global recommitment TO AGRICULTURE global recommitment TO AGRICULTURE global recommitment TO AGRICULTURE global recommitment TO AGRICULTU CGIAR ANNUAL REPORT 2008 african development bank :::: arab fund for economic and social development :::: asian development bank :::: australia :::: austria :::: bangladesh :::: belgium :::: brazil :::: canada :::: china :::: colombia :::: commission of the european community :::: côte d’ivoire :::: denmark :::: arab republic of egypt :::: finland :::: food and agriculture organization of the united nations :::: ford foundation :::: france :::: germany :::: gulf cooperation council :::: india :::: indonesia :::: inter-american development bank :::: international development research centre :::: international fund for agricultural development :::: islamic republic of iran :::: ireland :::: israel :::: italy :::: japan :::: kellogg foundation :::: kenya :::: republic of korea :::: luxembourg :::: malaysia :::: mexico :::: morocco :::: netherlands :::: new zealand :::: nigeria :::: norway :::: opec fund for international development :::: pakistan :::: peru :::: philippines :::: portugal :::: rockefeller foundation :::: romania :::: russian federation :::: south africa :::: spain :::: sweden :::: switzerland :::: syngenta foundation for sustainable agriculture :::: syrian arab republic :::: thailand :::: turkey :::: uganda :::: united kingdom :::: united nations development programme :::: united nations environment programme :::: united states of america :::: world bank CGIAR MEMBERS As poor communities in developing countries feel the pressures of climate change, high food prices and volatile economies, the knowledge, expertise and technologies for agricultural development of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) have never been more critically needed. These mounting global pressures are pushing millions of people deeper into hunger and poverty and further threatening livelihoods that are already too fragile. Thanks to the support and commitment of its 64 Members, the CGIAR is making headway with new initiatives and innovations to address these challenges. Today, with renewed global attention to agriculture and calls to increase investments in agricultural research, the CGIAR is invigorated to fulfill its mandate to serve the poor and the planet — to do more and do better in a changing agricultural landscape. The unwavering commitment of its Members makes this possible and for that, tribute to we are grateful. our impact IN OUR STAKEHOLDERS’ WORDS Beneficiaries, partners and policymakers testify to the value of the international public goods derived from CGIAR research, as detailed in this report beginning on page 19 Bioversity Internatio International Rice Internationa International Center for A Africa Rice CenterInte International Crops R Center for Inte The food crisis of 2007 and 2008, says Abdoulaye Ouédraogo, a smallholder rice farmer in Burkina Faso, “forced our government to pay attention to local rice production, which had been neglected for too long.” The increased availability of certified new rice for Africa seed from the Africa Rice Center has helped boost production. “The project introduced new ways to prepare quinoa and cañahua, improving the community’s nutrition and generating income,” reports Wilfredo Rojas, coordinator for the Altiplano of Fundacion PROINPA in Bolivia, referring to a partnership with Bioversity International. “Our work together has generated trust and sharing.” Integrated landscape management “has provided incentives for the subsequent involvement of rural communities in conservation activities,” reports Mahmoud Camara, former minister of the Guinean Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Environment, Water and Forests about a project led by the Center for International Forestry Research. “With Stylo, I save time every day, since I don’t have to go out and gather feed for my pigs,” says a woman surnamed Sone, who learned from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture to grow the forage in her village in northern Laos. “Also, my pigs are heavier now.” “Injera [flat bread] made from quality protein maize is less sour than that from conventional maize,” says the mother of an Ethiopian child in a nutritional study led by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. “Our children like its flavor better and do not feel hungry for a longer time after eating it.” Internatio WorldFish Center Int ternational Livestock Resear arch Institute International titute of Tropical Agriculture ultural Research in the Dry A onal Water Management In rch Institute for the Semi-Ar onal Forestry Research Wor Challenge Progr “The program has given us better technologies for hill slope irrigation and rangeland management,” says Samvel Avetisyan, Armenia’s deputy minister for agriculture, citing two aspects of the CGIAR collaborative program in Central Asia and the Caucasus led by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas. “I sowed eight tenths of a hectare with Anantha Jyothi in 2008 and harvested 73 bags [3.56 tons],” says Indian farmer G. Narasimhulu, naming a groundnut variety from the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. “I paid the friends who helped me with the stems, and I earned a net profit of Rs69,330 [$1,475].” The International Food Policy Research Institute is “providing excellent analysis and policy advice on the food price crisis,” reported Peter McPherson, co-chair of the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, in testimony on the crisis given in March 2008 to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Influential stakeholders from all sectors … say that they were proud to have been in Mombasa and associated with shaping a 10-year strategy for African bananas,” report Thomas Dubois and Danny Coyne of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, lead organizers of the pan-African conference Banana 2008. d onal Maize and Wheat Improveme ternational Center for Tropical Ag rch Institute Generation Challeng Food Policy Research Institute eSub-Saharan Africa Challenge Pro Areas HarvestPlus Challenge Progr nstitute Challenge Program on Wat rid Tropics International Potato Ce rld Agroforestry Centre ram on Climate Change, Agricultu “We think there is a huge market for doing well while doing good,” says Chris Barrett, a Cornell University partner of the International Livestock Research Institute in regard to insuring semi-nomadic pastoralists in Kenya against drought. “We have the technologies. We have the political interest. We have the commercial interest. And we have the community interest.” “The Bangladesh Rice Knowledge Bank is a one-stop repository of rice information with a training module, a rice production handbook, modern publications and flip charts,” says Jahirul Islam, chief scientific officer and head of the Training Division of the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute and partner of the International Rice Research Institute. The International Water Management Institute “has greatly increased awareness of the growing role of groundwater irrigation and its positive and negative impacts,” reports B.N. Navalawala, advisor to the chief minister of Gujarat and former secretary in the Indian Ministry of Water Resources. “Now we have food for most of the year,” says farmer Nelson Mkwaila, who credits help from the World Agroforestry Centre toward planting fertilizer trees in his fields and improved varieties of fruit trees across his smallholding in Malawi. “And the health of my children is much better than it used to be.” “I’m happy to stay here now and manage my father’s farm,” says Sudhir Tigga, a WorldFish Center project beneficiary in Bangladesh whose improved income from selling fingerlings, food fish and rice means he no longer has to migrate to the city to work as a rickshaw wallah. ent Center griculture ge Programme ogram ram ter and Food enter ure and Food Security The Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security “provides a unique platform to bring these [global environmental change and development research] communities together to tackle one of humanity’s greatest challenges,” says Rik Leemans, ex-officio member of the Challenge Program’s steering committee. “The value added by the Challenge Program on Water and Food is the very important network capital that is created,” states the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development. “The CPWF has been able to tackle issues that would have been impossible to cover by individual CGIAR Centers.” “The Generation Challenge Programme got us collecting cassava material from the wild and amplifying cassava genetic diversity in a short time,” says Alfredo Alves, a plant physiologist at the Cassava and Tropical Fruits Center of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. “And now the process is more scientific and systematic.” “The HarvestPlus Challenge Program taught us how to rapidly multiply sweet potato vines,” says Dickson Mbogo, a farmer in Uganda. “I combined what I knew with what we had been taught. In 5 months, my income was 50% greater than my traditional return, so I stopped doing casual labor and focused on producing orange sweet potato.” “Never before have we had such a meeting of multiple stakeholders trying to collectively understand the challenges to agriculture before conducting research,” comments Jimmy Musiime, a former local council chairman in Kabale District, Uganda, regarding the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program. “This is different.” Global Recommitment to Agriculture Table of Contents Our Impact in our Stakeholders’ Words Our Commitment in a Time of Change 5 2 Message from the Chair and Director 2008: A Stronger CGIAR Agriculture in the Middle A Changing CGIAR Science Council: An Essential CGIAR Alliance of the CGIAR Centers: Framework for the Future Better Together: OUR COMMITMENT TO PARTNERSHIPS Mozambique: Milestones in Mozambique Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: Back to Basics 15 Centers supported by the CGIAR Challenge Programs 35 19 Reaping Results: OUR COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE 41 Science Awards: Recognizing Excellence in 2008 Performance Measurement: Continued Commitment to Results CGIAR in the News: In The Public Eye CGIAR Gender & Diversity Program: Empowering Africa’s Women System Office: Central Services for Centers A Global CGIAR: CGIAR Supported Centers Executive Summary 2008 Financials Who’s Who CGIAR Members The CGIAR The CGIAR 1971-2008 55 67 Acronyms and Abbreviations 72 ANNUAL REPORT 2008 4 our commitment in A TIME OF CHANGE A STRONGER CGIAR Message from the Chair and Director 2008 The new structure for international agricultural research will turn best bets into sure things — if momentum from the recent global recommitment to agriculture is maintained The year 2008 lent new truth to a saying that has been around the CGIAR for a long time: If this organization did not exist, somebody would have to invent it. Multiple crises — triggered successively by climate change, fuel and food price inflation, and a global financial meltdown — conveyed an unmistakable message this year about the importance and fragile state of agriculture in the developing world. They clearly underlined the role of international research in achieving sustainable agricultural growth. World leaders who gathered in July 2008 at the Group of Eight summit in Japan specifically recognized the valuable contributions of the CGIAR in combating hunger and called for increased investment in our work. While we are, of course, gratified by such words — as they signal global recommitment to agriculture after many years of neglect — we are also aware that they provide no grounds for complacency. The CGIAR responded decisively to the previous global food crisis in the early 1970s. And it has worked successfully since then to strengthen food security, reduce poverty and improve natural resource management through a diverse program of research for development. But the way we have operated in the past is not necessarily best suited to the immediate future. We must find more effective means to confront complex new challenges like climate change and to help finish the tasks of defeating hunger and rural poverty while protecting natural resources. All of this must be accomplished despite continuing turmoil in financial and energy markets and in other spheres that impinge on agriculture. New Way Forward. In search of better ways to work together with our many partners, the CGIAR embarked in 2007 on its Change Management Initiative and Independent Review. The initiative consisted of intensive deliberations by four working groups under the guidance of a steering team, while the independent review involved numerous interviews, a broad survey, and comprehensive assessments of impact, partnership and other areas. The two parallel processes, both involving extensive consultation with stakeholders, advanced swiftly throughout 2008, culminating in a proposal for reform entitled A Revitalized CGIAR: A New Way Forward. Katherine Sierra CGIAR Chair Ren Wang CGIAR Director ANNUAL REPORT 2008 6 We are extremely grateful to the people who took part in those important processes, particularly the members of the Change Steering Team and of the four change working groups, together with the Independent Review panel. We are highly pleased that the reform proposal received unanimous approval in principle from CGIAR Members at our Annual General Meeting held in Maputo, Mozambique, during December. The new way forward constitutes a thorough set of reforms. A new vision and strategic objectives will sharply focus our research agenda, which will be closely linked to quantifiable global development challenges. Our new way of working on the basis of contractual arrangements will place greater emphasis on results management and will open the CGIAR to stronger partnerships for delivering research results. The reforms will be implemented vigorously over the next year, with completion expected in 2010. Renewal and Rebalance. The central aims of this “renewed and rebalanced partnership,” as the review panel termed it, are to streamline CGIAR governance, improve the quantity and quality of our funding, broaden and strengthen our partnerships, and enable us to speak and act in a more collective manner on major issues in agricultural development. The new CGIAR will have a dual structure, consisting of a fund designed to harmonize donor commitments and a consortium of CGIAR-supported Centers, which will channel its efforts through major programs. The fund and consortium will be linked through program performance contracts to finance the delivery of international public goods. A common strategy and results framework will lend coherence to the new structure. Given the current atmosphere of the food and financial crisis, some may think it is not a good time for the CGIAR to undertake far-reaching institutional changes. On the contrary, we are convinced that our reform program is especially urgent now, as part of a larger and much-needed overhaul of agriculture’s global governance architecture. According to a recent paper by Joachim von Braun, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), inadequate support for research or attention to the looming water crisis, harmful biofuel policies, and other failures are all “symptoms of disarray” in the world food system. Rather than merely treat individual symptoms, he argues, we must “build a stronger food system that can respond to future challenges.” This is the context in which CGIAR institutional reforms should be viewed. If we are to help put agriculture’s house in order globally, then obviously our own household must be functioning at its best, too. Best-Bet Technologies. During most of 2008, our reform process ran parallel with another important initiative, which illustrates exactly how international research can help achieve long-term agricultural growth while addressing immediate crises. Starting in April, CGIAR and World Bank colleagues began compiling an inventory of about 50 “best-bet” technologies for boosting crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa. Several months later, the Alliance of the CGIAR Centers, with IFPRI taking a lead role, embarked on a wider effort to identify a representative selection of global best bets. The 14 evaluated options are key examples of research investments that together have the potential to reach billions of people over the next decade and beyond — through, for example, more productive and resilient crop and livestock systems, more nutritious food, less environmental risk, and stronger market links. Much of the research described in this CGIAR Annual Report 2008 pertains to those options, and it demonstrates quite vividly how the rural poor in particular already benefit from improved crop varieties and better ways to manage natural resources, promote policy change and build stronger institutions. The theme of this report — Global Recommitment to Agriculture — alludes to a critical ingredient required in order for the best-bet options to fulfill their huge potential. In 2008, world leaders awakened to the consequences of prolonged complacency about agriculture and called for renewed global commitment to this vital sector, including agricultural research. Let us hope, for the sake of the nearly 1 billion people who have yet to fully enjoy their basic right to food and nutrition security, that this commitment is forthcoming and that it translates into sustained, coordinated and effective action. Katherine Sierra CGIAR Chair Ren Wang CGIAR Director 7 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Agriculture in the Middle A succession of crises — fuel, food and financial — underline the need for determined action to put agriculture’s house in order Like an earthquake followed by powerful aftershocks, multiple crises shook world agriculture to its foundations in 2008, causing widespread human suffering and revealing serious structural weaknesses in the global food system. The beginning of the year saw national and international institutions struggling to assimilate the dire implications of climate change for agriculture, spelled out in a series of 2007 reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The central question that preyed on people’s minds was whether agriculture can cope quickly enough with such expected impacts as more frequent drought and flooding to ward off major deterioration in the food security of vulnerable regions during the coming decades. Heightening that concern, a major food price crisis that had emerged forcefully in 2007 reached its peak toward the middle of 2008. The international prices of wheat and maize reached levels three times those in 2005, while the price of rice rose fivefold over the same period. Though rising food prices affected all consumers, they imposed especially great hardship on the poor, who spend 50-70% of their income on food. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the number of undernourished people in the world increased from 848 million in 1990 to 923 million by the end of 2007, largely because of food price inflation. In 2008, the figure continued climbing toward 1 billion. Emergency Response. Grasping the huge dimensions of the crisis, world leaders began to respond, and emergency aid was forthcoming. After years of neglect, agriculture was suddenly high on the development agenda again. In April, the United Nations secretary general established the High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis. And, at its request, the joint Comprehensive Framework for Action on the Global Food Security Crisis was created with the aim of catalyzing action by governments, international and regional organizations, and civil society. Meanwhile, the World Bank, in coordination with the High-Level Task Force, created the Global Food Crisis Response Program (funded initially with US$1.2 billion) ANNUAL REPORT 2008 8 Multiple crises in 2008 underlined the developing world’s fragile state of agriculture and food security, and the need for renewed attention to agricultural research. to provide hard-hit countries with immediate assistance. Other major development organizations responded quickly as well. The United States Agency for International Development, for example, immediately stepped up its emergency food assistance and channeled significant funds into the CGIAR for promoting improved food production technologies that are ready for widespread dissemination. Similarly, the International Fund for Agricultural Development made available $200 million to provide an immediate boost to agricultural production in developing countries. In any humanitarian emergency, the initial outpouring of aid inspires renewed confidence in people’s capacity to care for those in need. But then troubling questions start to arise. Why were people so vulnerable to disaster in the first place? And what could have been done to prevent it or at least to diminish the toll of human suffering? Symptom of Disarray. In the case of the food crisis, this is where the earthquake metaphor ceases to apply. Rising food prices, which someone also referred to as a “silent tsunami,” are not a natural disaster at all. Rather, they have resulted from inadequate human decisions and efforts over a long time. So concluded a series of analyses carried out by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) starting in 2007 (see page 28). These pointed to a combination of trends, some long term and others more recent, that converged over several years to precipitate the first major world food crisis since the early 1970s. One chief contributor was burgeoning demand for grain to feed growing numbers of humans — and of the livestock whose products people increasingly consume, as economic growth, rising incomes and urbanization allow more of them to diversify their diets. A contributing culprit was the unbridled biofuel boom based on the use of staple foods as raw material, which came about in response to high fossil fuel prices and is encouraged by government subsidies. Crop production ultimately failed to keep pace with rapidly growing market demand. This came as a surprise to many, because continuing improvement in agricultural productivity over several decades had steadily driven down food prices, benefiting poor consumers in particular. This favorable trend also bred complacency, and aid to agriculture fell into decline, dropping by more than half from a peak of $7 billion per year in the mid-1980s to $3 billion in the mid-2000s. As a result, growth in agricultural yields began to stagnate, declining from about 3% annually in the 1970s to less than 1% since 2000, according to the FAO. Complacency regarding agriculture was born of plenty and abetted by a hands-off approach to agricultural development in the 1990s, which assumed that market forces and privatization would be sufficient to modernize smallholder agriculture, making public support less necessary. Hence, governments sharply curtailed extension services and other forms of support for agriculture, including investment in research, rural infrastructure and institutions. More than just a policy miscalculation, failure to take the measures needed for accelerating growth in agricultural productivity, with due emphasis on the improved management of natural resources, was a “symptom of disarray” in the “architecture for governing food, nutrition and agriculture,” asserts Joachim von Braun, IFPRI director general, in a recent issue of the journal Food Security. Ill-considered biofuel policies and inadequate responses to the looming water crisis likewise revealed fundamental flaws in the current arrangements for combating hunger, poverty and environmental destruction. About-face on Agriculture. Once the food price crisis brought those deficiencies into plain view, international leaders began calling loudly for a recommitment to agriculture. These calls drew strength from the findings of the World Bank’s 9 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH A global financial meltdown began to unfold, raising the specter of worldwide economic recession. How did this new crisis shape earlier concerns about food prices? In the first instance, tightening credit and declining incomes put downward pressure on grain consumption. Flagging demand, together with good harvests of staple cereals, reduced prices by 30-40% toward the end of 2008. Those developments, welcome as they were, had the perverse effect of dissipating the “sense of immediacy” surrounding “agricultural concerns,” as IFPRI’s Joachim von Braun put it in a Nature magazine commentary. Yet the easing of international food prices left them well above the levels of just a few years ago, and in developing countries they have not dropped as quickly, if at all, according to the FAO food price index. Meanwhile, it became clear that global recession would worsen the food crisis in various ways, primarily by limiting the buying power of poor consumers, as jobs and remittances vanish and large numbers of migrant workers return to the countryside. Recession may also limit new investment in making agriculture in the developing world more productive and profitable, even as more people depend directly on it for basic food security and livelihoods. The emerging economic turmoil thus underlined the message that, until agriculture’s house is put in order, permitting new rounds of sustainable productivity growth, developing countries will remain highly vulnerable to food price volatility. Global recession will worsen the food crisis in various ways, primarily by limiting the buying power of poor consumers, as jobs and remittances vanish. