4
TAC's FUTURE AGENDA
TAC 47 (October 1988)*
1. CIMMYT External Reviews
2. Development of New CGIAR Initiatives 
(a) Aquaculture 
(b) Coconuts
3. Role of the CGIAR Centres in the Global Context
(a) Relationships between Centres and the Private Sector 
(b) Relationships between Centres and National Research 
Institutions
4. Priority Setting
(a) Evolving Trends in World Agriculture: A Long-Term Scenario 
(b) Strategic Analysis of Cereals
5. Resource Allocation Process (Medium-Term Proposals)
(a) ICRISAT
(b) WARDA
6. CGIAR Support for Non-Associated Centres
7. Future Reviews
(a) External Reviews
(i) ClAT
(ii) CIP
(iii) Other (give notice that IITA and IFPRI on line for 1990)
(b) Commodity Reviews 
(i) Rice
(ii) Roots and Tubers
(iii) Other
(c) Activity Reviews
(i) Plant Genetic Resources
(ii) Internal reviews
(iii) Other (suggested future topics:
- Crop/Resource Management & Conservation Research
- Biotechnology
- Plant Protection)
* New Terms of Reference for EPRs, and Activity/Commodity Reviews to be 
finalized .
TAC 48 (March 1989)
1. CGIAR Support for Non-Associated Centres
2. Inter-Centre Review of Rice
3. Future Reviews
(a) Commodity/Activity Reviews 
(i) Roots and Tubers 
(ii) Others (Legumes)
(b) External Reviews 
(i) CIP )
) Progress Reports
(ii) CIAT )
(ili) IITA )
) Initiate preparations for 1990
(iv) IFPRI )
4. Priority Setting
(a) The Goal and Programme Strategy of the CGIAR 
(b) Strategic Analysis of Roots and Tubers 
(c) Other (Legumes)
5. Plant Quarantine and Seed Health in the CGIAR
6. Completion of the EPR of IRRI
7. Resource Allocation Process (Medium-Term Proposals)
(a) WARDA
(b) CIMMYT
(c) ICARDA
(d) IRRI
8. Review of the TAC Secretariat
TAC 49 (June 1989)
1. CGIAR Support for Non-Associated Centres
2. Resource Allocation Process 
(a) Medium-Term Proposals
(i) CIMMYT
(ii) ICARDA 
(ili) IRRI
(b) Annual Programme and Budget Reviews 
- Other Centres
3. CIP External Reviews
4. Inter-Centre Review of Roots and Tubers
5. Priority Setting
(a) Strategic Analysis of Roots and Tubers 
(b) Other
6. Future Reviews
(a) External Reviews
(i) CIAT
(ii) IFPRI 
(ili) I ITA 
(iv) Other
(b) Commodity/Activity Reviews 
(i) Legumes
(ii) Crop/Resource Management & Conservation Research
(iii) Other (Internal reviews)
7. CGIAR Priorities and Future Strategies 
(a) The System's Operational Strategy 
(b) Strategic Analysis of Legumes
TAC 50 (October 1989)
1. CGIAR Support for Non-Associated Centres
2. Inter-Centre Review of Legumes
3. Priority Setting
(a) Assessment of CGIAR Priorities
(b) Strategic Analysis of Crop/Resource Management & 
Conservation Research
4. Inter-Centre Study of Internal Review Processes
5. Future Reviews
(a) External Reviews 
(i) I ITA
(ii) IFPRI
(iii) Other (IBPGR, ICRISAT, & ILCA for 1991)
(b) Commodity/Activitity Reviews
(i) Plant Protection
(ii) Biotechnology
i
Access to the CGIAR Electronic Mail Network (CGNET)
Secretariat^ ^ meetin9 March 1988, TAC
secretariat to enquire on the possibility for tap requested the
access to the pptad ” ror "A<- Members to have
2=3 WS» SSS-iSS was
1) TAC Members can easily reach the 
countries' Packet Switched Network, CGNET Network via their 
need to To do this, they will . obtain 3 Network user Identification 
national telephone authority. TAC Members (NUI) from the 
Pakistan and Syria would resident in Kenya, 
to access the network, require international direct dialling 
phone will For the US and UK locations, a local
both of the« L*truT CGNET'S h°St
2) Modems are usually leased by 
and rent
3) Cost of installation and 
country; monthly charges vary from country to on average, however, 
600 for installation it would be in the order of US$  
depending on the charges and $ 150/200 per month,use made of the facilities.
