22737 Public Disclosure Authorized Summary of Proceedings and Decisions July 2000
MTM 2000 Dresden, Germany May 21-26, 2000 Public Disclosure Authorized
Charting the CGIAR.'sFuture A New Vision for 2010 Public Disclosure Authorized
4 ~FILE COPY CGIAR UV Public Disclosure Authorized Consultative (Troup on International Agricultural Research CGIAR Centers
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Cali, COLOMBIA
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) * Jakarta, INDONESIA
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) - Mexico City, MEXICO
Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) * Lima, PERU
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Aleppo, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) * Penang, MALAYSIA
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) * Nairobi, KENYA
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) * Patancheru. INDIA
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) - Washington, DC, USA
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) -Ibadan, NIGERIA
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) * Nairobi, KENYA
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) * Rome, ITALY
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) * Los Banos, PHILIPPINES
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) * The Hague, NETHERLANDS
International Water Management Institute (IWMI) - Colombo, SRI LANKA
West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) - Bouake, COTE D'IVOIRE CGIAR2000 Mid-TermMeeting Dresden, Germany, May 21-26
Summaryof Proceedingsand Decisions
Charting the CGIAR 's Future A New Vision for 2010
Issued by the CGIAR Secretariat
The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW, Washington,DC 20433 * USA Telephone:1-202-473-8951 * Fax: 1-202-473-8110 E-mail:cgiar@cgiar.org or [email protected] www.cgiar.org
July 2000
Contents
I. Overview ...... 6
If. MajorDecisions ...... 8
III. Host CountryProgram ...... 10
TV. Summaryof Proceedings...... 11 Chairman's Welcome Statement ...... 13 Chairman'sOpening Remarks...... 15 Chairman's Announcements ...... 20 (Box: Chairman's Propositions) ...... 24 A New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR ...... 25 Global Forun on Agricultural Research (GFAR) ...... 34 Longer-term Financing Strategy...... 36 CGIAR Impact: Seminar on CGIAR's Impact on Germplasm Improvement ...... 38 1999 Financial Outcomes and 2000 Progress Report ...... 41 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda and Funding Requirements ...... 43 External Program and Management Reviews ...... 44 Report from the CGIAR Centers ...... 47 Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Commnittees ...... 49 Future CGIAR Meetings ...... 54 Other Business ...... 55 >- Interational Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.55...... 55 Chairman's Summation, MTM2000 ...... 56 Chairman's Farewell Comments ...... 59
V. Annexes ...... 67 MTM Agenda ...... 68 List of Documents ...... 70 List of Participants ...... 71 Committee Reports ...... 88 >- Highlights of Cosponsors Meeting ...... 88 >- Report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Oversight Commnittee ...... 90 >- Report of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Finance Committee ...... 94 >- Report of the Genetic Resources Policy committee ...... 102 >- Report of the NGO Connittee Meeting ...... 104 >- Report of the twelfth Meeting of the Private Sector Committee ...... 119 >- Report of the Science Partnership Commnittee ...... 123
___ eCGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting 01vE a1 I Ew
Overview
The CGIAR Mid-TennMeeting (M'M2000)will best be rememberedas a criticalmeeting to map the future of the CGIAR. A new CGIARvision, emphasizingboth the poverty aspectsof CGIARscientific research and the opportunitiesoffered by modern science,was adopted. Building on the leadershipof the TechnicalAdvisory Committee (TAC) and the endorsementand action proposalsof the ConsultativeCouncil, the Group laidthe groundworkfor a vibrant and effective CGIARfor the 21st Century.What emergedafter three daysof plenary and parallelsessions in Dresden was a process to move the CGIARfrom vision to action and recreate the Systemas an effectiveinstrunent for the future.
ChairmanIsmail Serageldin highlighted the momentouschanges in almostall aspectsof the human conditionthat affector are affectedby the CGIAR work.These developments- from the private sector'sincreasing activity in agriculturalresearch, to the intensecompetition for traditional funding,to the implicationsof restrictivenational and internationalarrangements that governaccess to germplasm- have profound irplications for the CGIAR. Three decadesago, at a time of fear and pessimismabout the fate and future of millionsin disadvantagedregions of the world,the founders of the CGIAR actedwith faith, hope, and a powerfulvision. Today, the Chairmansaid, Membersare being calledon to againshape the CGIARin the context of these new challenges.
As part of his openingstatement to MTM,Mr. Serageldinannounced that he has decidedto relinquishhis position as a WorldBank Vice Presidentand, consequently,as CGIAR Chair.Ian Johnson, a respected friendand colleaguewho is BankVice President for Environmentallyand Socialy SustainableDevelopment, is the CGIARChair-designate.
Followingthe Chairman'spresentation, Oversight Committee Chairman Andrew Bennett suggested- and Membersunanimously agreed- that Mr. Serageldinshould be honored at a special symposiumnat ICW2000.
6 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 AVu7 m r n CGIAR 2000 , AV Mid-Term Meeting .__ g .. ,%O ELsec~~~~~~~lbln MA JOB EC IS IONIS Major Decisions
1. CGIAR Leadership. The Group accepted also endorsed the allocation of World Bank funds Chairman Ismail Serageldin'sdecision to relinquish proposed by the Finance Committee.(pp. 41-42.) his position as World Bank Vice President and consequently,as CGIAR Chair, and welcomedthe 8. 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda. The Group announcementof Ian Johnson, Bank Vice President approved the substance of the 2001 Research for Environmentallyand SociallySustainable Deve- Agenda recommended by TAC and the Finance lopment,as CGIARChair-designate. (p. 15.) Committee's proposal that financial planning for 2001 be undertaken in the context of the $340 2. New Vision and Strategy. The Group adopted millionfunding target. (p. 43.) the seven planks of TAC's proposed new vision statement, broadly endorsed the definition of the 9. External Programand Management Reviews. heartland, adopted follow up arrangements and a The Group considered the External Program and timetable for exploring structural changes, and Management Reviews for ICARDA, IWMI, and expressed a desire to discuss options at ICW2000. WARDA, and endorsed the ad hoc committee's (pp. 25-33.) conclusionsand recommendations.(pp. 44-46.)
3. Longer-TermFinancing Strategy. The Group 10. Special Honors. The Group unanimously unanimouslyaffirmed the need for a global public approved resolutionsto honor Henri Carsalade,Paul awareness/resource mobilization effort, endorsed Egger, Miguel Altienr, and Frona Hall for their the concept of the CGIAR/Future Harvest contributionsand serviceto the CGIAR. (pp. 21-22.) Foundation, and requestedthat a businessplan and final proposal on structure be presented at 11. Future CGLARmeetings. The Group agreed ICW2000.(pp. 36-37.) on the following dates and locations of future CGIARmeetings. (p. 54.) 4. Global Forum on AgriculturalResearch. The Group received the report on the Global Forum, ICW2000 October 23-25...... Washington, DC reaffirmedthe strong ties that exist between GEAR ICW2001 October29-Novemer 2.... Washington, DC andthe CGIAR,and agreedto reviewmore specific MTM2002 May 2 7-31 ...... To be determined aspectsof that relationshipafter the completionof ICW2002 October 28-November 1...Washington, DC the GFAR externalreview. (pp. 34-35.) 12. Genetic Resources. The Group expressed 5. Report from the Centers. The Group received concem that the lack of an internationalagreement the Centers' report on programmaticdevelopments on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and m the System and the Public Awareness and benefit-sharingfor genetic resources for food and ResourceMobilization Comrnittee's report on public agriculture poses a major threat to the future of awarenessand resourcemobilization (pp. 47-48.) international agriculturalresearch. Reaffirming the importanceof GFAR's Dedarationo Plat Geetic 6. 1999Financial Outcome. The Groupadopted Resounes for Food and Agricuov, the Group the Finance Comnmittee'sreport on the 1999 encouraged individual members to bring the financial outcome. In 1999, funding totaled $330 Declarationto the attention of appropriateauthorities million,a decreaseof $10 millionfrom the approved and to utilize additional technical information financingplan. The primary reason for the shortfall availablethrough IPGRI. (p. 55.) was the default, due to proceduralmishaps, by the European Commission on its 1999 commitment of 13. TAC and Oversight Comrnmittee.The Group $16 milion. (pp. 41-42.) approved the two-yearextension of TAC Members Joachim von Braun and Richard Harwood, and 7. 2000 Progress Report. The Group receivedthe welcomed new members of the Oversight Finance Conmnittee'sreport that the outlook for Committee - Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli, Ruth Haug, 2000 continued to be stable at the level of the Emmy Sinmmons,Gilles St. Martin, Juan Restrepo, approvedfinancing plan of $340million. The Group and Zhao Longyue.(pp. 49-53)
8 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting HO ST CO UN TR Y PI 0 BRAM
Host Countty Program
In ceremonies at Schloss Albrechtsberg, the Honorable Kurt Biedenkopf, Prime Minister of the Free State of Saxony, warmly welcomed the CGIAR to Dresden for MTM2000. Dr. Biedenkopf emphasized that the city of Dresden was honored to host the important international meetings of the CGIAR and GFAR. He emphasized Germany's support for the goal of making knowledge-intensive agriculture accessible to smallholder farmers in developing countries.
The Honorable Erich Stather, Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, addressed the formal opening of MTM2000. He reiterated Germany's support for the CGIAR and expressed hope that Germany can step up its financial support in the near future as budgetary deficits are overcome. Food security is a human right, he said, and the CGIAR renewal is a response to this challenge.
Mr. Serageldin thanked the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development for hosting the meeting, and the Free State of Saxony for its hospitality. Germany was a founding Member of the CGIAR and has provided the System with strong intellectual leadership and support throughout the CGIAR's existence. The System and the individual Centers have benefited from the enduring links with various German agencies and institutions responsible for managing Germany's CGIAR Mernbership. Currently Germany's voice is heard through the head of the German delegation, Mr. Jochen de Haas, a respected and admired colleague who has made valuable contributions to CGIAR discussions and decision-making.
Mr. Serageldin said that Germany has been and remains involved in almost every aspect of the work of the CGIAR. German nationals have served on Center boards, as heads of CGIAR Centers, on external review panels of CGIAR Centers, on the System Review panel, and on CGIAR committees. The executive secretary of the CGIAR, Alexander von der Osten, who has held the position with dignity and distinction for over ten years, is a German national.
MTM2000 was the CGIAR's second meeting in Germany. The first, held in Berlin in 1988, saw the CGIAR begin a cyde of change as the Group reaffirmed sustainability as part of the CGIAR's mission. An inquiry into whether the mandate of the CGIAR should specificallyinclude a number of areas connected with natural resource management was launched. As a result of that inquiry, the Group decided that productivity and environmental research should be twin pillars of the CGIAR agenda. Several non-CGIAR Centers, whose work focused on those research areas, were consequently inducted into the System. Mr. Serageldin noted that it is fitting that the CGIAR should again be in Germany as the System approaches another cycle of renewal for the new millennium.
10 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 Summa"lt$tt$"CGIAR 2000
Mid-TermMeeting oftn n Procee ing
SI1MANY Of PUOCEENINGS
Chairman'sWelcome Statement
Good morning,ladies and gentlemen.Welcome to the first meetingof the CGIAR in the new millennium.
I thank the Government of Germanyfor invitingus to meet in historic Dresden, and for the arrangementsthat have been made to provide us with a settingsuitable for deliberationsand decisions that will affectand determinethe future of the CGIAR.
I extend an especiallywarm welcometo Mr. Erich Stather, Secretaryof State in the Federal Ministryfor EconomicCooperation and Development,and all his colleagueswho serve as the hosts of this meeting.They have made us feelvery much at ease.
I partcularly want to thank our German colleagueJochen de Haas, and representativesof BEAF who have had to cope with a range of logisticalmatters, including the influxof some 400 colleagues attendingGFAR. They carriedout all their responsibilitiescompetently and without complaint.I invite you to join me in expressingour appreciationto Mr. Stather,Mr. De Haas, and all others who have toiled so hard on our behalf.
I thank you, personally,Mr. Stather,for takingtime from your many duties of state to join us at our openingsession, and to shareyour thoughts with us. Mr. Statheris a versatilepublic figurewho has reachedhis currentposition after a multifacetedcareer in the private sector,the public sector,and politics at both the state and federallevels. His experienceincludes successful management of a varietyof public awarenessprograms. I hope you will sharethose talents with the CGIAR, Mr. Stather, so that our work might be better known in your country and, thereby, Germany'ssupport for internationalagricultural researchprotected.
Germanywas a foundingMember of the CGIAR.Throughout the existenceof this Group, Germanyhas providedthe CGIARSystem with strong intellectualleadership and support. The System and individualCenters appreciatethe enduringlinks that have developedover the yearswith the various German agenciesand institutionsresponsible for managingGermany's CGIAR Membership.The voice of Germany receivescareful attention at this table.Currently, that voice is heard through the head of the Germandelegation, Jochen de Haas, who is respected and admiredby his colleagues.We value his interventions,and enjoyhis company.
Moreover,Germany has been and remainsinvolved in almostevery aspect of the work of the CGIAR.German nationalshave served or continueto serveon Center boards, as heads of CGIAR Centers,on extemalreview panelsof CGIARCenters, on the SystemReview panel, and on CGIAR commrittees.The executivesecretary of the CGIAR,Alexander von der Osten, who has held that position with dignityand distinctionfor over ten years, is a German nationalas well.
So we are all well connected.
Ladiesand gentlemen.
Many of you no doubt recallthat we last met in Germanytwelve years ago, in Berlin,where we began a cycleof renewal.Sustainability was reaffirmed as part of the CGIAR System'smission, and we launchedan inquiryinto whetherthe mandate of the CGIAR shouldspecifically include a number of subjectareas, most of them connectedwith naturalresources management, that were the focus of work at ten non-CGIARCenters. As a result of that inquiry,we decidedthat productivityresearch and
Chartingthe CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 13 SIMMABY OF PROCEEIINIS
environmental research should be twin pillars of the CGIAR agenda. Several non-CGIAR Ceters were consequently inducted into the CGIAR. It is fitting, given the significance and lasting impact of what we decided at Berlin, that we should again be in Germany as we approach another cycle of renewal, for the new millennium.
Before we begin our fornal deliberations, however, I am pleased and honored to invite Mr. Stather to address us.
Mr. Stather.
14 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 S MN AI Y OIF PA1C EEI 5NG S
Chairmani OpeningRemarks
Confronting the Future
Appreciation
Thank you, Mr. Stather, for your kind words and thoughtful comments. They will inspire and guide us in our deliberations.
Thank you, also, Dr. Paroda, GFAR Chainnan, for the meetings of the last few days that clearly presented us with a vision of the context in which the CGIAR works, and for bringing together the full range of our partners. Together, we do form a Coalition of the Caring.
Transition
Colleagues and Friends.
The prospect of a re-energized CGIAR re-creating itself as an effective instrument of progress for the 21st century is both inspiring and exciting. I regret, therefore, that I will not be your Chairman as you advance beyond this meeting. I have informed World Bank President Jim Wolfensohn that I wish to relinquish my position as a Bank Vice President and, consequently, to relinquish my CGIAR chairmanship as well. He has accepted my decision.
I am delighted that Ian Johnson, a respected colleague and friend, will succeed me. Ian is a distinguished alumnus of three universities: Wales, Sussex and Harvard. His experience includes service with UNICEF, the British Government, and the Bank. He was one of the creators of today's GEF. He is a strong environmentalist whose expertise wiDlgreatly benefit the natural resource management efforts of CGIAR Centers. He is, as well, deeply committed to nurturing partnerships. I am sure you will find in him a most effective and caring Chairman. You can be assured that we will manage a seamless transition.
Let me emphasize that although I will no longer be part of the CGIAR in a formal sense, my commitment to all that the CGIAR represents will not change. I appreciate the dedication that all of you bring to this table. I respect and admire the CGIAR scientists who toil ceaselessly on behalf of the world's disconnected and disadvantaged. I care deeply about the future of the CGIAR. I am profoundly concerned about ensuring that it can continue to make a difference in the lives of those milions who will continue to be mired in deprivation unless science is harnessed to meet their needs. I wil continue to be your supporter, your loyal critic and, informally, your ambassador.
That's for the future. Now... let me turn to the business at hand.
Vision
Our starting point at MI`M2000 is the adoption of a new vision. I congratulate Emil Javier on the participatory approach that he and his TAC colleagues followed in crafting the new vision. Moreover, it is clear that Emil has drawn on his own nich experience and his deep understanding of the issues.
I convened two meetings of the Consultative Council- first in Rome, and next in Dresden- to discuss TACs proposal. The Council extensively discussed the draft at both meetings.
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 20l0 15 SI NMM A Y OF PI 0 C EI 1ISN
We are now challengedto bringthe process to closure;to take the crucialfirst step without which we cannot take the next, and the next, and the next.