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, as well as from another major study, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. In laying out a 10-point plan to tackle the food crisis, World Bank President Robert Zoellick cited the need to “increase research spending, reversing years of agricultural underinvestment.” He went on to call for a doubling of the current commitment to research supported by the CGIAR within the next 5 years. At the High-Level Food Security Summit held at Rome in June, he reiterated those views, stressing the link between increased support for agricultural research and the need to double global food production over the next 30 years. Similarly, a statement resulting from the Group of Eight (G8) finance ministers’ meeting in June acknowledged the “important role played by science and technology” and affirmed the “need to support international research institutions, such as the CGIAR.” In a statement on food security emerging from the G8 summit held in Japan during July, heads of state elaborated on that position, emphasizing the need to train “a new generation of developing country scientists” focused on the “dissemination of improved, locally adapted and sustainable farming technologies, in particular via the CGIAR.” The effectiveness of new investment in research generally, and in the CGIAR in particular, depends in large part on broader support for agriculture in developing countries. Signaling a shift in the right direction, the World Bank announced in the summer of 2008 that it would significantly boost agricultural lending over the next year, nearly doubling such loans to Africa and Latin America. It also announced a tripling of investments in the social protection programs that are the vital first line of defense in combating food price crises. Overtaken by Recession. Those encouraging messages and steps were overshadowed by ominous developments in the world economy during the closing months of the year. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 10 A Changing CGIAR The CGIAR answers new threats to food security, rural livelihoods and the environment by restructuring and revitalizing itself to do more and do better Rural communities across the developing world are challenged today as never before. Volatile food prices, increasingly extreme weather arising from climate change, and the global financial crisis compound the obstacles they face. Economic growth in middle-income countries is spurring demand for food, while readily available arable land on which to grow more food is scarcer than ever and supplies of water and other natural resources are increasingly strained. The need has never been greater for the CGIAR to effectively fill its role as a provider of science-based solutions for agriculture, natural resource management and rural development. With great challenges come great opportunities. In 2008, the CGIAR launched its Change Management Initiative to identify how best to adapt to and anticipate these global changes and challenges and thereby ensure the continued supply of international public goods to help address them. The Change Steering Team and four working groups on visioning and development challenges, partnerships, funding mechanisms, and governance (www.cgiar.org/changemanagement/cm_workinggroups. html) engaged with various stakeholders to examine the strategic steps needed to reinvigorate the CGIAR. Parallel to this process, an independent review panel conducted an external review of the CGIAR System (www.cgiar.org/externalreview). The review provided findings and recommendations to the CGIAR for bringing together the best of science and the best of development. The panel found that CGIAR research has produced high returns since its inception, with benefits far exceeding costs, and that the CGIAR’s multidisciplinary approach and range of collaborations place it among the world’s most innovative development partnerships. However, the panel was concerned that the CGIAR falls short of its full potential because of its complex governance structure, lack of a coherent strategy, cumbersome management practices, and stagnant and increasingly restrictive funding. The panel determined that A New Vision and Strategic Objectives Vision To reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, partnership and leadership. Strategic Objectives Food for People: Create and accelerate sustainable increases in the productivity and production of healthy food by and for the poor. Environment for People: Conserve, enhance and sustainably use natural resources and biodiversity to improve the livelihoods of the poor in response to climate change and other factors. Policies for People: Promote policy and institutional change that will stimulate agricultural growth and equity to benefit the poor, especially rural women and other disadvantaged groups. the CGIAR needs structural change to bring its full capacity to bear on new challenges regarding food and environmental security. It recommended a new compact based on a rebalanced partnership featuring separate governance and management and clearly delineated decision-making roles. These initiatives culminated in the CGIAR’s decision in December 2008 to adopt a new business model that will enable it to do more and do better as it fulfills its mandate to fight poverty and hunger while conserving the environment. A New Model for the CGIAR. Guided by a new vision and three people-centered strategic objectives (see box above), the reforms will strengthen the CGIAR by establishing a results-oriented research agenda, clarifying accountability across the System, and streamlining governance and programs for greater efficiency. Taking a more programmatic approach than in the past, research will be conducted through “mega programs” that bring CGIAR scientists and 11 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH partners together to address critical issues and deliver international public goods that advance global development objectives. The core elements of the new CGIAR will be the Fund and the Consortium of the CGIAR Centers. The Fund will harmonize donor contributions to improve the quality and quantity of funding available, engender greater financial stability, and reverse the trend toward restricted funding. The Consortium will unite the Centers under one legal entity and provide a single entry point for the Fund to contract Centers and other partners for research products. A strategy and results framework will lend coherence to the new structure and guide the development of a portfolio of mega programs. The Consortium will take the lead in developing the strategy and results framework and the mega programs in partnership with stakeholders, including donors, partners and beneficiaries. Stakeholders will provide input into the formulation of the strategy and results framework through consultations and the biennial Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development. The strategy and results framework will be endorsed by the Funders’ Forum, a biennial gathering of all contributors to the Fund. The representative Fund Council will meet more frequently to make decisions on behalf of all donors. Fund donors will be able to designate their funds in three ways: unrestricted funding to the entire CGIAR portfolio, programmatic funding for one or more mega programs, and institutional funding for one or more Centers. The Consortium and Fund will enter into program performance agreements for the delivery of research through the portfolio of mega programs. The Consortium will enter into performance agreements with Centers and partners in turn to implement the research. These new contractual arrangements will strengthen accountability and the delivery of research results. Independent evaluation of the programs and the system will take place periodically. The Consortium will be governed by a professional board that will select a chief executive officer (CEO). It will provide shared services such as human resources, information technology, intellectual property management, and finance and procurement to streamline Center operations and reduce costs. The Independent Science and Partnership Council will provide advice on the strategy and results framework and the development of mega programs. Figure 1 depicts how the elements of the new CGIAR come together. Where’s the Change? The new model will bring significant changes to the CGIAR System. Separating the “doers” from the “funders,” it will establish clear and distinct roles for research management and research supporters. Clarified roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes will strengthen accountability across the System, and the implementation of research through contractual relationships will put greater emphasis on results on the ground. The strategy and results framework and programmatic approach will harmonize Centers’ research agendas and strengthen their collaboration for greater efficiency and development impact. A more open System will cultivate new, stronger and more dynamic partnerships to generate high-quality research outputs and develop research institutions in beneficiary countries. The new model will foster an exciting research environment that will attract the best scientists from around the world. Most importantly, the new CGIAR will better meet the needs of poor farmers, fishers, herders and consumers throughout the world. Implementing the New CGIAR. The CGIAR reforms will be implemented over the course of 2009, guided by a Transition Management Team. The new CGIAR is expected to be operational in 2010. For further information, visit the CGIAR change management website at www.cgiar.org/ changemanagement/index.html. Figure 1: Integrated Reform Model as approved at the 2008 CGIAR Annual General Meeting GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT (GCARD) CONSORTIUM OVERSIGHT 6-year Strategy and Results Framework MEGA PROGRAMS FUND FUNDERS’ FORUM DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS BOARD Independent Science and Partnership Council MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM CEO CONSORTIUM OFFICE Center Performance Agreements Accountability: Program Performance Agreements Common Services FUND COUNCIL FUND OFFICE CENTERS BILATERAL PROJECT FINANCING Advice Reporting lines Binding performance contracts ANNUAL REPORT 2008 12 An Essential CGIAR Science Council In the increasingly complex and collaborative arena of agricultural research, the CGIAR advances its role as analyst, honest broker and advocate for the poor The CGIAR’s core task of improving agricultural productivity is becoming more complicated in a changing global environment Rudy Rabbinge Science Council Chair characterized by fluctuating energy and commodity prices, worsening natural resource scarcity, and climate change. At the same time, many more providers of agricultural science exist now than when the CGIAR was founded in the early 1970s. Impressive capacity in basic science, biotechnology and modeling has emerged in the universities of both the North and the South, as well as in the national institutes of such large developing countries as China, Brazil and India — all linked by much greater global connectivity. The private sector now plays an enhanced role in crop improvement, applying and disseminating scientific achievements especially in the form of improved crop seed. Governments and nongovernmental organizations and user groups increasingly scrutinize scientific developments to ensure environmental sustainability and the equitable distribution of benefits. The need has never been greater, therefore, to identify the best research and implementing partners to tackle global challenges through collaboration that reflects players’ comparative advantages. Through the research conducted by its Centers and programs, the CGIAR has established an additional comparative advantage — and indeed a particular responsibility to the global community — that is, the brokering of research partnerships to ensure continued access to their outputs for the poor in developing countries. Other strengths include the CGIAR’s capacity to rapidly analyze trends that influence agriculture in developing countries and to evaluate how research and policy responses can advance mitigation and adaptation. The CGIAR’s Systemwide and Challenge Programs, and the Centers’ own networks linking partners around their particular commodities and sectors of research, have engendered large, multiparty consortia linking upstream researchers with downstream development practitioners to tackle key needs in research for development. The Generation Challenge Programme, for example, links world-class basic science on the genomes of staple crops with the unparalleled resources and expertise of CGIAR genebanks to discover and deliver genes for drought tolerance and other traits to national programs for breeding into locally popular cultivars. When yields began to decline in rice-wheat rotations on the IndoGangetic Plain, the International Rice Research Institute and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center jointly undertook a collaborative mitigation effort through strengthened partnerships with national agricultural research systems that no others could match. The Challenge Program on Water and Food is uniquely positioned to pursue basin-level approaches to water use that includes agriculture, aquaculture, and industrial and domestic users. The new Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security brings together the communities of agricultural and earth science to find practical ways to achieve climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Oil and commodity price spikes, the rapid and often ill-considered reallocation of agricultural land to biofuel production, the stubborn credit squeeze, and apparently accelerating climate change threatened in 2008 to obscure the fundamental need in human development for poverty alleviation and food and nutrition security. However, the interlocking crises also highlighted the comparative advantages of the CGIAR toward addressing them. Rudy Rabbinge Science Council Chair 13 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Framework for the Future Alliance of the CGIAR Centers Soaring food prices in 2008 focused international agricultural research on basic food security even as its institutional framework prepared for renewal to the smooth operation of the new System, among them an agreed compact between donors and Centers with clear separation between oversight and management. The principle of subsidiarity will be an important element in a simpler and less bureaucratic System, which will share common services and functions to improve efficiency. The Alliance is committed to building a strong Consortium of CGIAR supported Centers and to developing, together with its partners, a focused strategy and results framework that will be the basis for the compact with donors and allow the CGIAR System to meet the tremendous challenges ahead. Indeed, the challenge of helping the world to feed itself is greater than ever before. Rising demand, more frequent and severe weather anomalies, and the various ramifications of high energy prices conspired to deliver a series of shocks to global food supplies. When the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations held its High-Level Conference on World Food Security: The Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy, the primary response of governments was to pledge more aid for emergency relief. The Alliance’s voice was one of the few calling for medium- and long-term investment in agricultural research and development that will reduce both the likelihood of future food crises occurring and, if and when they do, their impact. The case was built on a collective effort to develop an action plan based on an inventory of best bets for boosting agricultural productivity, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa. It is this focus on practical research that gives the CGIAR its standing. Donors are committed to strengthening their support for a renewed System that features mutual accountability and extended partnership, and the Alliance is committed to making that System effective and efficient. The poor and hungry of the world are counting on the CGIAR to deliver. Guido Gryseels Alliance Board Chair Emile Frison Alliance Executive Chair Guido Gryseels Alliance Board Chair Emile Frison Alliance Executive Chair The Alliance of the CGIAR Centers faced two primary challenges during 2008. Soaring food prices demanded an effective response, one that required Centers to focus on research that can help secure supplies of affordable food in the future. At the same time, the Alliance needed to formulate valuable contributions to the CGIAR’s Change Management Initiative and thus secure the future of a CGIAR System best placed to respond to the challenge of sustainably increasing food supplies. The Alliance participated actively in the Change Management Initiative, with its chair serving on the Change Steering Team. The Alliance contributed its own perspective toward building a selection of possible scenarios for the future CGIAR. Governance is clearly a central concern for the new System, and the Alliance made significant contributions to the reform model that was eventually adopted. This model embodies several principles that were judged vitally important ANNUAL REPORT 2008 14 OUR COMMITMENT TO PARTNERSHIPS better together: Milestones in Mozambique Partner’s Perspective Maputo hosts the CGIAR Annual General Meeting 2008, as the expanding Mozambique-CGIAR partnership heralds a new era for the nation’s agricultural research and development Mozambique’s Ministry of Science and Technology and its Ministry of Agriculture were proud to host, with support from the Mozambique Agricultural Research Institute (IIAM by its Portuguese acronym), the CGIAR’s 2008 Annual General Meeting (AGM08) in Maputo. We were also pleased that AGM08 provided the occasion for a historic decision by CGIAR Members to move forward with institutional reforms designed to enhance the effectiveness of international agricultural research. Our country derives great benefit from the active engagement of IIAM and other national institutions and nongovernmental organizations with the CGIAR-supported Centers, six of which have staff based in Mozambique. In addition to strengthening our research capacity, these collaborative efforts make possible the development and adoption of a wide array of valuable products, including: ■■ beans and maize with drought tolerance, disease and pest resistance, and other valuable traits; ■■ improved rice tailored to local growing conditions, together with improved postharvest technologies; ■■ orange-fleshed sweet potato high in beta-carotene, which has great potential for alleviating vitamin A deficiency, especially in children; ■■ improved cassava, cowpea and soybean, combined with improved postharvest technologies for adding value to these crops; Collaboration with the CGIAR has made possible the development and adoption of a wide array of products valuable to Mozambican farmers and consumers. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 16 The government of Mozambique is committed to increasing the country’s budget for agricultural research and development to 2% of the agricultural gross domestic product within the next 5 years. ■■ enhanced local seed industries and stronger links between farmers and markets; ■■ value chain development for such horticultural crops as banana, plantain, mango and avocado; ■■ better animal health and the enhanced participation of smallholders in markets for livestock products; ■■ integrated approaches to crop, water and soil fertility management developed through public-private partnerships, which benefit communities in Mozambique’s Limpopo River basin; and ■■ the innovative approach called integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D) now being implemented in Mozambique’s Barua District. We expect to see more of such results in the future as a consequence of the workshop “How to make science and technology work better for agriculture in Mozambique,” which was held in conjunction with AGM08. The workshop represented a major step forward, helping to identify the main directions of our future collaboration with the CGIAR. It concluded with the signing of the New Maputo declaration on increased support for the Mozambique national agricultural research system, which calls for: ■■ the government of Mozambique to increase the country’s budget for agricultural research and development to 2% of the agricultural gross domestic product within the next 5 years; and ■■ Mozambique’s national agricultural research system to be strengthened through joint actions by the government and donor community, especially with respect to IIAM’s strategy and budget, and through more systematic engagement with the CGIAR. Those steps are in line with Mozambique’s Green Revolution Strategy, an approach called for by President Armando Guebuza to fight hunger and poverty, and with the National Action Plan for Food Production, which aims to greatly lift our dependence on food imports. In those efforts, we look forward to working together with the CGIAR to realize Mozambique’s vast agricultural potential and root out entrenched poverty, while addressing the new challenges of climate change and food price inflation. Venâncio Massingue Minister of Science and Technology Soares B. Nhaca Minister of Agriculture 17 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Back to Basics Partner’s Perspective The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation invests in international agricultural research partnerships that improve the core productivity of smallholders in developing countries and poverty. We believe that success on a large scale is possible and that achieving it will require partnerships, long-term investments and a relentless focus on results. We also believe that big opportunities lie in critical but inadequately resourced crops like rice, wheat, maize and others grown and consumed by the poor. Our many partnerships with CGIAR Centers focus on developing and delivering improved varieties of these crops for the poor. Drought constrains livelihoods, food security and economic development. Working with farming communities, national agricultural research institutes and private seed companies, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center leads an effort to develop drought-tolerant maize for Africa. In its first 2 years, the project developed and released 19 droughttolerant maize varieties. Within a decade, we expect to generate varieties with double the drought tolerance, as well as productivity gains of 20-30% for 30 million smallholder farmers. Our partnership with the International Rice Research Institute works to develop stress-tolerant rice to help farmers in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa overcome such threats to rainfed rice as drought, submergence, salinity and cold. Within 10 years, we expect to see improved varieties in the hands of 18 million farmers and enhanced capacity in national research systems. We have already seen six promising new varieties introduced in both regions. The HarvestChoice initiative, managed by the International Food Policy Research Institute, identifies best-bet investments that improve crop productivity and commercialization in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Enhancing crop performance and cropping systems is crucial to reducing hunger and poverty, but data necessary for high-impact decisions are often lacking. The initiative produces databases, tools and analyses to equip the public and private sectors with high-quality information to guide pro-poor investments and policy. We are excited about the progress we have made together and optimistic that focused partnerships around core crop-breeding challenges can deliver big results for small farmers. The mission of the CGIAR is urgent. We know that smart investments in agriculture have the power to help small farmers dramatically boost their productivity, raise their incomes and increase the supply of food. Impact will be achieved by listening to farmers and responding to their needs with the best science and technology available. Rob Horsch Partnerships deliver big results for small farmers. The year 2008 will be remembered for the food crisis that pushed millions of people in the developing world deeper into hunger and poverty. It may also be remembered as the year in which the world rededicated itself to agricultural development and to reinvesting in basic agricultural research that is critical in helping small farmers prosper and poor consumers eat better. Agricultural challenges that affect hundreds of millions of the world’s smallholder farmers have received inadequate resources and attention, though farmers in the developing world have had few better allies than CGIAR scientists focused on core productivity improvement. At the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, we see great potential in agricultural development. Our efforts focus on helping smallholder farmers in the developing world, most of whom are women, boost their yields, increase their incomes and overcome hunger Deputy Director, Agricultural Development Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ANNUAL REPORT 2008 18 centers supported BY THE CGIAR Not Wasted With increased support from their national governments spurred by spiking food prices, rice farmers in Africa succeed in converting crisis into opportunity The food crisis of 2007 and 2008 prompted the government of Burkina Faso to invest massively in rice cultivation, improving irrigation facilities and farmers’ access to seed, fertilizer and equipment. As a result, the production of rice in the country is estimated to have risen by a staggering 241%, from 69,000 tons in 2007 to 235,000 tons in 2008. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) identified as the main factors for this remarkable success good weather and the increased availability of certified seed, especially of new rice for Africa (NERICA) lines, and other basic inputs. importance toward achieving sustainable food security in sub-Saharan Africa. While rice consumption per capita is declining in Asia, it is growing rapidly in most African countries, fueled by rapid population growth and changes in consumer preferences. As nearly 40% of the continent’s rice supply comes from the international market, its national rice economies are highly exposed to external supply and price shocks. As an intergovernmental association of African member countries, the Africa Rice Center is well placed to facilitate a more effective policy dialogue in Africa through its Council of Ministers. Two years before the food crisis hit African rice-importing countries, the Center had begun alerting member states of a looming rice crisis on the continent as world rice stocks fell to a record low. To manage the crisis, the Center recommended short-term actions reinforced by medium- to long-term strategies to support domestic rice production. One short-term measure recommended to governments was to reduce customs duties and taxes on imported rice without undermining incentives for domestic rice production. For the medium and long term, the Center called for reducing taxes on all critical farm inputs and cost-saving agricultural machinery and equipment, as well as for improved postharvest technologies. It urged governments to facilitate access to credit for stakeholders in the domestic rice sector, increase investment in water-control technologies, expand The food crisis of 2007 and 2008, says Abdoulaye Ouédraogo, a smallholder rice farmer in Burkina Faso, “forced our government to pay attention to local rice production.” The increased availability of certified NERICA seed and other basic inputs has helped boost production. the rice area under irrigation, increase support to regional research capacity, and improve rural infrastructure to enhance rice farmers’ access to markets and their capacity to respond to market signals. To assist African countries severely hit by soaring prices, the Africa Rice Center launched the Emergency Rice Initiative for Africa in June 2008, targeting the supply of seed, fertilizer, best-bet technologies and related knowledge, and improved postharvest and marketing approaches. As did Burkina Faso, several other African countries made significant efforts to mobilize resources to step up domestic rice production in 2008. The results are impressive. FAO estimates that, thanks to an estimated 17% increase in African rice production in 2008 over 2007, imports likely dropped by 3% to 9.3 million tons. If confirmed, this would be the lowest import volume since 2004. Expanding the domestic production of rice will help to improve food security in sub-Saharan Africa. But Abdoulaye Ouédraogo, a smallholder rice farmer in Burkina Faso, cites the food crisis itself as a welcome harbinger of change. “It forced our government to pay attention to local rice production, which had been neglected for too long,” he says. Certainly, a supportive environment for rice development is of tremendous ANNUAL REPORT 2008 20 africa rice center (warda) . headquarters: cotonou, benin . www.warda.org A Crisis bioversity international . headquarters: rome, italy . www.bioversityinternational.org Haute Cuisine Maintaining crop and culinary diversity in the high Andes requires modern processing and cooking techniques that restore local crops’ competitive edge The Andes are home to many crops, with potato and tomato among perhaps 70 crop species domesticated in these highlands for their root, grain, legume or fruit. In terms of staple grains, there are no alternatives to such native crops as quinoa, cañahua and amaranth because very popular in these places, is susceptible to frost, prompting several farmers to switch to cañahua, which better tolerates cold. Similar changes are likely to be needed in the future as farmers face new challenges. Without crop diversity and the knowledge needed to grow, process and use that several recipes that have helped boost consumption — notably as convenient, high-energy snacks for children — and collaboration with Alexander Coffee, a small retail chain in Bolivian towns, has promoted the crops to urbanites to create more demand. “The project introduced new ways to prepare quinoa and cañahua, improving the community's nutrition and generating income,” reports Wilfredo Rojas, coordinator for the Altiplano of Fundacion PROINPA in Bolivia. “Our work together has generated trust and sharing.” few species can grow in the harsh conditions of the Altiplano. Yet the consumption of local grains is plummeting in favor of such processed carbohydrates as bread, pastries and pasta, which are cheap and easy to prepare. Bioversity International, supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development and working primarily with the Bolivian partner Fundación PROINPA (Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos), is encouraging farmers and consumers in the high Altiplano of Bolivia to use their local crops. If these farmers are to enjoy better food security, researchers must work with the crops they can grow, no matter how neglected those crops may have been in the past. The future is complicated by climate change, as some places in the Altiplano that were commonly free of frost now see frequent frosts. Quinoa, once diversity, their options would be very limited. And the surest way to conserve crop diversity is to keep it in active use. One reason for the declining use of Andean grains is that no technology has been developed to reduce the drudgery involved in processing them, as has been done for staples such as rice and wheat. The seed coat of quinoa, for example, must be removed before the grain can be cooked or further processed into flour. Working in two target villages near Lake Titicaca, the project developed a simple mill that removes the seed coats far more quickly than do traditional methods and preserves more of the seeds’ nutrients. Yet surveys in 2008 showed that, despite the mills, traditional crops still had little presence in people’s diets, as consumers lacked recipes for them. The project developed Bioversity and Fundacion PROINPA staff sample new snacks and drinks that women of the Altiplano make from quinoa and cañahua toward promoting local crops. Sustaining diversity on the farm requires the maintenance of traditional production systems. These too are under threat as young people migrate to towns. Agrotourism is a potential solution. Working with the Bolivian nongovernmental organization La Paz on Foot and two Italian counterparts that have worked on similar schemes in Ecuador, Unità e Cooperazione per lo Sviluppo dei Popoli (UCODEP) and Movimondo, the project has helped farmers to build simple huts for visitors and trained them to present their crops and farming practices and prepare various local foods for visitors. 21 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH With Forages As demand for meat soars, rural women cultivate tropical forages on their farms to feed poultry, pigs and fish and improve their marketing prospects In the face of global economic turmoil, grain market volatility and climate change, smallholder farmers in the developing world are challenged as never before to find pathways out of poverty. One promising avenue open to rural women in particular is the on-farm production of tropical forages to feed monogastric livestock, especially poultry, pigs and fish. Meat consumption in developing countries is growing 3 times faster than in the industrialized world. Growing and urbanizing populations have more money to spend on food, and increasingly they use it to buy meat. What remains to be seen is whether small producers in developing countries can obtain a larger share of the benefits from increased market demand. One limitation is a scarcity of high-quality feed, which is essential for intensifying livestock production. Farm and household by-products that smallholders typically feed their animals have little nutritive content, and purchased feeds are costly or simply unavailable. Moreover, in recent years, the prices of feed ingredients like maize and soybean have risen dramatically as a result of stiffening competition for crops to be used as food, feed or fuel. Protein-rich tropical forages offer an appealing and feasible feed alternative. They can be cultivated under a wide range of farm conditions and are highly tolerant to drought, problem soils and other stresses. Forage legumes improve soil fertility through nitrogen fixation. These varied species thus offer powerful means to improve farm productivity, contributing to more diverse and stable farm incomes. Forage research at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT by its Spanish acronym) and elsewhere has expanded from ruminants like cattle to include monogastric animals, as recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of numerous forage species for their nutrition and production. According to one such study, farmers in northern Laos report that Stylosanthes guianensis, a tropical American forage legume, doubled pig growth rates and dramatically reduced the time and effort women spent collecting traditional feeds like leafy vegetation in the forest. A related study documented the effectiveness of strong partnerships with development nongovernmental organizations and government extension services for scaling up the use of Stylosanthes in pig feeding. In just 2 years, the practice spread from 200 households to 1,400 households in more than 100 villages across six provinces of northern Laos, where rural poverty is endemic among upland ethnic groups. The improved feeding of monogastric animals with forage-based diets is expected to offer large benefits across all three of the “agricultural worlds” — agriculture-based, transforming and urbanized — described in the recent World Development Report 2008. Women could be the principal beneficiaries, as they play key roles in the smallholder production of pigs and other monogastric animals. On-farm production of high-quality feed for their animals could transform these women from subsistence livestock holders into market-oriented producers, giving a boost to household income and nutrition. CIAT and its partners will replicate and adapt this success to other developing countries, test the nutritive and agronomic performance of new forage varieties and species with farmers, and identify new market opportunities for smallholder farmers to sell forage and animal products. Northern Lao farmer Sone grows Stylo on her farm to save time previously spent gathering fodder and to feed her pigs better. “With Stylo, I save time every day, since I don’t have to go out and gather feed for my pigs,” says a woman surnamed Sone, who grows the forage in her village in northern Laos. “Also, my pigs are heavier now.” ANNUAL REPORT 2008 22 international center for tropical agriculture (ciat) . headquarters: cali, colombia . www.ciat.cgiar.org Making Money center for international forestry research (cifor) . headquarters: bogor, indonesia . www.cifor.cgiar.org for People Local communities that learn to manage forests in cooperation with national authorities help themselves while protecting their natural resources The Republic of Guinea has large tropical forests, but their future is uncertain. An expanding population, widespread poverty, and the limited capability of government to manage natural resources have contributed to forest loss in recent years. However, a project of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the World Agroforestry Centre that improves farmers’ incomes and encourages communities to jointly manage forests in cooperation with government agencies is helping to turn the tide of destruction. In 2008, the forest management committee in Souti Yanfou harvested 2.5 hectares of teak from a small plantation. With the proceeds, it built a secondary school, dug a community well and replanted 10 hectares of teak. “This was entirely a result of the co-management activities established by our research-for-development project,” says CIFOR scientist Michael Balinga. “When people who weren’t members of the local forest management committee saw the benefits, they began to say that, if this is what co-management meant, they wanted to join, too.” Souti Yanfou is one of four sites in the Fouta Djallon Highlands to benefit from the Landscape Management for Improved Livelihoods (LAMIL) project, which is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The project, which began in 2005, helped community groups to reorganize, encouraged greater participation by women, and contributed to the establishment of the institutions and regulations required for co-managing forests. While CIFOR concentrated on researching and promoting co-management and market enterprise development for non-timber forest products, World Agroforestry encouraged farmers in the buffer zones to adopt new agroforestry technologies and plant higher-yielding varieties of their staple crops, especially cassava and groundnut. If farmers in buffer zones could increase their yields and diversify their sources of income, they would put less pressure on the forests. By increasing agricultural productivity and improving access to markets, LAMIL has helped to raise incomes and generate enthusiasm for the principle of joint forest management. “Some of these beneficiaries have more than tripled their annual revenue, and they are helping to increase vegetation cover,” says Louis Corronado, the deputy director of USAID’s Guinea mission. The increase in income has enabled farmers to buy livestock, establish orchards and pay for the education of their children. Forests Everyone benefits when governments cooperatively manage forests with local communities, as here in Guinea. The forest management committees have the right to manage the forests in partnership with the local offices of the Forestry and Water Directorate, including the right to exclude outsiders. Members of the local management committees can collect such non-timber forest products as wild fruit, medicinal plants and fuelwood, but those who are not members must pay for the privilege. In several areas, forest management committees have banned hunting, and local reports suggest that the bans are helping to restore wildlife populations. By investigating ways in which joint forest management institutions can be improved, the LAMIL project has had a direct impact on national forest policy. The government of Guinea designed a new strategy for participatory forest management in late 2006, and it actively promotes community forestry, drawing extensively on the LAMIL experience. "The implementation of an integrated approach to landscape management has provided incentives for the subsequent involvement of rural communities in conservation activities," reports Mahmoud Camara, former minister of the Republic of Guinea Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Environment, Water and Forests. 23 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Hidden Difference Quality protein maize looks and grows like the normal crop but fuels children’s growth with more bioavailable protein Preschool children in a feeding trial whose diets included quality protein maize (QPM) as their main starchy staple grew much more quickly than children who ate conventional maize. This was the key finding of a recent study in rural Ethiopia on the nutritional benefits of QPM and its acceptance as a food. The result of decades of work by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT by its Spanish acronym), QPM looks and grows like normal maize, but its grain has more of certain amino acids that make its protein more bioavailable to humans and farm animals like pigs and poultry. The Ethiopian children whose diets contained QPM grew 26% more quickly by weight and 21% more quickly by height than those who ate only normal maize. At the end of the study, mothers said their children preferred the taste of foods made from QPM, especially porridge, and that they would continue using QPM to prepare weaning foods. The study was conducted by the Ethiopian Health & Nutrition Research Institute (EHNRI), Sasakawa-Global 2000, and CIMMYT, using grants from the Quality Protein Maize Development for the Horn and East Africa Project, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency. The researchers selected communities in western Ethiopia that grow and consume maize and provided farmers with seed of either an improved QPM variety or conventional maize, providing enough seed to grow a full year’s supply of maize. They then measured over 12 months how consuming QPM or conventional maize Ethiopia's staple flat bread, injera, is normally made from tef, but when more plentiful maize is used, the best results are from quality protein maize. affected the growth and nutritional status of children between 6 months and 5 years of age in households where maize was the main starchy food. Participating families did not know which type of maize they were using. “They received the maize not as prepared food or meals, as occurred in previous studies, but as seed and fertilizer on credit, the practice to which farmers are accustomed,” reports Girma Akalu, an applied nutrition specialist at EHNRI who led the study. The health of people in the community and other potentially confounding factors were carefully controlled. Child malnutrition is rampant in Ethiopia, with stunting afflicting nearly half of children under 5 years of age, according to 2008 data from the United Nations Children’s Fund. QPM offers more protein for poor people whose diets are high in carbohydrates and low in protein. “This is particularly relevant because maize is quickly becoming a major staple food in Ethiopia,” says CIMMYT "Injera (flat bread) made from quality protein maize is less sour than that from conventional maize,” says the mother of an Ethiopian child in a nutritional study, reflecting the common view. “Our children prefer its flavor and do not feel hungry for a longer time after eating it." maize breeder Strafford TwumasiAfriyie, who is based in the country. Twumasi adds that the price of tef, the traditional indigenous cereal, is rising beyond the means of poor consumers, and its yield generally falls short of household needs. The use of QPM variety BHQP 542, developed by CIMMYT and the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research and released in 2002, is spreading. Twumasi and his partners are now creating a QPM version of the popular Ethiopian maize variety BH 660. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 24 international maize and wheat improvement center (cimmyt) . headquarters: mexico city, mexico . www.cimmyt.org The international potato center (cip) . headquarters: lima, peru . www.cipotato.org Popular Potato Drought tolerance makes Jizhangshu 8, originally called Tacna in Peru, the fastest spreading potato variety in China, especially in the arid northwest Chinese farmers are rapidly adopting a potato variety developed by the International Potato Center (CIP) that tolerates drought and gives much better yields than local varieties. The variety Tacna was introduced into China in 1994 in the form of in vitro plantlets. A long process of evaluation in northern China showed that Tacna could produce yields up to 40% higher than the most popular Chinese variety in the region. Yet Tacna produced these yields with almost no irrigation. The Chinese authorities released Tacna as a new national potato variety in 2006, renaming it Jizhangshu 8. outstanding tolerance to drought. The variety has the potential of improving the production, earnings, livelihood and health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese farmers. Its planted area was over 66,000 hectares in 2008, and the large-scale multiplication that is taking place in the country is expected to allow that area to increase to as many as 100,000 hectares in 2009. “No other new potato variety in China, maybe in the world, has ever reached a planted area near 66,666 hectares so soon after it was registered,” reports Xie Kaiyun, the head of CIP’s Liaison Fujian and Guizhou, in a range of agro-ecological regions stretching across the latitudes 25 to 48 degrees north. Tacna was originally produced in cooperation with the University of Tacna in southern Peru. It was found outstanding in the arid areas of Peru, tolerating drought and the boron toxicity common in desert areas. Northwest China is prone to severe drought, one of the more critical constraints that China faces in increasing food production. “With proper management and inputs, average yields could be doubled,” says Xie. Because of its high tolerance to drought and high yield potential, Jizhangshu 8 can yield about 30 tons per hectare under rainfed conditions with annual rainfall from 300 to 400 millimeters and can reach about 75 tons per hectare under irrigated conditions. “I saw Tacna growing in the field in Keshan, northeastern China, where it had been planted for several years,” said Fernando Ezeta, CIP’s regional leader in the area. “The health of the crop was good after many years without seed renewal, probably due to its virus resistance. It has got nice tubers, and it is quite prolific and a good yielder.” One Seed of Jizhangshu 8 is prepared to further expand the adoption in China of this potato variety with outstanding drought tolerance. “The performance of Tacna in China is an example of the useful genetic diversity for stress tolerance that has been maintained in CIP’s lowland tropics population,” observes Meredith Bonierbale, CIP’s senior breeder. “We are now rescuing that diversity by directed selection.” Jizhangshu 8 has been rapidly spreading throughout China since it was registered, mainly because of its Office in Beijing. Xie adds that the variety has been widely planted in Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, Gansu, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Heilongjiang, “In the early stage of extending Jizhangshu 8, I got many calls daily from farmers and friends asking me to give them some seed potatoes,” says Ying Jiang, vice president of Zhangjiangkou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, who got the variety registered in China. 25 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Brings Revival An effective partnership enables a comprehensive program to restore sustainable agriculture and revive agricultural research in Central Asia and the Caucasus International research centers, government agencies and universities are pooling skills and resources to revitalize agricultural research in several transitional economies of the former Soviet Union. The CGIAR Collaborative Research Program for Sustainable Agricultural Production in Central Asia and the Caucasus covers eight countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. They suffered during Soviet times from an emphasis on agricultural production at all cost, with little concern about sustainability, and have suffered since independence from the disruption of national research and extension systems. The region needs expertise and support to build up new support systems for farmers to ensure the sustainable intensification of agriculture. The Central Asia and Caucasus program is coordinated by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and implemented by a consortium of partners that includes the national research systems of the eight countries, eight CGIAR Centers, the World Vegetable Center, the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture, and Michigan State University. In 2008, the program won the CGIAR King Baudouin Award for reviving the agricultural economies of newly emerged Central Asia and Caucasus countries (www.cgiar.org/newsroom/ kingbaudouin.html). The award panel recognized its many achievements and particularly its approach, which fully involves all stakeholder groups — farmers, national agricultural research and extension systems, nongovernmental organizations, and advanced research centers — at every stage, from design to implementation and monitoring. The program has developed and released 37 improved varieties of spring and winter wheat, triticale, barley, chickpea and lentil that offer higher yield and better grain quality, disease resistance, and salinity tolerance and already cover more than 325,000 hectares. In Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the program has helped livestock keepers improve their breeds, keep their herds healthy and develop marketable products. For example, mohair producers have been successfully linked to the market for knitting wool in the United States, dramatically increasing household income — especially women’s income — in poor rural communities. More sustainable methods of land and water management are now applied in both irrigated and rainfed areas. Technologies developed by the program have brought to rice-wheat rotations 30% higher yields, 25-32% lower irrigation requirements and a doubling of cropping intensity. The application of phosphogypsum has revitalized degraded sodic soils in Kazakhstan at low cost, increasing cotton yields by 33%. As effective extension systems are lacking, program scientists help to train farmers and nongovernmental organizations to accelerate the adoption of these technologies, which translate into higher and more stable farm incomes from higher yields and lower production costs. The research provides better information to governments to guide policy development. ICARDA works with national research programs to collect, preserve and utilize the region’s unique plant and animal biodiversity. With funding from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, the Crop Diversity Trust and others, it has helped upgrade or establish national genebanks in all eight countries, provided training and equipment, and linked these genebanks and other national centers to a comprehensive database that allows researchers across the region to share information. With support from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, ICARDA has helped Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia to develop national strategies for conserving plant genetic resources. “The program has given us better technologies for hill slope irrigation and rangeland management,” says Samvel Avetisyan, Armenia’s deputy minister for agriculture, citing two aspects of the CGIAR collaborative program in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Partnerships with national agricultural research partners in southern Kazakhstan to breed better sheep lines help improve farmers’ incomes. “We are producing more food with minimal soil erosion.” 