1 THE CGIAR SYSTEMWIDE LIVESTOCK PROGRAMME CHRONOLOGY OF ITS DEVELOPMENT James W. Smith January 2001 2 THE CGIAR SYSTEMWIDE LIVESTOCK PROGRAMME: CHRONOLOGY OF ITS DEVELOPMENT Table of contents Page 1.0 Origins of Ecoregional and System-wide Initiatives 4 1.1 Ecoregional Initiatives 4 1.2 System-wide Initiatives 4 2.0 Development of System-wide Programmes and Ecoregional Initiatives 6 2.1 Goals of System-wide Programmes and Ecoregional Initiatives 7 2.2 Classification of System-wide and Ecoregional Initiatives 7 2.3 Principles 9 2.4 Defining Boundaries 10 2.5 Transaction Costs 10 2.6 Types of Participation 11 2.7 Governance and Oversight 11 2.8 Management Roles and Responsibilities 12 3.0 Establishment of ILRI (1994) and The System-wide Livestock Programme 13 3.1 The unified strategy 13 3.1.1 The Inter-Centre Livestock Programme Group (LPG) in ILRI’s Strategic Plan 14 3 Figure 1. The Concept of the System-wide Livestock Programme 15 3.1.2 The Special Fund 16 4.0 Operationalising the SLP (1995) 17 4.1 SLP - Phase I 17 4.2 SLP - Phase II 25 Figure 2. Conceptual model for financing SLP 255 4.2.1 1997 Projects 26 4.2.2 1998 Projects 27 4,2,3 1999 Projects 28 4.2.4 2000 Projects 30 5.0 Programme Performance 31 5.1 Financial 31 Figure 3. Donor Contributions 31 Figure 4. Flow of Funds 32 Figure 5. Accumulated Expenditure categories and amounts 33 Figure 6. Accumulated Expenditure by research areas 33 5.2 Research Achievements 34 5.3 Other 36 6.0 Continuing Challenges 37 6.1 Financing 37 Figure 7. Contribution to total annual funding 37 6.2 Research Focus 38 6.3 Transregionality 39 References 40 4 1.0 ORIGINS OF ECOREGIONAL AND SYSTEM-WIDE INITIATIVES 1.1 Ecoregional Initiatives At the mid-term meeting of the CGIAR (Istanbul, Turkey, 1992) TAC, as part of a "Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies" introduced the "Ecoregional Concept". The concept was proposed primarily as a vehicle for increasing research on conservation and management of natural resources — a need which emerged from the priorities analysis — and for rationalising CGIAR centre contacts with NARS. It was roughly six years later at the 66th meeting of TAC (TAC, 1995) that members widely agreed that "ecoregionality" referred to an ecoregional approach which: null links research on productivity and natural resource management; null integrates research on social science and policy with that on physical and biological themes; null provides a framework through which complementarities can be realised and competition reduced among relevant research entities; and null serves as a vehicle for identifying important research programmes and forming research teams, which manifest the first three characteristics. These have remained the guiding principles up to the present time. 1.2 System-wide Initiatives At ICW 93, less than a year after the Ecoregional Concept was proposed, TAC noted that the resource allocation process was limited in its ability to appropriately deal with concerns of particular importance at the system level, transcending centres’ own interests. Recognising that the CGIAR was only one component of the global agricultural research system for developing countries, and that enhanced collaborative efforts would allow for greater efficiency of ---------- Quotation marked and italicised portions of the text are direct quotes from reference documents 5 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-funding support for inter-centre initiatives in several areas of work (ICW, 93): null implementing the ecoregional approach to research null water management research null global livestock research null fisheries research null genetic resource conservation. Even before ICW 93, however, the Working Group on Livestock Research (commissioned by TAC, chaired by Taff Davies and for which the respective DGs of ILCA and ILRAD were resource persons) in its draft report presented at the mid-term meeting, (May 93) indicated the need for "Creation of Institutional Mechanisms" to implement collaborative CGIAR livestock research. The Committee indicated the following sequence: "An immediate start should be made on a shared vision for livestock research in the CGIAR and on better co-ordination of programmes between the two lead livestock IARCs, ILCA and ILRAD." "Through the medium-term planning process, it should be possible to begin to forge linkages between the two lead centres and a range of other centres": null with ICRAF (multi-purpose trees), CIAT (forages in LAC), ICARDA (systems in WANA), IFPRI (policy) and ISNAR (management of national livestock research programmes); and null with commodity-based centres such as IRRI, CIMMYT and ICRISAT on plant breeding goals for better crop residue characteristics. TAC at the same mid-term meeting (May, 93), examined the report of the Working Group on Livestock Research mentioned above and made firm recommendations on the future strategies for livestock research in the CGIAR and on Institutional options for pursuing such research. It was at this meeting that, of the four institutional options examined (the status quo; Inter-centre collaborative mechanisms; merger of ILCA and ILRAD; a global centre for livestock research) TAC recommended the creation of a global centre for livestock research subsuming ILCA and 6 ILRAD. That proposal, however, still left unclear the implications for other CGIAR institutions, which could contribute to the global livestock agenda through for example, research on feed resources and natural resource management. TAC originally felt that these aspects of research should be addressed by the respective institutions and other ecoregional mechanisms. At that time, however, organisation of ecoregional research under the CGIAR was still being discussed. Although the concept of System-wide Initiative was proposed in 1993 it was not until the 66th meeting of TAC (July 95) that the guiding principles were definitively laid out. These were as follows: null take advantage of potential complementarities; among CGIAR centres; among centres, NARS and other research suppliers; between productivity and natural resource management research; and among disciplines null avoid duplication null encourage specialisation among centres and take advantage of economies of scale in activities null internalise externalities These have remained the guiding principles of System-wide initiatives/programmes up to the present time. They were developed largely from discussions at the meeting held in Rome on the management of Ecoregional Initiatives and System-wide Programmes. 2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEM-WIDE PROGRAMMES AND ECOREGIONAL INITIATIVES Following TAC's proposal of the 'ecoregional approach' (1992) and with the 'System-wide Concept' (1993) several ecoregional initiatives and system-wide programmes were recommended along with lead centres by 1994. However, at that time there was no clear understanding of how these new mechanisms would be implemented and what were the implications for existing arrangements and mechanisms. There was also no common understanding of what the terminology used to describe the two new mechanisms meant. Consequently, Centre Directors and/or Centre representatives, representatives of Centre Board Chairs, TAC, TAC and CGIAR Secretariats and the Oversight Committee met (Rome, 1994) to discuss these and related issues. This meeting was convened and co-chaired 7 by Geoff Hawtin (IPGRI) and Hank Fitzhugh (ILCA/ILRI) whose centres were responsible for the major system-wide initiatives on genetic resources and livestock. Broad agreements on issues were reached as set out in the following sections: 2.1 Goals Of System-wide Programmes and Ecoregional Initiatives included: null to promote greater co-ordination among the various centres' activities that are aimed at common problems, and thereby try to optimise the use of CGIAR resources: null to provide coherent representation of those activities of common interest to a number of centres, to partners, other stakeholders and other actors in the global research and policy environment, and thereby increase the potential impact of the CGIAR: null to broaden the base of institutional participation and partnerships with NARS, and other research and development actors, to more effectively achieve common objectives. null to help ensure consistency among the policies and strategies of the various centres (e.g. on intellectual property protection and data management) and thereby avoid the problems that can arise when different centres interact with the same partners. 