I am convincedthat, likethe ConsultativeCouncil, this group will find Emil's presentation thoughtful and penetrating.I urge that we shouldnot get boggeddown in micro-editingthe TAC draft. I know that you can count on Emil and his coleaguesto incorporateearlier comments and current viewsin the finaliteration of the vision paper that they table at InternationalCenters Week (ICW2000).
However,the ConsultativeCouncil and TAC agreedthat the new vision raisesimportant issuesincluding those connectedwith germplasm,inteDlectual property rights (IPR),and the organizationof work to implementthe "heartland"of the CGIAR.All requireadditional thought and, dependingon how we come out on these, wil also impact on possiblestructural arrangements. More on this later.
To sharpenour discussionand move the process forward,I have fornnulateda proposition basedon the consensusof the ConsultativeCouncil. For MIM2000, this will be
Proposition #1. The Group adopts the sevenprinciples or 'planks' outlinedin TACs proposed new CGIAR vision statement,and endorsesthat statement'sdefinition of the heartlandof the CGIAR
Choice
Colleaguesand Friends.
The renewalprogram that we launchedin 1994gave us a five-year"space" in which to prepare for the future.Our fiveyears are up. Battlesonce fought and won have to be fought and fought again,in our quest for continuedexcellence, efficiency, and effectiveness,and for dedicated support from the internationalcommunity. The CGIAR now faces a future characterizedby make- or-breakchallenges, and make-or-breakopportunities. We can seize the opportunitiesor succumb to the challenges.We confront that choice againsta backdropof momentous changein almost everyaspect of the human conditionthat affectsor is affectedby our work.
* The implicitbargain among the developingcountries - the possessorsof germplasm- the advancedresearch organizations,the main producers of the new science,and international institutionsworking with nationalagricultural research systems(NARS), serving as intermediariesand as creatorsof new technologies,is becomingmore and more difficultto maintain,as scientificdevelopments become increasingly subject to privatecontrol.
* The private sectoris now at the head of most developmentsin the fieldof scienceand, to recoup the biDlionsof dollarsit investson research,is expandingthe applicationof patents and intellectualproperty rights.
* We cannot remainindifferent to what goes on beyondthe parametersof that bargain. Recentconcerns over perceivedappropriation of the nsu or poppingbean demonstrated preciselythe kind of issue that willincreasingly bedevil the CGIAR.
* National and internationalarrangements governing access to germplasmappear likely to grow more and more restrictive,thus weakeninga key elementof the CGIAR's success. These arrangementsare being developedwithout our directinvolvement, and frequently without full appreciationby the governmentsconcerned of the likelyimpact of restrictions
16 Charting the CGJAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 SIMMARY Of PIOCEEIINgS
on the abilityof agriculturalresearch in developingcountries to do publicgoods research for the poor andthe environment.
* Thedemands on traditionalsources of fundingfor internationalagricultural research are increasing.We willattract new fundingfrom traditional and new sourcesonly if we can demonstratethat our scienceis at the cuttingedge, our processesare efficient,our delivery is rapid,and our partnershipsare real andeffective.
* Centerscientists are beset by greatanxieties about how the CGIARwill function- indeed, whetherit willfunction- in the faceof thesechanges. Allthese developments have profound implications for the futureof the CGIAR.It isnot that we face a crisis, as we did in 1993 and 1994. It is that we face the prospect of ossifying, of lurchingfrom one smallfunding cut to another,and of graduallyfading into obsolescenceand, ultimately, oblivion, while other actors, more swift, better endowed, and more responsive to the needs of our clients, pass us by. For, as Klaus Schwab aptly points out, "we are moving from a world in which the big eat the small to one in which the fast eat the slow."
A Time to Act
So it is a time to act. But how, and on what?IPR, germplasm,finance, and structure need to be reviewed. Centers and Members must both be involved in defining the substance, the mechanisms, and the pace of change. I am encouraged by the fact that since we arrived here, center directors and board chairs have engaged in a joint exercise to deal with some of these issues. So have the Oversight Committee, the Finance Committee, and other groups.
Eminent and thoughtful Members of the Group are articulating their visions. Bob Herdt, certainly a most eminent member of this Group, has put his thoughts on paper for our collective benefit. Some, like myself, want to move swiftly on all these issues. However, others would wish to move at a slower, more deliberate pace.
I will set out several propositions, to help structure our discussions in the next two days. This should enable us to move as far as can before we leave Dresden.
First, the approach at this moment should be open and inclusive. It is not just the CBC/CDC or TAC or the Oversight Committee or Bob Herdt who have ideas. Hence,
Proposition #2. All in the CGIAR System who wish to offer proposals on structure should feel free to submit their suggestions to TAC by August 15, 2000.
Second, it is essential that the Centers, represented by the DGs and Board Chairs, must have an important input into the process. I urge them to carry their deliberations as far and as fast as they can. I give you
Proposition #3. Proposals from board chairs and Center directors should be completed no later than August 15, 2000 and submitted to TAC for further review and comment.
The growth of a restrictive regime governing access to germplasm demonstrates the need for institutional arrangements that enable us to harness advances in the biological sciences. Moreover, we need to keep up with current trends that are changing and streamlining the way in which research is carried out.
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 17 SIUM AR Y OF PIR C E [IIE C S
Increasingly we see well-established campus-type institutions transforming themselves, and adapting to arrangements such as networks, knowledge platforms, strategic alliances, and collaboration with shuttle scientists. One of several models proposed for dealing with IPR issues suggests that private sector owners, as a group, agree with public sector users to share a body of technology; and agree on the rules for its use. Others would explore more case-by-case approaches.
We need to examine all the options and select what is most consistent with our mission. Additionally, the issues that have been explored by a working group on a longer-term financing strategy for the CGIAR will also raise questions of structure. For instance, the argument has been made that if the maintenance of CGIAR germplasm collections is given over to an institution set up to undertake this activity, it would be most likely to attract endowments separate from other CGIAR funding.
I am hoping that the CBC/CDC will be able to address all these questions in their proposals by August 15. I recognize, however, that they may not be able to do so. Therefore, I am suggesting the creation of an ad ix working group to solicit views on how to address these matters. That leads me to my next proposition.
Proposition #4. Patents, intellectual property rights, finance, and other issues to be identified before the end of MTM2000 will be addressed by an ad hoc working group that would call on outside expenence as appropnate.
Bob Herdt's paper, the papers emanating from the CBC/CDC and the ad kwrworking group, as well as other papers that may be produced by CGIAR Members, would all be given to TAC wID should prepare their comments on each of the papers. That total package should be reviewed and discussed at a Consultative Council meeting, in mid-September.
Clearly, I am hoping that this meeting of the Consultative Council will be able to bring all this material to the point where the group would be able to make full decisions on all structural issues, IPR, finance and other matters at ICW2000. If that proves too difficult, then at leastthe Consultative Council should spell out the remaining steps, to be endorsed at ICW, and ensure that these are taken in time for the Group to make their decisions as promptly as possible.
Hence, I give you
Proposition #5. The Consultative Council will convene in mid-September, 2000 to discuss proposals from CBC/CDC, the ad hoc working group, and other papers, with TACs review and comments. The Consultative Council will prepare recomnmendationsfor submission to the Group at ICW2000.
What I have suggested so far addresses important issues, no doubt, but leaves unaddressed the question of how this Group manages its own affairs. Our experience im recent months has shown how effective the Consultative Council can be in improving the pace and direction of policy making. I am therefore suggesting that the Council should become a permanent standing committee, but with a reduced membership. This leads me to
Proposition #6. After ICW2000, the Consultative Council will be reconstituted with 15 members as a permanent standing committee.
This will not automatically provide answers to the numerous governance and procedure issues that concern CGIAR Members. It is quite clear that concerns abound on such matters as what should be brought to plenary and what should be excluded, how duplication can be avoided
18 Chartingthe CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SIM MAI Y Of PI DC EED INC S in the Group's considerationof externalreviews; how much time shouldbe givento Center presentations;what mechanismscan be used to providethe Group with opportunitiesfor discussing"big picture"questions, and so on.
I suggestthat a slightmodification of the decision-makingprocess can help to resolvemost of these issues. I therefore give you
Proposition #7. After ICW,the ConsultativeCouncil will be authorizedto reach decisions,on the understandingthat the decisionswill be immnediatelycirculated among all CGIAR Members.If more than fiveMembers question the decision,the issue willbe re-opened at the next meetingof the Group.
Envoi
Colleaguesand friends.
The sevenpropositions I have formulatedare intended to help focus our discussionsin the coming days,and to leadus towards cleardecisions. They are nct beingimposed on this group. You are free to modifythe propositionsin any wayyou wish, rejectthem, or adopt them.
What is important is that we should all work together over the next daysto lay the groundworkfor a vibrant and effectiveCGIAR for the future.The processeswe adopt must create a clearpath for moving forwardbeyond MTM.Then, subjectswould have been assignedto appropriategroups, responsibilities for reviewand recommendationswould have been dearly defined,and a timetablewould be set, leadingto decisionsby ICW.
Colleaguesand friends.
Almostthree decadesago, at a time of fear and pessimnismabout the fate and future of millionsin the disadvantagedregions of the world,the founders of the CGIAR actedwith faith, hope, and a powerful vision.They weredetermined to reach the mountaintops of achievementWe are againrequired to shapethe future,in the context of new challenges.Let us confront those challengesboldly. Let us build a futurethat is consistentwith the founding spirit of the CGIAR. Let it never be said that a great inheritancewas squandered. Thank you.
I willnow make the Chairman'sAnnouncements and seek adoption of the agenda.
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 19 SIMMANY OF PRDCEEIINCS
Chairmans Announcement
Ladiesand gentlemen. I now moveon to the Chairman'sAnnouncements and the adoptionof the draftagenda. At this time,we takethe opportunityto welcomeold and new friends,record achievements and, inevitably, becauselife never runs an evencourse, sometimes share the burdenof sorrowas well.
Condolences On January30 thisyear, we wereshocked and saddenedby the tragicdeaths in an air crashof Dirk Vuylsteke,Paul Speijer, and John Hartman,all threefrom IITA, and of AbdouSalam Ouedraogo of IPGRI.Their families suffered grievous personal loss, and we sharetheir grief.We lost colleagueswho werecommitted, competent, and caring.I requestthe Secretariatto recordour condolencesin the summaryreport of thismeeting, and to send copiesof the reportto the familiesconcemed.
Thanks
As we share sorrow, we should also record thanks and appreciation. I am pleased to announce that Dr. Craig Venter, president and founder of Celera Genonics, who has just won the King Faisal Intemational Prize for Science has donated $100,000, the full proceeds of the prize, to the Institute for Genomic Research (1 IGR) to complete the sequencing of the T-parva parasite, work that was being done for ILRI. This collaborative effort will be applied to the development of a vaccine against East Coast Fever, a disease that causes an economic loss of some $200 million a year. Loss of cattle to ECF has devastated smallholder farmers throughout East Africa.
The donation is a reaffirmation of the importance and quality of the work being carried out by ILRI. Our thanks are due to Dr. Venter for his great generosity, and our congratulations are due to ILRI for this recognition of the center's work.
CGIAR Director
The search for the new CGIAR Director, i.e. the successor to Alexander von der Osten, is now underway, after a slight delay in getting it off the ground. Questions or clarifications may be addressed to Bob Thompson, chairman of the Search Committee. To eliminate any confusion, let me say that Alexander von der Osten will remain in office through ICW2000. The transition from him to his successor will take place after ICW2000.
Farewellsand Welcomes
We have a number of farewells.
Cosponsors, Members, and Secretariat
Louise Fresco is with us in Dresden, but we have actually lost her, following her appointment as FAO's Assistant Director General for Agriculture. She has had a long and fruitful relationship with the CGIAR. I have no doubt that she will make a strong impact in her current position and in that way complement our own efforts.
20 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SOMMAUY OF POC[EIEINGS
Henri Carsaladeis now AssistantDirector Generalin chargeof FAO's TechnicalCooperation Department,and is therefore no longerFAO's cosponsor representative.Without doubt, Henn willshine in his new position,and we wish him the very best, but that does not diminishour own sense of loss. His contributionsto the CGIAR are too numerousto recount in detail.He has had toweringand extensive influencethroughout the CGIAR System.His judgement,his wisdom,and his practicalityhave been a boon to us all.
I willnow read the text of the commemorativescroll that we have preparedfor him, before handingit over to Louise Frescowith the request that she shouldkindly present it to Henri on our behalf.
"The ConsultativeGroup on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR) at its Mid-Term Meeting2000 held in Dresden, Germany unanimnouslyresolved to honor and felicitateHenri Carsaladein recognitionof his deep understandingof tropicalagriculture and agriculturalresearch, his dedicated commitmentto the mission of the CGIAR, his contributionsto the effectivenessof CGIAR decision- makingas a nationalrepresentative, a member of the inauguralOversight Committee, as the chair of two boards of trustees,and as a cosponsor of the CGIARrepresenting the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. The CGIARrecords its appreciationof his efforts, and offers him warm good wishes for the future."
This is Paul Egger's finalappearance as Switzerland'shead of delegation.He has in fact already taken up new responsibilitiesrelating specifically to Asia. Paul advocatedpositions withinthe CGIARthat helpedto shapeits growth,and to strengthenits relationswith nationalagricultural research systems (NARS)and NGOs. He was the foundingchairman of the OversightCommittee (OC), and providedthat committeewith dedicatedleadership. He wasthe guidinglight in all that we undertook during the CGIAR renewal.He was the architectof the LucerneMinisterial-level meeting. He was the first to demonstrate that it is appropriateto renew chairmanships,by steppingdown from OC diairmanship,opening the way to its renewal.So, Paul,what I am doing for myselfis followingyour example.
I willread out the text of the commemorativescroll for Paul before invitinghim to come up here and receiveit.
"The ConsultativeGroup on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR) at its Mid-Term Meeting2000 held in Dresden, Germany,unanimously resolved to honor and felicitatePaul Eggerin recognitionof his commitmentto the missionof the CGIAR, his dedicationto the causeof mobilizing scienceto servethe needs of the poor and protect the environment,his support for national agricultural researchsystems, and his contributionsto the effectivenessof CGIARdecision-making, particularly as the foundingchairman of the OversightCommittee. The CGIARrecords its appreciationof his efforts,and offers him warm good wishes for the future."
Next... MiguelAltieri. I know that I expressyour views aswell as mine when I pay tribute to his enormous contributionand great leadership.His abilityto build bridgesbetween the CGIAR and the NGO comnmunityhas truly been a major contributionto the opening-upof the CGIAR. He has helpedus to understandand appreciatethe NGO perspective,and that in turn has led to the developmentof a sense of mutualitybetween us and all those NGOs who are part of the coalitionof the caringto which we belong.
Miguelends his chairmanshipafter this Mid-TermnMeeting, and I willmiss him personallybut I have no doubt that his legacywill endure. Now, let me read the text of the scrollthat I will presentto Miguel:
",TheConsultative Group on InternationalResearch (CGIAR), at its annualMid-Term Meeting in Dresden,unanimously resolved to felicitateMiguel Altieri in recognitionof his commitmentto the
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 21 SUIMM AI Y OF PI DC E E II N S
missionof the CGIAR, his dedicationto the causeof mobilizingscience to servethe needs of the poor and protect the environment, his support for innovative and sustainable forms of natural resource management, and his contributions to developing the dialogue between the CGIAR and civil society institutions as Chairman of the CGIAR/NGO Partnership Committee. The CGIAR records its appreciation of his effort and offers him warm good wishes for the future."
We bid farewell now to Frona Hall. This will be her last meeting as a member of the CGIAR Secretariat. For many of us around this table, there is no distinction between Frona and CGLAR meetings. She made them happen, choosing the meeting site, working on the agenda, making sure that documents were distributed in a timely manner, and being directly involved in the very many details that make the difference between a successful meeting and a breakdown. She even demanded punctuality from us with the persistent ringing of her instantly recognizable bell. Frona has been a tower of strength to all of us. She has been so closely associated with the organization of these meetings, and for so long, that a legend has grown, as to how after each CGIAR meeting outside Washington, when we depart, the management of the hotel where the meeting was held renames our meeting place the "Frona Hall."
Now, before I read the text of the scroll prepared for her, and present the scroll to Frona, I invite Andrew Bennett to join me at the podium, where he will speak on behalf of CGIAR members.
Following comments by Mr. Bennett and presentation of a bell to Ms. Hall, the Chairman continued:
We do have a scroll for Frona and let me read its text.
"The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) at its Mid-Tenn meeting 2000 held in Dresden, Germany unanimously resolved to honor and felicitate Frona Hall for her outstanding contribution to the effectiveness of the CGJAR, and to place on record its appreciation of the exemplary manner in which she carried out a wide range of responsibilities. The CGIAR offers her warm good wishes for the future."
Before I move on to the welcomes, let me point out that Yang Weimin of the ADB, Abdelmajid Slama of IFAD, and Joachim Voss of IDRC are no longer heads of delegation. We wish them well in their current endeavors.