4) Terminals and printers need to be purchased locally, 
those few countries where except inthey can be rented.
Should TAC decide it would 
the CGNET Network, be useful for 1   TAC Members to join . more details would be provided,
basis, on whatever action would need to be taken on a case by case 
join the system, the initial installation If all TAC Members 
US$ 9,000. costs would be aboutCharges (at an average of § 175
to US$ 31,500 per annum. per station) would amount
■ «\
Table 1. DATES & VENUE OF TAC MEETINGS
Meeting Venue Dates (No.of days)
1971
TAC 1 FAO Rome 29 June-2 July 4
TAC 2 FAO Rome 19-22 October 4
1972
TAC 3 FAO - Rome 10-13 April 4
TAC 4 IBRD - Washington 2-4 August 3
1973
TAC 5 FAO - Rome 30 Jan.-2 Feb. 4
TAC 6 IBRD - Washington 25 July-2 Aug. 9
1974
TAC 7 FAO - Rome 4-8 February 5
TAC 8 World Bank - Washington 24 July-2 Aug. 10
1975
TAC 9 FAO Rome 3-7 February 5
TAC 10 World Bank - Washington 22-26 July 5
TAC 11 CIMMYT - Mexico 27-28 October 2
1976
TAC 12 FAO - Rome 2-6 February 5
TAC 13 IRRI - Philippines 9-13 May 5
TAC 14 ICRISAT - India 14-18 October 5
1977
TAC 15 FAO Rome 31 Jan.-4 Feb. 5
TAC 16 CIAT - Colombia 30 May-3 June 5
TAC 17 World Bank - Washington 9-10 September 2
1978
TAC 18 FAO - Rome 14-21 February 8
TAC 19 ILRAD - Kenya 6-13 June 8
TAC 20 World Bank - Paris 20-22 September 3
1979
TAC 21 World Bank - Washington 13-20 February 8
TAC 22 ICRISAT - India 3-10 July 8
1980
TAC 2 3 FAO Rome 19-26 February 8
TAC 2 4 CIP Peru 1-8 July 8
1981
TAC 25 ILCA - Ethiopia 24 Feb.-3 March 8
TAC 2 6 IITA - Nigeria 23-30 June 8
t
1982
TAC 27 IRRI - Philippines 9-17 March 9
TAC 2 8 CIMMYT Mexico 22-29 June 8
TAC 29 World Bank - Washington 4-6 November 3
1983
TAC 30 FAO Rome 8-15 March 8
TAC 31 ICARDA - Tunisia 28 June-6 July 9
TAC 32 World Bank - Washington 24-29 October 6
1984
TAC 33 FAO Rome 12-19 March 8
TAC 34 ILCA - Ethiopia 21-30 June 10
TAC 35 World Bank - Washington 29 Oct.-3 Nov. 6
1985
TAC 36 FAO Rome 11-18 March 8
TAC 37 IRRI - Philippines 15-25 June 11
TAC 38 World Bank - Washington 22-25 October 4
1986
TAC 39 FAO Rome 17-25 March 9
TAC 40 CIAT - Colombia 22 June-2 July 11
TAC 41 World Bank - Washington 29 Oct.-l Nov. 4
1987
TAC 42 FAO Rome 16-23 March 8
TAC 43 ILRAD - Kenya 22-30 June 9
TAC 44 World Bank - Washington 19-24 October 1987 6
1988
TAC 45 FAO - Rome 7-12 March 6
TAC 46 ICRISAT - India 13-21 June 9
TAC 4 7 World Bank- Washington 25-29 October 5
j
9 ■
V
CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy 
Cables: FOODAGRI ROME - Telex: 610181 FAO I 
TelepFione: 57971
TO: TAC Members DATE: 26 May 1988
/X
>M: John Monyo 
Executive Secretary
SUBJECT: Ad-Hoc Working Groups (TAC 46)
After further review of the agenda and topics for TAC 46, the 
Chairman has made some changes in the groupings he suggested at the 
close of TAC 45. You are requested to note the revised composition. 
