Renewalof the QIAR: FrnmDe&h to Actions
‘g& ._.’ IcLARM and (RR1 ._.._ .s-- l Manila, The Philippines
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Nairotx Kenya
CGIAR MID#TERMMEET ING Nairobi, Kenya May 22fl26, 1995 Summaryof Proceedingsand Decisions
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting Nairobi, Kenya May 22-26,1995 Summary of Proceedings and Decisions
Renewal of tbe CGIAR: From Decisions to Actions
Issued by the CGIAR Secretariat
1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.
Telephone: l-202-473-8951 l Fax: l-202-473-8110 E-Mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
July 1995 Table of Contents
Context: The Lucerne Declaration and Action Program...... 1
Section I: Introduction ...... 7 Box: Decisions by the Cosponsors ...... 12
Section II: The Main Decisions ...... 13 Broader Partnerships ...... 1 j Research Agenda and Finance ...... 15 Governance ...... 17 Other iMatters ...... 17
Section III: Chairman’s Opening Statement ...... 19 I. A Brief Stocktaking ...... 21 II. The Spirit of Lucerne...... 22 III. Our Business is People ...... 23 IV. Guidelines for Action ...... 24 V. Moving Ahead ...... 26 Box: Milestones Toward Renewal ...... 27
Section IV: Summary of Proceedings ...... 29 I. Broader Partnerships ...... 31 II. The Research Agenda ...... 33 Matrix: 1996 CGIAR Research Agenda (revised)...... 38 Box: TAC Activities ...... 42 III. Governance ...... 43 Box: Oversight Committee Renewed ...... 44 IV: Finance ...... 52 Box: Finance Committee Changed ...... 53 V. Chairman’s Summation of Proceedings and Decisions ...... j4
Section V: Annexes ...... 59 Annex I: The Nairobi Agenda ...... 61 Annex II: Opening Statement by the Hon. 2. T. Onyonka...... 65 Annex III: List of Documents ...... 69 Annex IV: List of Participants ...... 71 Context: The Lucerne Declaration and Action Program
The Declaration and Action Program adopted at a Ministerial-Level Meeting in Lucerne, Switzerland (February 9-10, 1995) served as the backdrop to and provided guidelines for action by the 1995 CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting (MTM95). The MTM95 Summay ofPro- ceedings and Decisions, therefore, contains many references to that document, which is reproduced here for the convenience of readers. 2 The Lucerne Declaration
e, Ministers, Heads of Agencies, and Recognizing the outstanding achievements W Delegates representing the membership of scientific research conducted by CGIAR re- of the Consultative Group on International Ag- search centers which have raised the productiv- ricultural Research (CGIAR): ity of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries; thus con- Cognizant of the vicious circle of poverty, tributing to the generation of rural income and population growth, and envi&nmental degra- employment, the lowering of food prices, and dation that affects the world’s PO&; ’ the alleviation of u&n ‘atid,,rqral poverty, while ‘, Enixxxraged by the progressthe wurld promoting S~urh-~o~~ ~i&sk&kch,, pa&&hips: comr&&tyb:rn&~~Jn shaping a global agenda ,@&“for ,the ,rer&$$nd reinforcement of to deal with,&e ,&gent problems of the envi- )’ )othis. successful &3&, .&ued nowlat the multiple ronment, pop&t&a :~groTvth, social develop- challen~es,~~,~~~~~a~~,~.,an;II;rotecting agricul- ment, and the p&&p&ion of women; tural produc&&y~ safe?tiarding natural resources, Mindful of ‘the’ potential contribution of, and’ helping to a&eve geople-centered policies agriculture to development, particularly in alle-,,” ,,‘+ for environmentally sustainable development; viating the suffering of 1 bilIion people who Endorse the vision of the renewed CGIAR live in abject poverty, most, c&them malnour- of helping to combat poverty and hunger in the ished; ~@r~dby mobilizing both indigen,ous’knowledge Aware that population gro&h in devel- and’modern science, and through sharply focused oping countries and rising incomes will double research priorities, tighter governance, greater food demand by 2025, threatening the future efforts at South-North partnership, and flexible food security of much of humanity and the in- financing arrangements, as an appropriate re- tegrity of the Earth’s natural resources, especially sponse to the challenges of the coming century; soil and water, and biological diversity; and Convinced that the new knowledge and Affirm our strong support for the revital- technologies generated by scientific research are ized CGIAR as one of the main instruments of necessary to meet the rising food demand in a the world community whose contribution, in close long-term sustainable way, from a limited and partnership with other actors: is of considerable fragile natural resource base; importance to the successful implementation of the emerging global development agenda.
3 The Lucerne Action Program
INTRODUCTION tee of the private sector as a means of improving dialogue among the CGIAR, the inisters, Heads of Agencies, and private sector, and members of the civil so- M Delegates endorse the thrusts and themes ciety who are interested in the same issues of the background studies prepared for their as the CGIAR; meeting. They welcome the United Nations 3. Accelerate the process of systematizing par- Environment Programme (UNEP) as a ticipation by national agricultural research cosponsor of the CGIAR. They reaffirm the systems (NARS) of developing countries in strong need to ensure continuity of publicly setting and implementing the Group’s funded research, complementing research agenda (a specific action plan to do so is conducted by the private sector, on problems being prepared by the NARS and represen- of international significance in agriculture, tatives of the CGIAR, and ‘will be presented livestock, forests, and aquatic resources. This at International Centers Week 1995); and reaffirmation is based on the need to help meet 4. Complete its transition from a donor/client the food needs of the poor and on the approach to equal partnership of all partici- contribution that agricultural research can pants from the South and North within the make to poverty alleviation in the context of CGIAR System. sustainable development. Although it is a small component of the global research system, the RESEARCH AGENDA CGIAR has an important role to play as a catalyst and bridge builder. The mission of the CGIAR is to contribute! through its research, to promoting sustainable BROADER PARTNERSHIPS agriculture for food security in the developing countries. In the light of its position within the global Therefore, the CGIAR is urged to: agricultural research system, the CGIAR is 1. Conduct strategic and applied research, with encouraged to continue its efforts to develop its products being international public a more open and participatory system with full goods; South-North ownership. 2. Focus its research agenda on problem-solv- Accordingly, the CGIAR is encouraged to: ing through interdisciplinary programs 1. Continue to broaden its membership by implemented by one or more international including more developing countries as centers, in collaboration with a full range of active members who participate fully in partners; CGIAR deliberations; 3. Concentrate such programs on increasing 2. Convene a committee of non-governmen- productivity, protecting the environment, tal organizations (NGOs) and a commit- saving biodiversity, improving policies, and
4 contributing to strengthening agricultural GOVERNANCE research in developing countries; 4. Address more forcefully the international Collegiality and informality are important and issues of water scarcity, soil and nutrient durable assets of the CGIAR. Therefore, the CGIAR management, and aquatic resources; should not be established as a formal international 5. Pay special attention to Sub-SaharanAfrica and organization, but could benefit from strengthen- South Asia, which face the greatest challenges ing its decisionmaking processes and consultative mechanisms. in eradicating poverty and malnutrition; Toward this end, the CGIAR is re- 6. Ensure that research programs address the quested to: problems of the poor in less-endowed ar- 1. Retain overall decisionmaking powers eas, in addition to continuing its work on in its general membership or commit- high-potential areas; tee of the whole, supported in this task 7. Reinforce the series$of notable actions al- by ,a Steering Committee and its com- r~~dy.t&en to protect the human heritage ’ pqxmt, standing committees on Over- of gen+tic resources, @z sight and Finance as well as ad hoc com- a. placing the plant gernetic resources col- mittees esabl&h
5 and, wherever possible, to increase it. For those 2. Solicit the philanthropic financial participa- donors who can do so, multi-year commitments tion of the private sector without compro- to the CGIAR would help to increase predict- mising the public goods character of the ability and facilitate programming. CGIAR’s research; and To ensure that support for the CGIAR is 3. Explore the feasibility of setting up a fund stable and predictable, members are urged to: or a foundation which can seek contribu- 1. Institute a negotiation and review tions to support agricultural research. process, involving all members, to ensure Additionally, the CGIAR is encouraQe.d to full funding of the agreed research undertake re=Q+-chJLalcll in Eastern Europe and in agenda; LVUIILIILUrn11ntr;Lx VInft .he former Soviet Union. However, A.7 Continue to use a matrix framewo rk to as more than a marginal effort will be reauired.I articulate the CGIAR’s programs and to such activities should be initiated onIy when a serve as a benchmark for funding and clear program of work where the CGIAR has a monitoring CGIAR activities, thus enhanc- distinctive compa rative advantage has been es- ing transparency and accountability; tablished, and a nninimum level of separate and 3. Provide their suppc ,rt to Centers, additional :funding has been secured. For this programs, or both to fat zilitate agreement pWp05 ;e, tEte CGIAR should establish a separate on a financing plan which funds all fund tc3 en sure no diversion or dilution of the components of the agreed research r agenda fully; and current rocu: s of responsibilities. The CGIAR 4. Disburse their pledged contributior 1s as should carry out an analysis to determine op- early as possible in the financial ye; q to tions for decisionmaking in this area of activity. ensure timely implementation of approved In the meantime, contacts with scientific esta b- programs. lishments in that part of the world should be Meanwhile, the CGIAR is urged to: encouraged. 1. Continue its efforts to expand its member- ship from both the North and the South;
6 Section I Introduction
Introduction
The CGIAR held its 1995 Mid-Term Meeting (MT1M95) ciation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock De- in Nairobi, Kenya from May 22-26. CGIAR Chairman velopment, and Marketing. The meeting was declared Ismail Serageldin presided. open by Minister of Research; Technical Training, and Technology 2. T. Onyonka: who was accompanied by This was the Group’s first meeting in Africa and the Agriculture Minister Simeon Nyachae. first to take place after the CGIAR Nlinisterial-Level Meet- ing held in Lucerne, Switzerland on February 9-10. As Mr. Onyonka pointed out in his opening statement well, the meeting was the fourth of five milestones in a that the continued existence of food deficits, despite irr- program of renewal launched by the CGIAR at its 1994 portant advances achieved by developing countries, points Mid-Term Meeting in New Delhi (see Box, Milestones to the current relevance and importance of the ideals that Toward Renewal, page 27). Some 150 delegates and spurred the establishment of the CGIAR in 1971. He com- observers attended. mended the CGIAR for its commitment to poverty allevia- tion and natural resources management. The CGIAR met in Nairobi at the invitation of the Government of Kenya, one of five new members from His country, the Minister emphasized, took pride in the South which joined the Group after it launched its the close association between the CGIAR and Kenya, renewal program. The others are Colombia, C6te where a cosponsor of the Group (UNEP) and two Centers d’Ivoire, Egypt, and Iran. Kenya’s agricultural research (ICRAJ! and ILRI) are headquartered. Most other CGIAR system was fully involved in preparations for MTM95 Centers maintain on-site programs in the country, in col- and at the meeting, where, interalia, Mr. Cyrus Ndiritu, laboration with Kenyan scientists, farmers, and NGOs. Director of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), was appointed, in his personal capacity, as a “Agriculture,” Nlr. Onyonka pointed out, “is the main- member of the CGIAR Oversight Committee (see Box, stay of the economies of developing countries and this Oversight Committee Renewed, page 44). is particularly so in Sub-Saharan Africa.” But high popu- lation growth rates and sluggish agricultural growth had CGIAR members spent the day preceding the for- led to decreased per capita food production, resulting mal opening of MTM95 on a field visit to the National in “food imports by economies that can hardly afford Dryland Farming Research Centre at Katumani, located this luxury.” 75 kilometers from Nairobi. The Centre, one of KARI’s fifteen major research institutes, aims at developing Urging that agricultural research be directed at re- appropriate technologies for the semi-arid and arid ar- solving these problems, Mr. Onyonka called for a “mean- eas of Kenya which cover more than 80 percent of the ingful partnership between developed and developing country. After MTlM95, members made a field trip to a countries in an effort to feed the world.” commercial farm, one of several whose work contrib- utes to Kenya’s export trade in flowers, an important “We need to put different experiences together in or- source of foreign exchange earnings. KARI staff work der to develop the best mechanisms for increasing agri- closely with the commercial flower sector. cultural productivity to meet the rising demand for food,” he said. Kenya would fully support and collaborate MTM95 was formally hosted by Kenya’s Ministry of with the CGIAR in pursuing this goal. (For the full text Research, Technical Training, and Technology in asso- of IMinister Onyonka’s speech, see Annex II, page (6 5).
9 Mr. Reuben Olembo! Deputy Executive Secretary of CGIAR institutions whose interests and ideals are com- UNEP, delivered a vote of thanks to the Minister on patible with those of the CGIAR System. behalf of the Group. In his opening statement, the CGIAR Chairman urged The MTM95 business session commenced with an the Group to recreate in Nairobi the mood that charac- opening statement by the CGIAR Chairman in which terized deliberations in Lucerne, where participants coa- he distilled the substance of the renewal program, out- lesced behind a common cause. Events since then had lined what had so far been accomplished, described demonstrated the compelling need for a united front of the challenges ahead, and exhorted the Group to con- the caring. CGIAR members felt that, in Nairobi, the front these challenges (see pages 19 to 26). Twenty- mood was one of confidence. three Heads of Delegations, ten from developing coun- tries, responded. All of them commended the Chair- The Chairman noted that the CGIAR had entered man for dynamic leadership and expressed their confi- the New Delhi Mid-Term Meeting afflicted by self-doubt dence that the targets of renewal would continue to be and emerged with a single-minded determination to met within the agreed time frame. make the System work. Consequently, each of the tar- gets of the X-month timetable for renewal adopted in MTM95 was very much a follow-up to the Lucerne New Delhi had been successfully met without any slip- meeting, where participants adopted a Declaration and page of time. Among the notable changes achieved are Action Program (for the full text, see pages 1 to 6>, the following: that will guide the future research agenda and opera- tions of the CGIAR. The Action Program provides The mission of the CGIAR has been reshaped. guidelines for action in four broad areas: Broader Part- nerships, the Research Agenda, Governance, and Fi- The impact of CGIAR-funded research on the al- nance. The MTM95 agenda covered all four areas, leviation of poverty and protection of the env- and made significant progress in implementing ronment continues to be felt. changes that strengthen the capacity of the CGIAR to fulfill its mission. The research agenda of the System was fully funded in 1994 and will be fully funded in 1995 Foremost among the changes was the creation of a as well. new rhythm of discussion and decisionmaking, whereby the research agenda for the following year, together Governance mechanisms have been reinvigo- with an indicative budget to fund the agenda: will be rated. presented, discussed, and adopted, at the IMid-Term Meeting of the current year. This provides ample time for financial issues to be discussed within individual Public awareness of the work of the CGIAR is donor agencies as well as among components of the greater than before. CGIAR System, within the May to October period, so that firm pledging can be made at International Centers Confidence has reasserted itself at all levels of Week to fund the next year’s research agenda. the System.
The review of the 1996 research agenda at MTM95, The CGIAR will hold its first post-renewal Mid-Term its adoption, and the endorsement of an indicative bud- Meeting in Indonesia, on May 20-24, 1996. The timing get to fund the agenda, therefore, constitute a of the Mid-Term Meeting will coincide with the inau- groundbreaking series of events within the overall re- guration of the CIFOR headquarters building in newal process. So, too, were the decisions to establish that country. a new Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, to bring Southern perspectives fully into the Group’s Invitations from Egypt, Indonesia, Spain, and Swe- decisionmaking processes, and to reach out to non- den for the 1996 meeting were received by the CGIAR 10 in Nairobi, but in keeping with the Group’s spirit of MTM95 took note of the progress made by the collegiality, Egypt transferred its invitation to 1997. Spain CGIAR gender program and agreed that it should be a and Sweden temporarily suspended theirs. The Indo- separate agenda item at International Centers Week in nesian invitation was then accepted by acclamation. October 1995.
The dates of future CGIAR meetings are as follows: A media action preceding MT&l95 was focused on CGIAR activities in aquatic resources management. ,4 1995 press release “From ‘Hunting’ to ‘Farming’ Fish-Rapid Production Increases Possible” was issued in Washing- International Centers Week ton, D.C. with backup distribution in Nairobi. The re- October 30 - November 3 lease was accompanied by a 20-page backgrounder. Washington, D.C. The story was filed by 18 international news agencies and picked up by some 24 newspapers worldwide; 17 1996 radio broadcasts were monitored. Three TV news agen- Mid-Term iMeeting cies and 7 TV stations carried the story. May 20-24 Indonesia The main decisions reached in Nairobi and a sum- mary of proceedings appear on the pages that fol- International Centers Week low this introduction. In keeping with the System’s October 28 - November 1 spirit of renewal, this publication has a different struc- Washington, D.C. ture and format from previous summaries of CGIAR proceedings. 1997 Mid-Term Meeting May 26-30 Invitation from Egypt Confirmed
1998 International Centers Week October 27-31 Washington, D.C.
11
Section II The Main Decisions 14 The main decisions taken at the Nairobi IMid-Term Meeting are encapsulated below.