On a different note, I offer a special welcome to His Excellency Minister El-Zaim, Syria's Minister of State for Planning. His Government recently adopted legislation formalizing Syria's membership in the CGIAR, and we are delighted that this legislation has now been followed up by the Minister deciding to fly all the way here to attend MTM2000, as a demonstration and reaffirmation of Syria's renewed and invigorated support.
I welcome all the representatives who are here for the first time. We are happy to have them in the CGIAR family. I welcome, as well, the observers who are at the Mid-Term meeting for the first time, and hope that they will soon attend CGIAR meetings as member representatives.
We also welcome Robert L. Thompson, Director of the World Bank's Rural Development Department (RDV), and the Bank's representative in the CGIAR Cosponsor Group. Most of us know him well as a past president of the Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, and Dean of Agriculture and Professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue. More recently, he has been a senior advisor on strategy and policy for agricultural and rurl development at the Bank
Jacques Eckebil, Director of the Sustainable Development Department at FAO, who cannot join us for personal reasons, is the new FAO representative in the Cosponsor Group. We knew Jacques at
22 Chartingthe CGIAR's Future- A New Visionfor 2010 S1ENlAEY Df P DOCEEUINCS
IITA, where he won the respect of his colleaguesin the CGIAR and of nationalscientists. He was a gift from the CGIARto the FAO, and it is only fittingthat FAO shouldnow sharehim wvithus. He willbe with us at ICW.
We welcomeEmil Javierat ICW1999,but let me placeit on record that he is now attending a CGIARmeeting for the first time as TAC chair.We welcomeas wellWerner Arber, as chairmanof the SciencePartnership Committee, and all the membersof that committee.
BoardChairs
There have been a number of changesamong board chairs.
CIAT: LauritzHoln-Nielsen has succeededFernando Chaparro. CIFOR: Jagmohan Maini is the new CIFOR chair, following the term of Gill Shepherd. ICRAF: Lucie Edwards has succeeded Yemi Katerere. IFPRI: Geoff Miller is the new IFPRI chair, succeeding Martin Pifneiro. WARDA. Lindsay Innes has succeeded Just Faaland.
Waly Falcon continues to serve as CIMMvYT'schair, but he has been succeeded as chairman of the committee of Center Board Chairs by Kurt Peters.
Center Directors
We welcome Joachirn Voss in his new position. He has taken over from the interim director general, Aart van Schoonhoven at CIAT. Frank Rijsberman wil succeeded David Seckler at IWMI in September.
I express my gratitude to all those who are leaving their positions. I wish them the very best in their future undertakings, confident that we will hear more from them. At the same time, I offer a very hearty welcome to the newcomers. Our appreciation is due to all of them.
Please express our appreciation in the usual CGIAR manner.
Honor Roll
CGIAR scientists and alumni continue to win public honors that recognize their considerable achievements. I am delighted to inform you of the following honors that have been brought to my notice:
* M. S. Swaminathan was awarded UNESCO's Gandhi Gold Medal for Science, * Gurdev Kush won the 2000 Wolf Prize for Agriculture, * Chris Johansen received the Vietnam Medal for Agriculture and Rural Development, and * Ronald Cantrell was declared a Distinguished Alumnus of Purdue University.
Adoption of the Agenda
We can now move on to adopting the draft agenda which has been circulated in advance.
The agenda was adopted.
Charting the CGIAR's Future- A New Vision for 2010 23 SIMMAIY OF PEIDCEFINCS
Chairan ' Proposiions
Proposiion #1. The Gro apts the sevenpincipes or l linedin TAsprpsed newCGIAR visionsttemet n e tt sta es d of heealand t of the
Proposition#21 A ini the CG Systemwho wishto offie Proposalson stricture shl feel freet it suggestiornstTCWby iugu15s 2000. Proposion#3 Proposalsfrom and Centerdireaors shouldbe com td no6later than A20M0 and s to ACfor furtherreview and comment. Proposition # Patens intelecual pr rig finance,and other issuesto be identified bfore the end of MTh2000 wil be d banb ad hoc wthat wouldcall on outside experienceas ppoiate.
Proposition#i5. The Consultativ Council wil convene in rdepte 2 to discuss propsalsfroCBCCDCthead hoc workin group, and other papers wt TACs reviewanda cmments TeConltatieCounl willprepar recommendaiuonsf sbission t the roup
Proposition#6. After WConstve Councilwil be reconstited w 15m ers as a permann stanin committee.
Proposi #7.After TM, theConsu cil will e authorizedto reachdecisions, on ihe understandingthatthe decisions wi be circulatedamong al CGIA( *emers. If morethan fivemeimbers quetio the decision,th issue be reopen at th nextmee 6of the Gop
Propositio# (presetedfrm theflo The GIAR iaffiiisthe itance of theGloba Forunmon Agriulr doisesits link h G R, res to revisitth issueof CGs for GEAR at iCW200:.
24 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SVNMABY OF PROCEEDINUS
A New Vision and Strategyfor the CGIAR
With the theme of "Chartingthe CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010," MTM2000 will best be remembered as a critical meeting to map the new vision and strategy for the CGIAR and lay the groundwork for moving from vision to action.
At ICW99, the CGIAR asked the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to take the lead in formulating the new CGIAR vision. TAC stressed a consultative, open and participatory process, involving a broad range of stakeholders including the CBC, CDC, Chairs of CGIAR Committees, representatives of national agricultural research systems (NARS), and the CGIAR and NARS Secretanrats. TAC prepared a vision paper which was reviewed by the Consultative Council at its Rome meeting and- at the Council's request- drafted a companion paper which was reviewed at Dresden. The Council broadly endorsed the strategy presented by TAC and recommended that the Group adopt the seven "planks" of the new vision and TAC's definition of the CGIAR heartland. The Council also urged the Group to adopt an action plan as well as a schedule of next steps to deal with issues of strategy and structure following the Dresden meeting.
Building on the endorsement and action proposals of the Consultative Council, TAC Chair Emil Javier presented the new vision and strategy to the Group at MTM2000. The vision statement draws heavily on the third CGIAR System Review, the Conway Panel report, the 1994 TAC study on structure, and other TAC papers. TAC also conducted an extensive electronic discussion of key issues.
The New Vision
Vision: A food secureworld for all.
Goal: To reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition by sustainably increasing the productivity of resources in agriculture, forestry, fisheries.
Mission: To achieve sustainable food security and reduce poverty in developing countries through scientific research and research-related activities in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, policy, and environment.
Strategic Planks
Seven "planks" that form the core of the proposed vision would be the basis for strategic planning.
1. sharply focussing System activities on the reduction of poverty, hunger, and malnutrition in developing countries (implications: incidence of poverty will drive the work of the CGIAR; CGIAR will work more closely with other development institutions addressing poverty, both the urban and rural poor will be targeted); 2. bringing modem science to bear on difficult productivity and institutional problems that have proven intractable in the past (implications: the CGIAR will be closely connected with the most recent advances/methods in science, ranging from functional genomics, information technology and GIS modelingto integratednatural resource management and participatoryresearch; addressinginstitutional issues associated with geneticresources and intellectualproperty will demand significant effort);
Charting the CGJAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 25 SUM NARY Of PO*C EED INS
3. giving highest priority to the research needs of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty is concentrated and growing (implication: the CGIAR will focus on those ecologies and peoples not reached by the green revolution); 4. adopting a regional approach to research planning in order to better address the heterogeneous nature of poverty (implications: the CGIAR will have regional research agendas developed jointly with partners in the region; the CGIAR wiRltry to better integrate its efforts with others working on different aspects of poverty); 5. diversifying and closely integrating its partnerships (implication: the CGIAR will operate more in a "centers without walls" mode, with more outsourcing and contracting and greater reliance on alliances and networks); 6. adopting, under certain circumstances, a task force approach to the organization and delivery of CGIAR products and services (implications: the CGIAR wil increasingly shift towards financing well-defined, time-bound prograrns with relatively independent management and involving partners from inside as well as outside the CGIAR;-the independent center model will continue side-by-side with flexible organizational arrangements such as research consortia and task forces); and 7. serving as a catalyst, organizer, coordinator, and integrator of global efforts on key opportunities and constraints in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (implication:the CGIAR will not just "produce" technology; it will also serve as an apolitical honest-broker in the international arena.)
CGLAR"Heartland"
The new vision proposed by TAC offers little change in whit the CGIAR does, although it flags some changes in the rematiepiointies of CGIAR activities (e.g. focus on Africa and South Asia). Many of TAC's suggestions are about hovthe CGIAR carries out its business (e.g. partnerships, broker/catalyst role, task forces, regional priority setting.) Stated in terms of the CGIAR's five major undertakings, the major changes from the new vision are as follows: GermplasmConservation. This has been and will remain the principal "heartland" activity of the CGIAR for the long term. The CGIAR will need to be engaged more closely with international policy networks related to germplasm conservation and IPR (e.g., FAO Commission, CBD, WTO, TRIPS, etc.) The CGIAR will increasingly use new tools (e.g. functional genomics) in characterizing germplasm. A critical strategic consideration is the future organization and financing of the System's germplasm conservation activities. The designation of these activities as a discrete enterprise, with a separate endowment, may considerably improve their efficiency and effectiveness. * Germplasm Improvement. Crop improvement will continue to be one of the main businesses of the CGIAR over the next 10-15 years. In addition, the CGIAR will continue its work on livestock improvement, disease resistance, and vaccine development in light of the expected doubling of demand for meat and milk in developing countries over the next twenty years. Similarly, germplasm exchange and improvement work on fish species like carp and tilapia wiXl continue, with increased use of genetic marker technologies. Among the crops, the CGIAR will continue to work on the major staples that are the most affordable sources of calories and protein for poor people (cereals, roots and tubers) and breed for traits of specific importance to the poor (e.g. drought, salinity, low temperature). In addition, regional priority setting will highlight commodities of regional importance (e.g. horticultural crops) which are not in the current portfolio. The CGIAR will employ a variety of germplasm improvement strategies, ranging from functioning as a catalyst and facilitator of networks (such as in banana and plantain
26 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUMMARY OF PAOCEEDIMSS
improvement),to taking full responsibilityfor improvementprograms (such as in wheat and rice). It willuse a wide rangeof researchtools, from biotechnologyto participatorybreeding. Over time, the CGIAR willincreasingly share germplasmimprovement responsibilities with stronger NARS. * IntegratedNatural ResourceManagement (NRM). The CGIAR willwork only on NRM researchthat is gearedtowards increasingproductivity or increasingthe sustainabilityof natural resourcesto produce outputs needed for reducingpoverty. Thus, integrated NRM willserve as a frameworkfor all CGIAR researchand willfocus more on increasingunderstanding of biophysicaland socio-economicprocesses. The CGIARwill not do NRM researchsolely to protect the environment. * Policy Research. The CGIAR willexpand its policyresearch activities. The principalareas of growthwill include: research on malnutritionand nutrients;protecting the interests of the poor in globalforums and policynetworks; gerrnplasm and IPR policymatters; and modelingof socioeconomicand biophysicalsystems. * Enhancing NARS Capacities. The CGIARwill place priority on those activitiesthat are in the forrn of internationalpublic goods (such as research on or developmentof generictools for organizationand managementof researchinstitutions) at the expenseof strengtheningservices to individualcountries or institutions(which are not internationalpublic goods).Training conducted by CGIAR institutionswill evolve, based on the changein the Centers' researchfocus and several trainingactivities will be taken over by NARS.Increasingly, the CGIAR willplay a catalyticrole in buildingpartnerships and networks.
Duringthe plenarydiscussion, several Members raised questionsabout the implicationsof the vision and strategyfor CGIAR programsand activities.There was agreementthat the CGIARmust continue to evolvein order to strategicallyutilize the best of scienceto meet the needs of a rapidly changingworld. In rethinkingwhat the CGLARdoes, how it does it, and with whom, Membersagreed with the TAC recommendationthat the criteriafor choosingfuture researchactivities should include their contributionto CGIAR goals,creation of intemationalpublic goods,alternative sources of supply,and probabilityof researchsuccess.
The Group agreedwith the Chairman'ssuggestion to establishworking groups to brainstormand tease out key issuesand help further Group discussions.Six workinggroups were chargedwith reviewing a specificsubject matter; a seventhwas not chargedwith a specifictopic to allowfor other issuesto be raised.Working groups were askedto report to plenaryon issuesthat shouldbe emphasized(and any that had not been sufficientlyaddressed), and to identifytheir implicationsfor restructuring,governance, and finance.The working groups were not meant to reach consensusbut to receivediverse and rich viewsand comments.
WorkingGroups
The NTM workinggroups met in parallelsession, then reported their findingsto the Group in plenary.
WorkingGroup 1 - Genetic Resources. The workinggroup was chairedby Carl Gustav Thomstr6m; Juan Restrepo,rapporteur, reported the resultsto the Group. The participantsidentified the followingkey issues:
* the CGIAR's role in ensuringthe free flow of germplasm(access to geneticresources); * its role in the negotiationof the FAO internationalundertaking; and
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 27 Z UMM AI Y OF PI DC I E II NC S
* conservationand use of germplasmincluding the maintenanceof the gene banks, the roleof nationaland regionalcenters, and the linkbetween conservationand utilization.
Among the specificpoints raisedby the workinggroup were the CGIAR's role in providing technicalsupport at national,regional, and globallevels; the sendingof strong signalson the need to come to agreementon a multi-lateralsystem in the context of national legislationon accessand benefit sharing; the CGIAR as a mechanismfor benefit sharing;support for GFAR's Dresden Declarationon Plant GeneticResources of Food and Agriculture;and high profileinitiatives to provide emergencyseed to disaster areas.
WorkingGroup 1 sawthe need for unifiedpolicies on geneticresources at the Systemlevel. Regardingfinance, the workinggroup suggestedsetting up an endowmentfund for genebanks.It also suggesteda specialeffort to upgradepresent genebankfacilities and operations.
WorkingGroup 2 - IntellectualProperty Rights and the PrivateSector. The workinggroup was chairedby Alberto Duque Portugaland Ian Bevegeserved as rapporteur.The participantsidentified these key issues:
* The CGIAR must manageits IP frameworkbased on the principlesof flexibilityand subsidiarity, and taking into accountopportunity costs. It should consider,as appropriate,IP instruments other than patents. Some centralizedfunctions, such as a whollyowned subsidiary,may be desirable.Such a unit shouldcoordinate without dominating,retain competitivenesswhere it matters,and harmonizeapproaches among Centers. * The CGIAR must manageothers' IP to enable accessto neededtechnolog,, assureeffective partnershipswith advancedresearch institutes and the private sector, and minimizelegal and financialrisks. * The CGIAR must negotiatefrom a position of strength.Its leverageis strengthenedwhen its own IP is of interestto partners. It must be a trusted and respectedplayer. It shouldmaximize its good willas a public goods providerin negotiationswith the private sector and advancedresearch institutes(ARls). Also, it shouldlearn from the experienceof ARIs in developingrelationships and negotiatingwith the private sector. * The CGIAR shouldserve as a facilitatorfor IP managementin internationalagricultural research for development.It can serve as a broker betweenpublic and private sectors,helping to harmonizeapproaches and policies. * The CGIAR and its stakeholdersshould develop protectiveIP to keep internationalpublic goods in the public arena and availableto the resourcepoor.
An important questionis how to handle informationsuch as traditionalknowledge, which is not yet subjectto IPR.
WorkingGroup 3 - New Science: Geographicand Ecoregional Issues. Emmy Simmonsserved as chair and Joseph Mukiibi,rapporteur. Discussants raised the followingkey issues:
* The sciencerevolution is more than genonics. It includesbetter understandingof agro-ecology and natural resourcesprocesses, and socialprocesses such as collectivemanagement of natural resources.Information technologies such as GIS, modeling,and artificialintelligence are also important elementsof the sciencerevolution. * Tools of the sciencerevolution can be best used to solveclearly defined problems along ecoregionallines. The challengeis to identifyhow these tools relateto poverty, especiallyhighly heterogeneouspoverty.
28 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 SU MMA I Y OF PROCEEDINGS
* Usingthe new sciencetools to reduce povertyrequires layering ecoregional constraints over geo- politicalissues. If you start with poverty,the focus must be on impact at the geopoliticallevel. If ecoregionalproblems are the point of departure,it may be difficultto assureimpact at the geopoliticallevel. * There is consensusthat geopoliticalregional priority settingis key to effectiveuse of modem sciencetools; ecoregionalorganization is essentialto good science;and restructuringoptions would benefit from lessons of history. * The idealstructure would be basedon geopoliticalpriority settingand have sciencebased ecoregionalcenters that solvegeopolitical problems through their own work and generatetruly globalknowledge. * Other optionsinclude: t- Geopoliticalregional centers with semi-permanenttask forces to provide globalintegration. >- Ecoregionalcenters which assumeresponsibility for coordinatingall priorityneeds for a "lead"geopolitical region. >- Competitivefunding mechanisms to encourageone or the other focus.
