00000000000000000000.0000000000

INTERN&TIONAL CENTERS WEEK

1991

Summary of Proceedings

and Decisions

Consultative

Group on International Agricultural

Research

The Consultative Group on International Agncultural Research (CGLAR) held Its annual meeting, International Centers Week, from Monday, October 28 to Fnday, November 1, 1991 at the IMF audrtonum in Washington, D C Mr Wllfned P Thalwrtz, Chairman, presided A summary of proceedings and declsrons reached appears on the pages that follow Verbatim transcripts of proceedings may be consulted at the CGIAR Secretariat

Issuedby the CGIAR Secretanat The World Bank 1818H Street,N W WashingtonDC, 20433 Phone (l-202) 473-8951 Fax (l-202) 334-8750 December1991

Contents
Chairmanshipof the CGIAR .. ........................................................................................... ................. ................ 1 Chairman’ sOpening Remarks ........... ............... .. ............... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .......................................... 1 Chairmanshipof TAC .......................... .. ............... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .............. .........................................2 2 Review of CGIAR Priorities .... ............... .......................*.................~...................~.~.~.........~...........~.........~......... 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Synthesis .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Process................................................................................................................................................. 3 Convergence........................................................................................................................................ 4 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................ TAC Chairman’ sReport .. .. ............................. .. ............... .. ............... .... ................. ............ ............ ....................4 Report of the Committee of Board Chairpersons(CBC) ......... .. ............... .. ....................................... .. .. ............ 5 Report of the Committee of Center Directors (CDC) ....... .. .. ............... .. ........................... .. ............ .. ................. 5 Forestry Researchin the CGIAR ................... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .. ........................... .. ............ .................... 6 ............................... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .. ............................. .......................................7 CenterPresentations ........................ .......... ...................7 CIMMYT .. .. .......... .. ........................... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .. ....e 8 CIP ........... ............................. ............................................................... .. .. ............ ................................ 9 ICARDA .. .. ....... ... .. ............ ............... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .. ........................... ................................ ICRAF .......................... .. ................................................ ............... .. .. .................................................10 IIMI ...................................... .. ............... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .. .....................................................11 IITA ......... .. ........ .. .. ................................................................................ .. .. .........................................13 ILCA ............................... .. .. ................................ ................... ............................. ...............................14 IRRI .............................................................. .. ................. .. ............... ..................................................15 ISNAR .. .. .......... .. ............ ............... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .. ........................... .. ................................16 WARDA ............................................................................................. .. .............................................17 Funds for Research.. .. .......... .. ............... ................................................................... .. ....................................... 18 Approval of 1992Programs.. .. .................................. .. ............................. .. .,......................... .. ........... 18 Pledging of Funds .. .. .................................................................................. .. .......... .. .......................... 18 Future Meetings.. ........................ .. .................................................................................. .. ................................19 Other Business...................................... .. ................. .. ............... ............................... .. ............ ...........................19 19 BIOTASK-ProgressReport ............................................................................................................... .I9 Center Communicationswith Donors............................................................................................... 19 CGIAR Linkages with UNCED.. ....................................................................................................... .20 Property Rights Intellectual .............................................................................................................. .20 TAC Members .................................................................................................................................. Chairman’ s Closing Remarks.. .. ............................................................... .. .. ........................... .. .......... .. ...........20 Annex I - Agenda ....................................................... .. ................... ............... .. .. ..............................................21 Annex II - List of Participants.............. .. ............... .. .. ............... .. ............... .. .. ........................... ............ .. .......... 22

Summary of Proceedings and Decisions
CGIAR Chairman Wilfried P. Thalwitz inaugurated International Centers Week 1991 (ICW91) at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, October 28 in the auditorium of the International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE CGIAR The Group endorsed by acclamationthe nominationof Mr. VisvanathanRajagopalan, the World Bank’ s Vice President for SectorOperationsand Policy, as the sixth Chairmanof the CGIAR. Mr. Thalwitz said at the commencement of ICW91 that his new responsibilitiesas the Bank’ s Vice Presidentfor Europe and the Soviet Union requiredhim to give up the CGIAR chairmanship. The established CGIAR tradition wheneverthe chairmanship falls vacantis for the Presidentof the World Bank to nominatea candidate. In keepingwith that tradition, Mr. Thalwitz said, Bank PresidentLewis T. Prestonhad nominatedMr. Rajagopalan, a seniorBank official, but endorsement of the nominationwas a matterfor the Group to decide. Mr. Prestonhad askedhim to convey to the Group the Bank’ s continuing supportof the CGIAR, in termsof personnel and managerial underpinning of the CGIAR and of financial support. Mr. Thalwitz said that Mr. Rajagopalan was a colleague and friend; a man of total integrity, technicaland sectoral understanding.He fully satisfiedthe criteria that had been set up for the selectionof a chairman. Severalopportunitieswereprovided during ICW91 for the Group to review the nomination,both formally and informally. Response to the nominationwas uniformly positive. Taking note of the short durationof Mr. Thalwitz’ s chairmanship,membersof the Group expressed the hopethat greatercontinuity would be possiblein the future. Mr. Thalwitz announced the resultsof theseconsultationsin opensessionwhere the appointmentof Mr. Rajagopalan was unanimouslyendorsed. At the final sessionof ICW91, Mr. Andrew J. Bennett, headof the UK delegation,presented Mr. Thalwitz with a scroll, on which the statement that appears below was inscribed.
The following resolution was unanimously adopted by the CGIAR on November 1,199l during its annual meeting, International Centers Week: Members of the CGIAR extend their felicitations to the Group’ sfifth Chairman. their priorities and renew their commitment to mobilizing science on behalf of the world’ s poor and disadvantaged.

Mr. Bennett,on behalf of the Group, thankedMr. Thalwitz for strongleadership at a difficult time. They respected his intellect, and appreciated his ability to harmonizecontending points of view. FAO representative Mr. Philippe J. Mahler, speakingon behalf of cosponsors, drew particularattention to the combinationof firmnessand accommodation that characterized the outgoingChairman’ sleadership. Mr. G. C. Srivastavaof India speakingfor regionalrepresentatives, commended the Chairmanfor his continuingefforts to infuse the work of the CGIAR with a strongerdevelopingcountry perspective.Mr. John Walsh, Chairmanof the Center DirectorsCommittee,said that he and his colleagues would always value the understanding and supportthey received from Mr. Thalwitz. Mr. Thalwitz said he would leavethe CGIAR with a heavy heart. He would retain fond memoriesof the Group whose commitmentto a causeand vision wererare.The role of the CGIAR as an instrumentthroughwhich development could be promotedandpoverty alleviatedwas invaluable.There weremany challenges aheadof the Group, and he was confidentthe CGIAR systemcould meet thosechallenges if it remainedloyal to its foundingprinciples. This did not meanthat the Group shouldbe stuck with the “status quo” but that they shouldapply the system’ sestablished strengths to the changingneedsof the time. He urgedthe Group to extendto Mr. Rajagopalan the same kind of cooperation and supportthey hadgiven him. CHAIRMAN’ S OPENING REMARKS In his formal openingremarks,Mr. Thalwitz remindedthe Group that in the face of an internationalshortage of funds, the CGIAR would have to demonstrate that it continuesto be one of the world’ s most effective usersof development finance. The CGIAR would needto reaffirm its commitmentto productivity-related research as a contributionto alleviating global poverty. But taking note of internationalconcerns and the intensecompetitionfor development funds, the CGIAR would haveto place its emphasis equally on environmentalissues. In this connection,he drew attentionto the close interactionbetweenenvironmentalandproductivity objectives. Turning to the agenda of ICW91, Mr. Thalwitz said that the centralissuefor discussionwould be the future priorities of 1

Wirfried P. Thalwitz
as he prepares to assume challenging new responsibilities at the World Bank: and place on record their gratitude for the dedicated, skillful and inspiring leadership he provided them as they sought to redefine

the CGIAR. They would approachthis issueon the basis of a draft paper from the Technical Advisory Committee (I’ AC) setting out a whole range of options. He urged that these should be exhaustively reviewed and cautionedthe Group againsttrying to reach decisionstoo quickly. Mr. Thalwitz addedthat he was pleasedthe centerswere looking for ways to associatethemselveswith the priority-setting process. As a follow-up to the Paris mid-term meeting (May 1991) the Group would hear a progressreport from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research(ACIAR) on the stepstaken toward establishinga new CGIAR entity for forestry research. Ten centerswould presenttheir plans and priorities, and face questionsraised by membersof the Group. This was a large number of centersfor a single ICW, but that was inevitable, given the expansionof the CGIAR. Sovereign centerspursuing excellenceand creating impact are at the heart of the CGIAR system, Mr. Thalwitz pointed out. It was important to hear directly from them about their experiences, programsand plans for interaction with each other. The meeting would come to some conclusionsabout the budgetaryenvelopefor 1992,basedon pledgesto be announcedat ICW91. None of them were stargazers, but it would be helpful, he said, if they could all look at funding possibilities further down the road. The systemneededsuch a senseof direction, as it dealt with priorities, strategyand structure. CHAIRMANSHIP OF TAC The Group received with acclamation TAC Chairman Alexander McCalla’ s acceptanceof a unanimousinvitation to serve for two years beyond the end of his presentterm on December3 1, 1992. Introducing the subject, Mr. Thalwitz informed the Group that the cosponsorshad asked Mr. McCalla whether he would acceptan extension if invited to do so. Mr. McCalla had said he would. Mr. Thalwitz suggestedthat the Group should discussthis situation as a matter of priority in an attempt to reach a decision by the end of the week. He felt that the systemhad gained from Mr. McCalla’ s efforts, and was glad that the TAC Chairman was willing to continue his stewardship. This would ensurecontinuity at a time of change. For himself, he could not have carried out his chairmanship without Mr. McCalla by his side. The Group decided without dissent that Mr. McCalla should be invited to accept an extension. REVIEW OF CGIAR PRIORITIES
Introduction

Montpellier, Francethat CGIAR priorities and strategies should be reviewed by TAC every five years. The last comprehensive review was in 1986, making 1991 the next date for revision and review of priorities. TAC’ s priority-setting processwas delayed, however, when the Group entrustedit in 1988 with the task of examining a possible expansionof the system. Leading the Group into an almost week-long review of proposedCGIAR priorities, Mr. Thalwitz said this discussion was the most important item of businessat ICW91. The central issue,he said, was the question of what should be on the agendaof the CGIAR systemduring the next 10 to 15 years. He stressedthe importanceof the proposalsand the need for the Group to provide TAC with guidanceand directions on which its final recommendations would be based.
Synthesis

TAC undertook the responsibility of presentingthe Group with options for its short- and longer-term priorities in responseto a decision at its 1987 mid-term meeting held at
2

The Group reachedbroad agreementon a number of themesthat would influence priority setting within the CGIAR over the next five years. The themesincluded: . reaffirmation of the role of research, . agreementthat researchprograms should be concentrated on specific commodities, . enhancedinterest in natural resourcemanagement, sustainability and related concerns, . the needto strengthenCGIAR relationships with national agricultural researchsystemswhile taking into account the limitations of the CGIAR in this area,and . the relationship betweenpriorities and financial resources. Thesethemesemergedfrom discussionof two documents preparedby TAC for ICW9 1. The first paper, A Review of CGIAR Priorities: Advanced Working Draft, provided a framework for assigningrelative priorities by activities, agroecologies, regions, production sectorsand commodities. The second,entitled A Review of CGIAR Priorities: EssencePaper, was a summary of the first. The draft paper outlines five activities and suggeststhe proportion of CGIAR resourcesthat should be invested in each categoryby me year 2010: conservationand management of natural resourcesincluding germplasmconservation - 20 percent (1989 base, 15 percent): germplasmenhancement and breeding in agriculture, forestry and fisheries - 25 percent (25 percent); developmentof sustainableproduction systemsfor agriculture, forestry and fisheries - 25 percent (35 percent); socioeconomic,public policy and public management research- 10 percent (5 percent); and strengtheningnational researchsystemsincluding training, information and institution building - 20 percent (20 percent).