2.2 Classification of System-wide and Ecoregional Initiatives null The meeting reviewed multi-institutional collaborative arrangements, many of which involved collaboration with non- CGIAR partners. These range from system-wide programmes (such as the SGRP and the SLP and global initiatives focusing on environmental and natural resource management (NRM) research (e.g. ASB, the Sustainable Mountain Agricultural Development Initiative and the Global Initiative on Soil Water and Nutrients), to ecoregional initiatives aimed at strengthening NRM research within defined agro-ecoregions (e.g. the African Highlands Initiative, the Sub-Saharan Africa Desert Margins Initiative, and the High Andes Initiative —CONDESAN). null At that time, the CGIAR agreed to establish three system-wide programmes (on genetic resources, livestock and water management) and had allocated envelopes for their development and implementation. The largest envelope agreed was US$ 4 8 million for the SLP out of US$ 10 million for all system-wide and ecoregional initiatives. Participation was expected of all centres with activities in these areas and the decision to participate in, or withdraw from, such programmes was not regarded as being the prerogative of the centre alone. null The meeting considered it important to define the difference between a system-wide programme and an ecoregional initiative. It was agreed that the term 'system-wide programme' should be used to describe the totality of the CGIAR system's activities within a given, often broad, subject area, while the term 'initiative' should be used to describe a specific inter-centre collaborative venture, generally having specific objectives, budget and time horizon. Although the term 'initiative' is generally used in relation to ecoregional initiatives, it can also apply to other multi- institutional arrangements, which have similar characteristics. Thus, for example, the term initiative might be used to describe that component of a system-wide programme, which is concerned with facilitation, co-ordination and representation. It was noted that programmes and initiatives are both likely to involve, to a greater or lesser extent, partner organisations outside the CGIAR. null This important distinction was illustrated by the SGRP which encompasses the total activities of all CGIAR centres in genetic resources. SGRP comprises three major components: i. the independently managed genebanks and other genetic resources activities of the individual centres, ii. IPGRI, and iii. specific collaborative activities and co-ordination mechanisms designed to achieve coherence within the total SGRP programme. The funds allocated for genetic resources within those earmarked by the CGIAR for system-wide programmes and initiatives (i.e. US$ 1.7 million in 1995) are specifically for component iii above. To avoid the confusion that has arisen in the past due to the inconsistent use of terminology, the group agreed that this third category of activities should be referred to as 'system-wide initiative on genetic resources' and that this is an integral component of the SGRP - the 'glue' that holds it together. null In a similar manner, the CGIAR System-wide Livestock Programme (SLP) will encompass these major components: 9 i. ILRI's activities, ii. independently managed livestock and related programmes at CIAT, ICARDA, and ICRAF, inter alia, and iii. a system-wide initiative supporting collaborative activities and specific co-ordination mechanisms. "US$ 4 million was earmarked for the system-wide livestock initiatives in the US$ 270 million funding for CGIAR in 1995." null Ecoregional initiatives were seen as combined NARS–IARC mechanisms for placing factor, commodity and policy research within the context of natural resources management and sustainable land use systems. The organisation of ecoregional consortia is a way to mobilise the broader base of expertise, resources, and decision-making capacity needed to address NRM on a subregional or regional scale. null It was noted that while system-wide programmes are likely, to a substantial degree, to be inter-centre in nature with a focus on policies and strategies, ecoregional initiatives might be less centre-focussed, calling on a larger number of partners, and might tend to be more "downstream" oriented, linking research with extension and farmers. 2.3 Principles null In spite of the great diversity that exists among system-wide programmes and initiatives, the group felt that there were sufficient commonalties to justify developing common guidelines for their governance and management. However, it was recognised that each programme and initiative would have to address, in detail, the roles and responsibilities of the various institutions involved, and to set up management structures and procedures appropriate to the individual circumstances. null As a guide to decision-making on governance, roles, responsibilities and management structures and procedures, the meeting agreed on the following set of principles to guide all initiatives, ecoregional or system- wide. They should: null have a clear system of accountability null maintain clear responsibility and reporting lines null to the extent possible, promote collective decision making null identify transaction costs and ensure they are adequately resourced null minimise transaction costs consistent with effective co-ordination null maximise benefits: cost ratios 10 null provide incentives for entrepreneurship null ensure transparency in decision making null promote full participation and ownership among the various partners null maintain flexibility in participation and management allowing for changes in problem emphasis and institutional capacity; null foster compatibility with the management procedures of the participating centres and other partners null delegate decision making to the lowest operational level null specify full costs whether these are directly from donors or contributions by participating institutions. 2.4 Defining Boundaries null The scope of system-wide programmes and ecoregional initiatives needed to be carefully defined, resulting in clearly delineated programmatic boundaries. Agreement needed to be reached in each case as to exactly what is included and what is excluded, and what is to be centre-managed and what will fall under collaborative management arrangements. This is essential to ensure a clear understanding among the respective partners as to their exact roles and responsibilities, and to avoid duplication, double- budgeting or gaps within the overall CGIAR programme matrix of activities. null The definition of boundaries for any given programme or initiative was generally best left to the partner organisations themselves. However, to ensure consistency within the total programme of the CGIAR, the setting of boundaries affecting centre programmes will also require that TAC and the CGIAR donors be included in the decision-making process. null While accepting that system-wide programmes might have to be quite broad in scope, the meeting agreed that, as a general principle, boundaries should be set as narrowly as possible consistent with achieving the agreed objectives. Only those activities which contribute to the collective effort (i.e. which provide 'value added'), and/or which themselves benefit from the association, should be included within a given initiative. Such an approach was expected to facilitate the sharing of resources and simplify overall management. 2.5 Transaction Costs null The planning and implementation of multi-institutional programmes and initiatives inevitably entail substantial transaction costs. Every effort should be made to minimise such costs consistent with achieving the 11 objectives. It is important to all partners that the benefits derived from participation exceed the opportunity cost of the resources devoted to participatory processes. 2.6 Types of Participation null The meeting identified three basic functions or roles for participating institutions, in addition to their involvement as members of the programme or initiative. They can serve as a Convening Institute, a Host Institute and/or a Lead Institute. It was considered important to define these three terms carefully, as their inconsistent use had led to some confusion in the past. null Convening Institute: an institution which has overall responsibility for facilitation, co-ordination and representation at the level of the programme or initiative. Such an institute will play a major role in establishing a programme or initiative and in catalysing its development. null Host Institute: an institution which provides an administrative function, e.g. hosting a secretariat or providing financial accounting services. null Lead Institute: an institution which leads a specific technical or management component of an initiative or programme. In addition to the formal roles listed above, the meeting acknowledged that many centres already play an informal co-ordinating role within the CGIAR on a thematic or commodity basis, and have a system-wide (and beyond) 'watching brief'. 