BROADER The Group agreed tiative, and received re- ways of harmonizing PARTNERSHIPS that contacts should ports from the CGIAR actions globally and continue, and that the Genetic Resources Policy within the CGIAR; and The Group took committees should be es- Committee, the Task q note of the consul- tablished before Interna- Force on Sustainable Ag- l Adopted the following tation among representa- tional Centers Week 1995. riculture, and the Task proposal by six mem- tives of NARS organized in Force on Ecoregional Ap- bers of the Committee Nairobi by the Interna- proaches to Research. for implementing a tional Fund for Agricultural RESEARCH AGENDA Swedish proposal for Development (IFAD), and AND FINANCE Genetic Resources follow-up action: decided to await the rec- Policy Committee ommendations of a work- The Lucerne Meet- (9 Representatives of ing group set up at the ing endorsed a the Secretariats of consultation to explore the rhythm of decisionmaking both the FAO Com- most effective means by which calls for the re- l Appreciated the work of mission on Plant which the NARS perspec- search program and fund- the Genetic Resources Genetic Resources tive can be incorporated ing needs of the following Policy Committee and (CPGR) and the into CGIAR decision- year to be taken up at the especially thanked Conference of the making. Mid-Term Meeting in the Committee Chair M.S. Parties of the Con- current year (e.g. in May Swdminathan and Mr. vention on Biologi- The Group wel- 1995 for 1996). This pro- Geoff Hawtin (Director cal Diversity (COP- comed the steps vides time for negotiations General, IPGRI) for CBD) will be invited taken by the CGIAR Chair- and discussions among their efforts; to participate in the man to seek the views of members, Centers, and the next meeting of the NGOs and the private sec- CGIAR Secretariat in the l Was pleased with the CGIAR Genetic Re- tor on the establishment of May to October period prospect of an emerg- sources Policy Com- a private sector committee leading to the establish- ing consensus on a mul- mittee (this will and a NGO committee to ment of a financing plan tilateral system for plant likely take place in institutionalize the dia- at International Centers genetic resources; September 1995). logue between the Group Week for a fully funded re- and others with compat- search agenda. l Endorsed the recom- ible interests. The Group mendations of the Com- (ii) The Committee noted that, because of dif- As background to mittee as outlined in the agrees to develop fering interests among the 1996 research minutes of its first meet- a comprehensive groups of NGOs, it might agenda, the Group heard ing; report on plant be necessary for the a presentation by Mr. Per genetic resources CGIAR to follow a multi- Pinstrup-Andersen (Direc- l Encouraged the Com- issues: priorities, track approach in its part- tor General, IFPRI) on his mittee to continue ad- and implications nership with NGOs. Center’s 2020 Vision Ini- vising the CGIAR on for the CGIAR 15 before ICW95. l Emphasized the need TAC Chair Don Winkel- Ecoregional Approaches This report will in- for the CGIAR to keep mann on the research to Research had not yet clude the elements a global research system agenda for 1996 and been fully integrated of a CGIAR state- in view as a strategic from Finance Commit- into the matrix, but ment for the Con- foundation, and to be tee Chair Michel Petit would be considered ference of Par- catalytic in moving in- on the funding of the re- in the context of ties II (November stitutions coherently to- search agenda. agenda setting for 1997 1995, Indonesia). wards this goal; and beyond; The Group: (iii) At ICW95, infor- q l Noted that two issues mation on the l Commended the Center l Agreed that the pro- Directors Committee for permeated the discus- progress made on posals for the 1996 re- sion namely, the pro- the negotiation its initiative to keep search agenda satisfied ductivity-poverty alle- processes in the track of continuing eco- the “international pub- viation linkage, and the CPGR and COP- regional experiences to lic goods” criterion question of partnerships CBD should be speed up the learning and were fully compat- between CGIAR institu- provided by the co- process; sponsors involved ible with the mission tions and other “play- of the CGIAR; ers,” with particular ref- (FAO and UNEP). l Decided that the reports of the Task Forces erence to a better un- l Noted with satisfaction (iv) The CGIAR Chair- would be key inputs derstanding of the role that complementary of participatory decision- man should make into the Strategic Re- funding had been making; and every effort to ad- view of Soil, Water? and dress the Confer- brought into the gam- Nutrient IManagement ence of Parties in bit of the agreed re- l Took note of Egypt’s (SWNM) to be con- person or, failing search agenda; generous offer to gift re- ducted by TAC; that, to provide the search facilities valued meeting with a million to l Agreed that the devel- at $36 l Noted the view of Cen- written statement. opment of the research ICLARM and Japan’s ter Directors that no gracious offer to con- agenda matrix was a Task Force Reports new institution is sider contributions to continuing task, and needed to manage stra- the refurbishing of these that details other than The Group thanked tegic, thematic research facilities. the Task Forces on in SWNM; and those represented in the Sustainable Agriculture matrix were available in Accordingly, the l Agreed that the ecore- and Ecoregional Ap- other documents; q Group: proaches to Research for gional report gave some new insights into the l Confirmed that the size outstanding contributions l Endorsed the 1996 re- to CGIAR thinking and overhead costs of devel- of the 1996 research search agenda; noted that both Task oping partnerships, and agenda matrix was ap-
Forces had completed noted that members feel propriate for deciding l Accepted the require- their assignments. the issue needs further on the CGIAR research ments of $299 million to thought. plan; implement the agenda as realistic and achiev- Research Proposals l Recognized that the rec- able; and - Endorsed the recom- ommendations of the
mendations of the Task The Group heard Task Forces on Sustain- l Confirmed that. as a next Forces; presentations from able Agriculture and step, donors should in- 16 form the CGIAR Secre- view nominations and Assessment and Evalu- l New terms of reference tariat regarding their carry out checks of refer- ation Group. and guidelines for ex- 1996 contributions so ences as necessary; and ternal reviews. that the Finance Com- propose the appointment Based on the mittee can propose a fi- of the chair and mem- q agreed procedures TAC was requested nancing plan for 1996 at ber(s) of the Impact As- for CGIAR committees, Mr. to report at ICW95 ICW95. sessment and Evaluation Manuel Lantin and Mr. on the question of consis- Group to the CGIAR for Cyrus Ndiritu were ap- tency across external re- endorsement (on a no pointed to the Oversight views and to provide feed- GOVERNANCE objection basis). Committee to serve in their back on the guidelines for personal capacities for reviews, The Group dis- three years: replacing Mr. cussed the require- V.L. Chopra and Mr. Henri The Group en- ment of the Lucerne Ac- Carsalade. Membership of dorsed the business reports of the Oversight tion Program that it l Appreciated the work the Finance Committee should strengthen the as- done by the Center was increased from nine Committee and Finance sessment of its performance Directors Public Aware- to ten. New members of Committee. and impact by establishing ness and Resources the Committee are The an independent evaluation Committee (PARC); the Netherlands, IFAD? India, OTHER MATTERS function reporting to the Impact Assessment and Egypt. Brazil, Den- CGIAR as a whole, and de- Task Force, and the mark, and The Philippines The Group en- cided to establish an Im- Impact Workshop in leave the Committee. dorsed the work of pact Assessment and Nairobi; the CGIAR Gender Pro- Evaluation Group, whose The Group en- gram, agreed that the mo- terms of reference would l Endorsed setting-up a dorsed reports from q mentum it had created be as set out in the “sounding board” on an two Ad Hoc Committees, should be maintained, and Chairman’s letter of April experimental, pragmatic which met in parallel ses- requested that the pro- 6 to Heads of Delegations. basis, as part of the new sion to consider: gram be reviewed at evaluation effort; and ICW95. The Group decided l The external reviews of EB l Endorsed suggestions to CIAT, CIP, and ICLARM that, in establishing The next Mid-Term the CGIAR Impact Assess- strengthen inter-Center l A report on CGIAR Meeting @lay 1996) efforts to harmonize ment and Evaluation commitments in West will be held in Indonesia. data generation, meth- Group, the cosponsors Africa: and would act as a search and odologies, and analysis selection committee; re- in support of the Impact
17
Section III Chairman’s Opening Statement
19 20 Beyond Lucerne: From Decisions to Actions
Good Morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. New Delhi. 111health prevented his attendance in Lucerne. We salute his commitment to the cause of Welcome to the first post-Lucerne meeting of the development and will cherish the memory of his support CGIAR, the first to be held in Africa, and the first at during this crucial period of transition and which IJNEP joins as cosponsor. transformation.
Before getting into the formal business of our I am moved as you will be by the fact that in his meeting, however, it is my sad task to note that we very last communication to me, he congratulated the have recently lost some highly effective and valued CGIAR on achieving in Lucerne a “success that exceeded members of the extended CGIAR family. Each all expectations.” He was confident, he wrote, that as a represented a different area of activity from the others. result “the poor of the world will be better off.” Even Their efforts epitomized the scope and breadth of the in the throes of terminal illness, he remained a CGIAR. compassionate and deeply concerned person.
Larry Stifel, a well-liked and respected colleague We mourn them all. I ask you to join me in observing and a former Director General of both IITA and ICLARM a moment of silence in their honor. passed away last month. Larry served the CGIAR in several capacities over many years, always bringing to his tasks a high level of scientific and managerial I. A BRIEF STOCKTAKING competence, a sense of mission, and a profound commitment to improving the lives of people. Ladies and Gentlemen:
While here in Nairobi we learned of the tragic death At last year’s Mid-Term Meeting in New Delhi, we in Rwanda of Martin Bicamumpaka, who coordinated adopted an l&month program of renewal. That program the network that links potato and sweet potato research set up five milestones: the New Delhi consensus, in seven countries of Eastern and Central Africa. He International Centers Week 1994, the Lucerne Ministerial- was arrested in February, when he was due to attend a Level Meeting, the 1995 Mid-Term Meeting, and “Seeds of Hope”’ meeting. Despite strenuous exertions International Centers Week 1995. on his behalf by many, including myself, he remained in jail without trial. He was moved to a hospital last We are now at the fourth of the five milestones on week and died three days later. our journey of renewal. And what a journey it has been-a journey of hope, a journey of excitement, and, We have lost a strong friend in Lew Preston, most of all, a journey of accomplishment. President of the World Bank. He w-as an ardent believer in the mission of the CGIAR. He was unstinting in his When we were approaching the first milestone- support for stabilizing its finances, and unreserved in the decisionmaking meeting in New Delhi a year ago- his encouragement of the renewal process launched in self-doubt gnawed at the CGIAR System. The vision of the System seemed to be unfocused. Funding prospects ’ A CGIAR-sponsored program to revive agriculture in Rwanda. were considered bleak. Dedicated staff in the Centers
21 were demoralized. Our partners were hew-ildered. But our belief in the innate strengths of the System prevailed. “The MinisteriaLLevel Meeting in Lucerne We emerged from that meeting with single-minded unequivocally reaffirmed the capacity of determination to make the System work. Consequently, CGIAR-supported research to help in the each of the targets of the 1%month timetable of change affeviation of poverfy and protection of the adopted and launched in New Delhi has been met. We environment. Agriculture, thus, was placed have passed three milestones with no deviation; no time at the heart of the development paradigm.” slippage.
The vision of the CGIAR has been refocused. A We must not allow the failure of politicized aid that renewed sense of confidence permeates the Centers. was labeled as development assistance, or the occasional Research programs are being carried out with heightened failed project of the past, to overshadow the success vigor. The research agenda of the System was fully stories of real development, including such outstanding funded in 1994 and will be fully funded this year as examples as the CGIAR. We must join forces with friends well. The Ministerial-Level Meeting held in Lucerne on and allies to roll back the tide of doubt that threatens February 9 and lO--our third milestone-reaffirmed the the world’s development enterprise. If we fail, the worst mission of the CGIAR as follows: to contribute, through hit victims will not be development institutions and the research, to promoting sustainable agriculture for food dedicated men and women within them. The real security in the developing countries. In doing so, that victims will be the w-eakest in human society-the poor. historic meeting unequivocally reaffirmed the capacity the hungry, the unemployed, and the marginalized. We of CGIAR-supported research to help in the alleviation must not fail. We will not fail. of poverty and protection of the environment.
Agriculture, thus, was clearly placed at the heart of IL THE SPIRIT OF LUCERNE the development paradigm. The development community’s primary concerns in recent years were As we face the future, we are strengthened by the issues connected with population growth, the wisdom of the decisions taken by the Group under its environment, and food security. Agriculture is the program of renewal, If we had not done so already, interface that links these three. At least in the foreseeable we would today be scrambling around for the means future, none of these issues can be adequately dealt by which to strengthen our partnerships, ensure the with, unless sustainable agricultural growth is nurtured. efficiency and effectiveness of the System, create greater Research is vital to this process and the CGIAR, therefore: transparency, and tighten our decisionmaking process. can make an unique contribution. But we have already moved decisively in these directions. The high point in our quest for renewal By an unfortunate irony, however, while confidence w-as the Lucerne meeting, where the groundwork was in the CGIAR as an instrument of development has been put in place for broad revitalization. We are better strongly reasserted, the development enterprise itself- positioned than before: therefore, to rise to all new a vital and indispensable endeavor in global terms-is challenges. The Spirit of Lucerne both refreshes and strengthens. under attack. The very idea of development cooperation between North and South is being assailed. So, while The Lucerne meeting w-as the highest level gathering we can be justifiably proud of what we have achieved, of the CGIAR since the Bellagio Conference, which we cannot be complacent. We must redouble our efforts led to the establishment of the Group and the CGIAR not only on behalf of the CGIAR in the face of diminished System in 1971, The legacy of Bellagio sustained the development assistance budgets, but also on behalf of CGIAR for almost 25 years, enabling it to make all the dedicated and successful efforts of so many in substantial contributions to food production and food the development community. security in developing countries, most notably through
22 the green revolution. In Lucerne, the CGIAR turned to wisdom, and confidence. Participants adopted a its creators, the international community, once again, Declaration and Action Program which demonstrates seeking reaffirmation of the purpose and guiding a clear commitment to addressing the challenges of principles with which the System could respond promoting a people-centered sustainable development effectively to a new set of global challenges and a that helps feed the hungry, reduces poverty, and protects changing world situation, The response of the the environment, in the context of a rapidly expanding international community was forthright, supportive, and global population which places increasing demands on unambiguous. the Earth’s fragile and finite natural resources. South and North united behind a common cause. Two companion volumes, the Summary of While continuing to acknowledge the inspiring role of the North in founding the CGIAR in Bellagio, and Proceedings and Decisions and the Background supporting it thereafter, I must point to the fact and the Documents on Major Issues, have been produced and significance of the increasing participation of the South. are being widely disseminated. These are historical Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, and Colombia-all documents. But the printed word alone, effective as it new members in New Delhi-attended the Lucerne is: cannot fully recreate the mood in Lucerne. In many Meeting. The presence of developing country members years of participating in and presiding over international in the CGIAR should not be viewed merely as an increase meetings connected with development, rarely have I in numbers, however, for what it actually signifies is a seen a group coalesce behind a common purpose so profound sense of commitment. effectively and quickly. Hope and confidence, tempered by realism, were abundant. Developing country members who have joined since we passed the first of our milestones in New Delhi have Let us recapture that mood in Nairobi, as we strive demonstrated their support in many ways. Colombia together to move beyond our fourth milestone and on to made a multi-million dollar commitment when it joined the fifth, International Centers Week later this year, thus the CGIAR. Cote d’Ivoire pledged a multi-year successfully completing our 1%month program of renewal commitment. Egypt has offered ICLARM a research and rededication, fully aware that this is just the start of facility valued at $36 million. Kenya is hosting this the longer journey still to come in 1996and beyond. Mid-Term Meeting. Well established members from developing countries have reaffirmed their dedication, too. India has made a special contribution of $1 million and has increased its regular contribution by 50 percent. III. OUR BUSINESS IS PEOPLE Korea has increased its regular contribution by 40 percent. Indonesia is providing CIFOR with its new The objective of the renewal program is to ensure headquarters. The Philippines has doubled its that the CGIAR is better equipped to work in concert contribution. with the rest of the international community, to contribute towards liberating the deprived and disadvantaged from the grip of extreme hunger and poverty. The defining terms of that goal are a healthier, better nourished, human family; reduced pressure on fragile natural resources; and people-centered policies for sustainable development.