In its analysis of researchpriorities by agroecology,TAC suggestedthat the main emphasisin agriculture should be on tropical agroecologiesand on the cool subtropicswith winter rainfall. For forestry, TAC proposedthat relative emphasis should increasefor tropical agroecologiesin general. Discussingregional issues,TAC’ s preliminary finding was that declining productivity combined with rapid population increasesmade a strong casefor sustainedpriority for Africa. At the sametime, a number of factors including a large population and the limited scopefor land expansionfavored Asia as a priority region. TAC felt thereforethat further inquiry was justified on the question of regional balance. The appropriatebalanceof CGIAR efforts among agriculture (crops and livestock), forestry and fisheries was reviewed, but further analysis was required because agroforesuy/forestryresearchwas only recently addedto the CGIAR agenda,and work on fisheries has not yet been fully agreedupon. TAC’ s analysis suggested,however, that critical researchneedsin crops and livestock should not be neglectedin the effort to build up agroforestry/forestryand fisheries programs. Within the agriculture sector, TAC presentedan examination of 27 commodities (crops and livestock). Theseincluded 16 commodities which are already on the CGIAR agenda; and 11 “new” commodities, Further consultationwill be undertakenparticularly with national systemsbefore a priority portfolio of commodities is finally defined. Process Mr. McCalla said that discussionof the draft TAC report presentedthe Group with opportunities for interaction and input. To facilitate the discussion,he suggestedthat the Group should concentrateits attention on the highlights of the main working document, the advancedworking draft. He pointed out as well that there were three major differencesbetweenthe priorities exercisethey were reviewing and its predecessors.Previously, TAC had startedby looking at global issuesand then moved downwards to regional issues. This time, TAC’ s starting point was agroecologies,regionally defined. A seconddifference was that in the current exerciseTAC had tried to be more analytical than before. The third difference, he said, was that TAC attemptedto have a quantitative basis for its recommendations. Mr. McCalla drew the Group’ s attention to sectionsof the TAC paper that outlined issues- such as population growth, urbanization and income growth - that would, to someextent, determinethe CGIAR system’ s choice of priori ties. Each of thesewould have an impact on the demandfor food in the future. For example,population projections for the year 2025 indicate that the number of peoplein developing countries will double from 3.6 billion in 1985 to some 7

billion. Given the lag times in research,the presentwas not too early to make a start at establishingpriorities for the next 10 or 20 years. Outlining the analytical processby which TAC proceeded toward its conclusions,Mr. McCalla said that their baseline for agriculture consistedof three dimensions- value of production, number of poor and land in use. TAC then applied a set of modifiers that were concerned,for instance, with equity, self-reliance,soil degradation,deforestationand agroforestry. TAC also consideredthe relative need for researchin socioeconomics, public policy and public management.
Convergence

The Group commendedTAC for the transparencyof its approach,and for the comprehensivemethodology of analysis employed.Although no final decisionswere required becausethe paperrepresented only an advanced draft, not a final set of recommendations, the paperwas subjectedto a rigorous debate. Discussioncenteredon the approachchosen,problems identified, the analytical method developedand TAC’ s preliminary conclusions.Different viewpoints were forcefully expressed, and severaldelegateswelcomed the fact that the CGIAR remainedan open forum in which opinion could be freely expressed. From that exchangeof ideas,convergencewas established on severalissuesthat are critical to the identity, role and future of the CGIAR. Research: The Group reaffirmed that the CGIAR is primarily a research-oriented institution, supporting strategic agricultural researchon issuesof transnationalimportance. Many of the delegateswere from developmentassistance agenciesand they explored at some length the implications of a divergencebetweenresearchpriorities and development priorities. From that review of issues,there was clear acceptance of the researchorientation of the system. Continuity: The Group acknowledgedthat as a dynamic organizationthe CGIAR system should be sensitiveto changingneedsand trends,but recognizedas well that researchprogramswould suffer if they were buffeted by political winds that changedcourseperiodically. The systemhad to define a balancebetweenresponsiveness to emergingtrends while simultaneouslyprotecting the valuable intellectual capital which the CGIAR has invested in the centers.That form of capital was the basis on which centerscould adjust to changing trends and demands.In keeping with this assessment, severaldelegatesindicated their desire to make longer-term commitments to the researchenterprise,if that was politically possible. National Systems: Strengtheninglinkages between international centersand national agricultural research systemswas seenas a clear priority. Having said that, 3

however, there was a perception, too, that strengthening national systemsdirectly was not a primary responsibility for CGIAR centers. Strong national systemsare an essentialelementof the global researchsystem.International centersmust therefore continue to participate in capacity building that strengthens national systems.But delegatesfelt that the researchresponsibilities of the centerscould suffer, and their resourcescome under strain, if building up national systemsbecamea major preoccupationfor CGIAR centers. Even if the CGIAR were to reallocate all its resourcesto strengtheningnational systems,that would be a fraction of what was required and of activities already undertakenby others. Severalmembersof the Group arguedthat what the CGIAR system could contribute most to the strengtheningof national programswould come as a result of continued excellenceand focus in researchat CGIAR centers.This would open the way to more collaboration with national systemsand devolution of responsibilities to them wherever feasible over time. Ecological Issues: Under this broad rubric, strong support was statedfor the need to meld an emphasison natural resourcemanagement into the CGIAR researchagenda.This did not mean, however, that the emphasison productivityoriented commodity researchshould diminish. Each should be as strong as the other. Severaldelegatesacknowledgedthat the ecological approachin national and international circles was part of a discernible political trend. It was half-facetiously said that if the CGIAR changedits nameby substituting natural resourcemanagementfor agriculture, it would immediately have accessto more sourcesof funds than at present. Respondingto “ecological trends”was nevertheless legitimate, delegatespointed out, becauseproductivityoriented researchwould be only partially effective if it did not take into account the need to protect the natural resources on which productivity depends. Commodities: The Group urged that a researchfocus on food commodities of importance should continue. There are a set of major cerealsthat are critically important on the global sceneand to developing countries. A strong concern was expressedthat the CGIAR should be cautious about significantly altering the commitment to thosecrops until alternatesourcesof supply were identified and fully understood. Delegatessuggestedthat the CGIAR systemcould explore further whether it should maintain a priority for commodities of subsidiary importance,or whether responsibility for researchinto those commodities should devolve to other researchsystems. Regions: The Group recognized that there were research needsof an international characterin each of the regions 4

surveyedby TAC. They could not, however, agreeon the relative weightagethat should be given to eachregion. In particular, divergent views were expressedas to whetheror not the CGIAR should increaseits researchefforts in Africa - to the possible detriment of programsin Asia. Resources: A thread running through the entire discussion was the issueof funds for research,the continuing diminution of OverseasDevelopmentAssistancefunds and the need to match resourcesupply with demand.
Next Steps

TAC will revise its draft on the basis of discussionsat ICW91, and continuing consultation with other components of the CGIAR system as well as with national programs. TAC’ s proposedtiming is to place a final set of recommendations before the Group at the next (May 1992) mid-term meeting. If the Group endorsesthoserecommendations, TAC would then convert priorities into resourceallocation targetsand start the secondround of five-year programsand budgets. TAC CHAIRMAN’ S REPORT Mr. McCalla reportedbriefly on some of the main TAC activities that did not appearas separateitems on the ICW9 1 agenda.Theseincluded: . discussionsof strategicplans with centers, . resourceallocation, . center reviews, and . information management in the CGIAR system. Mr. McCalla said that TAC had interactionswith five centerson strategicplans: CIP, INIBAP, ICRAF, ICLARM and IFPRI. Broadly speaking,he said, TAC’ s responseto the strategicplans brought to its attention by centerswas to ask whether eachcenter could undertakeall it had listed and, if that seemeddoubtful, how it proposedto focus its efforts on what neededdoing as a matter of priority and could actually be accomplished. TAC had continued to examine the appropriaterelationship betweenpriority setting and resourceallocation. This was done particul~ly through the Standing Committee on ResourceAllocation. In a connectedactivity, TAC had benefitted from a constructive interaction with the CGIAR Secretariaton capital issuesin the CGIAR. Mr. McCalla reported that 12 reviews of centerswere in various stagesof process.As always, each review would be placedbefore the Group for discussionand assessment when completed. A working paper on information serviceshad been discussed,and TAC would support an initiative by center directors to organizea meeting on common interestsas well as problems in this generalarea.

TAC had engagedin productive discussionswith center directors and board chairs on plant genetic resourcesand on intellectual property rights. Mr. McCalla referred to past TAC assessments of coconut as a possible subject of CGIAR involvement and said that he welcomed efforts by IBPGR to develop a coconut germplasmnetwork. He paid tribute to the quality and quantity of the work carried out by membersof TAC, the TAC Secretariatand their colleaguesin the CGIAR Secretariat.He placed on record his appreciationof the strong working relationship that had developedbetweenTAC and the CGIAR Secretariat. He said that linkages with center directors and board chairs continued to improve to the benefit of the system. The Group commendedMr. McCalla and his colleaguesin TAC, the TAC Secretariat,and the CGIAR Secretariat,for their professionalism,their senseof dedication and for their ability and willingness to carry an ever-increasingworkload. They took note of Mr. McCalla’ s assessment that expansion of the TAC Secretariathad helped them to carry out the tasks assignedto them by the Group. The FAO cosponsorcommendedTAC and the TAC Secretariatfor the quality and quantity of its work. He pointed out, however, that the attendantrise in costs was an incipient problem for FAO. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF BOARD CHAIRPERSONS (CBC) Mr. Fred Hutchinson, Chairman, CBC, reporting on the activities of the committee, recapitulatedits main activities and its interaction with directors generalas well as with other elementsof the CGIAR system. He describedthe period underreview as a good year within the CBC and within the CGIAR system. In addition to their own meetings in Paris and in Washington, the CBC had held a number of joint meetingsor consultationswith others within the system,engagingin a constructive exchangeof views. Mr. Hutchinson said that the composition of the CBC was more stable than in the past with only one memberdue to leave in 1991.The CBC now included three new members from the centersrecently admitted into the CGIAR. A central point of the CBC Chairman’ s report was a proposal that a new CGIAR strategy should be preparedfor review at ICW92. The CBC supportedthe priorities outlined by TAC but felt that a clear cut strategyfor the systemwas overdue. They were not seeking a “strategic plan” but a strategythat defines and targets the system’ s mandate,and provides the meansby which the system could be adequatelyfunded to carry out that mandate. The CBC’ s view was that such a statementof strategy should be collectively devised within the system. A represen-

tative group should be establishedwith the specific responsibility of undertakingthis task. A “steering committee”could be createdto guide the process. Mr. Hutchinson reported that following on earlier discussions by the Group, all center boards had agreedon term limitations for center directors. The acceptedpolicy, with exceptionsunder unusualcircumstances,was that a director generalwould serve a maximum of two five-year terms with an evaluation before the end of the first term. The CBC and CDC (consisting of directors general)had agreedto repeatthe 1988 comparator-based study of the salariesand benefits of directors general. The CBC endorsedthe continuation of the Candidate Information Service (CIS) at the CGIAR Secretariatas one of the mechanismsthat could help boardsreach their objective of continuously improving performance.The CIS could be reviewed in two or three years to ensureits longterm effectiveness. The CBC appreciatedthe need for a comprehensive review and planning processwithin the CGIAR system,Mr. Hutchinson said, but shareda strong concern with center directors at the high “opportunity costs”associatedwith external reviews, strategicplans and mid-term plans. The existing system neededto be modified so as to remove a potentially seriousimpediment to scientific productivity at the centers. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CENTER DIRECTORS (CDC) Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, CDC, extendedspecial thanks to Mr. Thalwitz for a distinguishedthough short chairmanship of the CGIAR. Center directors appreciatedhis wise counseland clear guidancein a period of some uncertainty. Center directors working as a group had beenactive in a number of areas,and some of the results of that activity would come up at ICW9 1. Theseincluded public awareness programs,preparationsfor UNCED, intellectual property rights (IPR), fund raising and attemptsto improve communicationsbetweenCGIAR centersand donors. In carrying out theseactivities, center directors had interactedclosely with other componentsof the CGIAR system, thus contributing to a growing senseof cohesion. Mr. Walsh reportedthat TAC had consultedcenter directors in connectionwith the priority setting exercisethat was the centerpieceof the ICW9 1 agenda.From the center directors’perspective,the draft priorities paper was an important element in system-wideefforts to redefine CGIAR priorities but it was not all inclusive. Severaladditional dimensionsneededto be accommodated within the matrix of priorities. These included supply side issuesconnectedwith resourceallocation, Mr. Walsh said. Mr. Walsh informed the Group that center directors had endorsedthe need for the formulation of a coherent,system5

wide strategy. This would require agreementon the choice of a strategicniche in which the system had a comparative advantageand could function effectively. Center directors and board chairpersonshad establisheda steeringcommittee on strategy,Mr. Walsh said. Responding to inquiries from the Group, he said that the steeringcommittee was meant to move the strategy-settingprocessforward, and to work in coordination with others such as TAC and the CG Secretariatthat were also active in this area. Continuing efforts by CGIAR centersto strengthentheir relationshipswith national agricultural researchsystems (NARS), particularly in Africa, were commendedby the Group. Mr. Walsh said that the trend already establishedby center directors would be further advancedwhen centerdirectors and leadersof Sub-Saharan NARS conduct a policy dialogue during the next (June 1992) meeting of the CDC. Reporting further, Mr. Walsh said that the CDC strongly supportedthe need for periodic reviews of CGIAR centers but was concernedabout the high “opportunity costs”of the presentsystem. The Group welcomed the formulation of draft principles on IPR and suggestedthe need for early agreementon this issue. FORESTRY RESEARCH IN THE CGIAR The Group approvedstepstaken so far by ACIAR towards setting up a forestry researchentity within the CGIAR. ACIAR was named as the implementing agencyfor this decision at the Paris mid-term meeting (May 1991)when the Group decided that agroforestry researchshould be entrusted to ICRAP, and forestry researchto a new entity. Each would be expectedto work in close consultation with the other. At ICW9 1 the Group discusseda paper submitted by ACIAR outlining the progressthat has been madesince the mid-term meeting. Highlights of the paper were outlined by Mr. Ian Bevege who led ACIAR’ s implementation team. He said that while ACIAR was the Group’ s implementing agencyit had not acted alone but had received significant and substantialsupport from acrossthe CGIAR system.He was particularly appreciativeof support from the CGIAR Secretariat. Mr. Bevege said that establishmentof the new entity would be jointly sponsoredby a number of governmentsthat are CGIAR members,to guaranteeits international character. Progresshas been made in preparing a draft constitution, and a searchhas begun for candidateswho could serve on its board of trustees. Priority areasof researchthat will be pursuedby the forestry entity include: . Germplasmexploration . Selection breeding and improvement of tree species 6