26 ANNUAL REPORT 2008 international center for agricultural research in the dry areas (icarda) . headquarters: aleppo, syrian arab republic . www.icarda.org Collaboration international crops research institute for the semi-arid tropics (icrisat) . headquarters: patancheru, india . www.icrisat.org ICRISAT Superior Nut A new groundnut variety bred for both human consumption and use as fodder outperforms older varieties in the world’s largest groundnut-growing district Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), also known as peanut, is a nutrient-rich legume, 48-50% of which is high-quality edible oil, and 26-28% of which is easily digestible protein. Groundnut further contains nearly half of the 13 essential vitamins and 7 of the 20 minerals necessary for normal human growth and maintenance. It also produces excellent fodder for livestock. As such, groundnut plays a significant role in the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. Anantapur is in the rain shadow area of Andhra Pradesh state in India. Despite frequent drought and crop failure, over 70% of the cultivated area in Anantapur, or 0.8-1.0 million hectares, is sown to groundnut each year, making it the largest groundnut-growing district in the world. Smallholdings of less than 3 hectares occupy 60% of it. The soils of Anantapur are low in nutrients, being predominantly light-textured, gravelly alfisols reaching a depth of only 30-60 centimeters. Poor rains, averaging 522 millimeters per year, prolonged dry spells and frequent crop failure reversed the earlier cereal-based cropping pattern. Today, much of the cultivated area is sown to groundnut because of its ability to survive long dry spells and its cash value. Further, groundnut is a valuable source of fodder for livestock in dry years or in case of crop failure. Despite the release of improved groundnut varieties, two old varieties released in 1940 and 1978 and the landrace Pollachi Red continued to dominate because new varieties fell short of farmers’ expectations, seed was unavailable, and processors were reluctant to adapt their machinery to new varieties. The groundnut variety Anantha Jyothi, developed at the headquarters of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in India, was released in 2006. It has a high yield, a maturity of 90-95 days in the rainy season, tolerance of mid-season and end-of-season drought, an average shelling turnover of 75%, an oil content of 48%, a protein content of 27%, and haulms (or stems) with improved digestibility and palatability as fodder. In on-farm, farmer-participatory trials conducted in Anantapur, Anantha Jyothi demonstrated pod yield superiority over the 1940 release, which had occupied 80% of the peanut area, of 1,585 kilograms per hectare over 1,433. A similar improvement was observed for haulm yield. In controlled trials conducted by the International Livestock Research Institute at ICRISAT’s Patancheru research campus, in which sheep were fed 15 groundnut varieties, Anantha Jyothi showed higher live weight gain per day and nitrogen accretion, indicating that its haulms are more digestible than those of the other varieties released in Andhra Pradesh. Cattle in three villages in Anantapur that were fed Anantha Jyothi fodder produced about 10% more milk per day. Farmers particularly valued the accumulative advantage of higher pod and haulm yield and better haulm fodder quality. The groundnut variety Anantha Jyothi produces higher pod and stem yields than older varieties, increasing profits for Indian farmers. “Anantha Jyothi is a boon to me,” says G. Narasimhulu, a groundnut farmer in Anantapur District in India. “I sowed eight tenths of a hectare with Anantha Jyothi in 2008 and harvested 73 bags [3.56 tons]. I paid the friends who helped me with the stems, and I earned a net profit of Rs69,330 [$1,475].” In conclusion, Anantha Jyothi meets all of farmers’ preferences in a groundnut variety: high pod yield, high shelling turnover, early maturity, good seed size, high haulm yield, tolerance to drought and resistance to disease. It is no wonder that this is the most popular dual-purpose groundnut cultivated in Andhra Pradesh today. 27 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Rapid Response The rapid development and dissemination of comprehensive and detailed expert reports inform government policy formulation in response to the global food crisis Policymakers and other stakeholders rely on timely, relevant information to guide their decisions. When the global food crisis hit in 2008, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), drawing on its long-term expertise in agriculture, food security and nutrition, responded with 30 reports analyzing the causes and consequences of the crisis and offering mitigation and prevention strategies. A particularly forward-looking aspect of IFPRI’s approach was its call for a new international architecture for agriculture. Three global collective initiatives were recommended to avoid extreme food price spikes and address future emergency food needs: an independent emergency food reserve, an internationally coordinated global grain reserve and a virtual reserve. IFPRI was among the first to address the complex relationship between the emerging financial crisis and the food crisis, which it presented to the CGIAR 2008 Annual General Meeting. By communicating this research in innovative ways, IFPRI delivered timely information to key audiences and maintained a strong public voice to raise awareness and shape policy responses. IFPRI took its findings to the media, as Institute researchers served as guests on prominent radio and television programs, and their findings were cited in 700 media placements. Institute staff made numerous presentations directly to policymakers at national, regional and international forums. One highlight of IFPRI’s influence on global responses to the food price crisis was the use of its data in the United Nation’s Comprehensive Framework for Action, published by the High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis in July 2008, which cited two IFPRI policy briefs. Seven of the eight urgent actions IFPRI proposed in May 2008 appeared in the document as policy recommendations. “[IFPRI is] providing excellent analysis and policy advice on the food price crisis,” reported Peter McPherson, co-chair of the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, in testimony on the crisis given in March 2008 to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Another highlight was the issuance by the Group of Eight Hokkaido Toyako Summit in July 2008 of the report Double jeopardy: Responding to high food and fuel prices, which referred to IFPRI research when calling for revised biofuel policies. IFPRI further collaborated with CGIAR Centers on behalf of the Alliance of the CGIAR Centers to develop the study International agricultural research for food security, poverty reduction, and the environment: What to expect from scaling up CGIAR investments and “best bet” programs, which outlined 14 best bets in agriculture. In recognition of its response to the food crisis, IFPRI received the COM+ Communications Award in 2008. By communicating insights early and often to policymakers, media and civil society, IFPRI supported policy decisions in line with the CGIAR’s vision to help the world’s poor and hungry people. With high food prices driving poor people deeper into poverty, food systems require long-term investments to ensure their resilience. In light of the complex and rapidly changing nature of the crisis, the studies covered several areas. To better understand its causes, they analyzed the key drivers of the crisis, such as agricultural productivity trends and biofuel production, including the gender perspective. With the crisis intensifying, the need to assist people and countries became urgent. IFPRI proposed an emergency package containing two sets of policy actions, one that would yield immediate benefits and another comprising medium- and long-term actions that would make the food system more resilient. A framework to monitor the crisis and assess its impact was developed. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 28 international food policy research institute (ifpri) . headquarters: washington, dc, united states of america . www.ifpri.org Results from international institute of tropical agriculture (iita) . headquarters: ibadan, nigeria . www.iita.org Bananas Matter Banana and plantain have long been part of the African agricultural and cultural landscape, and now Africans aim to use them to drive economic development More than 400 banana and plantain farmers, scientists, entrepreneurs, government officials, donors and policymakers from across Africa convened at the pan-African conference Banana 2008 in Mombasa, Kenya, on 5-9 October 2008, to consider how to make this ancient crop an engine of economic development. The collective response to the meeting, organized by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the first to link banana research with markets, was recognition of the need to integrate improved planting materials, management techniques, value addition, and marketing and trade systems. “What Africa needs to do is work together as a continent,” emphasized Lusike Wasilwa of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). “We need to coordinate our activities, learn from examples such as the Presidential Initiative in Uganda, and then replicate them 50 times, so that we all endeavor to do the same — to increase our banana production and marketing. Then we need to market as a common block.” Conference participants agreed that existing and emerging diseases pose major challenges to the potential of African banana production, currently causing yield losses of over US$500 million annually. Up to 50% of harvests are lost yearly, due to the perishable nature and short shelf life of this crop. Improved agronomic practices and the use of clean planting materials need to be built into national initiatives to reduce this loss. Through its unique research-for-development model and network of partners, IITA addresses these challenges by developing disease-surveillance systems and new varieties that offer disease resistance and higher yields while meeting consumer preferences. “While trade outside of the continent is important, we must also look at regional and local markets to ensure that food security is not affected, as millions of people in Africa depend on banana as a staple of their diet,” cautioned Hartmann, IITA director general. “This dependence has so far shielded them from the shock of the global food crisis.” The meeting saw different sectors in Africa working together to identify factors that affect local, regional and international market opportunities. A resulting 10-year action plan, led by scientists at IITA and Bioversity International, will encourage and guide African farmers to use their crop not just to feed their families but also to escape poverty by adopting and linking research advances with production and markets, as well as promoting greater private sector participation in commercial production. The conference drew on the gathered experience and expertise to formulate specific recommendations for each major production system and market orientation, and to provide authoritative answers to what needs to be done to fully realize the economic potential of African bananas; how this can be achieved; and with whom, when and where. “The notion that bananas and plantains are a significant yet untapped source of wealth for Africans struck African “Influential stakeholders from all sectors — industry, government, farmer groups and nongovernmental organizations — say that they were proud to have been in Mombasa and associated with shaping a 10-year strategy for African bananas,” report Thomas Dubois and Danny Coyne of IITA, lead organizers of the pan-African conference Banana 2008. a responsive chord,” observed Thomas Dubois, IITA seed systems specialist. Partners in the conference included Bioversity International, Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, International Society for Horticultural Science and KARI, with support provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation, Belgium Directorate General for Development and Cooperation, and other public and private organizations. Plantains being readied for export from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Uganda reflect the commercial potential of this traditional crop. 29 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Kenya’s Herders A novel insurance program will be the first to provide the poor herders of Kenya’s northern rangelands with protection against drought and a drying climate Livestock herding is a high-risk business across the remote rangelands of northern Kenya, where life is becoming increasingly difficult. Many of the semi-nomadic pastoralists here lost their livelihoods when their animal herds were wiped out in successive droughts. Schools are few and rates of illiteracy high. Ethnic clashes and cattle rustling are common. With more and more people migrating in from insuring them are considered too high. Insurance is particularly difficult to deliver in remote rural areas. But coming soon to Kenya’s northern frontier is an instrument tailor-made to insure the region’s pastoralists against catastrophic losses of their livestock from drought. None of the people of this region have ever been insured before. credit with which to buy feed and veterinary drugs and services to keep their animals alive through prolonged dry seasons. Insurance payouts will be made to all insured clients within a geographically defined area when the satellite data confirm that there is insufficient vegetation to maintain animal herds. “We think there is a huge market for doing well while doing good,” says Chris Barrett of Cornell University. “We have the technologies. We have the political interest. We have the commercial interest. And we have the community interest. What remains is to pull all these together to solve a long-standing problem that, for the first time, may become tractable.” The family of this young pastoralist in northern Kenya will soon be able to insure their vital sheep herd against drought. neighboring areas, and rainfall becoming ever more unreliable, these northern rangelands are becoming less productive even as the region’s traditional coping mechanisms break down. Data from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) show that, in the past 100 years, northern Kenya experienced 28 major droughts, four of them in the last decade. And this occurs in an area where the livelihoods of nearly half the population rely almost exclusively on producing milk. Even so, the region offers strong new markets, including those for livestock and livestock products. Poor people everywhere lack insurance coverage, as the transaction costs of Having conducted studies among five communities in larger Marsabit, Andrew Mude, the project coordinator and a native of the district, is excited to be leapfrogging conventional modes of damage assessment by using satellite imagery to determine vegetative cover and, thus, insurance payments. “We now have the means to pool risks,” Mude says. “We mean to help the households of this region defend critical asset thresholds, usually of 6 to 14 head of cattle.” Households with 6-8 animals will pay US$50-100 per year for this insurance. Importantly, they will be able to use the certificate of insurance to obtain Working with ILRI on this project are researchers from three of the most prestigious land-grant universities in the United States: Cornell, Syracuse and Wisconsin. This research team has already designed the relevant index-based livestock insurance contract. It is now up to them, to insurance and reinsurance companies, to credit suppliers, and to local nongovernment organizations and pastoral communities to make this novel financial instrument profitable for all concerned. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 30 international livestock research institute (ilri) . headquarters: nairobi, kenya; addis ababa, ethiopia . www.ilri.org Insurance for international rice research institute (irri) . headquarters: los baños, philippines . www.irri.org Cereal Knowledge The online agricultural knowledge bank model first proved its worth with rice, then expanded to maize and wheat, and is now poised to target crops beyond cereals To improve the productivity and sustainability of cereals and reduce poverty, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) work with national partners to deliver research solutions to extension workers and farmers worldwide through the Cereal Knowledge Bank, a repository of “best practice” information on rice, maize and wheat. In 2002, IRRI decided to organize its rice farming knowledge in a one-stop shop called the Rice Knowledge Bank (RKB) that would be available on the Internet, on compact disc and in print to make it readily accessible to the extension community. Aimed at nonscientists, knowledge on the RKB covers the whole seed-to-market cycle of rice production with fact sheets and online training courses. “We train extension officers and others worldwide to teach them the latest best practices in rice-related topics,” says Noel Magor, head of the Training Center at IRRI and one of the RKB developers. “When these people head back to their home countries and start providing training and information to rice farmers, they can draw upon the resources of the Rice Knowledge Bank.” IRRI’s high-quality, up-to-date and scientifically sound research provides the information for the overarching RKB, with national research results and indigenous knowledge included in country-based RKBs hosted by the main site. With the help of national agricultural research and extension systems, RKBs in The Cereal Knowledge Bank complements face-to-face training, providing users with reliable and readily available information on rice, maize and wheat. Banking Our the local language and containing validated and relevant local knowledge have been developed in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. The soon-to-launch Indian rice portal, an Indian government initiative, will feature links to a pilot private-and-public-sector farmers’ knowledge hub managed at the grassroots. The next frontier for the Rice Knowledge Bank is Africa, where IRRI and the Africa Rice Center will help roll out RKBs in six rice-growing countries, with more to follow. Using the RKB as a model, IRRI joined with CIMMYT to create in 2006 the Cereal Knowledge Bank, adding two additional nodes for maize and wheat information (www.knowledgebank.irri.org). “Extension materials from CIMMYT’s projects are incorporated into the Cereal Knowledge Bank, offering farmers and extension specialists more complex information on cropping systems,” says Petr Kosina, the CIMMYT "The Bangladesh Rice Knowledge Bank is a one-stop repository of rice information,” says Jahirul Islam, chief scientific officer and head of the Training Division of the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute. “The government plans to use it at telecenters in farming districts, as it is reader friendly and cost effective." knowledge-sharing and capacity-building coordinator. “Joint work by the Centers exemplifies strategic collaboration in support of end users and helps partner institutions to join forces in pro-poor research for development.” In Thailand, an evaluation of the RKB showed that extension officers using it each saved about US$2,500 per year in time no longer spent searching for information and revisiting farmers, as well as in photocopying costs. Importantly, Thai farmers who used the RKB had lower costs and higher revenues, earning a net income of $60 more per hectare than other farmers. With such demonstrated success, the concept of the Rice Knowledge Bank and the Cereal Knowledge Bank is now also being used as a model for other crops and for livestock. 31 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Ground Up As irrigation in Asia relies increasingly on limited groundwater supplies, effective governance requires a new mindset for irrigation policymakers and managers In 2006, IWMI urged the Indian Ministry of Finance to step up investments in groundwater recharge, beginning with a program to take advantage of some 9 million farmer-owned dug wells to recharge 100 of India’s most groundwater-stressed districts, encompassing seven western and peninsular states. IWMI scientists subsequently worked with the Ministry of Finance and the Central Ground Water Board to develop a US$450 million program, which is now in the first year of implementation. Other areas of groundwater research in India include pump irrigation markets, the link between groundwater and energy, and how to promote micro-irrigation technologies like low-cost drip irrigation. well cleaning to development organizations and communities on the island nation’s east coast. On the North China Plain, which produces half of China’s wheat and a quarter of its maize, the groundwater table is falling in many places by 1 meter per year, despite farmers’ pumping less groundwater and using more drip and sprinkler irrigation. IWMI research has shown that this deterioration is caused by crop consumption of water that has not been quantified. A solution is to reduce the area under crop cultivation and shift to different land uses to halt groundwater depletion. Researchers modeled various crop and land-use patterns to identify the best combination for maximal water saving with minimal fallowing, but the need for policy-level intervention remains. In China and elsewhere, instituting effective groundwater governance requires a new mindset for irrigation policymakers and managers. In South Asia in particular, smallholders have figured out how to mobilize, store and apply water largely outside the orbit of mainstream irrigation thinking and practice. Managing Asia’s vast underground reservoir should be central to the region’s strategy to meet the challenges of climate change. The use of groundwater needs better management in Asia to protect the great welfare gains that it has created while minimizing the costs. The irrigation systems that have rescued millions of rural poor in Asia from drought and famine now use not only surface water but also an unplanned scattering of tubewells that draw groundwater without restraint. Overexploitation now threatens aquifers and the communities that have relied on groundwater to escape poverty. In response, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust launched the IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program to find practical ways to protect the great welfare gains that groundwater has created while minimizing the costs (www.iwmi.org/iwmi-tata). Groundwater research is carried out in Bangladesh, China, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and, more recently, Africa. Several success stories have emerged. Farmers in Uttar Pradesh, India, channel monsoon water through earthen canals to irrigate wet-season crops. Seepage from canals and fields recharges aquifers and has allowed farmers to expand the irrigated area from 1,251 hectares to 35,798 hectares in less than 10 years and to reduce pumping costs. “IWMI has greatly increased awareness of the growing role of groundwater irrigation and its positive and negative impacts,” reports B.N. Navalawala, advisor to the chief minister of Gujarat and former secretary in the Indian Ministry of Water Resources. “It has drawn attention to the need to control the carbon footprint of the groundwater economy and the criticality of groundwater recharge.” In Bangladesh, IWMI research has raised awareness of the links between groundwater quality and public health. Research revealed that 61 of 64 districts in the country are contaminated with arsenic, putting 35,000 people at risk. In Sri Lanka, IWMI tested groundwater contamination following the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 and provided guidance on ANNUAL REPORT 2008 32 international water management institute (iwmi) . headquarters: battaramulla, sri lanka . www.iwmi.cgiar.org From the world agroforestry centre . headquarters: nairobi, kenya . www.worldagroforestrycentre.org Come in Trees Fertilizer trees help farmers in Malawi restore their fields, fruit trees nourish their children, and fuelwood and fodder trees additionally boost farm productivity Around 80% of smallholder farmers in Malawi lack basic food between November and February, when they have already eaten their last harvest and still await the next. In 2008, rising food costs made it even more difficult for many families to adequately feed themselves, especially during these “hungry months.” However, there was also good news. An agroforestry program coordinated by the World Agroforestry Centre and funded by Irish Aid enabled tens of thousands of rural households to improve their crop yields and nutrition. Farmers can significantly improve the soil fertility in their fields by planting nitrogen-fixing trees such as Gliricidia sepium and incorporating their leaves and twigs into the soil. Results from 10 years of continuous maize cultivation at Makoka Research Station showed that the use of Gliricidia without fertilizer delivered average yields of 3.7 tons per hectare, more than triple the 1.1 tons on plots with neither Gliricidia nor mineral fertilizer. The judicious use of small amounts of mineral fertilizer with Gliricidia pushed yields up to 5.5 tons. By 2005, an estimated 100,000 smallholders in Malawi benefited to some extent from the use of such “fertilizer trees.” What was needed, World Agroforestry realized, was a program to scale up the use of agroforestry technologies across the country. By combining sound science with effective partnerships, the 4-year Agroforestry Food Security Program, launched in 2007, is on target to benefit 200,000 families, or 1.3 million of the poorest people in Malawi. Since 2007, the program has established 344 farm demonstration plots, 126 roadside plots and 12 farmer field schools to showcase the agroforestry technologies available. It has trained 19,525 farmers and 946 extension staff in nursery management and agroforestry and supplied 45 tons of tree seed. Besides increasing the use of fertilizer trees, the program has encouraged farmers to plant fuelwood, fodder and fruit trees, the last of which make a significant difference to family nutrition. Besides providing vitamins, fruit provides clean water, energy, antioxidants, minerals and — for those who grow them in sufficient quantities — income. According to Festus Akinnifesi, World Agroforestry regional coordinator for Southern Africa, the partnerships formed to promote the program have been vitally important. Approximately 60% of the funds go directly to seven national partners, including government departments responsible for extension, land conservation and livestock; forestry and agricultural research agencies; and smallholder farmers’ associations. “We have encouraged them to take the driver’s seat, and that is exactly what they have done,” says Akinnifesi. “Our role is mainly that of facilitator and knowledge provider.” By the time the program comes to end, Malawi’s farmers will have planted 50 million trees. Tembo Chanyenga, principal forestry officer with the Forestry Research Institute of Malawi, believes that the program could transform the countryside. “The landscape will be much richer in trees than it is now and the soils more fertile,” he predicts. “And I can foresee a time when farming families will be able to eat fruit every morning for breakfast.” Good Things “Now we have food for most of the year,” says Nelson Mkwaila, a Malawian farmer who credits help from the World Agroforestry Centre toward planting fertilizer trees in his fields. “And the health of my children is much better than it used to be.” Farmers in Malawi have significantly boosted yields by intercropping maize with the nitrogen-fixing tree Gliricidia. 