2.7 Governance and Oversight null The representatives of the Centre Board Chairs confirmed to the meeting that centre boards, like centres' management, are aware of the synergies to be achieved though expanded collaboration among centres and with other partners. "They will support and encourage management to be innovative in this regard and to experiment." "Centres must be prepared to take initiatives and to move forward but should avoid being overly 'donor driven'." The Board Chair representatives cautioned that in due course "inter-centre initiatives would inevitably compete for funding with other centre activities." 12 null Boards are prepared to provide oversight and governance of system-wide programmes and ecoregional initiatives within their general purview. Oversight and governance should be the responsibility of existing Boards and the setting up of parallel structures should be avoided. Governance should recognise the concept of 'shared responsibility', based on clearly defined institutional responsibilities among all partners. Once roles and responsibilities have been defined within a programme or initiative, these will provide the basis for Board oversight. If need be, ad hoc arrangements between Boards can be set up to address specific issues. null System-wide programmes and ecoregional initiatives should be reviewed after a few years of operation and, if appropriate, specific activities could be included within the regular programme of the participating centre. 2.8 Management Roles and Responsibilities Management functions can be broadly divided into three aspects: i. Programme management (the type and quality of research that is done and by whom), ii. Management of the means (budgeting, resource allocation etc) iii. Managing the process (organisation, linkage and reporting aspects) The meeting drew up the following list of items under each category to guide decision-making and assigning roles and responsibilities among participating institutions. While not exhaustive, the meeting felt that it would provide a useful checklist. null Programme Management - priority setting - policy and strategy development - determining programme boundaries - deciding on participating institutions - programme decisions on specific activities - evaluation and impact assessment null Management of Means - fund raising - budget preparation - budget submission and defense - budget approval - resource allocation to the total programme or initiative - resource allocation within programme or initiative 13 - reporting on expenditures - financial accountability - appeals mechanisms - appointment of key individuals null Process Management - linkages with programmes and initiatives - co-ordination - information systems - representation/public awareness - programme reporting - monitoring 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ILRI (1994) AND THE SYSTEM-WIDE LIVESTOCK PROGRAMME The strategic Planning Task Force for the new global livestock centre with the benefit of the report by the Working Group of Livestock Research and TAC's recommendations on the subject, addressed the matter of the System-wide Livestock Programme in the following manner ILRI, 1996: 3.1 The unified strategy null ILRI will inherit most of the CGIAR resources required for its livestock programme from ILCA and ILRAD. The first challenge is the integration of their programmes and resources. The structure within which this will be accomplished has already been decided — a single budget and management. The process then consists of further refinement of the programme objectives, adjusting the manpower and resources to match the agreed programme, and making best use of such economies as are possible in combining existing activities. null While most of the future CGIAR livestock activities will undoubtedly be within ILRI, substantial activity is also present in some other CGIAR centres, notably CIAT and ICARDA. There are opportunities for increased collaborative work with several of the crop-related centres (CIAT, IITA, IRRI and ICRISAT) on crop– livestock systems, and on the inclusion of livestock feed aspects, where appropriate, in crop breeding programmes. Collaboration with IFPRI and IPGRI will also be necessary. 14 null Structures designed to manage the new CGIAR-wide livestock programme do not exist at present. The options are as follows: null To bring these activities under one management, that of ILRI. This would involve transferring substantial blocks of resources and budget in the case of CIAT and ICARDA, and lesser amounts elsewhere. null ILRI could be allocated the resources to give contacts for livestock-related activities in other CGIAR centres. null ILRI could be designated as convenor of livestock activities throughout the CGIAR, with supplementary funds to support co-operative activities. null ILRI could function as co-ordinator of livestock-related activities throughout CGIAR system. null The challenge in devising structures for an integrated programme was to find a mechanism that sufficiently respects the autonomy of individual centres but ensures efficient collaboration towards agreed research goals. Whatever the level of integration chosen, willing co-operation among centres, with agreed procedures for sharing costs, responsibilities and credit, was necessary to produce genuine collaboration. Identification of such areas of common interest, together with advice and encouragement, can be facilitated by the TAC. null The minimum level at which an integrated programme is likely to be achieved is that where ILRI functions as a 'strong convenor'. A ‘strong convenor’ role for ILRI may also have been deemed necessary as the SLP differed from other System-wide programmes in at least one important way. Where as all other System-wide Programmes served to develop synergies among existing centre activities (e.g., genetic resources conservation) mandates, livestock research was not currently part of other centre activities. 3.1.1 The Inter-Centre Livestock Programme Group (LPG) in ILRI’s Strategic Plan null Within the CGIAR system, the unified Livestock Research Programme will require a sharing of authority and responsibility among centres. The key to success in this is a clear and agreed delineation of responsibilities and a corresponding division of credit for inputs and outputs. This must be achieved while preserving the primacy of the 15 centres' roles. The mechanism proposed is to manage the unified programme through an Inter-Centre Livestock Programme Group (LPG) (Figure 1). TAC could have an oversight role in the implementation of the unified strategy through this Group, though the external review process will hold ILRI primarily responsible for the effective implementation of the unified strategy (ILRI, 1996). null The main functions of the group would be: null To bring global coherence to and efficiency in the application of CGIAR livestock research resources. null To agree on priorities for new strategic research on livestock themes to be pursued by the CGIAR. null To agree on which CGIAR centres, national centres or advanced institutes are best placed to lead and collaborate in priority research thrusts, and to allocate responsibility for convening consortia to support such lead institutions. Figure 1. The CGIAR system-wide livestock programme OTHER CENTRES SPECIAL FUNDSPECIAL FUN ILRI A B C CENTRES INVOLVEDS I LVED IN LIVESTOCK PROGRAMME 16 null The LPG should not be seen as a committee to seek the lowest common denominator accommodation of existing institutional positions, but as a group charged with developing and guiding the system-wide programme in a coherent way towards agreed goals. null Its authority derives solely from the centres it involves (i.e. all centres with elements of the livestock programme). They should each be represented in it. null It should be chaired by ILRI (perhaps by ILRI's DG). null Since it must balance the programme requirements and centre interests, it should also have some independent members and TAC should oversee its operation. null The LPG should aim to minimise transaction costs, in part by ensuring that reporting procedures used for the programme are the same as those of the individual centres. 