Improved management of natural forests Improved productivity of forest plantations Ecosystemdynamics . Utilization and managementoptions for lesserknown forest products . Policy and marketing research. Proposalswere being developedas well on the forestry entity’ s likely activities in the areaof researchinformation, management and training. In all preparationsfor establishingthe new entity, special emphasisis being given to developing a mode of operation compatible with the concept of a “Center Without Walls” as suggested at the mid-term meeting. The new center will at least initially rely heavily on contractual and collaborative researcharrangements with regional and national research institutions. The broad guideline that about 70 percent of the resourcesof the center would be spent in supportingregional and relevant researchactivities will be maintained. Mr. Bevege sought the Group’ s guidanceon three specific issues:cross-representation on the boardsof ICRAF and the new center, its location and its name. Issuesraised by the Group focusedprimarily on location, the speedwith which it would be possible to move ahead with the developmentof a specific researchagendaand the suggested nameof the center. It was agreedby consensus that the location of the center should be in the Asian region. ACIAR has already identified 12 potential host countries and its paper included a set of criteria for making a selectionfrom among them. Despite the acknowledgeddesirability of moving rapidly aheadwith implementationof researchprograms (to take into account the Group’ s wish that the CGIAR should begin to deal with issuesof tropical deforestationwithout further delay) a note of caution was suggested by ACIAR. It was felt that to proceedtoo rapidly with implementation of ad hoc researchproposalsin advanceof appointmentsto the board of trusteesand of the director genera1 would be inappropriate.However, it was acknowledgedthat much could be done to move aheadby planning researchprograms in specific subject areasso that by the time the board is in place severalpotential researchprojects of possible interest to the center would be in a state of advancedpreparation. Particular emphasiswould be given in this work to building links with existing networks such as the IDRC-financed bamboo/rattannetwork in Asia ACIAR’ s suggestionsfor cross-representation on the boards of ICRAP and the new centerswas that this should be at the chairperson’ s level. The two directors generalcould, however, attend board meetingsof each other’ s institutions when the needclearly arose.ACIAR also hoped for nominations from the CGIAR community for positions on the board. This approachwas endorsed.
l

.
l

ACIAR’ s suggestedname for the center was “International Forestry ResearchInstitute (IFRI)“. After considerable debateabout the risks of confusion betweenIFRI and IFPRI it was decided to canvassthe Group on alternative names. About 15 options were received. By consensusthe most popular support was for CIFOR, the Center for International Forestry Research. CENTER PRESENTATIONS CIMMYT Introducing the CIMMYT presentation,Board Chair Burton Matthews announcedthat CIMMYT had introduceda systematic,internally-managedexternal review process involving teams of internationally recognizedagricultural scientists. The third of thesereviews was begun last month; this one is examining wheat crop management and physiology research. He announced,too, that CIMMYT will mark its 25th anniversarywith a mini-symposium in Mexico featuring International Agricultural Research:The Next 25 Years. Director General Don Winkelmann focused his presentation on impact and relevance,broaderrelationshipswith the NARS, new products and financial circumstances. In 1990,CIMMYT initiated an extensive survey of national programsin developing countries. According to thesedata, nearly 1,000 open-pollinatedmaize varieties and hybrids and over 1,300 wheat varieties, exclusive of varieties in China, were releasedduring the period under review. Nearly half of all the maize releasesare adaptedto the lowland tropics and for wheat over 80 percentare spring breadwheats.A rising percentageof all wheat releasesare semidwarfsand nearly all semidwarf spring breadwheats have CIMMYT germplasmin their pedigrees. In maize, about half of the varieties and hybrids releasedby national programssince 1965 contain appreciableamountsof CIMMYT germplasm. Since the late 1960s the areain semidwarf wheatshas increasedsteadily at about two million hectaresper year; they now cover nearly 50 million hectaresand accountfor some90 percent of wheat production in developing countries. The most popular variety, Sonalika, releasedin 1968, is still being grown on more than 6 million hectaresin Asia. However, more varieties, each adoptedover more limited areas,are beginning to be seen.This is an important and healthy trend becauseit adds to the genetic diversity representedin farmers’fields. The impact of CIMMYT’ s maize researchis less farreaching. However, over 7.5 million hectaresare planted with varieties related to CIMMYT germplasm. Materials appropriatefor all major environmentsand diseasethreats are available.

Yield potential has increasedat an averageannualrate of 1 percent,even in the face of mutating diseasepathogens becauseof the continued efforts in resistancebreeding. Mr. Winkelmann went on to discussthe beneficiariesof this impact. In addition to the farmers, the whole economy benefits as increasedproductivity in agriculture generates new income streamsand consumersenjoy more plentiful suppliesof grain at lower prices. And there are significant environmentalbenefits from the widespreaduse of modem varieties. Becauseof yield increases, 47 million hectaresof land did not have to be cultivated; much of this land would have beenin more fragile areas. The improved disease-and insect-resistance of modem varieties also reducesthe need for potentially harmful chemicals. The cornerstoneof CIMMYT’ s researchenterpriseis collaboration with national programs. He cited two examples: the work underway on sustainingthe productivity of Asia’ s immenserice-wheat rotation is a collaborative effort with IRRI and four national programs-Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan; and the new thrust in training at the entry-level for crop management. The first six-month training courseon maize crop management was conductedin Kenya with instructors from Edgerton University, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and CIMMYT. Training emphasizedonfarm work and sensitivity to the environment and participants were exposedto all facets of on-station and on-farm crop management research. CIMMYT believes that this decentralizedtraining is an effective option for satisfying the need for qualified agronomists in national programs. A similar coursefor wheat crop management was initiated with ‘ theArgentine national program in July of this year and other negotiationsare underway. What about the future? Impact in the ’ 90s will result mainly from work initiated in the ’ 80s which is now coming to fruition. New products include wheat germplasmwith durableresistanceto leaf rust, currently the most devastating diseaseaffecting the crop; and maize germplasmsuited to mid-altitudes, which comprise eight million hectaresin SubSaharanAfrica. There is also good progresstoward drought tolerancein maize. He concludedhis presentationwith some commentson financing. With budget constraintsand Mexican inflation, CIMMYT restrained‘ 89 and ‘ 90 spending,stretching out some spendingthrough ‘ 91 and into ‘ 92. Support and international staff were reducedby 10 percent. Unless 1992 budgetsare met, essentialactivities will need to be cut and staff reducedby another 10 to 15 percent. Maize and wheat will be relatively more important to the developing world in a decadethan they are today. Demandsfor productive, environment-sustaining technologieswill be stronger. Alternative sourcesof supply for serviceslike those offered by CIMMYT will be only marginally better. 7

Questionsabout triticale, the quality of grains for breadmakingand early yields were raised. Mr. Winkelmann respondedthat it is time for triticale to make its mark and they would be looking closely at this issue. He said that breadmakingquality is consideredwhen varieties are being selected. Other questionsfocused on the role of the private sector in hybrids and varieties, considerationof the value of straw and low levels of inputs when selecting varieties. Delegates askedwhether CIMMYT was changingits strategiesin regard to an ecological approach,what shareof activities it intendedto passon to the NARS and how biotechnology is being incorporatedinto CIMMYT’ s research. Mr. Winkelmann said that the private sector will continue to do a good job with maize hybrids and until wheat can be hybridized not much will happenin the private sector. Straw value is factored in and the breedingprogram in Zimbabwe is looking at a low-nitrogen strategywith some surprising results. As to the ecoregionalapproach,CIMMYT has featured the mega-environmentconcept in organizing plant breeding; there are ten for wheat and many more for maize. He pointed out that training was an example of devolution to NARS. He explained that national systemswant three benefits from international agricultural research.They are going to want to know that the program is stable, that the program has scientific credibility and that the program will be even-handed in the distribution of its product. Biotech is the fastestgrowing part of CIMMYT, Mr. Winkelmann said, with visiting scientistsand post-doctorals and staff all looking at ways to make conventional breeding more efficient and more rapid. On the question of whether crop management researchwas yielding useful results, he said that while there are some outstandingsuccesses, overall better results could be achieved. Asked how CIMMYT incorporateslocal indigenous knowledge in maize cultivation, he said that CIMMYT’ s major sourcesof local knowledge are the national programs and data gained through field visits.
C/P

Board Chair Lindsay Innes and Director GeneralHubert Zandstra,both of whom took office on May 1, dealt with issuesconnectedwith finance, and the center’ s headquarterssite environment. Mr. Innes discussedthe difficulties of managingCIP’ s financesbecauseof the problems of inflation. As a consequenceCIP finished with a $340,000deficit in 1990. Mr. Zandstrahad taken effective measuresto reduceexpenditures, in part by reducing staff members,with the result that CIP staff is now almost below a critical mass. TAC, however, was unable to recommendthe necessaryincreasein CIP’ s 1992 budget to meet their approvedresearchprogram
8

plus the necessaryincreasefor higher security costs and for hyperinflation. CIP consequentlyfaces a shortfall of $2 million. Strong efforts are also being made to raise extra funding. Although the security situation in Lima has not changed significantly over the past three years, there seemsreasonto believe that it is improving gradually. Insurgency activities in the vicinity of Huancayoresulted in a significant reduction of work at the high altitude experiment station and altemative sites have been developedin Cajamarcain the northern highlandsof Peru and in Quito, Ecuador. Dealing with CIP’ s headquarters-site environment, Mr. Zandstrasaid that structural adjustmentof the Peruvian economy was causinga lot of pain and difficulty, particularly for the local staff. The center faced a loss of purchasingpower of 40 percent. Meanwhile, CIP’ s local operating costs doubled from 1988 to 1991.He enumeratedthe cost-cutting measuresthat had beenimplemented. During 1991, $1.7 million had beencut. Part of the savingswas from a reduction of international staff positions. No major headquarterexpansionis projected although some equipmentand facilities may need to be adaptedto accommodatebiotechnology. Mr. Innes and Mr. Zanclstrarecordedtheir appreciationof the strong cooperationreceived from all staff. Peruvian staff had borne many difficulties in a resoluteand extremely loyal fashion. Introducing CIP’ s researchprogram, Mr. Zandstrasaid that he had inherited from his predecessor Richard Sawyer a very functional center with excellent work habits and financial management habits, an excellent researchprogram, and a highly decentralized,highly participatory institutional model. He paid tribute to Carlos Ochoa and TamasaQuispe for their substantialand significant contribution to UP’ s research. Mr. Zandstraoutlined severalof the key strategic issues relevant to CIP’ s progress: biotechnology and the needto collaboratewith the private sector: UP’ s pursuit of clearly defined impact; and the challengesof sustainability. CIP’ s two commodities, potato and sweetpotato, behave quite differently. Potato production has been rising at a rate of 5 percentper year through both area expansionand yield increase. Since the early ’ 70s sweet potato production has been stagnant. However, both crops can combine in a wide range of production systems,often through intercropping and sequentialcropping, and they both tolerate shadewell. Highvalue potato products allow it to competeexcellently with many cereals. Mr. Zandstrasaid that UP’ s program was devisedin terms of six constraint-based thrusts: production systems, germplasmmanagement and diseasemanagement, insect and nematodemanagement, propagationand crop management, post-harvestmanagement, and marketing. Resourceallocation will increasein the areasof crop and soil management and post-harvestmanagement and over time an increasefor sweetpotatoesso that the ratio will eventually be 60 to 40 betweenpotato and sweet potato.

CIP’ s potato researchstrategywill continue to maintain a healthy commodity focus, with emphasison area expansion and cost reduction, particularly through reduction of the dependencyof potatoeson chemicals and a reduction of the cost of seedmaterials. Sweetpotato strategyfocuseson increasingyields and sweetpotato utilization becausesweet potato is a highly nutritious crop and versatile in its usesfor both human and livestock consumption. Mr. Zandstraillustrated some of CIP’ s integratedpest management techniquesfor both host plant resistanceand for biological control. He introduced the hairy potato which was developedin collaboration with Cornell University and the Italian government. Two potato varieties being evaluatedin northern Africa show resistanceto a wide range of insects becauseof the sticky substance associatedwith the hairs on the potato leavesand stems. Some 70 food crops have been domesticatedover the years in the High Andes. CIP proposesto mount a rescueeffort to collect, clean up, protect, evaluateand make available the material for eight of theseroot and tuber crops that were recently highlighted in a SmithsonianInstitution exhibit emphasizingthe contribution of Latin America to the world in food crops. Thesecrops are grown in complex production systemsin this High Andean ecoregion. CIP’ s strategywill focus on achieving a better understandingof this basically orphanedecoregionwhich is populatedby some of the world’ s poorest people and has extreme land management and sustainability problems. Mr. Zandstra thanked ISNAR Director GeneralChris Bonte-Friedheimfor ISNAR’ s help in formulating CIP’ s six year plan and budget through their effective methodology used in national programs. He closed by saying that the strategy is designedto make CIP’ s unique decentralized,highly participatory institutional model function better. The focus is on an impact-driven thrust and project-planning mechanism. CIP will increase participatory center management, seek to improve women’ s participation in research,and will increasingly move to ecoregional-based project planning. Respondingto questions,Mr. Zandstra said it was premature to comment in detail on TAC’ s low ranking of potato and sweet potato in the priorities study. They would be discussingwith TAC some of the assumptionson which TAC’ s assessments were basedin order to reach a common understandingabout the numbersthat go into the methodology for priority setting. Asked for more detail about CIP’ s proposal for the High Andes, Mr. Zandstra said CIP would like to use complementary funding initially and this will require quick action becauseevents are changing very fast in that ecoregion.On anotherpoint raised by a delegate,he said that CIP does not currently seethe demandsfor sweet potato increasing. However, becauseof its unique biological potential and its high nutritional qualities, its importance might increasein

the long run. He acknowledgedthat greatersynthesiswas required betweenAVRDC and CIP in their work on the sweetpotato weevil. CIP is talking with donorsabout the possibility of funding for special activity in Asia to test this. CIP is seekingmore efficient ways to gain accessto often protected,technological resourcesin private enterprisein order to make them available to the national research systems. On the possibility of CIP’ s likely interaction with Eastern Europe, Mr. Zandstrasaid that CIP is in contact with countries of that region to sharescientific information, respondto requestsfor genetic materials,and provide training opportunities. Mr. Zandstraclosed by stating that CIP was contemplating the developmentof a biosafety facility; that this was not going to be a building, but a capability.
ICARDA