Names of working group chairs have been underlined .
PR 3/10.46
cc: TAC Chairman
Membership of Ad Hoc Working Groups
1. Medium-Term Programme Proposals
A. ICRISAT C. I ITA
Raoul Dudal Cornells de Wit
Michael Arnold Ola Helde 
Ernesto Paternlanl E.T. York
Gian Scarascla Mugnozza
B. CIAT D. ILCA
Amir Muhammed Charan Chantalakhana
Thomas Odhlambo Ibrahim Nahal 
Abdoulaye Sawadogo Gustavo Nores
2. ICARDA External Reviews 3. King Baudoln Award
Ola Helde E.T. York
Michael Arnold Raoul Dudal 
Ibrahim Nahal Amir Muhammed 
Gustavo Nores Thomas Odhlambo
Gian Scarascla Mugnozza
4. Aquaculture 5. Coconut
Cornells de Wit Abdoulaye Sawadogo
Charan Chantalakhana Raoul Dudal 
Ola Helde Ernesto Paternlanl
Ibrahim Nahal 
Thomas Odhlambo
6. Review Processes 7. Biotechnology
Michael Arnold Michael Arnold
Charan Chantalakhana Ola Helde 
Cornells de Wit Amir Muhammed 
Raoul Dudal Thomas Odhlambo 
Gustavo Nores Ernesto Paternlanl 
Abdoulaye Sawadogo Gian Scarascla M.
E.T. York
■
Resource Allocation Process Review ICARDA
Coconuts Processes External Aquaculture Biotechnology KBA (Dates)
Reviews
ICRI SAT CIAT IITA ILCA
CHANTALAKHANA X X X 15/16/18
DUDAL X X X X 14/15/16/20
DE WIT X X X 14/15/18
HEIDE X X X X * 14/17/18
MUHAMMED X X X 14/18/20
NAHAL X X X 15/17/18
NORES X X X 15/16/17
0DHIAMB0 X X X * X 14/18/20
PATERNIANI X X X 14/15/18
SAWADOGO X X X 14/15/16
SCARASCIA-MUGNOZZA X X X 14/17/18
YORK X X X 14/15/20
ARNOLD X X X X 14/15/17/18
=:= = == = =! = = 3 = = 3S = = = = := = = = =: = =s = . :=^s = = =s = 3=s=s=s = = =-*
* Potential overlap with aquaculture
Resource Allocation Process Review ICARDA
Coconuts Processes External Aquaculture Biotechnology KBA (Dates)
Reviews
ICRI SAT CIAT IITA ILCA
CHANTALAKHANA X X X 15/16/18
DUDAL X X X X 14/15/16/20
DE WIT X X X 14/15/18
HEIDE X X X X * 14/17/18
MUHAMMED X X X 14/18/20
NAHAL X X X 15/17/18
NORES X X X 15/16/17
ODHIAMBO X X X * X 14/18/20
PATERNIANI X X X 14/15/18
SAWADOGO X X X 14/15/16
SCARASCIA-MUGNOZZA X X X 14/17/18
YORK X X X 14/15/20
ARNOLD X X X X 14/15/17/18
: = = = = = = = = = = = = = := = = = . ;CSSS5: ; = : = == = = == = = = ======= : = = = = = = : : ===: : = = = = = = = = :
* Potential overlap with aquaculture
CALENDAR OF REVIEWS
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Cl AT EPR 2 MTP EPR 3
CIMMYT EPR 3 MTP
CIP MTP EPR 3
IB PGR EPR 2 MTP EPR 3
ICARDA EPR 2 MTP
ICRI SAT EPR 2 ! MTP EPR 3
IFPRI EPR 1 MTP EPR 2
i
IITA MTP EPR 3 (
ILCA EPR 2 MTP I EPR 3
ILRAD EPR 2 MTP EPR 3
IRRI EPR 3 MTP EPR 4
ISNAR EPR 1 MTP EPR 2
WARDA Mid- MTP EPR 3
Term
Review
EPR: External Programme Review 
MTP: Medium Term Plan
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 
Office Location: 801 I9th Street, N.W.