In that context, the substance of this meeting, its timing, so soon after the event in Lucerne, and its In Lucerne, South and North were equally engaged location in Africa, are all important. While we are poised in shaping an Action Program that reflects compassion! to move forward at the 1995 Mid-Term Meeting-the
23 fourth milestone-under the impetus of the decisions IV. GUIDELINES FOR ACTION reached in Lucerne, we will do so against the backdrop of realities across this continent that define with clarity Participants at the Lucerne Meeting affirmed their both the magnitude and the complexities of the problems “strong support for the revitalized CGIAR as one of the of development. Indeed, the Lucerne Action Program main instruments of the world community whose urges the CGIAR to pay special attention to both Sub- contribution, in close partnership with other actors, is Saharan Africa and South Asia, which face the greatest of considerable importance to the successful challenges in eradicating poverty and malnutrition. As implementation of the emerging global development well, the Action Program calls for CGIAR research to agenda.” At this Mid-Term Meeting, we must translate address the problems of the poor in less-endowed areas, the vision of Lucerne into reality. We must agree on a work program and research agenda that reflect the in addition to continuing its work on high-potential areas. orientations of that vision. Remember also that some of the poorest people live in forest areas and rely on forest products, so that our Guidelines are provided in the Lucerne forest work is also part of the endeavor. Declaration and Action Program. These cover many areas from broader partnerships to stabilizing funding. Encouraging examples of development successes A fundamental requirement is that the CGIAR should can be found in Africa. In broad terms, however, the complete its transition from a donor/client relationship benefits accruing from a technology-based trans- to equal partnership of all participants from the South formation of agriculture in much of Asia and Latin and North within the System. We should be responsive America are not firmly established in most of Africa. to the views of the NARS in our decisionmaking. That Increases in food production of some 2 percent annually process is being accelerated following the NARS in most of Sub-Saharan Africa have not kept pace with consultation organized in Nairobi by IFAD. an average population growth rate of 3 percent per annum. Other factors have exacerbated this situation, The Action Program also enjoins the CGIAR to causing an extent and depth of poverty across much of enhance its partnerships with public and private research this continent that is an affront to the conscience of the institutions in the South and in the North, and to establish modern world. Poverty and hunger are pervasive. One a NGO committee and a private sector committee as a out of every four Africans lacks the minimum diet for a means of improving our dialogue with those whose healthy life, while many elsewhere are worrying about interests are compatible with ours. the impact of obesity on their health. This is both startling and revolting. Preliminary approaches concerning an intensification of our relations with the private sector are in progress. “This is more than ever a time for a united front On the NGO side: I have personally held a series of of the caring. n substantive discussions with NGO representatives in Washington, Paris, The Hague, and Rome. With the kind assistance of LTKEP, a consultation with African as As we consider these aberrations of the human well as international NGOs has been arranged here in condition, we would be wise to remind ourselves Nairobi, and others are planned elsewhere. Ignorance ceaselessly that our business is not just a matter of about the CGIAR and skepticism about its desire to statistics: theories, and technology. Our business is collaborate with groups outside the System remain! but people. Research is the instrument we use in supporting that is precisely why we must work ever harder at the efforts of the international community to nurture broadening partnerships. At ICX?X3 I enjoined you sustainable human development. That was the message to open up the System to others-I repeat that. For in Lucerne, and it must remain at the heart of our all its outstanding excellence, the System is still tot deliberations. ‘,inbred.”
24 I am confident that by the end of this Mid-Term amended if the Group so desires, and adopted at the Meeting we will have adopted a framework for Mid-Term rMeeting of the current year (e.g. in May 1995 establishing both committees, that each can meet in the for 1996). This arrangement will enable donor agencies next few months, and that both will be represented at to take financing decisions between May and October International Centers Week. None of the proposed new so that the research agenda can be fully financed when arrangements, I should emphasize, will be detrimental funds are pledged at International Centers Week. The to existing relationships between the Centers and a wide new rhythm was not created haphazardly. It is a device range of partners. We must ALL do more. by which intent and implementation can be harmonized. Preparation for presenting the 1996 research agenda at We must also grapple with a governance MTM95 required a notable volume of work in a very recommendation from Lucerne, namely, the establishment short time by the Centers, TAC, and the Secretariats, of an “independent evaluation function reporting to the for which we are all grateful. CGL4R as a whole.” I have already written to you on this subject, outlining an approach which calls for the Group Changes in process are meant to underpin the to appoint a small CGIAR Impact Assessment and substance of a research agenda which, as the Lucerne Evaluation Group made up of a few (perhaps two) Declaration puts it: will be “aimed now at the multiple scientists with impeccable credentials, recognized for their challenges of increasing and protecting agricultural authority on the role of agricultural research in productivity, safeguarding natural resources, and helping development and for their technical skills in the area of to achieve people-centered policies for environmentally impact assessment. We will review the options later today sustainable development.” and, I hope, take firm decisions. The unique role of TAC, as an independent We have also reached the stage where we should institution that provides the System with scientific advice renew one-third of the membership of our two standing of the highest quality, was reaffirmed in Lucerne. Armed Committees, for Oversight and Finance. Two new with that renewed commission, TAC Chair Don members will join the Oversight Committee to serve in Winkelmann will present to you-later today, and again their personal capacities for three years, replacing V. L. tomorrowT-the premises and context of the 1996 Chopra and Henri Carsalade who have served with research agenda, as well as its detailed proposals. I distinction. I accordingly welcome nominations from will not deal with the specifics of that agenda now. I all of you, which can be handed in writing to Mr. propose, instead, to draw to your attention a series of Alexander von der Osten, our Executive Secretary. principles, related to decisions reached in Lucerne, which You will recall that the Finance Committee is a should govern our thinking. committee of donors nominated through a caucus process, with due regard to the membership of the First, the System must, whenever possible, break Oversight Committee. down the barriers of discipline and special interests, and carry out programs in which the collective capacities of the Centers as well as the strength of their partners are combined.
Second, research supported by the CGIAR must focus on the nexus of agriculture, the environment, and poverty as the basis for fulfilling the vision of sustainable Let us now turn to the core of our agenda. The agriculture for food security in developing countries. Lucerne meeting endorsed a rhythm of decisionmaking which calls for the research program and funding needs Third, five thrusts are recognized as the central of the following year to be presented, discussed, research interests of the System. These are: increasing
25 productivity, protecting the environment, saving My friends, a strong System requires strong Centers. biodiversity, improving policies, and strengthening Each Center must be strong in its own right, and thus agricultural research in developing countries. The capable of contributing to the combined strength of a CGIAR should address more forcefully the international 16-Center team. Weak players produce a weak team. issues of water scarcity, soil and nutrient management, and aquatic resources. Those are some of the details. The ‘,big picture” is one that requires us to join together-steadfastly and Fourth, the CGIAR should focus on the international wholeheartedly-in turning the philosophical themes public goods aspect of research. In doing so: it should of Lucerne into living reality. Spend as much time as not neglect the compelling need to work in concert you need on your review of the research agenda. The TAC Chair and Center representatives are here to answer with other components of the global research system. your questions, and to entertain your suggestions. Through that process of scrutiny, make the research Fifth, as the research program evolves, a matrix agenda your own. Adopt it, support it, and finance it. framework will be used as a tool to clarifir the role of Ensure between now and October that the research the CGIAR within the global system, the relationship agenda is not just funded, but fully funded. between Center-based activities and systemwide programs, and the funding progression. V. MOVING AHEAD I look forward, as well, to observing how the Group and TAC incorporate in CGIAR programs the findings Consider, as you respond to the suggestions and of the Task Forces on Sustainable Agriculture and proposals before you, the paradox of our times. We Ecoregional Approaches to Research that were live in a world of plenty, of dazzling scientific advances, commissioned last year to provide us with guidance. I and technological breakthroughs. Adventures in believe that I speak for all of us in thanking them for cyberspace are at hand. The Cold War is over; and the thoughtfulness and professionalism of their reports. with that we were offered the hope of global stability. Yet, our times are marred by conflict, violence, debilitating economic uncertainties, backwardness, and ‘Lef us remember the furgotten, give hope to poverty. And now so many of the rich want to turn the forlorn, and reach auf to the unreached.” their backs on the poor. This, therefore, is more than ever a time for an united front of the caring.
As to the funding of the program I am concerned Some 40,000 people die from hunger related causes that current plans have not gone far enough in providing every day. Many of the poor who survive lack access support for unconstrained research. For the Centers to to the fundamental needs of a decent existence. Over function effectively-to develop their scientific a billion people are compelled to live on less than a strength-they need the flexibility to be bold, to create dollar a day. A sixth or more of the human family lives the space for the contrarian view, to experiment freely, a marginalized existence. Therein, lies the challenge and to engage in flights of imagination. They need to before us. Will we accept such human degradation as be protected from over-bureaucratization, and I urge inevitable? Or will we strive to help-in Frantz Fanon’s you that this should be kept in mind as we consider evocative phrase-“The Wretched of the Earth?” From systemwide initiatives. Let us avoid a top-down every action you have taken since May 1994, I have no bureaucratic approach, and provide the Centers with doubt of what your response will be. Together, let us the freedom to experiment with various administrative remember the forgotten, give hope to the forlorn, and arrangements for managing such initiatives reach out to the unreached.
26 27 28 Section IV Summary of Proceedings
29 30 4 P Summary of Proceedings
I. BROADER PARTNERSHIPS Two Southern members-Egypt and India-were appointed to the Finance Committee in addition to The The Lucerne Declaration and Action Program Netherlands and IFAD. encouraged the CGIAR to continue its efforts to develop a more open and participatory System, as this would The involvement of developing country members enable the Group to complete its transition from a donor- in the CGIAR should not be viewed merely as an increase client approach to equal partnership of all participants in numbers or a potential increase in funds, the Chairman from the South and the North. pointed out, for what it actually signifies is their strong commitment to the Group’s agenda and programs. He Three specific areas for action were recommended: said, as well, that new CGIAR members add strength to the Southern perspective presented by well established l Increase CGIAR membership to include more members and by regional representatives elected for Southern countries. fixed terms through FAO.
l Convene a committee of SGOs and a committee NGO and Private Sector Committees of the private sector as a means of improving dialogue between the CGL4R and institutions with A wide range of consultations on the establishment compatible interests. of the two proposed committees took place in preparation for the Nairobi meeting. l Accelerate the process of systematizing participation by !iARS of developing countries in setting and implementing the Group’s research NGO Committee agenda. NGO consultations were held in Nairobi, Washington, Developments in these three areas that took place The Hague, Rome, and Paris, More consultations were at MTlM95 are recorded below. planned for after the Mid-Term Meeting.
CGIAR Membership The purpose of these consultations was for NGO representatives and the CGIAR Chairman to exchange Five developing countries-Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, views and share perspectives on: Egypt, Iran, and Kenya-have joined the CGIAR since
its program of renewal was launched in New Delhi, l the substance of the CGIAR renewal program; raising total Southern membership to 13?up from zero
in 1971, when the CGIAR was established. The CGIAR l the thrusts of the CGIAR research agenda, as Chairman has been in touch with several other potential outlined in the Lucerne Action Program; members and more participants from the South are
expected to join the Group. l the broadening of CGIAR partnerships, including NGO/CGIAR collaboration; and In Nairobi, Mr. Manuel Lantin of The Philippines
and Mr. Cyrus Ndiritu of Kenya were selected to serve l the role and scope of the proposed committee, on the Oversight Committee in their personal capacities. its terms of reference and possible composition. 31 The Chairman reported that a diversity of views and NARS Linkages interests among NGOs had emerged at these exchanges. Some NGOs were particularly interested in broad policy Mr. Cyrus Ndiritu reported to the Group on a meeting issues including intellectual property rights, farmers’ of NARS representatives organized by IFAD in Nairobi rights, and matters connected with biodiversity. Others immediately preceding the Mid-Term Meeting. The were more interested in the acquisition of new Nairobi consultation was a follow-up to an earlier agricultural knowledge through the Centers and consultation arranged by IFAD in Rome, as part of a methodologies for applying that knowledge in farmers’ continuing effort to develop a NARS vision for fields. international agricultural research.
The Group took note of these discussions and agreed The Nairobi discussion particularly examined the that the Chairman should continue these efforts so as composition and scope of regional fora; whose to establish the committee as soon as possible, working conclusions on research priorities could feed into the on multiple tracks if necessary, in view of the variety of CGIAR decisionmaking process. Participants interests represented by XGOs. emphasized the need for a practical approach, so that collaborating institutions would not serve as debating Initiatives at the System-level will not hinder existing clubs, but would deal with key issues of substance efforts by CGIAR Centers to maintain and strengthen including: working relationships with NGOs. A survey conducted by ISNAR showed that, based on the responses received l issues and realities not directly connected with from 13 Centers, collaborative programs have been the work of the CGIAR, but which should be undertaken with 300 NGOs. taken into account in the formulation of policies;
l the aims, tasks, and conduct of research; and Private Sector Committee l strengthening national capacities for more The purpose of the planned private sector committee productive work. is to provide the CGIAR with a private sector perspective The meeting decided that in approaching these on the current status of global agricultural research and issues the concept of “devolution”-which implies that future needs. The committee would serve as a link some responsibilities have been moved away from the between the CGIAR and private sector agricultural organizations at large, in the North and the South. It Centers, primarily as a cost-cutting measure-should would foster and develop new programmatic be replaced by that of genuine partnership and partnerships which exploit fully the respective strengths, management of the partnership. the network of relationships, and the comparative advantages of the CGIAR and the private sector. This would require shared research planning as well as shared implementation of research programs, based Through rotation of membership, over a period of on different regional orientations or needs as well as time the committee would facilitate representation of the varied capacities of NARS. Confidence building was the views of a broad cross section of the private sector seen as essential, given the growing complexity of the in relation to policies, strategies, research priorities, and challenges confronting NARS. All of these activities will program activities in agricultural research and complement the work of regional representatives elected development in the North and in the South. through FAO.
The Group endorsed this approach and agreed that A working group was established to explore these the Chairman should continue his efforts to establish issues further and report to International Centers Week the committee as soon as possible. in October. Its members are Mr. Primo Accatino L.