Introducing ICARDA’ s presentation,Board Chair Enrico Porcedducommentedon the severity of the problems of the West Asia and North Africa (WANA) region which is no longer capableof feeding itself and today imports more food per personthan any other region of the world. Population is growing rapidly and with only 8 percent of the region’ s land being arable, the threat of an environmentalcatastrophedue to overgrazingand water depletion is looming large. Director GeneralNasrat Faddapresentedbackground information on ICARDA and its location in an area with a rangeof ecological zonesand long history of agricultural production, The WANA region covers some23 countries with 8 percentarableland, 22 percent steppeand the remaining as desertsor semi-deserts.To meet future food demandsfor the area,FAO has estimatedthat only 7 percent can come from an increasein arable land, 21 percentmay be possible from more intensive cropping patterns,leaving 72 percent to be achievedby increasingproductivity. This meansa sustainedincreaseof over 5 percenta year which has not beenattainedin modem agricultural history. Although food self sufficiency seemsunlikely in this century, food self reliance can be enhancedthrough a combination of new technology,better farm practices,more favorable governmentpolicies and a more rational land use pattern. Against this background,ICARDA has to meet the challenge imposedby harsh, stressful and highly variable environmentsin which the productivity of rainfed agricultural systemsmust be increasedto higher sustainablelevels, in which soil degradationmust be arrested,and in which the quality of the environment is ensured. ICY&DA’ s researchis currently organizedaround three multidisciplinary commodity programs: cereals,legumesand pastureand foraging livestock, and a farm resourcemanage9

ment program which integratesthe commodity work with wider socioeconomicaspectsof farming and sustainability of the resourcebase. The work is done within a context of a three dimensional structure involving an ecological dimension, a commodity thrust and an activity level or projectbasedmatrix. This work is carried out in five major zones: deserts,steppeand native pasture,barley-livestock, wheatbasedfarming and highland zones. ICARDA has opted to concentrateon the intermediate ecologieswith a rainfall of 300 to 400 millimeters. However, ICARDA is also giving more attention to the dryer areasand the highlandsbecauseeven though less promising, they are so extensive in the region that a small increasein their productivity would have a substantialimpact on total production. As part of this new thrust the Iranian govemment has agreedto finance a highland researchproject near Tabriz, the original proposedsite for a highland station. In the commodity arena,ICARDA’ s main thrust is on food legumes. Both lentil and chickpea are vital componentsin rotations that sustaincereal crop yields and are potentially important in crop livestock interactions.Becauseof the rising demandfor livestock products and the crucial place of animals in the farming systemsof WANA, ICARDA will expandits work on sheepand extend it to goats. Seven integrative activities are central to theseprogramsagroecologicalcharacterization,germplasmconservation, germplasmenhancement, farm resourcemanagement, training and networking, information disseminationand impact assessment. ICARDA has basedits work on agroecologiesprimarily within a regional context. Insteadof having cereal, food legume and other programs,it could restructureits research programsfor the pasturesteppe,the wheat-basedsystem, mixed farming systemsand the highlands. Its mandate might have to be widened to include other elementsneeded for the comprehensivestudy of each zone, such as other crops grown in crop rotations and other practicessuch as irrigation and supplementalirrigation in the dryer zones. In the ensuing discussion,delegatessought information on ICARDA’ s relations with other centers,and with national programs. The apparentrestrictivenessof ICARDA’ s current mandate,and the impact of a shortfall in system funding were raised as well. Questionswere askedabout researchin the steppeareas,irrigation and supplemental irrigation, the need for policy on socioeconomicissues,and the possible role of oilseed crops. Some delegatesinquired whether ICARDA is planning any interaction with the republics of the southernSoviet Union and other countries of southernEurope. Mr. Faddaaffirmed that ICARDA had a very close relationship with the NARS, meeting annually with practically every country. Work on dryer areasand the steppeare a declaredobjective and a better understandingof the socioeconomicissuesin theseareasis needed. The current 10

mandatedoesnot preclude ICARDA from working on oilseedsas part of a cropping pattern. The current mandate has to be consideredin terms of the group of centersrather than individually; other centerswork in the areaas well and there is teamwork on theseprojects. In dealing with budgetaryconstraints,ICARDA has not changedthe philosophy or the approach,the timetable has been shifted. Changesmust be phasedin over a period of time. There does not seemto be antagonismbetweenthe ecoregionalconceptand the commodity approach;it is a matter of emphasisrather than exclusion. Mr. Faddareported that three years ago ICARDA formalized relations with the Soviet Union for mutual cooperation. Joint collecting missions have been conducted,with the Russiansfocusedon drought toleranceand ICARDA on cold tolerance. More than 25 visiting scientists from Russiahave spenttime at ICARDA. Last summer an intercentergroup visited the Soviet Union and a range of activities on which to cooperatewas identified. There have also been inquiries from two East Europeancountries asking for assistance with their agricultural researchsystems. This could be an intercenteractivity. Mr. Porcedduinformed the Group that ICARDA accepts the interim management review in its entirety.
l

ICRAF

Board Chair GeorgeHolmes, introducing ICRAF’ s first presentationas a CGIAR member, thanked the Group for inviting ICRAF into the CGIAR system. As Chairmanof the Bellagio Forestry Task Force which reported to the Group in 1988 on how to strengtheninternational researchon the problems of tropical deforestationand sustainableuse of forest land, he was personally pleasedthat the Group had moved aheadwith two centers,ICRAF and the proposed new forestry entity. His vision and that of the Board’ s is that the two centerswill quickly develop a closely integrated researchprogram on forestry and agroforestry worldwide, involving many institutions and demonstratingdifferent ways of getting things done. Mr. Holmes reportedfour major decisionsrecently made by the Board. First, the Board approvedthe discussionpaper “ICRAF in the CGIAR: The Way Ahead”as the new draft strategicplan. Second,they amendedthe charter of ICRAF to re-nameit as the International Center (not Council) for Researchin Agroforestry. Third, they acknowledgedthe possiblerole of ICRAF as an ecoregionalcenter. Fourth, they approvedthe program and budget for 1992 which is the first action to be taken on the strategicplan which provides for expansioninto Latin America and Asia. He noted the increasedlevel of funding required in order to begin to addressthe researchagendanow expectedof ICRAF. Mr. Pedro Sanchez,ICRAF’ s new Director General, openedhis presentationby quoting the Board’ s definition of ICRAF’ s purpose: “to mitigate tropical deforestation,land

depletion, and rural poverty through improved agroforestry systems.” He said that ICRAF planned to focus its work on thesetwo major problems of tropical deforestationand accompanyingenvironmental concernsrelated to biodiversity; to examine climate changein the humid tropics; and to addressthe problems of gross land depletion in the subhumid and semiarid tropics. ICRAF currently has senior staff stationedin 16 countries in Africa through agroforestryresearchnetworks (AFRENAS) and intends to begin collaborative researchin the humid tropics of Latin America and Asia in 1992. In the subhumid tropics, the center will concentrateits efforts primarily in Africa, in the easternand central highlands,as well as in the plateau of southernAfrica where there is already an investment of resources. And in the semiarid tropics, collaboration with ICRISAT and the Sahelian countries will be continued and strengthened. ICRAF has five researchprograms. Land use system analysis concentrates on land resourceevaluations,Geographical Information System (GIS) methodologies,biophysical and socioeconomicevaluation and data base developmentand maintenance. Mr. Sanchezsaid the center was proud to presentthis year its multipurpose tree and shrub data basecompiled in collaboration with German agencies. The germplasmprogram, called the multipurposetree selection improvement in management, concentrates on selection,including conservation. He cited the needfor a physical germplasmcenter in order to provide seedsand planting materials to their collaborators. The third program, resourcemanagement, covers the very complex interactionsbetweentrees,crops, livestock and people that must be managedin a way that is to the farmer’ s benefit. He indicated that ICRAF would be addressingthe problem of understandingthe systems,the competition for light and in the soil for water and nutrients, by using already establishednutrient recycling programs. ICRAF’ s assessments improvement program is new and will look at alternatives to slashand bum and reclamation of abandonedlands through the use of agroforestry in the humid tropics. Overcoming land depletion will be the focus in the subhumid tropics and in the semiarid tropics woodlands will be studied. He went on to give specific examples of approaches and systemsthat ICRAF will be researching. The socioeconomicprogram, also referred to as policy adopting and impact research,provides feedbackto all of the other programsby looking at land tenure,tree tenure,gender issues,and adoption dynamics and constraints. Mr. Sanchez went on to highlight ICRAF’ s training effort which involves severalprograms. It is a strong well-establishedprogram concentratedin Africa and will expand to Latin America and Asia through collaborative agreements with new partners.

In answeringquestionsthat followed his presentation,Mr. Sanchezstressedthat ICRAF’ s priorities are very much in line with the CGIAR’ s priorities of a regional focus on the humid tropics, subhumidand semiarid tropics. ICRAF’ s activities break down as follows: natural resourcemanagement, 30 percent; germplasm,21 percent; sustainable production systems, 11 percent;policy and so&economics, 13 percent;and strengtheningNARS, 25 percent. These figures are within three to four points of TAC’ s priorities for 2010, he pointed out. The most critical issue for ICRAF is finance, Mr. Sanchez explained,becausethe center is in a growth pattern in order to be global and to do strategicresearch. Some funding is generatedfor the AFRENAS from restricted core and from local resources. Researchis 55 percentof the total budget and 50 percentof the staff is postedaway from the headquarters. IBSRAM is mentionedas a potential collaborator and ICRAF is willing to collaboratewith anybody who has common interests. Agreementwith IITA has been established and the consortium of CATIE, IICA, and CIAT has invited ICRAF to join them. Dealing with the question of strategicresearch,Mr. Sanchezsaid that ICRAF would pursuegood researchthat meetsboth a strategicand an applied need. The work with AFRENAS will continue to be participatory. On breeding versusselection,probably more can be done with selection with breedingusedfor only very specific sites, he said. In working in Latin America collaborative arrangements will be stressed. “We don’ t intend to build buildings. We intend to have a small critical massof ICRAF people assignedto a place where the action is, a place where you can walk out and face the problem right away.” In Asia, ICRAF will want to link up with the successfulagroforestry networks such as F/ FRED and some of the ACIAR activities. The coastalareas will probably come under the new forestry entity because ICRAF’ s mandateis to work in areaswhere treesare togetherwith crops and animals. Sanchezclosed by saying that the collaborationsat the working level betweenICRAF and the new forestry entity are excellent. “We have recognized areasof overlaps. We consider them areasof opportunities rather than areasof conflict.”
IIMI

IIMI, one of the centersthat enteredthe CGIAR systemin the ICW90 expansionexercise,made its first presentationas a CGIAR center. Board Chair David Bell, placing IIMI in its new context, conveyedto the Group the Board’ s pleasure that IIMI had been admitted into the CGIAR. He announced that he would be succeeded in Januaryby a well-known CGIAR figure, Mr. M.S. Swaminathan. 11

Mr. Roberto Lenton, Director General,explaining the importanceof irrigation to global food production said that currently 2.5 billion people are supportedby irrigated agriculture. The growth rate for irrigated agriculture will need to be 3 percent per year to meet demandsby the year 2000. The potential for increasedproduction by irrigation is threatenedby deteriorating water suppliesdue to skymcketing usageand the low efficiency of most irrigation systems. Irrigation systemsvary widely in size and design, Even those in areaswith abundantwater suppliesoperatefar below expectedlevels of productivity, equity and sustainability. Water is often unevenly distributed, delivery rarely correspondsin quality and timing to the farmers’crop requirementsand in many systemswaterlogging and salinity induced by irrigation are threateningthe sustainability of irrigated agriculture, Irrigation managementhasbeen largely neglectedin the researchagenda. Even those countries that have well-establishednational commodity researchsystems do not have an equivalent national irrigation management researchcapacity. Against this background,six issueshave beengiven highest researchpriority: howto develop practical meansfor measuringthe performanceof irrigation systems; how to improve the delivery of water for irrigation; how to bring about changein irrigation organizations; how to improve the policies and overall institutional arrangements that govern irrigated agriculture; how to help farmers participate effectively in irrigation management and how to insure that the productivity, incomes and quality of life of low-income farmers,and especially women, can be enhancedthrough better irrigation; and how to develop stronger links betweenthe requirements of irrigation managementand the elementsof sustainable environmental use. In pursuit of thesepriorities, IIMI conductscollaborative researchwith colleaguesfrom developing countries to seek environmentally sound and lasting improvementsin irrigation managementin actual settings. Through training and disseminationactivities, as well as collaborative research,IIMI is helping to build national irrigation researchand managementcapacity. About half of IIMI’ s scientistsare outpostedin field offices situatedin key countries in the developing world. ConsequentlyIIMI’ s relationshipswith national programsare close and effective. The field staff is complementedby a multidisciplinary group of headquarters-based staff, whose primary purposeis to pull togetherdisparatelessonslearnedfrom many settingsand within a coherentthematic program to develop generic information of practical use to the irrigation community. Mr. Lenton highlighted some of IIMI’ s accomplishments over the last sevenyears by reviewing three projects: managinga large-scaleirrigation project in Pakistan to 12

minimize waterlogging and salinity; the global research network on farmer-managed irrigation systems(FMIS) that assistssmall-scaleirrigation systems;and the unique opportunity afforded IIMYIby its host country, Sri Lanka, to assistin the developmentof policies on irrigated agriculture and their implementation. Referring to IIMI’ s organizationaldevelopmentand future needs,he said that the center should continue for several years at its current stageof substantialannualgrowth. It needsbadly to achievea better balancebetweenunrestricted and restricted funding. Currently its unrestrictedfunding is only about 25 percent,which limits IIMI from selectinga major shareof its own researchagenda. Delegatesexpressed concern over the deteriorationof large-scale,supply-driven, public-sector-managed irrigation systemsand askedhow soon IIMI might have an overall comprehensive plan to deal with these. Severalquestions were asked about IIMI’ s collaboration with other institutions and international centers,particularly the International Programon Researchand Technology in Irrigation and Drainage(IPRTID), housedat the World Bank. Bank representativeMichel Petit said that IIMI’ s collaboration with IPRTID seemedto be exemplary and that in the future it might be appropriateto fold IPRTID into IIMI. Mr. Lenten said that the specific linkages with IPRTID were at the Board level with observerstatus. He indicated that IIMI also had good relations with other organizationsin developed countries, for example in France,Japan,and the Netherlands. More opportunities for similar collaboration were anticipated,following IIMI’ s inclusion in the CGIAR. Two CGIAR members,Germany and the United States,have appointedscientiststo liaise with IIMI scientists. Other questionsincluded whether IIMI was looking at the questionof recycling drainagewater, the number of outpostedstaff necessaryfor a project to be operational, whether IIMI was planning any work in Latin America, the relationship of the Pakistanprogram with other IIMI activities, and how to assessthe impact of IIMI’ s Sri Lanka program. The possibility of adapting irrigation systemsdesignedfor rice production to other crops, particularly in Asia, was raised. Delegatesinquired whether IIMI was working with other centersto solve the problems of introducedpest and diseaseregimes and farmers’health issuesat irrigation sites. Information was sought, too, as to whether IIMI would be participating in the conferenceon the use of water for agricultural purposesin Dublin in January. Respondingto some of the points made, Mr. Lenton said that as water becomesmore scarcethere will be more demandfor an integratedapproachtoward water resources and the Dublin meeting would be a vital one in looking at water resourcesbroadly, not just for irrigation management. IIMI has establishedan Irrigation Managementfor Crop Diversification (IMCD) researchnetwork which has a strong level of interest in Asia. The Pakistanwork is comple-

mentedby the thematic work done at headquarters and the results of the Pakistanprogram are integratedinto other country programs. The policy work in Sri Lanka is basedon a long relationship and establishedcredibility, he explained. IIMI has been askedto play a role in implementing these policies as well.
IITA