Telephone (Area Code 202) 334-8021 
Cable Address—INTBAFRAD
Date: June 8, 1988
To : Technical Advisory Committee
Fr om : CGIAR Secretariat
Subject: Medium term proposals of CIAT,ILCA,IITA and ICRISAT:
Implications for CGIAR priorities and strategies.
1. In reaching its decisions on the medium term proposals 
presented to TAC, the CGIAR priorities have been an important 
guiding post. The analysis of center proposals has been 
facilitated because except for CIP, the programs approved so far, 
[ IB PGR, ILRAD and ISNAR] have been single focus. TAC judgments 
have demonstrably followed the directions laid out in the 
priorities as summarized in the next paragraph.
Earlier Decisions
2. IBPGR recognized research as a critical element and 
proposed no growth within the five year planning frame, IF PR I ' s
proposition was to treat the total existing program as essential 
and strongly develop its collaborative program. Both elements 
followed the CG priority frame. ISNAR's proposed expansion was 
consistent with the intention to increase resources in this area, 
while ILRAD made a convincing case for a modest expansion in face 
of an earlier judgment for holding resources constant, The CIP
proposal was specifically responsive to the priorities in terms 
of suggesting the build-up of the sweet potato program ( a high 
priority) from 15% to 40% of the combined program within a 
constant overall resource base, These approvals in total
represent about 20% of the annual CGIAR expenditures on essential 
programs.
Proposed programs
3 . The four center programs under review at this meeting
represent almost half of the annual CGIAR expenditures. Ex c ep t
ILCA which is single focus livestock, the other three are
multi-commodity. Most commodities in their mandates were
earmarked for more resources in the earlier priority judgments. 
These programs represent the bulk of the system's effort in 
Africa on commodities. All four plan expansion during the 1989- 
93 period although about a third of the expansion is due to 
including in the essential program ongoing activities financed 
outside of core. TAC decisions therefore are particularly
momentous.
S-0016
2
4. From the system perspective the issues raised by these 
proposals by and large appear to be those of scale and to a
lesser extent recognition of priority. To better understand
these macro aspects, the secretariat has constructed a numerical
framework (please see table) paralleling the one used in the
priority paper. To reduce any distortion, the distribution is
set up only for 1989 since firm data is available, The expansion
scenario in the priorities paper is the point of comparision. 
Some omissions are important to recognize, Four centers are
straight1ined in 1989 pending review of their five year plans
next year. This influences allocations for rice, wheat/barley,
chickpeas/faba beans/Ienti1s. No effort has been made to allocate
resource management programs of IITA, ICRISAT and ICARDA to the
mandate commodities. Finally, the analysis includes only the
essential programs [ and core programs in case of IRRI, ICARDA,
CIMMYT and WARDA]. The secretariat believes that even with these 
omissions, the data is reasonably indicatve of the emerging 
patterns. At the same time it must be recognized that such
aggregate data is purely indicative of directions.
Highlights
5 . Against the 1983 baseline and using the 25% growth 
scenario as a goal, the 1989 data shows progress in terms of
reduced CG investments in cereals (46% vs 44% target, baseline 
51%) . Investments in roots and tubers are significantly below 
the target (14% vs 20% targeted) while livestock investments are 
significantly above the target (25% vs 18% target), These
figures are not likely to be significantly different even if the 
essential programs of IRRI and CIMMYT were to include a proxy 
figure of say $5 million to represent the inclusion of the 
appropriate "special projects".
3
CGIAR resources by commodity 
(pe rcent age s)
TAC
1983 1989 Indicative 
bas el ine plans allocations 
(TAC paper) essential : *Growth 
programs. s cenario
% % %
Cereals [ 5 1% ] [ 46 % ] [ 4 4%]
Rice 25% 20% 16%
Wheat/Barley 10% 9% 9%
Maize 9% 9% 10%
Millet 3% 3% 5%
Sorghum 3% 5% 5%
Legumes [ 1 6% ] [ 1 5% ] [ 1 8% ]
Ph. Beans 4% 7% 4%
Groundnut 1% 2% 4%
Pigeon pea 1% 1% 3%
Cowpea 3% 2% 3%
Soybean 1% 0% 3%
Chick peas/faba b. 5% 4% 2%
Tubers [ 14% ] [ 14% ] [ 2 0% ]
Cassava 7% 6% 6%
Potato 6% 4% 5%
Sweet Potato 0% 3% 5%
Yam/Plant. 1% 1% 5%
Livest ock [ 19% ] [ 2 5% ] [ 18% ]
Production 13% 18% 13%
Diseases 6% 7% 5%
Total 100% 100% 100%
^Growth scenario allocations recomputed to exclude new commodities.