33 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Better Margin Extending aquaculture and other fish-related skills to vulnerable communities in Bangladesh helps keep potential migrants profitably at home on the farm Sudhir Tigga never liked pedaling a rickshaw in Dhaka. He and his brother started migrating to the city in 2001, staying for 2-3 months before returning to their poor farming community in northwestern Bangladesh. Members of the Oraon tribe, they are among 2 million Adivasis, ethnic minorities who are the poorest and most socially excluded people in the country. The Tigga brothers last went to Dhaka in 2007, the same year that the WorldFish Center and its partThe Adivasi Fisheries Project builds on 2 decades of WorldFish research in Bangladesh, extending proven low-input techniques to the country’s most marginalized communities. Like many of the 3,584 Adivasi household heads that were direct beneficiaries of the project by the end of 2008, Anil Mahato is landless. He used to live by farm labor, earning a dollar and a meal for a day’s work — when he could find it. Today, he sells live eels door to door 2 or 3 days a A wife and mother at 15 and a widow at 19, Cham Moni Tirki, now 27, augments her 0.4 hectares of rice with cage-cultured fish for sale and home consumption. “I’m happy to stay here now and manage my father’s farm,” says Sudhir Tigga, a WorldFish Center project beneficiary in Bangladesh whose improved income from selling fingerlings, food fish and rice means he no longer has to migrate to the city to work as a rickshaw wallah. ners launched the Adivasi Fisheries Project to teach pond and rice-fish culture to Adivasi smallholders and fish-related business to Adivasi landless. The project lifted the average income of participating households from US$700 in 2007 to $854 in 2008, largely by quadrupling the small but growing contribution of fish. Almost all of the dozen or so neighbors of the Tiggas who used to migrate seasonally now stay home year round. With global recession idling millions of migrant laborers — and the World Bank predicting a 5-8% decline in remittances to developing countries in 2009 — the Tigga brothers and their neighbors were fortunate to end their dependence on urban income when they did. week. Fish traders with the project typically make $3-4 per working day, earning on average $220 per year from the activity. “This is completely new,” reports Benoy Kumar Barman, the project leader. “These people never before did any sort of business. Initially, they had trouble keeping accounts, but they learned. And, when other traders resisted their entry, they took it to the market committee and established their rights.” Another option for the landless is to form netting teams. An eight-man team with two nets in the village of Bimnagar Singhpara has 18 fish farmers as regular clients. Team members use their rickshaw vans to transport the fish to the wholesale market, where they collect 10-15% of the selling price as their fee. Each earned $60 profit in 2008, which was only half of what they earned doing agricultural labor but in much less than half of the time. They expect their individual netting income to rise to $73 in 2009, while they jointly save 20% of the team’s income toward replacing their nets. An option open to both smallholders and the landless is rearing fingerlings and food fish in cages floated in large ponds owned by either the community or accommodating neighbors. This activity is especially attractive to women, as a manageable cage measuring 1 cubic meter can produce 20 or more kilograms of fingerlings in less than 2 months. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 34 worldfish center . headquarters: penang, malaysia . www.worldfishcenter.org A challenge PROGRAMS 35 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Climate Control and mitigate agriculture’s exacerbation of this global threat Climate change is an immediate and unprecedented threat to the food security of hundreds of millions of people who depend on smallholder agriculture for their livelihoods. At the same time, agriculture and related activities contribute to climate change by emitting greenhouse gases and altering the land surface. Just as responses intended to adapt to climate change may adversely affect food security, measures taken to strengthen food security may exacerbate climate change. In 2007, CGIAR Chair Katherine Sierra announced the new Climate Change Initiative to greatly increase the commitment of CGIAR resources to climate-related research. Subsequently, the Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) was developed by the Alliance of the CGIAR Centers and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP, www.essp.org) to increase efforts to help agriculture cope with climate change. The Challenge Program was approved in 2008, and a steering committee was established to guide its implementation. Climate change was very high on the political agenda during 2008 in preparation for the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in late 2009. The establishment of this Challenge Program clearly demonstrates that the CGIAR and its partners take climate change seriously and are committed to helping to ensure that agriculture and food security are high on the agenda for climate change. CLIMATE CHANGE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY A new Challenge Program forges a wide-ranging partnership to adapt agriculture to climate change As climate change threatens current and future food security, the need for coordinated mitigation and adaptation is desperately urgent. During the year, planning started for the CGIAR and CCAFS to highlight food security in the context of the climate debate and to raise awareness of the important role that the Centers play in relation to both adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change. The Challenge Program extends a strategic collaboration with ESSP. This partnership brings together the world’s best researchers in agricultural science, climate science and earth system science to identify and address the most important interactions, synergies and trade-offs between climate change, agriculture and food security. CCAFS will thus define and implement a uniquely innovative and transformative research program that addresses food security in the context of climate variability, climate change and uncertainty about future climate conditions. A Challenge Program is a 10-year, independently governed program of high-impact research that addresses CGIAR goals in relation to complex issues of overwhelming global and/or regional significance and requires partnerships among a wide range of institutions to deliver its products. Thus, many partners were engaged in the framing of CCAFS during the final planning phase in 2008. With the launch of the new Challenge Program, the CGIAR and its partners are excellently positioned to inform the debate on climate change and food security. “The Earth System Science Partnership integrates natural and social sciences by engaging the communities of global environmental change and development research,” says Rik Leemans, ESSP Scientific Committee chair and ex-officio CCAFS Steering Committee member. “This Challenge Program provides a unique platform to bring these communities together to tackle one of humanity’s greatest challenges.” 36 ANNUAL REPORT 2008 Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security . www.cgiar.org/impact/challenge/ccafs.html Challenge Program on Water and Food . WWW.WATERANDFOOD.ORG READY FOR MORE Developing research capacity leads to improved measurement of reservoir capacity and the surprising realization that conveniently small rainwater storage facilities are efficient This revelation came through the CPWF’s commitment to developing the capacity of young researchers. It was a project doctoral student who designed a sophisticated but practical apparatus to more accurately estimate small reservoirs’ storage volumes and evaporative losses. This work spurred studies by Brazilian, Ghanaian and Zimbabwean students, demonstrating how successful the CPWF is in providing a broad platform for generating positive research impacts. To develop appropriate technologies for knowledge sharing, those responsible for building, managing and using small reservoirs participated in the development of project outputs from the beginning. The comprehensive Small Reservoirs Toolkit — designed for engineers, planners, policymakers, ecologists, healthcare professionals, farmers and other water users — will soon be released. The project’s cross-basin findings have already been adopted by regional universities and the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. The CPWF recognizes that true innovation in research for development is a social process in which stakeholders and technologies evolve in tandem. Water scarcity is a stark reality that, with climate change, is likely to affect more communities more frequently and with longer-lasting consequences. As vital water resources across the planet become depleted and degraded, the CPWF’s goals of fighting poverty, strengthening food security and protecting natural ecosystems in developing countries may sound ambitious. However, strategic partnerships are in place to achieve these goals. International commitment to tackling water scarcity head-on is increasing, and more people acknowledge that trustworthy networks and relationships are essential for achieving real impact in a complex world. Through its innovative operations and its facilitation of dynamic communities of researchers, A doctoral student designed an apparatus that allows accurate estimates of storage volume and evaporation from small reservoirs, overturning the assumption that they are inefficient. In the water-stressed transboundary basins of the Volta and Limpopo rivers, researchers working in the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) uncovered something remarkable and surprising. Their data demonstrated that actual evaporation from small, multi-use water reservoirs was half of what had been assumed and no greater than evaporation from a large reservoir of the same aggregate capacity. Yet, up until this point, contrary assumptions had formed the basis for decision-making in water management. This myth-buster from the CPWF’s Small Reservoirs Project opens the way for governments and nongovernmental organizations to invest in and manage water storage more wisely, principally by making small reservoirs available to more rural communities. Local control of rainwater storage facilities offers critical benefits associated with ease of access to water and its wider range of possible uses. “The value added by the CPWF is the very important network capital that is created,” states the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development. “The CPWF has been able to tackle issues that would have been impossible to cover by individual CGIAR Centers or national agricultural research systems.” development experts, policymakers, producers and consumers — as seen at the CPWF’s 2nd International Forum on Water and Food held late in 2008 — this CGIAR Challenge Program goes beyond research for development as usually practiced. Yet, paradoxically for a program well versed in technical and social complexity, the CPWF approach is simple: To effectively address a shared problem, all involved must first work together. 37 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Second Generation A gap-bridging partnership launches Phase II of the search for genes that confer favorable traits, especially drought tolerance in less-studied food crops The Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) is a partnership of more than 170 diverse institutions including universities, CGIAR Centers, national research programs and civil society organizations that bridges the gap between fundamental and applied research. As the 5-year Phase I of GCP came to an end in 2008, it was a year of assessment, consolidation and planning — processes that were greatly aided by several internal and external reviews. The positive findings of an external program and management review commissioned by the CGIAR Science Council — which cited in particular how GCP provides opportunities “for people of diverse backgrounds to think collectively about solutions to complex problems and, in the process, to learn from one another” — resulted in GCP being recommended for Phase II. A number of less-studied food crops have great potential to contribute to food security in the developing world. However, their lack of developed genomic resources poses limitations. For Africa in particular, crop molecular markers are lacking that would allow scientists to identify and characterize the genes that confer such desired crop traits as drought tolerance. In Phase I, GCP developed new marker resources for bean, cassava, chickpea, cowpea, Musa (banana and plantain), pigeonpea and potato. All GCP target crops now have sufficient molecular markers for meaningful genetic studies. The early years of comparative genomics offered exciting prospects, but results did not always match expectations. A pillar of GCP research is testing genomic approaches, enhancing these resources for a number of major crops. A 2-year sequence analysis of six candidate genes for drought tolerance has born fruit in seven target crops: barley, bean, cassava, chickpea, rice, sorghum and potato. In 2008, a large sequencing effort was conducted across 80 genes, providing insights into gene family evolution and crop phylo-ecogeographic organization. Some significant patterns await comparison with phenotypic data to identify strong candidate genes for drought tolerance. Drought tolerance is GCP’s priority target trait. Exploratory research to better understand the genetic basis of drought tolerance has made increasingly clear that a major limitation is the lack of accurate phenotyping — simply put, observing actual crop traits when grown — under water-limited conditions in developing countries. To address this, GCP will establish with partners in developing countries a phenotyping network and upgrade infrastructure and capacity for accurate phenotyping. Exploratory studies in 2008 by three world experts in crop physiology and crop screening for drought identified potential phenotyping hubs that would serve several crops and be representative of GCP target regions. The experts compiled data on 27 potential phenotyping sites in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Filtering the data with geographic information system technology in light of GCP Phase II priority crops, they narrowed the list to 10 candidates and drew up a detailed list of what needs to be done, where, when and at what cost. As the characterization and mapping of agroecological zones is relevant to the broader research community, this work will soon be made publicly available. In Phase II, GCP will invest in building up the phenotyping hubs and support additional local phenotyping infrastructure. Generation Challenge Programme training on the principles of field phenotyping will facilitate breeding crops for drought tolerance. “The Generation Challenge Programme got us collecting cassava material from the wild and amplifying cassava genetic diversity in a short time,” says Alfredo Alves, a plant physiologist at the Cassava and Tropical Fruits center of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. “And now the process is more scientific and systematic.” ANNUAL REPORT 2008 38 Generation Challenge Programme . www.generationcp.org HarvestPlus Challenge Program . www.harvestplus.org Sweet Success Top economists cite biofortification as a cost-effective intervention to improve nutrition for millions of people, and orange sweet potato is the first out of the door able micronutrients. Seven crops are now under full-scale research and development at CGIAR Centers and national agricultural research institutes in target countries in Africa and Asia. The first release of a biofortified crop, in 2007, was orange sweet potato rich in provitamin A. This pioneering product was developed in collaboration with the International Potato Center and distributed through pilot programs in Uganda and Mozambique. In Uganda, where white or yellow sweet potato varieties are typically preferred, HarvestPlus works with numerous partners to promote orange sweet potato through its Reaching End User (REU) project. REU works with Ugandan universities, national agricultural research systems, nongovernmental organizations, village leaders, farmers, mothers and grandmothers to educate consumers about the nutritional benefits of orange sweet potato. After hearing these health messages, most farmers are willing to try the crop and set aside some of the harvest for home consumption. Further, the new orange sweet potato varieties were bred to tolerate drought and yield better than traditional varieties, as desired by local farmers. As they mature earlier than white sweet potato, they have a competitive edge in the market. One beneficiary is 50-year-old Dickson Mbogo, who once worked as a casual laborer at a school and grew cassava, banana and white sweet potato for his family of 12, including three adopted children. Three years ago, his farmers’ “The HarvestPlus Challenge Program taught us how to rapidly multiply sweet potato vines,” says Dickson Mbogo, a farmer in Uganda. “I combined what I knew with what we had been taught. In 5 months, my income was 50% greater than my traditional return, so I stopped doing casual labor and focused on producing orange sweet potato.” The wife and children of Ugandan farmer Dickson Mbogo prepare orange sweet potatoes for a meal rich in provitamin A. If you had US$75 billion to improve the world, how would you best spend it? A panel of distinguished economists pondered this question at Copenhagen Consensus 2008 and declared one of its top five choices to be biofortification, or the breeding of food crops with higher nutritional value. “The panel saw that a relatively small dollar investment in biofortification had enormous potential to improve the nutrition of hundreds of millions of poor people,” explains Howarth Bouis, the director of HarvestPlus. As rising food prices in 2007 and 2008 forced the poor to replace nutritious but expensive foods, such as animal products and green vegetables, with starchy staples, biofortification has become all the more crucial to leveraging agricultural research to improve nutrition. Though officially established as a Challenge Program only in 2004, HarvestPlus coined the term “biofortification” in 2001 and has, since 1998, bred staple crops to be rich in bioavail- group started working with a HarvestPlus project that multiplies orange sweet potato vines to distribute to farmers’ groups. Participation improved his income by half. “I was able to pay school fees for all my children on time,” he recalls. “I even bought a motorbike to take my produce to market. My wife set up a small shop where she sells pancakes made from orange sweet potato, and we have also have enough to eat at home every day.” REU continues to market and promote orange sweet potato in the region, scaling up the program so that more African farmers and their families can benefit nutritionally and economically from orange sweet potato — a sweet success story in tough times. 39 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Advance Through Integration to tap collective knowledge, generate new knowledge and put both to work Past agricultural research and development efforts have not yielded the desired impacts in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Farming systems have yet to be transformed or livelihoods improved. The thinking of policymakers and practitioners in agriculture is still dominated by the linear model of research fed to extension and on to farmers. Efforts to improve this model brought a paradigm shift toward nonlinear, interactive participatory approaches, such as those focused on farming systems, whose benefits still fell short. Past approaches have lacked emphasis on linkages and the interaction of institutions in different contexts. They have therefore yielded only islands of success, bringing poor returns on investment. A rethinking of broader economic growth and development has brought about integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D). This approach promises to outperform the conventional, linear technologytransfer approach in terms of speed of delivery and quantity of benefits. IAR4D taps the collective knowledge of the broader agricultural system, facilitates the generation of new Sub Saharan Africa Challenge Programme Integrated agricultural research for development facilitates institutional interaction Staffers of the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program visit a farmer’s maize field in Rwanda where integrated agricultural research for development is practiced. knowledge and allows knowledge to be put to effective use delivering benefits. IAR4D is particularly suited to SSA’s varied and dynamic context. As the superior performance of IAR4D is still largely anecdotal, the current focus of the SSA Challenge Program (SSA-CP) is to prove that IAR4D works. SSA-CP research is carried out in three pilot learning sites in West, East and Southern Africa. The work in East Africa is around Lake Kivu, where Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda meet. Pre-fieldwork identifies entry points, refines research methodology and maps domains for targeting. The subsequent field phase introduces the project to stakeholders; conducts stakeholder analyses, market surveys, and baseline surveys at the plot, household and village level; and determines watershed delineation. Post-fieldwork includes baseline data capture and the development of decision-support tools. Seven innovation platforms have so far been established involving over 20 partner institutions, most of them not traditional partners of agricultural research. With challenges identified, efforts are now under way to build the requisite social capital through rural innovation projects delivered with partners. Strong links have been established with local governments and other organizations, including several CGIAR Centers. The International Potato Center, for example, is exploring the benefits of public-private partnership to facilitate farmers’ production of potato seed. The Commonwealth of Learning is nurturing the lifelong learning of farmers in Uganda using open distance learning media. Links for adding value to indigenous knowledge and local innovations are being explored with the University of Siegen and the Centre for International Capacity Development. Other capacity building is being pursued in partnership with Wageningen University and Research Centre. Knowledge gained during proposal development linked a maize farmers’ group in Rwanda to the International Fertilizer Development Corporation, maize millers, and an oil extractor developed by the nongovernmental Rwanda Farmers’ and Breeders’ Federation (IMBARAGA). The result has been very high yields, with many farmers, especially women, opening bank accounts, paying children’s school fees and purchasing mobile phones. The remaining challenge of bringing on board more private sector participants will be addressed in the years ahead by the groups of empowered practitioners working together on innovation platforms. “Never before have we had such a meeting of multiple stakeholders trying to collectively understand the challenges to agriculture before conducting research,” comments Jimmy Musiime, a former local council chairman in Kabale District, Uganda. “This is different.” ANNUAL REPORT 2008 40 Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program . www.fara-africa.org/networking-support-projects/ssa-cp reaping results: OUR COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE Recognizing Excellence in 2008 Science Awards Research results ranging from crop genetic improvement to the resolution of conflicts over natural resources garner deserved recognition, as do science communicators The CGIAR presented 10 awards at its 2008 Annual General Meeting in Maputo, Mozambique, recognizing productive partnerships, innovative research in diverse areas and the effective communication of science for development. The 2008 CGIAR King Baudouin Award recognized a massive effort to rejuvenate food production in Central Asia. Awarded every 2 years, the honor singled out the CGIAR Collaborative Research Program for Sustainable Agricultural Production in Central Asia and the Caucasus, which is coordinated