Board Chair Nicholas Mumba, who introduced the presentation, informed the Group that the much talked about headquarters agreementof IITA was finally gazettedby the FederalGovernmentof Nigeria. Director General Lukas Brader said that IITA was carrying out a well-balancedand productive agendain researchand international cooperation,although budgetarylimitations preventedIITA from operating its full 1989-1993plan. Highlighting progressin crop improvement, Mr. Brader said that IITA was excited about polyploids which double or triple the yield of traditional varieties of cassava. Work continued on cassavagreenmite resistanceand on reducing the level of cyanide in cassava. New yam materials consistently show a 50 percentincrease in production over local varieties. In maize, diseaseresistancework continues to be the focus with good results in striga, downy mildew and streakresistance. The introduction of hybrid maize has increasedmaize production specifically in the northern savannazone. Seedcompaniesare now establishedin Nigeria and in neighboring countries. Various wild specieswith sourcesof resistancehave been identified for cowpea. Material with striga resistanceis about to be introduced to farmers. The increasein soybean production can be attributed to an increasein seedlongevity and to developing varieties that form symbiotic nitrogenfixing nodules without artificial inoculation with nitrogenfixing bacteria. Black sigatoka has been spreadingthrough Africa affecting plantain. IITA has identified sigatoka resistantclones and is now field testing this resistantmaterial. Early results are extremely promising. He affirmed the effective collaboration betweenINIBAP and ETA. In the areaof biological control, a predatory mite of the cassavagreen mite has been releasedand well-establishedin Kenya and Benin and is keeping the pestswell under control. Parasitesare being used in controlling cowpeathrips and parasitesfrom Latin America are being introduced to control the larger grain borer of maize which causeslossesin stored maize. In the crop management program, studieson alternativesto slashand bum agriculture show the need to maintain organic matter in topsoil, maintain continuous crop cover, use only equipmentwith low pressureon the soil, take stepsto loosen compactedsoil, avoid continuous monocropping,use fertilizer judiciously and use disease-resistant crop varieties. IITA is applying theseprinciples in developing systems

which will be sustainableand more productive than slashand bum systems. Mr. Brader said what the researcher needsis a practical yardstick for assessing the relative sustainability of different agricultural systemsand of evaluating the factors that determinesustainability. IITA hasbeen constructing operationalmeasurements which merge biological, physical and economic measuresinto a single economic index, that of total factor productivity. Total factor productivity is defined as the total value of all output producedby the systemduring one cycle divided by the total value of all inputs usedby the systemduring the samecycle. In studying genderissues,data shows that from region to region the number of tasks taken up by women varies considerably. In this connection,Mr. Brader said that in cassavapost-harvesttechnology, the production of gari and other products as a packagewell adaptedto village-level needsis increasingly being adoptedby rural women cooperatives. Processinglosseshave beenreducedby over 54 percent,labor input is reducedby more than 70 percentand fuelwood consumptionis reducedby 30 percent. Mr. Brader indicated that in addition to technology transfer to NARS it is important to provide inputs for strengthening their operationalcapabilities and that further developments in this areaby SPAAR could be useful. He cited the Alley Farming Network for Tropical Africa as a multi-institution, multi-donor effort which has effective cooperativearrangements with 30 NARS in 20 countries. Increasedproduction and consumptionof both soybeanand maize has been noted. Maize is now in 70 percentof the villages. The widespreadintroduction of maize, however, also gives concernbecausethere is a shift from mixed cropping to monocropping,so alternative patternsof cropping maize, particularly by introducing grain legumesin order to get a proper rotation and maintain soil fertility, are being studied. Mr. Brader said the impact of the new technology shown by theseexamplesallowed a bit more optimism about achieving the 4 percentgrowth necessaryin agricultural productivity projected by a recent World Bank report to feed the hungry in Africa. Looking to the future, he said that IITA has initiated a seriesof internal institute-wide seminarson each of the institute’ s areasof focus. This was an opportunity to look at the new priorities and to look at widening the geographic focus of the center in relation to ecoregionalresponsibilities for the humid tropics and moist savannaregions of SubSaharanAfrica and they would be addressingthis in their new medium-termplan. The constraint of time resulted in only a limited discussion of the IITA presentation. Questionsand commentsfocused on IITA collaboration with other centersand the questionof whether the striga resistancewould be durable. Responding, Mr. Brader said that in any ecoregionalapproachthere 13

should be a lead center in the discussionsand cooperation with the NARS. He indicated that center directors are making an excellent proposal for next year’ s meeting of the Center Directors Committee to be held in Africa with all of the researchleadersfrom the NARS in Sub-Saharan Africa being invited to discusstheir problems. From a purely cost effective point of view this is the right direction. With respectto biology and striga, it is a very difficult plant. There is an internal working group on striga that comprisessix staff membersfrom various disciplines and an inter-regional working group bringing together the various African experts and the experts of the other centers,such as ICRISAT and CIMMYT, to review progressand to determine what further researchis needed.
ILCA

Opening the ILCA presentation,Board Chairman Dieter Bommer commendedthe staff who had continued to work even under adversecircumstances. They had confronted seriouschallengesin the past year with dedication and skill. He was pleasedto report that no harm had come to the staff, national and international, and to their families, or to the institute’ s assetsand researchfacilities. A less tenseand difficult period was anticipatedin the days ahead. The Minister of Agriculture from the new interim government had already visited ILCA and good relations are being establishedfrom the beginning. Director GeneralJohn Walsh focused on ILCA’ s partnerships. ILCA is faced with the perennial problem of how to improve livestock production in a continent the size of Africa with so many varying ecological and socioeconomic microenvironments. Thus, he said, forming research alliances that would increasethe center’ s researchor “effective size”is at the heart of ILCA’ s operations. ILCA has concentratedon developing collaborative research networks with NARS in Sub-Saharan Africa. He highlighted ILCA’ s involvement with individual countries through memorandaof agreement,training programsand publishing. ILCA maintains a Sub-Saharan African data basewhich includes information on livestock researchfor Sub-Saharan countries and institutions. Mr. Hank Fitzhugh, Deputy Director Generalfor Research, went on to provide details about some of ILCA’ s research alliances. Researchactivities continue to focus on six thrusts: three dealing with commodities from ruminantsmeat, milk, and traction; and three emphasizingstrategic researchon feed resources,trypanotoleranceand policy and resourcemanagement. About a fourth of ILCA’ s 65 scientistsare located at headquarters and the remainderare at representativeecological sites in sevencountries. ILCA has three types of alliances: joint researchteamsof NARS and ILCA scientistsconducting researchon problems of mutual interest and priority within a country; collaborative 14

researchsupport networks of NARS scientists; and collaborative researchnetworks of ILCA and NARS scientists working together. As examples,Mr. Fitzhugh discussed ILCA’ s joint vertisol project and its forage genetic resources partnership. Mr. Guy D’ Ieteren, leader of ILCA’ s trypanotolerance thrust, illustrated ILCA’ s involvement in collaborative researchnetworks by discussingthe trypanotolemnce network which was establishedin 1983. There are currently six countries where collaborative researchactivities are underway-Senegal, The Gambia, Cote d’ Ivoire, Gabon, Zaire and Ethiopia. Recent researchusing diagnostic tools developedby ILRAD indicate that trypanotoleranceis not only a breed characteristicbut is also a heritable trait. The areascovered in questionsposed to the ILCA team included collaborative work on agrosilvopastoralresearch; the genderissueat ILCA, the center’ s relative emphasison different types of livestock; and whether ILCA’ s research effort adequatelyreflects the conclusion reachedby the Winrock Institute that 50 percentof future meat production in Africa will be from small ruminants. Severalmembersof the Group askedabout ILCA’ s collaboration with the International TrypanotoleranceCenter (ITC), Centre de Recherches sur les Trypanosomoses Anirnales (CRTA) and the many other groups working in this arenaand whether the relationship among all of these groups has been worked out. With so much positive and long-term networking going on what is the outcomeof this networking on strengtheningthe NARS and has ILCA actually reducedits budgetedamount for work with NARS? Does ILCA have contingency plans for mobilizing past researchfindings if a major drought as a result of the El Nino effect hits Sub-Sahamn Africa next year? In respondingto the questions,Mr. Walsh explained that the relationships with ITC, CRTA and other organizations are programmaticrelationships,with eachorganization adding their specific skills. ILCA has had two senior staff postedat ITC as part of the network. Approximately 20 to 25 percentof ILCA’ s budget is directed toward NARS and networking and ILCA intends to expand this if possible. Assessingimpact on networks is difficult; published work is one factor and much of the rest is over a period of time as livestock production improves in the many microenvironmerits as a result of national programs. Mr. Walsh agreedthat genderissuesare important and that their programsare looking at who’ s doing the marketing. However, when it comes to women staff, the percentagefor international staff is 6 percent. Mr. Fitzhugh emphasized that in addition to looking at the roles of men and women, the role of children is also assessed becausethey often play an important role in caring for livestock. ILCA is collaborating with ICRISAT and ICRAF on agrosilvopastoralproduction systemsand has a joint research program in Kenya with the Kenya Agricultural Research

Institute. ILCA also has a long-time associationwith IITA on alley farming in which livestock are incorporatedas part of a system involving multipurpose trees and crops. This has resulted in the developmentof a researchsupport network, FNETA, the alley farming network. The national scientists in this network are often focused on farming systemsin which women are the principals in the farm family. ILCA gives as much attention to small ruminants as cattle if one leavesaside animal traction. And ILCA is working in the semiarid, subhumid and humid zonesand working with all three species. Much of the work is generic acrossall of the specieswhether the researchtopic is nutrient cycling or feed resources.
IRRI

In his opening comments,Board Chair Walter Falcon stressedthat IRRI is today a much leanerorganizationthan it was two years ago. The center has 700 fewer employees. IRRI has put into place a matrix managementsystem that focusesheavily on eco-basedsystemswith increased sensitivity to sustainability issues. IRRI has decentralizedin important ways by devolving some of its activities and it has built strong partnershipswith NARS, both in developedand less-developed countries, on someof the key issuesfacing rice researcharound the world. Important scientific advances have been made in trying to combat the very difficult problem of a yield ceiling that has been almost constant, even perhapsdeclining a bit, at the experimentallevel over the last 20 years. Two new approaches are the development of a new ideotype rice plant and increasedemphasison hybrid rice. Director General Klaus Lampe describedIRRI’ s new goal as improving the well-being of presentand future generations of farmers and consumers,particularly those with low incomes. IRRI’ s policy includes researchrelevance, environmental sustainability, disciplinary strengthand interdisciplinary focus and efficiency and equity. He pointed out that 68 percent of world population is Asian and that 71 percent of the world’ s poor live in Asia. By the year 2020, half of the world population is expectedto live in cities resulting potentially in tremendousurban poverty and severedisturbances. What are the strategic choices in this context, he asked. IRRI is seekinga balanceamong the rice ecosystems, researchingboth irrigated and other ecosystems;among the world regions, even though 90 percent of rice is grown in Asia, IRRI can have an impact in other areas;and between conducting researchand enhancingthe living and working conditions of national agricultural researchsystems. IRRI wants to work with ICRAF in a joint project to avoid or reduceslash and burn to the extent possible.Upland rice farmers who run out of resourcebaseafter destroying the rain forests will becomeurban poor.