3.1.2 The Special Fund: null To help the development of the system-wide livestock programme, TAC has proposed the creation of a special fund rising to US$4 million annually. This fund is a new concept within the CGIAR system, so minimal ground rules exist. However, certain guidelines can be suggested (ILRI, 1996). null It should be competitive, i.e. devoted to projects which have been selected on their objective merit in an open and competitive process. null It should support co-operation, i.e. focus on projects which involve real commitment from more than one partner within the CGIAR and preferably also links other institutions null Allocations should be multi-annual. The fund, and the programme it supports, should be operated against a clear background of where responsibility lies for financial matters, and for programme planning, selection, execution and reporting. These activities in turn fit within a distribution of responsibility for all aspects of the system-wide livestock programme. 17 null That distribution of responsibilities should be as follows: ILRI Responsible to Centre Board for its centre programme in the normal way Provides secretariat, chair, support for LPG Other centres Responsible to Centre Board for implementing elements of the livestock programme LPG Responsible (to ILRI and other centres with elements of the livestock programme) for evaluating proposals, recommending allocations within the special fund, and reviewing outputs. 4.0 OPERATIONALISING THE SLP null There was a firm recommendation by TAC and a clear understanding that "within the US$ 270 million vector of the CGIAR, an annual sum of US$ 4 million would be provided to ILRI as part of its envelope as soon as acceptable proposals for executing the SLP were developed." null At its 65th meeting, TAC recommended that "US$ 0.5 million be made available to ILRI in 1995 for further analysis of livestock research and development issues and that in due course up to US$ 4 million would be available for system-wide livestock initiatives". null ILRI responded to TAC's recommendations by providing additional information to allow TAC to make recommendations for the full US$ 4 million at TAC 66 in March 1995. ILRI proposed an accelerated process of consultations with partners in Asia, WANA and LAC in time for submission of proposals to TAC 66 (March, 95). TAC, however, felt that the timeframe was probably "overly optimistic." 4.1 SLP - Phase I null In January 1995, a Global Agenda for Livestock Research Consultation (GALR) was held (ILRI, Nairobi). Following this and other consultations, a draft Programme Plan and Funding Request for SLP was developed. Following the recommendations from the regional consultations and those 18 of TAC the SLP research agenda, enunciated by the Programme Plan, was focused on feed resources, natural resource management and related policies. These were research areas to which a System-wide initiative could maximally contribute to the CGIAR’s Global Livestock Agenda (GLA) TAC’s formulation of the objectives were as follows: “Build and strengthen linkages with plant-oriented centres so as to develop integrated and coherent strategic and applied research, and research-related programmes on livestock feed development, Natural Resource Management (NRM) and associated policies” “Lever CGIAR resources invested in centre programmes, Ecoregional initiatives and other system-wide programmes in order to most effectively address development oriented livestock research” Some of the reasoning behind the desired focus were as follows: Feed Resources as a Major Constraint Increasing demand for livestock products is exerting a “demand pull” on animal production. Depending on the degree to which animal productivity can be raised, livestock numbers will continue to expand. In the developing countries, numbers are projected to increase between 1998/90 and 2010 by annual rates varying from 1.5 to 3.1 per cent depending on species (Table 1). Table 1. Projected increases in livestock numbers in developing countries Livestock numbers Million Annual growth (%) Species 1988/90 2010 1988/90 – 2010 Cattle and buffaloes 1,005 1,369 1.5 Small ruminants 1,129 1,578 1.6 Pigs 486 860 2.8 Poultry 6,469 12,318 3.1 Source: Adapted from FAO (1993). Such increases will exacerbate the already serious feed constraint. The inability to feed animals adequately throughout the year is the most widespread technical constraint facing producers in developing countries. Most of the major feed-related constraints identified by Winrock (1992) for the agro-ecological zones of sub-Saharan Africa also apply to other regions of the developing world (Table 2). In the drier areas the quantity of feed is the 19 major limiting factor for ruminants, whereas in the wetter areas its nutritional quality is usually the most serious problem. In both, feed shortages and nutrient deficiencies are more acute during the dry season, although when systems intensify feed shortages can start to occur in the wet season as well. Table 2. Feed-related constraints in different agro-ecological zones of SSA Species/constraint Arid Semi- arid Sub- humid Humid Highland RUMINANTS Quantity of feed + + + + + + + + + + Quality of feed + + + + + + + + + POULTRY Availability/cost of high-energy crops + + + + + + + + + + + + Availability/cost of protein supplements + + + + + + + + + + + + PIGS Availability/cost of high-energy crops + + + + + + + + + Availability/cost of protein supplements + + + + + + + + + + + + = very important; + + = moderately important; + = some importance; blank = not important. Source: Adapted from Winrock (1992). However, even when feed is scarce, what is available can be wasted or inefficiently used because of the underdeveloped infrastructure for transporting, processing and marketing feedstuffs. In addition, in most agro- ecological zones there are significant opportunities to improve ruminant feed supplies by improving the quality and utilisation of crop residues, other crop byproducts and cultivated pastures, and by integrating legumes (dual-purpose, herbaceous, shrubs and trees) into mixed farming systems. Growing crops to feed livestock on arable land that can be used to grow food crops for direct human consumption is often perceived as wasteful. But the practice can be immensely worthwhile provided the right feed crops are grown and they are efficiently converted to edible products by the animals (CAST, 1999). 20 Natural Resource Management and Policy Issues The production and utilisation of feed resources cannot be divorced from issues of natural resource management and agricultural policy. Rapidly expanding human population and agricultural intensification will place enormous pressures on the natural resource base during the coming years (Ole Nielsen, 1994). The development of feed resources must, therefore, take into account the sustainable use of natural vegetation, water and soil resources. There is now mounting evidence of soil erosion and other forms of resource degradation from all agro-ecological zones. In the arid and semi-arid zones, native grasslands are often over-utilized. In both these zones and the wetter areas, the transition from extensive to more intensive agriculture has also incurred increased environmental degradation, including pollution from nitrates applied as fertiliser and from industrialised livestock production and processing units (especially slaughterhouses). The environmental impacts of crop production for animal feed are similar to those for food crop production. They include general effects associated with changes in land use as well as specific, direct effects on soil and water resources and the impact of fertilisers and pesticides. Of particular concern is the increased use of marginal land for cropping, which brings heightened risks of degradation. Over the next decade, marginal croplands are expected to show rapid increases in utilisation: 15 to 20 per cent compared to 12 per cent across all land classes (FAO, 1993). Already, the expansion of cultivation in the pastoral areas of countries such as China and Syria has had an enormous negative impact on the remaining pasture resources available to traditional pastoralists (Longworth and Williamson, 1993; Treacher, 1993). Furthermore, cropland and pasture development are significant factors in the loss of forests. Losses