Working Group 4 - Mode of Operation. Ruth Haug served as chair and MohammadRoozitalab, rapporteur.Discussants contributed the followingperspectives:
Modes of Operation * There shouldbe diverseand dynamicmodes of operation;there is no singlemagic model. * Modes of operation should support the CGIARmission to combatpoverty and achievefood security. * The CBCand CDC should documentdifferent models of operation based on experienceswithin and outsidethe CGIAR. * Modes of operation couldcombine differentmodels includingthose drivenby demand or science or partnershipor researchagenda. * One shouldlearn from Centers' experiences. * The CGIAR Systemshould be responsiveto developmentefforts of regions/countrieswhile beingconducive to use of high qualityscience.
Governance v One "mega" center is not a solution;the CGIAR shouldbe a loose federationof regional/ecoregionalcenters. * The TAC should be restructuredas a ResearchCouncil with a core budget for financing competitiveresearch proposals. * Empowermentof Centers and Center scientistsshould receivepriority. * Outsourcingshould be a two-wayprocess: (1) from the CGIARto NARS/regionalfora, (2)from NARS/regionalfora to the CGIAR. * Centersshould have a criticalmass of scientistsbefore they outsourcetasks. * A strongerCGIAR Systemmight mean less autonomous Centers.
WorkingGroup 5 - Finance. lain MacGiDivraywas chair and Eliseo Ponce, rapporteur. Discussants definedthe followingkey issues.
* Traditionalvs. non-traditionalfunds should be understood and exploited.ODA funds from non- agriculturalsources have not been fuly tapped. * Raisingmore funds from non-traditionalsources and from the South depends on the CGIARs image,program focus, and new institutionalarrangements.
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 200 29 SI MNMAKY. F PIOCEEIIMgtS
* Strategyfor maintainingcurrent fundinglevels from traditionalsources shouldbe fullyarticulated. * Multiplefunding sourcesrequire new mechanismsto generatefunds. * Longterm financinghas not been satisfactorilyaddressed. Current fundingwhich is discretionary and annualin charactercreates instability and affectsproductivity. * The CGIAR's public awarenessprogram (audience, focus, and links to resourcemobilization) requiresreview and improvement.
Implications for restructuring * The current issueson financing(stability, variability, and level)require a new CGIAR structure that is highlydecentralized and flexibleto meet the needs of its variouspartners. * The repositioningof the CGIAR must take into considerationsuch issuesas: >- messageand audience >- new partnershiparrangements >- the growingcompetencies of NARS
- increasingthe cost-effectivenessof operations
Implications for governance * Decliningfunding commnitments require a well-craftedstrategy with a strong Secretariatin a coordinatingrole whilepreserving Centers' competitivenessand independence.
Working Group 6 - Process. Workinggroup 6 was chairedby AndrewBennett, who also served as rapporteur.The working group was chargedwith clarifyingresponsibilities and setting a cleartimetable. It made severalrecommendations on processeswhich were endorsed by the CGIAR (see box on pages31- 32).
WorkingGroup 7 - Equity, Income Opportunities,and NRM. This ad hoc working group came together becauseof concem about other issues.Keneti Faulaloserved as rapporteur. The participants identifiedthree key issues: * Equitywith emphasison explicitbenefits for women and excludedgroups and on communicating information * Income opportunitiesthrough marketingand small-scale,post-harvest technology * Natural ResourcesManagement for soil fertlity and nutrient management/environment.
30 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 SU MM ASRY Of PAO C F[II N IS
Working Group 6 - Recommendations Roles and Responsibilities
TAC * Wil completethe vision and strategypaper takinginto accountcomments on the two papers from the CGIAR at the ConsultativeCouncil meetings and the NlfM2000; *W analyzethe structuralimplications of the seven"pillars' of the TAC vision; * Wil reviewand comment on papers on structureand governancefrom CBC/CDC and other stakeholders; * Wi facilitatean eleronic conferenceon organizationalstructure and governanceof the CGIAR and summanzethe commentson organizatonal structuremade at the last TAC conferencein cooperation wiahkey stakeholders(such as GFAR, OC, CBC/CD).
CB1CICDC * (PrimarilyCDC) wll analyzestructure issues including: >- cross-Centercollaboration >- geographicvs. ecoregionalorganization >- Herdt paper >- TaskForces >- Possibilitiesof merger/integrationof Center activities. * (CDC and CBC) willanalyze policies and practiceson 1PR * (primarilyCBC) wil examineoverall System govemance issues, including the "hub" of the System and how the Systeminteraas with its stakeholders.
Finance Committee * Wil carry out further analysisof long-termfinancing strategies and structuresand draft business plan, interactingas necessarywith other key actors.
Oversight Committee * WiRoversee the processon behalfof the CGIAR, * Willappoint a 'SynthesisGroup" to integratethe variousinputs from other bodies for discussion/decision-makingby the CGIAR
The Synthesis Group * WMlbe made up of 5-7 individualsserving in their personalcapacit, * Wil consist of informedindividuals, about 2/3 from within and 1/3 from outsidethe CGIAR; * Wil sythesize/integrate contributionsof all groups to generateactionable reconumendations on organizationalstructure and governance. Members, Other CGL4RCommittees, and Stalkeholders * W%ilbe invitedto make contnbutionsto the process (a)through the electronicconference, and (b) through individualsubmissions. Individual submissions should be sent to TAC, CBC/CDC andithe SynthesisGroup (independentlyor through the O).
Consultative Council . Wil be convenedat the invitationof the Chair,either before or after ICW2000,to review/commnenton recommendationsor help implementthem (if acted upon by the CGIAR)
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 31 SIMMRAY OF PIICE IINCS
WoirkingGrop6-Recomm(enda f \0j 0 6 Continued)
Timetble t 0 :03:: :: : 0 X : J 2000 Startof electronlicconference (OV: : : - Preparepapers C CBC/CX) Aug 24 SpecialTA5 m-eet to review ACpapers and comnmenton submissions(at ISNA) Earl Sept - CBC/CDCmeeting to reviewdrafts, deveop options (at ISNA Sept25-30 i T meetingat ITA to commenton subissions andfinalize TAGs pprs End Spt FC producesdraft businessplan Oct 58 - SynthesisGrup meetingto integrat allcontribtions and developproposals Cto the CGIAR (most iely in Lond Oct 9-10 PossibleConsultative CIO meeting Oct 21 Alternativedate for a possible veCouncil meeting Oct 23-27 - ICW2000 Jan-Feb 2001 - PossibleConfsultatiive Counceeting Feb-Mar2001 - PossibleextordiayC ting May2001 0- RegularmeetingofCGAR @ATM2Q01to conclude decisions on gove and
TheWoi Grup alsoconmented on the sevenpropositions offeed, by Mr. Sen hisopening address. It agreedwithpropositions 1 through4, wih someamendments on dates.a Proposition5, it offeredan alerate schedulefor the conveng of the Consulive Couci (asno above).Astoprpositions6 d7on tecopositionandrlof te ConsultativeCuncIwasft that it wouldbe premature to reacha conclusonon thes pointsgen the timetablehereby it is recommendedthat these issuesshould be studiedas part of the Gi;ARsoveraloer es during the comingmonths.
Woking Grou 6 further recmmended that there be a discussionon the evolutionof CGA- GFAR relationshs a
In plenarysession, Members commended the opennessof the WorkingGroup brainstorming sessionsand the opportunitiesprovided to discussthe substanceof a broadmix of issuesand future planningfor CGIARgovernance and structure.The Groupbriefly discussed the findingsof Working Groups 1 5 and WorkingGroup 7, and agreedthat the informationand conclusionswill enrichthe work of TAC, CDC, CBC, and other committeesin the next phase of developingthe new vision and strategy for the CGIAR.
Regardingthe proceduralrecommendations offered by WorkingGroup 6, Membersnoted that the momentouschanges brought about by the scientificand informationrevolutions have profound implicationsfor the CGIAR. The challengeto the CGIAR is to deepenits understandingof those changes and clarifythat understandinginto a new vision.
Membersnoted that at ICW2000,the CGIARwill be challengedto decidewhether structural alterationsare requiredwithin the CGIARSystem to fulfilthe new vision; and if so, what the new structure(s)should be; and how best and withinwhat time frame to transit from the present to such a
32 Chartingthe CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 SSMMA1Y OF P3OCEE INIS structure.The structuralalterations required to fulfilthe new vision willbe the key issuethat the CGIAR willgrapple with at ICW2000.
In discussingthe process and timetablefor movingbeyond MTM2000, several Members raised the issue of the ConsultativeCouncil's involvement and the use of another mechanism,a synthesisgroup, to integratecontributions from all stakeholdergroups and generateactionable recommendations on organizationalstructure and governance.The synthesisgroup would not be representativeof the Group as a whole, but insteadinvolve individualsserving in their personalcapacity, knowledgeable insiders, and outside experts,under the auspicesof the OversightCommittee. It was generallyagreed that the synthesis group could provide a useful mechanismfor moving forwardon structuralissues in the short-term.The ConsultativeCouncil would be convenedat the Chairman'sdiscretion and decisionsabout the next Councilmeeting would be left to the incomingChainnan.
Decision: The Group adopted the seven planks of TAC's proposed new vision statement, broadly endorsed the definition of the heartland, adoptedfollow up arrangements and a timetable for exploring structural changes, and expressed a desire to discuss options at ICW2000.
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 33 SIMi MA Y OF PAO C E E II1C S
GlobalForum on AgriculturalResearch
GFAR 2000- "Strengthening Partnerships in Agricultural Research for Development in the Context of Globalization"- presented the CGIAR with a vision of the environment in which the CGIAR System works and the full range of partners. Held May 21 - 23, 2000 in Dresden as part of MTM2000, the Forum included 500 stakeholders from the public and private sectors. R. S. Paroda, Chair of the Global Forum, presented a report to the Group on major outcomes of the meeting.
Mr. Paroda began his presentation by tracing the history of GFAR. GFAR was established in 1996 with the encouragement of the CGIAR to provide an innovative means through which all partners engaged in agricultural research for the benefit of the poor could act together on global priorities. National agricultural research institutions, advanced research institutes, intemational agricultural research centers, the private sector, non-govemmental organizations, farmers' organizations, and regional/sub-regional organizations are represented within GFAR.
In summarizing the achievements of GFAR 2000, Mr. Paroda stressed that a key outcome was the endorsement of the Dresden Declaration, "Towards a Global system for Agricultural Research for Development." GFAR stakeholders envision the development of an agriculture, including crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry, which is: * sustainable, equitable, profitable and competitive, in the context of community centered rural development, fully recognizing the role of women; diversified and flexible to cope with heterogeneous and rapidly changing agro-ecological and socio-economic environments with an important role for the farm family; and * responsive to multiple sources of knowledge and innovations, both modem and traditional.
The "Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture" was also endorsed by the stakeholders and adopted by the GFAR Steering Committee. It strongly supports the ongoing revision of FAO's International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources as well as the Leipzig Global Plan of Action. It encourages countries "that are considering or reviewing legislation on intellectual property, to do so in such a way that they do not restrict the exchange, transfer and use of germplasm in crop improvement programs.
In plenary session, the Group discussed the GFAR2000 conclusions and the lessons for the CGIAR - in particular for its new vision and strategy. It was felt that the presence of such a diverse group of stakeholders representing the global agricultural research community demonstrated a continuing resolve to move towards an agenda responsive to small and poor farmers in developing countries. The Forum considered important research partnerships including those on genetic resources management and biotechnology, natural resources management and agroecology, commodity chains, policy management, and institutional development.
Several Members discussed the nature of GFAR as a forum that facilitates consensus building on strategic issues and research partnerships. Members agreed that it is not a funding mechanism although it could play a catalytic role in initiating stakeholder activities. GFAR priorities include facilitating information flows and concerted actions among stakeholders, promoting policy management capacity building in stakeholders, and developing a "project marketplace" of best projects and practices.
The first step to implement the Global Vision, it was generally agreed, is the establishment of building blocks of the global system for agricultural research for development. These include formulating
34 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 SUMMARY OF PRICEEDINIS a strategicglobal research agenda which capitalizeson the comparativestrengths and advantagesof differentstakeholders; promoting innovative, cost-effective and sustainable research partnerships and strategicalliances; and establishing specialized agricultural knowledge and information systems, including informationand communicationtechnologies (ICE) networking among stakeholders. Issuesconcerning CGIAR involvement in GFARwere also raised. CGIAR Centers are representedin the GFARsteering committee and involved in dialogueson strategicglobal issues such as plant geneticresources as wellas otheractivities. There was support for continuedCGIAR-GFAR collaboration,but it wasfelt that moredetailed discussions should take place after the completionof an on-goingextemal review of the GFAR.
Decision:The Group receivedthe reporton the GlobalForum, reaffirmedthe strongties that exist betweenGEAR and the CGIAR, and agreed to review more specific aspects of that relationshipafter the completionof the GEARexternal review.
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 3 SUM MAN Y OF PR 0 C EFIIEI S
Longer-Term Financing Strategy
FinanceCommittee Chair lain MacGillivrayintroduced Alex McCalla, chair of the workinggroup on a LongerTerm FinancingStrategy for the CGIAR.
At its meetingin January 1999,the ConsultativeCouncil requested Mr. McCalla,as Finance CommitteeChair, to leadimplementation of the CGIARSystem Review Panel's recommendationson resourcemobilization and publicawareness. At MTM99,the Group endorsedMr. McCalla'sproposal that a consultingcompany, the ConservationCompany, be engagedfor the task under the guidanceof a workinggroup representingkey constituencies- the Centers,Members, CGIAR publicawareness and resourcemobilization professionals, and PublicAwareness and Resource MobilizationCommittee (PARC).At ICW99,the Group discussedan interim report and endorsed the Finance Committee's recommendationsthat: * the CGIAR'slonger term financingstrategy be based on continuationof ODA fundingwith some proportion being supportedby non-ODA fundingfrom DAC countries,expansion of Southern financialparticipation, and a specialeffort to solicitprivate philanthropy; and * a singlemechanism, such as a CGIAR/Future Harvest Foundation,be used to implementa harmonized,but not centralized,approach for resourcemobilization and public awareness.
In his introduction,Mr. MacGillivraynoted that sinceICW99, there has been a strong effort by the workinggroup to put the longer-termfinancing strategy in the context of the new CGIARvision. The draft report focuses on strategicissues of longer term fundingand an interim structurewhich emphasizes non-traditionalresources and enhancedpublic awareness.It seeksendorsement to proceedwith expandingFuture Harvestpublic awarenessefforts, definingnext steps includingpilot activitieswith non- traditionalsources, and continuingthe workinggroup until ICW2000to refine resourcemobilization strategiesand recommenda fiveyear operationalbudget.
Mr.McCalla presented the workinggroup's draft report. The report proposesa significant expansionof public awarenessinitiatives with Future Harvest in the lead and significantCenter involvement.It callsfor creationof new fundraisingcapacities Systemwide, at the Center level,and at national and regionallevels where possible. It also callsfor expandedefforts to enlistthe Southern countriesto support the CGIAR financiallyand increasinglytake ownershipof the System.
The draft report recommendscreation of a global,multi-pronged public awareness/resource mobilizationeffort. Builton Future Harvest,this expandedpublic awareness/resourcemobilization effort wouldplace communicationsprofessionals in most regions,build partnershipswith national support organizations,NGOs, and other national efforts,support and strengthenCenter efforts, raise funds whereverlegally established, advocate for Centers and the System,and match donors and programs.The effort would requirean estimated$1.5 to $2 millionannual investment, and an additional$1 millionfor regionalhubs and partial support of PA/RM staff at the Centers.Mr. McCallasaid that expectedretums from this investmentare $79 to 110million from non-traditionalfunding sources within fiveyears, and $120to 200 millionwithin 10years, includingas much as $32million derived from yield on endowment.
In plenary discussion,the Group noted the decliningODA, growingcompetition for resources and the perceptionthat traditionalglobal institutions have lost relevance.There was agreementthat these intemal and extemalchallenges to CGIAR growthand diversificationrequire bold new initiatives.The goalsare to reaffirmthe CGIAR'srelevance in todayvssociety, convey messages of work and impact to key constituencies,and implementinnovative strategies to tap new sourcesof funding,both publicand private.
36 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 S MM A It Y Of PlogC EED111
There was strong support for buildingon the successof Future Harvest. Makingthe case for the CGIAR, severalMembers emphasized, will require creating a brand image for the CGIAR, finding synergiesbetween CGIAR researchand donor priorities,and developingcogent messagesthat link CGIARresearch directly to poverty alleviation,food security,and sustainabledevelopment. There was agreementon the need to developa coherent strategywhich is coordinatedbut not centralized.
SeveralMembers raised concerns that involvementof the private sector would put the CGIAR under new scrutiny,especially in the NGO community.It was also noted that expandedCGIAR investmentsby the South shouldnot be at the expenseof national programs.Members also discussedthe estimatedcosts of the globalpublic awareness/resource mobilization effort and the importanceof measuringperformance based on the ratio of funds spent to funds raisedwithin a reasonabletime frame.