32 (Chile), Mr. Joseph Mukiibi (Uganda), Mr. Adel El-Beltagy Context (ICARDA), Mr. Shiva Nepali (Nepal), and Ms. Uma Lele (World Bank). CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee
Working groups will also be set up to review priority IPGRI Director General Geoff Hawtin presented setting at the regional level. the report of the CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee in the absence of Committee Chair M. S. Swaminathan. The report, which provided information II. THE RESEARCH AGENDA on the Committee’s work on formulating CGIAR policy on genetic resources, focused on three issues: the role Introduction of the CGIAR in the global biodiversity conservation strategy; access to genetic resources; and funding policies The Declaration and Action Program adopted and mechanisms. The Committee recommended that at the Lucerne Ministerial-Level Meeting redefined the the CGIAR strengthen its interaction with other mission of the CGIAR as follows: To contribute, through international bodies active in the field of genetic its research, to promoting sustainable agricultwe for resources by seeking official status with the FAO food security in the developing countries. A series of Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and the priorities and strategies that will enable the CGIAR to Conference of the Parties of the Convention on fulfill its mission were outlined in the Action Program. Biological Diversity (COP-CBD); by periodically attending meetings of these bodies, in particular the As well, the meeting endorsed a revised pattern Second Meeting of the COP-CBD to be held in Indonesia of decisionmaking under which the research agenda in November of this year; and by improved coordination and funding needs of the following year would be within the CGIAR among the various bodies dealing outlined annually during the Mid-Term Meeting of the with genetic resources issues, i.e., the Inter-Center current year; for example, at MT&M95 for 1996. This Working Group on Genetic Resources; the Joint TAC/ arrangement will enable donor agencies to reach Center Directors Committee on Genetic Resources, the financing decisions between ,May and October so that Center Directors Sub-Committee on Intellectial Property the research agenda can be fully financed when funds Rights, and the CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy are pledged at International Centers Week. The new Committee. The Committee recommended that IPGRI pattern was inaugurated at MTlM95, when TAC Chair provide leadership within the CGIAR in developing Don Winkelmann presented the 1996 research agenda multilateral approaches to, and strategies for, genetic together with an indicative funding figure. resources aimed at developing a new global system of germplasm exchange. The report indicated that the The context of the research agenda was Committee will further review CGIAR policies on access presented in a series of reports covering genetic to genetic resources, indigenous knowledge, intellectual resources policy, ecoregional approaches to research? property rights, and the sharing of benefits with original sustainable agriculture, and a vision for the year 2020. suppliers of germplasm. The report encouraged donors Against this background, Mr. Winkelmann first set out to fund programs to speed up safety duplication of the premises on which TAC’s recommendations were genetic materials in Center genebanks. The report also based and then went on to give details of the 1996 noted that the Systemwide Genetic Resources Program research agenda. A lively discussion followed, agreed to by the Group at the Mid-Term Meeting in culminating in the adoption of the research agenda and New Delhi requires expanded financial support. the endorsement of the proposed funding figure. Task Force on Ecoregional Approaches to Research The summary of proceedings that follows seeks to capture the rhythm of the presentations made and The Group considered the report of the Task the spirit of the discussions which took place. Force on Ecoregional Approaches to Research, presented
33 by Task Force Chair Cyrus Ndiritu. The need for a IFPRI’S2020 Vision Initiative new research approach that manages natural resources for the sustained improvement of Mr. Per Pinstrup-Anderson, IFPRI’s Director productivity was identified by the Task Force, which General, made a presentation to the Group on IFPRI’s endorsed the ecoregional approach developed by the 2020 Vision Initiative. The purpose of the initiative, he CGIAR to fill this need. The investment of public said, is to generate more and better information on the funds by the CGIAR in ecoregional research was long-term perspectives for food, agriculture, and the deemed appropriate since this type of research is environment. The goal is to arrive at a shared vision of where the world should be in 25 years, and then move not attractive to the private sector. Given that the toward a consensus for action on how to achieve this CGIAR’s funds are limited, the role of the Centers in vision by 2020. In addition to research analysis and implementing the ecoregional approach must be synthesis, IFPRI has undertaken workshops and catalytic, encouraging its adoption by NARS. consultations with numerous experts in various fields, Ecoregional sites were confirmed as appropriate rMr. Pinstrup-Anderson said. As a result, regional laboratories in which to research the priority thematic strategies have emerged for Sub-Saharan Africa, South issues of sustainable agriculture. Partnerships Asia, and Latin America. IFPRI is focusing on monitoring between Centers and others, while important to the fourteen trends that impact on future food, agriculture, ecoregional approach, should not be subsumed under and the environment. Findings show that the barrier to it; partnership is a wider, more general issue for the achieving the 2020 Vision is not a lack of the Earth’s CGIAR. carrying capacity! but rather the lack of appropriate action now, particularly to conserve natural resources. Task Force on Sustainable Agriculture Mr. Pinstrup-Anderson indicated that the 2020 Vision Initiative would culminate in a major international The Group considered the report of the Task conference in Washington, DC in June 1995, and that Force on Sustainable Agriculture, presented by Task IFPRI would continue the synthesis, review, and Force Chair Rudy Rabbinge. The Task Force pointed to publication of its results for about a year beyond the the need to consolidate initiatives in soil, water, and conference. nutrient management both within and outside of the CGIAR into a coherent program to provide a foundation for sustainable agricultural development. It was Premises recommended that the CGIAR program on integrated pest management be widened to include other advanced TAC Chair Don WYnkelmann, presented the research organizations in an International Program and broader considerations-the beliefs, assumptions? and Consortium on Integrated Pest Management. It was also logic-that shaped TL4C’s priority setting and resource recommended that research on cash crops be examined allocation process, which governed its review of research to see how this can be associated with the work of Centers proposals received from Centers for 1996. The first of so that the economic sustainability of smallholder farms is these was the CGIAR’s overarching goals of poverty enhanced. In all sustainability research the Task Force alleviation and protection of the environment through said close collaboration and input from NARS and advanced which sustainable food security can be achieved. This research organizations should be sought, relationships goal, Mr. Winkelmann said, is not just people-centered, established on a peer basis, and Centers should serve as but poor-people-centered. catalysts and cosponsors rather than acting independently. The report also recommended strengthening both the The second consideration was the overriding capability of the CGIAR to manage broadly-based research importance of agriculture in resolving the income and consortia and the public policy aspects of resource poverty problems in the developing world, especially management research. in the poorest countries. In these countries, Mr. 34 Winkelmann said, 70 to 80 percent of the workforce indicated that the elements that shaped the allocation is engaged in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or were in the medium-term plans approved in 1993, which livestock activities, and 40 to 50 percent of the average were to guide resource allocations from 1994-1998. The household budget is committed to foodstuffs. overall allocations recommended by TAC, he said, reflect Increasing productivity in agriculture is, therefore, a the views of the Group on the priorities for Center critically important-and perhaps pivotal-part of research. efforts to alleviate poverty. Experience shows, he said, that one of the most reliable ways to increase Mr. Winkelmann discussed the transfers productivity in agriculture is through improved made from complementary funding to the agreed agricultural technologies. Productivity-increasing and agenda. He indicated that TAC sought to transfer resource-conserving technologies emerge from those complementary activities which most research-the central business of the CGIAR. conformed with the international public goods character of CGIAR agreed agenda research. All of The third consideration which influenced TAC those that met the international public goods criterion on the 1996 research agenda was the Group’s concern were transferred, raising the funding envelope for with efficiency in achieving its goals. After each Center accordingly. Complementary funding considerable reflection, it was determined that the totaling $17 million was transferred. TAC will CGIAR’s contributions to the global development of continue to review the remaining $40 million or so productivity-increasing and resource-conserving in complementary funding prior to lCW!95 to technologies should emerge through important determine which of these activities also meet the international public goods in which the CGIAR has a international public goods criterion and, therefore, cost or reliability advantage. can be transferred to the agreed research agenda.
Fourth, TAC was influenced by the changing Mr. Winkelmann noted that six Centers requested priorities of the Group, as expressed, in particular, at a reiteration of their 1995 budgets; and six Centers the Lucerne Ministerial-Level Meeting, as well as by requested an increase on the basis of changes in science changes in science that suggested a shifting or and changes or rebalancing in the priorities of modification of priorities. development assistance agencies. TAC recommended an increase in funding for three Centers that showed a Mr. Winkelmann indicated that TAC’s 1996 responsiveness to the priorities indicated in Lucerne. presentation was based on matrices, as previously agreed These were: IPGRI for work on in situ conservation; to by the Group. This was done to enhance transparency ICRAF for work on issues related to Sub-Saharan Africa and to encourage greater accountability; for example, and natural resources management; and ICLARM for by showing the relationship among the CGIAR’s fisheries. overarching goals, the five thrusts of its research, and a set of 18 specific activities. Mr. Winkelmann explained With regard to the notable increase in resource that more detail could be provided if desirable, and flows to ICLARNI, Mr. Winkelmann said TAC has spoken requested feedback from the Group as to the level of with both ICLARM management and its Board Chair disaggregation that would be useful as well as to the and would be watching how the Center’s new activities most appropriate nomenclature. are merged into ICLARV’s programs and managed by its staff.
Proposals Nlr. Winkelmann discussed TAC’s recom- mendations for support to systemwide efforts in 1996. Mr. Winkelmann presented to the Group TAC’s He pointed out that systemwide efforts result in added recommendations for the 1996 research agenda. He transaction costs, which must be balanced by added
35 benefits to offset these costs. TAC’s position, he said, from IIMI later in the year, and $2.5 million for other was that a systemwide effort should clearly be net efforts, upon the expectation that suitable projects will value-added. Systemwide efforts also represent, he be submitted later in 1995. said, a trade-off between Centers gaining leverage and Centers losing some autonomy. Mr. Winkelmann Mr. Winkelmann indicated that it would be used the rice-wheat systemwide program as an prudent for the CGIAR to begin investing in learning example of this. from ongoing systemwide efforts; for example, the rice-wheat program; the alternatives to slash and burn Five systemwide programs were recommended initiative; and the plant genetic resources program. by TAC for support in 1996. These are (with the convening/lead CGIAR Centerlsl indicated in Mr. Winkelmann noted the changes that have parentheses): occurred in the profile of the CGIAR’s investments, based on a comparison of TAC’s 1996 recommendations to
l Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (IPGRI) those made in 1992. Overall, the CGIAR has further expanded its efforts in protecting the environment (up l Indo-Gangetic Plains Rice-Wheat Program by 50 percent, from 10 percent in 1992 to 15 percent in (ICRISAT, IRRI, and CIMMYT) 1996) and biodiversity (up by 25 percent, from 8 percent to 10 percent). This has been balanced by a reduction l Latin American Hillsides Program (CIAT and in germplasm enhancement and breeding (from 22 CIMMYT) percent to 20 percent), in production systems work (from 29 percent to 23 percent), and in strengthening national l Alternatives to Slash and Burn Program (ICRAF) programs (from 20 percent to 18 percent). Mr. Winkelmann said, however, that much of the reduced l Sustainable Mountain Agricultural Development investment in Center production systems programs was Program (CIP and ICRAF) being undertaken through systemwide and ecoregional programs. The allocation to socioeconomic, policy, and Mr. Winkelmann referred to those systemwide management research remained unchanged at 11 programs declined by TAC. The forest ecosystem percent. Mr. Winkelmann also noted that a 1 percent management initiative was turned down because, in change in allocations was equivalent to a $3 million TAC’s judgment, the activities included were really change in financial flows. an essential part of the Center’s core program. On the program of breeding for micronutrients, TAC Mr. Winkelmann concluded by saying that TAC decided that the Centers involved in breeding should will be giving careful consideration over the next several be doing this research as part of their core programs months, in conjunction with a variety of other actors, to if it is deemed important. IFPRI’s request for priority setting, resource allocation, and the demand additional funds to support systemwide efforts was for the services that the CGIAR offers. TAC will be declined as a separate allocation. TAC determined helped in its efforts by the vision statement, by a that these costs should be built into the individual continuing convergence of ideas on selected themes, budget of each systemwide program. and by the ever larger participation of national programs in the deliberations of the Group. TAC recommended funds be set aside for a systemwide effort on livestock, pending its review of specific proposals to come later in 1995. Mr. Discussion Winkelmann indicated that ILRI has embarked on a highly participatory process for developing proposals. The Chairman recalled for the Group that the Likewise, TAC recommended that $1 million be set aside 1996 agenda was the first research agenda of the CGIAR for proposals on water management to be forthcoming where the adoption of the agenda was related to a
36 proposed budget. Assuming adoption of the agenda that another matrix be prepared, of a somewhat and budget, the next step would be for individual donors indicative nature rather than a strict scientific analysis, to make commitments to cells in the matrix’ and any that shows broadly the programs that are directed toward underfunding or overfunding of particular cells to be dealt meeting those cross-cutting concerns and which gives with before ICW95 (see Table, 1996 CGIAR Research a broad idea of where the funds are being allocated in Agenda, page 38). The goal is to go to ICW with a terms of addressing those concerns. For example? a complete and fully funded financing plan, so that matrix which shows which programs are oriented toward discussions at ICW can focus on the research agenda for low-potential areas, and which toward high-potential 1997. areas. This would also help donors in choosing to which cells of, the matrix to designate their funding. Mr. The Chairman expressed his hope that a decision Winkelmann indicated that this could be done for the on the proposed 1996 matrix would be reached quickly. four or five broad themes identified by the Group as He said that there were so many different possible being of greatest importance. classifications in presenting the research agenda, it would not be possible to satisfy everyone, particularly as the It was requested that the matrix better reflect CGIAR is dealing with research activities that, by their the linkages among the different components listed, so very nature, have multiple effects. He requested that that they do not appear to be separate. This will be the Group strive to put aside pet preferences in the helpful in securing future funding for the CGIAR. interest of attaining a common ground.
TAC’s efforts to prepare a document that reflects Caution was expressed about the level of $299 the decisions taken in Lucerne and which ties funding million recommended for the I996 research agenda. allocations to the CGIAR’s priorities were applauded by Given the budget constraints faced by many donors, a number of donors. this figure seemed a bit too optimistic for one donor.
A general desire among the Group to see the The transfer of complementary funding to the reports of the two Task Forces and the Genetic Resources agreed agenda was generally supported, although some Policy Committee reflected in the research agenda was surprise was expressed at the substantial increase in expressed. budgets that resulted for some Centers; for example, IFPRI by $5 million, ISNAR by $2.8 million, and ICLAR&l by $2.5 Several donors expressed interest in a stronger million. Mr. Winkelmann responded by saying that TAC reflection of the overarching goals of the CGIAR- has simply recognized the reality of the separate decisions alleviating poverty and protecting the environment-in that were already made by members of the Group, while the research agenda. In particular, several donors imposing the test of international public goods on the focused on the need to draw a better link of how complementary funding proposed by TAC for transferal increasing productivity helps to alleviate poverty. This to the agreed agenda. will be important in securing future funding for the CGIAR. The Chairman also added that bringing the complementary funding that met the international public To bring out the cross-cutting concerns of the goods criterion into the agreed agenda had been CGIAR, particularly poverty alleviation, it was suggested temporarily postponed during the stabilization period since the Ken; Delhi meeting to preserve the $270 million 1 The CGIAR introduced the matrix approach to setting the research vector. The firm intention, he said, had always been to agenda, allocating responsibilities for research programs among the bring these complementary activities, which had been Centers. and securing appropriate levels of funding, with the expectation that it would bring a more transparent, predictable, and separately funded by donors, under the agreed research stable system of financing. agenda in 1996; hence, the appearance of an increase
37 1996 CGIAR Research Agenda (revised)
Center Programs Systemwide 8 Ejcoregiohal Programs
SvstedEco. Prowams in the respective Center budgets was not really an gaps are. This would help donors, in particular, to increase, but a reflection of current funding realities. distribute unrestricted contributions among cells in the matrix. It was suggested that a historical perspective be brought to bear on the current year TAC presentation, Clarity was requested on where funds are particularly with regard to shifts in complementary physically listed in the matrix; particularly what funds funding to agenda funding. Since different criteria were are included under unrestricted contributions and what used in various years to reclassify activities, it would be funds qualify for systemwide and ecoregional programs; helpful, particularly for year-to-year comparisons, to for example, how are program funds being spent on clarify explicitly the reasons for reclassifications made ecoregional activities treated in the matrix. Mr. and the benefits of the process. Mr. Winkelmann Winkelmann indicated that every effort would be made concurred with this suggestion, and indicated that this to make sure that amounts are listed in the proper would be done by TAC. columns by ICW95.
Japan announced its intention to give serious Greater clarity was requested on the criteria used consideration to bearing part of the additional funding for defining systemwide programs, for which added requirements expected to arise from the refurbishment transaction costs are justifiable, versus program of facilities and operational needs of the research implementing costs of the global mandates carried out facilities donated by the Government of Egypt to by Centers, often in conjunction with several players. ICLARNI. It was stated that the CGIAR must recognize that A recommendation was made that every dollar systemwide and ecoregional activities imply transaction not be specifically designated in the matrix because of costs, because the nature of programs that involve many the importance of keeping some flexibility for creative countries or several countries and several or many thinking. As long as the accountability of the System is Centers requires joint planning, joint idea generation! not compromised, a measure of trust in a good system joint priority setting among the many ideas that emerge; and good scientists is required. The Chairman concurred potentially joint staffing, and some mechanism for with this statement, and related an example illustrating allocating funds, accounting for the funds, and ensuring the beneficial results of having seed money available to accountability and evaluation. In addition every one foster the development of new ideas. of those steps has to be innovative, because it is now a joint effort, not a single Center effort. It was suggested that unrestricted contributions should not be restricted to a distribution among The importance of priority setting among the individual cells in the matrix, but that donors be able to various systemwide efforts and between systemwide designate such funds generally to a Center, so that the activities and Center programs in view of the limited contribution does not get tied to a specific program. resources expected in 1996 was emphasized by one This would help donors where a specific distribution donor. Although this is a very difficult task! it should among individual cells/programs might backfire, be done to the extent needed by TAC. particularly if the distribution is not expressly in line with the specific priorities of the national aid program. The question was raised as to the priority that Another donor mentioned that, for its purposes, such a would be given to systemwide activities vis-d-&s Center degree of specificity was not necessary. activities should programs fall short in funding.
In order to achieve full transparency, it was Donors contributing to the agreed agenda suggested that the matrix show not only what needs to expressed concern about the distribution of transaction be funded, but what is in fact funded and where any costs-overheads-between Center programs and 39 systemwide programs, and indicated that, if such costs requested by ILRI, for which it felt it would have good, were not evenly distributed between the two, it would valid, useful, high-quality, and significant international be less attractive to continue being a core funder. public goods programs.