of up to 60 per cent of forest have occurred in some areas in developing countries in recent years. Tropical forest loss is currently proceeding at a rate of 0.5 per cent annually (Hendy et al, 1994). Nevertheless, livestock can make significant contributions to environmental protection, particularly in mixed systems where there are appropriate balances of crops and animals. By providing draught power and manure for use as fertiliser, livestock sustain and enhance crop production, contributing to its intensification. Ruminant ownership also encourages smallholders to plant browse trees and shrubs, leguminous forages and grass contours, all of which help to control soil erosion, conserve water and increase soil fertility. In many instances inappropriate government policies have adversely affected the availability of feed resources and resulted in poor management of the natural resource base. Policy-related constraints include price disincentives to farmers, poor marketing opportunities, limited access to credit and insecure 21 land tenure. Research to identify policy options that will facilitate the development of sustainable land use systems is of high priority. National and international agricultural and trade policies have direct and indirect impacts on feed concentrate use and supply. Over the coming years the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) will continue to have far-reaching effects on international trade. Policy changes in the major regional trade blocks, such as the European Union (EU), will also have an impact (Hendy et al, 1994), as will economic reforms in the former Socialist countries. Countries able to produce traded commodities such as wheat and coarse grains at low cost may be able to expand production and exports. Changes to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, in particular, are likely to affect livestock feed utilisation in developing countries. For example, EU imports of cassava, milling byproducts and vegetable proteins are expected to decline, with commodities from developing countries, such as rice bran, palm kernel meal and copra meal, being particularly affected, especially where freight costs are high (Hendy et al, 1994). However, some of these commodities may well be absorbed by the expanding feed industry in Asian countries. null ILRI’s Board and TAC approved the Programme Plan in 1995 and the organisational meeting of the Livestock Programme Group (LPG) was held in May, 95. Important decisions arising from that meeting were (LPG Minutes, 1995): ? The Livestock Programme Group will provide advice on the future evolution of the System-wide Livestock programme, and will be responsible for the management and direction of the System-wide Livestock Initiative. ? Only the constitution and governance mechanisms of the LPG as it relates to the immediate needs of the SLI were considered at this meeting. ? In the formation phase, the LPG would be constituted by representatives of CGIAR centres involved directly or indirectly through the ecoregional consortia in livestock research. ? In 1995, all interested centres of the CGIAR may contribute to the LPG. Subsequent centre membership may be limited to centres conducting livestock research or who are members of consortia associated with livestock or related ecoregional research. ? Representative NARS members of consortia funded by the LPG may become additional participants of the LPG as it evolves. In due course, national programmes representing regional interests may be added to the membership of the LPG. 22 ? During the formation phase, the ILRI Director General will chair the LPG. Subsequent to the establishment of successful research programmes, the LPG will again consider the choice and mechanisms for chairmanship of the group. ? Recommendations from an External Panel on the sustainability of research proposals to be funded from the SLP would be considered and decided upon by the LPG. The LPG will attempt to reach consensus on all decisions; failing to attain such consensus, decisions will be reached on a one centre/one vote basis. ? This meeting developed an indicative list of research themes and a matrix of the probable inclusion of these themes in the research of existing (or developing) ecoregional consortia. ? Brief concept notes on individual proposals to be submitted to members of the LPG by e-mail by 15th of June 1995. ? An external panel for independent reviewers of SLP proposals will be convened under the supervision of an ILRI consultant. ? Proposals will be submitted to ILRI, Nairobi, with a deadline of the 15th August. ? Proposals will identify strategic and applied research for funding by the SLP, although links to partner national programmes conducting adaptive research are anticipated. ? All proposals will be sent to the External Panel (composed of approximately 15 individuals) who will score the proposals for technical merit according to a scoring system for which guidelines will be provided. The proposals will also be sent to all LPG members. ? The LPG considered the modalities proposed in the plan including seed money, matching funds and competitive grants and accepted them as stated in the SLP Programme Plan and Funding Request. ? Proposals will be received by reviewers at the latest by the 1st September (95). ? Reviewers will submit their evaluation to the ILRI consultant for the review process by the 10th September. ? The External Panel's evaluation will be submitted to the next meeting of the LPG to be held from 4–6 October for review and decisions on proposals and financial allocations. ? The LPG will be responsible for periodic review of projects once undertaken. This will be assisted by the commissioning of external reviews. ? Convening Centres for the proposals will be responsible for financial oversight of projects funded by the SLP. Regular scientific and financial reporting to the LPG will be six monthly during the first year and yearly for projects of 2–3 year's duration. A complete scientific and financial report will be required on completion of the project funded by the SLI. 23 ? The LPG members will consider and provide input for establishment of the scoring criteria to be used by 1st June, 95. null Research Themes Agreed upon by the LPG included: null Improvement of quality (nutritive value) of stovers/residues of crops. null Improvement of feed for smallholder dairying. null Matching livestock requirements and local feed resources (with particular reference to indigenous breeds and feed resources). null Nutrient recycling by animals (including manure) for the sustainability of crop and economic systems of production. null Legumes in farming systems. Integration of livestock in the rotation and nutrient recycling. null Shrubs — their cultivation, utilisation, evaluation (by agronomy, animal trials, ANF content and nutritional quality). null Fragile lands —the pressure of cultivation and human populations. Policy issues for the improvement of systems. Methods for the recovery of degraded lands. null The recommendations of the Strategic Planning Taskforce concerning the wider role of the LPG were not considered at this first meeting. The funding dilemma of the SLP precluded those aspects being taken up in the formative years. null Other regional consultations were held (South-East Asia, May 95; South Asia, June 95; LAC, October 95; and WANA, March 96). There were also numerous other consultations with individual centres and other current or potential partners during 1995 and 1996. null The external review process decided upon by the LPG was put in place by constituting a panel. By August, 1995, eight (8) proposals were received from LPG members (one each from CIAT, CIP, IITA and ICRAF, and two each from ICRISAT and ICARDA) and their respective ecoregional consortia or other partners. These were externally reviewed by September and at the second meeting of the LPG in October 95, three proposals (CIAT, ICRAF, ICARDA) were approved for funding. Some others (CIP, IITA, ICRISAT) were recommended for revisions and possibly re- submission. null Given the importance of feed resources in the research agenda of the SLP, the LPG recommended that an international workshop on 'Crop Residues in Sustainable Crop–Livestock Farming Systems' be organised. The primary aim of the workshop was to review the 'state of the art' and identity opportunities for future research. That workshop was held at 24 ICRISAT (India) in April, 1996. It was attended by 72 scientists from 33 countries and 6 continents. The proceedings of the