will leave the CGIAR as a set of global activities, justified by the wide spillover of results throughout the developing world. The nature and pace of such change will depend on a strengthenedpolitical commitment to research in the developing countries and cooperation between the countries of a region. Such commitment will grow from a better understanding of the importance of new agricultural technology to human survival and development, and of the benefits of transnational collaboration in agricultural research. 13.152. Implementation No single organizational model will serve the needs of all ecoregions; the diversity in NARS’ capabilities, the varying mandatesof the CGIAR Centres and the location-specific manifestations of the degradation problem preclude uniformity. However, the following set of broad guidelines provides for a pragmatic, non-overlapping set of coordinated programmes, and a new dimension for the CGIAR. These programmes would: operate on a regional basis; focus on an important agroecological zone with a potential or actual sustainability problem; combine natural resourcesmanagementand productivity objectives; employ a multidisciplinary approach; include both natural and social sciences; involve national research institutions and other partners in a synergistic way; adopt flexible systems of governance and priority setting; ensure global coherence in System strategies; and utilize flexible funding mechanisms. (a) Operattonal mechanisms for the ecoregional approach The mechanism adopted or preferred by the centres to implement natural resources management initiatives is the consortium, defined as the partnership of diverse institutions to accumulate critical mass and to jointly plan and implement an integrated research programme of common interest. The formation of the consortium has to be catalysed and supported by a convening agency, sometimes a centre, which provides seed money to support early planning activities. Within the consortium, a steering committee could be established for priority setting, further fund raising and task allocation based on the inherent advantages of the respective partner institutions. When a centre is convener, it is usually becauseit is located in the ecoregion with a sound knowledge of the institutions of the countries in the region. It may or may not become the research leader. Since systemsconcepts drive the research approach, centres and institutes which have a major research role in the ecoregion are obvious candidates as consortium partners. Early diagnostic work bringing a closer understanding of the problem will be important in finalizing membership. The need to integrate the activities of a number of international collaborators at in-country sites requires innovative thinking on country agreements. Collaborative programmes with NARS and other relevant research agenciesare the obvious mode for implementation. The regional specificity of the research, and the necessarylinks with community organizations, national institutions and policy makers will 177 demand political support at the highest national level, and funding support for both research and key complementary activities. Ecoregional mechanisms should adopt organizational forms appropriate to the type and level of research needed and the strength of collaborating national systems. Where national systems are weak, the ecoregional mechanism will need to implement research through the full continuum, from strategic understanding of physical processes down to the introduction of technology on farms at the selected field sites in the region. Each ecoregional mechanism will have the capacity to conduct research at only a limited number of sites. Each site should represent a defined area, often a watershed, and the unit of social cohesion, usually the community which managesit. The research approach will seek to understand the physical and biological processescritical to sustainability in this unit. It will also seek to understand the influence on the management of these processesfrom human decisions made at the farm, community, institutional and policy levels. These same human decision points will be fundamental to finding solutions for the sustainable managementof the physical and biological resources. Researchat each site will require close collaboration between CGIAR Centres, the national research system, national policy agenciesand NGOs and farmers’ associationsworking with local communities at the grassrootsto cope with the many dimensions of the challenge of evolving sustainableproduction systems. As well as contributing to the search for a researchparadigm for the sustainable improvement of productivity, outputs from the research sites will be of immediate value at both the local and the AEZ level: at the local level, in the communities representedby the field sites, implementation of the approach will provide technology guidance on changes in social organization and policy neededfor the sustainableimprovement of productivity in the existing farming systems; at the sametime the better understanding of the soil, water and biological processesfrom the representativefield sites will be relevant to the whole agroecological zone beyond the immediate ecoregion. The need to share experiences from several locations demandscoordination in site selection, collaboration in operation and the synthesis of results on themes common to these locations to provide aggregated research outputs. The same sites will offer a training forum for scientists from the countries of the region, who will gain first-hand experience of the dimensions of natural resources management research including the national and transnational coordination required for its planning, implementation and the mobilization of the research outputs into farmers’ fields. 178 (b) Future CGIAR/NmS relationships Ecoregional mechanisms should build on the range of useful experiencesalready gained from the evolving relationships with national research systems across the world’. A major aim in relations with NARS will be to move towards the implementation of priorities for research determined by regional or subregional associationsof countries or scientists, organized in an appropriate way, enjoying support and approval from the relevant scientific communities and government. The aim is to achieve coherence in the CGIAR responseto the needs of the countries in the subregion to replace individual and often duplicate initiatives by a number of different centres. Contractual relationships, required either by ecoregional or commodity mechanisms to meet the needs of their own programmes, could be facilitated through the same consultative procedure. TAC suggeststhat existing mechanisms of transnational collaboration should be used where they are available, although there may sometimes be a need for modification of these mechanisms. Beyond the medium/long term, TAC’s view is that CGIAR ecoregional mechanisms should pass greater responsibility to national systems and transnational collaborative mechanismsas these mature. The major gain expected from restructuring the CGIAR into global and ecoregional dimensions is the greater coherence in the System’s continuing roles of bridging and gap filling in agricultural research for developing countries. Bringing the concept of sustainable improvement of productivity to operational reality, and moving towards a closer integration of national needs with the global research agenda, will both add coherence to System strategies and streamline relations with national research systems. As noted, addressing national needs with a coordinated effort across subregions should mean more effective support and training and less burden on weak national systems from the continued interaction of each country with independent initiatives from several IARCs s Future Strategies and Structure for the t3X4.R 132.1. Ecoregional Activities TAC approachedthe question of translating the ecoregional concept into operational structures in two stages: assessingthe CGIAR priorities and activity needs in each ecoregion and, with results of that analysis in hand, assessingthe institutional options for priority ecoregions. All ecoregions have areas in which population levels have exceededthe ability of communities to sustainably manage their natural resource base according to traditional knowledge. While TAC acknowledgesthe importance of sustainedproduction from the 1 TAC thereby adopts ISNAR’s broad definition of a national research system which is as follows: “A national agricultural research system comprises all of a country’s entities responsible for organizing, coordinating, or executing research that contributes explicitly to the development of its agriculture and the maintenance of its natural resource base. ” Under this broad definition of NARS, non-governmental and private sector organizations would also be included in addition to governmental organizations and universities. 179 high potential lands, particularly the irrigated ecosystemsforming the breadbasketsof Asia, it also notes that many countries must depend on inherently less productive resources to ensure food security. The assessment of CGIAR priorities by ecoregions involved three steps: first, combining ecoregions for purposesof programme definition, since the individual ecoregions were considered to be too fine a classification for defining operational researchprogrammes; reviewing the relative priority index generatedby the priority exercise for combinations of ecoregions; reviewing the intensity of researchneeds in each ecoregion (or combination of ecoregions) as outlined in Chapter 4, and assessing whether each combination of ecoregions resulting from the analysis should have a formal CGIAR programme. Once the priorities and activity needs had been assessed, TAC explored institutional options that might be used to deliver a CGIAR ecoregional programme. TAC’s assessment included comparing identified ecoregional needswith existing centre capacity to determine if centre programmes might be adjusted to meet future needs. 13.2.1.1. Priorities by ecoregion TAC’s priority analysis was based on nine agroecological zones (AEZ) and four regional groupings of developing countries: sub-SaharanAfrica (SSA), West Asia-North Africa (WANA), Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and Caribbean (LAC). Ultimately, 21 ecoregions were used in the priority-setting exercise. As TAC reviewed research needs, centres’ strategic plans and commodity distribution across ecoregions, it was noted that CGIAR Centres do not normally distinguish between the tropics and subtropics in programme definition since there are great similarities in cropping patterns in both. TAC concluded, therefore, that the tropical and subtropical ecoregions with similar moisture regimes should be considered together. Thus, the pairs of AEZs 1 and 5, 2 and 6, 3 and 7, and 4 and 8 were combined for further analysis. The result of this first strategic choice was to reduce the number of consolidated ecoregions from 21 to 14: 4 in Asia, 4 in SSA, 5 in LAC and 1 in WANA. TAC then reviewed the relative priority index for each of the 14 consolidated ecoregions. The results of this analysis are presentedin Table 13.1. The values in the table add up to a total of 1000 which results from the application of nine modifiers to the composite base line. 188 Table 13.1. Distribution of relative priority indices by AEZs and geographic regions, within agriculture* Consolidated .&Us Warm arid and semi-arid tropics and sub-tropics with summer LAC 23.7 tropics with summer rainfall (AEZS 2+6) summer ram Cool tropics and sub-tropics with 42.0 Cool sub-tropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9) *Derived from Table 9.15 (all modifiers weighted 0.5) 5.8 TAC also reviewed the distribution of values of commodity production across ecoregions to determine whether commodity production patterns crossedboundaries between consolidated ecoregions (Table 13.2). An analysis of Table 13.2 suggestedthat there was merit in consolidating ecoregions on the basis of similarity in cropping patterns and commodities produced. Clearly, many commodities such as rice and maize are grown in most ecoregions, while others such as pigeonpea and barley, are relatively important to particular ecoregions. This information was useful in analysing whether a particular ecoregion would be better served by a commodity-focused as opposed to a full ecoregional programme. Table 13.2 : Values of commodity production, modified by the relative priority index, of CGIAR commodities (modifiers at 0.5) across ecoregions (values as a proportion of a total of production of 10,000) Icommodity __RICE WHEAT MAIZE BARLEY SORGHUM MILLET CASSAVA POTATO SWEET POTATO YAM BANANA & PLANTAIN CHICK PEA COW PEA PIGEON PEA BROAD BEAN LENTIL BEANS SOYBEAN GROUNDNUT COCONUT BEEF & BUFFALO MEAT SHEEP & GOAT MEAT MILK -_.__-___ TOTALS (%): * value < 0.5 1 57.7 12.4 106.5 0.6 34.0 115.0 42.2 115.3 109.6 148.8 8.6 7.1 21.2 24.5 125.5 5.8 144.6 8.8 1.3 1.7 30.5 77.9 4.0 2.7 1.4 6.7 0.1 0.2 36.5 32.8 2.2 4.4 57.0 218.9 5.9 12.1 51.6 215.8 18.2 121.9 30.4 386.8 _--__-___ 8.2 16.8 SSA 2 38.8 0.2 51.4 * 3 79.8 0.1 36.7 * 7.4 4.8 241.3 5.2 12.6 153.1 119.4 * 22.5 * * * 4 0.6 15.1 37.7 12.5 10.0 0.2 6.5 20.5 IF.3 0.1 66.8 3.0 * * \ I tiANA 1 158.7 21.1 55.2 2.9 0.8 * 56.5 0.2 2.1 8.8 0.1 k 12.3 13.7 11.5 2.8 2.8 * 55.5 64.8 * 21.8 1 .o 66.1 13.7 58.0 55.6 25.2 19.6 66.8 9.1 ___-.-_---8.7 4.0 ~__-- 10.7 0.9 42.4 0.2 5.2 * w ECOREGIONS ASIA 3+7 2+6 309.5 846.1 37.9 27.3 117.1 21.1 69.7 34.6 0.0 1.6 3.5 0.1 8.1 26.6 0.3 9.4 30.7 26.4 72.3 11.6 27.7 13.3 36.5 73.5 20.6 39.2 * * 0.9 58.4 27.9 0.4 9.0 1.1 32.8 * 0.3 0.4 0.0 5.4 19.6 1.3 3.4 2.5 1.8 2.9 7.1 5.8 5.8 13.2 10.6 27.0 16.9 48.7 24.5 121.8 13.7 131.9 21.6 17.2 52.0 28.9 6.4 14.3 30.3 25.2 88.9 6.7 14.8 l8 22.0 178.7 121.3 10.2 * 0.9 * 86.2 R * 0.0 1.7 * 0.2 16.8 2.0 3.6 * * * 30.4 27.2 49.9 5.5 1+5 11.9 10.2 20.5 0.7 7.8 0.0 7.4 5.1 2.4 0.4 18.5 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 10.2 17.6 4.0 2.8 49.8 2.3 46.9 ---____.2.2 2+6 20.9 2.0 28.1 0.1 4.6 0.0 21.3 1.4 1.4 0.5 20.4 0.2 * 0.3 0.5 0.0 15.1 43.1 4.5 2.7 54.3 1.9 55.2 22 LAC 3+7 56.6 11.3 52.7 0.3 0.6 * 32.0 5.4 1.6 1.9 51.8 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 28.1 81.6 0.6 5.9 102.9 3.7 107.9 5.5 4+8 8.3 21.4 31.4 3.1 11.1 0.1 * 40.2 0.6 * 23.9 0.6 * * 1 .o 0.3 12.8 17.1 0.1 * 103.4 6.6 87.5 3.7 TOTALS 9 0.9 % 7.8 6:O 2.5 6.4 0.3 0.9 0.1 2'; * 2:; 0.0 6.8 4.4 3.2 0.1 2.1 * 2.9 0.1 5.4 0.1 0.6 * 1 .s * 0.3 * 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.6 2.4 1 .o 2.3 0.4 5.5 * 2.1 10.0 8.9 0.9 3.4 10.8 14.5 0.4 100 182 While TAC did not adopt a minimum value for the relative priority index, it did carefully review those ecoregions with a relative priority index less than 50.0. At this stage, TAC ruled out, on the basis of low-priority ranking, separateprogrammes for LAC-AEZ 9 and LAC-AEZs 1+5. In other cases, TAC considered that further amalgamation of ecoregions could be necessaryto justify a formal programme. Finally, TAC’s analysis of research priorities showed that more research on the conservation and management of natural resourceswas needed in every region and agroecological zone, although the size of the increase and the type of research needed differed across the regions as discussedin Chapter 4. TAC recognized the need for greater CGIAR ecoregional involvement in applied research on production systems development and management in the areas where NARS are weaker, despite the general recommendation that activities in this category should be reduced. Based on all these analyses, TAC’s assessment of the need for ecoregional activities in different ecoregions is as follows: Sub-Saharan Africa - An ecoregional programme in the warm arid and semiarid tropics appearedto be justified by the analysis which resulted in a priority ranking of 136.8 for this ecoregion. The combined priority index for the warm humid tropics (AEZ 3) and the warm sub-humid tropics (AEZ 2) is 166.8, which would also justify an ecoregional programme. The cool tropics (AEZ 4), basically the East African Highlands, has a priority index of only 33.1 which is less compelling for a stand-aloneprogramme. However, TAC considers that the research needs in this ecoregion are important and that national programmes in this area are particularly weak with respect to resourcesmanagement research. (ii) West Asia-North Africa - The cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9) in this region has a priority index of 81.1. The geographic contiguity of the region and its pressing resourcesmanagementneedsjustify a continuing ecoregional research programme. TAC noted that irrigated systems are important in this region and suggestedthat, where appropriate, irrigated ecosystemscould constitute specific research domains of ecoregional programmes. Asia and the Pacific - The Asian region is large and diverse in all respects. The warm semi-arid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 1+5) have a relatively high priority index (121. l), which reflects the major issues in resources management, population and poverty which, in the short term, would suggest a continued CGIAR effort in this ecoregion. TAC notes, however, that virtually all of this ecoregion is contained in two countries, India and Pakistan, both of which are judged to have relatively strong national programmes. In the longer term, this ecoregion would be an early candidate for the transfer of CGIAR efforts to regional mechanismsor national programmes. The warm humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 2, 3, 5, 7) have a combined priority index of 212.6, dominated by AEZ 3 (120.7) and AEZ 2 (43 .O). This is a vast area with serious resource degradation problems and a burgeoning population. (iii) 183 Although the major crop is rice, upland crops, agroforestry, forestry and coastal ecosystemsare also important, suggestinga need for ecoregional approachesto research. Institutional options for this area are discussedin the next section. The cool tropics and subtropics (AEZ 8) has a lower priority index (63.6) and is almost all contained in China and the adjoining border areas. TAC concluded that a major CGIAR ecoregional programme was not justified in this area. (iv> Latin America and the Caribbean - The warm arid and semi-arid tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZs 1+5) of LAC have a low relative priority index (23.7), are widely dispersed geographically and are sparsely populated with a limited number of commodities; maize, wheat and cattle. There could be spillovers from ecoregional programmes in SSA and Asia that could partially serve this region. In TAC’s judgement, a separateecoregional programme was not justified. TAC considered an amalgamation of ecoregions 2, 3, 6 and 7 becauseof geographic proximity, overlapping cropping patterns and similar natural resourcesmanagementproblems. The combined priority index of 113.6 for such an amalgamation suggestsjustification for one CGIAR programme to cover the important researchdomains. TAC did not consider RAEZ 9 becauseof its low priority index (5.8) and its concentration in two relatively advancedcountries, Chile and Argentina. The remaining aggregate is AEZs 4 + 8, the cool tropics and subtropics with summer rainfall (the highlands of Latin and Central America) which, like the highlands of Africa, has a relatively low priority index (42.0) and is geographically diverse. However resourcesmanagementissuesare particularly acute in mountainous regions and poverty is pervasive. In TAC’s view, the CGIAR would be well advised not to ignore highland ecosystems,though the establishment of separate major core funded programmes in Latin America and Africa is probably not justified. Institutional options are discussedin the following section. In summary, TAC concluded that six ecoregional programmes were justified: two in SSA in the warm arid and semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1) and the warm humid and subhumid tropics (AEZs 2 +3); one in WANA in the cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9); two in Asia in the warm arid and semi-arid region (AEZs 1+5), and the warm humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics (AEZs 2, 3, 6 + 7); and one in LAC in the warm humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics (AEZs 2, 3, 6 + 7). In addition, there may be justification for programmes in the cool tropics in LAC and SSA if either inter-regional mechanisms were possible or if the programmes for each region were institutionally combined with other mechanisms. 13.2.1.2. Institutiond options At the special workshop on ecoregional approachesin San Juan on 29 May 1993, members of the CGIAR requestedthat TAC develop a proposal for the implementation of the ecoregional approach that would ensure the orderly evolution of the System towards greater coherence and rationalization. The CGIAR was supportive of TAC’s proposal to select a limited number of ecoregional initiatives for funding on a programme basis. During the medium-term resource allocation process, TAC formulated a comprehensive proposal in this regard, and funds have been allocated to several ecoregional programmes in order to promote inter-centre collaboration and partnership with national research systems and other institutes. A convening centre has been 184 identified for each initiative but as discussedin Section 13.1.5.2, this would not be necessarily the research leader. The ‘convening’ role is essentially a servicing and initiating role. The convener would be a catalyst for the formation of a consortium and channel seed money to stimulate early planning activities, and provide financial accountability to donors. In all casesthe researchwould be conducted by relevant CGIAR Centres, NARS and other institutions or agencies. TAC’s institutional recommendations for each region are as follows’: Sub-Saharan Africa: TAC considered that support for two ecoregional programmes would be justified in the warm semi-arid tropics, and the warm humid and sub-humid tropics. In the warm humid and sub-humid tropics of sub-SaharanAfrica, IITA would be the convening centre through its continuum, moist savanna,and forest zone programmes in West, Central and Eastern Africa. IITA would work collaboratively with WARDA within the framework of a consortium arrangement for the inland valleys in West Africa, in which WARDA currently plays a lead role. In the warm arid and semi-arid tropics, ICRISAT would be the convening centre, both through its Sahelian programme and its programme in Bulawayo in collaboration with the Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR). ICRAF is currently leading an initiative on integrated natural resources management for the highlands of eastern and central Africa, in close collaboration with national programmes and several CGIAR Centres. TAC noted that while the cool tropics of sub-SaharanAfrica was not considered to be a high-priority ecoregion, this highlands initiative merited support becauseof its innovative approach, which involved centres and NARS from the outset, and becauseof the weaknessof national research systems in the region. This highlands initiative is currently supported with complementary sources of funding, but would be a candidate for CGIAR System programme support. ICRAF would be the convening centre for an ecoregional programme. WANA: TAC proposes an ecoregional programme for the subtropics with winter rainfall, with ICARDA as the convening centre.It is assumedthat the new programme on water management in the WANA region, for which IIMI has been designatedthe convening centre, will also be closely involved in this initiative. Asia and the Pacific: TAC proposes two ecoregional programmes in Asia, one in the warm semi-arid tropics and subtropics, and another one for the warm humid and subhumid tropics and subtropics. 1 It is assumedthat global subject matter centres such as ISNAR (institution building) and IFPRI (policy research) will be involved in most of these initiatives. 185 In the warm arid and semi-arid tropics and subtropics, ICRISAT would be the convening centre. Elements of the CIMMYT-IRRI rice-wheat cropping system would also be included in this initiative. In the warm sub-humid and humid tropics and subtropics, IRRI would be the convening centre .for an ecoregional programme particularly tin-ough its upland farming systemsconsortium and upland rice researchprogramme. Latin America: TAC considered that a programme would be justified for the humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics of Latin America. CIAT would be the convening centre and the programme would include relevant parts of CIP’s Andean programme. TAC considered whether UP’s proposed ecoregional programme for the Andean region would merit separatesupport. The Committee considers that the resource-managementresearch aspectsof the proposed Andean programme would more appropriately fit in CIP’s complementary programme. TAC recognizes the importance of the Andean region and the need for research to overcome the urgent problems of poverty and resource degradation in the area. The Committee supports CIP’s research on genetic resource conservation of lesser known roots and tubers as a core element under the Andean programme and hopes that relevant parts of the Andean programme can be integrated in the proposed ecoregional programme for Latin America. That programme may also incorporate relevant parts of CIAT’s ecosystemsprogrammes on hillsides, forest margins and savannas. Gross-ecoregional: TAC considered there was justification for programme support to the ‘alternatives to slash-and-bum agriculture’ initiative which already exists and in which several centres and national programme partners are actively involved. The initiative addressesa major cross ecoregional issue. ICRAF would be the convening centre and work in close collaboration with IITA, CIAT, CIFOR, and IRRI. TAC is prepared to receive concrete proposals through the convening centres for implementing the ecoregional programmes, with specific roles outlined for each contributing partner. The Committee stressesthe importance of involving national programmes and relevant other non-CGIAR partners in these initiatives from the outset. 13.2.2. Global Activities In section 13.2.1, TAC presentedkey strategic principles in approaching the question of strategy and structure of the CGIAR. These principles were applied to the consideration of both ecoregional and global strategiesand structures. In approaching the issue of ecoregional activities, an intermediate step of determining which ecoregions merited CGIAR programmes was necessarybefore institutional options could be discussed. In the global context, such a step is unnecessarybecausethe priority exercise has already highlighted which proposed commodities and activities merit CGIAR support and their relative priorities. In discussing institutional options for the System’s efforts on commodities research, TAC continued to aim at achieving the medium/long- and long-term visions of the CGIAR. TAC argued that research with a global perspective should be strategic and sharply focused on selected commodities and subject matters of global significance. In analysing future strategies and structure, TAC addresseda number of strategic issues: the evolving role of the CGIAR in priority-ranked commodities; the way in which form and 186 magnitude of their research effort should develop; and the possibility of aggregating commodity activities. The nature and scope of non-commodity global activities and the links between global activities and ecoregional mechanismswere also discussed. Finally, TAC carefully considered the optimal future structure of the CGIAR, with respect to the current shortfalls in funding to the CGIAR. As discussedelsewhere, if the situation of budget stringencies persists, the CGIAR may not be able to sustain current structures. TAC therefore discussedstructural changesat the institutional, activity, regional, commodity, production sector and programme levels. 