"'vS"‘v
V -r
4
Issues
6. Within cereals, ICRISAT's two commodities show
different trends, The data shows that proposed investments for
sorghum are at the target level of 5%+, while millet will be 
several points [ 3% vs 5% target] below, Allocations for maize
have increased proportionately to the overall growth and are 
consistent with the target percentage.
7 . The overall allocation for legumes masks important 
shifts. Phaseolous beans are substantially higher [ 7% vs 4% 
target ] while groundnut and cowpea proportions are lower.
Soybean is substantially below [negligible vs 3% target]. 
Proportions for faba beans/1entils/chickpeas as a group are 
significantly above the target [ 4% vs 2% target], Based on CIAT
plans the proportion for beans is not likely to be higher by 1993 
while based on ICRISAT plans groundnut will register further 
increases by 1993. The issue is clearly that of cowpea and 
soybean where IITA plans are significantly different than those 
implied in the priorities.
8. Within roots and tubers, the proposed plans result in 
allocations for cassava, and based on earlier decisions, potato 
and sweet potato, at the target level while yams and plantains 
are significantly below, [ 1% vs 5%]. IITA future plans also do
not indicate such major strengthening of effort on either yams or 
plantains.
9 . TAC agreement to allow a small growth in livestock 
diseases is reflected in livestock diseases being higher [ 7% vs
5% target ]. Plans for livestock production also indicate a 
major shift [ 18% vs 13% target].
cc: Center Directors
Center Board Chairs
/ z
; •
CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Via delle Terme di Carecallo, 00100 Rome, Italy 
Cables: FOODAGRI ROME - Telex: 610181 FAO I 
Telephone: 57971
To : TAC Members 13 May 1988
v' O
From: John Monyo h 
Executive Secretary, TAC
Subject : Tropical Forestry Research
The attached document contains a briefing paper given by the 
Chairman of the Bellagio Task Force on Tropical Forestry Research to a 
meeting of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan advisors held in Rome, 3-6 
May 1988. Annex I of the paper is the statement of the Bellagio 
Strategy Meeting on Tropical Forestry, 1-2 July 1987.
The TAC Chairman has invited Dr. J.H. Hulse, a member of the 
Bellagio Task Force on Tropical Forestry Research to make a brief 
presentation at TAC 46. Some of the issues he wants to discuss with TAC 
are stated on page 2 of the briefing paper (Section 4).
PR 3/10.46
cc: TAC Chairman
TAC Secretariat
"BELLAGIO FORESTRY II”
RESEARCH STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TFAP
A BRIEFING PAPER ON THE WORK OF 
THE BELLAGIO FORESTRY TASK FORCE (BFTF)
1. You will recall the strategy meeting on tropical forests, 
"Bellagio Forestry I" held in July, 1987 under the auspices of FAO, the 
World Bank, UNDP, the World Resources Institute, and the Rockefeller 
Foundation. Annex I is an extract of the concluding statement of that 
meeting which called for the formation of an international Task Force to 
prepare proposals for policy responses, financing strategies, and the 
institutional mechanism to implement the ten recommendations of the 
meeeting. Subsequently, informal discussions suggested that pursuit of 
all ten recommendations at the same time was too ambitious. When this 
was discussed at the fifth Meeting of the Forestry Advisers of Donor 
Organizations last December in Brussels, there was agreement that 
tropical forest research was a major weakness in implementing the TFAP 
and it was recommended that "Bellagio Forestry II" should concentrate on 
strengthening forestry research. It was stressed that the need for 
research and an improved flow of better quality information underlies 
all ten of the Bellagio I recommendations.