by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas. Within a decade, the program marshaled the talents of experts from participating CGIAR Centers and other partners to develop dozens of new technologies that are today boosting sustainable food production and rural incomes across the region. Among them are 40 new varieties of high-yielding, stressresilient crops, including winter wheat, barley, chickpea, groundnut, soybean, lentil, potato and various vegetables, which are now grown on 357,000 hectares across the region. CGIAR capacity-strengthening programs have reached 7,000 scientists. (More at www.cgiar.org/enews/december2008/ story_05.html.) Jose Crossa, head of the Biometrics and Statistics Unit of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, received the Outstanding Scientist Award for developing a way to keep rare crop genes from being lost when seeds in crop genebanks are regenerated. The statistical models Crossa developed have enabled genebank managers to better understand specific crop traits contained in their collections. This has helped wheat breeders, for example, locate genes for increased yield and disease resistance. Eva Schiffer, a postdoctoral fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), won the Promising Young Scientist Award for creating Net-Map, an interview-based mapping tool that can help resolve conflicts over natural resources through a better understanding of complex social dynamics. Schiffer first developed Net-Map while working in Ghana with the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. It helped the White Volta River Basin Board work toward its ambitious environmental goals. The recipient of the Outstanding Partnership Award was the West and Central Africa Rice Research and Development Network (ROCARIZ), which generates new rice technologies and facilitates their transfer to farmers in West and Central Africa. Hosted by the Africa Rice Center, the network operates through decentralized task forces A B C D E J ANNUAL REPORT 2008 42 F led by national agricultural research systems to ensure the efficient delivery of rice technologies. ROCARIZ has played a central role, for example, in developing and distributing lowland new rice for Africa (NERICA) varieties . Lateef Sanni Oladimeji of the University of Agriculture in Abeokuta, Nigeria, received the award for Outstanding Agricultural Technology in the Sub-Saharan Africa Region. His expertise in drying harvested crops has contributed to considerable economic gains for small and medium-scale enterprises in Nigeria and other West African countries. As a postharvest specialist at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Sanni led his team of engineers in designing an improved flash dryer for cassava flour that is manufactured locally in Nigeria on a significant scale. The International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice ( INGER ) at the International Rice Research Institute received the Outstanding Scientific Support Team Award . It acknowledges INGER’s efforts to collect through a global consortium of national partners rice varieties from all over the world for the creation of elite breeding lines. The collected varieties are organized into breeding nurseries, which participants then test under varied conditions. INGER is credited with aiding the release of 673 new rice varieties in more than 50 countries. The Outstanding Scientific Article Award went to Jan Low, lead author of a paper published in the Journal of Nutrition that reported results from a project that demonstrated how food-based approaches can curb nutritional deficiencies in children. Carried out in Mozambique, the project promoted the adoption of orange-fleshed sweet potato rich in provitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is widespread among African children, with devastating effects on their health. Encouraging people to grow and eat more nutritious foods, and developing markets to promote them, complements the difficult process of providing vitamin supplements to poor consumers. Soniia David and her team with IITA’s Sustainable Tree Crops Program received the Outstanding Communications Award for training West African farmers to use digital video cameras for sharing knowledge about sustainable cocoa production. The team organized video viewing clubs with farmer groups so they could watch and learn from the videos. The CGIAR offered two other communications awards jointly with the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). The CGIAR-FARA 2008 Awards for Excellence in Agricultural Science Journalism in Africa went to Patricia Oyella of WBS TV in Uganda and Wandera Ojanji of the East African Standard in Kenya. Oyella received the outstanding broadcast award for her feature Saving the Cooking Banana, which was shown on WBS TV and on Business Africa, a program broadcast via a network of more than 45 African and 5 European partner channels. Ojanji received the outstanding print award for his article Endangered Species?, which highlighted the consequences of diminishing livestock biodiversity in Kenya and neighboring countries. Recognition of excellence in the CGIAR and its partners, going back to Norman Borlaug’s Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, is selectively catalogued at www.cgiar.org/newsroom/scientific.html. G H I J A. CGIAR King Baudouin Award: CGIAR Collaborative Research Program for Sustainable Agricultural Production in Central Asia and the Caucasus, coordinated by ICARDA. B. Outstanding Scientist Award: Jose Crossa, CIMMYT. C. Promising Young Scientist Award: Eva Schiffer, IFPRI. D. Outstanding Partnership Award: West and Central Africa Rice Research and Development Network (ROCARIZ), hosted by the Africa Rice Center. E. Outstanding Agricultural Technology in the sub-Saharan Africa Region: Lateef Sanni Oladimeji, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. F. Outstanding Scientific Support Team Award: International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice (INGER), IRRI. G. Outstanding Scientific Article Award: A Food-Based Approach -Introducing Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potatoes Increased Vitamin A Intake and Serum Retinol Concentrations in Young Children in Mozambique, lead Author: Jan Low, CIP. J. Nutr. 137:1320-1327, 2007. H. Outstanding Communications Award: Soniia David and team, Sustainable Tree Crops Program, IITA. I. CGIAR-FARA 2008 Award for Excellence in Agricultural Science Journalism in Africa for Broadcast Media: Patricia Oyella, WBS TV, Uganda. J. CGIAR-FARA 2008 Award for Excellence in Agricultural Science Journalism in Africa for Print Media: Wandera Ojanji, East African Standard, Kenya. 43 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Continued Commitment to Results In its fifth year in 2008, the CGIAR’s formal system of performance measurement increasingly reveals improving trends among research Centers The Performance Measurement System (PM System) of the CGIAR measures Centers’ results and potential to perform in the future. It also consults 10 stakeholders, including CGIAR Members and partners of Centers, to learn 6 their perceptions of the performance of the CGIAR and individual Centers. average Performance Measurement Figure 1: Composite Score on Publications 2008* 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10 9 7 6 Africa Rice 4 Bioversity 7 7 8 6 6 8 6 8 7 7 7 World Agroforestry 4 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Research Outputs. The PM System measures research outputs using a composite indicator that reflects Centers’ contribution of knowledge to a wide international audience, the quality and usefulness of which is determined by peers using the internationally recognized journal database, Thomson Reuters ISI (Figure 1). Each Center scientist published on average 1.1 articles in high-quality journals listed in Thomson Reuters ISI and another 1.2 externally peer-reviewed articles elsewhere, for a total of 2.3 externally peer-reviewed articles per scientist. CIMMYT ICRISAT ICARDA CIFOR 3 CIP WorldFish IWMI IFPRI CIAT IRRI ILRI IITA Africa Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT * This composite indicator measures the (1) number of externally peer-reviewed publications per scientist published in 2008 in journals listed in Thomson Reuters ISI, (2) number of other externally peer-reviewed publications per scientist published in 2008, and (3) relative rating of the Center’s best publications regarding its journal impact factor. In addition, CGIAR Centers continue to produce information on their research outputs (i.e., materials, policy strategies, practices, capacity strengthening and other kinds of knowledge). This allows interested CGIAR Members and partners to track the outputs of individual projects. The information will be made available on CGMap (http://cgmap.cgiar.org/start.iface), an online information system that provides access to the research project plans that CGIAR Centers and Challenge Programs publish in their annual Medium Term Plans. Research Outcomes. Centers were requested to report on their most significant research outcomes documented in 2008.1 An outcome is achieved when one or more of a Center’s outputs from 2008 or earlier are adopted or used by — or otherwise influence — partners, stakeholders or clients. The Science Council (SC) assessed and scored Center-reported outcomes on a scale of 1-10 by their linkage to Center outputs, significance and potential for replication. Figure 2 compares 2007 and 2008 results. The average for the 2-year period was 6.5. In 2008, eight Centers scored higher than in 2007. The top five outcomes in 2008 are the following: ■■ Response to the food price crisis. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) was one of the first to warn of and respond to the global food price crisis. IFPRI’s experience in agriculture, nutrition and food security positioned it well to satisfy requests for information. The Center produced 30 publications on the topic and disseminated findings through senior staffers’ presentations at high-profile events and briefings for policymakers. See page 28 of this report. ■■ Planning to control Rift Valley fever in East Africa. Rift Valley fever, a zoonotic disease, is epidemic to East Africa, with outbreaks occurring every decade or so. In late 2006 and early 2007, the disease killed more than 300 people in Kenya, Tanzania and Somalia and severely disrupted the local and regional livestock trade and the livelihoods that depend on them. The International Livestock Research Institute urgently conducted research to develop, with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, a decision-support tool to inform the decision-making of veterinary services in Kenya and Tanzania 1. In 2008, the number of requested outcomes ranged from three to seven, relative to Center budget based on the previous year’s actual expenditure. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 44 toward developing a contingency plan for handling outbreaks. ■■ Sustainable seed production for orange fleshed sweet potato (OFSP). International Potato Center 10 research demonstrated that smallholder vine multiplication can be profitable6and attractive to Mozambican farmers, who can produce OFSP vines average for 2 US cents per kilogram. It further demonstrated potential demand for OFSP planting material from smallholder farmers in central Mozambique by eliciting their willingness to pay. The results prompted a large international development agency to drop its policy of distributing vines for free. This policy has been the norm in 10 Mozambique since independence, limiting incentives for private vine 6 multipliers and inhibiting the emergence of a sustainable seed average system for sweet potato. This lesson from Mozambique promises to influence the design of similar interventions elsewhere. ■■ Aerobic rice production systems. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has led the development in Asia of high-yielding lowland rice production in dry fields and the global use of the term “aerobic rice” to refer to this water-saving technology. In 2008, Asian national partners using the aerobic rice germplasm and production systems developed under IRRI leadership for various research and dissemination activities included the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute; China Agricultural University and Huazhong University; Indian Agricultural Research Institute and Indian Council of Agricultural Research; National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute in Laos; National Rice Research Program in Nepal; Rice Research Institute in Pakistan; Philippine Rice Research Figure 2: Science Council Assessment of Centers’ Research Outcomes in 2007 and 2008 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10 9 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 7 8 9 8 7 6 6 6 4 6 8 7 6 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 6 W. Agroforestry 5 4 Africa Rice Bioversity CIMMYT ICRISAT ICARDA WorldFish 3 3 CIFOR IWMI IFPRI CIAT 2 IRRI ILRI IITA CIP 0 2007 Outcomes 2008 Outcomes Africa RiceBiove Figure 3: Centers’ Culture of Impact Assessment 2008 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10 9 8 77 6 5 7 7 8 88 7 7 77 8 8 7 8 7 7 5 7 7 8 8 7 6 77 8 7 6 5 4 W. Agroforestry 5 Africa Rice WorldFish Bioversity 3 2 1 0 CIMMYT ICRISAT ICARDA CIFOR IWMI IFPRI CIAT IRRI ILRI IITA CIP Impact Culture Average 2006-2008 Impact Culture in 2008 Africa Rice Bi Institute and National Irrigation Administration; and Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center in Thailand. Farmers’ adoption is 8 documented in China, India 7 and Philippines. ■ 6 ■ Research to estimate environmental flow (EF) requirements. The 5 International Water Management 4 Institute (IWMI) and its partners 3 have since 2002 conducted research 2 to estimate environmental flow (EF) requirements and inform 1 water resource assessments and 0 planning. Building on this work, IWMI launched the Global Environmental Flow Calculator (GEFC) software package for rapid desktop assessments. IWMI-led EF research, publications, methodologies, training and workshops have generated interest among national research and nongovernmental communities by providing a scientific basis for planning river basin development (e.g., EF is having significant impact on policy in India). Among the many global and regional analyses now informed by EF research and the GEFC are the European Environment Agency’s report on environmental flow requirements for maintaining freshwater-dependent ecosystems and the World Wildlife Fund’s development of global water indicators. Culture of Impact Assessment. The PM System measures Centers’ commitment to building a culture of impact assessment and documentation. 45 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH The SC assessed Centers’ reports on a scale of 1-10 using three criteria: (1) ex-post impact assessment (epIA) studies and the advancement of 10 epIA methods; (2) Centers’ building a culture of impact assessment, 6 including communication, dissemination and capacity enhancement; and average (3) the quality of one epIA study published in the past 3 years that demonstrates how the Center’s research benefited poor, food-insecure people and/or the environment, as judged by peer reviewers appointed by the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment. Figure 3 compares each Center’s SC assessment for 2008 with its average score for the past 3 years, showing improvement by more 10 than half of the Centers. 6 Figure 4: Overall Governance Score 2008 100 90 80 70 60 50 91 96 77 86 74 80 90 95 100 93 73 86 88 78 93 82 World Agroforestry 80 60 Africa Rice 40 30 20 10 0 WorldFish Bioversity 40 CIMMYT ICRISAT ICARDA CIFOR IWMI IFPRI CIAT IRRI ILRI IITA CIP 20 0 Africa RiceBioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMY Figure 5: Culture of Learning and Change Score 2008 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 100 100 80 Institutional Health. Measures of Center governance, culture of learning average and change, and diversity indicate institutional health. The governance indicator is a summary score based on a checklist reflecting a range of governance policies and practices modeled on the recommendations of the 2006 Stripe Review on Corporate Governance and the CGIAR Guidelines on Center Governance. 65 World Agroforestry 57 46 Africa Rice Bioversity CIAT 60 47 CIFOR 0 CIP 10 IWMI IFPRI 20 WorldFish 30 37 CIMMYT 44 ICARDA 51 ICRISAT 50 52 37 52 35 IRRI 53 40 32 ILRI IITA 20 0 Africa RiceBioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT Centers scored on average 85 points out of 100 (Figure 4). Demonstrating Centers’ increasing adoption of good governance practices in recent years, all Center boards now review information on key financial indicators at least quarterly and regularly undertake thorough self-assessment. All Centers have a whistle-blowing policy in place which is regularly reviewed. Centers increasingly follow good practices of transparency and timely disclosure through their institutional website, with most Centers providing a comprehensive annual report including financials, performance indicators and the disclosure of staff compensation schedules. Twelve Centers post the schedule for board and executive committee meetings. Centers’ culture of learning and change is critical to their continued research excellence. This year the PM System presents a summary score for this checklist, with Centers scoring on average 51 points out of 100 (Figure 5). As Centers sustain the quality and relevance of their research through regular investments to develop staff, gauge staff satisfaction, evaluate Center effectiveness, and renew Center human and intellectual capital by seeking greater diversity, scope exists for further strengthening Centers’ culture of learning and change. Leveraging rich staff diversity is vital to the CGIAR’s research and management excellence. The PM System therefore tracks measures of diversity in terms of the nationality of internationally recruited staff (IRS) and their gender (Table 1). In 2008, the average percentage of management positions occupied by women was 25%. The nationalities most prevalent among IRS were British and American, followed by those of Center host countries India, Syria, Philippines and Peru. Financial Health. The two indicators of financial health are long-term financial stability and cash management on restricted operations.2 For each indicator, all Centers but one meet the recommended benchmarks (Table 2). 2 Long-term financial stability (adequacy of reserves) is computed as unrestricted net assets less net fixed assets divided by per-day operating expenses excluding depreciation. The recommended minimum benchmark is 75 days of reserves. Cash management on restricted project operations is computed as restricted accounts receivable divided by restricted accounts payable expressed as a ratio. The recommended benchmark for cash management on restricted operations is less than 1. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 46 Table 1: Diversity Measures in the CGIAR Performance Measurement System in 2008 CENTER Africa Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI IITA ILRI IRRI IWMI W. Agroforestry WorldFish Percentage of Management Positions Occupied by Women 2007 20 20 33 40 22 50 17 8 29 29 25 17 25 25 11 2008 25 11 40 29 14 50 17 8 29 50 0 17 38 33 13 Most Prevalent Nationality Among IRS 2007 Japan United Kingdom USA USA USA Germany Syria India USA Nigeria United Kingdom USA India USA United Kingdom 2008 Japan Italy USA USA China/Australia Peru Syria India USA United Kingdom United Kingdom Philippines France United Kingdom United Kingdom Percentage of IRS of the Most Prevalent Nationality 2007 12 11 17 22 9 15 11 17 23 13 14 16 17 14 24 2008 14 12 15 36 8 16 12 27 27 11 15 13 13 5 26 Table 2: Financial Health Long-term financial stability (benchmark ≥75 days) Africa Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI IITA ILRI IRRI IWMI W. Agroforestry WorldFish 181 81 39 176 106 84 124 127 94 158 90 260 104 178 107 Cash management on restricted operations (benchmark <1) 1.53 0.76 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.16 0.65 0.30 0.43 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.22 0.74 0.95 47 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH In the Public Eye CGIAR in the News The CGIAR maintained a strong media presence during 2008, as more than 19,000 news articles referred to the CGIAR and the Centers it supports Media coverage of the CGIAR and the 15 research Centers reflected growing global interest in agriculture leveraged by communicators and researchers using a strategic and collaborative approach to media promotion throughout the CGIAR. Building on successful efforts in 2007, which increased the CGIAR’s media presence tenfold, the CGIAR Centers and Secretariat Communications Unit continued working together to amplify public awareness about the relevance and impact of agricultural research. April and May saw a sharp spike in CGIAR and Center coverage coincide with a period of heightened concern about the food price crisis, with more than 3,000 news stories published in May alone (see Figure 1). The following are the key CGIAR stories promoted with the media in 2008. Svalbard global seed vault (February). Of major media interest was the smoothly coordinated shipment of tons of seed of some 200,000 crop samples from CGIAR genebanks to a facility built by the Norwegian government to be the guarantor of last resort for the genetic heritage of world agriculture. About 10 wire services wrote stories, and dozens of reports appeared in broadcast, print and online media worldwide. Enola bean patent claim rejected (April). In 1999 the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted patent protection for a yellow bean variety that had been cultivated in Mexico for many years, raising profound concerns about biopiracy and abusive intellectual property claims on plant materials originating in the developing world. In response to a legal challenge led by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, the Patent and Trademark Office reversed its decision in April 2008 and definitively rejected all patent claims. The decision was covered by El Pais in Spain and El Colombiano, El Heraldo, La República and El Tiempo in Colombia. Drivers of the food price crisis (April-May). An audio press conference brought together the directors general of three CGIAR-supported Centers to brief journalists from top media such as the Financial Times (UK) and Scientific American on the drivers of the food price crisis and the role of agricultural research in providing solutions. The briefing aimed to position the Centers as primary sources of information about global agriculture and food security. It generated significant coverage, including stories in the Bangkok Post, Christian Science Monitor (USA), East African (Kenya), ABCNews.com, WashingtonPost.com and Time.com. A similar briefing held in Nairobi and involving three other Centers was well attended and resulted in wire service stories by Inter Press Service, Reuters and United Press International. Impact of new rice for Africa (NERICA) (May). A story on this subject was promoted in connection with the 3500 Fourth Tokyo International Conference 3000 for African Development. It led to substantial coverage, including wire 2500 service stories by Agence France 2000 Presse, Deutsche Presse-Agentur and 1500 Reuters; articles in print media such as New Scientist and New Vision (Uganda); 1000 and radio interviews with Africa Rice 500 Center staff broadcast by BBC Network Africa and Radio France International. 