Progresshasbeen made in tropical hybrid rice; the ideotype for high-yielding, direct-seededrice has been designed.A protocol for incorporating novel genesfor improved varietal resistanceto pestshas been developed,and work is being done on ratooning, a very old technology that with new knowledge can be revitalized and combined with engineering technology like the stripper harvesterfor a successful ratooning program. The hybrid rice tested in sevencountries in the tropics have 15 to 20 percent higher yields. The seed yield for hybrid rice has been increasedto almost two tons which makesit more appealingfor low-income farmers. Training coursesfor hybrid rice production have beenrun and collaboration with the private sector has started A biotech lab has been establishedand IRRI is participating in a joint genomemapping project with Cornell University where they will have a coworker. Links will also be established with the Rockefeller rice biotechnology program and with private sector institutions. IRRI will becomea pillar of a transformationstation to connect national programs. The regenerationof Japonicaand Indica is completedand work on the molecular analysis and genetic analysis is continuing. Deep-waterrice breeding will be transferredto Thailand. Pre-breedingwork will continue through the International Network for Genetic Evaluation of Rice (INGER). Since 1988, more than 50 national varieties originating from IRRI lines have beenreleasedfrom 17 countries. IRRI is looking at the possibility of nitrogen-fixing noduleson rice roots and has invited the world’ s experts to meet at IRRI in March. In upland and deep-waterrice, conservationfarming with natural vegetativefilter strips and nematodecontrol by rice/ legume rotation are being studied in order to avoid slashand bum. Upland rice is a componentin an ecosystem,so collaboration is being done with other crop research. A recent study on the impact of pesticidesshowedan added value of 60 percentwithout the health cost factor, but with health costs calculatedin, a 4 percent loss. Discontinuing pesticide use quickly is difficult and health hazardsto farmers can be reducedwith innovations like smaller sprayer nozzle heads. Methaneis contributing to global warming and the flooded rice contribution is significant so IRRI is looking at redesigning rice plants to reducemethanerelease. IRRI has startedan external peer review system. Last year’ s reviews included women in rice farming, hybrid rice, tungro virus research,the INGER review and sustainability issuesin rice production. This year reviews have looked at grain quality, training programs,biotechnology researchand publications and documentation. In international programsa shift from M.S. training to PhD training and visiting scientists is notable. In partnershipsIRRI is encouragingtraining institutions to develop courseswith them and then go home and teach the material with IRRI backstopping. Mr. Lampe said that insteadof technology transfer, IRRI was looking for knowledge-sharing. IRRI’ s emphasisis on partnershipsand complementarity. IRRI’ s role is to 15

strengthennational systemsby establishingresearchconsortia; sharingresources;sharingproblems: sharinga research agenda;dividing, basedon the individual’ s strength,the researchprojects, and sharingthe results afterwards. There is already a rainfed lowland rice consortium, one for upland rice, and the rice-wheat project with CIMMYT. He talked about the problems facing someof IRRI’ s partner countries and the potential in easternand southern Africa where 23 million hectaresof potential rice land is not being used. The Philippine governmentand the biosafety commission have agreedto build jointly with IRRI a containmentfacility which will be sharedwith the University of the Philippines which also has a biotech institute. Mr. Lampe said that RICE can be an acronym for Research in Crucial Environments and that IRRI would work toward supportingthe poor who live in miserableconditions in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Mr. Lampe was askedabout the progressmade in the field of integratedpest management(IPM), involvement of the private sector in hybrid rice seed,and future plans for deepwater rice research. IRRI’ s program and budget statement was commendedas being well organizedand documentedso that it was very useful in explaining IRRI’ s significance to others. IRRI in close collaboration with FAO had helpedfacilitate IPM as a national policy in Indonesia. But that was marginal, Mr. Lampe explained,becausethe primary contribution was madeby the governmentwhich createdthe political climate for IPM, cutting subsidiesto zero and disallowing the import of distinct pesticides.This has not createdwhat was expected-lower yields--on the contrary, the yield remainedthe sameor increasedslightly. IRRI was not giving up on deep-waterrice; it would continue pre-breedingand would support the institutions where this ecosystemis at home.
ISNAR

Board Chair John Dillon explained that in addition to an external program and management review recently conducted at ISNAR, the board and managementhad decided to develop a revised strategy. The new strategyas well as the review report and responseswill be presentedat the 1992 mid-term meeting. Mr. Dillon indicated that the demandfor ISNAR’ s servicesfar exceedstheir supply capacity and he commendedthe dedication by both staff and board in doing their job as well as possible. Director General Chris Bonte-Friedheim’ s presentationwas on the theme “NARS in a New Age.” In doing so, he presenteda list of issueswhich affected the developmentof national agricultural researchsystems. Theseincluded population dynamics, the widening gap in food self-sufficiency and food security, the impact of AIDS on the labor force producing food, depletion and degradationof natural 16

resourcesand the environment,both macro- and microclimate changes,financial constraintsand urbanization. Pointing out that the growth of the NARS in developing countries has been uneven,he said it is unrealistic to expect that they will grow and consolidateinto one homogeneous group. StrengtheningNARS requiresISNAR and the CGIAR system to think globally and to act locally by supporting individual and specific strategiesfor each unique situation. NARS have made significant progressin the last decade and have acquiredgreaterstrengthsin numbersof welltrained scientistsand experiencein research. Today efficiency and effectivenessare emphasized. It is thesepublic sector organizationsthat have the capacity, organizationand resourcesto carry out all the necessarylocation specific, adaptive and on-farm researchwhich is required to link researchwith the extensionservicesand the farmers. It is thesesubsistence farmers, who provide daily food and guaranteethe survival of large numbersof people who must continue to be serviced. And it is thesepublic sector organizationswho can follow through on national policies and addresslong-term sustainability concerns. The mandatesfor most NARS have been widened to include natural resourcesand their managementand conservation, the environment,pollution and contamination, generaland specific sustainability issues,post-harvest, storage,processingand quality aspects,and upstream researchlike biotechnology. Other issuesinclude yield stability of major crops, system-widedesign and development and the synthesisof traditional with new considerations. All of this requires a redefinition of the term NARS and what it encompasses as well as a discussionof the structureand organizationrequired to deal with the new challenges. The movement toward regionalization and ecoregional zoning may createa critical mass of scientific endeavor which will be required to solve major problems and at the sametime it may createa confusing proliferation of linkages and contact organizations,competition for funding and a brain drain of the best staff. ISNAR takes a three-prongedapproachin dealing with the needsof national systems. ISNAR supportscertain selected organizationswithin the NARS as partnersin their comprehensiveinstitutional development;is active as a researchand experience-based service focusing on specific components; and collects, analyzesand disseminatesrelevant information on NARS and agricultural researchpolicies in developing countries. ISNAR is a dependable partner to a few, only ten to fifteen due to capacity limitations, selectedNARS providing a longterm basis for collaboration on their intensive system and institution building. ISNAR seeksmultipliers to extend their knowledge and like new varieties, the tools and management approaches needto be adaptedfor use in specific environ-

ments. ISNAR is willing to assistthe other international centersin improving their servicesto NARS. In responseto the TAC report on NARS presentedin Paris at the 1991 mid-term meeting, ISNAR has identified the following eight priority proposalsfor strengtheningNARS: apply a systemsapproachin supporting agriculture and especially agricultural researchin developing countries; assist developing countries in planning agricultural researchand in setting their own priorities and evaluating the results; accept the national coordinating role for the publicly funded sector of the NARS; strive to becomedependablepartnersof NARS; be understandingdonors, flexible and responsiveto existing and changing local conditions; assistNARS especially during periods of adjusting and changing their mandate,their priorities, their organizations and their structure; adjust and limit our administrative control and technical evaluation requirements;and ensurethat our own researchagendasreflect and support national agricultural researchpriorities. During the discussionthat followed, FAO cosponsor,Mr. Philippe Mahler acknowledgedthe effective cooperation which has developedbetweenFAO and ISNAR. Respondingto points madeby delegates,Mr. BonteFriedheim assuredthe Group that there is not a homogeneous group of NARS and no one solution that fits all. Institution building can take eight to ten years or longer. Measuring impact is by whether after collaborating with a NARS it can have a political, economic, management role to play in the country and whether it can adapt to changeand make decisions. On working in EasternEurope-a point raised in the discussion-he proposedthat a totally owned subsidiary of the centers,financed from outside, should deal with this region. Answering a question on regional priorities, he said that in ISNAR’ s first medium-term plan, 50 percentof the resources were meant for Africa. This amount will be reduced somewhatbut not too much. ISNAR has done one country plan for SPAAR for Tanzaniaand now awaits the donors pooling their resourcesas agreedfor implementationalong the lines approvedby the Tanzaniangovernment. National authorities should play the coordinator role. ISNAR is starting a study on networks. There is a lot to be learnedfrom networks but safeguardsmust be in place to ensurethat the networks are really a representationof the priorities of each of the membersand don’ t drain resources from the others. Before closing he was handeda note which he read to the Group: “With or without CGIAR, NARS have a future; without NARS, CGIAR has no future.”

WARDA

Mr. Ray Audet, a memberof WARDA’ s Board, introduced the center’ s presentationon behalf of Board Chair Heinrich Weltzien who could not be present. Mr. Audet assuredthe Group that WARDA was alive, vibrant and looks forward to the challengesahead. Director GeneralEugeneTerry said that WARDA’ s transition phasehad been successfullycompletedand the center was now in the secondyear of its first medium-term plan. WARDA staff have establisheda young, vigorous and innovative center for rice sciencein Sub-Saharan Africa. They have redefined their relationships with national program colleaguesand are implementing new methodsto strengthenthosepartnerships. Their new approachincludes the devolution of certain regional responsibilities and leadershipto strongernational agricultural researchsystems. This was experimental,he said, and WARDA hoped that all could benefit from the lessonsthat would be learned. In the remaining three years of the medium-term plan, WARDA hoped to demonstratethat the center has truly becomea center of excellence. National programswill have taken on new roles and will be working togetherin new complementaryarrangements.WARDA, on its part, would have successfullyadvancedthe developmentof highyielding, well-adaptedrice varieties for three or four target rice production environments. In the area of training, WARDA would have assisted national scientiststo achievethe capacity for leadershipin training rice scientistsand techniciansin the region. The center would also have completedthe diagnosisof the major resourcemanagement problems facing the African rice farmer and would be well on its way to developing technologies to solve theseproblems. Important progressis expected as well in the areasof integratedpest control and in the management of adversesoils. He was confident, Mr. Terry said, that WARDA can now play an effective and meaningful role in the evolving structuresfor tackling resourcemanagement and commodity improvementresearchin Sub-Saharan Africa. Questionswere askedconcerningfunding constraintsin relation to expansionplans; the role of farmers in WARDA’ s researchagenda,and the use of traditional rice varieties. Delegateswished to know, too, the reasonwhy the demand for rice in Africa had increased. Mr. Terry was askedto elaborateon the rice potential in upland areas,on productivity constraints,and how WARDA seesitself in relation to the commodity and ecoregional centerconceptsendorsedby the Group at ICW90. Another areaof inquiry was WARDA’ s relationship with compatible organizationssuch as CORAF and SPAAR and the mechanisms for interaction with NARS. A suggestionwas made that a second‘ R’ -for “research”-be addedto the center’ s acronym, thus making a 17

clean break with the past. The center was encouragedto continue the practice of using the two languagesin publications, training and research. During his response,Mr. Terry affirmed that WARDA had excellent relations with CORAF and would be identifying areasof complementarity. He did not seeany areasof competition or duplication with SPAAR, and WARDA was working with SPAAR in all the frameworks for action in Sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Peter Matlon, WARDA’ s Director of Research, explained in detail the involvement of farmers in the research agendafrom interdisciplinary field surveys to on-farm tests in which the technologiesare provided to farmers who managethe use of theseand provide feedback. In both the on-farm trials and on-farm tests, the national programsare fully involved as well. Mr. Matlon reportedthat according to a recent analysis by IFPRI, increaseddemandfor rice in West Africa (consumption is growing at 8 percentper year) is due to population growth and urbanization. Urbanization is leading to changes in the employment structureand a demandfor convenience foods. Turning to traditional varieties he said that over the last two yearsWARDA completedcharacterizationof several collections of traditional materials collected by ORSTOM, CIRAD, IITA and WARDA. Promising sourcesof various traits have been identified and will be usedin the hybridization program. Work continues on Oryza glaberrima. On the questionof WARDA’ s experiencewith small grants, Mr. Matlon replied that there were a number of task forces with national programs that reviewed proposalsand made decisions. The averagesize of the grants is between $3,000 and S6,OOO per year. Dealing with the potential for improvement of upland rice, he said that the averageyield is one ton per hectareand the yield potential is about four tons per hectarewhich works out to a 75 percent yield gap. Analyses are being conductedto identify the major componentsof this yield gap. Adverse soils and buyer distressesare thought to be the primary causes. The major problem with the upland rice systemsis sustainability becauseof the need to go into long fallow rotations due to macronutrientdepletion and weed invasion. WARDA is looking at ways to work togetherwith farmers to exploit their existing knowledge for erosion control, the other major problem in upland systems. Director of Administration Gordon MacNeil said that WARDA certainly could not expandinto other parts of Africa with its current funding situation. The center needed to cover the shortfall for the capital developmentprogram and then stabilize funding at the 1992 projected level which is slightly higher than 1991. The WARDA presentationincluded a recently produced video, “WARDA: Building New Ground.” 18

FUNDS FOR RESEARCH
Approval of 1992 Programs

The Group approvedprogramsrequiring expendituresof $332 million for all 17 CGIAR centers,including the proposedforestry center, and $75 million for complementary programs,for a total of $407 million in 1992. CGIAR Executive SecretaryAlexander von der Osten who led the discussionon this item said that programsand funding levels had all beenreviewed and approvedby TAC. However, funding requirementswere greaterthan the projected supply of funds that would be available. There were a number of reasonsfor the expectedmismatch. One of them was the medium-term planning processwhich had beenrigorous but lacked a tight, realistic ex-ante assessment of resourceconstraints.He drew the Group’ s attention to the institutional measurestaken so far to correct the imbalance,including the inclusion of an ex-anteconstraint in the next round of medium-termplanning. When announcingtheir financial pledgesfor 1992,donors expressed their continuing support for the work of the CGIAR. To the extent possible they would ensurethat contributions for researchat the CGIAR centerswould not drop over the long term. They were particularly hopeful that the increasedemphasis on natural resourcemanagement research,including forestry, would attract more financial support despitethe fact that there was fierce competition for “development assistance dollars” in all donors countries. They emphasizedthat as usual pledgesmade at ICW were subject to legislative approval in the home capitals of CGIAR members. Donors appreciatedthe need for a better correlation betweenthe availability of and demandfor resources.This was a reality that had to be faced. They welcomed the realistic approachtaken by Mr. von der Osten and hoped it would lead to budgetarystability which was a prerequisite for program stability.
Pledging of Funds