13.2.2.1. Global commodity/production sector research TAC considered several alternative institutional possibilities for global commodity/production sector research responsibilities in the CGIAR, taking into account the preceding analysis and the recent decisions by the CGIAR with respect to institutional forms for livestock, rice, and banana and plantain. Among the criteria considered by TAC in looking at institutional options were: proven record and impact; economies of scale and existing infrastructure for research; possibility of spillover effects; centres of origimbiodiversity of the commodities; compatibility of research approachesamong commodities; and existing research links between centres. TAC considered that recent developments in CGIAR policy on intellectual property rights, plant genetic resourcesand biotechnology should be taken into account in the formulation of institutional strategies. The facilities needed for genetic resource conservation and for research using some molecular biology techniques are very costly, and more cost effective use of such facilities and techniques should constantly be sought. Subsequentto the decision by the CGIAR at MTM’87 that evaluation of CGIAR priorities should be a continuing activity, TAC initiated a series of strategic analyses of CGIAR commodities. However, the process was interrupted during 1988 and delayed to allow time for the assessment of the non-associatedcentres. In TAC’s view a reasoned, sequential approach is likely to be more manageable than an across-the-boardconsideration of options despite the obvious merits of a comprehensive review. The clarification on global commodity organization provided by CGIAR decisions regarding livestock and banana and plantain research at the Mid-Term Meeting of the CGIAR in Puerto Rico in 1993, provides a useful example. As TAC continued its analysis it considered, in a stepwise approach, options for the following groupings of commodities: cereals, roots and tubers, legumes, vegetables, coconut, banana and plantain, trees, large and small ruminants, and fish, each of which is discussed in turn below. 187 Cereals: The allocation of CGIAR responsibilities for rice research was largely resolved by the inter-centre review of rice, and the most recent TAC strategy statement on rice research in the CGIAR, which was generally endorsedat MTM’93. Recent external reviews such as those of CIMMYT and ICARDA in 1993, and discussions associatedwith the secondround of the MTP process, have highlighted the need to revisit issues related to shared responsibilities among CGIAR Centres for wheat, maize and barley, as well as the role of the CGIAR in research on other cereals specifically sorghum and millets. TAC intends to conduct strategic analysesof these commodities during 1996 in order to continue the process initiated in 1988 with maize, and in 1993 with rice, to determine whether there is a basis for re-allocating the primary responsibility for these cereals among centres. These analyseswill also serve as an input into the next major revision of CGIAR priorities and strategies in 1997. Roots and Tubers: Current responsibility for production improvement programmes in roots and tubers is dispersed across several institutes: potato and sweet potato - CIP; cassava- CIAT and IITA; and yam - IITA. Each of these three centres will be subject to an external review during 1995. At the same time, TAC will organize an inter-centre review to assessthe possibilities of a more optimal organization of roots and tubers research in the CGIAR. Legumes: Current CGIAR activities in legume research are dispersed across four centres: chickpea, pigeonpea and groundnut - ICRISAT; beans - CIAT; cowpea and soybean - IITA; and lentil and chickpea - ICARDA. As a result of its priorities analysis, TAC recommended a reduction in effort in pigeonpea and phaseolusbean, the maintenance of effort for lentil, chickpea and cowpea in the short term, and increased emphasis on groundnut and soybean. The number of speciesinvolved, the localized importance of some food legumes (see Table 13.2)) the relatively low total CGIAR effort in food legumes and the integral importance of legumes in complex farming systems have led to the current situation of dispersion. TAC considers that there are no strong arguments to centralize legume research within a single global entity and there is, therefore, no need to change current arrangementsfor legume research. Much of legume research will continue to be conducted within an ecoregional framework. Vegetables: TAC’s recommendation on vegetablesis unchanged from that made in the Expansion Report. Vegetables are considered to be a priority commodity for a CGIAR involvement, but currently there is no acceptableinstitutional mechanism through which CGIAR support could be organized. Banana and plantain: As agreed at MTM’93, the CGIAR is placing highest priority on Muss germplasm improvement and related activities and a secondpriority on information and communication. Germplasm improvement activities will be conducted through a consortium, facilitated by INIBAP, under the governance and administrative structure of IBPGR. IITA will also continue its work on banana and plantain. Coconut: TAC’s recommendation of 1990 for a global programme on coconut germplasm conservation and improvement did not contain a parallel recommendation for a new institution. Rather, the emerging efforts to form a coconut germplasm network (coordinated by IBPGR) and the inclusion of coconut as a multipurpose tree in the mandate of ICRAF seems appropriate. TAC has recommendedcore support for IBPGR’s coconut germplasm network. 188 Livestock: TAC and a CGIAR working group have recently considered future priorities and strategies for livestock research. On the basis of these, the CGIAR concluded that: Livestock research should be planned as a global programme within a Systemwide framework involving those CGIAR Centres whose work impinges on livestock development. A global livestock research centre should be established into which relevant components of ILCA and ILRAD would be integrated, in a manner and timeframe that will cause minimal disruption to the priority research areas of the two centres. The major components of the global livestock research programme will include: animal health, animal nutrition and physiology, animal genetics, feed resources, livestock production systems, natural resources management and policy analysis. Priority will be given to integrated croplivestock systems, the exploitation of the adaptability and diseasetolerance of indigenous livestock breeds, and expansion of the livestock feed base. CGIAR research will focus exclusively on ruminant livestock, although research on livestock feed resourcesmay have relevance to monogastric species. The global livestock research programme will include increased collaboration with research institutes in Africa, Asia and Latin America and will foster and exploit the complementarity natures of, and synergy between, the global and ecoregional programmes. A CGIAR steering committee on livestock research has been set up in order to follow up on these recommendations and to further efforts to integrate livestock related research across the CGIAR. Trees: Two major tasks have been undertaken by TAC since the admission of ICRAF into the CGIAR System in 1991 and the creation of CIFOR in 1992: the external programme and management review of ICRAF, and the assessment of the Medium-Term Plans (MTPs) of both centres. These have provided fresh opportunities to critically appraise the direction of forestry/agroforestry research in the CGIAR. The MTPs of the two Centres showed a high degree of complementarity and potential overlap. Common ground was evident in their tree-improvement and policy-research programmes. Both Centres emphasizedthe need to undertake research in agroforestry: and both are involved in global initiatives aimed at rehabilitating Imperata grassland in South East Asia; forest margins of Latin America, and finding alternatives to slash-andburn agriculture in Africa, Latin America and South East Asia. Both CIFOR and ICRAF have found it expedient to consider integrating some of their field activities and envisage sharing facilities in Bogor (CIFOR Headquarters) and Nairobi (ICRAF Headquarters). There is also cross-representationat Board level. ICRAF’s External Review Panel carefully considered the form which the relationship between ICRAF and CIFOR should take, in terms of the appropriate balance in the ‘trees-in-land-use’ research activities, and the resolution of the differing views concerning which part of the forestry-agriculture continuum should appear in the mandate of each centre; since both are committed to the same target group, i.e., ‘poor people’, with emphasis on non-timber, non-market output from secondary forests or reclamation of degraded lands. The Panel’s prescription was that ICRAF should take the global lead in 189 developing and disseminating agroforestry technology, while CIFOR should take on the same role for those activities that clearly fall within the forestry domain. Both centres would collaborate in activities falling towards the middle of the continuum with ICRAF focusing more on Africa and CIFOR focusing more on Asia. At TAC 61, the Committee addressedthe ICRAF-CIFOR relationship at length, both in considering the MTP proposals of the Centres and as part of the Systemwide analysis of the implications for CGIAR structure of different funding scenarios. While the viability of ICRAF and CIFOR may be assuredat higher funding levels, there was a consensus that separateinstitutional existence could not be justified at the lowest funding scenario. If the current low level of resourceswere to be sustained, the logical development would be towards greater Systemwide integration of agroforestry and forestry research. The planned collaborative activities specified in the MTPs of ICRAF and CIFOR can be widened to effect a complete integration of researchprogrammes which already exhibit many basic similarities in terms of strategic objectives and operational modalities. As an example, CIFOR’s forest margin research, its strategy for the control and reclamation of Imperata grassesin southeastAsia, and the multipurpose tree improvement as well as policy research, share many commonalities with ICRAF’s parallel programmes. The integration of forestry and agroforestry research appearsto be logical, in this segment of land use continuum, both from the viewpoint of resource savings and in terms of sustaining a critical mass and research advantagefor the CGIAR System as a whole. TAC therefore respectfully suggestsa careful reconsideration of the two-centre model if funding levels continue to stagnateor decline further. Fisheries: Research on fisheries has been integrated in the work of the CGIAR through the incorporation of ICLARM in the System. As indicated in Chapter 8 of this report, fisheries research is of high priority to the CGIAR. A strategic plan for fisheries research in the CGIAR was endorsedby the Group at MTM’92, and a medium-term plan for ICLARM was endorsed at ICW’93. 13.2.2.2. Global non-commodity research TAC considered several institutional and operational mechanismsfor addressing global strategic and methodological issuesin plant genetic resources, socioeconomics, public policy and public managementresearch including irrigation and research management. The suggestionsranged from mechanismsfor closer working relations among centres to mergers between centres with overlapping of responsibilities. (a) Genetic resources Genetic resources is the primary responsibility of IBPGR and a significant scientific activity in at least 10 of the 18 CGIAR Centres. In 1992 the CGIAR allocation for germplasm collection, conservation, characterization and utilization activities was US$ 23 million in core funds, supporting 63 SSY, of which IBPGR’s share was US$ 9 million and 22 SSY. TAC’s long-term vision of the CGIAR foreseesa continuing need for an international effort in the collection, conservation, characterization and utilization of genetic resources and there is therefore an urgent need for a CGIAR Systemwide strategy and programme for plant genetic resources. TAC is undertaking a strategic stripe review of the issuesand activities at the CGIAR Centres during 1993/94 to facilitate the development of a Systemwide strategy and programme for plant genetic resources. 190 (b) Institution building, public policy and public management research The major research issues in CGIAR public policy and public management activities are addressedby several centres. Public policy research is the major activity of IFPRI but also an important area of work of ISNAR, ILCA, ICLARM, ICARDA, CIAT, CIFOR, ICRAF and other centres. Researchon common property attributes of resources management is shared by IFPRI, IIMI, ICRAF, CIFOR and ICLARM. ISNAR and IIMI are the lead centres for research on institutional structure and public management. IFPRI, IIMI, CIFOR and ISNAR all conduct research on production and input policies. These research fields have major areas of overlap and are addressedby CGIAR Centres both at the global and the ecoregional level. In order to assist TAC in defining a System strategy and structural options for issuesrelating to research on institutional structure, public policy and public management, a strategic stripe review of public policy, public management and institution building activities in the CGIAR will be undertaken during 1994. This review will have to be conducted within a broad perspective of other related global commodity and subject-matter activities at the CGIAR Centres. (c) Water management research Several centres are currently involved in different aspectsof water management research. While research on irrigation managementis addressedmainly by IIMI, important aspectsof irrigated cropping systems in Asia, Africa and West Asia-North Africa are included in the work of IRRI, WARDA, CIMMYT and ICARDA. Similar research is likely to be needed on irrigated agriculture in Latin America where the need will have to be met by. cooperation with NARS using special project funding. However, there is a need to study the efficiency with which increasingly scarce irrigation water is used for crop production, along with resource degradation issues such as salinization and waterlogging. Also, several centres, through cooperative arrangementswith external agencies, have found the need to take into account watershed management,human health and downstream environmental considerations related to irrigated and wetland farming systems. There may be a need to bring all these different elements together through an inter-centre programme so that the capacities and interests that already exist in other CGIAR Centres, including CIAT, CIFOR and ICLARM can be integrated. The first external review of IIMI as a CGIAR Centre will be conducted in early 1994 and will assist in highlighting some of the inter-centre issuesrelated to irrigated cropping systems research as well as those issuesthat may be addressedthrough cooperative arrangements with external agencies. This could be a firm step towards a Systemwide strategy. 13.2.2.3. Inter-centre/gIobal initiatives In its consideration of the medium-term resource allocation process, TAC noted that this process was limited in its ability to appropriately deal with concerns of particular importance at the System level, but transcending centres’ own interests. Recognizing that the CGIAR was only one component of the global agricultural research system for developing countries, and that enhancedcollaborative efforts would allow for greater efficacy of CGIAR activities, TAC considered that there was a need to promote further collaboration not only among CGIAR Centres but also with national programme partners and other relevant institutions and agencies. TAC, therefore, recommended programme 191 funding to support inter-centre initiatives in several important areas of work: implementing the ecoregional approach to research, water managementresearch, global livestock research, fisheries research and genetic resourcesconservation. TAC considers that the proposed programme funding is an effective mechanism to facilitate inter-centre collaboration, and representsa new but experimental approach to funding in the CGIAR. The approach raises additional issueswhich will need to be addressedas experience is gained, such as those related to accountability. 13.2.3. Structural and Delivery Issues 13.2.3.1. Study of CGIAR delivery mechanisms The comprehensive and simultaneous review of 18 MTP proposals has given TAC and the CGIAR a complete snapshotof the CGIAR in all of its dimensions. One of these dimensions is geographic and one of the things that standsout is the growing number of CGIAR activities, facilities and programmes that exist side by side in many regions. Each taken separately no doubt can be explained rationally by the centre involved. However, looked at from a System perspective one must ask the question as to whether there are not more cost-effective ways of organizing the CGIAR presencein many regions. Therefore TAC has proposed to undertake a regional inventory of CGIAR facilities, personnel, programmes and activities in West Africa. This type of study, if found useful, could be conducted for other regions as well. There is nothing ominous about the selection of West Africa. TAC chose it becausemany centres have a physical presence in the region - IITA, WARDA, ICRISAT, ILCA, CIMMYT, IFPRI, CIP, IIMI and ICRAF, to name only some. The study would identify physical locations of facilities, personnel resident in the region, programme expenditure and level of capital investment. In a period of sustainedresource shortfall, all possible avenuesof sharing and cost saving need to be explored. TAC proposes to initiate the study in 1994. 13.2.3.2. Other structural issues TAC may also undertake further reviews of the System’s capacity to sustain current CGIAR efforts by region, activity, commodity, production sector and programme if funding levels continue to stagnateor decline. TAC standsready to advise on other institutional options as it has already done in Chapter 11 of its report on the Expansion of the CGIAR System, and in the draft Chapter 13 of the 1992 Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, Part II. 13.2.4. Timetable As indicated in previous sections, TAC will conduct a comprehensivereview of research on several commodity groups and CGIAR activities between 1994 and 1996, according to the timetable shown~ below. TAC believes that this sequential component approach may be a more fruitful way to proceed, in terms of both decision-making and implementation, than through complete System reviews. These reviews should provide options for a more cost-effective organization of CGIAR research in those areas. The outcome of these reviews will also be used as an input for the next review of CGIAR priorities and strategies scheduledfor 1997. - 192 Timetable for Commodity, Activity and Other System Reviews Review Genetic resources Public policy and public management research CGIAR delivery mechanisms Roots and tubers Cereals CGIAR priorities and strategies X 1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 13.3. Relationships between Global and Ecoregional Mechanisms TAC considered that, programmatically, the commodity-specific activities of the global programmes and the production-system and resource-managementactivities of the ecoregional mechanisms are entirely complementary. Placing commodity-specific research entirely at a global commodity centre in the past has sometimes isolated the work from the broader agricultural and socioeconomic context of the real world of the farmer. This is not to say that the multidisciplinary commodity approach has failed, but rather that it may have been adopted in too narrow a form, neglecting important aspectssuch as conservation and management of natural resourcesand user considerations important to the acceptanceof technology by small farmers. It is important that centres learn from their experience in dealing with these problems, as the framework of ecoregional and global operating procedures evolve across the CGIAR System and in collaborative partnerships with NARS. TAC seesa need for very close ties between global and ecoregional mechanisms. Ecoregional entities should develop and build the store of knowledge of the natural resource base in their regions and human interactions with that base, including a detailed understanding of the important biotic and abiotic stressesconstraining productivity and sustainability of production in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This understanding would be shared with global commodity centres which would factor it into their genetic enhancementand breeding programmes. To complement these programmes, ecoregional entities would serve as the major sites for testing, evaluation of methodologies, and technological packagesgeneratedby the global centres. The development of clear modes of collaboration and material transfer will be particularly important for research on germplasm enhancementand breeding and there is a good case for outposting plant breeders employed by the global commodity entity at strategic locations in the ecoregions. In this way, experienced breeders would gain from exposure to the problems at the field level. The ecoregional entities/mechanismscould also host scientists from the global centres working on specific problems in the ecoregion with transnational or global significance. IBPGR might, for instance, outpost staff at ecoregional entities which could be used as a base to collect germplasm and organize in situ conservation of genetic resources. This issue is addressedin more detail in recent - 193 TAUCGIAR policy and strategic papers on genetic resourcesand intellectual property rights’. In its medium-term plan, IBPGR has also made specific suggestionson its proposed modes of operation. ISNAR staff based at ecoregional entities could help NARS in the region to define their needs in research managementand assist them in priority setting and programme planning. IFPRI could also outpost staff at ecoregional entities to conduct collaborative research on key policy issues. Research on production/farming systemsthat cut acrossproduction sectors would, by necessity require a multidisciplinary team, requiring inputs from more than one global centre. TAC considers that the best approach is a joint programme with a task force involving the main actors: global centres, the ecoregional mechanisms, and the participating NARS . Consultation between centres and NARS should be based on a continuing dialogue on collaborative research with, where appropriate, involvement from other partners. As stated earlier, centres and NARS scientists should be given every opportunity and encouragementfor greater interaction and collaboration. In the medium/long term, this is likely to occur mostly through the ecoregional mechanisms. However, NARS scientists should have unimpeded contact with other scientists at those institutions dealing with global activities. Where ecoregional and global activities are combined in one institution, relations with WARS should not present any particular problem in terms of coordination. This mix of both global and ecoregional responsibilities should evolve as a common institutional approach in some CGIAR Centres in the medium/long term. \ Finally, TAC notes that research on natural resourcesmanagementresearch is both ecoregional and global in nature. As pointed out in Section 13.1.3, the Committee seesin the long term a continuing need for strategic research on global issuesof natural resources conservation and management. 13.4. Implications for Mandates of Existing Centres The formal mandatesof CGIAR Centres have been incorporated into their constitutions. These legal charters have in many casesrequired an act of parliament in the host country of a centre’s headquarters. Changesin the formal mandatesof current centres, which may be brought about as a result of the restructuring exercise, would therefore involve extensive legal processes. As the CGIAR System and its centres evolved over the last two decades,the operational mandatesof most of the centres have also changed, and this process of change should be encouraged. The CGIAR already has an informal but effective process of supporting only those activities which have been collectively ranked as high priority. 1 “The Role of CGIAR in Plant Genetic Resources:Towards a Systemwide Strategy” and “Changing Responsibilities and Roles of PGR within the CGIAR System”. 194 With the encouragementof TAC, a number of centres with overlapping mandates (particularly between regional and global mandates)have in the past been able to agree on how to delineate responsibilities among themselves. TAC has been monitoring the implementation of agreementsreached between centres on the sharing of responsibilities. The proposed inter-centre commodity and activity reviews will provide another mechanism to advise on unnecessaryoverlaps between centres. A further mechanism is the external review process. 13.5. Concluding Remarks This chapter has provided an update of TAC’s views on the ecoregional approach to research and how progress can be made in its implementation. The Committee has re-emphasized the twin objectives of expanding the CGIAR research on natural resources conservation and managementto increase sustainableproduction, and at the same time streamlining CGIAR collaboration with national programmes. TAC has also made proposals on how the ecoregional concept can be implemented including institutional and funding mechanisms. The Committee is prepared to receive proposals from the participating institutions on the various initiatives that have been assigned programme support if the CGIAR endorsesits recommendations. It has also outlined the process by which TAC will consider global activities and structural adjustments in the CGIAR. The CGIAR and its institutes have always adopted a dynamic approach to meeting the CGIAR mission and goals. The strategic approach proposed by TAC in assessingmajor groups of commodity and subject-matter research offers further possibilities for constructive change. The pace at which this change occurs will depend on the rate at which individual centres, in dialogue with their donors and NARS, can change their programmes and institutional structures to meet the challenges. TAC has not developed a masterplan or blueprint for the restructuring of the Group but will formulate o.derthe next three years further options to assist the CGIAR in this process. 195 CHAPTER 14 - IMPLICATIONS OF TAC’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION 14.1. Introduction The priority analysis contained in Chapters 1-13 had four objectives. The first was to review future needs and to suggestthe role the CGIAR should play. The second was to determine, within the domain of CGIAR activities, what should be the relative distribution of CGIAR activities (Chapter 12). The third was to discuss the implications of changing needs and priorities for CGIAR strategiesand structure (Chapter 13). The fourth was to provide a basis for formally linking priorities to the allocation of financial resources to CGIAR institutions over the next five years’ planning period. The linkage between priorities and resource allocation, in the context of strategies and structure, proceeded in two steps. First, relative priorities by activity, production sector, region and commodities were translated into resource allocation targets at the System level. In the second step an indicative core resource envelope was proposed for each of the CGIAR Centres. This indicative envelope will provide the beginning point for the next phase in programme development for the CGIAR, namely centres’ preparation of medium-term plans (MTPs). The envelopescontain a target with a 10% range around it, so as to give centres some flexibility in preparing detailed programmes’in the context of System priorities. 14.2. CGIAR Medium-Term Planning Process The CGIAR resource allocation process has evolved over time. Initially, centres’ programmes and budgets were prepared annually, complemented with multiyear projections, and were reviewed by TAC and approved by the Group. Centre programmes and budgets were based on centres’ strategic plans. Starting in 1987, centres prepared five-year MTPs broadly based on CGIAR priorities as proposed by TAC and endorsed by the Group, as well as on their long term strategic plans. At ICW’90, the Group reviewed a report (“Review of the Resource Allocation ‘Process”, ICW/90/33) which examined the experience with the five-year allocation process. The Group endorsed its recommendations. One recommendation suggesteda more transparent linkage between System priorities and centres’ operational programmes; another recommendation urged the introduction of constrained supply considerations in a so far largely demand-driven resource allocation process. The completion by TAC of the CGIAR priorities, strategies and structure, and resource allocation analysis offers an opportunity to improve further on the linkage between System priorities and centre resource allocation in the framework of the development of new MTPs by centres. 