Decision:The Group unanimouslyaffirmed the needfor a globalpublic awareness/resource mobilizationeffort, endorsed the conceptof the CGIAR/FutureHarvest Foundation, and requestedthat a businessplan andfinal proposalon structurebe presentedat ICW2000.
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 37 SUMMAAY OF PIOCEE IINS
Seminar on CGIAR'sImpact on Germplasm Improvement
A specialseminar was held on "Crop GeneticImprovement and AgriculturalDevelopment," the IAEG study conductedunder the directionof Dr. Robert Evenson of Yale Universityin collaboration with the Centers and severalNARS. The study of crop germplasmimpacts covers ten crops for which the internationaland national researchsystems have been engaged.These crops constitute 80 percent of the areaplanted in developingcountries.
Hans Gregersen,Chair of the StandingPanel on Impact Assessment,provided an overviewof the synthesisreport distributedat MTM2000.The report builds on impact assessmentwork undertaken by individualCenters and their NARScolleagues in monitoringand documentingreleased varieties, adoption rates, and production gainsfor individualcommodities. In addition, countrycase studiesfor China,Brazil and India add further insightsinto the impactsof the CGIAR crop germplasmimprovement activities. This is a milestonestudy, Mr. Gregersennoted, in the sensethat it is the first time that a Systemwide perspectiveis emergingon the questionof whatkind of impactsthe Centers' crop germplasm improvementactivities are having on the world's crop producersand consumers.
Mr. Evenson describedthe synthesisreport and summarizedthe major conclusionsof the assessmentprogram:
* The growth of investmentsin crop germplasmimprovement activity in the NARShas paralleled that of the Centers.While there is no evidencefor direct linkagesbetween the two, the study speculatesthat there is an indirect linkage,not only in the countrieswhere NARSprograms were non-existentor where there was littlecapacity in the 1960s,but also in the more developed countryand crop programs,where, presumably, there were strong interactionsbetween the nationaland Center programs.
* There is a continuinghigh levelof NARSand Center production of improvedvarieties. The data availabledo not support the contentionthat strong diminishingreturns to varietalproduction are takingplace.
* With regardto Center contributionto overallvarietal releases, the study concludesthat the proportion of center-developedvarieties has remainedroughly constant at 33 percent of all releases.Further, "in recent years20 percent of all varietalreleases were based on Center-crossed parents and 15 percent on other Center-crossedancestors." The study emphasizesthat "... these indirectindexes do not actuallymeasure the true germplasmiceffect of the Centers.A much more complex statisticalestimation of a breedingfunction for NARSprograms must be estimated." Using such a model, the study concludesthat, for all crops pooled, the resultingstatistically significantcoefficients imply: >- From 1965to 1980,NARS breedingactivities doubled in size. The anticipatedincrease in NARSvarietal production was approximately60%. ActualNARS varietal production approximatelydoubled, however, from the 1970sto the 1990s. >- Center germplasmresearch made NARSmore productiveby approximately30 percent.Thus, the cnieat effect of the increasein NARSbreeding and the Center germplasmresearch produced an approximatedoubling of NARSvarietal production. (CGIARparents were present in 33 percent of NARS varietiesand other CGIAR ancestorsin 22 percent of NARS varieties.)
38 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SIMMAIY OF PIDCEEDIN C
* The direct contribution of Center programs (to varietal production) relative to the investment of resourcesis impressive.In the 1980sand 1990sthe proportion of total varietiesproduced by Centerswas well abovetheir proportion of total resourcesinvested in suchproduction.
* With regardto adoption,the study found that, as expected,the percentageof "area plantedto crop" that is plantedto "improved"or "modem" varietieswas low in 1970 (exceptfor wheat in Asia)and grew steadilysince then to a point where improvedvarieties are dominant in most crops.
* Further, "Center-contentvanieties are consideredby farmersto be as valuableas, or more valuablethan, non-Center-contentimproved varieties.
* With regardto production impacts,the study approachedthem in two ways,first, using Center preparedstudies addressingthe issue;and second,using the insightsderived from three country case studies (Brazil,India and China).The paper explainsthe proceduresused for each approach, includinghow the counterfactualwas derived and used in obtainingthe finalestimates. The basic conclusionsare that:
>- without the Centers, releasedvarieties would have been anywherefrom 45 to 60 percentless, dependingon assumptions.The study used the more conservativefigure in calculatingCenter related production gains;and >- adjustedestimates of productivitygains per year due to crop germplasmimprovement were in the 1 to 1.5percent range;
* Insertingthe variousestimates, including the counterfactual(i.e. without Centers)estimates derived from the previoussteps into an IFPRI based (IMPACT)model, the studyderives the followingestimates of what wouldhave happenedwithout the CGIAR input:
- prices for grain crops would have been between27 and 41 percent higher overthe 25 year period, dependingon the crop; >- imports of food in developingcountries would have been 9 percent higher (reflectingthe advantagethat the counterfactualconfers to developedcountries relative to developingones); >- the area plantedto crop would have been significantlyhigher, and >- there would have been a highernumber of malnourishedchildren.
* In terms of the basicpoverty alleviationgoal, the poor wouldhave been hurt more by the higher pricesin the absenceof the CGIAR because(a) they spend a higher fractionof their income on food, (b) in poorer economiesa higherproportion of food is consumedin non-processedform, thus the price effectis greaterthan in an economywhere the farm value of food is low relativeto the consumer value (i.e.where high levelsof processingcontribute to the price the consumer pays);and (c) "... between 1.5 and 2 percent fewerchildren from developingcountries were malnourishedthan wouldhave been the case without Centersinvestment in crop germplasm improvement."
The study concludesthat: "Consumersbenefit most and poor consumersbenefit most of all from agriculturalresearch. Fanners are consumerstoo and for the world's smallestfarm producersthe total producerand consumer gainsare large.The provisionalfindings support the propositionthat Center investmentshave had impactsin all of the study crops. These impactshave been large, partlybecause of high "leverage"through Center-NARSjoint production.The placingof crop germplasmimprovement at the core of Center programsappears to have very strong justification.
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 39 S MM AI Y OF PIt O EF II NgS
During the discussion following the presentation, participants noted the assumptions and extrapolations that were required to reach the relevant conclusions presented, recognizing that with better baseline data and records over time, a more refned set of conclusions could have been reached. At the same time, it was felt that this study is a significant step toward a fuller understanding of the tremendous impacts of the CGIAR. The study provides a landmark for future, more refined studies based on improved monitoring and record keeping.
Participants agreed that the major conclusion of the Evenson study- consumers benefit most and poor consumers benefit most of allfrom agricultural research- reinforces the view that productivity increases in staple crops have direct, beneficial impacts on reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. Indeed, the provisional fidings support the proposition that CGIAR research investments have had positive impacts on all crops in the portfolio and that these impacts have been large because of the synergistic partnership with national programs.
Participants congratulated Professor Evenson and his colleagues for the important results and insights regarding the irpacts of crop germplasm improvement work in the CGIAR. The full reports of the commodity and the country case studies will be available at ICW2000. The final results of this broad set of assessment activities will be published in various forms and provide significant information for use by the Group, Centers, TAC and the broader community interested in the value and impacts of agricultural research.
40 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SIMMAIY OF PIUCEFIINCS
1999 Financial Outcomes and 2000 Progress Report
Overview
The Group reviewed the System's financial outcome for 1999 and the progress toward meeting the approved financing plan for 2000.
1999 Financial Outcomes
Finance Committee Chair lain MacGilivray reported to the Group on the 1999 financial outcome and 2000 prospects. In 1999, funding totaled $330 million, a decrease of $10 milion from the approved financing plan. The primary reason for the shortfall was the default, due to procedural mishaps, by the European Commission (EC) on its 1999 commitment of $16 milion.
The majority of Centers received funding within a 10 percent range of their approved funding. Only five Centers were outside this range - ICARDA (-)15 percent or $3.4 million; CIFOR (-)14 percent or $1.9 milion; CIAT (-)13 percent or $4.5 milion; CIP (-)12 percent or $2.9 million; and ILRI (-) 10 percent or $3.1 milion. If the EC had not defaulted on its contribution, all five Centers would have been within 10 percent and thus broadly in line with their financing plan targets.
Disbursement of funds continued to be slow in 1999. Delays in EC funding for 1997 and 1998 were resolved by the end of 1999 for most Centers. The Finance Committee again urged Members to make every effort to accelerate disbursements.
CGIAR as a whole remains in a strong position. Total net assets at the end of 1999 were $297 milion. Of this amount, $202 milion was invested in fixed assets and $95 milion in reserves. Financial data show the following trends: * Personnel spending is lower in percentage, continuation of a recent trend. * Investment allocations by undertaking are consistent with previous trends. By regions, investment m sub-Saharan Africa increased from 40 percent in 1998 to 42 percent. Investment in WANA declined from 10 percent to 9 percent, and in LAC from 18 percent to 17 percent. Investments in Asia remained at 32 percent.
2000 ProgressReport
The 2000 financing plan of $340 million approved at ICW99 is on track. This plan includes a 50 percent reduction in German unrestricted funding in 2000 as well as more modest declines in unrestricted funding in 2000 from Sweden and Denmark It is also expected that the EC will resume its financing for 2000.
Regarding the allocation of 2000 World Bank funds, the Committee had made the following recommendations at ICW99: * $37.25 million allocated to Centers on a matching basis in the ratio of 12 percent of funds from Members other than the World Bank,
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2020 41 SUMMAAY OF PROCEEDINCI
* Specialallocation of $1.75milio.. $0.6million to ICRAF;$0.6 million to IPGRI; $0.3million to IITA for Systemwideprograms; and $.25million to CIMMYTto rebuildits tropical maize station. * At MTM2000,the FinanceCommittee proposed the following: >- CIP: $0.5million >- CGIARCentral Asia project: $1 million >- CIMMYTRice-Wheat prograrn: $0.25 million >- IFPRI/ISNAR Indicators:$0.25 million (a four-yearcommitment) >- SPIA/TAC/IFPRI Povertyproject: $0.25 million >- EC adjustmentpackage: $2. 75 million(remainder to be funded by an advancecomrnitnent of $3 millionof 2001World Bank funds and by drawingdown $2.2million from CGIAR long-termreserves). >- Partnershipactivities: $0.8 million.
Decisions: The Groupadopted the FinanceCommittee's report on the 1999financial outcome.In 1999, funding totaled$330 million,a decreaseof $10 millionfrom the approvedfinancingplan. Theprimary reasonfor the shortfallwas the default,due to proceduralmishaps, by the EuropeanCommission on its 1999 commitmentof $16 million.
The Group receivedthe FinanceCommittee's report that the outlookfor 2000 continuedto be stable at the level of the approvedfinancingplan of $340 million. The Groupendorsed the allocationof WorldBank funds proposed by the FinanceCommittee.
42 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 t 1MM AI Y OiF PIO C EBEDI 4
2001 CGIARResearch Agenda, Funding Requirements,and 2001-2003Medium Term Plan
The Centersupdated their medium-termplans (MTIPs)for 2001-2003in the context of the MTPs reviewedlast year and their likelyoutcomes. TAC confirmedthat the plans are broadlyconsistent with those approvedlast year. TAC reportedprogress toward the generallevels of allocationsacross Centers, commodities,and undertakings,and noted with pleasurethat the majorityof Centers presentedtheir projects in log-framnefornat. This more systematicand open process,within the frameworkof the rolling three-yearresearch plans, will provideincentive for researchinnovation.
After reviewingindividual Center proposals, TAC noted that five Centers- CIAT, CIMMYT, IFPRI, IITA, and IPGRI- are significantlyabow their approvedlevels for 2001,while three- ICRISAT, ILRI, and ISNAR- are significantlybdw. The remainingseven Centers are near the approvedlevel. (The "approvedlevel" is the percentageof total CGIARexpenditures approved by the Group for eachCenter in the context of its three-yearMTP.)
TAC'sanalysis of the 2001 agendashows:
The continuingshortfall in allocationsto germplasmimprovement compared to what was endorsedby the Group;This is occunngat a time when new developmentsin moleculargenetics offer opportunityfor breedingfor traits to overcomeyield and productivityconstraints in favorableand less favorableenvironments. * A largerthan endorsed sharefor strengtheningNARS at a time when it is important for the CGIARto rethinkthe geographicand thematic focus of its capacitystrengthening, to devolve certain strategicactivities to strong NARS,and to seeknew, non-traditionalnational partners in key areas such as natural resourcesmanagement. * Continuingunderinvestment in livestockresearch at a time when, accordingto a recent IFPRI/ILRI study, significantproduction increasestantamount to a "livestockrevolution" will be neededto meet futurelivestock demand by 2020,given rapidlydiversifying diets in the developingworld. e Proposed investmentin the water sector is approachingtarget, but the actualand estimated outcomesfor 1999and 2000,respectively, are stiUlbelow target, at a time when lackof accessto fresh water is rapidlybecoming a key constraintto globalfood productionrequiring urgent attentionto water managementissues; and * Continuedoversubscription to rice and wheat in an allocationalsense, althoughnew plant types currentlyunder developmentfor both crops as well as developmentof interspecificrice varieties do offer potentialfor breakingyield ceilingin the mediumterm.
The Centers have proposed 2001 CGIAR investmentsof $379 millionwhich would require fundingof $367 million,8 percent over the $340 millionlevel in the 2000 financingplan togetherwith Centergenerated income of $12 million.Centers have reported actual fundingof $330 millionin 1999and are now estimating$352 million in Member fundingin 2000,to be supplementedby about $15 millionin earnedincome. However, the Finance Committeereconmmended a 2001 financialplanning target of $340 millionin view of the likely2000 outcome of $340 million.
Decision: The Group approvedthe substanceof the 2001 ResearchAgenda recommended by TAC and the FinanceCommittee's proposal that financial planning for 2001 be undertakenin the contextof $340 millionfunding target.
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 43 S UMMAI Y OF PIO C EE D 1Ni S
External Program and ManagementReviews
The CGIARconsidered extemal reviews of three Centers - IWMI,WARDA, and ICARDA. Followingdiscussions in parallelsessions, the adhocevaluation committees presented reports to the Plenarywhere the Group discussedand endorsedthe recommendations.Mr. Serageldincommended the reviewpanels and ad hxocommittees for their excellentreports.
IWMI
At a parallelsession chaired by Eduardo Moscardi,an ad hoccommnittee of interested CGIAR Membersand other MTM2000participants discussed the report of the second Extemal Program and ManagementReview (EPMR) of IWMI, aswell as the Center's response and the TAC commentary.The discussionof the reviewreport followeda presentationby MichelPetit, ReviewPanel Chair,the Center response by KlasJan Beek, BoardChair, Frank Rijsberman,Director General designate,and Doug Merrey,deputy Director General, and commentaryby Elias Fereres, TAC Member.
Highlights of the Committee discussion
The ad hoc committee:
* Concurredwith the overallconclusions of the ReviewPanel and TAC that the reviewresulted in a positiveoverall assessment and commendedIWMI for undergoinga successfultransfomiation over the past six yearsto a broader,holistic, science-based and research-orientedapproach to water managementissues; * Noted IWMI's commendableeffort in definingits mission, settingpriorities, and implementing strategy. * Expressedsatisfaction that IWMI is well positionedto exert strong leadershipin developing science-basedsolutions to water managementchallenges; * Encouragedexpanded collaboration with other CGIAR Centersto strengthenexpertise in crop physiology; * Suggestedthat the SystemwideInitiative on Water Managementbe continued,with some redesign and focus; * Suggestedmore emphasison strategicalliances and partnershipsto deliverresearch outputs; * Calledfor a strengthenedpolicy focus at macro and Systemlevels; * Urged rethinkingof strategicplanning and product deliverymodes in light of the regionaland eco-regionalfocus; * Noted that groundwaterdepletion is a seriousproblem affectedby macroeconomicpolicy issues as well as use of smallpumps for irrigation; * Noted that health issueswere best dealtwith through strategicalliances with UNICEF, WHO, and similarorganizations; * Noted that competingclaims for water resultin seriousscarcity issues.
Conclusions and recommendations
The ad hoc committee:
* Endorsed the Panel's recommendationsand positive assessmentof IWMI,thanking the Panel for an excellentreport and IWMI for its excellentpreparations for the review;
44 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SI MM AI Y OF PI* C E E[DIN S
* PraisedIWMI for adoptingthe Panel'srecommendations that the Center enhanceexpertise in crop physiology,address issues of groundwaterdepletion, water quality,and natural resource management,increase emphasis on povertyand gender issues,retain researchdealing with irrigation-relatedhuman health issues,and adopt more formalprocedures for prioritysetting. • PraisedIWMI for adoptingthe Panel's recommendationsthat governancebe enhancedby implementinga Board developmentprogram, establishing an audit committee,taking steps to clarifyBoard responsibilities,and implementingbi-annual Board meetings. * Urgedcontinued support for IWMI'swork.