0 Jan Feb news March websites April Maycarried June the July Numerous Figure 1: CGIAR Press Hits in 2008 3,500 3,000 6 Number of Articles 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2,808 3,123 1,878 1,432 1,091 1,021 MAR MAY APR JAN JUN FEB 1,506 1,658 1,082 NOV DEC 1,243 1,320 AUG JUL 920 OCT SEP Source: Meltwater News, 2009 Month in 2008 Aug Sept Oct Nov ANNUAL REPORT 2008 48 story as well, notably ABC News, La Croix (France), Tribune de Geneve online (Switzerland) and Scientific American online. Toward more effective seed aid (May). Research carried out by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture has shown that much emergency seed aid that is intended to help the poor and vulnerable recover from disaster has in fact created a culture of dependency and undermined local markets in more than 15 African countries. These findings were covered by diverse media outlets, including Asian News International (India), Nature (USA), Hindustan Times (India), and New Vision (Uganda). Radio listeners throughout Africa heard the story through BBC Network Africa and South African Broadcasting Corporation’s Channel Africa. Wastewater use in urban agriculture (August). A 53-city survey conducted by the International Water Management Institute documented the widespread use of wastewater for irrigation in urban and peri-urban agriculture, which is vital for the urban poor but gives rise to serious health concerns. The report received major coverage, including stories by more than 20 global and regional news agencies, such as Agence France Presse, Asian News International, Associated Press, Reuters and Xinhua (China). More than 25 stories appeared in print media, such as Le Figaro (France), Gazeta Mercantil (Brazil), The Guardian (UK), Miami Herald, New Scientist and Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany). In addition, BBC News, Economist.com, National Geographic online and Newsweek online ran original stories on their websites. Bushmeat crisis in Central Africa (September). A report from the Center April and May 2008 saw a sharp spike in CGIAR and Center media coverage coincide with a period of heightened concern about the global food price crisis – thousands of news stories helped to amplify public awareness about the relevance and impact of agricultural research. for International Forestry Research on policies related to the bushmeat trade in Central Africa received wide coverage in African and global outlets, including Algemeen Dagblad (Netherlands), East African, Le Jour (Cameroon), Le Monde (France), New Scientist, The Post (Cameroon), The Star (South Africa), Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany), BBC News, Daily Telegraph (UK), Discover magazine, El Mundo (Spain), National Geographic (USA) and Nature (USA). Radio interviews with BBC World Service, Radio France International, and South African Broadcasting Corporation’s Channel Africa radio aired stories reaching millions of listeners across Europe and Africa. Banana (October). Promotion of the first ever pan-African conference on bananas, in Mombasa, Kenya, resulted in widespread coverage across the continent (see page 29). Several international and regional wire services ran stories, including Xinhua (China) and the Pan African News Agency. Print articles ran in the major dailies of at least a half dozen African countries and in East African Business Week. In addition, various African national radio programs, Voice of America, Radio France International, and BBC’s World and French Service aired radio interviews with conference spokespersons. Best-bet research investments (December). The CGIAR’s 2008 Annual General Meeting provided an important focus for media outreach. A key theme of the coverage was a set of best-bet research investments, on which the International Food Policy Research Institute had recently conducted an analysis of potential impacts. At least 18 interviews were arranged before or during the event with CGIAR spokespersons, and more than 15 journalists attended a press briefing on opening day. Highlights of the media coverage include 14 stories from key news agencies such as Agence France Presse, Agencia Lusa (Portugal), Xinhua and the African Press Agency. Several leading African newspapers ran stories, including Business Day (Nigeria) and Daily Nation (Kenya). Various online stories were posted as well, including one in Nature News. 49 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Empowering Africa’s Women Gender & Diversity Program A unique fellowship program helps African women in agricultural research and development to better serve rural women who are the majority of smallholder farmers in the region The Gender & Diversity (G&D) Program of the CGIAR launched in 2008 a powerful new initiative offering carefully tailored fellowships to boost the careers of African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD). AWARD fellowships are offered to talented female scientists from sub-Saharan Africa whose research directly benefits the continent’s smallholder farmers, most of whom are women. The fellowships’ three areas of emphasis are to facilitate mentoring, strengthen scientific skills and develop leadership capability. “A green revolution in Africa will happen only if there is also a gender revolution,” says Kofi Annan, chair of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa and, from 1997 to 2006, United Nations secretary-general. Reflecting this conviction, AWARD offers an unparalleled opportunity to transform the African agricultural landscape. The first 60 AWARD winners were chosen from an impressive pool of over 900 applicants from 45 institutions in 9 countries. As many of these women grew up on smallholder farms, they are uniquely positioned to combine their deep understanding of rural life with scientific expertise. They are specialists in topics of direct relevance to struggling farmers: improving seed quality and supply; increasing poultry and livestock production; promoting the sustainable management of pests, trees, soils and water; enhancing crop yield; improving child nutrition; protecting biodiversity; and supporting rural women’s producer groups to raise incomes. AWARD fellowships are offered to African women scientists whose research directly benefits the continent’s smallholder farmers, most of whom are women. Strengthening the link between agricultural research and rural women is especially critical. African women produce up to 80% of the region’s food crops. Yet a collaborative study by the G&D Program and the Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators Project of the International Food Policy Research Institute showed that fewer than 25% of the region’s scientists were women in 2007-2008. So, while African women do most of the work of producing, storing, processing and marketing food products, they have little say in setting ANNUAL REPORT 2008 50 Jane Ininda, a former Gender & Diversity Program fellow now serving on AWARD’s steering committee, shows one of her maize varieties to Kofi Annan, who recently commented that “a green revolution in Africa will happen only if there is also a gender revolution.” “My research goal is to develop new technologies for harvesting and threshing legumes, thereby increasing women’s incomes by at least 30%,” says Stella Ennin, head of the Resource and Crop Management Division of Ghana’s Crops Research Institute and a 2008 AWARD fellow. priorities for agricultural research and development. AWARD not only builds on the contributions women already make, it aims to expand the talent pool for the future. “AWARD leaves no stone unturned to assist,” says Joshua Mtinuni, professor of animal nutrition at the University of Malawi and an AWARD mentor. “Such dedication to assist upcoming scientists is what every one of us needs to work toward.” Throughout history, African village elders have shared their knowledge, passing on what they know to the next generation. AWARD mentoring builds on this tradition. Every fellow is carefully matched with a senior scientist who serves as her mentor for 1-2 years. In 2008, hundreds of Africa’s most senior leaders in agriculture, men and women alike, volunteered their time to mentor an AWARD fellow. In exchange, mentors are offered the opportunity to participate in two of AWARD’s special training events, such as courses in leadership or writing project proposals. Hosted by the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi, Kenya, AWARD is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development. It is implemented by the G&D Program in partnership with the 15 CGIAR Centers and a wide range of national, regional and international partners. For more information, see www.genderdiversity.cgiar.org/ resource/award.asp. 51 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH System Office Central Services for Centers The CGIAR System Office provides to Centers services regarding intellectual property, knowledge management and communications technology, and auditing The Central Advisory Service for Intellectual Property (CAS-IP) broadened its expertise in 2008 and developed new techniques, tools and programs designed to address the shifting IP landscape and the changing IP needs of the CGIAR. CAS-IP assists research Centers with the distribution and use of CGIAR products through: ■■ comprehensive transactional work that facilitates meeting CGIAR and Center goals; ■■ capacity building in Centers, Systemwide and with national partners; and ■■ the formulation of new ways to use IP management to create value for farmers. Highlights of CAS-IP work in 2008 include the following: ■■ IP practitioners have connected across institutional lines to explore better ways of increasing the adoption and use of research products. One facilitation expert described the National Partners Initiative as “an exemplary community of practice” (www.cas-ip.org/projects/npi). ■■ Since the revamped CAS-IP website and blog was launched in May 2008, visitor numbers have grown by an average of 25% per month for the blog and 15% per month for the website (www.cas-ip.org & http://casipblog.wordpress.com). ■■ CAS@Cambridge is training a new generation of lawyers through internships in the Centers (www.cas-ip.org/projects/casatcambridge). ■■ The global CAS-IP team (www.cas-ip.org/about-us/cas-team) attracted international attention with its expertise in marketing and branding (West Africa Seed Alliance, NERICA, and Super Premium Chocolate - www.cas-ip. org/projects/market-development/) and system dynamics modeling (IP impact on seed systems - www.cas-ip.org/projects/research/systemdynamics-modelling/). The Information and Communications Technology and Knowledge Management (ICT-KM) Program addresses the CGIAR’s need for change, new knowledge, scientific innovation and forward-looking research initiatives. These are some highlights of 2008: ■■ ICT-KM co-developed EasyMTP, an application that guides the completion of medium-term plans (MTPs). CGIAR Centers compiled their 2009-2011 MTPs in a standard format, allowing the data to be uploaded to CGMap, which facilitates cross search and analysis. ■■ As the outputs of research need to be communicated and put to use in different settings, ICT-KM helps Centers apply a framework on availability, accessibility and applicability (AAA) to measure the availability of CGIAR research outputs and improve access to them. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 52 ■■ Knowledge-sharing (KS) projects have been engaged and are expanding across the CGIAR System and beyond — contributing to System objectives through the KS Toolkit, workshops, KS in research pilot projects, and partnering in the Change Management Initiative. ■■ ICT-KM has continued in 2008 to foster strong relationships with partner organizations, through joint workshops, training and initiatives with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Global Forum on Agricultural Research, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, among others. For more information, visit http://ictkm.cgiar.org. The Internal Auditing Unit (IAU) provides, in accordance with international professional standards, assurance services and advice to Centers on risk management, internal control and governance. It shares lessons and good practices with Centers, professionally develops internal auditors across the System, and facilitates and reviews Center risk assessments and reporting, returning results back to each Center. Internal audit seeks to (1) promote changes by which Centers better mitigate risk, (2) encourage discipline and deter resource misuse, and (3) uphold stakeholder confidence in Center management. In 2008, the IAU published updated good practice notes on: ■■ audit committee agendas, with suggestions to ensure that committees fulfill their terms of reference and balance their workload over two annual meetings; ■■ treasury management, presenting good riskmanagement practice for investments, foreign exchange, bank accounts and cash; ■■ occupational health and safety, offering advice on a management system appropriate to Center size and operations and consistent with International Labour Organization guidelines; and ■■ opening and closing offices, with guidance on considering human resource issues, budgeting, financial and administrative arrangements, and communications with the host country, host institute and local partners. The IAU also reviewed and advised on CGIAR financial guidelines, the peer review of Centers’ audited annual financial statements, and CGIAR performance measurement. For more information, visit www.cgiar.org/who/structure/ system/audit/index.html. 53 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH a global Cgiar IFPRI CIMMYT Bioversity ICARDA ICRISAT CIAT CIP Africa Rice IITA IWMI IRRI WorldFish CIFOR World Agroforestry ILRI CENTERS REGIONAL OFFICES OF CENTERS MEMBERS Placement markers are approximate and indicate city locations. cgiar-supported centers Africa Rice Center (WARDA) www.warda.org Bioversity International www.bioversityinternational.org International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) www.ciat.cgiar.org Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) www.cifor.cgiar.org International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) www.cimmyt.org International Potato Center (CIP) www.cipotato.org International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) www.icarda.org International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) www.icrisat.org International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) www.ifpri.org International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) www.iita.org International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) www.ilri.org International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) www.irri.org International Water Management Institute (IWMI) www.iwmi.cgiar.org World Agroforestry Centre www.worldagroforestrycentre.org WorldFish Center www.worldfishcenter.org ANNUAL REPORT 2008 54 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2008 financials 55 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH The 2008 financial outcome1 discussed here is an aggregation of the audited financial statements of the 15 Centers and the 4 Challenge Programs supported by the CGIAR. The aggregation, analyses and reports, including this summary, were produced through a joint effort of a team from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), comprising Norman A. Macdonald, Melba M. Aquino, Rodelita D. Panergalin and Luisa D. Urriza, and the CGIAR Secretariat. Background The review and aggregation of the financial statements was done in accordance with fiduciary management and reporting standards approved by the CGIAR to guide the Centers. Additional information on fiduciary compliance is contained in Box 1. Box 1 Compliance with Fiduciary Guidelines (FGs) To ensure transparency and consistency in financial practices and the presentation of financial information, the 15 Centers supported by the CGIAR are required to follow financial guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat. Developed with input from Center finance personnel and external experts, these guidelines aim to bring the CGIAR’s fiduciary practices into conformity with relevant international standards. The most recent update (FG5) was on cost allocation. Updates of guidelines on auditing and accounting are being launched in 2009. As part of the annual review of substantive financial performance, and in keeping with practice established in 2004, a peer group of Centers’ finance and internal audit professionals reviewed the Centers’ externally audited 2008 financial statements to assess their compliance with CGIAR accounting policies and reporting guidelines, as well as to validate the analysis underpinning the CGIAR financial report. All Centers’ audited financial statements received an unqualified audit opinion, indicating that they provided a true and fair view of finances. 1. The outcome is reported in United States dollars. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 56 2008 CGIAR Financial Results Executive Summary of the Overview Total System2 revenues in 2008 were $553 million, an increase of $33 million (6%) from $520 million in 2007. The improvement in revenue was driven by increases in contributions from both Members and non-members. Table 1 Summary of 2008 CGIAR-Approved Program versus Actual Outcome ($ million) Actual 2008 2008 Plan Actual 2007 Outcome Approved at Outcome AGM07 Expenditure Centers1 Challenge Programs Total expenditure Revenue Funding Centers1 Challenge Programs Subtotal funding Earned income Total revenue Net operating result 1. Includes System-level activities. Contributions increased by $36 million (4% in real terms) to $531 million. This increase takes into account $3 million in foreign exchange losses on contributions not denominated in US dollars. Expenditure in 2008 was $542 million, an increase of $36 million (7%) over 2007. The net result was a surplus of $11 million. Typically, operating surpluses are added to reserves. In comparison with the financing plan approved at the 2007 Annual General Meeting (AGM 07), actual total revenues of $553 million are 12% higher, and the $11 million net surplus compares with a planned deficit of $34 million. Overall Financial Outcome A summary of the CGIAR program outcome for 2008 is compared with the approved program for 2008 and the actual outcome for 2007 in Table 1. Highlights of the System’s 2008 financial performance are shown in Table 4 on page 61 with comparative information for the previous 4 years. Contributions to Centers and Programs Of the $531 million in total contributions, 36% was unrestricted, the same ratio as in 2007 but $13 million (7%) more in absolute terms. Correspondingly, restricted contributions increased by Centers Partners 490 34 18 542 471 20 38 529 458 31 17 506 479 52 531 22 553 11 436 42 478 17 495 (34) 447 48 495 25 520 14 $23 million from $316 million in 2007 to $339 million in 2008, or 64% of funding. Table 5 on page 62 shows contributions to the CGIAR by source and type. As shown in Figure 1, the increase in 2008 contributions came mainly from non-members. The most significant increase was from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose contribution increased by $20 million (87%) to $43 million. The apparent decrease in the contribution from Europe was due to a special one time contribution from the European Commission in 2007 in the amount of $31.2 million. Adjusting for this, the contribution from Europe increased by $22 million (12%). Contributions from Pacific Rim members increased by $6 million (27%), from developing countries by $5 million (33%), and from international and regional organizations by $2 million (3%). Contributions from foundations fell by $4 million (33%). Members make their contributions in their national currency, which Centers then report in US dollar equivalent. Exchange rate movements in 2008 caused a net loss of $3 million on non-dollar contributions, compared with a net gain of $17 million in 2007. The movement of the US dollar against selected currencies of contribution and expenditure during 2008 is shown on Table 2. The 15 Members making the largest contributions accounted for 67% 2 The CGIAR System comprises the 15 Centers supported by the CGIAR, Challenge Programs and System Office units. 57 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Figure 1 CGIAR Contribution by Member Group ($ million) 250 200 150 100 92 91 213 222 2008 2007 50 0 EUROPE NORTH AMERICA 78 76 28 22 20 15 8 12 92 57 INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC RIM AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FOUNDATIONS NON-MEMBERS Table 2 Movement of USD versus Other Major Currencies Contribution Currencies Currency YEN GBP CAD 250 Expenditure Basket Movement1 -20% 38% 13% 30% 21% -6% Currency EUR COP INR NGN KES PHP Currency Unit in USD 2007 2008 0.68 1,987.81 39.42 117.97 62.68 41.40 0.71 2,251.71 49.72 141.07 47.69 84.002008 2007 Currency Unit in USD 2007 2008 112.35 0.50 1.08 5.42 6.40 90.38 0.69 1.22 7.06 7.77 1.06 Movement1 5% 13% 26% 20% 34% 15% NOK SEK CHF 222 1.13 213 200 1. Negative movement implies depreciation of the USD versus the national currency. CAD = Canadian dollar, CHF = Swiss franc, COP = Colombian peso, EUR = Euro, GBP = United Kingdom pound, KES = Kenyan shilling, INR = Indian rupee, 150 NGN = Nigerian naira, NOK = Norwegian kroner, PHP = Philippine peso, SEK = Swedish kroner, USD = United States dollar, YEN = Japanese yen. of funding in 2008. The United States was the largest donor, followed by the 100 World Bank and the 92United 92 91 Kingdom. India was the largest contributor among 78 76 developing countries for the third year. The top contributors and largest among 50 57 developing countries in 2008 and 2007 are shown in Table 3. 28 22 8 12 20 15 0 Resource Allocation EUROPE NORTH INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC RIM DEVELOPING NON-MEMBERS Total CGIAR expenditure 2008 increased by $36 millionFOUNDATIONS (7%) to $542 million. AMERICA in AND REGIONAL COUNTRIES ORGANIZATIONS resource allocation at the System level The following paragraphs summarize by object of expenditure and by CGIAR developing region. Expenditure by Object. As shown in Figure 2, the pattern of expenditure by object did not change significantly from 2007, with personnel cost maintaining the largest share at 44%. Expenditure by Region. As shown in Figure 3, the allocation of expenditure by region in 2008 broadly reflects the pattern seen in the past several years, confirming the CGIAR’s focus on sub-Saharan Africa. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 58 Table 3 Top Member Contributions ($ million) 2008 Industrialized Countries and Multilateral Organizations United States of America World Bank United Kingdom Canada European Commission Developing Countries India Nigeria China Kenya Mexico 7.5 2.6 1.1 1.0 0.8 India China Kenya Pakistan Colombia 6.7 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 58.0 50.0 45.4 34.1 32.6 European Commission United States of America World Bank United Kingdom Canada 62.4 59.5 50.0 44.6 31.1 2007 Figure 2 Expenditure by Object Figure 3 Expenditure by Region 2008 DEPRECIATION CENTRAL AND WEST ASIA & NORTH AFRICA TRAVEL LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN ASIA COLLABORATION & PARTNERSHIPS SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 3% 2008 PERSONNEL CENTRAL AND WEST ASIA & NORTH AFRICA 8% 44% 29% LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 10% 12% 47% 31% ASIA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 16% SUPPLIES & SERVICES 2007 CENTRAL AND WEST ASIA & NORTH AFRICA DEPRECIATION LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN TRAVEL ASIA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA COLLABORATION 4% 2007 CENTRAL AND WEST ASIA & NORTH AFRICA 7% 15% 44% 30% PERSONNEL LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 10% 13% 48% 29% ASIA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA & PARTNERSHIPS SUPPLIES & SERVICES 59 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Figure 4 Financial Results by Center ($ million) POSITIVE OUTCOME (12) 4.0 3.2 2.4 1.6 0.8 0.0 -0.8 -1.6 -2.4 -3.2 -4.0 WORLD ICRISAT AGROFORESTRY IFPRI AFRICA RICE IWMI ILRI CIMMYT CIFOR CIAT IITA CIP DEFICIT OUTCOME (3) 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 -0.1 -1.5 -3.6 BIOVERSITY ICARDA WORLDFISH IRRI Center Perspectives The contribution increase noted at the System level is the aggregate of a range of outcomes at individual Centers. Twelve Centers saw contributions increase in 2008, down from thirteen Centers in 2007. allocation and financing. Table 8 on page 65 summarizes the System’s overall financial position from 2004 to 2008. Summary of Challenge Programs During the year, $45 million was available for Challenge Programs, down from the 2007 figure of $68 million, which included a special European Commission contribution. Expenditure of $52 million in 2008 compared with $48 million in 2007 and resulted in a net decrease of $7 million from the cumulative balance of Challenge Program funds. Table 9 on page 66 summarizes Challenge Program funding and expenditure. Conclusion Positive results helped to strengthen the financial position of the CGIAR Centers, as indicated by their aggregate reserves position. The results seem to indicate that the global financial crisis that erupted in 2008 did not have an immediate impact on the System, leaving it well positioned to manage any impact of the crisis in 2009 and beyond. Financial results (contributions plus Center-earned income, less expenditure) showed twelve Centers ending the year with a surplus, compared with eleven in 2007 (Figure 4). As a percentage of total revenues, Africa Rice had a surplus of 15%; CIFOR, IWMI and World Agroforestry had surpluses of 6-10%; and the remaining eight Centers had smaller surpluses. ICARDA essentially broke even. The IRRI and WorldFish deficits (of 10% and 8% respectively), were planned as measures to increase investments in research. Table 6 on page 63 provides the 2008 financial results by Center and for the System as a whole, including results for those portions of Challenge Programs implemented by CGIAR partners, and compares them with 2007. Table 7 on page 64 provides an overview of System expenditure ANNUAL REPORT 2008 60 Table 4 CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights Actual Revenues ($ million) Agenda funding (of which unrestricted) Earned income Total Agenda funding ($ million) Members Europe North America Pacific Rim Developing countries Foundations International and regional organizations Subtotal Non-members Total Top three contributors 2004 437 45% 16.1 453 2005 450 43% 10.3 460 2006 426 42% 22.4 448 2007 495 36% 25.2 520 2008 531 36% 22.3 553 181 87 26 17 13 73 397 40 437 197 91 24 15 14 72 413 37 450 169 88 22 14 14 74 381 45 426 222 91 22 15 12 76 438 57 495 213 92 28 20 8 78 439 92 531 USA World Bank United Kingdom 1,063 6,728 7,791 USA World Bank United Kingdom 1,100 6,774 7,874 USA World Bank United Kingdom 1,115 7,039 8,154 EC USA World Bank 1,096 6,986 8,082 USA World Bank United Kingdom 1,163 6,904 8,067 Staffing (number) Internationally recruited Nationally recruited Total Object of expenditure Personnel costs Supplies & services Collaboration & partnerships Travel Depreciation Total Expenditure ( $ million) Expenditure by region 45% 29% 14% 8% 4% 425 45% 27% 16% 8% 4% 452 47% 27% 14% 8% 4% 458 44% 30% 15% 7% 4% 506 44% 29% 16% 8% 3% 542 Sub-Saharan Africa Asia Latin America & the Caribbean Central and West Asia & North Africa Result of operations (surplus/deficit) ($ million] Center financial information ($ million) 47% 32% 12% 9% 28 46% 30% 14% 10% 8 48% 29% 14% 9% (10) 48% 29% 13% 10% 14 47% 31% 12% 10% 11 Unrestricted net assets excluding fixed assets Liquidity indicators 156 164 1.9 145 15.5 90% 24% 0.55 158 155 1.9 137 15.8 101% 21% 0.80 145 149 1.8 124 16.8 107% 20% 0.46 159 161 1.7 127 18.7 110% 20% 0.33 165 150 1.6 123 21.2 119% 19% 0.36 Working capital (days expenditure)1 Current ratio Adequacy of reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure ($ million) Capital expenditure/depreciation Efficiency of operations indicator Indirect cost ratio Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio2 1. 2004 and 2005 restated to exclude investment in non-marketable Government of India bonds held by ICRISAT. 2. 2004 and 2005 restated to reflect refinement of formula (accounts receivables stated net of allowance for doubtful accounts). 