14.2.1. First Round of MTPS - 1987-89 Using TAC’s 1986 priorities paper as a reference, the construction of centre MTPs became the mechanism to translate System’s priorities into operational programmes. Since the development of centre MTPs was, from a core resource point of view, open-ended, centres were able to present the full potential of their core programmes 196 and activities in an environment of unconstrained core supply. However, the initial round of MTPs had two major limitations. Firstly, the review and approval of centre MTPs was phasedover a three-year period, causing the MTP time horizon of individual centres to vary from 1988-92to 1990-94. This reduced the scopefor a comprehensive monitoring of the achievementof System priorities resulting from the implementation of individual centre MTPs. Secondly, the sum of centres’ core resource requirements was substantially in excess of actual core funding during the implementation of the MTPs. Consequently, each year centre core requirements neededtQ be adjusted downward mechanically which generated increasing discrepanciesbetween approved MTP programmes and centres’ actual operational programme levels. 14.2.2. SecondRound of MTPs - 1992-93 Consistent with the recommendations of the review report and in order to ensure the operational character of the System priorities and strategies, the CGIAR has requested TAC to extend its priority analysis to include indicative allocations of limited core resources to CGIAR Centresconsistent with the System priorities TAC proposes. In the framework of the secondround of MTPs, the linkages between the System priorities, prospective Systemresource availability and centre MTPs will be more systemic and made more explicit. Developing such linkage through an iterative and interactive process, involving TAC, the CGIAR membership and the centres, will result in providing all parties.concerneda better insight into the connections between System priorities and centres‘ operational programmes. The consolidation of all centre final MTPs with a uniform time horizon (1994-98) into a System five-year plan should contribute to an improved implementation of the System priorities, and provide as well an adequate monitoring tool at the System level. Finally, drawn against an assumption of limited core supply for the Systemas a whole, centre MTPs will thus be constrained in their core resource requirements. This should enhance the relevance and credibility of individual and collective MTPs for CGIAR donors, who may use them as effective inputs in their own processof allocating resources to the System and to. individual centres. 14.3. Setting the Context for TAC’s Recommendations on Core Resource Allocation In order to respond to the CGIAR request regarding the allocation of resources consistent with its recommendationson priorities and strategies, TAC reviewed a number of options with regard to the methodology to follow, the time horizon in which to formulate allocation recommendations.and assumptions on availability of core resources. 197 14.3.1. ResourceAllocation Methodology In order to arrive at 1998 resource envelopes which are consistentwith the System priorities, there were conceptually two alternative. approaches. The first possible approach would consist of designing an ideal 1998 CGIAR System, with prograties and an implementing structure of institutions that would be the most cost-effective/efficient to implement the priorities in all their dimensions - i.e. by category of activity, by production sector and commodity, and by region based on TAC’s analysis of the agroecological zones each region comprises. The alternative approachwould consist in considering the current state of affairs (i.e. current programmes, institutional set up and resource allocation) and modiwing it to ensure that the System priorities are gradually but effectively approached in the medium term. The first alternative would have allowed the explicit recognition of expected research products - whether or not currently pursued - and in a way that is not biased by existing structural arrangements,or by current cost structures and differentials. Though intellectually attractive and most appropriate for strategic planning, this alternative was judged to be less adequatefor resource allocation: its end-product would appear artificial in that it would not bear a direct relationship with current allocation realities; and, in any case, it would have required a translation into the existing structure, i.e. the existing centres which would need to develop their programmes and budgets. In addition, this approach would have required the compilation of assumptions on researchcosts which may not necessarily reflect current structural and institutional realities. Finally, it would have required the use of common standards of research outputs, a complex task for a multifaceted institution like rhe CGIAR. The secondalternative - which has been selected - is by its very nature quite practical. It begins by taking the current situation as the point of departure. It is evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, by indicating how, and how fast, modifications have to be made in the current array of programmes and entities to meet the medium/long- and medium-term priorities. It underscores the productivity as well as the value of the existing institutions, and nurtures the existing positive factors in the donorcentre and centre-centre relationships which underpin the CGIAR Sysrem. This approach entails the risk of constrainins the resource allocation process to what exists now in terms of programmes and organizational entities. Thus it runs the risk of appearingto be unable to handle innovations or radical changes, some of them possibly already contemplated or implemented by centres. This limitation inherent in the chosen alternative is, however, largely offset by the strategic approach followed in the priority setting exercise. On the other hand, this constraint implies the explicit and pragmatic consideration of the implications of evolving from an existing to a different, desired situation. 14.3.2. Time Horizon In principle, there are two obvious options for setting a time horizon for the resource allocation. A first option is to retain the time horizon used by TAC for the priority setting, i.e. 20 years or the year 2010. A second option is the timeframe of the CGIAR funding cycle, i.e. one year. For the purpose of operational planning, the 20-year horizon was consideredtoo long and the one-year horizon too short.. 198 Consequently, an intermediate five-year time perspective was retained. This horizon is reasonably appropriate for operational planning and implementation of programme changes, as well as for the funding decision process and the implementation of changes in resource allocations, which may be called for by the medium-term resource allocation process. The five-year horizon offers a reasonabledegree of flexibility, always necessary in planning, provided a mechanism can be put in place to correct discrepanciesbetween planning assumptions and reality (e.g. with regard to funding). Also needed is the possibility of intermediate reassessments of five-year plans to take into account externalities (e.g. fundamental changesin operating cost structures) or other circumstances which could not be foreseen at the time of the priority setting and the development of MTPs (e.g. new research opportunities). 14.3.3. Availability of Core Funds In principle, the assumption with regard to the future level of core funding could be open ended in an environment in which the demand for resources should drive the supply of funds. However, past experience has demonstratedthat this assumption is not tenable. Therefore, a supply-driven approach needs to be adopted which will inevitably constrain the demand side. This, however, raises the other issue that constrained plans represent potentially a disincentive for growth of the supply beyond the level assumed. In order to balance the two sides of the equation, several assumptions with regard to future supply of core resourceswere examined in conjunction with the CGIAR Secretariat: growth in constant dollar terms; constant supply in nominal dollar terms or some growth in nominal dollar terms only, both of which would imply a significant reduction of the supply in real terms; or, finally, a combination of maintenance of supply in constant dollars with real growth in selective areas. Based on donor indications so far, the global real growth assumption seems optimistic. Also, there are no indications that the Group intends, over the medium term, to decreaseits support in real terms (though fluctuations from year to year are to be expected). Thus, the no-real-growth assumption inslong standing activities combined with selective real growth, for forestry and fishery activities in particular, was retained as the most reasonable. This rather conservative planning assumption will be tempered, on the one hand, by centre plans incorporating, for TAC’s and the Group’s consideration, a description of their MTP at a level 10% higher than assumedby the indicative resource envelope; and, on the other hand, by the mechanism which will reconcile annually reasonable differences between assumedfunding and actual supply on the basis of the priority framework. 14.3.4. Character of Recommendationson Resource Allocations Any recommendation on resource allocation to centres, derived from Systemwide priority considerations, would have to be considered tentative, until the Group has had an opportunity to review the implications of TAC’s proposals, and the centres have tested their feasibility through the preparation of MTP proposals. 199 Consequently, TAC’s recommendationson centres’ resource allocation should be considered indicative. Their purpose is to provide a consistent basis for preparing centre MTPs for presentation to TAC and the Group. TAC will make firm recommendations on resource allocations, for approval at ICW’93, on the basis of centres’ MTP proposals. 14.4. Priority Setting and Factors Relevant to Resource Allocation 14.4.1. TAC’s Focus on the Core Programme In its priority setting exercise, TAC focused on the core activities and programmes as they represent the essenceof the CGIAR as a collective System; in contrast, the complementary activities and programmes, by their very nature, are prone to specific understandings and arrangementsbetween individual donors and centres. In the priority exercise, TAC contemplates a time horizon of about 20 years (i.e. the year 2010), while it considers the medium-term frame - i.e. the next five years, up to 1998 as an intermediary, operational stageby which directional changestowards achieving the medium/long-term priorities should begin to be implemented. 14.4.2. Priority Setting Methodology In assessingpriorities of CGIAR core programmes and activities, TAC has been using a number of elements which, in their final description, are directly relevant to the resource allocation. As described in Chapter 12, TAC analyzed CGIAR priorities in a multidimensional fashion. Sequentially - and eventually in an integrated way - it analyzed and set priorities among the five major categories of CGIAR activities (Table 12. l), indicating, for each region, the relative magnitude of the change in direction for each category of activity. On the basis of an analytical assessment of the regionally defined agroecological zones, TAC analyzed and proposed priorities among the four geographical regions as commonly used in the CGIAR context (Table 12.2). Finally, TAC examined and assigned relative importance to commodities and production sectors dealt with by the CGIAR (Tables 12.3 and 12.4). For the medium/long-term priority statementsto become effective for implementation and thus achievement, they neededto be translated into operational terms. This required that they be expressedin terms of intermediate targets for 1998, whereby a relative allocation was to be assignedto each of the priority parameters indicating the desired rate of progress towards achieving the ultimate goal, i.e. the recommended relative allocations by 2010. For setting that intermediary stage, TAC put side by side its recommendations on medium/long-term priorities, both in relative quantitative terms and the descriptive rationale underlying them, and the current relative distribution of resources between the priority parameters. 14.4.3. 1991 Distribution of CGIAR Core Resources Table 14.1 indicates the 1991 relative allocation of core resourcesamong the priority parameters. .lp..J:a j 4.1 - CGIAR Estimated 1991 Core Resources Distribution (in %) I/ SS Africa 43% III. By Category ;’ :. Gonservation/Management Natural Resources 1 1 .I Ecosystem Conservation I 1.2 Germplasm CoII./Conserv. 13% 7% 6% of Activitv and Region 1. Conservation/Management Natural Resources SS Africa WANA Asia IAC 2. Germplasm Enhancement/ Breeding SS Africa WANA Asia LAC 3. Production Systems Development/ Management SS Africa WANA Asia IAC 4. Socio-econ./Public Policy/ Public Management Research SS Africa WANA Asia DC 5. Institution Building SS Africa WANA Asia LAC 35% 19% 33% 13% 2, Germplasm Enhancement/ Breeding 2.1 Crops 2.2 Livestock 2.3 Trees 2.4 Fish 3. Production Systems Development/ Management 3.1 Cropping Systems 3.2 Livestock systems 3.3 Tree Systems 3.4 Aquatic systems / -?.So&o--econ./Public ; Public Management PO/icy/ Research 21% 20% 0% 1% 0% 33% 18% 13% 2% 0% 9% 39% 14% 29% 19% 49% 11% 23% 17% 46% 5% 41% 8% 24% 43% 9% 34% 13% 15. Institution Building I 5.1 TrainingKonf. 5.2 Doc./Pub./Dis. Info. / 5.3 Crg./Mngmnt. Counsel. I 54 Networks 24% 9%, 8% 2% 5% 1, Percentages may not add to 100 due to computer rounding. 201 By category of activity, about 13% of core resourceswere devoted to natural resources conservation and management(category l), distributed evenly among its two components. Through research on crops and the other production sectors, 54% of the core resources were used for germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2) representing 22% of total core resources- and for production systemsdevelopment and management (category 3), which used 33 % of all core resources. About 9% of core resources went to socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch (category 4), and 24% to institution building (category 5); of the total of category 5, about 8% was used for organization and managementcounselling, and about one third of the remainder for institution building oriented networks. In terms of regional distribution, 43 % of core resource were allocated to activities in Sub-saharanAfrica, 29% to activities in Asia, and 13% and 15% respectively to activities in West Asia-North Africa and Latin America and Caribbean. 14.4.4. Results from Priority Setting Tables 14.2A through C combine for each of the priority parameters (categories of activity, and commodities and production sectors, and regions) TAC’s assessments on relative priorities for 2010 and the current (1991) relative distribution of core resources. TAC’s formulation of an intermediate, relative distribution for each of the priority parameters required a complex and iterative process. Iterations were necessaryto assure a satisfactory degree of compatibility between the different priority parameters which so far had been dealt with as independentvariables - and to ensure the feasibility of the change in direction and the magnitude thereof from the centres’ and the Group’s point of view. 14.4.4.1. Categories of activity As Table 14.2A indicates, TAC’s recommendationswith regard to the 1998 distribution of core resourcesamong the five categories of activity is consistent with its statementsin Chapter 12. Natural Resources Conservation and Management (category 1) is projected to increase significantly in both absolute and relative terms by 1998, rising from 13% of total in 1991 to 18% by 1998. All regions are expected to benefit from the increased efforts, but mostly LAC (from a low base) and least WANA. Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding (category 2) is projected to increase marginally in absolute terms and in relative terms, from 21% in 1991 to 22% of total in 1998. The projected increase will mainly benefit Asia. Production Systems Development and Management (category 3) is projected to decreasein absolute terms and in relative terms, with its share of total declining from 33 % in 1991 to 29 % in 1998. All four regions will experience a decreasein efforts in this category of activity but the decreasewill be relatively more pronounced in the Asia region. 20% 8% In all regions and agro-ecological zones, there was a perceived need for expanded effort in research on natural resources conservation and management. in both components of this cabgory. This need emerged even morx strongly whem modifiers such as yield gap, sOi1 degredation risk, and deforestration are included. Tpc therefore recommends a substantial increase i”CGlARefforts in this category, from 13% to 17-19%. Honever, the analysis 26% 19% 37% 35% 100% 45% 0% 32% Owxall. in the long bwn, there develooment and management 14% 11% 3% 1% should te a reduced need for CGIAH research of production .systEms, because of increasing on the national responsibility for research on the development of production syskms, the mocks of operation should evolve towards greakzr use of networks and consortia. Overall, T&Z 11% 34% 10% 40% ---... 1 10% 31% 8% 33% Throughout the priority analysis, tbz need emerged for an expanded effort in socio-economic, public policy and public management research. In all regions and in most agro-ecological zones, there was a need for greater emphasis on policy research with issues. pow?rty alleviation and equity (particularly I RsDect to land use and sustainability ger&requity), irrigation managernor& and i&es rekted to self-relknoe. It is therefore proposed to increase CGIAR effort in this category of activity from 9% to lo-12% of total system activities. Even more emphasis relative to the new system k-1 may be nee&d in As!! and LAC, because of the pressing problems of sustainability. &forestation and equity. [Chapkr 12, Section 12.3.1.) paw 224.1 ._ -.~ ~~~___ ____-...For the long k?rm, TAC considered whether the resources allocakd to institution building could be reduced. llw study by Pardey and Roseboom (1991) has rewxakd the considerabk increase in trained human resources in national programs. For many natIonal systems, the major constraint is now a shortage of operational funds rather than of trained manpower. As already noted in Chapkr IO. TAC’s view Is that tk allocation of CG resources to institution building has reached a ceiling and that the CG should focus on its complementary role of strengthening NAFIS through kchnology development and partnership. In TIC’s vkw, the overall proportion of CGIAR activities in the cakgory of insttiution building should be reduced from 24% to lQ-21%. but with less in training, information and networks, and more in organization and manegment munselling. Fhapkr 12, Section 12.3.1.. page 224.1 16% Although additional efforts in training will be reql?ired in the new and expanded~~ CGlAAactiiities (forestry, fisheries, natural resources and irrigation management), the ovxall emphasis on training can be reduced in the medium and long krm from 9% to about 7%. How!w?r, in tk medium krrn, a continued strong effort In training will be required in SSA. [Chapter 12, Section 123.1., page 225.1 14% In the area of information serviazs, TPC considered that the current level of activity (8%) could only be reduced slightly sine these am essentiil activities for partnerships with national research syskms. (Chapter 12, Section 12.3.1., page 225.1 ___In the areaof organization and management camselling increase. (Chapter 12. Section 12.3.1., page 225.1 (now2%), efforts should clearly 16% 5 7 Training & Conbrsnces 0% 45% 7% 33% 16% 7% 44% 8% 44% 8% 33% 14% 6% 45% 2% 5.3% 8% 25% 14% 2% 52% 8% 25% 15% 5% 34% 15% 43% 7% 4% 35% - The responsibility for r&works intended to strengthen national research capacity could increasingly be handed over to national programs and the level of support to this typ of activity could. therefore, be redued from about5% to 4%. [Chapkr 12, Section 12.3.1.) pew 225.1 203 Socioeconomic, Public Policy and Public Management Research (category 4) is projected to increase to represent 11% of total by 1998, up from 9% in 1991. LAC and WANA are expected to be the principal beneficiaries at the expenseof the remaining regions which in the past have benefited from a strong concentration of CGIAR efforts in this type of activity. Institution Building (category 5) as a whole is projected to decreasein both absolute and relative terms, from 24% of total in 1991 to 20% in 1998. All four regions would be affected by the decreasebut in varying degrees: SSA and LAC less than average, while Asia and WANA more or close to the average. The reduction is projected in three components of this category (training, information and documentation, and institution-building oriented networks), while organization and managementcounselling (category 5.3) is projected to increase significantly over 1991 levels, benefiting all four regions. 14.4.4.2. Production sectors and commodities The combined outcome of the relative allocations to categories 2 and 3 is a result of recommendations made by TAC for the different commodities and production sectors. TAC considered that there was no compelling rationale for changing the existing distribution between the four production sectors. On the other hand, TAC firmly believes that the System’s expansion in forestry and fisheries should not be funded at the expenseof agricultural crops and livestock. As shown in Table 14.2B, assuming incremental core funding for forestry and fisheries doubles the relative allocations to these sectorsby 1998 over the comparable 1991 level. Under that assumption, the 1998 proposed allocations for agricultural crops and livestock drop in relative terms to 66% and 23 % respectively; these levels are however identical to the 1991 comparable levels of 70 % and 24 %, when the increment for forestry and fisheries is excluded. It should be noted, however, that TAC’s decision to reduce the relative share of the combined categories 2 and 3 resulted in reducing the global allocation available for commodities and production sectors; thus the maintenanceof sharesof each of the sectors actually represents a decline in absolute terms compared to 1991 levels. Within the agricultural crops, while generally recommending a shift of efforts from production systems research (category 3) to germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2) no major changesare proposed in the relative share of most crops compared with 1991. The cereals maintain their relative share, with a marginal shift from SSA towards Asia. The roots and tubers maintain their relative share as well as the regional distribution. The food legumes, as a group, decline as a relative share, and a shift occurs from Asia and LAC towards SSA and WANA; this results from reductions in emphasis in phaseolus bean and pigeonpea research, while soybean and groundnut research would receive greater attention. lahle 14.2.~: T.&C’S bxision Rules -- Relative Allocation to Commodities and Production Sectors TAC recognized the importance of riot as 6s stapk food of a hrgs number of peopk in developing countries and the substantial pay-off from CGIAR efforts on rice research in Ask and LPC. Since the situation in West Africa is more complex, TPC recommended a minimum effort in the region that has a reasonable chance of success. TAC recommends a continuation af current kwzls of CGlAn investment in rice research. but a shift in focus of rice research towards rwxe strakgic germpksm necessary to lift the yield ceiling of the crop, and to sustain current yield Levels. [Chapter 12, Section 12.3.5.2., page 238.1 9% 1% While a comparison of modifed VOP with current CGIAR efforts would suggest an owr-inwstment in wheat research. T&Z recognizes the many distortions in marketing and traB of wheat. Noting the existince of reserch in developed countries, it reaffirmed the special role of CGIAR in cabring for the needs of ckw?loping countribs. TPC noted the higher cost associated with sbategic research and the need to maintain efforts in maintenance breeding. Tp13 recommends a continution of efforts in CGIAR investment in wheat research in the medium brm, recognhing the pabntial for further gains to be made in increasing wheat productivity. In the long term, ths priority of wheat is likly to decline given tk importance of alBrnathe Murces of research supply. [Chapter 12, Section 12.5.32., page239.1 With regard to barky. TA13 saw on balance no teason to alter ongoing CGIAFI efforts and recommended that the keel of investment should continue to focus on areas where poor farmers an? heavily ckspendent an this crop. (Chapter 12, Section 12.3.52., page 240.1 TPC recommends, in the short and medium term, maintaining current efforts in maize research, given the importance of maize in mimd cropping systems of resouros poor farmers. Considering the rapid involvement of the private sector in the (hybrid) maiz!? seed industry. in the long term a reduction in the priority of mahe research is likely. [Chapter 12, Sector 12.5.3.2., page 239.1 Wiih regard to sorghum, T&Z saw on balance no reason to altar ongolng CGIAR efforts and recommended that ths level of lnvxtment should continue to focus on areas where poor farmers are heavily dependent an this crop. (Chapter 12, Secb’on 12.3.52., page 24U.J Pearl millet is an important crop in SSA (Western Sahel), where half of the production is found. Millet is gstwally an important crop for the poor and is grown in farming systems In less endowed regions. In Asia, millet is mainly produced in India. Responding to TM’s 1986 suggestion, CRISAT has trsnsferred some of the millet responsibiliiis from its Asian HQ to West Africa and the SADCC region. ICRISAT is now shifting its focus towards the drkrarsas of more limited potential, and towards more strategic issuss. TAC endorses this view end recommends to maintain currentCGlAFI efforts on millet research. [Chspt?r 12, Section 12.3.5.2., page 239~Z-IO.] 9% 40% 4% 48% 0% 38% 15% .3X 48% 3% 53% 0% 47% 0% 3% 53% TW recognized the rapid rate of progress in ca~v~~~aths importsfloe of casswafor low income consumers and producers. It also considered the negathn? income elasticity of casseva in most regions, and ths need for the development of post harvest technology. On balance, TPI: recommended a continuation of efforts in cassa~ research. [Chapkr 12, Section 12.3.52., page 240.1 The relative priority of poiato is falling because it is predominantly grown in ths subtropics and cold tropics. The production and consumption of potato is growing rapidly in dswloping countrks, and good raks of progress habe been obtained from CGIAA investments in potato research. Furthermore, potato is an important crop for low-income farmers. THIS Fecommends that, in the medium term, currant efforts in potato research bs maintained. [Chapter 12, Section 12.3.52., page 241.1 Talc noted that owr 80% of the global production of sweet potato is in China (which has a rektivsly strong NABS), that there has bsen steady ckclins in the importance of sneet potato as staple food, and a shift towards its utilization as liwstock fsed in Ask Howwr, TIY: recognized that wry littk research on swet potato is conduckd out&k CGIAR, that ongoing CGlARefforts are of wry recent origin, and that outside Chins sweet potato is a wry important crop in a large number of small countries with very low income k-Is. Far the medium krm, T/y: therefore recommends that CGIAR efforts bs maintained. (Chapter 12, Section 12.X52., page 240-241.1 TPG noted that yam is production. In its 1988 effort on yam pending comparatiw? advantage IITA should comentrsB constraints to germpksm efkctireness of CGIAR has the global mandak produced mainly in West Africa, with Nigeria accounting for70% of world priority review, TPC recommenckd the continuation, in the shartkrm, of s review in five years. IITA’s third exkrnsl review assessment MS that the in crop management research