workshop have since been published (CAB International, 1997). null At ICW 96, with the strong support of LPG members, ILRI organised a donor's meeting which was hosted by Sweden. A brochure on the research objectives and mechanisms of the SLP was prepared. Donors voiced strong support but funding did not improve. The funding crisis facing the CGIAR as a whole, and especially certain centres, militated against new programmes and initiatives. Funding for all System-wide programmes and Ecoregional Initiatives was affected. The SLP, the largest, was also severely affected. null The ILRI Board at its meeting (October, 96) agreed that in the absence of full annual funding of the ILRI envelope (including that of the US$ 4.0 million for the SLP), the management of the SLP should be modified. They also agreed that the competitive grant approach would be replaced. The Board at that time recalled its position that following TAC recommendation for new and additional funding, the SLP should not be funded at the expense of unrestricted core funding of the Institute. There were indications that unrestricted contributions to ILRI from some donors were reduced by an amount equal to their investment in the SLP. null By mid 1997, it was clear that US$ 4 million new and additional funding for the SLP was not available. Flows of funds into the programme up to that time were: null 1995 and 1996, Denmark and The Netherlands: US$ 0.65 million null 1997, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland: US$ 1.03 million Given these circumstances and following consultations with the ILRI Board and Centre Directors, ILRI invited CIAT, ICRAF and ICARDA to revise their large multi-year proposals to target a grant US$ 0.3 million to each proposal from the SLP. These grants were made in late 1997. null In 1997, ILRI's management recommended and the Board approved a modified strategy for developing the SLP. Those plans included strategy for financing the SLP by targeting both programme and project restricted sources of funding. null With continued strong support for the SLP by TAC and LPG member Centres, ILRI has continued its efforts to attract funding. The CGIAR Finance Committee in late 1997, approved a 'one off' grant of US$ 2.0 million of World Bank resources to catalyse development of the SLP in 1998 –2000. 25 4.2 SLP —Phase II null A LPG meeting was held in March 98, at which revised plans for developing and financing the SLP were agreed upon (see figure 2). These included: null Expending the special grant of US$ 2.0 million over three years. Those funds were to be expended on co-ordination, seed money for proposal development and as research matching funds. null Providing a full time co-ordinator, and defining the functions and roles of that individual. null Mechanisms for reviewing concept notes/proposals null Roles of the LPG Figure 2: Conceptual model for financing SLP FINANCING THE SLP 1 2 3 (Time - years)(Time - years) 4 m ResourcesResources ($ m) 12 m Restricted PartnersPartn UnrestrictedUnrestr cted Research Matching Fundtching Project Developmentlo CoordinationCoordination Proportion of resources Use of Us of unrestrected unr strected resourcessou 26 null These agreement reached at the LPG meeting of March 98 signalled the beginning of another phase (Phase II) of the SLP during which research efforts commenced in earnest as follows. 4.2.1 1997 Projects (i) Following the creation of the SLP in 1995, the LPG agreed on procedures for evaluating proposals and awarding grants. Using those procedures three projects were approved but, as they were large, funding constraints precluded immediate implementation. In 1997 the centers leading those projects were asked to revise them in line with opportunities for using smaller grants. This was done and in late 1997 or early 1998 those three projects received the first and SLP grants as follows: null Improving legume based feeding for smallholder dual-purpose cattle production in tropical LAC Lead Centre: CIAT 1 Partners: ILRI, NARS (Peru, Costa Rica) 1997/98 1999 2001 Grants (US$) 300,000 80,000 150,000 null Production and utilization of multiple purpose shrubs in West Asia, North Africa and the Sahel Lead Centre: ICARDA Partners: ILRI, NARS (Morocco, Tunisia, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal) 1997/98 1999 2000 Grants (US$) 300,000 71,000 20,000 null Utilization of forage biodiversity for dairy production and NRM in the African highlands Lead Centre: ICRAF Partners: ILRI, AHI 1997/98 1999 Grants (US$) 300,000 50,000 (ii) In keeping with consensus reached at the LPG meeting (Addis Ababa, 1998), concerning further grants to these 1 Grants are received by lead Centres on their own and partners behalf 27 projects should the financial situation improve, additional funds were allocated to these projects in 1999 as indicated above. 4.2.2 1998 Projects (i) At its meeting in Addis Ababa; March 1998, the LPG agreed to revised operating plans for the SLP including the procedures used for project evaluation and resource allocation; replacing the external review process with an internal one. The LPG also agreed to proposals for managing the funding uncertainty by operationalising the SLP research agenda through smaller modular projects. (ii) The LPG also approved revised project evaluation criteria and indicative budgets for the programme using World Banks funds, (US$2.0 M) provided by the CGIAR Finance Committee, over a three-year period. (iii) Following these agreements (b: i & ii) new concepts notes were approved, developed into proposals and funded [wholly or partially (modules)] in 1998 and subsequently as follows: o Improving crop-livestock systems in the dry savannahs of West Africa Lead Centre: IITA Partners: ICRISAT, ILRI, IFDC, University of Durham, NARS (Nigeria, Niger, Mali) 1998 1999 2000 2001 Grants (US$) 58,000 292,000* 200,000 250,000 *Project funding from Switzerland o A set of ex-ante impact assessments of research to improve utilization of crop residues in mixed farming Lead Centre: ILRI Partners: IITA, CIMMYT, IRRI, ICARDA 1997/98 1999 2000 Grants (US$) -- 117,000 64,000 28 o Development and use of molecular genetic markers for enhancing feed value of crop residues (Millet)/Improving feed quality of crop residues Workshop sorghum/cowpea Lead Centre: ILRI Partners: CIAT, ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIMMYT, IGER 1998 1999 2001 Grants (US$) 98,000* 98,000* 200,000 *Funded directly by ACIAR o The maize crop as food, feed and fertilizer in intensifying crop-livestock systems in eastern and southern Africa Lead Centre: ILRI Partners: CIMMYT, NARS (Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Malawi, South Africa) 1998 1999 2000 2001 Grants (US$) 30,000 100,000 98,000 25,000 4.2.3 1999 Projects (i) The LPG at its meeting in April 1999 (ICRISAT, Patancheru, India) approved support to projects which were developed in 1998 but were not funded at that time, and which required some revisions to match existing funding possibilities (ii) At the Medium Term Meeting at the CGIAR (MTM 99), the Finance Committee approved further support to the SLP at the level of US$ 1.2 M. A condition for this support was that the resources be committed to already developed projects before the end of 1999. (iii) The condition stipulated by the Finance Committee with respect to the MTM 99 grant necessitated provisional allocation of funds before the review process of new projects was completed. Consequently, the basis for allocating the MTM99 grant was developed and sent to LPG members (see Allocation of grant MTM 99) for consideration on a ‘no objection basis’. 29 (iv) The projects which received funding or for which funding on the basis of c: i & ii, are as follows: null Improving crop-livestock productivity in mixed crop- livestock farming systems in South Asia Lead Centre: ICRISAT Partners: ILRI, NARS (India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan) 1999 2001 Grants (US$) 200,000 200,000 null Enhancing livestock productivity while protecting mountain ecosystems. Lead Centre: CIP Partners: ILRI, ICIMOD, NARS (China, Nepal, Peru) 1999 2000 2001 Grants (US$) 50,000* 180,000 162,000 *Towards an International Symposium on livestock in Mountain development: FAO, SLP & ICIMOD null Differential impacts on small-scale and large-scale livestock (including dairy) producers on expanded use of concentrate feeds: Case studies in Kenya, India & the Philippines Lead Centre: IFPRI Partners: ILRI, NARS (Philippines, Kenya, Bangladesh) 1999 2000 2001 Grants (US$) -- 320,000 273,000 null Research and development of smallholder livestock production in Central Asia Lead Centre: ILRI/ICARDA/IFPRI/UC Davis Partners: selected NARS in the Caucasus. 