A question was raised as to the placement of It was pointed out that approving the 1996 systemwide efforts on the matrix. One donor understood research agenda, with its emphasis on building and that systemwide initiatives, in the first stage, would be expanding partnerships, involves a major responsibility listed on the matrix as such, and that as the initiatives for the CGLAR to strengthen NARS, particularly the ability became programs, they would move into the Center of NARS to form strong partnerships with Centers to program columns. Mr. Winkelmann responded that it carry out research and disseminate the results. The was TAC’s sense that the Group wanted the systemwide willingness of NARS to join such partnerships was programs displayed individually on the matrix with acknowledged, as was their ability to participate fully committed funding. This implies that spending by in CGIAR agenda setting and governance. In order individual Centers on these activities should be identified to build national level partnerships with universities, and passed from Center budgets to the systemwide private sector researchers, NGOs, and farmers and programs in question. TAC, he said, seeks guidance from farmers’ associations, national and regional fora will the Group as to its specific preference on this issue. have to be established, requiring considerable human and financial transaction costs. Sufficient resources must Clarity was also requested on how the actual be ensured to enable NARS to become true partners allocation of research program design activities was with the CGIAR. being undertaken by TAC. The question was raised as to the appropriateness of TAC acting in a donor-like NARS, one donor said, is shorthand for a very fashion by deciding how much is to be allocated to the complex set of actors and issues. The issues of NARS/ development of a proposal. CGIAR partnerships and the strengthening of NARS are ones which require continuing discussion. The Further clarification was requested as to the Chairman added that strengthening and expanding criteria used by TAC for determining which systemwide partnerships with NARS, particularly given the initiatives would be funded as such and which would tremendous variability among NARS, would be an not. It was mentioned by one donor that the criteria ongoing effort of the CGIAR. used to exclude several programs-that they should be funded out of the Center program-could likewise apply In response to concern expressed by a Center to some of those activities approved for systemwide Director that the Group not revert to waiting to approve funding. Mr. Winkelmann indicated that additional programs until funding is in hand, the Chairman criteria used included an assessment of the System’s reiterated that the financing of Center programs was experience in pursuing certain types of research driven by the research agenda and not vice versa. He activities, whether results have been positive or emphasized the importance that had been placed on disappointing. priority setting through the renewal process to ensure that research funded by the Group reflects the priorities The balance in systemwide funding for the of the Group as a whole, and not the individual aid livestock program (at $4 million) versus all other activities agendas of particular donors. related to agriculture, e.g. soil, water, and nutrient management and desertification (at S5.82 million) was questioned by one donor. The opinion was expressed Decisions that the livestock program had received a disproportionate share of funds relative to its importance The Chairman noted several issues which vis-d-vis agriculture. Mr. Winkelmann responded that permeated the Group’s discussion of the 1996 research the amount tentatively allocated to ILRI was the amount agenda. First was the Group’s concern with alleviating
40 poverty and protecting the environment, and how the The consolidation of complementary funding research of the Centers has an impact on these two under the agreed agenda was noted. The Chairman overarching goals of the CGIAR. The Chairman noted reminded the Group that the CGIAR had committed the complexity of the linkages involved, as illustrated itself in Lucerne to bringing as much complementary in the TAC report, and the difficulty in giving a funding under the agreed research agenda as possible, demonstrable and simple one-to-one input/output and expressed his satisfaction at the progress achieved relationship. so far in these efforts.
Second was the Group’s widespread belief that The Group recognized the exceptional one-time the current content of the research agenda indeed met costs associated with Egypt’s donation of research and reflected the international public goods criterion of facilities to ICLARM. The Chairman expressed thanks CGIAR research, and were focused on activities geared to Japan for the very gracious offer to try to help with toward the mission of the CGIAR as reaffirmed in costs arising from the refurbishment and operation of Lucerne-sustainable agriculture for food security in this facility. developing countries. Regarding further clarification of the matrix, the Third was the issue of partnerships with NARS. Group accepted that this will be a continuing task. On The Chairman indicated that this was an ongoing issue balance the current size of the matrix was deemed on w-hich the CGIAR will work continuously. satisfactory to the majority of the Group for facilitating decisionmaking by the Group, with the additional detail The Chairman summarized the decisions taken provided in annexes and even greater detail available by the Group on the 1996 research agenda as follows. upon request. For discussion within the Group, it was felt that a larger table would be confusing, although it The Group as a whole felt that the presentation was recognized that such detail would be needed at of the 1996 research agenda! and its discussion by the the Center management level. Group during MTM95, was a major step forward for the CGIAR in achieving transparency and accountability in The Chairman then summarized the additional its decisionmaking. information to be prepared by TAC for consideration by the Group at ICW95. The Group recognized the changes that have taken place in the composition of the research agenda, The Group asked TAC to report on how the and was cognizant that further changes will take place, recommendations of the two Task Forces will be particularly as the recommendations of the Task Forces incorporated by TAC in its future deliberations on the on Ecoregional Approaches to Research and on research agenda. TAC will present an “initiating Sustainable Agriculture are fully integrated into TAC’s document” on the 1997 research agenda for discussion recommendations for 1997 and beyond. at ICW95 to lay the groundwork for discussions on the research agenda to be held at MTM96. The Group adopted the 1996 research agenda as recommended by TAC. Further, the Group deemed TAC also agreed to report to the Group on the as reasonable the overall level of funding recommended, stripe review on soil and water nutrient management. with the expectation that it could be met. The Chairman indicated that a clear effort on everyone’s part was In response to requests arising from the required to firm up donor commitments as quickly as discussion on the 1996 research agenda, TAC agreed to possible to permit the early identification of, and prepare a short note for the Group on the link between attention to: any gaps in the matrix. productivity increases and poverty reduction.
41 TAG Activities
The TAC Chair reports at the Mid-Term Meeting and at Internatronai Centers Week on TAC activrtres not covered by the rest of the agenda at these meetings
In Karrobt, where much of TAC’s contmumg actrvrttes were woven into discusstons on a number of agenda items, TAC Choir Don Wmkelman reported separately on the followmg topics
Center Reviews
l External review of IITA m progress
l Reviews of ICRISAT IPGRI, IFPRI, and ISNAR w-111be conducted m 1996-1997
Inter-Center Reviews
l Roots and htbers revtew IS rmmrnent
l Review of cereals IS bemg considered for 1996
Strategic Studies
. Studies of pubhe policy, pubhc management, and mstltuhon strengthenmg are underway
l Study of strategic natural resources management rssues and research needs wail emphasize sol1 and water A draft report 1s lrkelv to be ready for discussron at ICW95
l Study of CGIAR commrtments in Latm Amerrca is planned
Mr Wmkelman commended the TAC Secretarrat for its herculean effort to produce a summary of TAC’s 66th meeting 42 III. GOVERNANCE meeting-were welcomed, but more clarity was sought on the sharing of responsibilities among a wide range Introduction of stakeholders, so that there could be broad ownership of planned regional fora. The Committee felt that there The need to strengthen decisionmaking processes was a challenge to be faced in linking national, regional, and consultative mechanisms within the CGIAR was emphasized in the Lucerne Declaration and Action and global consultation with priority setting by T,4C and Program. The Group was requested to retain overall at the System level. decisionmaking power in its general membership, supported by existing standing committees-such as Center Goz:ernance. The Committee suggested that the Oversight Committee (see Box, Oversight Committee a small working group should revise the policy and Renewed, page 44)-and by ad hoc committees! guidelines for Center governance. The revised version established as necessary. The Group was requested, as could be reviewed by Board Chairs and submitted to well, to strengthen the assessment and impact of CGIAR- the Group at MTM96. The new policy would need to supported research by establishing an “independent be complemented by a set of guidelines on Board evaluation function” reporting to the CGIAR as a whole. operations but these need not be considered by the Group. At the Nairobi Mid-Term Meeting, the Group received and discussed a report from the Oversight Due Diligence Muttem. Three issues were Committee; decided to establish an Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group as well as a “sounding board” to considered: (i) The Committee, which noted that the work closely with the new group; and entrusted the search for a new Executive Secretary of TAC had not initial discussion of external program and management been concluded, had been reassured by the cosponsors reviews to two ad hoc evaluation committees. that the TAC Secretariat was functioning effectively in the interim period; (ii) The Committee fully endorsed Committee I, chaired by Mr. Timothy Rothermel the practice of referring some business items to small (UNDP)? considered the external reviews of CIP and ad hoc groups for a first pass, and of holding parallel CIAT. Committee II, chaired by Mr. Karega Mutahi sessions of some of these groups and of standing (Kenya), considered a report on the terms of reference committees; and (iii) The Committee will keep under of external reviews, the ICLARM IMid-Term Review, and examination the need, if any, for a review of the System, a review of CGIAR commitments in West Africa. The taking note of the fact that all components of the System Committee Chairs reported findings and submitted have been reviewed during the renewal process. recommendations in plenary for final decisions. Oversight Committee Future Pm’orities. Two areas were earmarked for special attention: the continuing efforts to strengthen Oversight Committee Chair Paul Egger reported on CGIAR partnerships with NARS; and System structure the views and work of the Committee on five topics. and governance. Meanwhile, the Committee is reviewing its own work program. It has renewed the Lucerne Follow-up. The Committee commended mandate of its Chair for another year. A new Chair will the CGIAR Chairman for his leadership and noted that be designated before MTM96. decisive action had been taken to implement the decisions reached in Lucerne. The Committee supported Following a discussion of these matters, the these efforts, such as the move to establish a NGO committee. The Committee suggested that the role of Chairman summed up the main points made: cosponsors should be discussed at ICW95. l The Group thanked Committee Chair Paul Egger Partnership with NARS. Efforts to expand and his team for their tireless efforts on behalf of partnerships with NARS-also a result of the Lucerne the Group. 43 l The Group conveyed its special appreciation to l A System review could be considered, possibly Messrs. Vir Chopra and Henri Carsalade who had in 1997, after the renewed CGIAR is full) left the Committee. The two new members of operational. There is no cause to rush into it. the Committee were welcomed. l The legal status of the Centers-an issue Strengthening Evaluation in the CGIAR highlighted during the discussion-needs to be addressed, although there is unlikely to be The Lucerne Action Program requested the homogeneity across the charters or statutes of all CGIAR to “strengthen the assessment of its performance Centers. and impact by establishing an independent evaluatior function reporting to the CGIAR as a whole.” l NARS consultations will be a continuing process, in which no single mode of interaction needs to This recommendation was consistent with ar be institutionalized at present. earlier proposal from the CGIAR Study Panel or Governance and Finance (chaired by Mr. Klaus Winkel l generate or ensure the generation of of Denmark) that the CGIAR should strengthen the comprehensive and up-to-date information on the evaluation of its impact. This proposal was endorsed impact of the CGIAR as a System in close by the CGIAR Steering Committee and adopted at ICW94. collaboration with the Centers, TAC, and partner Consequently, PARC established an Impact Assessment institutions, and keeping in mind the demands Task Force (chaired by Mr. Iain MacGillivray of Canada) from the CGIAR; and to explore ways of generating systematically information on the impact of the CGIAR, to meet the needs of l facilitate the strengthening of the System’s impact members and of the concerned public. assessment capacities. Broad agreement was noted during informal Mr. Serageldin explained that the kind of unit communication among CGIAR members that the case envisaged would be made up of a few (perhaps two) for establishing an evaluation function rested primarily scientists with impeccable credentials, recognized for on three arguments. First, independent impact their authority on the role of agricultural research in assessment will enable members of the Group to know development and for their technical skills in the area of whether the work supported at the Centers is getting impact assessment, The unit would work alongside of into farmers’ fields and is of actual benefit to the TAC and the Oversight Committee and in close world’s poor. Second, an independent unit can collaboration with the staff at Centers who even now establish the extent to which work done by the attempt to compile the information required for ex-ante Centers complements the activities of the rest of the and ex-post impact assessment studies. It would report global agricultural research system. Third, by fulfilling to the Group as a whole, just as TAC does, and to the the first two objectives, the unit can set out CGIAR Chairman between meetings of the Group. Mr. benchmarks against which CGIAR members can judge Serageldin stressed that what he had in mind was a the returns on their investment. very light structure, not a bureaucracy. In Lucerne there was a specific decision among Following the Chairman’s introduction, rMr. Iain participants, the CGIAR Chairman pointed out at MTM95, MacGillivray and Mr. Robert Herdt, who chaired a that the wording relating to this activity should be workshop on impact assessment held in Nairobi changed from “impact assessment” to “evaluation.” This immediately preceding MTM95, reported on the outcome was because “evaluation” includes “impact assessment” of that workshop. They said that the workshop fully but really is broader and allows for qualitative judgments, recognized the need for more impact assessment at both not just quantitative ones. the Center and System levels. The workshop reached consensus on the need for the proposed new unit to be Following the Lucerne meeting, Mr. Serageldin recognized for its objectivity, credibility, and the high consulted widely-with cosponsors, the TAC Chair, PARC quality of its operations and products. members, and others-on ways of implementing the recommendation. Based on these consultations, he In terms of structure and linkages, the following wrote to CGIAR Heads of Delegations on April 6, 1995 requirements were suggested: suggesting, as a possible approach, the establishment of a small Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, l The new unit should interact and collaborate with the following terms of reference: closely with Centers through an inter-Center working group. l provide oversight and guidance to ex-postimpact assessment activities within the CGIAR, including l A “sounding board” made up of CGIAR members, the area of impact assessment methodologies, and as users of the products of the unit’s work, and recommend appropriate CGIAR or Center action; of external technical specialists to review the 45 feasibility and cost of the proposals, should be l The new unit for impact assessment and established to support the unit. evaluation will be “very light-with no more than two members-will receive its mandate from the l The unit should be linked with the CGIAR Group and will report to the Group. Secretariat, and more particularly with TAC, as the System-level unit responsible for broader l Nominations for appointment to the new units evaluation and priority setting. Any such link should be sent in writing to the CGIAR Executive would have to preserve the unit’s objectivity and Secretary. independence. l The cosponsors will act as a search and selection TAC Chair Don Winkelmann agreed with the committee, review nominations and carry out urgency of the need to implement the recommendation checks of reference as necessary; and from the Lucerne meeting. Although TAC had not explicitly discussed the issue, he felt comfortable in l The proposed chair and member(s) of the broadly endorsing the proposal and expressing the hope Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group will that members of the new unit would share both their be put to the CGIAR for endorsement (on a no results and their insights. Mr. Just Faaland, Chair of the objection basis). Center Board Chairs Committee, endorsed the proposal as well. l The cosponsors should also handle the formation of the CGIAR Impact Assessment Sounding Board. In the general discussion that followed, the They should propose to the CGIAR a suitable proposal was supported and ideas were exchanged on composition taking into account user and matters of detail. Based on the discussion, Mr. Serageldin stakeholder perspectives! after consultation with summed up the consensus reached by the Group as a cross section of the CGIAR. follows: l The new units should be established by ICW95. l The Group appreciated the efforts of all those who had contributed towards clarifying issues connected with implementation of the Lucerne External Reviews recommendation. (i) Strengthening lY?&maalReuiew~Reuiision of the Terms l The Group endorsed the approach spelled out of Refeerencefor External P?*ogramand blanagement in the Chairman’s letter of April 6 to Heads of Reviewsof Cente7-s(considered by Committee II] Delegations and agreed that action on those lines should be taken to establish an Impact Assessment At ICW93 the Group discussed a progress report and Evaluation Group. by the TAC Chair on reforming the external review process and endorsed the direction of the changes l A “sounding board” consisting of donors, users, outlined. These included: and other stakeholders should also be established, for consultation concerning interpretation and l basing Center reviews more on results from feedback. internally commissioned reviews, including available data on the Center’s impact; . There is, in addition, a need for an inter-Center working group to deal with the range of issues l relying more on Center Boards for assessments covering impact assessment and evaluation. of management cost-effectiveness; 46 l improving the evaluation of NARS-Center The CGIAR and TAC Secretariats should seek the interactions; reactions of major NARS stakeholders of a Center on the review report. l using a common summary format for reporting on evaluation issues; and Experiences of other institutions in conducting reviews should continue to be examined to draw l refining the procedures for reviewing programs lessons for improving the guidelines. at the System level. TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat are encouraged Putting these changes into practice requires revision to bring before the CGIAR a revised policy paper of the terms of reference for external program and on reviews, as noted in the letter forwarding the management reviews of the Centers and the guidelines documents. for conducting these reviews. The draft revisions submitted to the Nairobi MTlM were prepared by the Inter-Secretariat The Committee recommended that the Group should Working Group on External Reviews and discussed at endorse the proposed terms of reference, and requested TAC66. The draft incorporated TAC’s comments. TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat to take into account the suggestions made on guidelines for external reviews Further work in this area that will subsequently be by the Committee. brought to the Group includes: The Group adopted the Committee’s recom- l terms of reference and guidelines for reviews of mendations. TAC was requested to report at ICW95 on CGIAR programs (including stripe or inter-Center the question of consistency across external reviews and reviews); and to provide feedback on the guidelines for reviews. l an update of the 1988 CGIAR policy paper on reviews. (ii) CIAT (considered by Committee I) The fourth external review of CL4T was conducted Messrs. Selcuk ijzgediz and Guido Gryseels introduced by a Review Panel chaired by Mr. Declan Walton. the proposed terms of reference and guidelines on behalf of the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on External Reviews The Panel felt that CIAT deserved credit for its early to the AdHoc Evaluation Committee II. Their presentations initiative in natural resources management (NRM), were followed by a discussion in which the following including the introduction of a well conceived major points were made: ecoregional approach to research. In 1990, in the face of declining CGIAR funding, CIAT decided to cutback l External reviews are important for reinforcing its traditional commodity research in order to establish accountability and maintaining credibility. new NIX&l programs. This took its toll on staff morale and opened a gap between management and staff as l Centers are encouraged to continue strengthening the funding crisis deepened. their internally-commissioned external reviews. With strengthened internally commissioned Despite a setback from the kidnapping of Thomas reviews, the use of the issue-driven review format, Hargrove in September 1994 (Mr. Hargrove is still as described in the guidelines, has greater chance being held) the Panel found staff morale improving. of success. Much of the credit for this goes to Ms. Lucia de Vaccaro, the CIAT Board Chair, and to Nlr. Robert l It is important that the writing of review reports Havener! who has been Interim Director General since remain a responsibility of the entire review team. October 1994. 