ICARDA
At a parallelsession chairedby Jochen de Haas, an ad hoccommittee of interested CGIARMembers and other participantsdiscussed the report of the fourth ExtemalProgram and ManagementReview of ICARDAas well as the Center'sresponse and TACs commentary.The discussionfollowed an introductionof the reviewreport by Don Plucknett,Panel chair,the Center responseby Robert Havener, Board Chair,and Adel El-Beltagy,Director General,and the TAC commentaryby Alain de Janvry,TAG Member.
Highlights of the Committee Discussion
The ad hoc committee:
* Concurredwith the overallconclusions of the ReviewPanel and TAC that the review resultedin a very positiveassessment of ICARDAand commendedthe Center for an impressive transformationin programs and strategies,the overallquality of science,and its effective partnerships; * Noted the Center's excellentpreparations for the review,including the eight Center- commissionedexternal reviews; * Noted that ICARDAshould begin a period of "dynamicconsolidation" of prioritiesand strategies,focusing activities in Central and West Asia and North Africainstead of spreading resourcesacross all dry areas in the developingworld, * Praisedthe Center'spartnership efforts, especiallywith NARS,but suggesteda strategicreview of the Center's overalloutreach activities; * Agreedthat a reviewshould be commissionedin two yearsto determinethe extent to whichthe Reviewrecommendations, particularly regarding NRM and socialscience programs, have been followed; * Agreedthat a computerizedmanagement information system would enhancestaff productivity, and * Expressedconcern at the severedecline in unrestrictedfunding over the past fiveyears and endorsed TAC's analysisof the impact on Center research activities,impact, and interactionswith NARS and advancedresearch institutes.
Conclusionsand recommendations
The ad hoc committee:
* Thankedthe Panel for an excellentreport and ICARDAfor excellentpreparations for the review; * Calledthe Group's attentionto the importanceof the ICARDA'swork and encouragedcontinued support; * Endorsed the Panel'srecommendations and TACs comments;
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 45 SIM MAI Y IF PI OCEED I NCS
Assuredthe Group that ICARDAis well positionedto meet challengesto internationalresearch in the CWANAregion.
WARDA
At a parallelsession chairedby ChristineGrieder, an ad ho committeeof interestedMembers and participantsdiscussed the report of the fourth Extemal Program and ManagementReview of WARDA. The discussionof the reviewreport was based on a presentationof the conclusionsand recommendations by MandiRukuni, Panel Chair, the Center'sresponse by Just Faaland,Board Chair, and KanayoNwanze, Director General,and the TAC commentaryby Joachim von Braun,TAC Member.
Highlights of the Committee Discussion
The ad hoc committee:
* Concurredwith the overallconclusions of the ReviewPanel and TAC that WARDAhas transformeditself into a well managedscientific institution, with notable achievementssuch as the developmentof inter-specificrice hybrids,and praisedthe Center'spartnerships and effectiveand efficientoperation. * Noted that WARDA'sBoard and Managementwelcomed all the Panel'srecommendations but offered differentviews on two of them- namely,giving higher priorityto crop and resource managementof rainfedrice, and reorganizingthe researchprogram on rainfedrice. * Noted that WARDAis in a unique position to recommendpolicy changes that are importantto food securitychallenges in the region; * Noted the high politicalconmuitment to WARDA,even though Membershipcontributions remainlow; * Agreedthat seasonalityissues are important in the context of WARDA'swork on the sustainabilityof rice-basedproduction systems;and * Agreedthat WARDA shouldundertake a comprehensiveanalysis of genderissues.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The ad hoc committee:
* Thankedthe Panel for an excellentreport and WARDAfor the high levelof cooperation; * Noted that some of the recommendationshave alreadybeen implemented; * Concludedthat WARDAis poisedto contributefurther to rural developmentin the rice growing areasof Africa;and * Stronglyencouraged continued support to WARDA.
Decision: The Group considered the External Program and ManagementReviews for ICARDA, IWMI, and WARDA,and endorsed the ad hoc committee's conclusions and recommendations.
46 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 SI MM AI Y OF PIR CI E IIIN S
Reportfrom the Centers
Per Pinstrup-Andersen, chair of the Center Directors Committee, presented the Centers' report on the CGIAR Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the work of the task forces on Central Asia and the Caucasus, natural resource management, and intellectual property rights.
The CGIAR Strategy for SSA was developed in response to a recommendation of the third System Review. The strategy is an example of a very successful partnership with regional associations and NARS, including the Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) and the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). Goals of the initiative are to increase food security and reduce poverty in SSA; to improve the competitiveness of African agriculture; and to enhance and improve the sustainable use of natural resources in the region. In close collaboration with regional and national institutions, the Centers see their role in SSA by the year 2020 as having contributed to the African agricultural research community's goals of attaining food security and poverty eradication through research, policy support and capacity building based on the environmentally sound management of natural resources.
The strategy is centered on four principal elements:
1. Germplasm and natural resource management technologies that offer clients a wide range of options for enhancing productivity in an environmentally sustainable manner. 2. Technology dissemination and farmer empowerment to catalyze the adoption of innovations that will increase food security and incomes of the poor. 3. Policy research to provide options that foster enabling environments for the adoption of these innovations and strengthening NARS in this area. 4. Capacity building to help develop further a cadre of qualified, experienced, and motivated African research and development specialists, managers and policy makers who will lead the region in attaining the goals of the shared vision for Africa.
Most importantly, this strategy will be implemented through innovative and effective partnership mechanisms based on joint planning, execution and evaluation of future activities, effective communication, and mutual trust and respect among all partners.
Regarding the work of the CDC Task Forces:
* The Task Force on Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC) has developed a strategy and structural format which has been endorsed by TAC. At the Luceme meeting, the Group had decided to strengthen activities in CAC. Funding has been expanded and there is now a well-functioning partnership with eight NARS and nine Centers as well as NGOs and donor institutions.
* The Task Force on Natural Resource Management (NRM) has continued a web-based dialogue and is convening a meeting on the scientific basis for better NRM, which will take place at ICLARM in August. A full report on activities and accomplishments will be presented at ICW2000.
* The Task Force on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources met in Dresden and launched a process for updating the guidelines adopted at MTM98. Most Centers have now completed the IP audits.
Charting the CGIAR's Future-A New Vision for 2010 47 SU MM AI Y Of PI DO E EII1 IS
Chair Hubert Zandstra reported on the outcome of the PARC meetings.Center Directors are pleasedwith increasedemphasis being given to public awarenessand resourcemobilization and strongly support the workinggroup report developedunder Alex McCalla'sleadership. Center Directorswill work with Future Harvest, CBC, PARC,and the workinggroup to develop a businessplan. Followingfinal decisionsat ICW2000,priorities should include implementation of the recommendationsby PARC, allocationof additionalCGIAR funds,and expansionof the present Future Harvest board to between 12 and 15 members.Finally, Mr. Zandstranoted the CDC proposal that the Centers be known as "Future HarvestCenters."
Decision: The Groupreceived the Centers'report on programmaticdevelopments in the System and the PublicAwareness and ResourceMobilization Committee's report on public awarenessand resourcemobilization.
48 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 S U1A I Y OF PI 0 C EE D IN GS
Reportsfrom CGIAR Cosponsorsand Committees
The Group received and adopted the recommendations of the Cosponsors and the Oversight, Finance, Science Partnership, Genetic Resources Policy, Private Sector, and Non-Governmental Organization Committees, as well as the Center Directors Committee and the Committee of Board Chairs.
Cosponsors' Report
World Bank representative Robert Thompson presented a report on behalf of the CGIAR cosponsors - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank
The Cosponsors met at MTM 2000, with Chairman Serageldin presiding. Highlights of the discussion and decisions follow: • The Cosponsors reviewed the results of the Consultative Council's meeting at MTM 2000 to discuss the companion paper to the TAC vision statement. The Council recommended that the Group adopt TAC's strategic elements, discuss any proposals on structure that the Centers were ready to discuss at MTM2000, and adopt an action plan and schedule of next steps. * Regarding TAC membership, the Cosponsors recommended the extension of Joachim von Braun and Richard Harwood for another two-year term and endorsed the TAC Chair's recommendation to search for candidates to fill the other two membership slots. * The Cosponsors noted that, due to financial reasons, UNEP can no longer maintain its status as a cosponsor; however, it remains a CGIAR member. * The Cosponsors noted that following the integration of TAC and IAEG, IAEG has been replaced by a Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) which will serve as TAC's principal instrument for all system-level evaluation and imnpactassessments. The TAC and IAEG Secretariats have been integrated into a single service unit based at FAO, Rome. * The Cosponsors noted the progress of GFAR and the need to discuss details of future CGIAR support at ICW2000. * The Cosponsors received a report that the search for the CGIAR Director is underway. The Search Commnitteeexpects to identify a short list of candidates who will be invited for interviews and a public seminar at the World Bank during the summer of 2000.
Oversight Commnittee
Andrew Bennett presented the report of the Oversight Commnitteeand announced the new members: Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli, Ruth Haug, Emmy Simmons, Gilles St. Martin, Juan Restrepo, and Zhao Longyue. The Committee thanked Mervat Badawi, who stepped down at MTM 2000, for her outstanding contributions.
The Committee welcomed the two TAC reports on the CGIAR vision, strategy, and structure. The Committee praised the approval of a clear timetable for follow up on the action proposals and accepted the mandate to convene the synthesis group in early October. On the follow up to the third
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 49 SU MN AI Y OF PI DC I E II NgS
System Review, the Committee reported on the progress of the Retrospective Review, which will provide a draft report for discussion at 1CW2000.
Regarding the Centers, the Committee encouraged the Secretariat to continue the successful Board orientation program initiated at ICW99, congratulated new IWMI and CIAT Directors General Frank Rijsberman and Joachim Voss, and encouraged the Boards at CIFOR, ICRAF, and IITA to follow similar process in their search for new Directors General.
Regarding activities at the System level, the Commrittee
* expressed regret about the decision of the current chair, Mr. Serageldin, to step down, and welcomed the announcement of Ian Johnson's appointrnent; * noted with regret UNEP's decision to withdraw as co-sponsor for financial reasons; * welcomed the report on the Longer-term Financing Strategy; * congratulated Dr. Paroda and the organizers of GFAR2000 on a successful conference; and * announced that the current Committee Chair will step down at ICW2000 and a new Chair is being selected.
Finance Committee
lain MacGillivray presented the report of the Finance Committee. (For details on the 1999 financial results and 2000 financing plans, see pages 39 to 40.) The Committee discussed progress on five financial policies during its meeting at MTM2000.
Indirect Costs: Ernst & Young, India, is conducting a review of Center practices for indirect cost accounting and computation. The review includes an assessment of existing center practices and a pilot program at five Centers based on a "value chain" framework. The next step is to test the approach at the remaining 11 centers and to initiate consultations with the investor community.
Liquidity Management: An inter-center working group is examining the possibility of pooling excess cash available at individual Centers to maximize financial returns. The Finance Committee is considering a proposal from Citibank which offers 2 percent higher returns (7 percent instead of 5 percent) on an investment pool.
Accounting Manual: Revised accounting policies, based on a review by Price Waterhouse- Philippines, are being implemented by the Centers. Among changes in the format of the financial statements are:
* Different categories of reserves (e.g.: Operating and Capital) will be combined in a single category as "net assets." * Fixed asset lines in financial statements will exclude buildings and structures; past investments m buildings will not be subject to depreciation accounting.
Internal Audit: An intemal audit team, jointly sponsored by ICLARM, IRRI, IPGRI, and the Secretariat, has been established. The team is undertaking compliance programs at the three sponsoring Centers and has been helpful in problem solving at two other Centers.
Financial Systems. Following a survey of Center financial systems, a pilot project based on an "information warehouse" concept was initiated. The Committee will be briefed at ICW2000 on the project's success.
50 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 t UMM AN Y OF PI ICE E[I RC S
Science Partnership
The Science Partnership Committee held its inaugural meeting at MTM2000. In his statement to the Committee, Chairman Serageldin underscored the need to increase and strengthen CGIAR scientists' linkages with the rest of the scientific community.
The Committee clarified its role * to help the CGIAR increase partnerships with the broader scientific community; * to help the CGIAR anticipate how scientific advances can be used to pursue its mission and goals; and * to contribute to strategic thinking and planning sought by TAC.
Committee members discussed the TAC vision and strategy paper with Chair Emil Javier, and supported TAC's recommendation "to bring modem science to bear on difficult productivity and institutional problems." 'Me Committee endorsed the adoption of an integrated approach to NRM research, recognizing the importance of both modem and local traditional knowledge.
Regarding partnerships, the Committee will help identify potential collaborative arrangements with advanced scientific institutions and plans to interact with Center Directors at ICW2000.
Genetic Resources Policy Committee
Chair Geoffrey Hawtin reported on the activities of the Genetic Resources Policy Committee.
* International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The Conmmitteeencouraged all CGIAR members to work actively to further advance the renegotiation of the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Special attention should be given to ensuring that national governments appreciate the importance of an early conclusion to the renegotiation. * National Legislation. The Committee encouraged CGIAR members to help ensure that national legislation in their respective countries take into account the importance of open germplasm flow so that CGIAR Centers can continue to serve their many partners within and beyond the host country. * Implementing the FAO-Center Agreements on Germplasm. The Committee endorsed the Centers' actions to standardize practices regarding Material Transfer Agreements (MTA) fbr designated germplasm and recommended that all Centers move with deliberate speed to implement and publicize the procedures used with the standardized MTA format. The Committee commended the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme for its work on genebank standards and strongly endorsed the creation of an endowment to support Center genebanks. * Designated Germplasm under FAO Agreements. The Commnitteethanked IPGRI for moving forward the analysis of the implications of new research techniques and changing policy environment on CGIAR trusteeship responsibilities. The issues that remain are complex, and should be a principal focus of the committee's work in the coming months. The Committee plans a fuller report on these matters for CGIAR members following its September 2000 meeting. In the interim it commends the IPGRI paper to the CDC for its consideration. * Central Advisory Service (CAS). The Comnnittee recommended that CAS work with Centers to exchange experiences with respect to IPRs. The Committee plans to review this issue further at its next meeting. * GFAR report on Genetic Resource Policy activities. The Committee welcomed this initiative, and expressed its hope that the effort would underscore the unique nature of Plant Genetic
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 50 IM MAIY OF PROCEEIINcS
Resources for Food and Agriculture and the important role of in situ/on-farm conservation in general and women in particular. Some concern was expressed that the initiative take into account the special needs and opportunities in countries with smaller NARS, particularly in connection with the TRIPS agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. * Underutilized and Neglected Crops. The Commnitteeis looking into reports that neglected and underutilized crops may not be covered by an agreed Multilateral System.
Private Sector Committee
The Private Sector Committee (PSC) met at MTM2000, interacting with Chairman Serageldin and TAC Chair Emil Javier. The Committee commented on the TAC Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR, emphasizing the need for technology partnerships with public and private providers of advanced research, a regional approach to research plannming,an independent body for handling IPR matters, and more emphasis on defining how CGIAR products would reach the end user.
On the issue of partnerships, the Commnitteenoted the complexities of collaborations with the private sector. For example, the private sector would be interested in helping to finance projects with clearly defined objectives and project outcomes aimed at poverty reduction.
Throughout the meeting, the Committee emphasized that the application of modem science is essential for achieving food security in developing countries. The CGIAR could serve in an "honest broker" role on biotechnology issues, providing a balanced view regarding the benefits of new technologies to policymakers, producers and consumers in developing countries. This could be done through a public information and conmmunicationprogram about the potential benefits of science for increasing food production and availability in developing countries. The PSC proposed that a multi- stakeholder working group of CGIAR representatives (CDC chair, Secretariat Information Officer, Future Harvest) industry bodies (Biotechnology Council, Global Crop Protection Federation, and others) and selected NGOs be created.
NGO Comniittee
The Committee has set a goal of reducing membership to eight by ICW2000. Chair Miguel Alfienr will serve until ICW2000, when Ann Bayers Water will take the helm.
The NGOC has been involved in the organization of numerous workshops in Washington, DC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Rambouillet, France, the Philippines, and Berkeley, California. The Committee has also issued numerous publications including the proceedings of a workshop at IITA, an article for BMZ/BEAF, an issues paper for GFAR, and an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Chairman Altienrparticipated in the Consultative Council meeting in Rome, where he discussed the importance of sharpening the focus of CGIAR research on the needs of the poor farmers in marginal environments. NRM (including genetic resources) should be the backbone of the CGIAR research and partnerships with farmers organizations and NGOs should be the backbone of the CGIAR System.
Center Directors Committee
The CDC has collaborated extensively with TAC on the CGIAR vision and strategy, including developing proposals for improved IP management and governance and structural options. The CDC noted its appreciation for the participatory mode followed by TAC in allowing the Centers to express their views and opinions.