1999 2000 Grants (US$) -- 300,000 null Human population growth and poverty mapping; implications for NRM Lead Centre: ILRI Partners: CIAT, ICRAF 1999 2000 Grants (US$) 75,000 11,000 30 4.2.4 2000 Projects (i) Other projects were initiated in 2000 and these in various stages of development. Among these is an effort to create a virtual SLP (vSLP) including a Virtual Network (vNetwork) and Virtual Labs (vLabs). Workshops to actualize this and other projects we had. null Participatory development of legume-based technologies for intensifying livestock systems in LAC – Lead Centre: CIAT 1999* Project Design Workshop[ (US$) 52,000 * Project elaboration completed in 1999 null Wheat and weeds, food and feed in the highlands/mountains of SSA/LAC – Lead Centre: CIMMYT 2000 Preliminary Studies & Project Design Workshop (US$) 88,000 null Food/feed systems and improved livelihoods of the poor in rainfed low lands and uplands areas of SEA – Lead Centre: ILRI 2000 Preliminary Studies & Project Design Workshop (US$) 45,000 null SLP as a virtual Network (vNetwork) and virtual Laboratory (vLab) 1999 2000 2001 Expert Consultations/ Workshop (US$) 40,000 100,000 218,000 31 5.0 PROGRAMME PERFORMANCE 5.1 Financial null Over the seven years (1995-2001) since its creation, the Programme received approximately US$7.5 million in donor support. Not only was this amount approximately 26% of what was originally recommended by TAC but also annual flows constituting it were highly variable and unpredictable. However, a few donors and ILRI remained committed to the objectives of the programme. Without this support the Programme could not have survived. Donors contributing to the programme are shown in Figure 3. During the early years, the Programme accumulated negative annual balances. It was not until 1998 and 1999 that grants from the CGIAR Finance Committee facilitated positive annual balances (Figure 4) which were expended in accordance with a phased plan approved by the LPG. Figure 3: Donor Contributions to the SLP (US$’000) _____________ * Projected flows 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 ACIAR DENMARK GERMANY JAPAN NETHERLANDS SWITZERLAND WORLD BANK TOTAL 32 * Projected null Following the creation of ILRI as the CGIAR’s global livestock centre and the SLP as a mechanism for building partnership among centres for livestock research, extensive consultations (global and regional) were jointly sponsored and undertaken concurrently to set appropriate medium to long term agendas for both ILRI and the SLP. Approximately 8% of SLP financial resources were expended for this purpose. Over the life of the programme 5% was spent on international workshops and symposia, and approximately 6% on project development workshops. Programme management and research consumed approximately 16% and 65% of the total financial resources respectively (Figure 5). null Of the approximately US$5.0 million expended directly on research, 21%, 14%, 27% and 38% were expended on system analysis and impact assessment, related policy, natural resources management and feed resources research respectively (Figure 6). Figure 4: SLP – FLOW OF FUNDS 1995-2001 (US $-MILLION) -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Expected Annual Income Income Expenditure Carried forward 95 96 97 98 99 00 01* 33 Figure 5: 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 (65%) Research Programme management Proj. dev. Workshops Int. workshops symposia G & R consultations (8%) (5%) (6%) (16%) ACCUMULATED EXPENDITURE (US$) CATEGORIES & AMOUNTS SLP: 1995 – 2001 (36%) Feed Resources Natural Resource Management Related Policy Systems Analysis Impact Assessment Figure 6: ACCUMULATED EXPENDITURE (US$) BY RESEARCH AREAS SLP:1997 -- 2001 (21%) (14%) (27%) (38 34 5.2 Research Achievements: null ILRI and partners under-took a series of global and regional consultations to develop its own and the SLP research agenda. The following consultations were held and proceedings published: o Global agenda for livestock research, January 1995, Nairobi, Kenya o Global agenda for livestock research South East Asia Region, May 1995, IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines o Global agenda for livestock research – South Asia Region, June 1995, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India o Livestock research prioritisation Latin America and the Caribbean, October 1995, IICA, San Jose, Costa Rica o Global Agenda for livestock research development of livestock research priorities in Asia, May 1997, National Institute of Animal Husbandry, Hanoi, Vietnam. o Global Agenda for livestock research – livestock research priorities in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) Region, November 1997, ICARTDA, Aleppo, Syria null The Programme also co-sponsored five international Workshops/Symposia also aimed at ascertaining the state of knowledge, consensus building, information/knowledge sharing and fostering partnerships. These were as follows: o Trees and shrubs in West Asia and North Africa, 1995, Hammamet, Tunisia (Co-sponsored with ICARDA) (In Press) o International workshop on Crop residues in sustainable mixed crop/livestock farming systems, ILRI, ICRISAT and CABI International, 1997 ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Published) o Livestock for sustainable development in Mountain, Agriculture, 1999, Pokhara, Nepal (Co-sponsored with ICIMOD and FAO) (In Press) o Livestock in mixed farming systems: coping with under nutritional, 1999, ILRI, Addis Ababa (under Review) o Fourth International Congress on Cactus, 2000, Tunis, Tunisia (Co-sponsored with NARS of WANA and FAO) These proceedings are either published, in press or under review. 35 null Through project development activities of the Programme, nine project design workshops were held. These workshops served the purpose of ensuring relevance, proper design of studies and organising local and trans-regional partnership where appropriate. Proceedings of several of these were produced and form part of the information base on crop-livestock systems of various agro-ecologies. null Three impact assessments of returns to research on improving the quality of crop residues have been completed. These impact studies will serve to guide investments in this important area of feed resources research; the studies were as follows: o Genetic enhancement of Sorghum and millet residues fed to ruminants, 1999. (co-funded by Swiss Organisation for Development and Cooperation) o Genetic enhancement of Cowpea, 2001 o Genetic enhancement of Maize, 2002 null Although the research phase of the programme only commenced in late 1997, three projects have produced recommendations on feed technologies, for three different agro-ecological zones: these relate to the following: o Grass-legume pastures (Arachid pintoi, Centrosema macroarpun and Stylosanthes guianensis associations with Brachiaria) for increasing milk yield and improving carrying capacity, CIAT –Final Report 2001 o Cratylia argentea as a supplement for replacing purchased concentrates and intensifying land use or the hillsides of Central America, CIAT – Final Report, 2001 o Calliandra calothyrous for improving milk production and cycling of nutrients in the highlands of Kenya, ICRAF – Progress Report 2000 o Atriplex halimus, a native range shrub, for alley cropped with grain crops (barely & oats) for increasing grain and forage yields in semi-arid rangelands of WANA. Several other options (Opunta, Acasia etc) for increasing feed supply and reducing range degradation are being researched, ICARDA – Progress Report, 2000 null As indicated at section 4.2, the Programme is supporting ten other research projects in various stages of gestation. These, over the next few years, will also make other significant policy and technological contributions. Progress reports on projects are available. 