rekted to yam lay with the Nigerian NAFtS. on germplasm conservation and focus its rosearch on the critical improwment. T/C endosres this view, and suggest that a review of the research on yam should be part of the next external review of IITA which for this commodity. (Chspkr 12, Section 12.3.52., page 241.1 Table 14.2.8: TAC’s Decision Rules -Relative Allocation (In percentages) to Commodities and Production Sectors Prod”ctio” ssctor AQriculNr. commodil (Coni’d) of ITS ,n commoditws 3 58% -It In view of the progress made by the Centers concerned on phaseolus bean in L&Z and SSA, TX\ proposes to reduce the research effort on this commodity. CIAT has successfully dewloped several improw!d varkties that are being widely adopkd by farmers. The pay-off from CGIAR research has been substantial. TAC also recognizes that phaseolus beans are an important crop for poor farmers and of substantial significance in the diets of low income consumers. On the basis of congruence criteria, the CGIAR is over-inwsting in pheseolus beans. CIAT is already proposing a substantial reduction in the scale of its research on phaseolus beans. T&Z endorses this trend, and recommends a modest reduction in the priority of this crop. [Chepkr12. Section 12.X52., page 242.1 In 1988, TPL: recommended the phasing out of research on febe beans and lentil. ACGIAR involw?ment was to be limited to the mainknance of genetic resource collections. The responsibility for faba bean research is being transferred to a NARS. While CARDA’s efforts in this regard have been suoessfull. it will kk3 more time than expected before its responsibilities can be folly discharged. EARDA has also been requested to under-t&z en in-depth assessment of the potential pay-off of further research on the improvement of lentil, in the framework of KXXM’s upcoming medium-krm plan. TAC nok?s that lentil is en important crop in farming syskms of resource poor farmers in WANA, and that oukick the CGIAR very little research is carried out on lentil. In the short to medium krm, therefore, current efforts in lentil will continue, Vmik reaffirming TAc’s view Bat In the long krm the role of the CGIAR in faba bean and lentil research should be primarily in maintaining genetic resource collections. [Chapkr 12, Section 12.X5.2., pages 241-242.1 The priority ranking of chickpea should be malntalned. [Chapkr 12. Section 12.3.6.. page 246.1 9% ,OO% 0% 9% 100% 0% 0% loo% 49% 0% 51% 0% T/y: recalled that cove was largely produced in Nigxia, but that the crop could be an Important commodity for resource poor farmers throughout different agro-ecological zones and cropping syskms of West Africa, where NARS are gemrall~ peak TX concluded that it would be appropriate to continue CGIAR support for this commodity in the short to medium krm. Tpc nokd that soybean ranked abow other kgumes and the raoid prooress of research on so&an conduckd in Asia, particulariy with regard-to multipurpose &&&. TPC recognizes that soybean has substantial potential in developing counttries and that the demand for livestock feed is growing rapidly. TPL: recommends en increased resource allocetion to this commodity in SSA, in vkw of the liklihood of rapid progress, particularly with respect to its potential as B nutritious food, cash crop, and protein-rich livestock feed. (Chepkr 12, Section 12X5.2., pages 242-243.1 Among food legumes, the only commodity that appears underfunded is groundnut. TAC has nokd the subskntial pay-off from CGIAR investments in groundnut research in Asia. In SSA, progress has been slow. TPC recommends increasing currentefforts in groundnut rescarch modestly given [Chapkr 12, the opportunitiis for further gains to b? made through research on this commodity. Section 12.3.5.2., page 243.1 Pigeonpea Is an Important crop in one country only (India) which, in addition, has e strong NAAS. The rapid progress achieved by KXISAT in develooino a hvbrid oioeonoea varietv adds further Helghito & &gurnent that responsibilities for pi&or& &ea~&, p&tlculariy in India, can now gradually be transferred to the NARS. T/y: recommends that CGIAR efforts in pigeonpa research be progressively reduced in the long krm to limit its activitiis to mainkinirtg genetk resource colkctions oniy, and be diminished significantly in the medium erm. [Chapkr 12., Section 123.52.. page 242.1 41% 0% 59% 0% 0% 100% 15% .2% ‘9% 20% 3% c, 33% 14% 34% t 8% The CGIAR has recently expanded its activities in of INIEAP. T&Z recommends maintaining current (Chapkr 12, Section 12.3.52., page 244.1 ___. Table 14.2.0: TAC’s Decision Rules -Relatiwe Allocation (in psrcsntagss) to Commodities and Production Sectors NIA N/A ~~~~~~~~~~g~~t~ckresea~h.appears~~Io~e,in praciice th?mbXf VCF figure has to be beakd with consider&k caution. The figure includes the value of all cattk meat and milk, and small ruminants across all regions. Tk CGIAB does not conduct any lhestock research in Asia howaer, nor does it conduct research on small ruminants in LIY; or on Ia@ ruminants in WANA. When adjusting the modified VOP for these factors, the figure would be reduced from 25.6% to l&5%, with a distribution of 40% to SSA, 9% to WANA, 27% to Asia and 24% to LX. Actual resource allocation to livestock research amounts to more than 26% (Of agricuiture), distributed as 73% to SS4 9% to WANA, 16% to IJy3 and only 1% to Asia. This would suggest that the CGIAR is substantially over-inesting in livestock Rsearch, emen when considering the important role of intermediate livestock products such as traction and manure. A disproportionak share of CGIMI resources for livestock research are allocak?d to SSA In addiiion to the regional emphasis, major quxtions remain about the distribution of species emphasis and between animal production and health resxrch. Furthermore, it is now increasingly clear that in the future, much greater emphasis will have to be given to enhancing crop-ll~stock inkractions. The malor constraint to increasing li\iestock praductivii is a shortage of feed, and this could, to a greaterextent, effectively be addressed throlgh more &iequakly f&ussed crop productivity research. TAC is also concerned about the generally slow rak of progress in obtaining impact from CGIAR investment in livestock research. TPC, therefore recommends a mo&st reduction in the priority the CGIAR currently allocates to livestock research. In the medium term, the allocation to livestock research in SSA could be reduced substantially. When the livestock study. currently being undertakn by Winrock Inkmational, and the exkrnal reviews of ILFMIJ and ILCAare comokkd. TX will revisit Ikestock research oriorities. lCl!aoter 12. Section 12.3.52. oa@?s Table 14.2C: TAC’s Decision Rules -- Relative (in percentages) Allocation bv Resfon Table Baseline Components Noof Useable land ‘OP Poor 122, Chapter Baseline each) 12, KC- 227 Current (1991: I Allocation of Resources Region (w.33 Modified Baseline w = 0.25 w = 0.50 w = 1.00 1998 Proposed Relatk Distribution of ,Core Resources Comments The analysis of research priorities by agro-ecological zone (Chapters 4 and 9) suggests that: (a) in agriculture, the retstive emphasis should increase for tropical agro-ecological zones (AEZs 1-4) and the cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9); and, (b) in forestry, the rebtive emphasis should increase for the tropical agro-ecological zone in general (AEZs l-4), with greater incrmses in SSAagro-ecological zones than in those of other regions. These shifts in emphasis relative to the base were supported by TAC because the other areas benefit toa much greater extent from ongoing research in developed countries. [Chapter 12. Section 12.3.2, page 226.1 Starting with the analysis at the regional agrico-ecological zones allows a comprehensive analysis of the regional distribution of CGIAR resources. Chapter 9 provides the details of the analysis, and Table 12.2 summarizes the changing pattern of regional allocations that the use of a modified base and the application of modifiers suggest [Chapter 12, Section 12.3.3., page 226.1 Applying the modifiers and changing their weights affects strongly the regional distribution. For example, with the modifiers weighted at 0.5 each, the SSA baseline value becomes four times the original value of production (VOP) -- which might be considered too much. However the current (1991) allocation by CGIAR to SSA lies between the results obtained by weighing the modifiers by 1.0 and 0.5 respectively. Applying the modifiers with a weigM of 0.5 reduces A&I’s share from 59.5% to 39.7% A weighting by 1.0 suggests that Asia’s share should be lower than its current allocation. TAC feels that the 0.5 weighting should be the maximum one used if undue influence by particular modifiers in favor of any given regiorral AEZ is to beavoided. [Chapter 12, Section 12.3.3.. pages 226-227.1 SSA 6.4 16.2 29.4 18.0 25.0 33.7 47.4 43.0 40% Arguments for a larger share for SSA include: rapid population growth rate, coupled with declining per capita food production; pervasive poverty; severe sus+ainability problems in the fragile tropical AEZs; limited national researach capacity; and, tack of progress to date in improving the productivity of crops and livestock important to the poor. Arguments for a smaller share include, on the one hand, that shifts by CGIAR in the past decade have gone too far towards SSA @nd WANA) in view of the massive needs in Ash (and in LAC. in forestry in particubr); and, on the other hand, that the resolution of SSA’s productivity improvement issues exceeds the scope of research, since they are also political in nature. In addition, the slow rate of progress in obtaining impact from international research and the generally low levels of returm on investments in research in SSAare a cause of concern. In the medium term modest reduction in resources allocated to SSA should occur to 39% of total [Chapter 12, Section 12.3.3.. page 228-229.1 As in the case of SSA, the gradual shifts by CGIAR to WANA might have reacheda ceiling, and a modest reduction should occur in the medium term to 11%. [Chapter 12. Section 12.3.3.. page 229.1 The magnitude of popuhtion numbers and of poverty, the narrowing yield gap and the limited scope for land expansion, all argue strongly for more long-term strategic and applied research in Asia. TAC recommends that, for the purpose of guiding the resource allocation process, by 1998 33% of the core resources beallocated to Asia [Chapter 12. Section 12.3.3., page 229.1 TAC recommends that, for the purpose 17% of the core resources bealiocated of guiding the resourceallocation process. by 1998 to LAC [Chapter 12. Section 12.3.3., page 229.1 WANA 9.4 5.4 7.5 7.4 7.0 8.1 8.4 13.0 12% Asia :i9.5 72.1 27.9 53.2 46.4 39.7 29.1 29.0 31% LAC .__ TOTAL --~- 20.0 ~ 100 18.5 15.1 I -..___ --I 1CQ ~..__.__ 15.0 17% 100 --- 100 100% - 208 14.4.4.3. Regional distribution TAC’s allocation decisions on categories of activity (and their regional distribution) and on the commodities and production sectors resulted in a regional distribution for 1998 which - as indicated in Table 14.2C - is quite close to the regional targets set for 1998, i.e. 40 % to SSA compared to 39 %, 12% to WANA compared with 11%) 31% to Asia compared with 33 %, and 17% to LAC i.e. the target set for 1998. 14.5. The Allocation Process The objective of the medium-term resource allocation process is to ensure the implementation of the agreed core priorities of the CGIAR, expressedin several dimensions, in a coherent way by autonomous CGIAR Centres supported by donors acting individually. In order to ensure realism in the forward core planning by centres, and thus the relevance of the MTPs throughout the planning period, core operating resources need to be confined within the boundaries set by realistic estimates of core funding that will be made available to the System. Though, as indicated earlier, complementary programmes are being treated as financially unconstrained, they are expected to be broadly consistent with the general direction of the core priorities. The principles upon which the resource allocation process has been constructed are: (a) transparency, i.e. the rationale of the centre allocation recommendations can be related to the recommendations on System priorities as recommended by TAC and which will be discussedand reviewed by the Group; (b) constraining, i.e., centres are asked to prepare MTP proposals which conform with the indicative core resource envelopesrecommendedby TAC; however, centres will have a reasonablemargin of flexibility since they are also requestedto present alternative proposals at 10% above and below the level of the core resource envelope. Centres in exceptional circumstancescould present proposals in excessof this margin for consideration by TAC and the Group; (c) interactive, i.e. starting from a centralized indicative planning allocation which will be discussedby the Group, centres will construct their MTP proposals, and will present them to both TAC and the Group; subsequently, TAC will need to reconcile the MTP proposals both in substance- i.e. the convergenceof the sum total of centres’ medium-term programme proposals with the System priorities - and financially - i.e. the compatibility between the sum total of centres’ proposed funding requirements and the core funding assumption used for the System as a whole. The format of the centre resource allocation recommendedby TAC is that of a centre specific, indicative envelope of core funding for 1998. The envelopes will serve as planning assumptions for centres to prepare their MTPs for review by TAC and by the Group. 209 14.6. The Resource Allocation Methodology The decision to retain the evolutionary option rather than the construction of an “ideal” model, as described in Section 14.3.1 above, required the use 1991 data as a starting point for the resource allocation exercise. To that effect, centres’ 1991 core programme and operating expensedata were mapped in accordancewith the activity structure and regional definitions used by TAC in the priority exercise. The initial mapping by the CGIAR Secretariat was reviewed and updated by the centres. The product of this exercise is shown in Table 14.3, which indicates for each centre the relative distribution of 1991 core operating resourcesamong activities and regions. The consolidation of centre data at the System level is shown in Table 14.1. The basic task is to chart the evolution from the actual situation in 1991 towards 2010 goals. The first step was to identify targets for 1998. TAC was assistedin its decision making by a financial spreadsheet.The spreadsheet used 1991 centre and System data as a starting point. These data were adjusted by applying weighting factors to 1991 data regarding activities, and proportional distributions to regions, commodities and production sectors. This was done in an iterative fashion, allowing TAC to consider the impact of the modifications it had introduced, alter modifications to obtain the desired outcome, and consider alternative scenariosand their impact. Thus TAC defined and refined, in an iterative way, the medium-term resource targets for each of its priority parameters. The spreadsheetprovided the mechanical translation of the System-level priority choices to centre allocations. This facilitated TAC’s consideration of individual centre resource envelopes, taking into account other factors such as need for minimum critical mass, stage of maturity and recent developmentsof centres’ programmes, and relevant information on strategic plans as well as on programme and management reviews. 14.7. 1998 Core Supply Considerations A key feature of the medium-term core resource allocation process is to ensure that the sum of the 1998 core funding requirements of all centres’ MTPs remains within reasonable limits of expected core funding for that year. As indicated above (Section 14.3.3), a number of assumptionswith regard to future core supply were considered. However, consistent with donor indications so far, the assumption that generally maintains the 1992 CGIAR core funding in real terms with the possible exception of new activities recently integrated in the CGIAR (i.e. fisheries and forestry) was chosen. Therefore, the estimated 1998 core funding assumedby TAC in the resource allocation exercise amounts to US$ 270 million in 1992 values - or US$ 342 million in 1998 values, assuming a 4% annual rate of inflation. While this level assumesa mere maintenance of the value of 1992 core funding for most activities, it assumesfor 1998 a near doubling of the funding of forestry activities provided in 1992. At ICW’91, 1992 core funding was estimated at US$ 251 million, including about US$ 14 million for forestry activities, but excluding US$ 4 million of funding of fishery activities. This amount augmented by US$ 5 million for fishery activities (up from US$ 4 million in 1992) and an additional US$ 14 million for forestry produces a US$ 270 million estimate for 1998. The implication is that, with the exception of forestry and fisheries, the current core funding would need to be redeployed over a different portfolio of activities. Table 14.3. Centers’ Estimated 1991 Core Resaumes Dbtribution (in %) I/ 63b 2% 2% 94% 2% zosc 31% 3% 22% 44% zosb 31% 3% 22% 44% 10 OXI T o%l/ ::I q O%ll 0% 0% 0% 211 This funding assumption may be considered too conservative. It should not be seen as an indication by TAC that the current level of resourcesis adequateto fully meet the challenges and tasks faced by the centres. It is a conservative approach at this stage of the planning process to ensure that the System has the opportunity to explore the operational implications of zero real growth. In order that this assumption is not counterproductive for centres by not providing them the opportunity to demonstratetheir full potentials at higher levels of resource supply, the resource allocation process provides two mitigating mechanisms: one is that centres will be requestedto explore in their MTPs what the impact would be on their programmes of higher than assumedcore funding; the second being the mechanism of yearly adjustment of funding requirements which will distribute actual core supply to centres in function of their share of the total as determined by the medium term resource allocation process. 14.8. Recommendations of 1998 Resource Allocations As implied by the previous discussion, TAC formulated recommendations with regard to the 1998 allocation of core operating resource at two levels: at the System level first and, subsequently, at the centre level. 14.8.1. System Resource Allocations The relative distribution resulting from linking priorities to a global, hypothetical resource envelope as indicated in Tables 14.2A to C neededto be converted in absolute dollar core funding amounts. As explained in the previous section, the core funding for 1998 has been estimated at US$ 270 million (in 1992 values); this amount assumes1998 core funding at the 1992 level (US$ 251 million), augmentedby US$ 4 million of ICLARM 1992 core funding, and by US$ 15 million of incremental core funding in 1998 for forestry and fisheries. 14.8.1.1. Global outcome Table 14.4 shows the translation of the relative resource distribution (Tables 14.2A to C) into 1998 core funding values of US$ 270 million and the indicative allocation of that amount to the categories of activity, the commodities and production sectors, and the regions. 14.8.1.2. portfolios. In SSA, 55% of the core resourceswould be allocated to germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2) and production systems (category 3) research. This ratio is higher than the System average of 5 1%, and is related to the relatively lesser allocation in SSA to natural resources (category 1) research and to socioeconomic, public policy and public managementresearch (category 4). The recommended level in category 5 (institution building) is near the System level target. Within the consolidated allocation to categories 2 and 3, research on agricultural crops represent 5 1% of total, which is well below the system average (66%) and reflects the high share allocated to Regional portfolio of CGIAR investments Table 14.4 provides also an insight into the composition of the regional research Table 14.4 1998 Proposed by Production (in constant System Core Allocation Sector and Commodity and percentages) 1999 ProDosed I/ Aklcation by Category of Activity, by Region, 1992 $ millions :ateaories of Activity Conservation & Management of Natural Resources 1.1 Ecosystem conserv./mngmnt. 1.2. Germplasm coll./conserv./char./eval. Germplasm Enhancement & Breeding 2.1 Crops2.2 Ljvestock 2.3 Trees 2.4 Fish Production Systems Development & Management 3.1 Cropping Systems 3.2 Lfvestock systems 3.3 Tree systems 3.4 Aquatic systems Socio-Economic, Public Policy, & Public Management Research Institution Building 5.1 Training/Conferences 5.2 Doc./Pub./Dis. Info. 5.3 Org./Mngmnt. Counselling 5.4 Networks 48.6 27.0 21.6 60.0 53.2 1.3 4.7 0.8 79.1 38.5 30.5 0.3 1.8 29.6 52.7 19.5 16.9 6.2 10.1 Relative Distribution of Categories’ SSAfrica Asia WANA _ 15% 23% 19% Allocations bv R@on m E 21% p&k 11% 10% 23% 21% 0% 2% 0% 30% 14% 12% 3% 0% 10% 17% 6% 5% 2% 3% 10% 8% 22% 20% 0% 2% 0% 29% 14% 11% 3% 1% 11% 10% 5% 20% 17% 1% 2% 0% 35% 11% 20% 4% 0% 9% 21% 8% 7% 3% 3% 10% 13% 10% 9% 23% 24% 0% 0% 0% 28% 17% 10% 1% 0% 9% 15% 6% 4% 2% 3% 21% 0% 2% 1% 23% 17% 0% 3% 2% 14% 21% 7% 7% 2% 5% 20% 7% 6% 2% 4% leaional Distribution: US dollar millions Percentage 109.3 40% 31.1 12% 82.5 31% 47.1 17% 270.0 ,~~Sector/Commodii 1(Aggregation of categories ,I 1998 Proposed 2 and 3) Allocation 4 = / / :SS Relative Africa 6% 0% 9% 4% 3% 22% 6% 3% 1% 10% 3% 0% 0% 9% 2% 0% 14% 5% 51% 38% 0% 11% ‘1 Cereals II Distribution of Sectors and Commodities’ Allocations bv Region WANA & rotal LAG 43% 3% 0% 0% 51% 0% 3% 1% 4% 0% 16% 8% 0% 0% 0% 24% 0% 79% 19% 0% 2% 100% 32% 13% 9% 5% 5% 63% 2% 5% 1% 9% 0% 0% 4% 0% 5% 2% 11% 1% 83% 1% 6% 10% 100% 13% 5% 16% 3% 0% 36% 8% 5% 1% 14% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 2% 66% 22% 0% 10% 100% 14% 9% 9% 3% 3% 39% 5% 4% 1% 9% 4% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 15% 3% 66% 23% 2% 9% 100% Rice Wheaff Barley Maize Sorghum Millet Cereals Subtotal: 19.8 13.2 13.2 4.6 3.8 54.5 6.5 5.3 1.3 13.2 5.7 2.5 2.6 5.4 3.3 0.8 26.3 3.6 91.7 31.8 2.6 13.0 139.2 I Cassava Potato Sweet Potato Rods &Tubers Food Legumes Subtotal: I’ /: Banana Ii Phaseolus Bean Faba bean/Lentil Chickpea Cowpea/Soybeans Groundnut Pigeonpea Food Legumes Subtotal: 8 Plantain Banana/Plantain/Yam CROPS 1~ TOTAL AGRICULTURAL j UVESTOCK II I/ ‘iTsH TF= hOTAL i 100% l/Totals may not add due to rounding. 21 Sum of Categories 2 and 3 213 livestock (38%) and forestry (11%) research in the region. Among the agricultural crops, cereals rank first (22% of total), followed by food legumes (14%), roots and tubers (10%) and banana, plantain and yam (5 %). In WANA, 52% of total resourceswould be allocated to categories 2 and 3 combined, slightly higher than the system average; category 1 (natural resources)would be allocated 23 % of the resources, i.e. well above the System average (18 %). In the two remaining categories, WANA’s proposed allocations are below System averages. Within the global allocation to categories 2 and 3, agricultural crop research accountsfor 79% of the resources (compared with 66% as System average), livestock for 19% (23 % System average), and forestry for the remaining 2 %. Among the agricultural crops, cereals account for 64% of total, 84% of which is allocated to wheat and barley; food legumes follow with 24%) two thirds of which is allocated to faba bean and lentil research; and roots and tubers represent a modest 5% of the regional total. In Asia, only 46% of total resourceswould be allocated to categories 2 and 3, with all three other categories (and particularly category 5, Institution Building) receiving higher than System average allocations. Within the global allocation to categories 2 and 3, 83 % of the resourceswould be allocated to agricultural crop research, i.e. well above the System average; this reflects the low share of livestock research (1 %), while fisheries (6%) and forestry (10%) are still at modest levels but above the System averages. Among agricultural crops, cereals account for about 75%, half of which is devoted to rice; food legumes are a distant secondwith 11%) in part as a consequenceof the proposed reduction in pigeonpea research not fully compensatedfor by the increase in groundnut research; and, roots and tubers represent 11% of total, i.e. at the System average. In EAC, 53% of total resourceswould be allocated to categories 2 and 3 combined, slightly higher than the System average; category 1 (natural resources)is proposed at 21% of the resources, and is well above the System average (18 %) . While category 4 (Socioeconomic, public policy, public managementresearch) is at the System average level of 14%, category 5 (institution building) representsa relatively modest 17%. Within the global allocation to categories 2 and 3, agricultural crop research accounts for 68 % of the resources (compared with 66% as the System average), livestock for 22 % (23 % System average), and forestry for the remaining 10%. Among the agricultural crops, cereals account for 55% of total, 80% of which is allocated to maize and rice; food legumes follow with 22 %, all of which relates to phaseolusbean research at a reduced level as recommended by TAC; and, roots and tubers represent 21% of the regional total. 14.8.2. Linking System Allocations to Centre Allocations Once TAC had reached consensuson the System resource allocation, it considered the impact of its recommendationson centre allocations in terms of relative change from current core funding levels to reach the projected 1998 levels. These relative changes and their amplitude are shown in Table 14.5 by groups of centres and by category of activity. The table also illustrates how the directional changesproposed at the System level impact on centre allocations. This becomesparticularly evident when the directional changes are analyzed by functional regrouping of centres as presented in Table 14.5. A plus or minus sign in the table indicates that the centre allocation is positively or negatively affected by the System relative allocation to the priority Table 14.5: Difectional Changes by 1998 in Centers’ Resource Distribution Among Categories of Activity Agriculture ‘OPS CIMMYT Categories of Activity + + Forestry/ !-groforestry Livestock RI ion I ITA :IAT -. CARDA LCA l LRAD -- t lobal INISAP CIP ’ fEL + VARDA ZR CIFOR .___ - ICHAF B IFishries - -__--CE!! . + + ++ ++ + + + + ++ don-Commodity/Global Genetic 3esources ____ IBPGR cc Policy/ Mi arlagen IFPRI IlMl ++ ++ mt - ISNAR T gL$ 1. Conservation/Management of Natural Resources 1 .l Ecosystem ConserVatiOn 1 .2 Germplasm coll./conserV. 2. Germplasm Breeding 2.1 Crops 2.2 Livestock 2.3 Trees 2.4 Fish Enhancement/ ++ ++ + -- ++ ++ ++ ++ + + + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + + ++ ++ ---- + ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ + ++ + + -- ++ ++ ++ ++ 3. Production Systems Management 3.1 Cropping Systems 3.2 Livestock systems 3.3 Tree Systems 3.4 Aquatic systems 4. Socio-econ./Public Public Management Dvlpmntl + -+ + -+ -- - -- -- -+ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Policy/ Research + ++ + ----L + ++ ++ + ++ + 5. Institution Building 5.1 TraininglConf. 5.2 Doc.lPub.lDis. Info. 5.3 Org.lMngmnt. Counsel. 5.4 Networks Total --- -- --- -+ --- ---- + + + - + --++ -- ++ -0 + --==.