2. In the light of this, UNDP, the World Bank and the Rockefeller 
Foundation have jointly sponsored the work of a Task Force on forestry 
research with the following terms of reference:
"The tropical forestry action plan provides the framework for the 
work of the Task Force which shall:
(i) review the relevance, effectiveness, and capacity of 
tropical forestry research — basic and applied, technical 
and policy — and the relations with all aspects of 
development ;
(ii) assess and recommend research needs of prime importance 
over the short, medium and long term; and
(ili) recommend appropriate institutional frameworks and 
mechanisms, and estimate their cost."
The Task Force (see Annex II) met in early March and is now at 
work with a timetable that requires its final report to be distributed 
by mid-September for presentation and debate at a Bellagio Forestry II 
meeting in early December 1988. The aim is to win support "in 
principle" from major donor organizations for the reforms and actions 
proposed. Annex III shows the structure of the report and it will be 
limited to about thirty pages with a small number of brief background 
papers. The plan for the next Bellagio is for a short presentation and 
a full discussion.
2
3. A major objective of the Task Force is a critical selection of 
research priorities as a necessary first step in recommending the most 
appropriate institutional framework and procedures for strengthening 
research. At the request of the Task Force Chairman, John Spears has 
prepared a draft paper on research priorities and this had been used as 
background to numerous consultations by members of the Task Force with a 
wide range of institutions and individuals around the world including 
donors, scientific institutions and developing countries. The Task 
Force meets again for five days at the end of May to draw up formulated 
views and begin drafting its report.
4. Preliminary findings indicate that the main obstacles to more 
effective research include:
lack of any institutional mechanism for advising, assisting and 
coordinating research in developing countries;
lack of political support for forestry research;
lack of trained people;
lack of physical facilities;
inadequacy and instability of funding;
inadequate incentives for forestry researchers;
inadequate library and information sources.
The institutional options considered by the Task force must 
address these obstacles. It is clear that something drastic needs to be 
done to strengthen research in tropical countries while at the same time 
recognizing the immense scope and the desperate need for improving the 
flow and the application of existing knowledge. Both issues must be 
tackled .
A range of options are being considered including:
(1) integrating forestry into the CGIAR System and the 
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC);
(ii) integrating forestry into the CGIAR System and 
establishing a forestry TAC;
(ill) establishing a Consultative Group on Forestry (e.g. CGIFR) 
with a forestry TAC - and there are several variations on 
this t heme ;
(iv) informal arrangements for exchanging information and work 
plans through research networks and workshops, etc.
The closely related issues include the INCOFORE proposal from 
IUFRO; the need to strengthen research capabilities of individual
tropical countries; the merits of building on success by strengthening 
existing institutions; the value of well planned networks and "Twinning" 
arrangements between institutions in tropical and non-tropical countries;
3
and the need to create close links between agricultural and forestry 
research institutions, including the use of IARC centres of CGIAR, etc.
5. There are numerous options including, of course, INCOFORE and 
variations on it, and the debate is lively. Our task over the coming 
weeks is to specify an institutional framework which is practical, cost 
effective, and capable of stimulating and coordinating the most needed 
research and extension work in tropical countries - and to achieve 
results quickly and at the same time build up the research capabilities 
of individual countries. Last, and by no means least, we have to 
persuade some major donor agencies to give financial support to any 
changes we recommend .
G.D. Holmez 
BTFT
May 1st 1988
ANNEX I
STATEMENT
OF
THE BELLAGIO STRATEGY MEETING ON TROPICAL FORESTS
1 and 2 July 1987
A conference at Bellagio, Italy, on the state of the world's 
tropical forests called upon world leaders to join in a "Tropical 
Forestry Action Plan" aimed at conservation and sustainable use of 
remaining natural tropical forests for the benefit of developing-country 
populations and the world at large.
The Tropical Forest Crisis
Tropical forests are being rapidly destroyed, Their loss is one
of the most serious environmental threats of our time.
Tropical deforestation in developing countries is having a 
devastating effect on food production, fuelwood and fodder supplies, 
soil fertility, and water resources. It is undermining agriculture in 
these countries and exacerbating rural poverty. Specifically:
-More than half of the world's tropical forests have disappeared 
since the turn of the century;
- The current rate of deforestation exceeds 11 million hectares a 
year ;
- The livelihood of 200 million forest dwellers is threatened;
- More than one billion people are suffering from shortages of 
fuelwood and fodder;
- Developing country imports of forest products already exceed 
US$10 billion;
- The destruction of tropical forests is resulting in widespread 
loss of unique ecosystems, directly contributing to the 
extinction of plant and animal genetic resources;
- More than half of the developing world's population live in the 
56 most critically affected countries.