47 However, the Panel warned that the transaction costs At the meeting of &Hoc Committee II, participants of new CGIAR-wide and regional initiatives continued welcomed the Review Panel’s conclusion that science to draw management’s attention outside of the Center at CIAT had remained both relevant, as evidenced by when there remains an urgent need to improve cohesion its impact, and of high quality, despite the funding and within CIAT. management crisis at the Center over the last two years. There was praise for the Board Chair and the Interim CIAT has kept up a flow of studies to demonstrate Director General for bringing the Center out of its crisis, commodity research impact and there is also early and praise to CIAT scientists for maintaining standards evidence of NRM impact. CIAT’s programs were over a difficult period. commended by the Panel. There was praise for the humane way in which the Center had dealt with the Regional representatives expressed relief that the need to reduce staff. Center had emerged from the crisis and asserted that Latin America and the Caribbean required continued Among the main issues raised by the Panel were support from CIAT and the CGIAR System. Participation the following: in the International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice (INGER) was specifically mentioned. l There should be no further erosion of The Center was commended for its catalytic role in commodities research to expand N&V programs. generating support from farmer organizations and the These newer programs should be consolidated private sector in the region for research on irrigated to ensure quality in their implementation and rice. Further: several speakers expressed pleasure that expanded as results attract further funding. the review perceived CIAT as being at the cutting edge of integrating commodity and natural resources l The Genetic Resources Unit remains without a management research in the ecoregional approach. senior scientist at its head. Given the higher profile for genetic resources, it is imperative this In this context members noted that the review had post be filled as soon as possible. not dealt adequately with social sciences at CIAT. They emphasized the need for social science capacity to l The role of Land Management remains uncertain. balance technical disciplines in implementing The Panel found its recent designation as a ecoregional programs. They suggested this as one focus Scientific Resource Group unconvincing. The for the internally managed external review of natural Panel urged that it be redesignated as either a resources management research being mounted by the program or a research unit serving the other Center later this year. programs, depending on its future role in CIAT. Members asked that the report of this review be l Training and the support for networks decreased made available to interested stakeholders. They noted over the period, and there was some negative that CIAT had already taken action to initiate a science reaction from NARS to these results of staff driven information strategy paper. In this same vein reductions. CIAT, however, revived its training members expressed the view that the review had not efforts significantly in 1994. adequately recognized CIAT’s pathfinding work in farmer participatory research. l The Panel expressed the view, also expressed in the 1989 review, that a gap between program CIAT was commended for its excellent relations with and institute management needs to be closed by Colombia, the Center’s host country. However, the drawing program heads more closely into institute Committee noted that tensions had arisen with some management policy formulation. NARS from too little consultation in decisions on staff 48 reductions and the need for more regular NARS l The Panel and TAC urged a speeding up of the consultation at a policy level. cleaning of CIP germplasm collections in both potato and sweet potato. The Committee proposed that the recom- mendations of the review be endorsed. This was done Members of Ad Hoc Committee I joined the Review by the Group. Panel in commending CIP for significant achievements, despite both declining funding and considerable unrest (iii) CIP (considered by Committee Ij in Peru. Mr. David MacKenzie chaired the Panel for CIP’s The Committee agreed that CIP should revisit its fourth External Review. The Panel and the TAC mandate statement in light of the Center’s response to the widening importance of environmental issues. commentary commended the Center for reorganized Members endorsed the recommendations by the Panel, and improved Board oversight, increased documentation both to review germplasm enhancement at the Center of program impact, transparency and efficiency in and to speed up the cleaning of its germplasm research program management, and a new collegiality collections. Members also endorsed the need to focus in its culture. These changes had been made despite CIP’s strategic research. After discussion there was the pressures on staff from the shortage of funds and consensus that, as one focus, CIP could effectively the unrest in Peru until 1994. coordinate a global effort to combat late blight disease. The Panel made twenty recommendations, and The Committee agreed that diversity among NARS raised the following issues: demanded a balance of effort between strategic research and support for capacity building. CIP l There is a need to reconcile ecoregional activities highlighted its efforts to be responsive and relevant in the Andes with the existing mandate of the to NARS. It was noted by members that strong NARS Center. The Panel requested the Board and also provide widening opportunities to contract management to formalize a revision of CIP’s strategic research. The TAC Chair pointed to TAC’s operational mandate to reflect the new de facto role in monitoring the strategic research/capacity balance in CIP’s programming. building balance to ensure the effective use of public funds in international research. l The Panel recommended that CIP disengage from technical assistance activities in support of NARS. There was a strong consensus among members, It was also critical of the quality of genetic particularly regional representatives, that True Potato enhancement at the Center and called for a 1997 Seed (TPS) work exemplified this diversity. Strategic CGIAR Mid-Term Review of the breeding work on TPS needs to be continued, but also NARS programs. In response, CIP welcomed the need help in adapting TPS to the circumstances of their proposed review and linked these aspects to the farmers. funding crisis. TAC suggests that CIP, not TAC, commission the review and share its results with The report of the Review Panel was, as an TAC. experiment, presented, in an ‘issues’ format, focusing on a limited number of issues identified by the Panel. l The Panel recommended that CIP focus its efforts Several members commented favorably on the in pest and disease management on strategic experiment with this format. research of global relevance for a limited number of key activities, and consolidate this work in a The Committee proposed that the Group endorse central location. the Panel’s recommendation, as modified by the TAC 49 commentary, that in 1997 CIP mount an internally further the scientific and management capacity managed external review on the Center’s genetic below the director level to ensure a sustainable enhancement and breeding strategy for potato and sweet long-term effort by the Center. potato; and endorse the other recommendations of the review. This was done. ICLARVl’s research strategy: ICLARV’s position in the CGIAR enables it to interface with; and (iq,l ICZAiWMid-Term Review (considered by Committee contribute to! the CGIAR terrestrial science IO expertise. Therefore, ICLARV should broaden its participation in inter-Center program activities ICLARM’s first External Program and Management Review was conducted in early 1992, leading to ICLARM from genetic resources to coastal resources, policy joining the CGIAR at MTlM92. The 1992 Review Panel research on common property resources, and recommended, and TAC and the CGIAR agreed, that a water management. ICLARM now has a range of Mid-Term Review be held to monitor the implementation possible strategic research partners in stronger of the Panel’s numerous program and management NARS and in advanced science institutes more recommendations, and more particularly the progress interested in applying their expertise in the South. made in building the new programs, which were outlined in ICLARM’s strategic plan, and in improving ICLARM’s legal status, and research and its organization and management. headquarters facilities: in considering the Egyptian offer of extensive facilities, which offer tremendous Within a year of its joining the CGIAR, ICLAILZ; opportunities particularly for ex situ conservation, experienced an internal crisis that led to significant ICLARM should give due consideration to the changes in its governance. technical issues surrounding the feasibility of the proposed sites for its research activities, against its The Mid-Term Review submitted to the Nairobi Mid- Term Meeting was carried out in January-February 1995 strategic plan and the implications for its priorities. by a two person panel; chaired by Mr. E.T. York, Jr. and ICLARM should also continue to investigate the assisted by the two Secretariats. opportunities for a headquarters facility and agreement in The Philippines. The Panel acknowledges the good progress made by ICLARM in implementing most of the recom- The CGIAR should give a higher priority to mendations of the 1992 review: particularly in the acquatic research, which contributes vitally to areas of human resources management: an integrated nutritious food production and food security in system for project and program planning, monitoring. the developing world, and translate this into and review; financial management; the emphasis on stronger and less restrictive financial support to research in the statements of the Center’s goals and ICL4R&l. objectives; changes in its Inland -4quatic Resource System, Coral Reef Systems, and Coastal Resource Ad hoc Evaluation Committee II discussed several Systems Programs; and, better formulated strategies aspects of the Panel’s report as well as the status and for training and information. prospects of the negotiations with the Government of Egypt regarding the acquisition of physical research The main issues raised by the Panel are summarized facilities. below: The meeting commended the Panel Chair for the excellence of the review report, and ICLAR%l’s Board l ICLARM’s science capacity: while there is a high level of scientific expertise among the current and management for the significant progress made since program directors, there is a need to strengthen the 1992 review and the most recent review. The meeting 50 endorsed the recommendations of the Panel, particularly in its proposed plan of action concerning the Egyptian those relating to: facility. The Group concurred. l the need to reach, soonest, a headquarters (uj Review of CGIAR Commitments in WestAfrica agreement with the Government of The (considered by Committee IIj Philippines; The Study of CGIAR Commitments in West Africa, l pursuing vigorously the strengthening of requested by TAC, was conducted by a Panel chaired ICLARM’s managerial and scientific organizational by Mr. John McIntire. The Panel found that the structure; present organization of the CGIAR’s work in West Africa is reasonably efficient and cost-effective and l calling on the CGIAR (and other sources) to that there is no need for a major restructuring of the increase its funding base and diversify the funding way the CGIAR is operating in West Africa. A key mode from project to program based, thus issue is how to incorporate the opinions of NARS providing ICLARV with the necessary flexibility into the formulation of Center programs. in managing resources; and Following are the main issues raised by the Panel: l pursuing the enhancement of the scientific capacity of the Center. l Policy and management research: The Panel recommended that IFPRI should be named a With regard to the acquisition of physical research strong convening Center for socio-economics, facilities in Egypt, the Committee saw it as a unique policy, and management research in West Africa, opportunity for a CGIAR Center to work closely, from with greater focus on its work in Nigeria than at the onset: with many NARS (in Africa and worldwide). present. Both IFPRI and concerned Center It supported ICLARM’s strategy and proposed plan of Directors objected to this recommendation. action, while emphasizing the need for caution with regard to: l Institution building, training, and information: The Panel recommended that the Centers, with l the impact of such expansion on ICLARM’s the exception of ISNAR, should limit their strategic capacity; activities in institution building to training and information and should abandon organization l the financial implications of operating the and management counseling because it is not facilities, which should be funded from non- their comparative advantage. The overall size competitive sources uis-d-uis other CGIAR of training and information activities should undertakings; and also be reduced. The Center Directors Committee did not share this point of view. l the program implications of moving in a sub- tropical ecoregion: which ought not divert l Production systems versus germplasm ICLARlM’s efforts in the tropics. development research: The Panel recom- mended that production systems and The Committee recommended that the Group management research be devolved by IITA and should endorse the recommendations of the Mid-Term ICRISAT to NARS in order to augment upstream Review; and encourage ICLARM to proceed work by the Centers on the conservation and cautiously, with due respect to the financial, management of natural resources and organizational, and research program considerations germplasm enhancement and breeding. 51 l Impact: The Panel felt that the current production What the impact of the Centers had been on the impact of ICRISAT and ILRI in West Africa is low. region. Its recommendation is for a high-level review of ICRISAT’s crop improvement program for How impact assessment could be enhanced. sorghum and a shift of ICRISAT’s research effort Production systems versus germplasm development in millet improvement from the Niamey site to a research. less arid area where such management issues as inter-cropping, mechanization, complex cropping Coordination of policy research at the regional level. patterns, and rotations can be incorporated into millet improvement. Role of the Centers in institution building and training. l An alternative organization: The Panel proposed a common Board of Trustees for WARDA and Harmonizing governance and activities of the IITA with ex-officio representation of ICRISAT, Centers operating in West Africa. ICRAF, and IRRI as a means of harmonizing The Committee concluded that this experiment with research betvveen the two institutions. a regional review of CGIAR investments was a success, and encouraged TAC to commission reviews of other l Relations with partners: The contacts of Centers regions. Lessons learned from this review should be with national programs are on the whole efficient. used in designing future reviews. These include possibly The Centers have many mechanisms to inform larger panels, earlier dialogue with Centers and NARS, themselves about national activities, to and reports that are frank-where one does not need receive input into their research planning, to read between the lines. and to collaborate substantively on common problems. The Committee proposed that the Group should recommend the review report for further consideration l TAC was pleased with the experience gained and by Centers, NARS, donors, TAC, and other actors, and with the outcome of the study. It intends to encourage TAC to continue experimenting with similar proceed by undertaking a similar study in Latin regional reviews for other regions. The Group agreed. America and subsequently in Asia and West Asia/ North Africa. IV. FINANCE Members of Ad Hoc Committee II thanked the Panel for a thought-provoking report. The report’s difference Finance Committee Chair Michel Petit reported on from other CGIAR reviews was found to be refreshing. the views and work of the Committee in six areas. The Committee was pleased to note that the Panel Lucerne Follow-Lp. The Committee examined the found the present organization of the CGIAR’s work in first draft of a report from the CGIAR Secretariat on the West Africa to be reasonably efficient and cost-effective. establishment of a foundation to serve as a mechanism The Committee also noted the Panel Chair’s assurance for raising and receiving funds from sources outside of that the CGIAR’s investments in this region are the CGIAR membership. Determining legal procedures productive and that no major institutional reforms are for establishing a foundation, and making preliminary necessary. contacts with potential benefactors will be among the next steps taken. On the issue of possible CGIAR activities in A number of issues identified by the Panel led to a the countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern lively dialogue between the Panel and the Centers Europe, the Committee reaffirmed the position outlined operating in West Africa. These included the following: in Lucerne that such activities should be initiated only 52 when a clear program of work, where the CGIAR mittee will re-examine the report when it is in final form, has a comparative advantage, has been defined, and but, meanwhile, commends it to the CGIAR membership. a minimum level of funding, separate from and additional to funding for the agreed research agenda, 1997 nnd Beyond. The Committee benefited from has been reached. the views of the TAC Chair, the Chair of the Center Directors Committee, and Board Chairs in examining proposed Allocation of World Bank Funds. At ICW94 the Com- arrangements for the future presented in a draft proposal mittee recommended and the Group agreed that the first from the CGIAR Secretariat. They all agreed that the System tranche, or half of the World Bank’s contribution, should should have a more flexible process than it did in the be distributed to individual Centers in proportion to the past. The Committee felt that consultation among all amounts allocated within the total $270 million required stakeholders was required to agree on a process that is to support the 1995 research agenda. Subsequently, a fair and practical. A point that needs further elucidation further $22.5 million was distributed, to ensure that the in this context is the distinction between programs that Centers benefited from a better cash flow. The Committee comprise the CGIAR research agenda and programs in decided that $2.5 million should be held in reserve to fill which the CGIAR is only a component. any gaps that might arise. Information from the CGIAR Secretariat indicated that all Centers could be fully funded. Committee hfemberslnip. The Committee has been expanded and its membership renewed. The Committee’s 1994 Funding. The Committee was favorably Chair will be selected by the Committee itself. impressed by the progress in accountability and transparency as demonstrated in the CGIAR Secretariat’s Next Meeting. The Committee expects to meet next draft report on the System’s finances in 1994. The Com- during ICW95 to review the 1996 financing plan. V. CHAIRMAN’S SUMMATION OF including that I be present at, or a written statement PROCEEDINGS AND DECISIONS from the CGIAR be submitted to, the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Ladies and gentlemen, we have come to an Indonesia in November. important moment in our work. We have passed the fourth milestone on our journey of renewal. With We also agreed that representatives of the FAO confidence and an abiding sense of recommitment, we Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and