++ ++ ++ + + + + Signs: + indicates - indicates a positive a negative impact, impact, and + + indicates and + + indicates a stronger a stronger positive impact on the Center’s relative allocation negative impact on the Center’s relattie allocation 215 parameters; a double sign indicates a stronger impact, while a single sign indicates a more moderate impact. It should be noted that the signs are not directly comparable among categories of activity, and thus across centres, since the magnitude of the change of direction in the different categories varies widely. Given these factors the pluses and minuses can not be translated into monetary terms. Thus adding pluses and minuses within a centre or across centres has no real meaning. The proposed increase in core resourcesfor research on natural resources conservation and management (category 1) are allocated to all centres concerned. The Centres with a regional mandate and a natural resource managementprogramme benefit more than the global commodity oriented centres, and mostly in their activities comprised in sub-category 1.1 (ecosystemconservation). In contrast, the proposed increase in category 1 in the commodity centres, while more modest in size, is fully allocated to subcategory 1.2 (germplasm collection and conservation), which is consistent with their commodity orientation. The increase in resourcesproposed in category 4 (socioeconomic, public policy and public management research) is also allocated to all centres, except to those focusing on SSA. This is consistent with TAC’s recommendation to shift the emphasis of this category from SSA towards LAC and, to a lesser extent, to Asia. The proposed reduction in institution building activities (category 5), will affect all centres except ISNAR which is allocated more as a consequenceof TAC’s recommendationsto intensify efforts in organization and managementcounselling (sub-category 5.3). The proposed increase in activities related to germplasm enhancement and breeding (category 2) is allocated mostly to the commodity oriented centres, while these centres see the relative allocation to category 3 (production systems development and management) decrease.This is consistent with TAC’s recommendation to decreasethe overall effort of commodity related production systemswork and of emphasizing crop related germplasm work. In contrast, the regionally focused centres see their relative allocation to category 2 increase only modestly mainly as a consequenceof TAC’s recommendation to reduce efforts in food legumes. The same trends can be observed in the allocations to production systemswork in the regionally focused centres; the significant reduction in sub-category 3.1 (cropping systems) is, however, in all cases somewhat compensatedby an increase in sub-category 3.3 (Tree Systems), as a consequenceof the assumedincrement in forestry work. The centres dealing with policy and managementbenefit from increasesin the categories of activities relevant to them, and consistent with TAC’s recommendations to strengthen natural resourcesconservation and management(category l), public policy and public management research (included in category 4), and organization and management counselling (sub-category 5.3). The African livestock centres will experience an overall reduction in resources, consistent with TAC’s recommendationsto decreasework on productions systems (category 3), including livestock systems (sub-category 3.2), and on institution building (category 5). As indicated above, these centres also see a decline in resourcesfor socioeconomic work (included in category 4) as a consequenceof TAC’s recommendation to adjust this category in SSA. 216 The forestry and fisheries centres are allocated significant increasesof resources in all categories of activity consistent with the assumption that incremental funding will be provided by the CGIAR for these activities. Finally, the Genetic ResourcesCentre will see its overall resources increase significantly, as a consequenceof the System increase in germplasm collection and conservation work (sub-category 1.2). 14.8.3. Centre Resource Allocations The last step in TAC’s resource allocation process consisted in translating the System resource allocations and the directional changesin centre allocations into centre specific absolute dollar amounts, which would represent the 1998 indicative resource allocations as a starting point for the preparation by centres of the 1994-98 MTPs. TAC felt that in view of the indicative nature of the funding envelopes, it would need, at the final stage of the medium-term resource allocation process, some flexibility to reallocate resources - within the overall core funding envelope - among programmes and centres on the basis of centre proposals. Therefore, in developing the centre core resource envelopes, TAC has only allocated a total of US$ 250 million out of the total of US$ 270 million. The adjustment was made first by discounting all centres’ initial resource envelopes by 5% (representing US$ 15 million). This was supplementedby holding back US$ 5 million of funding for African livestock centres - in view of the uncertainty surrounding the future evolution and direction of CGIAR livestock research as expressedin Chapter 12 (Section 12.3.5.2). At the time of completion of the medium-term resource allocation process decisions can be made on allocating the resulting reserve of US$ 20 million to centres to accommodate requests for core funding in excessof their resource envelopes for programmes and activities which TAC could not anticipate or for additional requirements resulting from external reviews or other studies. Such a reserve could also finance new and innovative programmes during the MTP implementation period, i.e. 1994-98. Taking into account the set-side of US$ 20 million, an indicative core funding envelope was established for each of the 18 centres. In order to provide flexibility in both System and centre level planning, centres are asked to present MTP proposals at three levels of core funding - i.e. at the level of their allocation (totalling US$ 250 million) as well as in ranges 10% above and below that number. This should provide centres the opportunity to demonstratetheir potentials at higher levels of funding, as well as show the impact of a lower funding on their programmes and activities. These indicative planning targets and the corresponding brackets are shown in Table 14.6, which compares them with 1992 core funding as currently estimated. Centres’ individual, indicative resource envelopesare consistent with TAC’s overall System recommendations as explained in the next section. Table 14.6 Centers’ Indicative 1998 Resource Envelopes and Planning Ranges Centers CIMMYT CIP INIBAP IRRI WARDA ICRISAT I ITA CIAT ICARDA ILCA ILRAD ICRAF CIFOR ICIARM IBPGR IFPRI IIMI ISNAR 25.6 15.2 2.2 28.3 6.2 27.7 22.2 26.5 18.9 19.4 12.6 11.9 3.4 4.0 II 7.4 I/ 8.3 7.3 Planning Ranges of 1998 Core Funding (in 1992 $ millions) Base Resource Low Envelope High 21.7 12.9 1.9 22.1 5.2 24.2 20.3 24.8 15.8 12.6 8.2 14.5 7.3 4.3 7.6 7.7 6.8 6.1 24.1 14.3 2.1 24.5 5.8 26.9 22.5 27.5 17.6 14.0 9.1 16.1 8.1 4.8 8.4 8.6 7.6 6.8 248.8 26.5 15.7 2.3 27.C 6.4 29.6 24.8 30.3 19.4 15.4 10.0 17.7 8.9 5.3 9.2 9.5 8.4 7.5 Centers Total Add: External Reviews Reserve for future Allocation 1.2 20.0 270.0 System Total 218 14.8.4. Specific Factors Affecting Individual Centre Allocations CIMMYT: CIMMYT’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 24.1 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 25.6 million. CIMMYT resourceswould increase modestly in natural resourcesconservation and management (category l), more significantly in germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2) becauseof the need to give greater attention to strategic issues in wheat research. The centre also benefits from the higher priority assigned to Asia and of the greater emphasis on socioeconomic work (included in category 4). Resourceswould, however, decrease,consistent with the Systemwide recommended trends, in production systems development and management (category 3) and institution building (category 5). The relative priority assignedto research on wheat and maize remains unchanged. CIP’s indicative 1998 resource envelope amounts to US$ 14.3 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 15.2 million. CIP would benefit from a relatively modest increase in natural resourcesconservation and management(category l), a more significant increase in germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2) an in socioeconomic work (included in category 4). Its resources for production systems development and management(category 3) and in institution building (category 5) would decrease,consistent with TAC’s System recommendations on these categories. The relative priority assigned to research on potato and sweet potato remains unchanged. INIBAP’s indicative 1998 resource envelope amounts to US$ 2.1 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 2.2 million. INIBAP’s core resourceswould be virtually maintained thus providing the institution, which joined the CGIAR recently, the necessarycritical mass to bring its programme to fruition, which is consistent with TAC’s recommendation to maintain the relative importance of banana and plantain at current levels. IRRI’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 25.8 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 28.3 million. IRRI’s core resourceswould decrease significantly as a result of the Systemwide decreasesin production systems development and management(category 3) and in institution building (category 5); with regard to the latter, IRRI is particularly affected by the reduction in sub-category 5.4 (networks). On the other hand, IRRI benefits from an increase in natural resourcesconservation and management (category 1) and from an even more significant increase in germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2), both of which are not sufficient to offset the decreasesin the previous categories of activity. IRRI also benefits from its overall focus on Asia, and on the need to give greater attention to strategic issues in rice research. The relative priority of rice research remains unchanged. CIP: INIBAI’: IRRI: 219 WARDA: WARDA’s indicative 1998 resource envelope amounts to US$ 5.8 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 6.2 million. WARDA’s core resourceswould be virtually maintained at its current level. The application of TAC’s System priority and allocation recommendationson WARDA would have implied a reduction in its core resources. IIowever, such a reduction was considered to bring WARDA’s current, modest research programme below the critical mass level. ICRISAT’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 26.9 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 27.7 million. Increasesresult from higher System allocations to natural resource conservation and management(category l), in socioeconomic work (included in category 4) and in tree related work (sub-category 3.3). ICIUSAT’s resourcesare reduced by decreasesin germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2) and cropping systems (sub-category 3.1) as a consequenceof TAC’s recommendation to deemphasize work on pigeonpea, though this is in part offset by the recommended increase in groundnut research. ICRISAT also benefits from its focus on the Asia region which has received a higher priority, and its overall emphasis on resource managementissues in the semi-arid tropics. The relative priorities assignedto sorghum, millet and chickpea are unchanged. As other centres, ICRISAT’s allocation for institution building (category 5) would decrease. IITA’s. indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 22.2 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 22.2 million. Increasesresult from System increases in natural resourcesconservation and managementresearch (category l), in germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2), and in tree related work (sub-category 3.3); consistent with TAC’s recommendation to strengthen soybeanresearch, IITA’s allocation for categories 2 and 3 increasesin relative terms. IITA’s allocation, however, experiences decreasein socioeconomic work (included in category 4) and in institution building (category 5), and becauseof its overall emphasis on SSA which has received a lower priority ranking. CIAT’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 27.5 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 26.5 million. CIAT benefits from the increasesin natural resourcesconservation and management(category 1) and in socioeconomic work (included in category 4), with a special emphasis in both categories on LAC. CIAT also benefited from its overall focus on LAC, and the broadening of its agroecological zone coverage. Except for an increment in tree systems (sub-category 3.3), CIAT’s envelope experiencesa decline in the combined allocation to categories 2 (germplasm enhancementand breeding) and 3 (production systems) as a result of the overall recommendedtrend and more specifically as a consequenceof TAC’s recommendation to reduce the priority of research on phaseolusbean. Also, CIAT is impacted by a reduction in institution ICRISAT: IITA: CIAT: 220 building (category 5) as a consequenceof TAC’s global recommendation to that effect. ICARDA: ICARDA’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope is US$ 17.6 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 18.9 million. ICARDA benefits from the system increasesin natural resources conservation and Management research (category l), in socioeconomic work (included in category 4) with a particular emphasis on WANA, in germplasm enhancementand breeding research (category 2) and in tree related work (sub-category 3.3). It experiences decreasesin cropping systems (category 3.1) without altering the relative importance of ICARDA’s specific crops, and in institution building (category 5), and through its overall focus on WANA which has received a lower priority ranking. ILCA’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 14 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 19.4 million. More than half of the reduction is accounted for by TAC’s decision to set aside a reserve, pending the outcome of the Winrock livestock study, of the livestock centres external reviews, and TAC’s review of these centres’ MTP proposals. Discounting for this reduction, ILCA’s resourceswould still decline as a result of TAC’s Systemwide recommendationsto reduce the priority assignedto SSA, and of efforts in Production System Development and Management (category 3), to adjust efforts in SSA in socioeconomic work (included in category 4), and to adjust Institution Building activities (category 5). ILRAD’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 9.1 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 12.6 million. As in the case of ILCA, more than half of the reduction is accountedfor by TAC’s decision to set aside a reserve, pending the outcome of the Winrock livestock study, of the livestock centres external reviews, and TAC’s review of these centres MTP proposals. Discounting for this reduction, ILRAD’s resourceswould still decline as a result of TAC’s Systemwide recommendationsto reduce efforts in SSA, in particular in production system development and management (category 3), in socioeconomic work (included in category 4), and to adjust institution building activities (category 5). These reductions are, however, offset in part with an increase in resources for germplasm enhancementand breeding (category 2). CIFOR’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 7.6 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 3.4 million. Virtually all of the increase is related to the assumption that the CGIAR will provide incremental core funding for forestry related activities. If this assumption materializes, CIFOR’s activities in all categories would increase substantially. CIFOR also benefits of some increase as a result of TAC’s System recommendation to increase resources for natural resource conservation and management (category 1). ILCA: ILRAD: CIFOR: 221 ICRAF: ICRAF’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 15.6 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 11.9 million. As in the case of CIFOR, virtually all of the increase is related to the assumption that the CGIAR will provide incremental core funding for forestry related activities. If this assumption materializes, ICRAF’s activities in all categories would increase substantially. ICRAF also benefits from some increasesas a result of TAC’s System recommendation to increaseresourcesfor natural resource conservation-andmanagement(category 1). As other centres, ICRAF would experience a relative decreasein resourcesfor institution building (category 5), consistent with TAC’s recommendation to adjust System efforts in this area. Throughout TAC’s priority and resource allocation exercise, it has been assumedthat by 1998 ICLARM would be fully integrated in the CGIAR. On that basis, ICLARM’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 4.8 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 4 million. Virtually all of the increase is related to the assumption that the CGIAR will provide incremental core funding for fisheries related activities. If this assumption materializes, ICLARM’s activities in all categories would increase significantly. In addition, ICLARM would benefit from some increasesas a result of TAC’s System recommendation to increaseresourcesfor germplasm collection and conservation (sub-category 1.2) and for socioeconomic work (included in category 4). As other centres, ICLARM would experience a relative decreasein resourcesfor institution building (category 5), consistent with TAC’s recommendation to adjust System efforts in this area. IBPGR’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 8.4 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 7.4 million (excluding funding of one time costs in 1992). The increase results from TAC’s recommended System increase in germplasm collection and conservation (sub-category 1.2)) tempered somewhat by a relative decreasein the allocation for institution building (category 5). IFPRI’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 8.6 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 8.3 million. The increase results from the significant increase in allocation to public policy research (included in category 4), in particular in view of the needs arising from the integration in the CGIAR of expanded areas of activity (natural resourcesmanagement, forestry and fisheries) and from the greater emphasis given to Asia and LAC. IFPRI would, however, experience a relative decreasein resourcesfor institution building (category 5), consistent with TAC’s recommendation to adjust System efforts in this area. IIMI’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 7.6 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 7.3 million. The increase results from the significant increase in resources for natural resource conservation and management ICLARM: IBPGR: IFPRI: IIMI: 222 (category 1) as well as for public managementresearch (included in category 4). As other centres, IIMI would experience a relative decrease in resources for institution building (category 5), consistent with TAC’s recommendation to adjust System efforts in this area. IIMI also benefits from its overall focus on Asia. ISNAR: ISNAR’s indicative 1998 core resource envelope amounts to US$ 6.8 million, which compares with a current 1992 core funding assumption of US$ 6.6 million. The increase results from the increase in resources for organization and managementcounselling (sub-category 5.3) as well as for socioeconomic, policy analysis and public management research (category 4). 14.8.5. Financial Factors Relevant to the Interpretation of the Centre Envelopes In the process of preparing their MTP proposals, centres will add to these allocations the amount of revenue they expect to generate, and the resulting sum will provide the total core resources which the centre should assumeto be available to cover all its 1998 core expenditures, i.e. operating expensesinclusive of depreciation charges, new capital requirements, and operating fund adjustments. Becauseof the application of the depreciation policy, and the expectation that most new capital requirements currently undertaken or envisaged will be largely completed by 1998, it is expected that core new capital requirements will be truly exceptional and will be especially scrutinized from a System’s need perspective. Also, since the centre resource allocations are expressedin constant 1992 values, they will need to be adjusted for inflation at an annual rate of 4% for each of the years 1993 through 1998. Centres will also be requestedto interpret the directional changes implied by their resource envelopes with care when it comes to implementing them during the MTP period, i.e. from 1994 through 1998. Experience has shown that the implementation of changes, particularly in resource allocations, in the CGIAR can only be implemented gradually. In addition, consistent with the basic assumption of constant supply, increases in one area will only be possible if decreasesoccur first in other areas. Therefore, centres whose resource envelopes imply an increasing trend should not assumethat such increase will occur in full in the early years of the MTP period, but rather that the increase will be gradual, equally distributed over the intermediate years. Those centres whose resource envelopes imply a decreasingtrend from 1992 towards 1998, are urged to assumethat decreasing trends will occur in the early years of the MTP period. 223 14.9. Implementation and Execution of the Medium-Term Resource Allocation Process - The MTP Process 14.9.1. Planning Guidelines The indicative resource envelopesare being communicated to all CGIAR Centres via this document, together with the process guidelines for the preparation of the MTPs. At its mid-term meeting in May 1992, the Group will consider the proposed planning envelopes in the framework of this paper. Since the Group should not approve centre allocations before reviewing centres’ final MTP proposals (ICW’93), at the midterm meeting the Group is expected to evaluate, adjust as appropriate and endorse the overall CGIAR priorities and the general thrust of their translation into centre indicative allocations. The System priorities, the indicative resource envelopes, as well as centres’ strategic plans will serve as guidelines for the centres to prepare their medium-term plans. Centres have flexibility to cast their plans and priorities within them as they see fit. 14.9.2 Timetable A number of centres have indicated their willingness to prepare 1994-98 MTPs in mid 1992, i.e. upon receipt of the guidelines, while the other centres are expected to initiate the process later in the year. Changes suggestedby the Group, at the mid-term meeting in May 1992, to the resource allocation envelopesas planning baseswill be communicated to the centres. 14.9.3. Interactive Review of the MTPs In advance of their presentation to TAC and the CGIAR, centres are requested to send their MTP proposals to TAC (and TAC Secretariat) as well as to the CGIAR Secretariat. In the mean time, a working party composed of the TAC liaison scientist and staff members of the two Secretariatswill visit each centre. The purpose of the visit is for the members to get acquainted with the centre MTP proposal, provide guidance to the centre as needed in developing its proposal, and facilitate the interaction between TAC and the centre. Interactions between TAC and the centres are scheduledto take place just prior to ICW’92 and in March 1993. Similarly, centres will present their proposals to the Group either at ICW’92 or at the 1993 mid-term meeting. 14.9.4. Consolidation and Approval of MTPs At its June 1993 meeting, TAC will review all centres’ MTP proposals in a consolidated way to evaluate their consistency with the overall System priorities and resource availability. TAC will then be in a position to formulate final recommendations for centres’ resource envelopes, which will serve as a basis for the centres’ preparation of the final MTP proposals for Group approval, individually and collectively, at ICW’93. Thus at ICW’93, the Group will be asked to approve a vector of budgets for all CGIAR Centres which will be valid through 1998. 224 14.9.5, Adjusting Planned Requirements with Actual Funding During Implementation During the implementation of the MTPs, the relative share of each centre will serve as a bench mark for adjusting its level of funding whenever actual core funding is higher or lower than assumedat the time of the approval of the MTPs. This mechanism would be effective as long as the discrepancy between core requirements and supply is in a manageable range of say plus or minus 5 %. Were the discrepancy to be much larger, the CGIAR would need to consider different approaches,which could include an interim review of all centres’ MTPs. 14.10. Centres’ 1993 Programmes and Budgets 14.10.1. A Transition Year The launching of the second round of CGIAR MTPs in March-May 1992, combined with the deferment until mid and late 1993 of final recommendations and decisions on centres’ resource envelopes and the MTP proposals, implies that 1993 is a transitional year for both the centres and the System as a whole. All centres have thus been requestedto prepare an annual programme and budget for 1993, which will be reviewed by TAC at its June 1992 meeting, and submitted to the Group for approval at ICW’92. The 1993 programmes and budgets are generally based on 1992 core funding, adjusted for inflation. All centres will thus prepare the 1993 programme and budget proposals without explicit reference to their existing MTP, since existing MTPs covering 1993 or beyond are out of date as they do not relate to TAC’s current priority and strategy setting analysis. 14.10.2. Matching Demand and Supply In the event 1993 core funding will be different from the assumption made for the construction of 1993 budgets, the adjustment to centres’ 1993 funding requirement should be made in the context of the new priorities and strategies, as follows: (a) If 1993 core funding for the System exceedsthe planning estimate, centres whose indicative 1998 resource envelope shows an increasing trend could be adjusted upwards in proportion to the relative increase of their 1998 indicative resource envelope up to 150% of the average increase in System funding compared with the planning estimate. The centres with a decreasing indicative 1998 resource envelope would be kept at the 1993 level recommended by TAC based on 1992 core funding. (b) If 1993 core funding for the System falls short of the planning estimate, centres whose indicative 1998 resource envelope shows a decreasing trend could be adjusted downwards in proportion to the relative decreaseof their 1998 indicative resource envelope up to 150% of the averagedecreasein System funding compared with the planning estimate. The centres with an increasing indicative 1998 resource envelope would be kept at the 1993 level based on the 1992 core funding. 225 14.11. Conclusion The assignmentof indicative 1998 core resource envelopesto each of the CGIAR Centres constitutes the first step in the medium-term resource allocation process. They will constitute the basis, together with the planning ranges indicated above, for centres to develop MTPs. In developing their proposals, centres will use TAC’s present priority and strategy analysis as part of their reference. This should ensure a satisfactory degree of consistency between centre operational proposals and the System priorities and strategies. Following a series of interactions involving the centres, TAC and the Group, the medium term resource allocation process will come to a close when the Group will approve, at ICW’93, a vector of programmes and budgets for the period 1994-98. 226 Anderson, J.R., R.W. Herdt and G.M. Scobie. 1988. Science and Food: the CGIAR and its partners. Published for the CGIAR, World Bank, Washington D.C. Broca S. and P. Oram. 1991. Study on the Location of the Poor. Background paper prepared for the Standing Committee for Priorities and Strategies of TAC/CGIAR. IFPRI, Washington. CEC/FAO/UNDP/World Bank. 1991. Report on the study on International Fisheries Research. Final Draft. Carlson, B.A. and T.M. Wardlaw. 1990. Nutrition. A Global, Regional and Country Assessmentof Child Nutrition. UNICEF Staff Working Paper No. 7. UNICEF, New York. Cetron, M. J. and J.N. Johnson. 1972. Technological Forecasting in a Dynamic Environment. In: M.J. Cetron, H. Davidson, A.H. Rubenstein, Gordon and Breach. Quantitative Decision Aiding Techniques for Researchand Development Management. Science Publishers, New York. CGIAR Secretariat. 1986. Progress Report on the Proposed Approach to Resource Allocation in the CGIAR. Washington, D.C. CGIAR Secretariat. 1990. Resource Allocation in the CGIAR. A Report to the CGIAR on a review of our resource allocation processpresented at ICW. Washington, D.C. CGIAR Secretariat. 1991. The 1992 Funding Requirements of CGIAR Centres. Washington, D. C. Davis, J., 1991. Spillover Effects of _Agricultural Research: Importance for Research Policy and Incorporation in ResearchEvaluation Models. ACIAR/ISNAR Project Paper No. 32. Davis, J.S., McKenny, D. and J. Turnbull. 