52 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 I I1MA I Y Of PROC EEI 91S
Chair Hubert Zandstra reported to CDC on the outcome of the PARC meetings. Center Directors are pleased with increased emphasis being given to public awareness and resource mobilization and strongly support the working group report, developed under Alex McCalla's leadership. Center Directors will work with Future Harvest, CBC, PARC, and the working group to develop a business plan. Following fnal decisions at ICW2000, priorities should include implementation of the recommendations by PARC, allocation of additional CGIAR funds, and expansion of the present Future Harvest board to between 12 and 15 members. Finally, Mr. Zandstra noted the CDC proposal that the Centers be known as "Future Harvest Centers."
Regarding finances, the CDC acknowledged the efforts of the European Commnissionto address the 1999 funding issues.
The CDC expressed warm farewells to Chairman Ismail Serageldin, whose efforts since 1994 put the CGIAR back on the map in terms of image, and to Frona Hall, for doing an outstanding job in ensuring the smooth and effective running of CGIAR meetings.
CenterBoard Chairs
The CBC met five times during MTM2000,interacting and consulting extensively with Chairman Serageldin, TAC Chair Emil Javier, Finance Chair lain MacGiJlivray,Oversight Committee Chair Andrew Bennett, World Bank Representative Robert Thompson, PSC Chair Sam Dryden, the CDC, the Consultative Council, and other stakeholders.
The CBC/CDC will undertake a work program covering four interrelated elements of the system renewal package, contributing to the work of TAC, the Oversight Committee, the Consultative Council, and other CGIAR groups. The four elements are
1. implementation of outcomes of the TAC vision and strategy paper; 2. system structure, govemance, and management; 3. policy and practice relating to the ownership, management and trading of intellectual properLt, and 4. the efficiency of processes by which the Centers, as suppliers of intemational public goods research and related processes and services, interact with partners, donors, recipients, and other stakeholders, as buyers and users of those services and products.
The CBC/CDC will undertake additional work on the structural and govemance implications of the efficient development and conduct of research into NRM issues.
Among other highlights of the discussions: * The CBC is generally supportive of the draft Longer-Term Financing Strategy but cautioned that successful resource mobilization will require large investments of time, effort and funding. * The CBC has endorsed an annual orientation program for new Board mernbers, based on the successful pilot program following ICW99.
Decision: The Group approved the two-year extension of TAC Members Joachim von Braun and Richard Harwood, and welcomed new members of the Oversight Committee - Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli. Ruth Haug, Emmy Simmons, Gilles St. Martin, Juan Restrepo, and Zhao Longyue.
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New 7ision for 2010 53 SMM A BY Dfi PIlOtEE3IVS
Future CGIAR Meetings
Speakingon behalfof the South Africangovernment and the Ministriesof Agricultureand Land Affairs,and of Arts, Culture, Scienceand Technology,Siphiwe F. Mkhizereaffirmed South Africa'soffer to host MTM2001.The Group applaudedSouth Africa'sinvolvement and participationin the CGIAR and expressedappreciation for the invitationto host MTM2001.
ICW2000..... October23 - 27 ...... Washington,DC MTM2001..... May 21 - 25 ...... SouthAfrica ICW2001..... October29 - November2 ...... Washington,DC MTM2002...... May 27 - 31.To be determined ICW2002...... October28 - November1 . Washington,DC
54 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SM MNAR Y OF PIR C EED I RC S
Other Business
InternationalUndertaking on PlantGenetic Resources
Several Members raised concerns that national and intemational arrangements governing access to gerrnplasm appear likely to grow more and more restrictive, which could threaten continued production of international public goods, including conservation itself These international arrangements, it was noted, are being developed without direct CGIAR involvement and without an appreciation of their effects on the poor.
The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources is currently being revised to harmonize relevant provisions with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) within the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. It is urgent that the revision be completed because of the risk that national access legislation, under consideration in a number of countries, mnight foreclose or restrict the option of multilateral approaches. Over 50 countries are currently considering legislation governing access to biodiversity in the context of the CBD; however, few countries appear to be making provisions for the special needs of agriculture with respect to exchange and recombination of germnplasm.
At ICW99, the Group endorsed the statement of the Panel of Experts on Access and Benefit- Sharing of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture convened by the Secretariat of the (CBD): "In developing national legislation on access, parties should take into account and allow for the development of a multilateral system to facilitate access and benefit-sharing for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture."
At MTM2000, the Group again emphasized the urgency of the problem. Members welcomed GFAR2000's adoption of the "Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture." The declaration strongly supports the ongoing revision of FAO's Intemational Undertaking and encourages countries "that are considering or reviewing legislation on intellectual property, to do so in such a way that they do not restrict the exchange, transfer and use of germplasr in crop improvement programs."
Decision: The Group expressed concern that the lack of an international agreement on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and benefit-sharingfor genetic resources for food and agriculture poses a major threat to the future of international agricultural research. Reaffirming the importance of GFAR's Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources of Food and Agriculture, the Group encouraged individual members to bring the Declaration to the attention of appropriate authorities and to utilize additional technical information available through IPGRI.
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 55 SUMMARY OF PROCEII NCS
Chairman'sSummation, AfTM2000
Introduction
Colleaguesand friends.
I usuallyend our meetingswith a Chairman'sSummation. And, as usual, the end-of-meeting report from the Secretariatwill be availableoutside.
As this is my leavetaking, I propose to do somethingslightly different. I will, as usual, giveyou my summation.In addition,however, I will sharesome partingthoughts with you.
Thanks
As always,I prefacemy summationwith an expressionof appreciationto all those who contributedto the successof this meeting.
I want, in particular,to thank all of you around this table for your engagementthat helped in the effectiveresolution of criticalissues. I challengedyou at this meetingto move at a speed somewhat differentfrom what is normalto the CGIAR, and to do so in a manner that required a robust exchange of viewson matters of substance.I appreciateyour positiveresponse to the challenge.I especiallywant to thank the chairs,rapporteurs, and membersof yesterday'sworking groups.The opennessof the discussionwas exemplary,and bodes well for the future of the CGIAR.
Our thanks are due now to
* the German Government for hostingthis meeting; * the local authoritiesin Dresden for their support and cooperation; * Jochen de Haas, the head of the German delegation,for his untiring efforts in all aspectsand in all stagesof planningand carryingout this meeting; * Renee Emst and her colleaguesfrom BEAFwho copedwith our requirementsand demands cheerfullyand efficiently; * JurgenRichter of DSE and the staff team he brought togetherfor their exceptionallycapable support; * MartinRaich of the BellevueWestin hotel, the hotel's conferencestaff, and all other hotel staff, who were unfazedby an extraordinaryinflux of internationalvisitors; * the interpreterswho enabledus to understandeach other; * the organizersof GFAR whosediscussions enriched our own; and * Alexandervon der Osten, for his outstandingmanagement of all aspectsof MTM2000.
As always,we couldnot possiblyhave brought our MT1Mto a successfulcompletion without the commitmentand competenceof the CGIARSecretariat. However, let me take a momentto go beyondjust their work at this meeting.I want to tell you, unambiguously,that Secretariatstaff serve your interests- the interestsof the CGIAR,the internationalCenters, our partners,and clients- with a competenceand commitmentthat is not easilyreplicated. I know from personal observationand experiencethat they do so everyday, whether in Washingtonor elsewhere.They deserveunqualified appreciationand esteem.
56 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SI MMARY OF PI O CE E 5INgSS
Now, let us in the usual manner thank the Secretariat for all that it does, and let us thank all those responsible for the way the meeting has unfolded.
Activities and Decisions
Although our pnrmary focus at MTM2000 was on the visioning exercise, our agenda included a number of other business items. Alex McCalla provided the setting for a thoughtful discussion of the report on a long-term financing strategy. The working group that Alex chaired now has a clear charge to complete its work and present its final recommendations at ICW.
We heard from the Centers on programmatic developments in the System, endorsed the framework of the 2001-2003 research agenda, and approved funding requirements of $340 million for 2001. I trust that these funding arrangements will be fully met, with none of the "shocks" that some Centers recently faced.
We took note of the EPMRs of ICARDA, IWMI, and WARDA; heard an analytical presentation by Robert Evenson on the impact of CGIAR research on germplasm improvement; and received a number of recommendations and reports from CGIAR committees.
From Vision to Action
In my opening statement, I outlined several propositions that could help the Group to focus its discussions sharply, and come up with an agreed process for moving from the new vision crafted by TAC to action.
These were not prescriptive propositions. You were free to review them, modify them, reject them, or adopt them. In an effort to tease out all the issues that follow up actions must take into account, we broke out into a number of working groups yesterday, to discuss the substance of future planning.
The working group arrangement worked exceptionally well. The results of their brainstonring are out on the table, and can be considered by the various units charged with moving from vision to action.
Proposition 1 dealt with the new vision, and was adopted.
The Group adopted the seven principles or 'planks' outlined in TACs proposed new CGIAR vision statement, and broadly endorsed that statement's definition of the heartland of the CGIAR. The final iteration of the vision paper, incorporating comments made at MTM2000, will be ready by the end of August, will be shared by all, and will be ready for final disposition at ICW2000.
Propositions 2 through 5 outlined a process for managing the changes that are urgently required, and suggested a timetable that would have brought these issues to closure by ICW2000. These suggestions were discussed by one of the working groups yesterday. Follow-up arrangements and schedules were worked out, and were adopted this morning. Thus, the propositions have fulfilled their purpose, and do not need further discussion now. We now have clear assignments and a timetable for action from MTM2000 onwards.
It has been agreed, as well, that it should be left to the incoming Chairman to decide the timing of the next meeting of the Consultative Council, which could be before or after ICW. This is consistent with an earlier decision that the Council would be convened at the Chairman's discretion.
Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 57 SUIIMAIl nfi PRIIEE IN93
Propositions 6 and 7 covered the composition and functions of the Consultative Council. Decisions on these issues will be deferred until after governance matters have been resolved.
An eighth proposition from the floor referred to the GFAR/CGLAR relationship. While all supported the strong ties that exist between GFAR and the CGIAR, we agreed that more specific aspects of that relationship will be reviewed at ICW2000.
There are some issues that came up in discussions that we have left for future resolution.
We need to do much better in terms of gender issues, not as a matter of political rhetoric, but in a transparent effort that to ensure that we respect the role of women in agriculture and agricultural research. This is not something that we can evade or ignore. I appeal to all of you to support the gender program - it is grossly underfunded.
We need, as well, to improve the way we communicate the results of research to appropriate publics. Clearly, despite the outstanding efforts of Barbara Rose and "Future Harvest", current efforts are inadequate. We need to mobilize professional help.
Finally, at the request of several Members, I suggest that a strong signal is required expressing the concem of the agricultural research community that the lack of an intemational agreement on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture poses a major threat to the very future of international agricultural research.
Conclusion
Again, colleagues, I thank you for your cooperation. Let me stop here on the summation of MTM2000 - before I take the liberty of sharing my farewell thoughts with you.
58 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUM MAR OIF P ROC E E II NC S
Chairman'sFarewell Comments
Introduction
Colleaguesand friends.
"Partzngis suchstt sorrw,"as Shakespearereminded us.
I must confess to a certain sense of anticipationas I go out to meet my future.These are encriagongtimes for those of us who believethat the yesterdaysof the hurnan stoty can inspire great tomorrows.They are dclMg timesfor all of us who are commnittedto buildingnew livesfor the "wretchedof the earth,"using scienceand technologyas the instrumentsof change.They are exhilarating trmesin the world of science.I see all these elementscoming together in a life of inquiry and creativity ahead.
And yet, how can I notfeel the burden of sorrow,knowing that when I bring down the gavel today, I willbe ending my formal relationshipwith you - my friends,colleagues, and collaborators.I considerit a specialprivilege to haveworked for the CGIAR duringthe past six-and-a-halfyears. I thank you for sharingthe hopes and aspirations,the joys and sorrows,of my tenure. What is most importantis that together we tria - even if we did not alwayssucceed. And in tryingtogether... .what a journeyit has been, from Delhi to Dresden.
My predecessorsassured me that of all the positionsthey held at the Bank, none was more satisfyingthan the associationwith the CGIAR.Despite the great diversityof their experienceat the Bank and outside it, they felt most attachedto CGIARchairmanship. Those are my sentimentsas well.
The six chairmenwho precededme brought an outstandingblend of passion and compassionto their tasks:Dick Demuth, Warren Baum,Shahid Husain, David Hopper, WllfriedThalwitz and V. Rajagopalan.I was proud to followthe path they trod. As I saidto you in New Delhi,I very much wishedto liveup to their high standards.I hope I did.
Appreciation
I have been helped in my chairmanshipby manyof you. They are numerousand you willmiss your flightsif I try to name them all. Sufficeit to say that my knowledgehas been enriched and my attitudesshaped by colleaguesand friends alongthe whole continuumof the CGIAR -from the sage wisdom of M. S. Swaminathanto the infectiousenthusiasm of Fernando Chaparro.From the solid professionalismof AlexMcCalla to the humane caringof Ruth Haug. From the subtlewit of Andrew Bennettto the wry humor of Jochen de Haas, the commitmentof Paul Egger,the wisdom of Klaus Winkel,the thoughtfulvoice of experienceexpressed by Raj Paroda, the exuberanceof TeresaFogelberg, the sound judgmentof Johan Holmberg,the unremittingloyalty to the CGIAR of Ian MacGillivray,the brillianceof Henri Carsalade,the fervor of CyrusNdiritu, and the initiativeof SallyShelton who led the return of the US, and so many, manymore. But here I am slippingagain, and takingthe risk of keeping you here for a long, long time. Let me not do that. Let me only say,thank you, one and all.
I say a special"thank you" to my teacherswho brought me to agricultureand have consistently addedto my understandingover the years. There were:
Formal teachers duringmy academicstudies,
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 9 SU MM ARY OF PR OC EEI IINg*
Collegial teachers- my colleaguesand nominalsubordinates, but teachersnevertheless, during my professionallife,
Real life teachers - the farmersthemselves, who alwaysinspired me by the nobilityof their spirit,their knowledge,and their triumphsover adversity.
I offer my heartfeltthanks to the academicwho, manyyears ago, introducedme to agriculture. At the time, he was a young assistantprofessor at Harvard, by the name of Walter P. Falcon.He has continuedto influencemy views,and the manner of their expression.You are a friend, and a great help, Wally.
I turn now to CGIARCenters. They have been describedas the "jewelsin the crown" of the CGIARSystem. They are indeed very specialCenters of scientificexcellence, mobilizing science to serve the needs of the poor. Where elsebut at CGLARCenters does this magnificentcombination flourish? Whateverwe say and decide at our meetings,it is the Centers that transform our words into livingreality.
I visitedthe Centers as soon as my dutiesas Chairmanbegan. Center scientiststook the tirneto explaintheir work to me, and because of that, I have becomea more effectiveambassador on their behalf.I was impressedby their pursuit of scientificexcellence, and inspiredby their devotion to the CGLARmission. I was exhilaratedby the excitingpossibilities of their work. They deserveour admirationand our gratitude.I thank all the scientistsin the CGIAR constellation.I thank the board chairsand their colleaguesfor their dedicationto maintainingscientific excellence at the Centers.They are such a wonderfulgroup of colleagues.I thank the Center directors- too often, not heard adequately at this table - who have all becomemy closefriends. They arecharacterized by a sense of vision,and of unremittingcommnitment to a noble cause.I respectthem all, and willnot ceaseto speakup on their behalf.
I count on you to protect their interests.The raismdkte of this group, surely,is to enable Center scientiststo function effectivelyand without corrosivechallenges to their morale.
I want to mentionthree colleagueswho were stalwartsof my term.
Alex McCallawas my giftfrom the CGIARto the Bank. We actuallygained from that act of gift- givingbecause what it did was to infiltrate"Mr. CGIAR" into the Bank.
MichelPetit moved from the position he held, overseeingthe Bank'swork on agriculture,to serve as the Bank's "point man' for agriculturalresearch. He did more than most others have done to strengthenthe NARS and foster the developmentof the GFAR.He also brought passionand caringto the work of the FinanceCommittee in a difficultperiod of transition.
Alexandervon der Osten has been my counselorand companionfrom the beginning.Whatever you think I have achievedis the product of his collaborationwith me. We were a team.His loyaltyto the CGIARknows no bounds. He works behind the scenes,without fuss or fanfare,attempting much and achievingmuch for all of you. His determinationand abilityto nurture increasedSouthem Membership are widelyrecognized. It is a great loss for the CGIARthat the rules of retirementcompel him to leave. Nevertheless,it is fitting that his finalMTM as ExecutiveSecretary should be in the land of his birth. Good luck,Alexander, in whateveryou decideto undertakepost-ICW. Good luck to your charmiing familyas well.