the have taken decisions that are fully consistent with, and Conference of the Parties of the Convention on indeed which flow from, the requirements of the Biological Diversity be invited to participate in the next Lucerne Declaration and Action Program. These meetings of the CGIAR’s Genetic Resources Policy decisions fall under the themes, discussed in Lucerne, Committee, and that there should be a comprehensive of broader partnerships, the research agenda, report on developments, so that the whole membership governance, and finance. We are well on our way to of the CGIAR is informed of ongoing developments on establishing the instruments required. these various parallel negotiations, and a presentation of this information made at ICW95. In addition I note Let us review what we have done so far. In my the appeal made by Sweden that all governments opening statement, I reaffirmed the mandate given to harmonize their positions on these multiple tracks of us in Lucerne, and sketched out the tasks that remained negotiation. I hope that each of you will ensure that to be done. I was pleased that 23 speakers responded this is the case in your respective governments. to my opening address, 10 of whom w-ere from the South. That was an encouraging sign that we are well We then reviewed the Task Force reports on on our way to realizing the integration of the South that sustainable agriculture and ecoregional approaches to we have all been seeking. research. We were unanimous in finding them of great interest, as well as extremely enlightening, both in terms Before the formal meeting, we had a workshop on of the questions they raised and the answers they provided. evaluation and consultations with NARS, which prepared us for the in-depth discussions at the heart of this We kept in sight the importance of the CGIAR as meeting, namely the adoption of the research agenda, part of the global research system. W’e believed that the with an indicative budget. This has enabled us to lay two Task Force reports indicated questions and the groundwork for translating the vision of Lucerne directions that should be reflected in the paper TAC into reality. The discussion of the agenda was preceded will present at ICW95 to initiate the dialogue on the by a presentation of the principles that guided the research agenda for 1997. This is the new cycle toward decisions of T,4C, as well as by a broad review of IFPRI’s which we are aiming, where we initiate the discussion 2020 Vision Initiative, which is the kind of framework of the 1997 agenda at ICW95-a process that includes within which the research agenda should be seen. consultations with NARS, with other stakeholders, and between the Centers and TAC-with the agenda ready We reviewed how far we have come in relation to for discussion at MTM96. genetic resources. We were pleased with the prospect of an emerging consensus on a multilateral system on We then looked at the research agenda for 1996 as genetic resources, and we all endorsed the presented by TAC, w-hich laid out very clearly that the recommendations of the Genetic Resources Policy research supported by the CGIAR should meet the Committee that were presented by Mr. Geoff Hawtin international public goods criterion. We noted with on behalf of Mr. M. S. Swaminathan. We encouraged satisfaction that, so far as one could ascertain from the the Committee to continue to advise the CGIAR, and indicative budget, a great deal of complementary we approved a set of follov+up principles, based in funding has been brought under the agreed research part on recommendations put forward by Sweden, agenda. This was very much in keeping with the 54 recommendations in Lucerne, and I am delighted to see lines outlined in my letter of April 6, 1995 to the Group, there has been some serious follow through on this matter. namely that a small, perhaps two-member, Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group would be appointed We also agreed that, while the research agenda by the cosponsors based on a search and selection matrix has been quite satisfactory for the presentation process that includes a review of nominations submitted. at this time, it should be keep under constant review. I have so far received 34 nominations: some to the Although the size of the matrix is approximately right, Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, and others there will never be complete satisfaction on the extent to the newly-proposed sounding board-termed the to which certain items might appear to fit into more “advisory board” by the CGIAR Secretariat. We have than one category. This is something we will continue not yet fully solved the question of what type of group to struggle with as w-e progress. Moving in small this is going to be; but there was certainly an overall consensus that such a group should exist. This, of pragmatic steps is the most constructive way to deal course, is in addition to an inter-Center working group with this issue, rather than trying to settle all issues at that pulls together the efforts of those who are working once. in each Center to harmonize their methodologies for measuring impact. We noted that two issues permeated the discussions. These were the productivity-poverty alleviation linkage Our target for ICW95 is naming the two-person and the question of partnerships between CGIAR Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, establishing institutions and other players, particularly related to the assessment sounding board or advisory group, and systemwide initiatives and participatory decisionmaking establishing the inter-Center working group. We cannot or action research. All of these will require further expect to go much further beyond this before ICW. I elaboration as we go along, for they are concepts that have taken due note of the caution expressed at the are not easily settled. We will be revisiting them, just as Workshop on Impact Assessment and Evaluation which we will revisit NARS issues. As we refine our thinking preceded this meeting that there is a strong view that and our tools, these issues will come up again. the persons appointed should not both be economists, but that there should be an interdisciplinary mix. I Within the broader agenda, the Group took note of invite continued nominations and, in the tradition of Egypt’s generous offer to give research facilities valued transparency, I will communicate with you clearly the at some $36 million to ICLARM, and Japan’s gracious rationale for the decisions, whatever they will be. offer to consider contributing to the refurbishing of these facilities. On the whole, we endorsed the 1996 research That was one of the three additional items related agenda and accepted that overall requirements would to governance that the Lucerne meeting asked us to be on the order of $299 million in 1996. It is fun to say fulfill. The other two were the private sector committee $299 and not $300; you get a special for $299 rather and the NGO committee. On the private sector than $300. Since it is still under S300 million! there is committee, I discussed it briefly with the Heads of no excuse for not making that target. The next step is Delegations at dinner, and there does not seem to be for members to inform the CGIAR Secretariat of their much controversy. We are going to identify a list of 1996 funding, so that the Finance Committee can individuals, and I am still open to nominations from propose a detailed and, I am confident, fully funded anybody who w-ishes to send such nominations, and financing plan for 1996 at ICW95. based on that list we will appoint a committee and see where common ground can be found for us to expand We looked at our own governance and discussed at our collaboration with the private sector in both the some length the issue of impact assessment and North and the South. evaluation of performance, particularly the establishment of an independent Impact Assessment and Evaluation On the NGOs there seems to be controversy, as Group. We decided that we would proceed along the much on process as on content: as much on composition 55 as on the role of the committee. So let me be very clear We should now envisage the creation of a committee as to where I am coming out right now and what the of individuals that I would appoint? based on the next steps will be. From the consultations that I have widespread consultations that I have held. They would now held in Washington, Paris, The Hague, Rome, and be tasked to participate in their personal capacities, not Nairobi with close to 100 NGOs, it seems that there are as representatives of any institution, purely to be able at least two clusters of issues emerging. One is a series to engage in discussion and dialogue with us and of issues that are very closely associated to what is broaden our own understanding of what is happening happening in the village, at the micro-level. Such issues in the SGO world. We would suggest to them that they can be dealt with in two ways. They are best dealt with may wish to think about advising us on how we might by the current collaboration that exists between the engage in a broad-based consultation process. I feel, Centers and NGOs. We are reminded that the Centers from all the consultations I have had, that this would currently collaborate with over 300 IKGOs. ICRAF alone probably be acceptable to the vast majority of NGOs, is collaborating with 67 NGOs. Many of these types of the so-called multi-track approach, so that it is not in micro-level issues are best addressed at the Center level, any way a closed process. and these should continue. This brings us to the experiences we have had with At the global level, how does one bring these kinds the ad hoc committees. I want to say a word about of concerns into play? I have recommended to Michel content before I get into process. WJe adopted the Petit that the unit established within the World Bank recommendations of the external reviews of CIAT, CIP, under his leadership to deal with strengthening NARS and ICLARM, and the report on the CGIAR’s should consider setting up a parallel consultation to the commitments in West Africa. The main findings were one that we are setting up for the CGIAR. fully endorsed. On the new terms of reference and guidelines for external reviews, we accepted what was That would leave us with a second cluster of issues, put before us, but a number of us felt that we need whether it be intellectual property rights, genetic more on this important and essential building block; resources, ecoregionality, or other such issues, in terms therefore, we asked T_4C to prepare a note for our of scale and breadth? that require further attention. There consideration at ICW95. are some NGOs that concentrate on these issues, and they could be represented on the NGO committee we As to the issue of how7 we organize our work, this is talked about in Lucerne. something we will have to revisit, whether parallel sessions could be organized differently or whether This leads me to another point related to the NGO people would participate more fully in more than one group, which is that of process. There was a lot of parallel session. I think we should be able to organize concern among the NGOs that this committee would carefully, consulting widely on how to use the parallel be taken as a window-dressing or considered the sole sessions for ICW95. The intent is to maintain the unique means of access to the CGIAR. Everywhere, I have collegiality that we have, but at the same time to allow reassured NGOs that continuing activities with the us to have more in-depth discussions of some of the Centers are not going to be replaced by this committee. important documents that come before the Group. This There was also a strong desire on the part of NGOs that there be other avenues as well for those who are not cannot be done in plenary, given the length and scope on a committee to express their views, if they so desired. of the agenda that we try to cover. I responded that, by all means, we are always going to remain open to receive communications from anyone. We have covered the majority of the specific In addition, there was a strong view that a process should resolutions that we had to make. We have not left any be launched that involves the grassroots, regions, global, item unanswered. The Oversight Committee renewal and other NGO fora. I am now of the opinion that we and the Finance Committee renewal have been should in fact allow such a process to continue. completed. The next Mid-Term Meeting location has 56 been identified. We have also decided to put gender encourage us all to coalesce on the common purpose on the agenda at ICW95. and to build on that common ground. I have been very gratified to see the spirit which everyone brought to It is now my great pleasure to extend my thanks to these proceedings, a commitment not just to a System, our hosts in Kenya for all the wonderful arrangements but to an idea-the idea that through agricultural that they have made for us here, for their warm research we can do much better for the w-orld and hospitality, and for not just being hosts, but active especially the disadvantaged. participants in everything that we have done here. A heart-felt thank you to our colleagues from Kenya. Mr. Someone told me earlier that they noticed the Ndiritu, I hope you will carry our thanks to each and emergence of a common vocabulary, that people were every one of the members of the National Organizing genuinely concerned about the environment, about Committee. poverty, about the disadvantaged, and about food security, and that all of this permeated the discussions I would be remiss if I did not also extend warm in a way that was natural and unforced. That is most thanks to our interpreters, who have been working hard encouraging for me because that is what we are here and long and are seldom thought of when we get into for. our deliberations. I would also like to say that many people have made it possible for us to meet our I used to say to this Group that what we are here deadlines and our milestones. We thanked earlier the for is to make the work of the Centers possible, to make Committees, Task Forces, TAC, and the Secretariats for the work of the staff in the Centers possible. I am the work that they have done in collapsing the time delighted to see that beyond this the reason we are frame for preparing the agenda, and we recognize the here is because we share the same dedication to the quality of the documents and the heroic effort that was ultimate objectives for which the Centers are working: done. I would like to extend a special thanks to all the the welfare of the poor and of future generations. men and women who have worked tirelessly day and night-and believe me, I know because I called them I thank you very much, all of you, for your unstinting up during this week at 1:00 a.m. to get certain things commitment to this goal and this objective. Mr. Jomo done for me, so I know that they have been up day and Kenyata, the founder of modern Kenya, said in his book night tirelessly on this-it is they who have kept the Facing Mount Kenya that a nation’s land should be agenda alive, who have made all these logistics possible, tended with love and care, because it sustains us from who have produced the documents, who have kept childhood to death and beyond. While acknowledging everything going smoothly, and without whom all of his wisdom, we can extend that principle to all the Earth’s this would not have been possible. I extend a warm resources. Let us respect and protect them, while at thanks, therefore, to the CGIAR Secretariat and to the same time striving to ensure that the hungry are fed everybody who has made this work possible. and that the poor are sustained. We owe much to our own generation, but we owe even more to the Now, my friends, as we clear this fourth milestone generations yet to come. toward renewal, it is very gratifying for me personally to hear the kind words that have been expressed toward Sustained by the spirit of Lucerne and now me. I take it as a vote of confidence to continue in our reinvigorated by the spirit of Nairobi, we will move on. current direction. I reaffirm what I have told you before, I look forward to meeting you at ICW in Washington in that I am here as your ambassador to others, I am here October. Until then, I bid you all good journeys, and to help clarify where the common ground exists, and to thank you very much. 57 58 Section V Annexes 59 60 Annex1 The Nairobi Agenda MONDAI: MAY22, 1995 KENYA DAY TUESDAY, MAY23,1995 DAY’S THEME: POST-LUCERNE PRIORITIES Formal Opening Session l Welcome-Ismail Serageldin, Chairman, CGIAR l Address by 2. T. Onyonka, Minister of Research, Technical Training, and Technology l Vote of Thanks to Speaker-Ruben Olembo, Deputy Executive Director, UNEP Opening of Business Sessions 1. Adoption of Agenda 2. (a> CGIAR Chairman’s Statement: Beyond LucerneFrom Decisions To Actions (b) Discussion (c> Chairman’s Summation Slide Presentation 3. Strengthening Evaluation in the CGIAR (a) Introductory Remarks-Chairman, CGIAR (b) Report from Impact Assessment Task Force-Iain MacGillivray, Task Force Chair (c> TAC Perspective-Don Winkelmann, TAC Chair (d) Discussion (e) Chairman’s Summation 4. The CGIAR Research Agenda: Premises and Context (a> Introductory Remarks-Don Winkelmann, TAC Chair (b) Discussion 61 WEDNESDAY, MAY 24,1995 DAY’S THEME: THE CGIAR RESEARCH AGENDA 5. Genetic Resources Issues -Report by R/l. S. Swaminathan, Chair, Genetic Resources Policy Committee 6. Research Priorities for Sustainable Agriculture -Report by Rudy Rabbinge, Chair, Task Force on Sustainable Agriculture 7. The Ecoregional Approach to Research -Report by Cyrus Ndiritu, Chair, Task Force on Econoregional Approaches to Research Slide Presentation 8. The 1996 CGIAR Research Agenda (a) Introductory Remarks-Don Winkelmann, TAC Chair (b) Discussion 9. Adoption of the 1996 Research Agenda 10. 1996 Funding Requirements THURSDAY, MAY 25,1995 DAY’S THEME: STRENGTHENING EVALUATION PARALLEL SESSIONS OF STANDING AND AD HOC COMMI’ITEES 11. Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee I -External Review of CIP -External Review of CIAT 12. Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee II -Strengthening External Reviews-Revision of Terms of Reference of External Program and Management Reviews of Centers (Proposals by TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat) -Review of CGIAR Commitments in West Africa -Mid-Term Review of ICLARM 62 13. Oversight Committee Meeting 14. Finance Committee Meeting WDAY, MAY 26,1995 IAY’S THEME: INTEGRATING DECISIONS WITH ACTIONS ‘ARALLEL SESSIONS CONTINUED MORNING -5. Reports from Ad Hoc Committees (a> Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee I (CIP, CIAT) (b1 Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee II (Strengthening External Reviews, West Africa, ICLARM) -6. Reports from Standing Committees (a) Oversight Committee-Paul Egger, Chair (b) Finance Committee-Michel Petit, Chair (c) TAC Activities-Don Winkelmann, TAC Chair 7. Approval of Funding Requirements for the 1996 Research Agenda Jide Presentation 4FiTRNOON 8. Other Business -Report on IFPRI’s Vision 2020 Initiative-Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General, IFPRI 9. Conclusions and Decisions (a) Proposals on Evaluation Function (b) Proposals on the CGIAR NGO and Private Sector Committees (c> Future Meetings IO. Chairman’s Closing Statement 63 64 Annex II Opening Statement by the Hon. 2. T. Onyonka, Minister for Research, Technical Training, and Technology, Government of Kenya Chairman of the CGIAR, Executive Director of when we were losing hope. Mr. Chairman, we thank UNEP, Government Representatives, Directors of you and appeal to you to keep up this commendable International Agricultural Research Centers, work. Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen: Kenya is proud to be host to two of the 16 Centers, On behalf of the Government and People of Kenya, ILRI and ICRAF, in addition to hosting the regional it gives me great pleasure to welcome you all to Kenya offices of various other CGIAR Centers. We thank the and to this year’s Mid-Term Meeting of the CGIAR. It Group and the Center Directors for the confidence is, indeed, a great honor to the Government and People they have shown in our nation and in the African region of Kenya for you to have chosen Nairobi as the venue as a whole. for this meeting. As a non-political body, the CGIAR brings together Mr. Chairman? now that you are in Kenya, it is international agricultural research centers, NARS, and only fair that you spare some time to see Kenya’s other research organizations, and creates the necessary natural heritage and interact with our people. I can environment that facilitates the pursuit of national assure you that none will be disappointed, as I believe objectives and programs to address individual priorities. Kenya has a great deal to offer our visitors. However, in order to reap maximum benefits through this networking, it is important that national The ideals that led to the establishment of the governments in developing countries set their CGIAR in 1971 are as relevant today as they were 25 agricultural research priorities clearly. years ago. The main objective of setting up this institution was to promote agricultural productivity in Agriculture is the mainstay of the economies of the developing world. This objective is more pertinent the developing world. This is particularly so in Sub- today than it may have been in 1971 because we have Saharan Africa, where 80 percent of the population more food deficits now. For this reason, the CGIAR derives their livelihood from agriculture. The sector remains a major catalyst in international agricultural also contributes 32 percent of GDP, employs 70 percent research. In this regard, we are happy to note that of the labor force, and produces 70 percent of exports. funding is steadily climbing and has now reached $270 million in support of a network of 16 international High population growth rates and sluggish agricultural research centers, most of which are in agricultural growth have led to decreased per capita developing countries. food production, which has occasioned food imports by economies that can hardly afford this luxury. As a This achievement has come through the efforts result of the high costs of food imports, many and individual contributions of members of the CGIAR. developing economies have experienced serious In this connection: we owe special appreciation to Mr. problems. This situation is likely to get worse in the Ismail Serageldin for rejuvenating the CGIAR at a time future, because in the next three decades food needs 65 in Africa will triple and per capita arable land will materials. There are dangers that one part of the work seriously decline. To sustain economic growth, could own most of the living materials that are critica agricultural production will have to grow at 4 percent for the survival of the human race. If pushed tc per annum while, at the same time, sustaining the extremes, this could undermine a region’s access tc natural resource base. critical inputs to livelihood. Food self-sufficiency must be encouraged and Biotechnology, in particular, is one technology tha supported. In this context, the question of economic is likely to remain in the hands of the developed North liberalization is a matter that each nation must address With the exception of simple techniques, the poo carefully, so as not to create dependency upon food South will be hard pressed to produce transgenic plant imports which our developing economies can ill afford. and animals. The CGIAR and its Centers are the onl; hope of NARS in developing countries accessin) The mission of the CGIAR is the alleviation of beneficial genetically-engineered organisms ant poverty, the optimal management of natural resources, processes. The question that needs to be addressee and the protection of genetic resources and by all those concerned is how to avoid overprice< biodiversity. The mission of the ?iARS is the technologies in the area of food production. development and transfer of viable and sustainable technologies for increased agricultural production by Structural adjustment programs also require carefu focusing on rural development, equity, and gender consideration, particularly with reference to food self issues. The two missions are, as such, complementary sufficiency and marketing. In a situation when to each other. governments of developing countries are unable tc invest in agricultural research and productivity, then We are aware that the CGIAR’s budget of $270 is a likelihood of dependency upon food imports million is small and its personnel limited in numbers. Therefore, in order to fulfill its mandate, the CGIAR Unfortunately, given the reliance of poor nations upor needs to enlist the collaboration of NARS to create a exports of raw materials, one can envisage a situatior synergism that will benefit both parties. In other words, in a bad year when a country is unable to pay for foot without the effective participation and management imports. This would lead to a dependency on foot of NARS, the CGIAR cannot achieve its goals. aid. Whatever we do, agricultural production and foot self-sufficiency must remain the top priority o. Agricultural development cannot be addressed in developing nations and the world as a whole. isolation. Population growth in developing countries The partnership between the CGIAR and NARS i: has contributed much to low economic growth. It is of great significance to agricultural production. CGIAF both critical and urgent that population increases are Centers bring into NARS technologies and experience: not allowed to reach levels at which a country becomes that would otherwise be unavailable. For this reason incapable of feeding itself. Agricultural land the two must continuously hold dialogue on issue: fragmentation can also lead to low productivity. These such as: critical threats to development need to be addressed by all those concerned if we are to avoid a rapid l Identification and prioritization of the agricultura depletion of the resource base, particularly of land research agenda. and water. l Development of demand-driven tech-nologie: The widening technology gap between developed and processes. and developing countries needs to be addressed for the sake of humanity. In particular, we must address l Appropriate linkages between research ant the question of property rights as it relates to living smallholders. 66 l Improving agricultural adaptive research funding of the latter have played very important roles in the for the solution of identified problems. development of high-yielding varieties and production technologies. These include: These issues are, for us, critical to agricultural productivity. They must, therefore, be discussed and CIMIMYT for maize and wheat resolved if we are to enable farmers to overcome food production problems. CIP for Irish potatoes If we are to increase and sustain agricultural CIAT for beans productivity, we must ensure that we safeguard our natural resources and exploit them in an ICRISAT for sorghum, millet, pigeon pea, environmentally sustainable manner. We should chickpea, and groundnut facilitate the mobilization of people and resources in IITA for root and tuber crops (mainly cassava a manner that exploits both indigenous knowledge and sweet potato) and modern science. For this to happen, we need to establish effective partnerships between all ILRI for diagnostic tools and technologies in stakeholders, namely: animal health International agricultural research centers ICRAF for technologies in agroforestry National agricultural research systems ICIPE for technologies to control insect pests Policymakers ISNAR for tools and technologies in agricultural Private sector research management Farmers We hope that our partners in this collaboration have also benefited from us. We, therefore, intend to Past experience indicates that serious gaps exist continue with these collaborative relationships and that have made it impossible for us to benefit fully hope that, by becoming a member of the CGIAR, we from investments in agricultural research. It is in this shall not only benefit further from the global research context that the CGIAR is an important actor in creating system, but also contribute to it. linkages between the crucial partners. It is my hope that this meeting will discuss all the pertinent issues affecting agriculture and the utilization of technology Ladies and Gentlemen what we need is a meaningful emanating from agricultural research. In our efforts to partnership between developed and developing countries expand agricultural productivity, the tendency is the in an effort to feed the world. We need to put different use of more and more agrochemicals. The use of experiences together in order to develop the best chemicals has a negative impact on the environment; mechanisms for increasing agricultural productivity to therefore, ways and means should be found to address meet the rising demand for food. Mr. Chairman, Kenya the issues related to pest management. assures you of its full support and collaboration in the pursuit of our common goal. Mr. Chairman, Kenya has benefited tremendously from close collaboration among the Kenyan national With these remarks, it is now my pleasure to declare agricultural research system, the CGIAR System, and the Mid-Term Meeting of the CGIAR officially open. other international research organizations. While the Thank you. & Kenyan NARS collaborates with nearly all Centers, some 67 68 Annex III List of Documents Document Number Document Title MTM/95/01/Rev.l Draft Program iMTM,‘95/02 Provisional Draft Agenda MTM,‘95/03 Annotated Agenda rMTlM/95/04/Rev. 1 List of Documents MTM/95/05 Financial Requirements of the 1996 CGIAR Research Agenda Center I996 Program Plans and Funding Requirements will be circulated by individual Centers MTM/95/06 Report of the 7th Meeting of the Oversight Committee MTM,‘95/07 Report of the 5th Meeting of the Finance Committee MTM/95/08 Report of the 6th Meeting of the Finance Committee MTlM/95/09 Report of the CGIAR Task Force on Ecoregional Approaches to Research 1MTMi95/10 Report of the CGIAR Task Force on Sustainable Agriculture MTM/95/11 Review Processes in the CGIAR: Terms of Reference and Guidelines for External Program and Management Reviews of CGIAR Centers MTM/95/12 Kenya Day: Visit to Katumani Research Center MTM/95/13/Rev Schedule of Events MTM/95/16 Genetic Resources Policy Committee MTM/95/‘17 Report of the Task Force on Impact Assessment SDR/TAC:IAIU95/10 The 1996 CGIAR Research Agenda SDR/TAC:IAR:95/4 CIAT External Program and Management Review SDF&‘TAC:IAR:95/3 CIP External Program and IManagement Review SDR/TAC:IAR’95/2 ICLARM Mid-Term Review AGR/‘TAC:IAR/94/15.1 CGIAR Regional Commitments: West Africa Study AGR/‘TAC:IAR/95/1.1 Report of the 65th Meeting of TAC 69 Annex IV List of Participants CHAIRMAN Ralph Gretzmacher Head Ismail Serageldin Agronomy Department Vice President University of Agriculture The World Bank Group Washington, DC Belgium Luc Sas DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE CGIAR Officer/Senior Agricultural Adviser CONSULTATIVE GROUP Belgian Administration for Development Cooperation (BADC) African Development Bank (AfDB) Canada M. Futa Chief Iain C. MacGillivray Agriculture and Rural Development Division Senior Programme Manager Food Aid Centre, Multilateral Programmes Armstrong Khoza Branch Principal Agronomist Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Australia C8te d’Ivoire Eric T. Craswell Research Programme Coordinator Bakary V. Ouayogode Australian Centre for International Agricultural Director of Research Research (ACIAR) iMinistry of Higher Education and Research Robin D. Graham Denmark Professor University of Adelaide Ebbe Schioler Adviser Austria Ministry of Foreign Affairs Danish International Development Assistance Alfred Just (Danida) Counsellor Ministry of Finance 71 %YPt Odile PomarPde-Jouanneau Adviser Fade1 A. Bedewi Ministry of Foreign Affairs Minister Plenipotentiary Embassy of Egypt, Nairobi Rolland Guis Adviser European Community (EC) Ministry of Cooperation Uwe Werblow Germany Head of Division Rural Development and Agricultural Research H. Jochen de Haas Head of Division F. J. Tilak Viegas Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Senior Scientific Administrator Development (BMZ) Finland J”ur g en Frie ’ d ric’ h sen Head of Division Kaisa Karttunen German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) Agricultural Adviser Ministry for Foreign Affairs Ekkehard Kurschner Coordinator, International Agricultural Research Food and Agriculture Organization of the German Council for Tropical and Subtropical United Nations (FAO) Agricultural Research (ATSAF) Henri Carsalade India Assistant Director General Sustainable Development Department Krishnan-La1 Chadha Deputy Director General Stein W. Bie Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Director Research, Extension, and Training Division Indonesia Ford Foundation Faisal Kasryno Director General E. Walter Coward, Jr. Agency for Agricultural Research and Director Development (AARD) Rural Poverty and Resources Program Ministry of Agriculture Deborah Merrill-Sands Boen M. Purnama Consultant Researcher Agency for Forest Research and Development France Bernard Bachelier Principal Adviser Research for Development 72 International Development Research Centre Keiji Kainuma (DRC) Director General Japan International Research Center for Joachim Voss Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) Director Sustainable Production Systems Masahito Sato Chief, International Relations Luis A. Navarro JIRCAS Senior Programme Specialist Kenya Eva M. Rathgeber Regional Director 2. T. Onyonka Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa Minister for Research, Technical Training, and Technology International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Simeon Nyachae Minister for Agriculture, Livestock, and Marketing Shiv Nath Saigal Director Karega Mutahi Technical Advisory Division Permanent Secretary Ministry of Research, Technical Training, and John F. A. Russell Technology Technical Adviser (Consultant) Peter Wambura Italy Permanent Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Marketing Roberto Di Leo Ambassador to Kenya Charles M. Kange Head Afra Fiachetti Economic and Trade Division Attache Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Embassy of Italy, Nairobi Cooperation Japan Wellington Nguio Director Ryotoro Suzuki Ministry of Research, Technical Training, and Deputy Director Technology Ministry of Foreign Affairs Cyrus Ndiritu Kunio Nakamura Director Assistant Director Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (JXARI) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Matthias Wanyama Oggema Nobuhiko Kaho Director of Agriculture Assistant Director Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries and Marketing 73 A.M. Mailu John K. Lynam Deputy Director Senior Scientist KARI Spain Grace Kimani Public Relations Officer Alicia Villauriz Iglesias KARI Director General National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) Luxembourg Eloy Ramos Rodriguez Georges A. Heinen Deputy Director Government Adviser INIA The Netherlands Sweden Rob D. van den Berg Carl-Gustaf Thornstroem Head Head Research Programme Rural Development and Environment Ministry of Foreign Affairs Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries (SAREC) Willem van Vuure Senior Scientific Officer for International Relations Ulf Svensson Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management, and Assistant Under-Secretary Fisheries Ministry for Foreign Affairs Marjolijn van Deelen Switzerland Project Officer Ministry of Foreign Affairs Paul Egger Head Norway Agricultural Service Swiss Development Cooperation and Ruth Haug Humanitarian Aid (SD0 Scientific Adviser Jurg S. Benz The Philippines Deputy Head Agricultural Services Manuel M. Lantin SDC Undersecretary Department of Agriculture United Kingdom Rockefeller Foundation Ian H. Haines Deputy Chief Natural Resources Adviser Robert W. Herdt Natural Resources and Research Department Director Overseas Development Administration CODA) Agricultural Sciences 74 Robert Carlisle John Lewis Natural Resources and Research Department Director ODA Office of Agriculture and Food Security Economic Growth Center United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) USAID Timothy S. Rothermel Robert B. Bertram Director IARC Program Manager Division for Science, Technology, and Private Bureau for Research and Development Sector USAID Chinwe Dike Dana G. Dalrymple Project Management Officer Research Adviser, IARC Staff Bureau for Research and Development United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) USAID Reuben Olembo World Bank Deputy Executive Director Michel Petit Jaime Hurtubia Director Biodiversity Programme Manager Agricultural Research and Extension Group Environmentally Sustainable Development Carlos Zulberti (ESDAR) Chief Corporate Planning and Accountability Service Gabrielle Persley Science Adviser Timo Maukonen ESDAR Senior Programme Officer Harvey D. Blackburn H. N. B. Gopalan Adviser Programme Officer ESDAR Jinhua Zhang Henri Rouille D’Orfeuil Programme Officer Adviser ESDAR United States Sarwat Hussain Sally Shelton External Affairs Officer Assistant Administrator Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 75 Representing Africa (Ghana and Zimbabwe) Representing the Middle East and North Africa (Iran and Egypt) Ntombara Regina Gata Deputy Director Ali Ahoonmanesh Department of Research and Specialized Services Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Head Zimbabwe Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization Representing Asia/Pacific (Malaysia and Nepal) Iran Saharan Haji Anang Abdel-Salam A. Gomaa Deputy Director General Director MARDI Headquarters Agricultural Research Centre: GIZA IMalaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Egypt Shiva Bahadur Nepali Pradhan Executive Director Nepal Agricultural Research Council INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAI. Nepal RESEARCH CENTERS Representing Europe (The Czech Republic and Centro International de Agricultura Tropical Estonia) (Cfi’O Josef Vlk Lucia de Vaccaro Head of Department Extension Service Board Chair Czech Agrarian Chamber Ministry of Agriculture Robert D. Havener The Czech Republic Interim Director General Representing Latin America and The Caribbean Grant M. Scobie (Chile and El Salvador) Director General Designate Primo Accatino L. William Scowcroft Director Deputy Director General, Research International Cooperation Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA) Center for International Forestry Research Chile (CIFOR) Francisco R. Arias Bo Bengtsson Executive Director Board Chair Center of Agricultural Technology (CENTA) El Salvador Jeffrey Sayer Director General 76 Dennis P. Dykstra Meryl Williams Director Director General Natural Forest Ecology and Management International Centre for Research in Agroforestry Godwin S. Kowero (ICY) Senior Scientist Pedro Sanchez Michael J. Spilsbury Director General Scientist, Impact Assessment Robert Bruce Scott Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Deputy Director General Trig0 (CIMMYT) Roger R. B. Leakey P. Roger Rowe Director of Research Acting Director General Michael K. Klass Tiff Harris Director of Finance and Administration Director, Information Ester Zulberti Centro International de la Papa (CIP) Director of Training and Information Martha ter Kuile Madeleine Shearer Board Chair Public Affairs Officer Hubert Zandstra International Crops Research Institute for the Director General Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Peter Gregory Eric H. Roberts Deputy Director General, Research Board Chair International Center for Agricultural Research in James G. Ryan the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Director General Alfred Bronnimann Yeshwant Nene Board Chair Deputy Director General Adel El-Beltagy Eric McGaw Director General Public Awareness Officer International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Stan King Management (ICLARM) Nairobi Country Representitive John Dillon Board Chair 77 International Food Policy Research Institute Ralph von Kaufmann mpm Interim Director, Donor Secretariat David Bell Robert M. Eley Board Chair Education Officer Per Pinstrup-Anderson Susan MacMillan Director General Science Writer Philip G. Pardey Inca Alipui Research Fellow Editor/Writer International Irrigation Management Institute International Plant Genetic Resources Institute mm (pGR.0 Leslie D. Swindale Wanda W Collins Board Chair Board Chair Randolph Barker Geoffrey Hawtin Interim Director General Director General David Seckler Frank Attere Director General Designate Regional Director, Sub-Saharan Africa International Institute of Tropical Agriculture International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (~‘=I George H. L. Rothschild Pierre Dubreuil Director General Board Chair International Service for National Agricultural Lukas Brader Research (ISNAR) Director General Charles E. Hess The International Livestock Research Institute Board Chair oJ.Jw Christian H. Bonte-Friedheim Seville P. Clarke Director General Board Chair Douglas Horton Hank Fitzhugh Senior Officer Director General 78 West Africa Rice Development Association Jean-Pierre Jacqmotte (WA==) Senior Finance Officer Just Faaland Selcuk Ozgediz Chairman Management Adviser Eugene R. Terry Guy Andre Rocheteau Director General Research Specialist Robin C. Lemp Ravi Tadvalkar Special Assistant to the Director General Principal Finance Officer Henrich von Loesch TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Information Adviser Donald Winkelmann Zarine Vania Chair Senior Staff Assistant Richard Musangi OBSERVERS Nakuru, Kenya Yahia Bakour Director General TAC SECRETARIAT Arab Organization for Agricultural Development (AOAD) Guido Gryseels Officer-in-Charge H. S. Hofmeyr Chief Director Amir H. Kassam Farming Development Senior Agricultural Research Officer Department of Agriculture South Africa CGLAR SECRETARIAT Stanley Kunjeku First Secretary Alexander von der Osten Zimbabwe High Commission, Nairobi Executive Secretary Ernest Corea OTHER PARTICIPANTS Senior Information Officer Michael Collinson Patricia Davies Consultant Conferences Adviser Hilary S. Feldstein Frona Hall Leader, Gender Analysis Conference Officer CGIAR Gender Program Richard J. S. Gutman Consultant 79 Kellie Gutman Mbaye Ndiaga Consultant Executive Secretary Conference of African Agronomic Research Hans Herren Authorities (CORAF) Director General International Centre of Insect Physiology and Rhoda Odingo Ecology (ICIPE) Director General’s Office ICIPE Gary Hill Regional Representative Remedios P. Ortega Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences Senior Public Relations Officer International (CABI) ICIPE Marc Latham Rudy Rabbinge Director General Chair International Board for Soil Research Task Force on Sustainable Agriculture and Management (IBSRAM) Michael J. Swift David R. MacKenzie Director Chair Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility (TSBF) Review Panel on CIP Vinod Tandon John McIntire Director Chair Management Review Panel on CGIAR Commitments in ICIPE West Africa Moctar Tour6 Annalee N. Mengech Executive Secretary Head SPAAR Science Editing ICIPE Declan Walton Chair Uzo A. Mokwunye Review Panel on CIAT Director-Africa International Fertilizer Development E. T. York, Jr. Center (IFDC) Chair Review Panel on ICLARM Joseph K. Mukiibi Chair Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) 80