1988. Potential Gains from Forestry Research and a Comparison with Agricultural Commodities. ACIARISNAR Project Paper No. 15, ACIAR, Canberra. Davis, J., Oram, P. and J. Ryan. 1987. Assessmentof Agricultural ResearchPriorities: An International Perspective. ACIAR Monograph No. 4, ACIAR, Canberra. Ezekiel, Hannan. 1989. Medium Term Estimates of Demand - Based Food Aid Requirements and Their Variability. In: National Academy Press. Food Aid Projections for the Decade of the 1990s. Reprint No. 177, IFPRI, Washington, D.C. FAO. 1978-81. Reports of the Agro-ecological Zones Project. World Soil Resources Report No. 48, FAO, Rome. 227 FAO. 1982. Potential Population Supporting Capacities of Lands in the Developing World. FAO/UNFPA/IIASA. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1983. Fuelwood Supplies in the Developing Countries. Forestry Paper 42. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1984. Land, Food and People. Economic and Social Development Series No. 30. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1986a. African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years. Main Report and Annexes. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1986b. World Compendium of Forestry and Forestry Products Research Institutions. FAO Forestry Paper 71. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1987. Agriculture: Towards 2000. (Revised Version). FAO, Rome. FAO. 1988. Potentials for Agricultural and Rural Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Main Report and Annexes. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1991a. Elements for strategies and agendafor action. FAO/Netherlands Conference on Agriculture and the Environment. s-Hertogenbosch,The Netherlands, 15-19 April. FAO, Rome. FAO.1991b. The State of Food and Agriculture 1990. FAO Agriculture Series No. 23. FAO, Rome., Fearn, M. and J. Davis (1991). Evaluation of Fisheries Research: An application to support international decision-making. Contributed paper presented at the 35th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economic Society. University of New England, Armidale, 11-14 February. ANU/ACIAR, Canberra. Gryseels, G. and J.R. Anderson (1991). International Agricultural Research. Chapter 9 in Pardey, P.G., J. Roseboom and J.R. Anderson (eds). Agricultural Research Policy. International Quantitative Perspectives. Published for ISNAR by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ILCA 1987. ILCA’s Strategy and Long-Term Plan. Addis Ababa. ICLARM 1991. A Strategic Plan for International Fisheries Research. Draft report submitted to TAC for discussion at TAC 55 in Rome. IPCC 1990. Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change - Report of Working Group III on Agriculture, Forestry and Other Human Activities. IPCC, WMO, Geneva. IRRI 1990 - IRRI 1990-1991. A Continuing Adventure in Rice Research. Manila. Mergen, F., R.E. Evenson, M.S. Judd and J. Putnam. 1988. Forestry Research: A Provisional Global Inventory. Economic Development and Cultural Change 37(l): 149-171. 228 Pardey, P.G. and J. Roseboom. 1991. Agricultural ResearchCapacity in a regional and agro-climatic perspective. Background paper prepared for the Standing Committee on Priorities and Strategies of the TAC/CGIAR. ISNAR, The Hague. Pardey, P.G., J. Roseboom and J.R. Anderson. 1991. Agricultural ResearchPolicy. International Quantitative Perspectives.Published for ISNAR by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ryan, J.G. and J.S. Davis. 1990. A Decision Support System to Assist Agricultural Research Priority Setting: Experience at ACIAR and Possible Adaptations for the TAC/CGI_GR. ACIAIVISNAR Project Paper No 17. ACIAR, Canberra. Ryan, J.G., J.S. Davis, K. Menz and M. Fearn. 1991. Development and Use of A Priority AssessmentInformation System in ACIAR. Mimeograph, ACIAR, Canberra. Sanchez, B.A., W. Couto and S.W. Buol. 1982. The fertility capability soil classification system: Interpretation, Applicability and Modification. Geoderma 27 (283-309). TAC Secretariat. 1973. Priorities for International Support to Agricultural Research in Developing Countries. DDDR: IAR/73/23. FAO, Rome. TAC Secretariat. 1976. Priorities. for International Support to Agricultural Research in Developing Countries. FAO, Rome. TAC Secretariat. 1979. TAC Review of Priorities and Strategies for International Support to Agricultural Research. FAO, Rome. T,%C/CGIAR. 1986. Study of Training in the CGIAR System 1984. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome. TAC/CGIAR. 1987a. TAC’s Role in Monitoring and Recommending Priorities for the CGIAR. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome. TAC/CGIAR. 1987b. CGIAR Priorities and Future Strategies. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome. TAC/CGIAR. 1988. SustainableAgricultural Production: Implications for International Agricultural Research. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome. TAC/CGIAR 1998. A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome. TACYCGIAR 1991a. Relationships between CGIAR Centres and National Research Systems: Issues and Options. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome. TAC/CGIAR 1991b. An Ecoregional Approach to Researchin the CGHAR. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome. United Nations. 1988, Population Projections. UN, New York. 229 World Bank 1985. The Smallholder Dimension of Livestock Development. A Review of Bank Experience (in two volumes). Operations Evaluation Department, Report No. 5979, Washington, D.C. World Bank 1990. World Development Report 1990. Published for the World Bank. Oxford University Press, New York. World Commission on Environment and Development 1987. Our Common Future, Oxford University Press. ANNEX I AGROECOLOGPCAL ZONES -WORK AND DATABASE FOR THE REVIEW OF CGIAR PRIORI[TIES AND STRATEGIES Introduction The classification of regional agroecological zones (RAEZs) described in this Annex was devised for TAC’s review of CGLAR priorities and strategies. In applying the classification to the four developing country regions, (sub-SaharanAfrica, West Asia and North Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean), the socioeconomic and land use database(available only in terms of political administrative units) had to be linked to the natural resource databaseof soil, climate and landform (available by FAO agroecological zones for each country). To achieve this linkage, agroecological zone boundaries were reconciled with political administrative boundaries, where possible. Agroecological Zones (AEZs) At the highest level of aggregation, nine agroecological zones were distinguished from the FAO agroecological zones (FAO-AEZ) land inventory. These are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Warm arid and semi-arid tropics Warm subhumid tropics Warm humid tropics Cool tropics Warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall Warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall Warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall Cool subtropics with summer rainfall Cool subtropics with winter rainfall The FAO-AEZ classification is based on rainfed soil moisture availability in terms of reference length of growing period (LGP) derived using a water balance model, and temperature conditions during the LGP. The definitions of the LGP moisture and thermal zones in the FAO-AEZ classification, and of the above nine AEZs, are given in this Annex. The soils information in the FAO-AEZ land inventory is based on the FAOUNESCO Soil Map of the World. Distribution of RAEZs in the Four Regions The application of the above AEZ classification to the four regions leads to a total of 23 RAEZs, four in Sub-SaharanAfrica, three in West Asia-North Africa, seven in Asia and nine in Latin America and the Caribbean, RAEZs 1 and 2 in sub-Saharan Africa are each split into three parts: West Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa. The country classification by RAEZs is given in this Annex. ANNEX I - page 2 Database The AEZ databasedeveloped for TAC’s review of CGIAR priorities and strategies includes information on the following areas: Land resources and land potentials Land use and production Population (human, livestock) Demand, exports and value of production Income, poverty and malnutrition DEFINITIONS Tropics: Subtropicss Temperate: All months with monthly mean temperature, corrected to sea level, above 18OC. One or more months with monthly mean temperature, corrected to sea level, below 18OC; One or more months with monthly mean temperature, corrected to sea level, below 5OC. Length of Growing Peliod (LGP): Period (in days) during the year when rainfed available soil moisture supply is greater than half potential evapotranspiration (PET). It includes the period required to evapotranspire up to 100 mm of available soil moisture stored in the soil profile. It excludes any time interval when daily mean temperature is less than 5OC. Warm: Cool: Cold: warm/cool: Arid: Semi-arid: Subhumid: Humid: Daily mean temperature during the growing period greater than 20°C. Daily mean temperature during the growing period in the range 5-20°C (includes the moderately cool range 15-2OOC). Daily mean temperature less than 5OC. Daily mean temperature during part of the growing period greater than 20°C, and during another part less than 2OOC. LGP less than 75 days. LGP in the range 75-l 80 days. LGP in the range of 180-270 days. LGP greater than 270 days. ANNEX I - page 3 Warm Arid and Semi-arid Tropics: Comprises the semi-arid (LGP = 75-180 days) moisture zone in the tropics. Arid (LGP = O-75 days) moisture zone taken into account for the purposesof irrigation and rangeland assessments, and for reconciliation with political boundaries. Daily mean temperature during the growing period greater than 20°C. Warm Subhumid Tropics: Comprises the subhumid (LGP = 180-270 days) moisture zone in the tropics. Daily mean temperature during the growing period greater than 20°C. Warm Humid Tropics: Comprises the humid (LGP= 270-365 days) moisture zone in the tropics including the per-humid areas. Daily mean temperature during the growing period greater than 2OOC. Cool Tropics: Comprises the semi-arid (LGP = 75-180 days), subhumid (LGP = 180-270 days) and humid (LGP = 270-365 days) moisture zones in the tropics. Arid (LGP = O-75 days) moisture zone taken into account for the purposes of irrigation and rangeland assessments, and for reconciliation with political boundaries. Daily mean temperature during the growing period in the range 5-2OOC. Includes the moderately cool tropics major climate with daily mean temperature during the growing period in the range 15-20°C. Areas of cold tropics taken into account for reconciliation with political boundaries. Warm Arid and Semi-arid Subtropics with Summer Rainfall: Comprises the semi-arid (LGP = 75-180 days) moisture zone in the subtropics. Arid (LGP = O-75 days) moisture zone taken into account for the purposes of irrigation and rangeland assessments, and for reconciliation with political boundaries. Daily mean temperature during the growing period greater than 2OOC. Includes the warm semi-arid temperate (summer rainfall) major climate in China. Warm Subhumid Subtropics with Summer Rainfall: Comprises the subhumid (LGP = 180-270 days) moisture zone in the subtropics. Daily mean temperature during the growing period greater than 20°C. Includes the warm subhumid temperate (summer rainfall) major climate in China and Korea. Warm/Cool Humid Subtropics with Summer Rainfall: Comprises the humid (LGP = 270-365 days) moisture zone in the subtropics. Daily mean temperature greater than 20°C during one part (warm) of the growing period, and less than 20°C during another part (cool) of the growing period. The cool part is moderately cool with daily mean temperature in the range 15-20°C. Includes the warm/moderately cool temperate (summer rainfall) major climate in China. ANNEX I - page 4 Cool Subtropics with Summer Rainfall: Comprises the semi-arid (LGP = 75-180 days), subhumid (LGP = 180-270 days) and humid (LGP = 270-365 days) moisture zones in the subtropics. Arid (LGP = O-75 days) moisture zone taken into account for the purposes of irrigation and rangeland assessments, and for reconciliation with political boundaries. Daily mean temperature during the growing period in the range 5-20°C. Includes the moderately cool subtropics (summer rainfall) and transitional moderately cool subtropics (summer rainfall) major climates with daily mean temperature in the range 15-20°C. Areas of cold subtropics (summer rainfall) taken into account for reconciliation with political boundaries. Includes cool and cold temperate (summer rainfall) major climates in China, Mongolia and Korea. Cool Subtropics with Winter Rainfslll: Comprises the semi-arid (LGP = 75-180 days), subhumid (LGP = 180-270 days) and humid (LGP = 270-365 days) moisture zones in the subtropics. Arid (LGP = O-75 days) moisture zone taken into account for the purposes of irrigation and rangeland assessments, and for reconciliation with political boundaries. Daily mean temperature during the growing period in the range 5-20°C. Areas of cold subtropics (winter rainfall) taken into account for reconciliation with political boundaries. Includes cool and cold temperate (winter rainfall) major climates in Turkey, Argentina and Chile. GOtJ.JTRY CLASSIFICATION NAL AGROECOLOGICAL Z 1. Sub-Sahasan Africa Warm arid and semi-arid tropics (AEZ I): West Africa: Cape Verde, Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and parts of Benin, Burkina Faso, and Nigeria. East Africa: Djibouti, Somalia, Sudan and parts of Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Southern Africa: Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland, and parts of Angola, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. .RAEZ 2 Warm subhumid tropics (AEZ 2): West Africa: Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Togo, and parts of Benin, Burkina Faso and Nigeria. East Africa: Parts of Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda. Southern Africa: Comoros and parts of Angola, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. RAE2 1 ANNEX I - page 5 RAEZ 3 Warm humid tropics (AEZ 3): Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, C6te d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Mauritius, Reunion, Sao Tome, Sierra Leone, Zaire, and parts of Madagascarand Nigeria. RAEZ 4 Cool tropics (AEZ 4): Burundi, Lesotho, Rwanda, and parts of Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar and Tanzania. 2. West Asia North Africa Warm arid and semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1): Oman, United Arab Emirates, and parts of Republic of Yemen. RAEZ 6 Cool tropics (AEZ 4): Parts of Republic of Yemen. RAEZ 7 Cool subtropics with winter rainfall (XEZ 9): Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and Western Sahara. 3. Asia and the Pacific Warm arid and semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1): Parts of India and Thailand. RAEZ 9 Warm subhumid tropics (AEZ 2): Myanmar, and parts of India, Sri Lanka and Thailand. RAEZ IO Warm humid tropics (AEZ 3): Bangladesh, Brunei, Fiji, Indonesia, Kampuchea, Laos, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Vietnam, and parts of Sri Lanka and Thailand. RAEZ 5 RAEZ 8 ANNEX I - page 6 RAEZ I1 Warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 5): Pakistan, and parts of China and India. RAEZ 12 Warm subhumid tropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 6): Parts of China, India, North Korea and South Korea. RAEZ 63 Warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 7): Taiwan and parts of China. RAEZ 14 Cool subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 8): Bhutan, Mongolia, Nepal, and parts of China, India, North Korea and South Korea. 4. Latin America and the Caribbean Warm arid and semi-arid tropics (AEZ 1): Antigua, Netherlands, Antilles, Haiti and parts of Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico and Venezuela. RAEZ 16 Warm subhumid tropics (AEZ 2): Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Lucia, and parts of Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Paraguay and Venezuela. RAEZ 17 Warm humid tropics (AEZ 3): Barbados, Belize, French Guyana, Guyana, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Windward Isles, and parts of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ekuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. MEZ 18 Cool tropics (AEZ 4): Parts of Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and Peru. RAEZ 19 Warm arid and semi-arid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 5): Parts of Argentina and Mexico. RAEZ 15 ANNEX I - page 7 RAEZ 20 Warm subhumid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 6): Parts of Argentina. RAEZ 21 Warm/cool humid subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 7): Parts of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. RAEZ 22 Cool subtropics with summer rainfall (AEZ 8): Uruguay and parts of Argentina. RAEZ 23 Cool subtropics with winter rainfall (AEZ 9): Chile and parts of Argentina. Annex II - Page 1 Average 1987-89 Value of Production ad Shares for Curmodities by AEZ by Region RICE US0 mil. S/S AFRICA totat AEZ : 1534.0 367.7 454.4 704.1 7.3 1.8% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% share MEAT US0 mil. share MAIZE US0 mil. share BARLEY US0 mil. share 254.1 79.3 1.7 1.0 172.1 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 2034.3 679.0 601.3 324.4 429.5 10.3% 3.4% 3.0% 1.6% 2.2% 146.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 142.5 4.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% UANA total AEZ z 9 ASIA total AEZ : 3 5 6 7 8 79948.9 9967.8 7539.9 19777.5 13103.6 8709.6 20316.7 603.4 93.0% 11.6% 8.8% 23.0% 15.2% 10.1% 23.6% 0.7% 21807.5 0.0 23.0 151.7 9030.0 2694.3 5002.2 4906.2 70.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 29.0% 8.7% 16.1% 15.8% 11330.3 441.9 367.0 1340.0 1540.3 1032.6 3278.7 3329.8 57.5% 2.2% 1.9% 6.8% 7.8% 5.2% 16.6% 16.9% 717.3 0.0 0.0 27:.: 163:5 0.0 280.8 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 5.2% 0.0% 9.0% 921.5 0.0 0.0 921.5 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 5907.0 2.5 17.8 5886.7 19.0% 0.0% 0.1% 18.9% 786.7 i-z i791a 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 2055.0 0.3 5.9 2048.8 65.9% 0.0% 0.2% 65.7% S/C AMERICA total AEZ t s 4 5 3594.2 352.2 1080.5 811.0 195.5 47.3 12.3 933.0 130.6 31.8 4.2% 0.4% 0.9% 1.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% 3178.8 107.6 0.0 0.0 288.7 359.2 209.6 958.6 973.5 281.0 10.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.2% 0.7% 3.1% 3.1% 0.9% 5569.4 414.5 1049.4 870.5 718.6 396.5 125.2 1349.0 555.0 90.6 28.2% 2.1% 5.3% 4.4% 3.6% 2.0% 0.6% 6.8% 2.8% 0.5% 199.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 70.5 34.2 6.5 26.4 50.9 9.9 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.1% 0.2% o.a;z 1.6% 0.3% t OVERALL totat AEZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 85998.6 10687.6 8805.3 21562.1 202.9 13150.9 8721.9 21249.7 734.0 953.3 100.0% 12.4% 10.2% 25.1% 0.2% 15.3% 10.1% 24.n 0.9% 1.1% 31147.3 189.4 24.7 152.8 478.6 9389.2 2903.9 5960.8 5879.7 6167.7 100.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.5% 1.5% 30.1% 9.3% 19.1% 18.9% 19.8% 19720.7 1536.8 2017.7 2534.9 1153.5 1936.9 1157.8 4627.8 3884.8 870.4 100.0% 7.8% 10.2% 12.9% 5.8% 9.8% 5.9% 23.5% 19.7% 4.4% 3117.9 4.0 0.0 2.5 218.9 306.5 170.0 26.4 331.7 2058.7 100.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 7.0% 9.8% 5.5% 0.8% 10.6% 66.0% Annex II - Page 2 SORGHUM US0 mil. S/S AFRICA total AEZ 1 2 3 4 1308.9 733.3 397.0 65.0 113.5 32.4% 18.2% 9.8% 1.6% 2.8% share MILLET WI mil. share CASSAVA US0 mil. share POTATO US0 mil. share 1371.8 834.9 492.9 42.1 1.7 41.4% 25.2% 14.9% 1.3% 0.1% 4434.0 948.6 1281.3 2129.7 74.1 45.0% 9.6% 13.0% 21.6% 0.8% 424.2 44.7 99.6 45.8 234.1 3.1% 0.3% 0.7% 0.3% 1.7% WANA total AEZ 1 : ASIA total AEZ 1 ; 7 8 S/C AMERICA total AEZ : 3 4 5 6 7 i OVERALL total AEZ 1 : 4 4038.0 1433.2 746.7 78.1 424.7 792.0 305.8 22.1 172.2 63.7 100.0% 35.5% 18.5% 1.9% 10.5% 19.6% 7.6% 0.5% 4.3% 1.6% 3317.2 1508.6 703.0 51.5 5.8 684.7 321.9 0.7 32.1 12.5 100.0% 45.5% 21.2% 1.6% 0.2% 20.6% 9.7% 0.0% 1.0% 0.4% 9847.7 1516.3 2991.1 4792.6 74.1 52.7 38.3 382.5 0.0 0.5 100.0% 15.4% 30 .-44x 48.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 13790.0 145.8 162.5 437.1 1305.1 2918.7 1311.3 2572.8 2698.1 2238.2 100.0% 1.1% 1.2% 3.2% 9 .5% 21.2% 9.5% 18.7% 19.6% 16.2% 995.3 126.0 165.5 12.2 263.5 201.7 37.5 12.1 172.2 4.1 24.6% 3.1% 4.1% 0.3% 6.5% 5.0% Ef 4.3% 0.1% 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 i:: 6.6 0.2 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 2006.3 236.3 828.4 686.5 0.0 2.6 5.1 246.8 i:: 20.4% 2.4% 8.4% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2281.9 98.1 27.2 9.0 1049.8 106.5 70.5 330.6 330.6 160.0 16.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 7.6% 0.8% 0.5% 3.1% 2.4% 1.2% 1626.5 573.8 184.2 0.8 268.3 590.3 10.0 0.0 40.3% 14.2% 4.6% 0.0% 14.6% 6.6% 0.2% 0.0% 1908.2 662.5 210.1 68i.i 320:3 0.2 25.4 . 57.5% 20.0% 6.3% 0.3% 20.6% 9.7% 0.0% 0.8% 3407.4 331.3 881.3 1976.3 50.1 33.2 135.7 0.0 34.6% 3.4% 8.9% 20.1% 0.5% 0.3% 1.4% 0.0% 8981.5 0.3 35.6 382.2 2812.2 1240.6 2142.9 2367.4 65.1% 0.0% 0.3% 2.8% 20.4% % lE6 17:2% 107.3 0.0 47.7 59.6 2.7% 0.0% 1.2% 1.5% 27.7 11.2 4.1 12.3 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% cl. 0% 0.0% 0.0% 2102.3 2.8 21.3 2078.2 15.2% 0.0% 0.2% 15.1% i 9 Annex II - Page 3 SWEET POTATO US0 mil . S/S AFRICA total AEZ : 3 4 WANA total AEZ 1 9" ASIA total AEZ : 3 I! 7 8 13067.0 79.1 37.1 693.8 2825.4 1974.2 7469.2 0.0 93.1% 0.6% 0.3% 4.9% 20.1% 14.1% 53.2% 0.0% 8.7 0.0 80:; 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 700.9 155.7 247.6 111.3 186.3 5.0% 1.1% 1.8% 0.8% 1.3% share YAM US0 mil. share 8ANANA & PLANTAIN US0 mil. share CHICK PEA 1. USQ mil. share 2858.1 37.4 1468.0 1351.3 1.4 96.6% 1.3% 49.6% 45.7% 0.0% 3564.5 55.8 1691.4 1054.4 762.4 34.5% 0.5% 16.4% 10.2% 7.4% 59.8 10.5 14.9 3::: 2.7% 0.5% 0.7% P:% 14.5% 0.0% 0.0% 14.5% 0.0 i-i 0:o 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 78.0 7.0 4.8 66.2 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 325.7 0.0 0.0 325.7 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3013.1 83;‘: 157414 30.7 333.2 242.1 0.6 29.2% 0.0% 8.1% 15.2% 0.3% 3.2% 2.3% 0.0% 1800.6 777.3 267.5 25.1 548.8 109.9 26.1 45.0 80.3% 34.7% 11.9% 1.1% 24.5% 4.9% 1.2% 2.0% S/C AMERICA total AEZ : 3 : 6 7 260.4 67.6 45.9 22.7 15.6 14.6 26.5 57.0 1.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 76.5 13.5 19.4 43.7 Ki 0:o 8.8 0:o 2.6% 0.5% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3678.9 531.0 790.1 1100.8 690.1 99.3 19.0 446.3 0.0 2.0 35.6% 5.1% 7.6% 10.7% 6.7x 1.0% 0.2% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 56.4 5.8 ;:: 16.1 13.9 0.2 ii 3:o 2.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% @.6X 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% : OVERALL total AEZ : 3 4 z i 9 J”:: 14037.2 302.4 330.8 827.9 zoo.9 2841.0 2000.7 7526.3 126:: 100.0% 2.2% 2.4% 5.9% 1.4% 20.2% 14.3% 53.6% 0.0% 0.1% 2959.1 50.9 1487.4 1419.5 it:“0 2: i:: 100.0% 1.7% 50.3% 48.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10334.6 593.9 3313.5 3729.7 1457.3 129.9 352.2 688.4 0.6 68.2 100.0% 5.7% 32.1% 36.1% 14.1% 1.3% 3.4% 6.7% 0.0% 0.7% 2242.4 793.7 289.5 34.5 50.4 562.7 110.1 26.1 46.7 328.7 100.0% 35.4% 12.9% 1.5% 2.2% 25.1% 4.9% 1.2% 2.1% 14.7% Annex II - Page 4 CW PEA USD mil. S/S AFRICA total AEZ : 3 4 1052.9 497.3 356.7 199.0 0.0 95.5% 45.1% 32.3% 18.0% 0.0% share PICEDN PEA US0 mit. share BROAD BEAN US0 mil. share LENTIL USD mil. share 64.2 17.1 47.0 0.0 0.0 6.1% 16.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 180.8 42.7 15.5 0.4 122.0 8.9% 2.1% 0.8% 0.0% 6.0% 13.0 1.5 2 10.2 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0x UANA tote1 AEZ z 9 ASIA total AEZ 1 : 5 6 7 8 S/C AMERICA total AEZ 1 s : 6 3 9 GVERALL total AEZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1102.6 520.9 369.4 208.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 100.0% 47.2% 33.5% 18.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1054.7 517.7 217.6 Z-A 24411 66.7 0.0 4.6 0.0 100.0% 49.1% 20.6% 0.5% 0.0% 23.1% 6.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 2031.1 48.8 34.1 11.3 150.5 200.8 129.8 532.2 465.6 458.0 100.0% 2.4% 1.7% 0.6% 7.4% lE 26:2x 22.9% 22.5% 1066.4 175.9 52.8 78.3 16.5 110.8 29.6 20.0 62.7 519.8 100.0% 16.5% 5.0% 7.3% 1.5% 10.4% 2.8% 24.3 23.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2% 2.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‘16.1 2.4 10.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 s-00 a:0 1.5% 0.2% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 92.3 6.0 18.6 10.8 28.5 7.5 0.9 15.4 4.4 0.1 4.5% 0.3% i:E 1.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 32.8 1.1 ::: 3"*.: 1:7 0.5 3:'s 3.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% i:E 21.4 0.0 12.7 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 974.4 498.2 160.4 1.4 241.1 66.7 0.0 4.6 92.4% 47.2% 15.2% 0.1% 23.1% 6.3% 0.0% 0.4% 1300.2 0.0 0.0 1930:; 128.9 516.8 461.2 64.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 6.3% 25.4% 22.7% 509.6 173.3 50.3 75.7 107.6 27.9 19.4 55.4 47.8% 16.2% 4.7% 7.1% 10.1% 2.6X 1.8% 5.2% 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 457.9 0.0 45;:; 22.5% 0.0% 0.0% 22.5% 511.0 0.0 51::: 47.9% 8*E 47:9x Annex Ii - Page 5 BEANS USD mil. S/S AFRICA total AEt 1 5 4 UANA total AE2 1 i 429.0 0.0 429.0 0.0 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3.a 1313.0 209.4 427.2 192.2 484.2 13.4% 2.1% 4.4% 2.0% 4.9% share SOrBEAR USD nil. share GRWWDNUT USD mil. share COCDNUT USD mil. share it: 2& 9.5 2.1 0.5% 0.2% 8% 0.0% 2703.4 1396.2 665.6 582.6 59.0 21.8% 11.2% 5.4% 4.7% 0.5% 267.2 77.5 69.0 120.7 0.0 4.9% 1.4% 1.3% 2.2% 0.0% 105.3 8.8 1oS:s i-E 0:0x 0.9% 33.3% 1.6% 1.1% 3.4% 6.5% 5.4% lS.2% 0.0% 106.0 0.0 loz 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ASIA total AE2 1 s 5 ; 8 S/C AMERICA total AEZ 1 2 4 ii 7 8 9 OVERALL totak AE2 1 : ; 6 x 9 5491.0 754.6 1182.2 803.3 827.8 367.0 89.3 003.7 177.5 485.6 100.0% 13.7% 21.5% 14.6% lS.l% 6.Tx 1.6% 14.6% 3.2% 8.8% 12197.9 647.8 1723.1 1577.5 lot:*'; 988:r 4654.4 1436.0 141.0 100.0% 5.3% 14.1% 12.9% 0.1% 8.4% 8.1% 38.2% 11.8% 1.2% 12419.2 3889.3 1870.4 1258.4 62.3 3318.8 1826.9 T5.5 12::: 100.0% 31.3% 15.1% 10.1% 0.5% 26.7% 14.7% 0.6% 0.0% 1.0% 5428.0 782.6 634.5 3898.2 0.0 63.9 1.5 47.2 0.0 0.0 100.0% 14.4% 11.7% 71.8% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2641.0 227.1 582.1 469.1 343.6 163.0 17.7 702.8 31.7% 2.7% 7.0% 5.6% 4.1% 2.0% ii:% 0.9% 0.7% 7966.2 419.6 1560.4 1153.8 23:-z 32417 2794.4 1435.6 35.7 65.3% 3.4% 12.8% 9.5% 0.1% i-E 22:9x 11.8% 0.3% 480.0 77.5 122.7 7.8 3.3 84.0 143.6 24.9 0.6 15.3 3.9% 0.6% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% 1.2% 387.4 52.6 104.1 128.0 6:-F 7.1% 1.0% 1.9% 2.4% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1108.0 318.2 172.9 141.9 204.0 71.6 loo.9 98.6 51.5% 14.8% 8.0% 6.6% 9.5% 3.3% 4.7% 4.6% 4060.2 200.0 136.5 414.3 789.6 663.3 1860.0 0.4 9129.7 2415.5 1082.1 668.1 3234.8 1683.3 so.7 0.0 73.5% 19.5% 4773.3 652.6 461.4 3649.6 2.3 1.5 6.0 0.0 87.9% 12.0% 8.5% 67.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 8.7x 5.4% 26.0% 13.6% 0.4% 0.0% 3 E:! 8:E 0.1% 0:o 41.2 0.0 0.0 Annex I! - PasP 6 TCX4ATO USD init. S/S AFRICA total AEZ : 3 4 WANA total AEZ 1 i 2886.2 14.1 2841.6 27.5 49.5% 0.2% 0.5% 48.8% 27-5.6 100.3 78.8 83.2 13.1 4.7% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 0.2% share ONION USD mil. share CABBAGE USD mil. share ORANGE USD mil. share 103.9 52.8 19.5 18.7 12.8 2.8%. l.bX 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 15.0 1.5 277.5 54.5 43-b 144.3 35.0 1.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% 0.2% 859.7 4.4 8.4 846.9 23.6% 0.1% 0.2% 23.1% 182.8 2.1 12.2 168.6 9.0% 0.1% 0.6% 8.3% 2630.4 0.0 2.0 2628.1 15.3% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3% ASiA total AEZ 1 : 5 6 7 8 S/C AMRICA totat A&Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1328.2 122.9 253.1 204.7 206.6 115.4 21.5 214.7 104.6 82.8 22.8% 2.1% 4.3% 3.5% 3.5% 2.0% 0.4% 3.7X 1.8% 1.4% 545.1 23.8 70.0 83.9 117.2 7.4 lb.7 96.8 69.0 62.3 14.9% 0.6% 1.9% 2.3% 3.2% 0.2% 0.4% 2.6% ::Ri 104.4 9.0 258.56 SO:6 5.7 0.0 0.0 40:; 5.2% 0.4% 0.4% 1.3% 2.