Mr. von der Osten announcedthat the pledgesfor core supportof all 17 centers(i.e. including the proposednew forestry center) was estimatedat $251 million. In addition, it was expectedthat the centerswould receive complementary funding of some$63 million - for a total resourceflow to CGIAR centersin 1992 of $3 14 million. Overall core funding for 1992 would be $6 million less than in 1991 ($257 million). The 13 pre-expansioncenters would experiencea drop of $10 million - $226 million for 1992,down from $236 for 1991. For the three “expansion centers”(ICRAF, IIMI and INIBAP, which were included in the CGIAR system as part of an expansionexerciseinaugurated at ICW90), core funding would increaseby $1.5

million - $22.5 million for 1992, up from $21 million the previous year. Donors had pledged$2.5 million for the new forestry entity in 1992. Analyzing the financial situation, Mr. von der Osten pointed out that the pre-expansioncenterswould experience a decline in their budgetsof some 4 percent in nominal terms, slightly more in real terms. The “expansion centers” would benefit from an increaseof 7 percent in nominal terms. A budgetary decline of some 8 percent- 4 percent nominal and an additional 4 percent for inflation - would clearly have an impact on the operationof the centers affected. This was the third year of a decline in real terms. The McWilliam formula (approvedat an earlier meeting by the Group) for adjusting a supply/demandmismatch would be applied to these 13 centers,he reported. The processof applying the formula was entrustedto an oversight committee whose chairman was Mr. Michel Petit, the World Bank representative. The committee had reviewed the situation and confirmed the appropriateness of applying the formula. The 13 centerswere well aware of the difficulties they faced, and were respondingto thesein a responsibleand professionalmanner: scaling down programsand freezing positions. Growth in the CGIAR was channelledby donors to the “expansion centers”and to the proposedforestry center. The system-widedrop in support despitepositive indications from severaldonors was due to anticipatedreductionsby two donors,Finland and the IDB . Mr. von der Osten thanked donors for their support, and their commitment to keep the system healthy. He offered special thanks to Mr. Derek Tribe, Executive Secretaryof Australia’ s Crawford Fund for International Agricultuml Research,who had drawn the system’ s attention to the principles which could guide consciousness raising about the CGIAR, and who had then put thoseprinciples into practice successfully. FUTURE MEETINGS The Group endorsedthe Chairman’ s acceptance of an invitation from Turkey to the CGIAR to hold its next midterm meeting (1992) in that country. In responseto an invitation from the U.S., the 1993 mid-term meeting will be held in Puerto Rico. The Group took note of an offer from India to host a future mid-term meeting. The following scheduleof future meetingswas confirmed, subject to the proviso noted below: 1992Turkey, May 18-22; Washington, D.C., October 26-30. 1993Puerto Rico, May 24-28; Washington,D.C., October 25-29. 1994May 23-27 at a location to be determined; Washington, D.C., October 24-28.

In responseto a suggestionfrom the delegateof the African DevelopmentBank (AfDB), the CGIAR Secretariatwill examine the practicality of shifting the datesof International CentersWeek (customarily held in Washington, D.C.) to avoid a clash with AfDB meeting schedules. OTHER BUSINESS
BIOTASK - Progress Report

The Group decided to extend the mandateof the CGIAR Task Force on Biotechnology (BIOTASK) for one more year, on the suggestionof its Chairman, Mr. Hans Wessels. During that year, BIOTASK will serveprimarily as a donor-consultativeforum within the CGIAR for biotechnology-relatedissues. This would be in keeping with the responsibilities that have been undertakenby BIOTASK in its evolution as a CGIAR institution in the past two years. BIOTASK will provide a focus for donor input into the current formulation of CGIAR policies on intellectual property rights, biosafety and biodiversity. In doing so, BIOTASK will work in consultation with CGIAR centers and othersin the CGIAR system. Mr. Wesselsreported to the Group on the recently concluded sixth meeting of BIOTASK at which a retrospective on the activities of the Task Force was reviewed. He detailed the information sharing programsBIOTASK had sponsored, and outlined the relationship that was developing between BIOTASK and other focal points sharing compatible interests. The Group commendedBIOTASK for its efforts in an area whose importance would continue to grow for the CGIAR as a whole.
Center Communications with Donors

The Group received a report developedby Mr. Eugene Terry, Director General,WARDA, on behalf of CGIAR center directors, entitled “Improving the Quality of Communications Between Donors and Centersin the CGIAR.” The purposeof the report was to initiate a processthat would lead to a “better understanding of the changing circumstances under which centersand donorsoperateas they attempt to play their respectiveroles in the developmentprocess.”
CGIAR Linkages with UNCED

Mr. von der Osten presenteda progressreport setting out the rationale for and the strategy followed to integratethe CGIAR more closely with the UNCED process. He reportedthat in responseto the views of CGIAR membersexpressedat the Paris mid-term meeting (May 1991),both the CGIAR as a “corporate entity” and IBPGR had been formally recognizedas observersin the intergovernmentalcategory at UNCED. The CGIAR and
IBPGR were represented at the third preparatory committee

19

meeting of UNCED, and would be represented at the fourth such meeting to be held at New York in April 1992,and at UNCED itself at Rio in June 1992. The report pointed out that the main role of the CGIAR in contributing and possibly participating in post-UNCED work programswould be in three sectors: . sustainableagriculture, . the conservationand use of plant genetic resources,and . capacity building. Mr. von der Osten summarizedthe highlights of the UNCED-related programsunder each of theseheadingsin which the CGIAR was participating, and outlined the public awareness activities undertakenby the CGIAR in connection with UNCED. The CGIAR had beenproposedas a possible institutional home for a global initiative on plant genetic resources involving efforts at international, regional, national and community levels. The proposal, which emergedfrom the final plenary sessionof the Keystone International Dialogue Serieson Plant Genetic Resourcesheld at Oslo in June 1991, was introduced into the UNCED processby the Government of Norway. ICW91 took note of this proposal and recommendedthat due considerationbe given to it at UNCED. The Group endorsedthe various stepstaken as well as planned,and urged that theseactivities should be integrated with the negotiating processnow underway at UNEP and elsewherefor the formulation of international covenantsthat would guide post-UNCED work programs.Members of the Group stressedthe need for renewedefforts to involve agricultural expertisein the UNCED-related planning of membergovernments.
Intellectual Property Rights

UNCED, and it would be helpful if the views of the CGIAR could be clarified. After considerablediscussion,the Group decidedthat the draft should be further discussedin the home capitals of delegates,and the results of those discussionsconveyedto the CGIAR Secretariat.
TAC Members

Certificates of appreciationwere given to Mr. JamesRyan, Mr. Abdoulaye Sawadogo,Mr. Gian Tommaso Scarascia Mugnozza and Mr. Comelis T. de Wit who were ending their service with TAC. CHAIRMAN’ S CLOSING REMARKS In a brief closing statement,Mr. Thalwitz thankedmembers of the CGIAR and its componentsfor the support he had received during his relatively brief tenureas Chairman. He particularly thanked Mr. McCalla without whose collaboration it would not have been possible to move through the system’ s intenseand somewhathectic agendaof the past two years. He thankedcosponsorsfor their contribution toward the successes of the past two years. Mr. von der Osten and his colleagueshad contributed in a special way to maintain the continuity and effectivenessof the system. The centers,their boards,directors generaland staff had upheld their end of the system’ s responsibilities with professionalismand skill. The membersof the Group itself had made his life somewhateasierthrough their cooperation and their consistentefforts to work toward consensus on issuescrucial to the world’ s developing regions. At ICW91 he senseda strong feeling among all sectionsof the CGIAR system for working toward the redefinition of a system-widestrategy.Some componentsof the system were alreadyexploring this issue.There appearedto be a consensus that a synthesizingexerciseby a small group could move the processalong. The responsibility for initiating and guiding this exercisewould fall on his successor. He urged them all to work with Mr. Rajagopalanas cordially and as constructively as they had worked with him. At the final sessionof ICW9 1, Mr. Thalwitz passedon the Chairman’ s gavel to Mr. Rajagopalanwho brought the meeting to a close at 4: 15 pm on Friday, November 1.

The Group received a draft paper from center directors outlining basic principles on plant genetic resources, intellectual property rights and biosafety. The initiative taken by center directors, supportedby others in the system, to deal with theseissueswas welcomed. The formulation of a CGIAR position on theseissueswas consideredimportant, given the worldwide attention they had attracted. Moreover, theseissueswould be raised at the negotiating sessions leading to the preparationof international covenantsfor

20

Annex 1 Agenda
Agenda Number’ Item

1
2 3 4 5 6 7

Chairman’ sOpeningRemarks Adoption of the Agenda TAC Chairman’ sReport Report of Committeeof Board Chairpersons Report of Committee of CenterDirectors Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies Forestry - Progressin Establishing ISREF - ICRAF/ISREF Strategyand Linkages Biennial CenterPresentations:CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, ICRAF, IITA, ILCA, IRRI, ISNAR, WARDA Approval of 1992Programs Pledging/PledgingResults Future Meetings Other Business(BIOTASK, UNCED, Intellectual PropertyRights, CommunicationsBetweenCentersand Donors,TAC Members) Closing

8

9

10 11 12 13

‘ Not necessarilyin order of discussion

21

Annex 2 List of Participants
Chairman Wilfried P. Thalwitz Senior Vice President InternationalBank for Reconstructionand Development DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP African Development Bank (AfDB) C.R. Spencer Chief of Division, Agricultural Developmentand Food Crops (SARD) South Region Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development Ismail T. El Zabri Director, Technical Department Mervat El Badawi Senior Adviser Asian Development Bank (ADB) Eiji Kobayashi Deputy Director, Agricultural Department Australia GeorgeH. L. Rothschild Director Australian Centre for InternationalAgricultural Research(ACIAR) William S. Brown Assistant Director DevelopmentResearch Australian International DevelopmentAssistanceBureau (AIDAB) D. Ian Bevege Principal Adviser ACIAR John R. Palmer Consultant ACIAR Austria Ralph F. Gretzmacher Head of Department University of Agriculture

Walter Rill Alternate Executive Director for Austria The World Bank Group Belgium Dany Ghekiere Head, Multilateral Service Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and DevelopmentCooperation Belgian Administration for DevelopmentCooperation(BADC) Luc Sas CGIAR Officer BADC Canada Danielle Wetherup Vice President CanadianInternational DevelopmentAgency (CIDA) E. K. Langtry Director General CIDA Iain C. Macgillivray SeniorProgrammeOfficer CIDA Jim Cayford Senior Forestry Adviser CIDA Scott Wade SectionHead, Francophone, Commonwealthand Natural Resources CIDA Wayne J. Primeau CIDA Denmark Klaus Winkel Head of Department Danish InternationalDevelopment Agency (DANIDA) Commission of the European Communities (EEC) Gunter Gruner Head of Division Directorate-General Development

22

Timothy J. Hall Coordinator, Tropical Agriculture Scienceand Technology for DevelopmentProgramme Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Philippe J. Mahler Special Adviser to the Director Generaland Assistant Director Generalfor Environment and SustainableDevelopment Mohamed S. Zehni Director Researchand Technology Development Division Bemdt Muller-Haye Chief, ResearchDevelopment Center Francis S. P. Ng Chief, Forest Research Education Training Branch Ford Foundation E. Walter Coward, Jr. Director, Rural Poverty and ResourceProgram (RPRP) Cheryl D. Danley Assistant Program Officer, RPRP France Remy Pochat Head of Researchfor Development Division Ministry of Researchand Technology GenevieveChedeville-Murray Head of Multilateral Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs Danielle Barret Adviser Ministry of Cooperation Anne Cau-Reocreux External Division Ministry of Agriculture

Eric Verkant Executive Secretary International Agricultural ResearchCommission Ministry of Researchand Technology Marie de Lattre Managerfor International Organizations Centrede Cooperation Intemationaleen Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement (CIRAD) Andree Sontot Director of International Relations Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) GeorgesTacher Director IEMVT Francois Vicariot Delegatefor International Affairs Institut Francaisde Recherche Scientifique pour le Developpementen Cooperation (ORSTOM) Germany Wilhelm Suden Head of Division Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation(BMZ) JurgenFriedrichsen Division Head GermanAgency for Technical Cooperation(GTZ) Erhard Kruesken Director GermanFoundationfor International Development(DSE) Stefan Oswald Assistant Head of Division BMZ BarbaraBecker Liaison Officer to CGIAR GermanCouncil for Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural Research (ATSAF) 23

India R. C. Kapila Secretary Departmentof Agricultural Researchand Education WJW Inter-American Development Bank (IW Lucia G. Reca Manager,Project Analysis Department Helio Tollini Chief, Agriculture Division Ruben G. Echeverria Economist International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) Michel J. Petit Director Agriculture and Rural Development Department(AGR) Anthony J. Pritchard Agriculture ResearchAdviser AGR J. P. Srivastava Senior Agriculturalist AGR Gabrielle J. Persley Biotechnologist AGR Secretary,BIOTASK International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Greg Spendjian Deputy Director Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Sciences(AFNS) Brian Belcher ResearchOfficer, AFNS Karen Spierkel Antoine Hawara Treasurer N. Mate0 AssociateDirector, Crop Production Systems 24