61 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Table 5 CGIAR Funding by Member, 2008 ($ million) Unrestricted Europe Austria Belgium Denmark European Commission Finland France Germany Ireland Israel Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Subtotal North America Canada United States of America Subtotal Pacific Rim Australia Japan Korea, Republic of New Zealand Subtotal Developing countries Bangladesh Brazil China Colombia Cote d’Ivoire Egypt, Arab Republic of India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Kenya Malaysia Mexico Nigeria Pakistan Peru Philippines South Africa Syria, Arab Republic of Thailand Turkey Uganda Subtotal Total Member Countries Foundations Ford Foundation IDRC Kellogg Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Syngenta Foundation Subtotal International and regional organizations ADB AfDB Arab Fund FAO Gulf Cooperation Council IDB IFAD OPEC Fund UNDP UNEP World Bank Subtotal Total Organizations Non-members Grand Total ANNUAL REPORT 2008 4.8 3.6 3.3 2.4 8.3 6.8 0.2 3.8 6.5 17.4 0.3 8.4 9.0 21.4 96.2 16.3 13.8 30.1 4.4 2.9 0.5 0.8 8.6 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.01 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.01 5.7 140.6 Restricted 2.6 4.9 0.2 32.6 0.4 5.7 11.0 2.6 3.8 0.6 8.4 0.2 2.4 6.3 11.4 24.0 117.1 17.8 44.2 62.0 6.0 9.4 1.3 3.0 19.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.2 6.6 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.03 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 14.0 212.8 0.9 3.5 0.7 2.3 0.6 8.0 2.0 0.9 1.0 3.8 0.6 0.8 9.8 0.7 0.8 6.8 27.2 248.0 91.0 339 Total 2.6 9.7 3.8 32.6 3.7 8.1 19.3 9.4 0.2 7.6 0.6 14.9 17.4 0.5 2.4 14.7 20.4 45.4 213.3 34.1 58.0 92.1 10.4 12.3 1.8 3.8 28.3 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.7 7.5 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.04 0.8 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.5 19.7 353.4 0.9 3.5 0.7 2.3 0.8 8.2 2.0 0.9 1.0 4.6 0.6 0.8 9.8 0.7 0.8 6.8 50.0 78.0 439.6 91.5 531 0.2 0.2 0.8 50.0 50.8 191.6 0.5 192 62 Table 6 Financial Results by Center ($ million) 2008 Agenda funding Expenditure Result Earned income Total Revenue Agenda funding Earned income Total Revenue 2007 Expenditure Result Center 63 Africa Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI IITA ILRI IRRI IWMI World Agroforestry WorldFish Subtotal 16.1 (0.6) 15.5 (15.8) (0.3) 513 18.3 531 22 22 535 18.3 553 (0.6) 15.5 (15.8) (0.3) 16.1 16.1 16.1 (15.8) 0.3 524 18.3 542 (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) 11 11 12.5 37.0 46.3 21.3 40.8 27.4 30.1 48.0 49.9 48.4 39.9 37.5 26.1 29.3 18.6 513.1 0.3 1.1 1.9 0.6 2.3 0.5 1.8 2.6 0.4 2.9 4.2 0.3 0.7 2.0 0.7 22.3 12.8 38.1 48.2 21.9 43.1 27.9 31.9 50.6 50.3 51.3 44.1 37.8 26.8 31.3 19.3 535.4 10.9 37.9 47.3 20.6 41.7 27.6 32.0 47.9 48.3 51.0 42.6 41.4 25.2 28.3 20.8 523.5 1.9 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.4 0.3 (0.1) 2.7 2.0 0.3 1.5 (3.6) 1.6 3.0 (1.5) 11.9 10.2 39.0 45.1 18.2 43.3 26.0 27.7 37.4 46.4 45.1 35.2 32.5 23.5 31.5 15.1 476.2 0.2 0.3 1.7 0.6 2.6 0.8 1.1 4.9 1.7 1.7 3.8 2.3 0.6 1.6 1.2 25.1 10.4 39.3 46.8 18.8 45.9 26.8 28.8 42.3 48.1 46.8 39.0 34.8 24.1 33.1 16.4 501.4 10.3 37.6 48.9 16.9 43.9 26.1 27.1 37.8 45.7 44.7 40.6 37.7 24.0 30.4 17.3 489.0 12.3 (2.0) 10.3 (10.2) 0.1 478 16.5 495 25 25 503 16.5 520 489 16.5 506 0.2 1.7 (2.1) 1.9 2.1 0.6 1.7 4.5 2.4 2.1 (1.6) (2.9) 0.1 2.7 (0.9) 12.4 System level System level activities Advance Unallocated Member funding Subtotal Less Inter-Center activities Subtotal System level 12.3 (2.0) 1.7 12.0 (10.2) 1.8 12.3 (2.0) 1.7 2 12.0 (10.2) 1.8 1.7 2 1.7 1.7 14 14 Total Plus Challenge Program partners Total CGIAR Program CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 1. Funding may differ from Centers’ audited financial statements due to System-level adjustments. 2. From Morocco, Israel, Portugal and China which was subsequently allocated in 2008. Table 7 Center Finances, 2008 ($ million) Expenditure allocation Member funding Travel 0.7 1.8 3.8 1.5 2.1 2.2 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.4 1.9 3.5 1.8 40 16.1 16.1 (15.8) 0.3 2.8 0.2 0.0 (0.6) 0.2 12.9 2.8 2.8 0.2 0.2 18 524 201 92 0.2 20.8 8.5 3.9 1.9 28 0.0 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.2 12.9 (15.8) (15.8) 1.0 28.3 14.6 4.1 0.5 0.5 25.2 17.1 1.9 1.8 2.5 41.4 9.2 6.4 7.1 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.7 20 8 0.2 1.6 42.6 16.4 11.4 0.5 0.7 1.3 51.0 16.2 16.5 0.5 2.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.8 48.3 16.5 10.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 2.1 47.9 14.6 7.9 1.4 5.7 0.9 1.5 32.0 9.6 5.2 1.9 2.4 0.4 7.6 6.6 3.9 4.4 3.6 4.9 2.7 3.1 2.4 65 12.9 0.7 27.6 11.2 4.6 1.2 0.6 0.8 2.5 2.0 41.7 9.9 6.3 5.0 1.9 0.6 3.8 12.3 4.9 2.2 10.4 16.7 5.7 4.6 8.1 0.6 4.7 1.1 83 0.3 20.6 13.3 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 1.8 2.0 47.3 18.2 8.0 1.4 1.0 1.6 7.4 6.4 0.5 37.9 23.0 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.2 7.0 3.1 0.2 2.3 0.0 1.0 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 2.2 2.2 0.3 1.2 1.2 0.1 15.8 0.6 10.9 3.0 1.1 1.8 1.5 0.0 3.0 0.6 1.5 Financing ANNUAL REPORT 2008 Center 3.0 7.5 12.8 4.7 13.6 8.6 11.5 13.9 7.4 17.1 15.1 13.3 9.4 8.7 4.1 151 86 5.4 3.3 2.0 4.7 3.0 9.9 14.7 6.8 3.0 4.2 6.5 5.8 9.0 6.6 1.1 Personnel Supplies & Collaboration & services partnerships Depreciation Total Europe Pacific Rim North America Non- Inter-center members activities Developing Intl & regnl countries Foundations organizations Total funding1 12.5 37.0 46.3 21.3 40.8 27.4 30.1 48.0 49.9 48.4 39.9 37.5 26.1 29.3 18.6 513 16.1 (0.6) 15.5 (15.8) (0.3) Earned income 0.3 1.1 1.9 0.6 2.3 0.5 1.8 2.6 0.4 2.9 4.2 0.3 0.7 2.0 0.7 22 Reserves Addition / (Draw) 1.9 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.4 0.3 (0.1) 2.7 2.0 0.3 1.5 (3.6) 1.6 3.0 (1.5) 12 (0.0) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) Africa Rice 5.5 Bioversity 21.5 CIAT 19.7 CIFOR 8.3 CIMMYT 17.5 CIP 11.9 ICARDA 12.0 ICRISAT 21.4 IFPRI 22.0 IITA 19.3 ILRI 19.9 IRRI 17.5 64 151 5.3 156 89 42 2.9 1.5 0.5 18 86 40 18 524 18.3 542 204 9.2 213 92 0.2 92 28 0.4 28 IWMI 11.4 World Agroforestry 11.8 WorldFish 9.3 Subtotal 229 System level System level activities Unallocated Subtotal Less Inter-Center Activities Subtotal System level Total 229 20 8 0.1 20 8 78 0.0 78 83 8.4 92 513 18.3 531 22 11 Plus Challenge Program Partners 8.1 Total CGIAR Program 237 22 11 1. Funding may differ from Centers’ audited financial statements due to system-level adjustments. Table 8 CGIAR System Financial Position ($ thousand) 2004 Assets Current assets Cash and cash equivalents Accounts receivable Members Employees Others Inventories Pre-paid expenses Other current assets Total current assets Noncurrent assets Net property, plant and equipment Investments Others assets Total noncurrent assets Total assets 78,433 34,985 3,012 116,430 468,393 2005 2006 2007 2008 237,047 69,717 3,594 17,147 4,540 2,994 16,924 351,963 221,853 83,907 4,105 22,280 4,593 3,401 6,580 346,719 255,899 56,363 4,726 20,952 6,001 3,140 943 348,024 329,054 65,101 3,727 26,689 5,539 4,063 1,812 435,985 360,051 79,766 3,437 27,171 5,833 4,354 2,283 482,895 77,869 46,642 1,223 125,734 472,453 78,277 41,020 7,076 126,373 474,397 76,177 52,819 6,748 135,744 571,729 78,507 61,265 2,279 142,051 624,946 Liabilities and net assets Current liabilities Accounts payable Members Employees Others Accruals and provisions Total current liabilities Long-term liabilities Total liabilities 115,904 12,435 49,216 24,294 201,849 30,486 232,335 119,497 14,514 44,430 24,086 202,527 31,897 234,424 112,065 19,024 49,254 25,938 206,281 42,383 248,664 172,599 19,727 63,378 30,563 286,267 48,016 334,283 196,601 17,890 86,142 32,869 333,502 46,184 379,686 Net assets Unrestricted Unrestricted net assets excl fixed assets Fixed assets Unrestricted net assets Restricted Total net assets 155,539 78,433 233,972 2,086 236,058 468,393 65 157,966 77,869 235,835 2,194 238,029 472,453 145,089 78,277 223,366 2,368 225,734 474,397 158,867 76,177 235,044 2,402 237,446 571,729 164,599 78,507 243,106 2,154 245,260 624,946 Total liabilities and net assets CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Table 9 Summary of Challenge Programs, 2008 ($ million) Funds Available Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation European Commission Italy Netherlands New Zealand Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom USA Zinc Project Consortium World Bank Total HarvestPlus 14.7 Water & Food Generation 3.1 SSA Subtotal 17.8 1.1 0.8 1.9 1.7 0.3 1.7 12.2 0.5 0.3 6.0 4.2 44.3 0.6 0.6 2nd Cycle Total 17.8 1.1 0.8 1.9 1.7 0.3 1.7 12.2 0.5 0.3 6.6 44.9 1.1 0.8 1.9 1.7 0.1 1.3 3.3 0.1 3.3 0.5 0.3 2.0 20.9 0.1 0.4 3.3 2.3 2.0 10.3 2.0 8.9 Expenditure Africa Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI IITA ILRI IRRI IWMI World Agroforestry WorldFish Subtotal Total 2008 Balance 2007 Cumulative balance Cumulative balance Adjustments1 Cummulative Balance per CP reports HarvestPlus Center 0.02 0.1 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 2.8 0.5 0.4 Others Water & Food Center Others Generation Center 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.2 2.5 0.6 Others Center 0.1 2.2 SSA Others Total Center 0.2 0.4 6.4 2.5 1.6 1.4 3.4 3.4 4.2 0.3 2.8 5.8 0.01 1.3 Others 2nd Cycle Center Others Total Center 0.2 0.4 6.4 2.5 1.6 1.4 3.4 3.4 4.2 0.3 2.8 5.8 0.01 1.3 Others 1.3 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.9 5.8 0.01 1.3 6.6 13.7 7.2 16.6 12.5 2.2 14.7 (4.4) 4.4 0.1 3.1 1.5 7.1 8.6 10.4 19.0 (10.1) 16.7 5.5 (0.9) 4.6 (0.4) 7.9 33.7 18.3 52.0 (7.7) 45.6 0.6 0.6 33.7 18.9 52.6 (7.7) 45.6 23.8 0.4 24.2 (0.0) 0.6 0.6 6.6 0.2 6.8 7.5 (0.4) 7.1 37.9 0.8 38.7 37.9 0.8 38.7 1. The adjustment is due to differences in accounting convention between the CGIAR Financial Report and the Challenge Programs. ANNUAL REPORT 2008 66 who’s WHO 67 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CGIAR Members countries Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Brazil Canada China Colombia Côte d’Ivoire Denmark Egypt, Arab Republic of Finland France Germany India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kenya Korea, Republic of Luxembourg Malaysia Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Pakistan Peru Philippines Portugal Romania Russian Federation South Africa representatives Peter Core Maria Rabitsch Nurul Alam Paul J. Avontroodt Silvio Crestana Hélène Corneau Huajun Tang Arturo Vega Tiemoko Yo Hanne Carus Ayman Abou Hadid Tuula Pehu Michel Dodet Christoph Kohlmeyer Mangala Rai Hadi Pasaribu Jafar Khalghani Brendan Rogers Yakov Poleg Gioacchino Carabba Keiichi Sugita Romano Kiome Hong-Kil Moon Arsene Jacoby Abdul Shukor bin Abdul Rahman Victor Villalobos Arámbula Zouttane El-Madani Wijnand Van Ijssel Vicki Poole Baba Yusuf Abubakar Ruth Haug Muhammad Ismail Qureshi Juan Risi Nicomedes P. Eleazar Jorge Braga de Macedo Nicolae Hristea Olga Glukhovtseva Njabulo Nduli cooperating institutions Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Austrian Development Agency Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Development Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply, Embrapa Canadian International Development Agency Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry French National Commission for Agricultural Research Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture Irish Aid Ministry of Agriculture and Science Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Finance Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Foreign Affairs New Zealand’s International Aid & Development Agency Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock National Institute for Agricultural Innovation Department of Agriculture Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ANNUAL REPORT 2008 68 countries Spain Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States representatives D. Pedro Castañera Dominquez Hakan Marstorp Juerg Benz Adel Safar Adisak Sreesunpagit Masum Burak Denis Kyetere Chris Whitty Robert Bertram cooperating institutions National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs National Agricultural Research Organization Department for International Development United States Agency for International Development foundations Ford Foundation International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Kellogg Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture representatives Charles Bailey Jean Lebel Rick Foster James K. Nyoro Marco Ferroni international and regional organizations African Development Bank Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development Asian Development Bank European Commission Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Gulf Cooperation Council of the Arab States Inter-American Development Bank International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) OPEC Fund for International Development United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme World Bank representatives Josephine Mwangi Abdulatif Y. Al-Hamad Katsuji Matsunami Marc Debois Alexander Müller Hilal Ambusaidi Hector R. Malarin Rodney Cooke Suleiman Al-Herbish Philip Dobie Angela Cropper Juergen Voegele 69 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH the CGIAR cgiar chair Katherine Sierra Vice President, Sustainable Development Network, World Bank Nathalie Silvestri, Administrative Assistant Irmi Braun-Castaldi, Travel Coordinator Anna Maria Ventresca, Travel Assistant cgiar director Ren Wang Genetic Resources Policy Committee (GRPC) Carlos Correa, Chair Teresita Borromeo Orlando de Ponti Benito Oldala Eliasi Emile Frison Michael Gale Anthony Gregson Dan Leskin Chee Yoke Ling Shadrack Moephuli Mahmoud Solh Carl-Gustaf Thornström co-sponsors and their representatives Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Alexander Müller International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rodney Cooke United Nations Development Programme, Philip Dobie World Bank, Juergen Voegele executive council Chair: Katherine Sierra Co-Sponsors: Juergen Voegele (World Bank) Rodney Cooke (IFAD) Alexander Müller (FAO) Alliance of CGIAR Centers: Emile Frison Science Council Chair: Roelof (Rudy) Rabbinge Global Forum on Agricultural Research Chair: Adel El-Beltagy standing committees Advisory Committees Science Council Roelof (Rudy) Rabbinge, Chair Gebisa Ejeta Hans Herren Ken Fischer Michael Gale Jeffrey Sayer Derek Byerlee (ex-officio) Partnership Committee Private Sector Committee William S. Niebur, Chair Gisele d’Almeida Ergilio da Silva, Jr. Bernward J.H. Garthoff Peter Jeffries Raul Montemayor Sivakumar Surampudi Jan-Kees Vis OECD/DAC Americas: Robert Bertram (USA) Asia-Pacific: Hong-Kil Moon (Korea) Europe: Marc Debois (EC) Ruth Haug (Norway) Jonathan Wadsworth (UK) Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) Derek Byerlee, Chair Mywish Maredia Zenda Ofir center committees Alliance Board (AB) Guido Gryseels, ICARDA, AB Chair Andrew J. Bennett, CIFOR Julio Berdegue, CIMMYT Stein Bie, ICRISAT Ruth Egger-Tschaeppeler, CIP Getachew Engida, WARDA Ross Garnaut, IFPRI Remo Gautschi, WorldFish Anthony Gregson, Bioversity Lynn Haight, World Agroforestry Bryan Harvey, IITA Nobumasa Hatcho, IWMI Gordon MacNeil, CIAT Uwe Werblow, ILRI Elizabeth Woods, IRRI Alliance Executive (AE) Emile Frison, Bioversity, AE Chair Pamela Anderson, CIP Colin Chartres, IWMI William Dar, ICRISAT Dennis Garrity, World Agroforestry Stephen Hall, WorldFish Hartmann, IITA Geoff Hawtin, CIAT Developing Countries Standing Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation (SPME) Ken Fischer, Chair Osvaldo Feinstein Paul Vlek Americas: Eliseo Contini (Brazil) Asia-Pacific: Mangala Rai (India) CWANA: Jafar Khalghani (Iran) Regional Fora: Mario Allegri (FORAGRO) SSA: Baba Yusuf Abubakar (Nigeria) Foundations Partner Marco Ferroni (Syngenta) William Niebur (Private Sector Committee Chair) Executive Secretary, ExCo: Ren Wang CGIAR Secretariat Iftikhar Mostafa Jason Yauney Ruben Echeverría,Executive Director Chris Deane, Senior Agricultural Research Officer Peter Gardiner, Senior Agricultural Research Officer Sirkka Immonen, Senior Agricultural Research Officer Timothy Kelley, Senior Agricultural Research Officer Haruko Okusu, Agricultural Research Officer Nega Wubeneh, Agricultural Research Officer Muriel Pougheon, Administrative Coordinator Anastasia Saltas, Administrative Assistant Science Council Secretariat ANNUAL REPORT 2008 70 Papa Abdoulaye Seck, WARDA Carlos Seré, ILRI Frances Seymour, CIFOR Mahmoud Solh, ICARDA Joachim von Braun, IFPRI Robert Zeigler, IRRI cgiar system office CGIAR Secretariat Ren Wang, Director Feroza Vatcha, Administrative Officer Vinodhini David, Senior Executive Assistant Anne Macharia, Team Assistant Governance and Partnerships Iftikhar Mostafa, Governance Adviser Manuel Lantin, Science Adviser Harry Palmier, Senior Liaison Officer* Daniel Rocchi, Senior Liaison Officer** Maria Iskandarani, Technical Specialist Jason Yauney, Operations Analyst Maria Eugenia Herrera Lara, Evaluation Specialist Xiaoyue Hou, Program Assistant Salvacion Rabanillo, Program Assistant Investor Relations and Finance Shey Tata, Lead Finance Officer Lystra Antoine, Senior Financial Officer/Investor Relations Loriza Dagdag, Finance Officer Su Ching Tan, Junior Finance Professional Yenny Andrade Castillo, Program Assistant Iman Hassan, Program Assistant Information and Corporate Communications Laura Ivers, Communications Officer Nathan Russell, Senior Communications Officer Danielle Lucca, Information Officer Catherine Mgendi, Media Specialist Amelia Goh, Junior Professional Associate Barbara Eckberg, Program Assistant CGIAR 1971-2008 CGIAR Chairs, 1971-2008 Katherine Sierra, 2006Ian Johnson, 2000-2006 Ismail Serageldin, 1994-2000 V. Rajagopalan, 1991-1993 Wilfried Thalwitz, 1990-1991 W. David Hopper, 1987-1990 S. Shahid Hussain, 1984-1987 Warren Baum, 1974-1983 Richard H. Demuth, 1971-1974 Alliance of CGIAR Centers Office Anne-Marie Izac, Chief Alliance Officer Fiona J.C. Chandler, Scientific Liaison Officer Veronica Lazzari, Program Assistant CGIAR Directors, 2001-2008 Central Advisory Service for Intellectual Property Ren Wang, 2007Francisco J.B. Reifschneider, 2001-2007 Victoria Henson-Apollonio, Manager Kay Chapman, Program Assistant Irina Curca, Program Assistant CGIAR Executive Secretaries, 1972-2001 Chief Information Office Enrica Porcari, Chief Information Officer Tania Jordan, Technical Coordinator Jenin Assaf, Program Officer Antonella Pastore, Project Coordinator Michael Marus, Systems Development Specialist Alexander von der Osten, 1989-2001 Curtis Farrar, 1982-1989 Michael Lejeune, 1975-1982 Harold Graves, 1972-1975 Science Council Chairs, 2004-2008 Roelof (Rudy) Rabbinge, 2007Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 2004-2006 Internal Audit John Fitzsimon, Director John Mwangi, Associate Director Gerardo Carstens, Associate Director Erwin Lopez, Senior Internal Auditor Virginia Maria Salazar, Senior Internal Auditor Bill Fabian, Program Assistant Pauline Aluoch, Program Assistant Yunuhe Reyes, Program Assistant Science Council Executive Director, 2004-2008 Ruben Echeverria, 2004- Interim Science Council Chair, 2001-2003 Emil Q. Javier, 2001-2003 Technical Advisory Committee Chairs, 1971-2001 Emil Q. Javier, 2000-2001 Donald Winkelmann, 1994-1999 Alex McCalla, 1988-1994 Guy Camus, 1982-1987 Ralph Cummings, 1977-1982 Sir John Crawford, 1971-1976 Technical Advisory Committee Executive Secretaries, 1971-2003 Shellemiah Keya, 1996-2003 Guido Gryseels, 1995-1996 John Monyo, 1985-1994 Alexander von der Osten, 1982-1985 Philippe Mahler, 1976-1982 Peter Oram, 1971-1976 * Special appointment, Institut de recherche pour le développement, France ** Special appointment, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, France 71 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Acronyms and Abbreviations AAA AB ABC ADB AfDB AE AGM AWARD availability, accessibility, applicability Alliance Board of the CGIAR American Broadcasting Company Asian Development Bank African Development Bank Alliance Executive of the CGIAR Annual General Meeting of the CGIAR African Women in Agricultural Research and Development BBC British Broadcasting Corporation CAS-IP Central Advisory Service for Intellectual Property of the CGIAR CCAFS Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security of the CGIAR CEO chief executive officer CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical International (International Center for Tropical Agriculture), Colombia CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), Mexico CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa (International Potato Center), Peru CPWF Challenge Program on Water and Food of the CGIAR CWANA Central and West Asia and North Africa DAC Development Assistance Committee of OECD EC European Commission EF environmental flow EHNRI Ethiopian Health & Nutrition Research Institute Embrapa Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) epIA ex-post impact assessment ESSP Earth System Science Partnership ExCo Executive Council of the CGIAR FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FG fiduciary guideline FORAGRO Fondo Regional de Tecnología Agropecuaria G&D Gender & Diversity Program of the CGIAR GCARD Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development GCP GEFC GRPC Generation Challenge Programme of the CGIAR Global Environmental Flow Calculator Genetic Resources Policy Committee of the CGIAR IAR4D integrated agricultural research for development IAU Internal Audit Unit of the CGIAR ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Syria ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India ICT-KM Information and Communication Technologies and Knowledge Management Program of the CGIAR IDB Islamic Development Bank IDRC International Development Research Centre IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFAR International Fund for Agricultural Research IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute, United States IIAM Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique (Mozambique Agricultural Research Institute) IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria ILRI International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya IMBARAGA Fédération Syndicale des Agriculteurs et Eleveurs du Rwanda (Rwanda Farmers’ and Breeders’ Federation) INGER International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice IP intellectual property IRS internationally recruited staff IRRI International Rice Research Institute, Philippines IWMI International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KS knowledge sharing LAMIL landscape management for improved livelihoods MTP medium-term plan NERICA new rice for Africa NZAID New Zealand's International Aid & Development Agency OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries PROINPA (Fundación para) Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos, Bolivia QPM REDD quality protein maize reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries REU reaching end user RKB Rice Knowledge Bank ROCARIZ Réseau Ouest et Centre Africain du Riz (West and Central Africa Rice Research and Development Network) SC Science Council of the CGIAR SSA sub-Saharan Africa SPIA Standing Panel on Impact Assessment of the CGIAR SPME Standing Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation of the Science Council of the CGIAR SSA-CP Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program of the CGIAR UCODEP Unità e Cooperazione per lo Sviluppo dei Popoli, Italy UK United Kingdom UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme US, USA United States of America ANNUAL REPORT 2008 72 CGIAR MEMBERS As poor communities in developing countries feel the pressures of climate change, high food prices and volatile economies, the knowledge, expertise and technologies for agricultural development of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural photography credits Research (CGIAR) have never been more critically needed. These mounting global (front cover and cd) corbis {hugh sitton} ::: (p5) corbis {adam wong} ::: (p6) ciat {neil palmer} ::: (p9) ilri {stevie mann} ::: (p10) ifpri {klaus von grebmer} ::: (p13) cgiar ::: (p14) left photo {icarda}, right photo, cgiar ::: (p15) bioversity International {luis pocasangre} ::: (p16) dominic chavez ::: (p17) cgiar ::: (p18) dominic chavez ::: (p19) cgiar {amelia goh} ::: (p20) africa rice center {lionel zadji} ::: (p21) bioversity international ::: (p22) ciat ::: (p23) cifor ::: (p24) cimmyt ::: (p25) cip {fernando ezeta} ::: (p26) icarda ::: (p27) icrisat ::: (p28) ifpri {klaus von grebmer} ::: (p29) iita {piet van asten} ::: (p30) ilri {stevie mann} ::: (p31) irri ::: (p32) iwmi ::: (p33) world agroforestry centre {charlie pye-smith} ::: (p34) worldfish center ::: (p35) dominic chavez ::: (p36) the world bank {arne hoel} ::: (p37) cpwf {jens liebe} ::: (p38) gcp {james gethi} ::: (p39) harvestplus {charles musoke} ::: (p40) ssa-cp ::: (p41) ilri {stevie mann} ::: (p42) cgiar cac program, cimmyt, ifpri, rocariz, courtesy of lateef sanni oladimeji ::: (p43) irri, cip, iita, courtesy of patricia oyella, courtesy of wandera ojanji ::: (p49) ilri {stevie mann} ::: (p50) cgiar gender & diversity program {mike goldwater} ::: (p51) cgiar gender & diversity program ::: (p53) icrisat ::: (p55) ilri {stevie mann} ::: (p67) the world bank ::: (inside back cover) dominic chavez ::: tribute to pressures are pushing millions of people deeper into hunger and poverty and further threatening livelihoods that are already too fragile. Thanks to the support and commitment of its 64 Members, the CGIAR is making headway with new initiatives and innovations to address these challenges. Today, with renewed global attention to agriculture and calls to increase investments in agricultural research, the CGIAR is invigorated to fulfill its mandate to serve the poor and the planet — to do more and do better in a changing agricultural landscape. The unwavering commitment of its Members makes this possible and for that, we are grateful. production credits Design: patricia hord.graphik design ::: Editing: peter fredenburg ::: Printing: professional graphics printing co. ::: Production: cgiar secretariat ::: CGIAR Secretariat A Unit of the CGIAR System Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA t 1 202 473 8951 f 1 202 473 8110 e cgiar@cgiar.org Printed on environmentally friendly paper September 2009 www.cgiar.org