The causes of deforestation are well known. They include 
population pressure for agricultural land, the demand for fuelwood and 
fodder, the unsustainable exploitation of forests for industrial timber 
production and export, and inappropriate government policies regarding 
land tenure, economic incentives, forest settlement, and other 
population issues. Development assistance agencies contribute to the
Annex I - Page 2
problem when they finance environmentally unsound large-scale 
development projects.
The Tropical Forestry Action Plan has focused world attention on 
this crisis. The plan has been endorsed by forestry leaders of more 
than 60 developing countries and has been accepted as a basis for action 
by a score of bilateral and multilateral development assistance 
agencies. A doubling of annual forestry assistance In support of the 
plan has been pledged, from US$500 million In 1984 to US$1 billion In 
1988.
The Conference Recommendations
The Bellagio conference shares the sense of urgency for global 
action called for In the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. It concentrated 
on 10 major recommendations for addressing the crisis of deforestation.
1 . Quantifying the Costs of Inaction
Tropical deforestation has been ignored or inadequately reflected 
in most government development plans. Action is needed on a country by 
country basis to specify the consequences for human welfare and the 
environment of the failure to contain deforestation. This is a 
necessary first step to generating political awareness and commitment .
2. Incorporating Recommendations for Action into National
Development Plans
The urgency of the forestry crisis must be communicated to 
national economic planners and to financial and political leaders.
Within five years all of the critically affected countries should have 
incorporated into their national development plans a long-range strategy 
for conservation and sustainable use of their tropical forests.
3. Promoting Community Participation
Developing countries should be assisted to implemnent a major 
program for involving men and women of local communities in forest 
conservation and tree planting. Non-governmental organizations have a 
critical role to play in promoting action to save tropical forests and 
in assuring grass roots participation. Special attention should be 
given to reclamation of agricultural wasteland and degraded watersheds.
4. Encouraging Participation of the Private Sectors
Government forest administrations on their own cannot cope with 
this crisis. Policy incentives should be introduced that would provide 
the necessary stimulus for private sector participation in reforestation 
and sustainable forest management, particularly by small farmers and 
local communities. Women, who are the main harvesters and users of 
wood, should be more directly involved in formulating rural forest 
policies. Private industry should be encouraged through fiscal 
incentives and similar programs to undertake large-scale industrial 
forest management and reforestation projects within a suitable legal 
framework which ensures net replenishment of forest resources.
Annex I - Page 3
5. Policy Reforms
Policy reform is needed from both national governments and 
development assistance agencies. National governments should, for 
example, act to remove subsidies and other inappropriate policies that 
encourage economic inefficiency and over-harvesting of forest resources. 
Development assistance agencies should, for example, revise policies 
that are contributing to the destruction of natural ecosystems, and 
design project strategies that favour protection of these valuable 
resources.
6. Protecting Tropical Forest Ecosystems
Concerted international support should be given to a campaign for 
protecting the 700 million hectares of remaining tropical rain forest, 
the planet's greatest source of plant and animal diversity. This can be 
achieved by major expansions of protected areas and biosphere reserves . 
By encouraging more intensive and profitable use of degraded forest 
land, pressure on protected areas can be relieved.
7. Integration of Forestry into Broader Land-Use Concerns
Important solutions to deforestation will come from outside the 
forestry sector. Increasing farmers' agricultural productivity provides 
an alternative to forest encroachment. Energy conservation programs can 
be a cost-effective strategy for saving forests. Such solutions to 
deforestation will be discovered and implemented only if forestry 
planning is integrated with planning in other sectors.
8. Strengthening Research
Technical, biological, socio-economic, and policy research must 
be intensified. As an example, there is significant potential to raise 
the productivity of multipurpose trees through breeding and 
biotechnology, thereby helping to meet rural basic needs. Substantially 
increased funding for such research will be necessary and opportunities 
should be examined for establishing a consultative group for 
international forestry research and policy development, with a vision 
and determination comparable to the one organized for agriculture on 
this same conference site almost twenty years ago.