International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) Abbas Kesseba Director, Technical Division Ireland Hugh Swift Head of Bilateral Aid Programme Departmentof Foreign Affairs Italy Annamaria Bruno Desk Officer (Multilateral Desk) Directorate Generalfor DevelopmentCooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan Nobuyuki Sugimoto Director, Multilateral CooperationDivision Ministry of Foreign Affairs Shinzo Adachi Assistant Director Multilateral CooperationDivision Ministry of Foreign Affairs Shinya Tsuru Director General Tropical Agricultural Research Center (TARC) Motoi Kodaira Deputy Director International CooperationDivision Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Satoluko Sasohi Korea Yong Hwa Shin Director General International Technical CooperationCenter Rural DevelopmentAdministration Mexico Emesto SamayoaArmienta Vocal Ejecutivo Institute National de InvestigacionesForestalesy Agropecuarias(INIFAP-SARH)

Netherlands R. D. van den Berg Head, ResearchProgramme Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hans Wessels Head, Biotechnology Programme Ministry of Foreign Affairs Willem van Vuure Senior Scientific Officer for International Relations Ministry of Agriculture Nigeria Oladeji A. Odegbaro Acting Director Agricultural SciencesDepartment Federal Ministry of Scienceand Technology Norway Birgit Schjerven Head of Division Multilateral Departmentof Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Stein W. Bie Director Norwegian Center for International Agricultural Development (NORAGRIC) Margaret Slettevold Senior Executive Officer Multilateral Departmentof DevelopmentCooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tertit von Hanno Aasland Head of Division ResearchUnit Ministry of Foreign Affairs Philippines Manuel M. Lantin Assistant Secretary Departmentof Agriculture Ruben J. Pascual Agricultural Attache Embassyof the Philippines

Rockefeller Foundation Robert W. Herdt Director Division for Agricultural Sciences Roy A. Steiner Warren Weaver Fellow Spain FranciscoJavier Garcia Ramos Agriculture Department Head, External Relations Service Instituto National de InvestigacionesAgrarias (INIA) Sweden Bo Bengtsson Director General SwedishAgency for Research Cooperationwith Developing Countries (SAREC) Carl-Gustaf Thomstrom Senior ResearchOfficer, SAREC Switzerland Rolf Wilhelm Deputy Director Swiss DevelopmentCooperationand Humanitarian Aid FederalPolitical Department Paul Egger Head, Agricultural Service Swiss DevelopmentCooperation United Kingdom Andrew J. Bennett Chief Natural ResourcesAdviser Natural Resourcesand Environment Department(l4RED) OverseasDevelopment Administration (ODA) John C. Davies Deputy Chief, Natural Resources Adviser, NRED ODA J. B. Warren Senior Natural ResourcesAdviser British DevelopmentDivision in the Caribbean ODA

25

J. Perfect Head of Pest ManagementDivision Natural ResourcesInstitute ODA Mair Townsend Higher Executive Officer ResearchSection, NRED ODA M. J. Iles Secretary IPM Working Group Natural ResourcesInstitute United Nations Development Programme CmDP) Timothy S. Rothermel Director Division for Global and Interregional Projects Alva A. App Senior Scientific Adviser K. N. Satyapal Senior Adviser Philip S. Reynolds Senior Program Officer Nyle C. Brady Senior Consultant United Nations Environment Programme WNEP) ReubenJ. Olembo Deputy Assistant Executive Director M. Pylala R. Khanna United States Richard E. Bissell Assistant Administrator Bureau for Researchand Development Agency for International Development (AID) Hans P. Peterson Director, Office of Agriculture Bureau for Researchand Development,AID

Twig Johnson Director (Acting), Office of Forestry, Environment and Natural Resources Bureau for Researchand Development,AID Ralph W. Cummings, Jr. Coordinator, IARC Staff Bureau for Researchand Development,AID Dana G. Dalrymple ResearchAdviser, IARC Staff Bureau for Researchand Development,AID Robert B. Bertram ResearchOfficer, IARC Staff Bureau for Researchand Development,AID Representing Africa (Mauritius and Morocco) J. Robert Antoine Director, Regional Sugarcane Training Centre Mauritius M. Faraj Hocein Director, Institut National de la RechercheAgronomique Morocco Representing Asia and Pacific (India and Western Samoa) G. C. Srivastava Joint Secretary Departmentof Agricultural Researchand Education (DARE) India Tupuola Tavita Director of Agriculture Western Samoa Representing Europe (Poland and Israel) Augustyn Wos Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics Poland

26

Representing Latin America and the Caribbean (Brazil and Trinidad and Tobago) Manoel Malheiros-Tourinho Executive Director EmpresaBrasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria(EMBRAPA) Brasilia, Brazil Mario Alves Seixas Head of International Affairs, EMBRAPA Thomas W. A. Cat-r Director of Research CARONI (1975) Ltd. Trinidad and Tobago Representing Near East and North Africa (Jordan and Tunisia) SunnaSami SecretaryGeneral Ministry of Agriculture Jordan INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Frederick Hutchinson Chairman Lucia de Vaccaro Vice Presidentand ChairpersonElect Gustavo A. Nores Director General Filemon Torres Deputy Director General Douglas R. Laing Deputy Director General Douglas Pachico Leader, Bean Program Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) Burton C. Matthews Chairman

Donald L. Winkelmann Director General Roger Rowe Deputy Director General for Research Claudio Cafati Deputy Director General for Administration and Finance Derek Byerlee Director, Economics Tiffin D. Harris Head, Information Anne S. Acosta Assistant to the Director General Centro International de la Papa (cm Lindsay Innes Chairman Hubert Zandstra Director General JoseValle-Riestra Deputy Director General Peter Gregory Director of Research Edward W. Sulzberger Assistant to the Director General Robert Hart International Board for Plant Genetic Resources(IBPGR) William E. Tossell Chairman Wanda Collins Board Member Nazmi Demir Board Member Lauritz B. Holm-Nielsen Board Member D. Marshall Board Member

27

Geoffrey C. Hawtin Director Dick H. van Sloten Deputy Director Alison McCusker Deputy Director, Research Domenico Bagnara Director International Agricultural ResearchService (INTAGRES) Julia Anne Dearing Board Secretary Ruth Raymond Public Affairs Officer International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (EARDA) Enrico Porceddu Chairman Nasrat R. Fadda Director General Aart van Schoonhoven Deputy Director General for Research JamesT. McMahon Deputy Director General (Operations) Robert Booth Assistant Director General (International Cooperation) Michael Jones Leader, Farm ResourceManagement Program International Center for Research in Agroforestry OCRAF) GeorgeD. Holmes Chairman Pedro A. Sanchez Director General Robert Bruce Scott Deputy Director General

Dale Bandy Coordinator for Asia and Latin America William Heal ICRAFflSBF International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) William T. Mashler Chairman Eric H. Roberts Board Member JamesG. Ryan Director General Y. L. Nene Deputy Director General International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Gerald Helleiner Chairman Just Faaland Director General Per Pin&up-Andersen Director GeneralElect Curtis Fat-tar Director of Administration and Finance Nurul Islam Senior Policy Adviser Francesco-Goletti Post Doctoral Fellow International Irrigation Management Institute (DMI) David E. Bell Chairman Roberto L. Lemon Director General Marian Fuchs-Carsch Project DevelopmentOfficer

28

Khalid Mohtadullah Director for Research International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Nicholas N. Mumba Chairman Lukas Brader Director General J. P. Eckebil Deputy Director General International CooperationProgram Hans Herren Biological Control Programme Benin ResearchStation StephenM. A. Lawani Director, Information Services John Thackway International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA) Dieter F. R. Bommer Chairman Ralph W. Cummings, Sr. Board Member John Walsh Director General Hank Fitzhugh Deputy Director General (Research) Ralph von Kaufmann Director, Donor/Board Secretariat Guy D’ Ieteren TrypanotoleranceThrust Coordinator International Laboratory for Research on Animal Disease(ILRAD) Ole Nielsen Chairman A. Ross Gray Director General

John Doyle Deputy Director General B . C. Lloyd Financial Controller International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP) Coenraadter Kuile Chairman Paul Sun Board Member Edmond De Langhe Director Mehdi Abdelwabab Assistant Director ThomasThornton Financial Manager Robert D. Huggan Head, Information/Communications International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Walter P. Falcon Chairman Klaus J. Lampe Director General Kenneth S. Fischer Deputy Director General Michael F. L. Goon Deputy Director General,Finance and Administration Edward Sayegh Director for Finance Kwanchai A. Gomez Head, LCPU Gurdev S. Khush Principal Plant Breederand Head Division of Plant Breeding, Geneticsand Biochemistry Glenn Denning MC/MPA Program

29

Sant Singh Virmani PrabhuPingali Program Leader Paul S. Teng Program Leader International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) John L. Dillon Chairman Christian H. Borne-Friedheim Director General Howard Elliott Deputy Director General DeborahM. Merrill-Sands Senior ResearchOfficer Philip Pardey Senior ResearchOfficer C. Kramer West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) Heinrich Weltzien Chairman Raymond Audet Board Member Louise Fresco Board Member S. Sompo-Ceesay Board Member Bakary Traore Board Member EugeneR. Terry Director General Gordon B . MacNeil Director of Administration and Finance Peter JosephMatlon Director of Research

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Alex F. McCalla Chairman Davis, California Michael H. Arnold Cambridge,United Kingdom Gerard0Budowski San Jose,Costa Rica Doris Calloway Berkeley, California Kamla Chowdhry New Delhi, India Comelis T. de Wit Wageningen,Netherlands Raoul Dudal Leuven, Belgium Hans M. Gregersen St. Paul, Minnesota Ken-Ichi Hayashi Tokyo, Japan Mitsuma Matsui Tokyo, Japan Richard S. Musangi Njoro, Kenya Amir Muhammed Islamabad,Pakistan Abdoulaye Sawadogo Abidjan, Cote d’ Ivoire Saydil M. Toure Bobo-Dioulasso,Burkina Faso TAC SECRETARIAT John H. Monyo Executive Secretary Eric Craswell Senior Agricultural ResearchOfficer

30

Guido Gryseels Senior Agricultural ResearchOfficer Amir Kassam Senior Agricultural ResearchOfficer CGIAR SECRETARIAT Alexander von der Osten Executive Secretary NON-ASSOCIATED CENTER PARTICIPANTS Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) Y. S. Tsiang Chairman Guy Camus Vice Chairman Emil Q. Javier Director General C.A.B. International (CABI) Dennis J. Greenland Director, Scientific Services Colin P. Ogboume Director, Information Services Peter R. Scott Crop Protection and Genetics Jeffrey K. Waage DepartmentDirector International Institute of Biological Control Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) Eric Armstrong Chairman Ronald Barrow Deputy Chairman Calixte George Executive Director St. Clair Forde Deputy Executive Director

Hugh Saul Deputy Executive Director, Development John Pino Consultant Centro Agronomic0 Tropical de Investigation y Ensenanza (CATIE) Rodrigo Tarte-Ponce Director General Oscar Fonseca Deputy Director General JoseG. Flores Program Director Victor M. Villalobos Director, Program I Rafael Celis ProgramDirector International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM) Werner N. Treitz Chairman Richard L. Sawyer ChairmanElect Marc Latham Director General ChalineeNiamskul Administrative Officer Donal O’ Hare Consultant International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) William T. Mashler Chairman PeterEsbjerg ICIPE Governing Council Jack W. Meagher ICIPE Governing Council ConstantinaSafilios-Rothschild Member, Executive Board Thomas R. Odhiambo Director

31

Kundam Seshu-Reddy Section Head R. A. Odingo Chief, Planning Officer Leonard Otieno ProgrammeLeader Victor Rabinowitch Vice Presidentfor Programs Grace M. A. Ochola Sam Engelstad Consultant M. Yudelman Chairman,Friends of ICIPE International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement (ICLARM) Peter A. Larkin Chairman Martin Bilio Board Member E. A. Huisman Board Member Zimani Kadzimira Board Member Kenneth MacKay Director General Basilio M. Rodriguez, Jr. Director, Administration and Finance Jay L. MacLean Director Information International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) W. David Hopper Chairman Bukar Shaib Board Member

Paul J. Stangel Presidentand Chief Executive Officer Amit H. Roy Executive Vice Presidentand Chief OperatingOfficer SamuelC. Muchena Managing Director African Centre for Fertilizer Development M. Terry Frederick DevelopmentOfficer Marie K. Thompson Public Relations Officer Instituto Interamericano de Cooperation para la Agricultura CnW L. Harlan Davis Deputy Director General International Trypanotolerance Center (ITC) G. M. Urquhart Director General Bakary N. Touray Deputy Director General Hugh A. Hanley Director, Finance and Administration International Union of Forestry Research (IUFRO) Lome F. Riley Coordinator,IUFRO/SPDC Winrock International Dilbagh S. Athwal Senior Vice President Ned S. Raun Regional Representative, Washington Pierre Ph. Antoine Regional Director, Africa and the Middle East

32

OBSERVERS Manuel T. Barradas Vice President Instituto National de InvestigacaoAgraria, Portugal Arlette Conzemius Counselor Embassyof Luxembourg Yoseph 0. Elkana Israel OTHER PARTICIPANTS Robert 0. Blake Chairman,U.S. Committee on SustainableAgriculture for Developing Countries GastonGrenier Director General Institut International de RechercheScientific pour le Developpementen Afrique (IIRSDA) JamesJohnston Rockefeller Foundation (retired) Auguste Kouassi Board Member Michael Lesnick Senior Vice President,Keystone Center

Georg Lindsey Director, CGNET Heidi Marinaccio International Fund for Agricultural Research(IFAR) John J. McKelvey IFAR Michael Monaghan United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development (UNCW Peter Pee SpecialProgram for African Agricultural Research(SPAAR) Wolfgang Siebeck CGIAR Consultant Michael S. Strauss National ResearchCouncil JaanTear International Foundation for Science(IFS) Sweden M. Toure SPAAR Floyd J. Williams IFAR

69

printed on recycled paper.

33