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 10708.3 381.6 3533-b 2547.7 300.2 259.0 58.4 3292.2 297.6 38.1 42.3% 2.2% 20.6% 14.8% 1.7% 1.5% 0.3% 19.2% 1.7% 0.2% 1342.6 80.6 100.6 34.1 185.8 123.1 454.1 364-3 23.0% 1.4% 0.5% z 2:1x 7.8% 6.2% 2157.9 373.0 181.8 209.9 459.4 231.3 348.8 353.8 58-m 10.2% 5.0% 5.73 12.5% 6.3X 9.5% 9.6% 1724.8 37.6 27.6 160.1 163.2 391.7 463.8 481 .O 85.1% 1.9% 1.4% 7.0x 8.1% 19.3% 22.9% 23.7% 3560.9 499.2 268.1 340.1 573.7 318.9 1155.3 405.6 20.7X 2.9% 1.6% 2.0% 3.3% tz 214% OVERALL total AEZ 1 : 4 5 6 9 5832.7 317.9 388.5 366.0 247.2 301.2 144.6 470.9 2927.4 100.0% 5.5% 6.3% 6.7% 4.2% 5.2% 2.5% 11.5% 8.1% 50.2% 3666.6 454.0 271.4 312.4 138.3 466.7 246.0 445.6 422.8 909.3 100.0% 12.4% 7.4% 8.5% 3.8% 12.7% 6.7% 12.2% 11.5% 24.8% 2027.1 50.1 39.8 189.7 68.3 168.9 391.7 463.8 481.4 173.3 100.01 2.5% 2.0% 9.4% 3.4% 8.3% 19.3% 22.9% 23.7% 8.6% 17176.8 935.2 3844.9 3032.2 337.3 832.7 377.4 4447.4 703.2 2666.2 100.0% 5.4% 22.4% 17.7% 2.0% 4.8% 2.2% 25.9% 4.1% 15.5% s7 668.8 Annex II - Page 7 LEHON & LIME USD mil. S/S AFRICA total AEZ 1 : 4 WANA total AEZ 1 8 ASIA total AEZ 1 : 5 6 7 8 S/C AMERICA total AEZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1577.8 107.5 305.6 292.6 134.6 155.8 63.6 154.8 316.7 46.5 47.2% 3.2% 9.2% 8.8% 4.0% 4.7% 1.9% 4.6% 9.5% 1.4% E% 153:5 65.3 48.5 43.3 72.2 24.4 20.6% 8.4% 4.6% 2.0% 1.5% 1.3% 2.2% 0.7% 978.8 27.0 3.9 948.0 29.3% 0.8% 0.1% 28.4% 95.2 47.9 8.5 31.8 7.0 2.8% 1.4% 0.3% 1.0% 0.2% share PINEAPPLE USD mil. share GRAPE USD mil. share APPLE USD mil. share 286.0 39.1 30.7 157.2 59.0 11.1% 9.5% 1.2% 6.1% 2.3% 27.3 i-s 3:o 8.6 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% O.?% 4.5 i-3" 0:o 2.3 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0":: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6614.8 9oE 6507:9 53.7% 0.0% 0.9% 52.8% 1507.6 0.0 150;:: 29.5% 0.0% 0.0% 29.5% 1638.5 136.0 370.6 915.4 3.0 42.0 171.5 0.0 63.7% 5.3% 14.4% 35.6% 0.9% 1.6% 6.7% 0.0% 1916.3 161.1 88.8 3zl 204:7 452.6 166.6 9.1% 1.3% 0.7% 0.1% 0.3% 1.7% 3.7% 1.4% 2585.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.1 921.8 1044.7 541.7 50.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 18.1% 20.5% 10.6% 648.8 23.8 168.8 218.4 97.2 25.0 0.8 114.7 0.0 0.0 25.2% 0.9% 6.6% 8.5% 3.8% 1.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 4567.8 32-z 273:1 90.2 126.6 454.9 365.4 2081.3 808.8 37.1% 0.5% 2.5% 2.2% 0.7% 1.0% 3.7X 3.0% 16.9X 6.6% 1008.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.1 0.0 64.5 178.3 294.8 235.6 19.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 1.3% 3.5% 5.8% 4.6% OVERALL tote1 AEZ 1 5 4 5 6 7 i 3339.9 463.3 467.6 389.7 145.5 204.4 106.9 227.0 341.1 994.4 100.0% 13.9% 14.0% 11.7% 4.4% 6.1% 3.2% 6.8% 10.2% 29.8X 2573.3 198.9 570.1 1291.1 156.2 28.0 42.8 286.3 i:: 100.0% 7.7% 22.2% 50.2% 6.1% 1.1% Xi 0:0x 0.0% 12326.2 232.1 401.2 282.6 205.5 162.6 659.6 afa.0 2247.9 7396.7 100.0% 1.9% 3.3% 2.3% 1.7% 1.3% 5.4% 6.6% 18.2% 59.4% 5106.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 237.3 83.1 986.2 9223.0 836.4 1743.2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 1.6% 99.3% 24.0% 16.4% 34.1% Annex II - Page 8 SUGAR USD mil. S/S AFRICA total &EZ : 3 4 WANA total AEZ 1 b 9 844.6 0.0 84::: 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 891 .o 469.0 138.2 282.9 0.9 6.9% 3.6X 1.1% 2.2% 0.0% share COFFEE USD mil. share TEA USD mil. share COCOA US0 mil. share 2696.0 0.1 488.7 1079.9 1128.1 20.4% 0.0% 3.7% 8.2% 8.5% 504.3 1902.'; 24:2 367.7 12.3% 0.0% 2.7% 0.6% 8.9% 2215.4 0.1 182.0 2033.3 0.1 57.6% 0.0% 4.7% 52.9% 0.0% 12.0 z-t 0:3 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 357.3 i-8 357:3 8.n 0.0% 0.0% 8.7x 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.O% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ASIA totat AEZ 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 5198.8 9063.1 680.0 1155.3 1154.9 312.3 827.6 5.7 40.1% 8.2% 5.2% 8.9% 8.9% 2.4% 6.4% 0.1% 2246.9 0.0 321.5 9744.7 o..o 134.3 b8.3 0.0 97.0% 0.0% 2.4% 13.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0% 3150.2 10440.; 63514 0.0 493.0 505.9 471.4 76.6% 0.0% 25.4% 15.5% 0.0% 12.0% 12.3% 11.5% 561.4 0.0 12.7 548.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.6% 0.0% 0.3% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% c.ox 0.0% S/C AMERICA total AEZ 1 2 3 z 6 7 8 9 OVERALL 6034.1 9324.4 1716.1 9497.7 393.5 0.0 120.9 865.6 17.7 97.9 46.5% 10.2% 13.2% 11.5% 0.0% 3.0% 0.9% 5.7% 0.1% 0.7% 8269.7 0.0 1816.1 1920.7 2736.6 E 1794.6 E 62.5% 0.0% 13.n 16.5% 20.7% 0.0% 0.0% 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.2 0.0 6.7 6.0 9.3 0.0 12.1 13.2 52.9 0.0 2.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1069.2 0.0 518.9 541.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8% 0.0% 13.5% 14.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% total AE2 : i 5 6 7 8 9 12968.5 2856.5 2534.3 2935.9 0.9 7548.4 433.3 1693.2 24.4 941.7 100.0% 22.0% 19.5% 22.6% 0.0% 11.9% 3.3% 13.1% 0.2% 7.3% 13224.6 2.3 2626.3 4744.5 387b.l 0.0 934.3 1842.9 2: 900.0% 0.0% 19.9% 35.9% 29.3% 0.0% 1.0% 13.9x 0.0% 0.0% b112.1 0.4 1162.9 665.6 377.0 5050:: 519.1 524.3 357.3 100.0% 0.0% 28.3% 16.2% 9.2% 0.0% 12.3% 12.6% 12.n 8.7% 3846.0 0.1 713.6 3123.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0% 0.0% 18.6% 81.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Annex II - Page 9 TOBACCO USD mi 1. S/S AFRICA total AE2 1 s 4 WANA tote1 AEZ 9 ASIA total AEZ 1 : 2 7 8 S/C AUERICA total AEZ 1 : 4 : 5 9 OVERALL total AEZ : 3 4 5 6 7 t 12434.4 1076.4 9242.8 1313.0 31.6 2026.3 9489.7 4476.3 768.2 16.0 100.0% 8.7% 10.0% 10.6% 0.3% 16.3% 12.0% 36.0% 0.1% 6.2% 1840.5 178.2 491.4 477.8 10:-z 97:1 527.5 3.5 34.9 14.8% 1.4% 3.8% 3.3% 0.0% 0.9% 0.8x 4.2% 0.0% 0.3% 9120.6 592.4 404.8 859.6 1392.6 1996.5 3948.8 12.5 755.7 148-P 73314 6.1% 0.1% 0.1% 5.9x 717.5 297.9 360.1 42.2 17.3 5.8% 2.4% 2.9x 0.3% 0.1% share RUBBER USD mil. share COTTON USD mil. share JUTE US0 mil. share 310.0 0'. 0 39::: 0.0 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 1208.3 550.2 302.0 252.4 3.7 8.9x 4.8% 2.2% 1.9% 0.0% 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1% 0.1% O.DX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1541.7 6.2 2.5 1533.0 11.4% 0.0% 0.0% 11.3% 1.6 3 1:6 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 73.4% 4.8X 3.3% 6.9X 15.4% 11.2% 31.8X 0.1% 4737.2 0.0 791.0 3615.7 0.0 128.9 202.3 0.0 92.8% 0.0% 15.5% 70.9% 0.0% 2.5% 4.0% 0.0% 8833.7 983.4 347.1 31.6 5393.6 2161.5 0.0 0.1 55.1% 7.2% 2.6% 0.2% 39.1% 15.9% 0.0% 0.0% 855.5 0.2 281.2 339.2 0.1 144.1 8b.3 6.3 99.0% 0.0% 32.5% 39.3% 0.0% 96.7% 9.8% 0.7% 56.0 0.9 91.6 28.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 1.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1994.9 232.6 776.9 419.2 2.1 196.0 148.5 203.0 0.1 95.8 14.7x 1.7% :-E 0:0x 1.4% 1.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.1% 5.8 0.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 z-30 0:o 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5103.2 a0z.T 3954:o 0.g 12:~~ 21714 0.0 0.0 100.0% 0.0% 15.7% 77.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13578.5 9872.4 1426.0 703.2 8.3 5509.6 2310.1 203.1 154::: 100.0% 13.8% 90.5% 5.2x 0.1% 40.6% 17.0% 1.5% 0.0% 19.4% 864.0 28:~: 341:2 0.0 0.1 144.1 84.6 6.3 1.6 100.0% 0.1% 32.7% 39.5% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7X 10.0% 0.7% 0.2% Annex II - Page 10 SISAL US0 mil. S/S AFRICA total AEZ : 3 4 share US0 mil. share PALM OIL USD nil. share BEEF & BUFFALO HEAT USD mil. share 0.0 0.0 fl:: 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.4 27.4 12.8 0.1 0.0 24.5% 16.7% 7.8% 0.1% 0.0% 593.8 0.0 233.1 357.0 0.0 16.8% 0.0% 6.6% 10.1% 0.0% 3933.2 1375.9 603.2 490.5 660.9 13.0% 5.7% 2.5% 2.0% 2.7% WANA total AE2 1 ; ASIA total AEZ 1 : 5 6 7 8 S/C AMERICA total AEZ 1 : 4 5 6 ii 9 OVERALL total AEZ 1 5 4 5 6 r3 9 39.5 0.0 8.8 0.2 0.0 1.2 10.9 15.8 0.0 2.7 100.0% 0.0% 22.2% 0.4% 0.0% 3.1% 27.5% 39.9% 0.0% 6.9% 164.5 54.8 90.8 0.3 1:.: 2:7 0.3 0.0 0.7 100.0% 33.3% 55.2% 0.2% 0.0% 9.4% 1.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 3528.2 0.7 292.3 3156.3 0.0 0.3 15.0 59.9 0.0 0.0 100.0% p.ox 8.3% 89.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.7X 0.0% 0.0% 24140.7 2760.0 2953.9 3704.9 2507.1 2221.7 969.9 2560.3 3966.1 2394.9 100.0% 11.4% 12.2% 15.3% 10.8% 9.2% 4.0% 10.6% 16.4% 9.9X 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o"*: 1:2 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 196.4 27.3 77.9 0.1 9K 0:o 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.8% 15.5% 47.4% 0.1% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 196.2 0.7 25.0 170.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6% 0.0% 0.7% 4.8X 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13809.1 961.1 1888.4 1871.5 1927.2 1037.3 514.4 2018.5 3130.8 359.9 57.2% 4.0X 7.8% 7.8% 8.0% 4.3% 2.5% 8.4% 13.0% 1.5% 36.8 0.0 8.8 0.2 1.2 10.9 15.8 0.0 93.1% 0.0% 22.2% 0.4% 3.1% 27.5% 39.9% 0.0% ii:: i-x 4:o 2.7 0.3 0.0 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% 2738.2 3z 2629:l 0.0 15.0 59.9 0.0 77.6% 0.0% 1.0% 74.5% 0.0% 0.4% 1.7% 0.0% 5131.6 410.2 461.5 1342.9 1184.4 355.5 541.8 835.3 21.3% 1.7% :-z 4:9X 1.5% 2.2% 3.5% 3.9X 0.0% 0.0% 3.9X 0.7 0.0 i:! 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0 0.0 i:: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2056.8 12.9 19.0 2035.0 8.5% 0.1% 0.1% 8.4% Annex II - Page 11 SHEEP & GOAT HEAT US0 mil. S/S AFRICA total AEZ 1 32 4 1455.7 776.9 213.0 173.0 266.5 18.0% 9.6% 2.6% 2.1% 3.5% share PIGMEAT USD mil. share POULTRY HEAT US0 mil. share MILK us0 mi 1. share 287.5 6'8.1 76.0 108.9 34.5 1.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 605.0 192.2 140.3 180.5 92.0 6.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.9% 1.0% 3663.5 2466.3 355.2 79.7 762.2 8.5% 5.7% 0.8% 0.2% 1.8% total AEZ 1 i 2411.6 33.3 237::: 29.8x 0.4% 0.0% 29.4% 26.5 0.0 2::: 0.X% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1312.0 12.1 45.3 1254.6 14.0% 0.1% 0.5% 13.4% 4792.9 97.0 16.2 4679.7 ll.f% 0.2% 0.0% 10.8% ASIA total AEZ : 3 5 6 ii S/C AMERICA total AEZ 1 i : 6 i 9 OVERALL total AEZ 1 : : 6 7 t 8102.3 1318.2 424.3 540.9 1209.1 409.1 226.7 605.9 2412.3 949.3 100.0% 16.3% 5.2% 6.7% 5.0% 14.9% 2.8% 7.5% 11.7% 29.8% 23208.7 466.2 800.6 2147.2 725.2 2731.3 2168.2 8257.7 5790.3 122.0 100.0% 2.0% 3.4% 9.3% 3.1%. 11.8% 9.3% 35.6% 24.9% 0.5% 9378.2 618.9 1248.0 1968.1 839.1 511.4 354.8 1611.2 880.2 1346.5 100.0% 6.6% 13.3% 21.0% 8.9% 5.5% 3.8% 17.2% 9.4% 14.4% 43156.9 11334.3 4860.5 2619.1 2742.4 8742.1 1904.5 2845.8 3039.1 5069.2 100.0% 26.3% 11.3% 6.1% 6.4% 20.3% 4.4% 6.6% 7.0% 11.7% 669.5 47.8 70.0 64.0 122.6 41.6 25.0 203.4 61.1 34.0 8.3% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 1.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 2.5% 0.4% 2530.3 204.9 382.1 454.9 690.6 104.8 19.8 431.3 146.1 95.1 10.9% 0.9% 1.6% 2.0% 3.0% 0.5% 0.1% 1.9% 0.6% 0.4% 3360.2 283.9 657.7 699.4 701.9 78.5 33.4 579.2 234.3 91.9 35.8% 3.0% 7.0% 7.5% 7.5% 0.8% 0.4% 6.2% 2.5% 1.0% 12193.7 1053.5 2036.9 1984.3 1963.9 735.7 313.6 2046.1 1670.2 389.4 28.3% 2.4% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 1.7% 0.7% 4.7% 3.9% 0.9% 3565.5 460.2 147.4 297.9 1167.5 201.7 745.9 544.8 44.0% 5.7% 1.8% 3.7% 14.4% 2.5% 6.7% 9.2% 20364.3 193.2 342.4 1583.2 2626.5 2148.3 7826.4 5644.2 87.7% 0.8% 1.5% 6.8% 11.3% 9.3% 33.7% 24.3% 4101.1 130.8 450.1 1088.2 432.8 321.3 1032.0 645.9 43.7% 1.4% 4.8% 11.6% 4.6% 3.4% 11.0% 6.9% 22506.7 7717.6 2468.3 555.0 8006.4 1590.8 799.7 1368.9 52.2% 17.9% 5.7% 1.3% 18.6% 3.7% 1.9% 3.2% Annex II - Page 72 EGGS US0 mil. S/S AFRICA tote1 AEZ : 3 4 UANA tote1 AEZ 1 9 ASIA tote: AEZ 1 : 5 6 7 8 8268.6 497.4 286.0 871.9 1189.5 984.0 2497-s 1942.7 61.5% 3.7% 2.1% 6.5% 8.8% 7.3% 18.6% 14.4% 1565.5 69.9 256.2 1239.5 11.6% 0.5% 1.9% 9.2% 582.0 798.3 151.1 149.3 83.4 4.3% 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.6% share SAULOC & VENEER C USD mil. share SAULOG & VENEER NC USD mil. share FlJElKK.0 USD mil. 8 CHARCOAL share 131.5 30.9 60.5 0.6 39.5 1.8% 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5% 4798.8 36.7 1389.5 3248.0 123.1 9.1% 0.1% 2.6% 6.1% 0.2% 16974.1 5517.4 3392.8 5405.0 2658.8 27.8% 9.0% 5.6% 8.9% 4.4% 383.9 :-oD 383:9 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3x 366.2 0.0 32:: 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% O-i% 1075.7 0.0 0.0 1075.7 1.8% 0.0% c-ox 1.8% 3675.0 0.0 150.7 81.1 21.1 186.5 557.7 2648.7 50.5% 0.0% 2.1% 1.1% 0.3% 2.6% 7.7% 36.4% 37441.2 0.0 4168.6 24507.2 173.6 765.9 1172.8 6618.0 70.8% 0.0% 7.9% 46.4% 0.3% 1.4% 2.2% 12.5% 31533.7 5673.7 3606.1 10125.1 4010.7 1573.0 3043.2 3502.0 51.7% 9.3% z 6:6X 2.6% 5.0% 5.7% S/C AMERICA tota\ AEZ 1 3" 4 5 4 7 8 9 3031.2 223.1 449.7 552.3 939.1 130.5 28.9 421.4 206.1 80.1 22.5% 1.7% 3.3% 4.1% 7.0% 1.0% 0.2% 3.1% 1.5% 0.4% 3086.4 9.7 590.9 1350.2 385.9 0.0 0.4 266.8 7.4 473.0 42.4% 0.1% 8.1% 18.6% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.1% 6.5% 10246.9 36.7 2339.8 4996.6 954.3 IOE 97613 385.7 451.9 19.4% 0.1% 4.4% 9.5% 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 1.$X 0.7% 0.9% 11395.3 a15.a 2155.7 2787.9 1998.6 91.5 20.8 2993.3 260.0 271.4 18.7% 1.3% 3.5% 4.6% 3.3% 0.2% 0.0% 4.9% 0.4% 0.4% OVERALL tots1 AEE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13447.4 988.8 886.8 1573.5 1278.7 1320.0 1012.9 2918.3 2148.8 1319.6 100.0% 7.4% 6.6% 11.n 9.5% 9.8% 7.5% 21.7% 16.0% 9.8% 7276.8 40.6 802.0 1431.9 425.4 21.1 186.9 824.5 2656.1 856.9 100.0% 0.6% 11.0% 19.7% 5.8% 0.3% 2.6% 11.3% 36.5% 11.8% 52853.0 73.4 7897.9 32751.8 1077.8 173.6 869.5 2149.1 7003.7 ala.0 100.0% 0.1% 14.9% 62.0% 2.0% 0.3% 1.6% 4.1% 13.3% 1.5% 60978.8 12006.9 9154.6 18318.0 4657.5 4102.2 1593.9 6036.5 3762.0 1347.1 100.0% 19.7% 15.0% 30.0x 7.6% 6.7% 2.6% kz 2.2% An'hex 'II - Page 13 INLAND CAPTURE USD mil. S/S AFRICA total AEZ 1 f 4 UANA total AEZ 1 9 ASIA total AEZ : 3 6 7 a S/C AMERICA total AEZ 1 426.4 34.5 69 3 145.4 19.2 0.9 70.3 6.3 1.4 5.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.9% 1.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 6583.8 575.5 409.3 1702.5 796.9 481.7 1432.1 1185.9 77.8% 6.8% 4.8% 20.1% 9.4% 5.7% 16.9% 14.0% 243.3 0.0 0.0 243.3 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 1208.0 426.0 369.3 267.9 144.8 14.3% 5.0% 4.4% 3.2% 1.7% share UARINE CAPTURE US0 nil. share 862.5 3.4% 1205.2 4.8% 13188.7 52.4% 5 9923.2 39.4% : ; 7911 6 7 t OVERALL tots1 AEZ 1 5 4 T; 3 8461.6 1036.0 2049.5 847.9 290.1 482.6 816.1 1502.4 1192.2 244.7 9 tOO.O% 12.2% 10.0% 24.2% 3.4% 9.6% 5.7% 17.8% 14.1% 2.9% 25179.6 100.0% PRICES FOR CGIAR PRIORITIES ANALYSIS - (IJS$/M’I’, 1987-89) ANNEX III Beans(Phas.VuIg) Beans(Phas.Vulg) Beef/buffalo Cassava Charcoal Coconut Coffee Cotton lint Fuelwood Unit export value developing countries Export quality farm-gate price, Equador Unit export value developing countries Washington, FOB dealer, common dry bean Average farm-gate price, Snap Argentina, FOB, all beef Average producer price Derived from FAO world prices Average wholesale price, India Unit export value developing countries Unit export value developing countries Unit export value developing countries Unit export value developing countries Valued as common dry bean USA, farm-gate producer price Derived from FAO estimatedworld prices UK wholesale major markets Unit export value developing countries Unit export value developing countries Calculated from production and value Calculated from production and value France, wholesale Unit export value developing countries Calculated from production and value Calculated from production and value Average farm-gate price Millet forecast price World Bank Unit export value developing countries France, FOR averageprice Morocco Derived from FAO world prices Unit export value developing countries Average wholesale price, India USA, wholesale, Omaka, Gilts Unit export value developing countries Average farm-gate price, Colombia Milled Thai white, 5 % broken, FOB Bangkok Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur FOB Coniferous, USA, spruce/pine/fir Non-coniferous, Malaysia Meranti, standard Unit export value developing countries USA, Milo No.2, yellow, FOB Gulf Rotterdarn, CIF, US origin ISA Daily, raw FOB, Caribbean ports London auction, weighted avg., all origins Unit export value developing countries Average production price 1984-86 USA, Hard Winter No.2, FOB Gulf Inland capture lnland culture Lemon Lentil Maize Marine capture Marine culture Milk Millet &ion 3ther Ind.R’wood ?alm oil ?otato iubber jawlogs (C) jawlogs (NC) Sweetpotato Tea Wheat Yam References: A = FAO Production Yearbook 1989; B = FAO Trade Yearbook 1989; C = CIP; D = ACIAR; E = CIAT; F = ICRISAT. ANNEX Land Use in Different Regions and ____________________----------------------------------=======I===========p============-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= IV Agro-ecological Zones AtRICULTURAL (000 ha1 S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AMERICA UANA LAND Total 1 815011.0 967502.0 764627.0 356148.0 469352.8 94378.5 47846.1 9650.0 of uhich 2 143031.6 46713.2 109X.8.0 0.0 in AEZ 3 113351.3 76712.1 107098.5 0.0 4 89275.3 0.0 111229.1 8445.0 5 0.0 162006.2 41511.9 0.0 6 0.0 65919.9 31426.3 0.0 7 0.0 207245.4 141814.9 0.0 a 9 0.0 0.0 314526.6 0.0 151847.1 22265.1 0.0 338053.0 466373.7 360318.1 TOTAL 2903288 621227.3 299332.8 297161.9 208949.4 203510.1 97346.3 349060.4 .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..~..................f............................................................~........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-...-........................-...-.......... AGRICULTURAL LAND share S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AMERICA YANA 28.1% 33.3% 26.3% 12.3% 16.2% 3.3% 1.6% 0.3% 4.9% 1.6% 3.8% 0.0% 3.9% 2.6% 3.n 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 3.8% 0.3% 0.0% 5.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.8% 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 11.6% 12.4% 9 0.0 0.0 25619.1 55202.0 80821.1 TOTAL 100.0% 21.4% 10.3% 10.2% 7.2% 7.0% 3.4% 12.0% 16.1% ==========================I=================================================================================== of uhich in AEZ FOREST + VOOOLAND Total 4 (000 ha) 1 2 3 S 6 7 8 S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AMERICA UANA 667-S 220441.8 409136 30590.9 960946 85293.4 2523.0 59325 121027.6 302260.0 59543.4 222018.3 257874.1 385786.7 0.0 0.0 23845.6 0.0 100269.3 1600.0 0.0 20589.7 22599.2 0.0 43189.0 0.0 14400.2 3541.2 0.0 17941.4 0.0 18687.8 51038.6 0.0 69726.4 12330?! 28924:s 0.0 152230.2 2176982 338849.1 438445.1 910065.0 125714.8 TOTAL . .. .. .. .. ..*..............................-....................-..*........................................-.... .. . . . . . . . . . . ..~......................................................................................... FOREST + KUOLAND share S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AMERICA UANA 30.7% 22.5% 44.1% 2.n 10.1% 1.4% 3.9%. 0.1% 5.6X 2.x 11.8% 0.0% 13.9% 10.2% 17.n 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 4.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 1.3x 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 2.5% 3.7% ii.ax 5.8% 0.8% 3.2% 7.0% 100.0% 15.6% 20.1% 2.0% TOTAL =======================p==z===================================================================================== Annex kmw.ry Land Table. ====L=============4 ARABLE LAN0 (000 ha) S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AMERICA UANA IV - Pa-,e 2 Total 1 161781 462541 161369 8302s 64036 a5925 10931 235 of uhich 2 43768 40539 26124 0 in AEZ 3 37253 44979 21757 0 4 16724 0 15377 1350 33451 S 0 106040 8067 0 llLl07 6 325106 7065 0 39581 7 0 78371 33740 0 112111 a 0 74171 32175 0 9 0 0 6133 81440 868716 161127 110431 103989 I"T"f............................................................................-......-.*.~~~~~~....~~~. ._....._..............................-...................................-*....-........--......-.......... ARABLE LAND share S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AMERICA UANA 18.6% 53.2% 18.6% 9.6% 7.4% 9.9% 1.3% 0.0% 5.0% 4.Tx 3.0% 0.0% 4.3X 5.2% 2.5% 0.0% 1.9X 0.0% 1.8% 0.2% 0.0% 12.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.8X 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 3.9~ 0.0% 0.0% 8.5% 3-n: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 9.4% 10.1% 9 0.0 24:-i 8138:O 8383.0 TOTAL 100.0% 18.5% 12.7% 12.0% 3.9% 13.1% 4.6% 12.2% 12.9% ====IPPrrlIII==I===5II====xII==-P==9================================================================================= PERHANENT CROP LAND "Tote\ of uhich in AEZ (000 ha) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 a S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AMERICA WAMA 14678 25562 32576 a283 Ius. 2178.0 1662.2 SO.0 4842.7 3375.0 7818.1 0.0 6876.9 15772.0 5806.6 0.0 2092.7 0.0 2059.9 95.0 4247.7 0.0 482.7 455.4 0.0 0.0 865.5 1717.7 0.0 0.0 2038.6 5281.4 0.0 0.0 850.2 7S29.7 0.0 8380.0 81099 4755.9 16035.7 28455.5 TOTAL . . . ..*........... ..s........... .. .. .. . ..*.........._....-...._.................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*..-............. PERMANENT CROP LAND share S/S AFRICA 938.1 2583.2 7319.9 -.........-............m..................... . . ..a.....-.....................m.e.......... ASIA S/C AMERICA UANA 18.1% 31.5% 40.2% 10.2% 1.1% 2.7X 2.0% 0.1% 6.0% 4.2X 9.6% ~0.0% 8.5% 19.4% 7.2% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 2.5% -0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 10.0% 10.3% 9 0.0 0.3 15887.1 24s75.0 284362.1 100.0% 5.9% 19.8% TOTAL 35.1% 5.2% 1.2% 3.2% 9.0% 10.3% =======--===============-=I=--t==========================================================~======================== GRAZlNG LAND Total of which in AEZ (000 ha) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AHERICA UANA 638881 479405 570693 264840 404451.1 6275.4 35252.9 9365.0 94420.9 -69221.4 2199.3 15961.1 75645.9 79534.9 0.0 0.0 70458.6 0.0 93792.2 7000.0 o.o_ 55483.6 32989.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 32538.4 126835.9 22643.6 102793.6 0.0 0.0 55182.1 229629.5 0.0 239505.4 112142.3 0.0 351647.7 TOTAL 1953819 455344.4 lZU6.1 164717.3 ii'l250.8 88473.0 ~~......f........~.......................~......~......~~~....~....~~...~............~..~..........~........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*............-..............................-.-.-...-.......~~...... GRAZING LAND share S/i AFRICA ASIA S/t AMERICA UAWA 32-m 24.5% 29.2% 13.6% 20.7% 0.3% 1.8% 0.5% 4.8% 0.1% 3.9% 0.0% 3.5% 0.8% 4.1% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 4.8X 0.4% 0.0% 2.8% 1.7;1 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 5.3X 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 5.7-X 0.0% 18.04: a 0.9% 0.0% 0.8X 12.7% 13.5% 9 0.0 0.0 6378.0 89578.0 95956.0 2.8% 11.8% 8.8% 4.5% 100.0% 23.3% 8.8% 8.4% TOTAL =====5=3==1===================ZI=I====--=======--=========================================================== of which in AEZ Total CULTIVATED LAND (000 ha) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S/S AFRICA ASIA S/C AMERICA UANA 176459.0 488103.0 193945.0 91308.0 64901.7 88103.0 12593.2 285.0 48610.7 43914.0 33942.1 0.0 44129.9 60751.0 27563.6 0.0 18816.7 0.0 17436.9 1445.0 0.0 106522.7 8522.4 0.0 0.0 33381.5 8782.7 0.0 0.0 80409.6 39021.4 0.0 119430.9 0.0 75021.2 39704.7 0.0 114726.0 TOTAL 949815.0 165882.9 126466.7 132444.5 37698.7 115045.1 421U.2 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..~............*..........-.........*.~...............---...~...........-..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~...~.............-................-............-.-......-... CULTIVATED LAN0 share S/S AFRSCA ASIA S/C AHERIU UAU 18.6% 51.4% 20.4% 9.6% 100.0% 6.8% 9.3% 1.3% 0.0% 17.5x 5.1% 4.6% 3.6% 0.0% 13.3% 4.6% 6.4% 2.9% 0.0% 13-B 2.0% 0.0% 1.8X 0.2% 4.0% 0.0% 11.2% 0.9% 0.0% 12.1% 0.0% 3.5% 0.9% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 8.5% 4.1% 0.0% 7.9x 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% z 10:1x 0.0% 12.6% G.G% 12.1% TOTAL ANNEX Di'fferent Rate of Progress. _____-----------VANA a 3 a 1 -------------================I==== SX==== ==========i==e-------------PISDIDtll========================================== a rice (wetland) 3 3" : 4 rice (dryland) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 wheat (CIMMYTJICARDA) 2 2 5 ___-------------_--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------maize (IITAKIMHYT) l/3 4J5 3/S z/5 V Estimated Rates Commodities of Progress in Research by Reqion and Aoro-ecoloaical on Zone S/S AFRICA 1 2 9 4/3 _____------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a 3 barley (21 _____------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------sorghum 2 3 3 _____------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 millet .3 _____------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------cassava (IITA/CIAT) 3/l 3/l 4/l -/I ________-___________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 potato 1 3 _____-______________---------'------------------------------------------------------------------------------l/2 sweet potato (CIPJAVRDC) l/3 112 3/Z -____----------_-___-------~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 2 yam ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3J3 banana (INIEAP/IITA) 2/z ______________________________r_________-------------------------------------------------------------------2 2 2 beans (1) ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------broad bean ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------chickpea (desi/kabuli) 2 1 I __________-_________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. 4 3 2 cowpea ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 .pigeon pea 2. 3 ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------lentil ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 3 groundnut ----------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------2/z -/2 soybean (IITAJAVROC) 2/l a/i ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------coconut (2) .. (2) (2) _________---________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 1 3 tomato _______-_---_____-__---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------onion 2 1 3 ______-________-____-------*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 3 2 1 cabbage _________-__________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) ‘. cotton (1) ______-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------coffee (R+A) ____-_----------------------------: ------I" -----131 ------I?! ----------------: tea (1) (1) (21 ______--------_----_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------cocoa (3) (1) ______-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------sugar (cane + beet) (1) (1) (1) ____-_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------rubber (2) (1) ______-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------011 palm (3) (1) -----_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------beef & buffalo (ILRADJILCA) 3/3 3J3 2/l 4/3 ----------------_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------sheep & goat (ILRADJILCA) 2/z Z/l 3J2 4/3 ----------------_--_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------pig meat (IN~)(IL~Io/ILcA) 3J3 3/l 3/3 4J3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------poultry (IN~)(ILJW~/ILCA) 3/z 3/Z 3J2 3J2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------milk (ILRAOJILCA) 2/l 2/z 3J3 2/z -------------------_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------eggs (IND)(ILRA~/ILCA) 3J2 3/Z 3J2 3J2 -------------------_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------R - robusta A - arabica IND - industrial Values in parenthesis are TAC Secretariat's tentative estimates Ratings: I=< 0.5% ~.a., 2=0.5-~1% ~.a., 3=1-~2% p.a., 4=2-<3X ~.a.. 5=>3% p.a. (2) 2 3 1 l/2 3 1 l/2 l/2 I I (1) (2) 2/z 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 !1!____--1 2 2 2 2 (1) I ---------- (2) 2 2 2 (1) --_-___ (2) (1) - (1) 2/l 2/l t/3 2/3 3J3 a/s l/l l/I 3/Z L/2 l/2 3J2 3J3 313 3J3 Annex ASIA 1 2 5 3 E================P=I=====-==l===l===~============ rice (wetland) (11 (1) (I) (1) rice (dryland) -----__---________________________: ------A!! __-___ I!! ---__--: ------a wheat 2 -------------------_------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 maize 5 5 3 ----------------____------------------------------------------------------------------------------bar1 ey ------------_----___----------------------~-------------------------------------------------------sorghum 2 3 2 _-_-___-----_----___------------------------------------------------------------------------------millet 3 3 2 -------------------_____________________----------------------------------------------------------cassava 2 2 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------potato 1 1 2 ------------------__------------------------------------------------------------------------------sweet potato (CIP/AVRDC] 113 l/3 112 1J3 ------------------__------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V - Page 2 6 (1) !3!