36 5.3 Other null The programme has promoted strong partnerships among CGIAR centres (and their ecoregional partners) for livestock related research. Ten CGIAR Centres and numerous NARS & ARI are participating/collaborating (Table 4) null Promoted programmatic synergies and levered resources among partners for livestock research. Preliminary calculation show that SLP projects leverage ratio (cash and in kind) is approximately 1:2.5. null Helped to advance the global livestock research agenda. Projects are being executed in all CGIAR regions – LAC = 2; CAC – WANA = 2; SEA = 1; South Asia = 2; SSA = 6 (Table 4) null The programme, using recent advancements in information technology, is developing innovative mechanisms (SLP as a virtual Network – vNetwork) to share datasets, frameworks and methodologies, increase the critical mass of livestock researchers globally, promote transregionality of research process and outputs and reduce transaction cost. Similarly, by organising virtual laboratories (vLabs) to address research issues with greater efficiency and less movement of personnel than previously required, the programme is harnessing both expertise and modern technology to address important research challenges. Table 4: Collaboration among CGIAR Centres and distribution of projects Centres involved = 10 Centres leading projects = 9 Projects being executed = 13 Projects in the pipeline = 4 Global coverage: LAC = 2 SEA = 1 SSA = 6 CAC-WANA = 2 South Asia = 2 (Some projects span more than one region) 37 6.0 CONTINUING CHALLENGES 6.1 Financing System-wide programmes were designed to promote research partnerships and build synergies among CGIAR centres. They came into being as a result of a considerable push by Donors and by TAC. Their creation, however coincided with a period of considerable funding shocks to the CGIAR system. Since that time (mid 1990’s) there has been a marked shift in the funding profile, moving decidedly in the direction of project restricted at the expense of unrestricted support. The case of ILRI shown in Figure 7 is typical of the system as a whole. This shift has seemingly, militated against full funding of System-wide Programmes. Figure 7: Project Programme Unrestricted ILRI - Contribution to Total Annual Funding Unrestricted Program and Project Restricted 1995 - 2001 US $ ‘million 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 38 null Actual funding received by all system-wide programmes has been much less than recommended; in the case of the SLP, 74% less. Questions are often posed about the underlying reasons for this reality. Is the funding reality an inadvertent result of the state of funding of the CGIAR system as a whole or an operational disconnect between TAC and the centres on the one hand and donors on the other? There are some indications that donors intended that System- wide Programmes be activated as a routine way of ‘doing business’, at little or no extra cost but perhaps through programme restructuring and resource re- allocation. Centres on the other hand have held the view that extra resources were required in order not to divert resources away from the ‘heartland’ and towards the periphery of their commodity and/or geographic mandates. Certainly the SLP required new resources as the agenda to be pursued was new to all but a few of the collaborating centres. null What ever the answers were to the above questions, and without a remedy, some other practical question arose: what level and reliability of funding were required for a viable and effective SLP and what should the organisational and operational mechanisms be in order to ensure that at the minimum funding threshold, the costs do not out-weigh the benefits of the programme? Also, how could or should the requisite financial resources be mobilised? null At a time when funding from donors was shifting towards project restricted, it would have been desirable for the SLP to shift it mobilisation strategy away from programme restricted and towards projected restricted as well. Two factors militated against an aggressive use of that option. Firstly, multi-centre and multi- location projects (typical of System-wide projects) with significant benefits to each partner tended to be much larger than what appeared to be the average attractive project size to donors. Also, SLP projects, which inherently were designed to share resources, were often perceived to be in competition with opportunities for independent efforts by partners to attract those same scarce resources. 6.2 Research Focus The SLP, after much consultation, reaffirmed that its research focus on feed resources, natural resource management and related policies were areas of obvious common interest and 39 held much potential for synergy among the plant-oriented centres and ILRI for livestock research. Even so, the original Programme Plan of 1995 was revised in 1999. Given the level of funding, however, it has been proposed by some that the research agenda be more narrowly focused to match available resources. Building consensus for this has been difficult for two reasons. Two divergent views of partners were evident: firstly, a more narrow focus will restrict the funding catchment area of a programme already short of funds and secondly, opportunities for participation by centres as well as opportunities for building synergies could fall below that which is necessary for an effective System-wide Programme. 6.3 Transregionality The original concept for designing and executing SLP projects was to have a few large projects to which the respective partner centres (and their collaborators), on the basis of complimentary advantage, would contribute through the use of common designs, methodologies, etc. Thus projects were intended to be transregional in both scope and benefits. Given funding stringencies (quality and reliability), efforts to pursue such projects were shelved in preference for operational mechanisms, which allowed the programme to cope with funding unpredictability. Thus more numerous smaller and modular projects were operationalised. This strategy allowed investments in project modules and attainment of discrete outputs, even before resources were procured to finance the entire project(s). However, assuring that the whole (benefits) were greater than the sum of the constituent parts (projects) was not easy to achieve. Efforts were made to derive ‘the whole’ through, at a super project level, trans-regional analysis in the case of particular research topics such as analysing global crop-livestock systems. Without the opportunity to pursue larger congruently designed multi-location projects, attaining transregional benefits will remain a challenge. 40 References CAST (1999), Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply, Task Force Report No. 135. Ames, Iowa, USA CGIAR 1992. AGR/TAC: IAR/92/18 - Part II. Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part II. Mid-term Meeting, May 18-22, 1992, Istanbul, Turkey. CGIAR 1993. MT/93/16. Progress Report by Working Group on Livestock Research. Mid-term meeting, May 23-29, 1993, San Juan, Puerto Rico CGIAR 1993. AGR/TAC: IAR/93/6 Rev. 1. Priorities and strategies for livestock Research in the CGIAR. Mid-term Meeting, May 23-28, 1993, San Juan, Puerto Rico CGIAR 1993. AGR/TAC: IAR/93/18 - part II, Rev. 1. CGIAR Priorities and Strategies: TAC Revision of Chapter 13. ICW 93, Washington DC. CGIAR 1995. AGR/TAC/IAR: 95/1.1. Report of the sixty fifth meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee held at IFPRI, Washington DC October 17-22, 1995. CGIAR 1995. SDR/TAC: IAR/95/8. Report on the sixty sixth meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee, TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome-Italy. FAO (1993). Agriculture: Towards 2010. Rome, Italy. Hendy, C., Kleih, U., Crawshaw, R. and Philips, M. (1994). Interactions between Livestock Production Systems and the Environment: Demand for Feed Concentrates. Draft report, Natural Resource Institute (NRI), Chatham Maritime, UK. ILRI 1995. Programme Plan and Funding Request for the System-wide Livestock Initiative - Feed Resources Research, Production and Utilisation. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. ILRI 1996. International Livestock Research Institute: Strategic Plan. ILRI, Nairobi. ILRI 1998. CGIAR System-wide livestock Programme. Annual Report 1997- 1998, Nairobi, Kenya. Longworth, J. W, and Williamson, G.T. (1993). China’s Pastoral Region. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 41 Ole Nielsen, N. (ed.) (1994). Agroecosystem Health: Proceedings of an International Workshop held September 1994 at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada Treacher, T. (1993). Policy issues in livestock production in arid regions and the management of extensive grazing lands. In: Mack, S. (ed.), Strategies for Sustainable Animal Agriculture in Developing Countries. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 107. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 99-106. Winrock (1992). Assessment of Animal Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA. JWS/gd