9. Monitoring of Tropical Deforestation
An annual review of the status of world forest resources and of 
progress being made in halting forest destruction is urged. In addition 
to government and aid agency assessments, citizen reports should be 
encouraged on grass roots evaluation of whether national progress is 
being made in arresting deforestation.
10. Coordinating International Action
The Tropical Forestry Action Plan provides an effective framework 
for coordinating international action. To help governments of 
developing countries to implement the plan, the Food and Agriculture 
Organization is supporting efforts to coordinate bilateral and 
multilateral agency assistance for strengthening forestry sector 
planning.
Annex I - Page 4
Follow-up Action
An international task force will immediately begin to prepare 
specific recommendations for policy responses, funding strategies, and 
institutional mechanisms necessary to implement these and related 
recommendations. A second Bellagio forestry conference to be held next 
year will review the task force recommendations and make proposals for 
their adoption.
Agreed at Bellagio, Italy
2 July 1987
The Bellagio Strategy Meeting on Tropical Forests was convened 
under the auspices of:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
The World Bank
United Nations Development Programme 
World Resources Institute 
The Rockefeller Foundation
14 April 1988 ANNEX II
Task Force Address List
1. George D. Holmes (Chairman)
7 Cammo Road 
Barnton
Edinburgh EH6 8EF 
Scotland
2. Joseph H. Hulse 
1628 Featherston Drive 
Ottawa, Canada K1H 6P2
3. Achoka Aworri (NGO)
Co-ordinator
Kenya Energy Non-Governmental
Organizations Association (KENGO) 
P.0. Box 48197 
Nairobi, Kenya
4. Ronnie de Camino
Head, Forestry and Agroforestry Area 
Centro Agronomico Tropical de
Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE) 
7170 Turrialba 
Costa Rica
5. Mohamed Hosny El-Lakany 
Associate Director 
Desert Development Center 
American University in Cairo 
(113 Kasr El Aini Street) 
P.0. Box 2511 
Cairo, Egypt
6. Hans M. Gregersen 
College of Forestry 
University of Minnesota 
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
U.S.A.
7. Peter T. Hazlewood 
World Resources Institute 
1735 New York Ave., N.W. 
Washington D.C. 20006, U.S.A.
Annex II - Page 2
Task Force Address List
(Cont'd . )
8. Louis E. Huguet or 3, rue Lacnnec 
27 Fond de Ville 29118 Benodet 
30170 Saint Hippolyte du Fort France
France
9. Dominic E. Iyamabo
IUFRO Special Program for Africa
ICRAF House
P.0. Box 30677
Nairobi, Kenya
10. Arvind Kumar Khare (NGO)
Programme Officer 
Society for Promotion of 
Wastelands Development 
2nd Floor, Shriram Bhartiya 
Kala Kendra 
1, Copernicus Marg 
New Delhi 110 001, India
11. Peter Oram
International Food Policy Research 
Institute (IFPRI)
1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 
Washington D.C. 20036, USA
12. Salleh Mohd . Nor 
Director-General
Forest Research Institute Malaysia
Kepond, Selangor
52109 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
13. M.S. Swaminathan 
B 4/142 Safdarjang Enclave 
New Delhi 11029, India
ANNEX III
Keynote paper outline
I. Background
TFAP, Bellagio I and II, task force, etc.
II. The TFAP
A. Tropical deforestation 
B. The TFAP
- role of forestry in development 
five TFAP action areas 
C. Progress in TFAP implementation 
D. Bottlenecks: need for strengthened research
III. Role and Contributions of Research
A. General
B. Policy research 
C. Technical research
D. Current investment and absorptive capacity
IV. Research Needs and Opportunities
A. Forestry's role in sustainable agriculture 
B. Fuelwood and energy
C. Conservation of biological diversity 
D. Industrial forestry
V. Obstacles and Requirements for Progress
A. Research capacity (people and resources)
B. Existing institutional frameworks 
- incl . mechanisms for cooperation, coordination, 
dissemination, and finance
VI. Recommendations for Action
A. Strategy statement 
B. Institutional frameworks 
C. Sources of finance
D. Five-year action program (to address short and long-term 
need s )