_-____ 4 5 7 (1) a If! _______i __________ 3 5 4 a 3 3 2 3 I 1/3 2/z 2 l/2 yam _---___----__---_-______________________------------------~---------------------------------------banana 2 2 1 ____-_______-___________________________----------------------------------------------------------beans 2 2 2 1 2 _______--_______________________________----------------------------------------------------------broad bean -------------------_--------------I-:------I --------: ------i’l ------ii! -----1 chickpea (desi Jkabul i ) 1 1 1 ----___---_____-____------------------------------------------------------------------------------cowpea ___---__________________________________----------------------------------------------------------2 1 2 pigeon pea 1 2 ----__----___--____________-_-___------------~--------------------------------------------------------------lenti 1 ------------------------------;------------------------------------------------------------------------groundnut 1 1 1 1 ________-________-__------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 soybean 2 2 1 2 L____-_-___--____-______________________----------------------------------------------------------coconut (1) (21 (2) (2) (1) __-______________-_______________^______----------------------------------------------------------3 -2 tomato 3 2 2 ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------2 oni on 2 2 2 __-_____________________________________-----------------------------------------------------------. . 2 1 1 2 2 cabbage ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------cotton (1) (11 (1) (1) ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------coffee (R+A) (2) (1) (1) -----i_------_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------tea (1) (2) (11 ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------(3) cocoa (1) ____________________------------------------------------------------------------------------------sugar (cane + beet) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------rubber (2) (1) ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------(3) oil palm (1) ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------2/l beef & buffalo (ILRAOJILCA) 3/Z 3/Z 2/l 3/Z ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------2/l 2/z 3/Z sheep & goat (ILRADIILCA) 2/l 3/Z ________________________________________--------------------~---------------------------~ 3/3 3/3 3/l pig meat (INo)(ILRAD/ILCA) 3/Z 3/3 ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------312 31‘2 3/2 poultry (INO)(ILRAO/ILCA) 3/Z 3/2 ____________________------------------------------------------------------------------------------2/l 3/Z 2/z milk (ILRAO/ILCA) 2/l 2/z _______^________________________________----------------------------------------------------------3J2 3/Z 3/Z 3/Z 3/Z eggs (IND)(ILRAOJILCA) ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------INO - industrial R - robusta A- arabica Values in parenthesis are TAC Secretariat’s tentative estimates Ratings: l=< 0.5% p.a., 24.5~1% p.a.. 3=1-x2% p.a.. 4=2-<3x p.a., S=>3% P-a. 1 2 !!! -----(1) !fl----~-~ 1/z 2 3 2 (1) 2 2 2 - 2 3 3 3 - (2) (2) (1) 3/Z 4/3 313 3/Z 3/Z 3/Z (2) (2) (1) 4/3 4J3 ----_----313 3/Z 4/3 3J2 Annex S/C AMERICA 1 4 2 3 5 6 7 =I511=*=I=IPP-*IL==r~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ rice (wetland) rice (dryland) -____-----------------------------: wheat --____ii! _----rii _------: ________ f _______ V - Page a 5 9 - - - - - - - __ --1=1~-_----_-- 4 2 ----_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------maize 3 5 5 5 (2) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------sorghum 2 3 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------millet 3 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------~---------------2 CdSSdVd 2 2 2 --__----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------barley 3 3 2 3 !4! ______ ill -----------------___________ : : 4 3 5 5 5 3 2 4 5 4 - 3 3 - 3 2 2 --__--------_----------------------------------------- _------------------_------------------------------------------3 1 1 1 3 pOtdt0 1 --___-------_--------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------Sweet 1 potato (cIP/AvRDc) l/3 l/3 l/2 l/3 --__--------------------------------------------------------------------------Yam -------------------,-----------------’------------------------------------------------------------------------------bdfldtld 1 2 --___-_---__-_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------bednS 3. 2 1 2 ---------------------------------.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l/3 l/3 l/2 112 -------------------_-----------------1 2 -----!!! -/l 2 !!!_____- 2 !'! 1 _______________ 1 f ?_________ broad bean _-______________-______ * _________----_____--------------------------- _________--_____----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------groundnut 1 1 -________--____------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ chickpea (desi/kabuli) 1 1 --____-_---___-_--_----------------------------------------------------------------------------cowpea ---------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------------------------2 pigeon pea 1 2 ________--______--_-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------lentil 1 1 1 - 1'1__________________ l/2 l/2 - - - - - _ 3 I 1 2 2 1 soybean 2 2. 1 2 2 2 2 =I1zz;l+----1=1==--1--=--1-====-===:-1====1============--=====:------======================~~--------~==========~~--------- 2 cowpea ____________________------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 plgeon pea 1 2 ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------lentil - - - - - ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1 groundnut 1 1 ---____------_-_-----_-_-----_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 2 2 2 2 soybean 1 ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------coconut ‘. (1) (2) (2) (I) (2) ________________________________________-----------------------------------------------~----------------------------3 2 2 3 3 2 tcmlato ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------onion 2 2 3 2 2 ________________________________________------------------------------------~---------------------------------------2 2 1 3 2 2 cabbage ------------i-------------,----------,-,----------------------------------------------------------------------------cotton 3 2 1 2 (1) 2 2 2 --------: 121. ------II! 2 3 3 3 -_------_----: 2 3 2 2 ii! _----------------- _________________________________ !!1__-_-------- 12 ---_---: I'! -_---- -_------: !1!_----!ti -------------: !” -__--------- 1’1~i -----I I'! ------ coffee (R+A) ____________________--------------: "d_______________________________:_____-------~-------~~~~-----~~~----------------~---------COCOd ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------sugar (cane + beet) (1) (3) - - !!!______ 3/Z j/2 313 3/Z 3/3 J/2 - Ifl------------------ - _________________________________ 12 ______ 1’1 ---_--ii! _____-_: -______ I!!-_---- 12 ______ I!! ____-- !!! ____--- _3/Z 3/3 313 3/Z 3/Z 3/Z 413 b/3 3/3 3/Z 413 312 3/Z 3/z 3/Z 3/Z 312 3/Z ------ --__________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------beef 6 buffalo (ILRAWILCA) 2/l 3/Z 312 413 2/l ---___---_-______-__-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------rheep b goat (ILRAWILCA) 413 2/I 3/Z 212 2/l --___------____--__-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ptg meat (INO)(ILU~/ILCA) 3/Z 3/3 313 3/2 3/Z _______----___---___------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------pultfy (IN~)(ILRA~/ILcA) 3/Z 3/2 3/Z 312 3/2 -_____------___-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------mltlk (ILRAWILCA) 2/l 3/Z 2/l 2/z 2/z --___------___-----_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------eggs (INO)(ILRAD/ILCA) 3/Z 3/Z 3/Z 312 3/Z ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------R - robusta A - arabica IND - industrial Values In partnthasit are TAC Secretariat'8 tentative Ratings: 1-e 0.5X P.J.. 2=O.S-<1X p-r.. 31l-<2X p-r.. ctttnratcs rlJb""_'____________---------~---~-~--------!~~-----~~~~~~-----~--------~--------~--------~------~-~--~-----~--------,~(3) oil palm (1) 4=2-<3X p.r.. 5-X p.s. tABIf 11.13: If(1011. COMODIll IfSCIICI fRIONll WUlItKS : IlaKirisdtian of Re9lonrl Benefilr I(esearch Objective (a1 may 1991) South EM Asia Rtglonrl Benefits _-..--._......._..._......-..-..--.~- ChiM . . . ..-..._........--_-.-.-_.--.-_-..~ Priority Cmedily Rclrtivt Eenafitr ClOUP Rankinq __--_-.-.---.-_-...-............-~.-Replonrl Btntfits Priorily Croup Cmodity RctJtivr itnking lmfits .~.--..~~.~-.....~~~~...~.--.-.~...~~ .-..-.----.-_-__._....~______-.._-... SouthPacific RrgionalBtrafits .-....-.-...-.~-...--...~.~~....~..~~ Priority Corrodity Aslath croup RJnkinq 8tnJfllt --.-..-.-...-...__...----.-.-...-.-.. lice SarkvJI.togs (ac fueluood I lUbbH kplr 1 I 1 lrw,bonitor 61 futtwood [NC) (WC) Sdr~v~n.logt (HC 1 CoMn tevbeln 9 I1 SmqJr glatnd~PlrntJin frlb Oil~ttrrel Coconvl z 3 9 1 Colfce I Prlb Oil(Lrrne1 Cacor DdlstsJljoiher 9 Coconut 2 hIJrSJ\/DthJr p 1s 16 16 lb 25 I? I 3 f&s 111 frtluood (RC) SJuUen.Logs (C) SU9N lutluood (Con.) ShOD) c ccut Her 6Ivar6nut 20 20 26 26 29 39 0 1 1 I 1 4 I 16 II n Jo . Prawns~rkirpr IbJts coffat ltrlwJllal0 lilrplar 3 Pulprood SrrMJn.Lopr (c) lb Jb a kd 4 POtJtO cocoi 2s 4 IIb.Ind.idrod hRdS,hlbS tt 33 51 4 j‘xkttrlr I othc ChJrcoJl Sheep 6 Co11RCJ Herrings k ctbai Soybean Iilk Pulpuood S&t )OtJtJ 61 63 SJbi6veR.t~ (WC nilk Oth.Ind.Rdwod Prams/rhri,ps - hllcl so;plnm 4T 4b 62 67 II a9 111k Prrrm/rhri~ps Rice lilrpirs hfbJffdl0 59 Sl 5t St 0 / CIrsrvd Charm1 tottoa LS bl as 9s Ul 5 rw1 Ordhgos k hnqkr Ieellluff h1PlODI 91 I29 I19 161 214 rlo 6 othc 5 1 b Mluood [con;) Croondnut HerrIngs Lo~stsrs Mri1e ilillot 6 othai Lckertls CJSSNd $ ISI 143 143 1% IbT OercrrJl/oLhcr Rubber PJla Oi~~leinsl Pulprood b p Pulrcl AlI s1L6mlops (C) Cotton froundnvt Ormpts I Iangar 221 lunar,bonitosrl Ianrna/Plahliin Colfss Rerrinqr 6 other Charcorl COCDI Coconul Lobslers lobrttrs Polctoer b Sorqlur Yheat NilIn f*JC)Uood(con.) Pi tpropr no01 28b 500 500 661 2alM 0 0 0 lillpirr 221 215 115 289 411 461 1286 5185 JH5 0 0 0 0 0 nJCktrJls 6 01ha Orabgrr I langar Dth.lrtd.ldttood Pitprops Polrtoas PIlIst% Lll Rubber $ttlJl & Sorphur Soybm WheJl YODI 6011 kJ 6 b 0 0 b 0 0 0 4 0 0 b 0 0 4 , . , , ” , b 0 0 0 6 0 0 ._-__---_._~__..____--"----.-"..---.. _-----.-------------.-"-.--..-----.-~ ."..-____......._______________"_____ Alrici Rtpionrl hiority Comdity Centlitr Y ftsi~l I fifricr Utgional cmtlilc -.-...-......;.................“”~--R8lJliV# lrnki ng IrMfilP hJ ___....___._________.-...---..-..---- .-.._-.I----“----“-.-~---“-----...-.” Priarlty Latin Awricr Itgianrl Btnrlils -_-.---___-_.-.--__.______________ II Rslatirs croup Rtnkirl Beaefi ts . . . . . ..-..“._“_--.--_________________ C0ilr06ily Priority tosrDdily Rtlrtlve CSOUD hling Bancf its --“.----------.---__----“-----.----”” fucluood (ac) SJulVcn.Lopr (KC 1 b #kJt )rilk I 2 Soybean Iurluood (HCJ I 1 1 tiilk Cocoa hJ~88UftJb D f 9 9 aufrauffrlo Stmp I cast WOA Dranpes t lmgkt Qtlon 3 3 3 4 Wftt Hilt ~t!Efh!tfJlO SUpJr I 1 2 2 ChJrCOJl ?a18 Oit~~ernel CJSSJVJ ? IO lice ~JrtvtJ.iOgS (c) 5 3 S~u~lrn.Lopr (C) a 7 : 1 3 4 2 ShtCP t 6Pll h@J Olh.ihd.RdtiooQ Imnn/PlJnlrin 8iCJ' lil~pl~s 11 I7 22 22 ?uises All $UgJr fUGtMODd (CJJ.) Hsrr(s9s 6 other 5 1 1 1 S&n.topr [KC berersrl/other p Rico I SUkW lilltl 22 23 furlrood (kc) MOO1 ; 7 IIdle tOCOJ 1 b 1 6 1 t 9 2b 34 34 sq $JUtkR.tOgS (#c Oth.lnd.Rdnood firckccds b clht Dewrsrl~othtr p fitprdpr ChJrCoJl Pulpuood Soybcar Prrunr/shri~pr PUlpQO6 4 fuaimd (Coa.) eroundnut RcrrIn91 L olher Yhert ClSSlU lueluood (con. 1 4 Politots 5 OrslrrJl~Ptbtr p 81 129 2.J ChJlCoJ1 Collon PulsesUl 11 14 lb Pulrer Ml SwqhJl, Whral 111 129 Cotlee Soybetn -161 215 11s 214 Groundnut. CJWVJ COCOJ b 641 0 a Coal b 215 321 0 lilapiar .______.__...._.___._.--.__---------.__.--.-.---.---------.---”-----“-.---..--~----sQwze ! Coconut Sueet PO!Jb lunsr.bonitos al Lobrterr RJC'lerJiS b otht Oranges & Fsnlar Fifpropr f’rJrhr/rhriapr Rubber 323 323 b4S 645 dU 14s -145 645 Caconot Cd fca lobsters PJla, 6il/nerno~ Rubber Sorghu Sueet PotJlo 0 4 0 ,6 I 0 0 4 Rubber Pair Dll/Kernel IilJJiJS Lobsters 53 36 tkcktrals I otht lunas,bonitos 01 Coconu 1 Srtct Potato Groundnut tlillcl --.--.-..__.______._---..-.-------- Sb 12 251 !aOb 506 101J 0 6 Pitprops ANNEX VII LIST OF ACRONYMS ACEAR AEZ AVRDC CGiAR CIAT c I I' EPR FAO GDP GNP HCN IBPGR ICARDA ICLARM Australian Agro-ecological Asian C.entre for International Agricultural Research zone Research and Development Centre Research Vegetable Consultative Centro Centro External Group on International de Agricultura de la Papa Agricultural Tropical Int~:rnacional lnLer.rlilcional Programme Review Organization of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Gross Gross Domestic National Cyanide Production Production Hydrogen International Board for Centre Centre Council for for for Plant Genetic Resources Research Resource in Dry Areas Management Internationa? International International International Tropics International Agricultural Living Aquatic ICRAF ICRISAT ICSU IFPRI I IMI ILCA ILRAD INIBAP INTSOY Research Institute in Agroforestry for Unions Institute Institute Africa on Animal Diseases the Semi-Arid Crops Research Council of Scientific Research Management Centre for for the for International International International International Food Policy Irrigation Livestock Laboratory Network Soybean Research International Plantain International Inter Improvement of Banana and Programme on Climate les huiles Change et oleagineux IPCC IRHO IRRI Governmental de recherche Rice Panel Institut International pour Research Institute Annex VII - Page 2 ISNAR RAEZ SADCC TAC WARDA International Regional Southern Technical West Africa Service agro-ecological Africa Advisory for National zone Agricultural Research Development Committee Coordination to the CGIAR Conference Rice Development Association AGR/TAC:IAR/93/11 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CGIAR MEDIUhi-TERM RESOURCE ALLOCATION 1994-98 Analysis and Recommendations TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS September 1993 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Alex F. McCalla Chair 6 September 1993 Dear Mr. Rajagopalan I am pleased to submit to you TAC’s recommendationsfor allocation of CGIAR resources during 1994-98. This completes the process of linking CGIAR priorities and strategies with resource allocation. The recommendationsprovide TAC’s views on the medium-term plan proposals submitted by, the CGIAR centres to implement the priorities and strategies endorsed by the Group at MTM’92 in Istanbul, Turkey. As you are aware since MTM’92, the centres, TAC and the Group have been involved in an interactive process on these plans. The consideration of these recommendationsby the Group will be the final step in this process, leading to resource allocation decisions at ICW’93 to guide the implementation of CGIAR Priorities and Strategiesover the period 1994-98. Consistent with the decision of the Group at ICW’91, the TAC recommendations are based on a projected 1998 funding support for core programmes of US$ 270 million, in 1992 dollars. This level of funding support, maintains the 1992 pledges in real terms, except for a modest increase for forestry and fisheries. Obviously this does not represent the totality of the high payoff research opportunities at CGIAR centres. In this respect, the report identifies additional investment opportunities if a higher funding level were to become available. However, to inject realism in this planning, the report suggestsan annual progression starting from the present 1993 funding levels to reach the proposed 1998 level. For 1994 therefore TAC recommends core funding support of US$ 229 million in 1992 dollars or US$ 248 million in current dollars. Mr. V. Rajagopalan Chairman, CGIAR World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Mail address: Technical Advisory Comm/CGIAR, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 Tel: (916) 752-8648/8649 - Telex: 4900010239 UCD UI - FAX (916) 752-8572 Office Location: 219 E St., Suite 2C, Davis, CA ii TAC has addressedthe concerns expressedby s5me dsnors of the programme implications of funding below the recommended levels. TAC is convinced that lower funding levels if sustainedover the 199498 period will reqnire that discussions of alternatives for CGIAR programme and institutional restructuring presented in the context of 2010 (Chapter 11 of the CGIAR Expansion report considered at IGW ‘9 1) be advanced. The resource allocation re+commendations are therefore accompanied by a revision of Chapter 13 of the CGIAR Priorities and Strategiespaper ( TM’92 dated 15 April i992) which proposes a mechanism for looking at the structural options and alternative strategies available to the CGIAR. This revision has benefited from the extensive consultations that have taken place over the iast twelve months regarding the ecoregional approach to research - a key principle in the proposed restmcturing of the CGIAR. You will also note that TAC has made tivo types of recommendations on funding in the CGIAR: centre specific f%nding, and programme funding for particular CGIAR Systemwide inniatives. With respect to programme funding, TAG has identified converting centres which, will have an initiating and facilitating role, and which, in partnership with cohaborating institutions, will develop proposals f5r joint programmes. TAC would be willing to receive these proposals if so requestedby the Group. TAC recoganizes the innovative but experimental nature of such programme funding and that many issues, for example with respect to accountability, have still to be resolved. N5Wever, TAC strongly believes that programme funding wsuld prsvide an attractive and innovative ,mechanismto promote partnerships among centres, national programmes and other actors in the global agricuitural research systems. Mr. Chairman these reports represent the culmination of a concentrated and arduous process. They provide TAC’s collective views and recommendations of urze allocation in the CGIAW. I would iike to thark TAC priorjties, strategies and resow members for Their dedication and c5mmitment throughout this exercise. %would like to publicly acknowledge the contributions of the staff of both the TAC and CGHAR Secretariats. Speciat recognition must be given to the enormous contributions that Guido Gryseels, T.AC Secretariat, and Jean-Rerre Jacqmotte and Ravi Tadvalkar, CGMR. Secretariat, made to the analytical -work tzhroughoutthe process and to the writing of this report. I wish to stressthe excellent cooperation and team spirit among members of the two Secretariats. We look forward to the discussion at ICW”93. Hopefully our efforts will facilitate a constructive dialogue and useful conc1usion.s. Yours sincerely, A.F. McCalla TAC Chair CGIAR Medium-Term Resource AIlocation 1994-1998 Analysis and Recommend Summary This report concludes TAC’s review of CGIAR priorities and strategiesfor research on agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and the linking of these to resource allocation for the medium-term period 1994-98. It thus completes the report presented to, and endorsed by, the Group at MTM’92l, in that it presentsTAC’s recommendations to the CGIAR for resource allocation for the System as a whole, for individual centres, and for Systemwide programmes. These recommendationsare presentedto the Group at ICW’93, as the basis for decision making in implementing CGIAR priorities and strategies in the medium term, and for approval of centre and programme funding requirements between 1994 and 1998. The resource allocation process was undertaken in the framework of TAC developing its views on CGIAR priorities and strategies. In this process, TAC used a comprehensive analytical framework for setting priorities which facilitated the linking of resource allocation within the CGIAR to the priorities. Consistent with these priorities, TAC proposed, and the CGIAR endorsed, a tentative core resource envelope for 1998 for each centre. These indicative envelopeswere subsequentlyused by the centres as planning guidelines in developing their Medium-Term Plan (MTP) proposals. Centre proposals were presented to TAC and the CGIAR, allowing both to raise issuesto which the centres could respond. Progress in the resource allocation process was presented and discussedat a TACKGIAR Workshop in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in May 1993. Finally, at TAC 61, the Committee simultaneously considered all centres’ MTP proposals and any additional information provided by the centres. It reconciled the MTP proposals with the System priorities and allocated resourcesaccordingly by proceeding through a number of steps. First, TAC evaluated the relevance of each centre’s indicative resource envelope in close reference to the CGIAR priorities as views on both priorities and envelopesmight have evolved since MTM’92 when they were agreed upon. In this step, the Committee took into account centres’ MTP proposals and supplementary information, as well as recent internal and external developments in the CGIAR, and determined if a change in the level of resources tentatively assignedto each centre would be justified. This comprehensive review, comprising all centres, completed TAC’s discussion of CGIAR priorities. ’ TAUCGIAR, 1992. Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. Parts I and II. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome. iv comprehensive review, comprising all centres, completed TAC’s discussion of CGIAR priorities. Second, TAC evaluated the MTP proposal of each centre in accordancewith a set of five equally-weighted criteria: the strategic character of the centre’s proposed research programme; the programme’s potential for breakthroughs; centre’s past performance and likelihood of sustainedsuccess;the centre’s external environment, institutional health and quality of management; and, finally, the centre’s collaboration with NARS, other IARCs and advanced institutions. Third, TAC reconciled the outcome of these two evaluations, the first, largely priority- and demand-driven and the second, largely supply/institution-driven, in a step towards assigning core resources to individual centres and to a number of CGIAR Systemwide initiatives. In this step, TAC considered the implications of the proposed allocations for the implementation of the overall System priorities. This was done at two aggregate levels of assumedcore resourcesin 1998, i.e., US$ 270 million and US$ 280 million expressedin 1992 dollars. Also, aware of the limitations inherent to MTPs being developed at centre level, TAC considered a number of inter-centre and System issueswhich were not adequately addressed,and formulated a number of recommendationsof funding of Systemwide initiatives within the overall funding assumptionsfor 1998. In responseto a request expressedat the TACCGIAR May 1993 Workshop, TAC also considered the scenario of a,significant, sustainedshortfall in core funding in 1998, e.g., at IO % below the base level of US$ 270 million. Consistent with the views of participants in the Workshop, TAC concluded that the implications of such a scenario could not adequately be addressedby budgetary procedures only, such as across-the-board reductions: sustainedunder-funding would require stmctural adjustments of the CGIAR. Therefore, TAC concluded that the resource allocation process did not constitute the appropriate framework in which to explore and formulate System adjustments of a structural nature. Instead, the Committee decided to present to the Group a timed sequenceof stripe reviews, of reviews of delivery mechanismsin the CGIAR and ad hoc reviews of possibilities of other structural adjustments. These reviews would be undertaken with a view to achieving the necessarysavings, while assuring the maintenance of the System’s integrity at a significantly lower level of core funding. The recommendations arising from these reviews could be implemented during the MTP period to the extent they will be acceptedby the Group. TAC made two sets of recommendationson resource allocation across the System for the period, 1994-98. The first set was for allocations specific to all 18 CGIAR centres. The second set concerned a number of CGIAR Systemwide initiatives for which funding was recommended so that they could be undertaken on a collaborative basis, involving a number of CGIAR centres, national programmes and other relevant partners. Both sets of recommendations are summarized in Table Sl. V Table Sl: System Level Core Funding Recommendations (1998) (1992 US$ million) A. Centres Recommended Centres’ Core Funding Provision for External Reviews Reserve for Fisheries Ecoregional Programmes Genetic ResourcesProgramme Livestock Programme Water Management Programme Fisheries Programme l Totals may not add due to rounding. Recommendations of 1998 Centre Core Funding TAC’s recommendations on 1998 centre core funding, at the aggregate System levels of US$270 million and US$280 million (expressedin 1992 dollars) are summarized in Table S2. The Table also lists the indicative envelope assignedto each centre in March 1992 and TAC’s recommended 1994 core funding for each of the eighteen centres. Centre core funding levels for 1992 and 1993 are also presentedfor comparison purposes. TAC’s rationale and arguments for each of the recommendedallocations are presented, centre by centre, in Chapter 4 of this report. Recommendations for 1998 Core Fundinp of CGIAR Svstemwide Prom-ammes In the review of centre MTP proposals, TAC identified a number of programmes that were put forward by more than one centre, mostly with cross reference to each other but not necessarily in a orderly or consistent way. In this respect, the Committee considered the need to promote collaboration not only among CGIAR centres, but also with national programmes and other relevant institutions. Also, TAC noted that the medium-term resource allocation process was limited in its ability to deal adequately with concerns of System interest and transcending individual centre interests. On that basis, the Committee identified eight ecoregional and four other Systemwide initiatives which it recommends for funding on a Systemwide programme basis within the 1994-98 medium-term period. TAC’s recommended core funding for these programmes are also shown in Table S2. These resourceswould be intended to catalyse inter-centre collaboration in the planning and initiation of the specified global and ecoregional programmes. TAG selectedthe individual programmes listed in close reference to Chapter 13 of the Report on Priorities and Strategies, and to pertinent global and ecoregional research proposals contained in the centres’ MTPs. TAC’s rationale in selecting the eight ecoregional and four global programmes in question is outlined in Section 3.1.2. Follow-Ur, This report will be discussedat ICW’93 by the Group as the basis for decisionmaking on the implementation of the CGIAR priorities and strategies during the 1994-98 period, and on funding requirements during the sameperiod of centres and Systemwide programmes. The latter would allow centres to finalize their medium-term plans and 1994 programmes of work and budget. vii Table S 2: Recommended 1994 and 1998 Core Funding Requirements (ii constant IS32 US$ Millions) with Historical Comparisons A Cl34-l-RES Estimate AEhcal TOTAL la3temal Renriew Pmvism Nloostsble llew3rw F&sewa for Fzshs&s CENTRES TOTAL PAOGRAMMES i(;l: 0.50 0.50 0.25 1.25 0.40 0.70 0.65 0.75 210 0.531 I B. CGIAR SYSTEMWIDE tixxegioml Programmer sub-sshsrsn Africa: Subhumid & Humid Ecoreg. Programme ’ Semi-Arid Ecoregiorral Programme Highlands Ecoregiornl Programe WANA Asia: Semi-&id Ecoregiorral Progremme Subhumid &Humid Ecoreg. Programme 0.40 0.70 1.10 0.53 0.90 1.43 LAC Cross-region Stash & Bum Programme 0.75 0.9Cl too/ ------A 1.00 s 4.oQ 6.00 2u3J’ 4.75 1.00 200 1.00 TOTAL CGIAR SYSTEMWIDE PAOGWM 230.711 il 270.0]) 1-1 4-----i 15.75 /(TOTAL sYs7w II 255.0 249.2 1 11221.7 ~27o.osso.ol 1