And I would be remiss if I did not mentionthe CGIAR Secretariat- Ravi, Sel,uk,Manny, and the entire team, those who are here in Dresden, as well as those in Washington.Their contributionto the CGIAR is invaluable.I want especiallyto thank the retireessuch as Ernest (mycompanion over sleeplessnights
60 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 IUMM AI Y OF PIG C EEII NC S of work) and the young stalwarts such as Salah Brahimi, who tirelessly support the CGIAR mission. But it is no secret to you that Sarwat Hussain has been my special friend and closest assistant - he initially came from ICRISAT via the US to the Bank, and now back to the CGIAR. Sarwat, hearty thanks from a grateful colleague.
From Renewal to Rebirth
Colleagues and friends.
The CGIAR faced multiple crises from shortly before I began my term. I will spare you the details. You know them well. To overcome the crises as we did was no mean feat.
The best known of the problems che CGLAR faced was the serious financial crunch of 1993 and early 1994; a downturn aggravated by incoherent funding arrangements. The funding crisis, however, was like the tip of an iceberg. What lay submerged beneath the surface of immediate attention could have turned out to be far more life threatening.
We toiled together to surmount the problems. The 18-month program of renewal that was inaugurated in New Delhi in May 1994 redesigned the vision of the CGIAR, refocused its research agenda, strengthened some of its governance mechanisms, and stabilized its finances. From the shaky $220 million of 1993 to the $340 million of today is a great leap forward. The crumbling confidence of Center scientists was shored up. I cherish that experience, and honor al those whose combined effort produced demonstrable results.
In my judgment, however, the single most significant long-term effect of the 1994/95 renewal was the growth of a sense of "openness." Nothing manifests that new spirit better than the transformation in the dynamic of CGIAR Membership. This Group is today a fully South-North enterprise. Twenty-two country Members of the CGIAR are from the South, and twenty-one from the North. There were none from the South in 1971, and only seven in early 1995, before the Lucerne meeting.
Now if only we could do as well in terms of gender diversity, we will all gain. That is a parting charge from me to ad of you.
I do not mean to dismiss or denigrate the role major investors played in creating the CGIAR, and will continue to play in the future. However, the broadening of CGIAR Membership brings the representatives of our partners and beneficiaries right to this table. That is crucial.
The spirit of partnership that takes concrete form in Southern Membership has spilled over into other areas, as demonstrated by vibrant partnership committees, especially the NGO and Private Sector Committees, and in the vitality of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR).
The CGIAR served as catalyst to help set up the GFAR that combines all components of the international agricultural research system - from the perceptive farmer in her field through the deeply caring members of civil society institutions to the creative scientists in their laboratories.
These are all key elements of the legacy of renewal. But renewal does not end with one convulsive spurt. There are always challenges ahead. I said at ICW95 that, in Churchill's pithy phrase, we were only at "the end of the beginning." More- much more- would need to be attempted and achieved.
The time has come for action, once again. It is a time not simply for raeual but, truly, for relrti.
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 61 SUVMARY OF PIPCEEIIN S
Sweeping Forces of Change
We are at the start of a new century, when we are confronted with momentous change. The forces of globalization are sweeping across the planet. Never before have the national boundaries of sovereign states been as permeable to the power of ideas and the transactions of commerce. The infornation and commniucation technologies (ICT) revolution that sends billions of dollars across the world with the click of a mouse and the flight of an electron is but a symptom of the deeper changes being wrought in our perceptions of ourselves and of others. While these forces have undoubtedly created enormous wealth and well-being for many, they have tended to exacerbate the inmities between and within countries.
In the realm of the knowledge-based society, which is inexorably pressing on our future, we are challenged to deal with such vexing issues as the emergence of proprietary science; to summon the will and the innovative skills to design new regimes that are fair to all, and that can forestall that most vicious of all forms of discrimination, sciicapaydxid.
Remember, however, that there is another side to globalization as well. Globalization has created a rising awareness of the inter-connectedness of the human family,and is at the heart of the increasing assertion of the universalityof human rights, including women's rights and children's rights. It has led to a multiplication of caring and concemed intemational NGOs that represent an important dimension of the emerging intemational civil society. It is found in the environmental movement, which reminds all humans that they are stewards of this earth, and that together we must wok with nature, not agiinstit.
Of course, the farmers knew that all along, and we must combine their wisdom with our discoveries in the realms of science. Let us re-dedicate ourselves,in that spirit, to being what I have previously called the "new abolitionists." We must be as dedicated to abolishing hunger and poverty, as an earlier Coalition of the Caring was dedicated to abolishing slavery.
In all we undertake, we will find that the set of forces which have the greatest impact upon our work are the profound revolutions of ICT and DNA.
ICT
The key to ICT is not just the wireless technology, but also and more profoundly the dita1 nt ion.By finding the wnmtn biy lanzage of ones and zeros, we suddenly see things that appeared impossible become possible and the possible become commonplace. Boundaries are erased. Telephony not only becomes mobile, but is linked to the intemet. Television, computers and telecom become one. Image, music, data, and voice are all binary bits that can be manipulated and moved on a common digital mode.
This extraordinary trnrtnnmaime Jnol forced enormous changes in the businesses that functioned within each of its component parts. Mega-mergers, acquisitions, and the emergence of the new have become commonplace. The landscape is being transformed. The fast eat the slow. New names appear with mesmerizing frequency.
Govermments are running after the new realities, trying to make regulations meaningful in this world of dizzying change. For those in that business it is truly 'change or die!"
Yet despite the astronomic numbers and wealth of the new technology companies, this technological revolution is also a democratizing one. It can empower the weak and the poor if only we have the imagination to see how the benefits can be hamessed properly.
62 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SI6MARY OF PI DC IE EII N S
From M. S. Swaminathan's info-villagesthat have captured universal attention to the inherent open access of the internet, the forces of the civil society and of diversity find in the new technologies powerful tools to "remain local while going global." The dialectics of connectedness and fragmentation can be combined to the benefit of the poor and the environment with imagination and perseverance.
DNA
In the biological sciences, finding the common ATCG language of DNA is also causing transformative changes in approaches to the practice of science and what is "doable."
We are living in a time unmatched for the opportunities that it provides the biological sciences. It is an exhilarating time, similar to what physics experienced in the glorious 40 years between 1905 and 1945, when all the concepts were changed, from cosmology to quantum physics, from relativity to the structure of the atoms. Today we are decoding the DNA blueprints of life, we are learning to manage the deployment and expression of genes, we are mobilizing bactenra to do our work, and we are manipulating the very building blocks of life. Like physics in the first half of this century, we are confronted by profound ethical and safety issues. Unlike prior work in biological sciences, our future research will be complicated by the new issues of proprietary science.
The Challenge to the CGIAR
So, we live in the world of these transformative technologies and vast global currents. We must seize the momentous opportunities offered us, but also remain true to our mission. We must have the courage to seize the future and bend it to our will.We must fashion out of our dreams for better tomorrows the realities of a better world for our children and our children's' children.
We must be guided by the inspiring words of Margaret Mead:
"Neuer dout that a 5nall gvup jdh0*, amwe cti nc dvgV the wv1amei it is the onlytng thatewr has."
This requires change, not just in what we do but in how we do it. Our science itself is undergoing changes. The new approaches- the contextualization of research, agroecology, natural resource management, genomics, and more- raise as many exciting new questions as they answer old ones. To many in the science world, these are times when, as Daniel Boorstin once observed, the modern discoverer is rather a quester,whose achievements are measured not in the finality of answers, but in the fertility of questions.
Let us enjoy the quest together. Recognizing, as we must today, that from the farmer in her field to the scientist in her lab, we are all problem-inventing as much as problem-solving animals, our vision for the future must therefore be one of flexibility and nimbleness - our vision must be as open-ended as knowledge, as random as play, as surprising as human imagination and ingenuity, as dedicated to the empowerment of the weak as our sense of shared humanity
But as we do all this, we must protect the heartland of the CGIAR, which we have just redefined yet again at this millennial meeting. It is not that the heartland changes so much over time. Rather, it is that the manner in which we are going to do the science in that heartland changes and has to change yet again. Our comrnitment is the same, but the manner in which we view how to approach the problem changes.
In the words of T S Eliot:
Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 201 ( 3 SUM MAI Y OF P OCE III* ICS
"We shallnot ceasefn explring, And dx endof all our exploring, Will be to an*e ubxue sted, And knowtheplaceforthefirsttex"
I have confidence in our scientists. They are always open to the new. Like all scientists they are dedicated to truth, honor, and a constructive subversiveness... for science advances only by overthrowing the old. They will establish measures of effectiveness and impact of what works and what does not. They will arbitrate arnong competing claims, alternative visions and paradigms by the standards of science: scientific evidence, rigorous analysis, and rational debate.
And in articulating choices, I know they will be guided by the wise criteria of M. S. Swamriinathan:seek out what is pro-poor, pro-women, and pro-environment. Let me only add that each of us must at all times look into our hearts and obey Gandhi's exhortation.
'Ra#1 dx face of thepxmest and dxtueakest human uyon u haweseem and ask yourselffte step3 oiu aonplate is goingto be ofan OrganizationalChange But how about organizational change? Is it needed? If it is not, we should not change for change's sake. But if it is needed, as I do believe it is, then we must have the courage to embrace change. Change is never easy, especially to the successful. Peter Drucker referring to the IBM of the 70s and to General Motors said that "he whom the gods would smite, they give decades of success...." For that very success breeds complacency and a sense that it has worked well in the past, so why change it. But the success itself was based on change. Change is never easy. But it is necessary, not just for the internal workings of the CGIAR, but for the CGIAR and GFAR and our partners to play a vital role in shaping the new emerging world order for agricultural research; a vital role for public good, for the poor, for the rights of future generations. That, my friends, is the true revolution, creating a new order of things. There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order, because the innovator has for enemies, all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. But it is our destiny to have been here at this time, and we must try. For it is better to try and fail than to have failed to try. Envoi "Change," Samuel Johnson remarked, "is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better." The scientific temperament does not avoid the perceived inconvenience of change, but takes charge of and directs transformation. The CGIAR has proved itself to be an outstanding instrument of progress. Its combination of high-level science with grassroots-level impact has been unique and exemplary. Science revels in replenishment. New knowledge replenishes what is losing its potency. New forms and functions 64 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 StMMAIY OF PIOCEEDINCS replenishthe old.The greatestrewards await those who havethe courageto undertakethe mostdifficult transformations.So, as you prepareto facethe future,I entreatyou to * reachout boldlyand wisely to protectand enhance the inheritanceof visionaryzeal and boundlesscompassion that has beenpassed down from the foundersof the CGIAR; * askyourself whether your actions will benefit the men andwomen of today,and sustain the childrenwho will be the men andwomen of tomorrow; * sendan unequivocalsignal to Centerscientists that youhave confidence in them,that you supportthem, andthat you willnot in anyway compromise their competence or erodetheir dedication;and * extendyour hand to allthe partnerswith whom the CGIARmust work if it is to be truly effective. Colleaguesand friends. Myend is in my beginning.So I sayto you now as I didin NewDelhi.... ff7eri ts a tidetn theaffairs of nm, U4, takenat theflao, ladson tofoe O(, allthe aesof their liws Is xw7din shallsand n mizies. isudafiUll sai ame ue now qaft c, Andwemst take thea itsenzs, Or lose wfsrs. " As I leaveyou, I know that you will,with commritmentand dedc&ation,with wisdom and ingenuity,take the current. I know that your voyagewill speed you onwardsto new realmsof accomplishment.I know that it is your destinyto help ease the pain and burden of those who need the benefitsof sciencemost. I leaveyou with the confidencethat your commnitmentto excellence,your passion for effectiveness,and your compassionfor the lowliestand helplessin the human family,will ceaselessly thnve. Good luck,my friends.Good luck and farewell. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 65 CGIAR 2000 j Mid-TennMeeting AIhEX ES MTM2000Agenda 1. Opening Session i. Welcomeby CGIAR Chairman ii. Welcomeby Germanhosts ii. Chairman's opening statement iv. Chairman'sannouncements v. Adoption of the agenda 2. Global Forum on Agricultural Research i. Implicationsof the GFAR meetingfor the CGIAR ii. Discussion 3. Vision for the CGIAR i. Overviewpresentation by TAC ii. Initialplenary discussion iii. Explanationand discussionof proposed process for small group work iv. Workinggroups on selectedthemes v. Reportsfrom WorkingGroups vi. Discussion vii. Plenarydiscussion (continued) viii.Conclusions on vision and Structure Germany Program -- OfficialWelcome at Schloss Albrechtsberg -- Reception 4. Report from the Centers i. Report from the Centers on programmaticdevelopments in the System ii. Discussion 5. Impact of the CGIAR. IAEG Seminaron CGIAR'simpact on germplasmimprovement i. Introductionby Hans Gregersen ii. Presentationby ProfessorRobert Evenson iii. Discussion 6. Evaluation - parallel sessions i. ICARDAEPMR ii. IWMI EPMR iii. WARDA EPMR iv. Reports from parallelsessions v. Discussion 7. Longer-Term Financing i. Report from the McCallaworking group ii. Discussion 68 Charting the CGIAR'sFuture - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES 8. ResearchAgenda and Funding Requirements i. 2001-2003research agenda framework ii 2001 researchagenda 111.Discussion iv. 2001funding requirements v. Discussion 9. Committee Recommendationsand Reports (expedtto k banoa th ehuntte nt") i. Oral reports,if essential,frorn Cosponsors,OC, FC, TAQ GRPC,NGOC, PSC, SPC,CBC, CDC ii. Discussion(as requiW) 10. Closing Session Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 69 ANNEXES List ofDocuments Document Number Document Title MTM/00/01/Rev.1 Draft Agenda MTM/00/02 List of Documents MTM/00/03 Schedule of Events MTM/00/04 Financial Requirements of the 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda MIM/00/05 Toward a Longer-Range Financing Strategy for the CGIAR MTM/00/06 Composition of the Consultative Council MTM/00/07 Report on the Consultative Council Meeting Held on May 20, 2000 MTM/00/08 Strategy for the CGIAR in Sub-Saharan Africa MTM/00/09 Report of the CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee MTM/00/10 Report of the NGO Committee M'I'M/00/11 Future CGIAR Meetings M'IM/00/12 Project Portfolio MTM/00/13 Report of the Finance Committee MTM/00/14 Report of the Center Directors MlTM/00/ 15 Report of the Private Sector Commnittee MTM/00/16 Report of the Science Partnership Conmmittee M`TM/00/17 Report of the Cosponsors SDR/TAC: IAR/00/16 The 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda and Initial Proposals for 2003 SDR/TAC: IAR/00/14.1 A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR (April 2000) SDR/TAC: IAR/00/ 14.la A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR - Companion Paper on Priority Research and Related Activity Themes SDR/TAC: IAR/00/13 Report from the TAC Standing Panel on ImnpactAssessment SDRETAC: IAR/00/17 IAEG Crop Germplasm Impact Study SDR/TAC: IAR/99/9.1 Report of the Fourth External Program and Management Review of ICARDA SDR/TAC: IAR/00/07 Report of the Second External Program and Management Review of IWMI SDR/TAC: IAR/00/06 Report of the Fourth External Program and Management Review of WARDA 70 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES List of Participants Chairman Werner Betzwar Consultant Ismail Serageldin Wintersteiger R & D Vice President, Special Programs The World Bank Marun Mayer Research Development Manager Wintersteiger R & D DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP Bangladesh African Development Bank Zahurul Karim Executive Chairman Aklilu Afework Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council Principal Agricultural Economist (BARC) Asian Development Bank (ADB) Belgium Bradford R. Philips Luc Sas Manager, Agriculture and Rural Development CGIAR Officer Division (East) Directorate General International Cooperation (DGIC) Yuen L. Yee n Senior Evaluation Specialist Brazl Australia Alberto Duque Portugal President D. Ian Bevege Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria Principal Adviser (Embrapa) Australian Centre for International Francsco J.B. Reifschneider Agricultural Research (ACIAR) Head, Secretariat for International Cooperation John H. Skerritt Embrapa Deputy Director Research and Development (R & D) Jamll Macedo ACIAR Coordinator, Multilateral Cooperation Embrapa Richard R. Williams Jose Roberto Rodrigues Peres Executive Director R & D Directoro Embrapa University of Queensland R Austria Canada Ralph Gretzmacher Bruce Howell T I r TE ProJ~~~~~Pect Manager Head of Department rojM g University of Agricultural Sciences Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 71 ANNEXES Ian C. MacGillivray Food and Agricultural Organization of the Senior Adviser, CIDA United Nations (FAO) China Louise Fresco Assistant Director General ZHAO Longyue Agriculture Department Deputy Director General Department of International Cooperation Santiago Funes Ministry of Agriculture Director and Officer in Charge Research, Extension and Training Division Colombia (SDR) Juan Lucas Restrepo Ibrahim Y. Hamdan Director, National Department of Planning Director Ministry of Agriculture Regional Office for the Near East (RNE) Denmark Maria Jose de 0. Zimmermann Senior Agricultural Research Officer Klaus Winkel Head of Department Stephen A. Rudgard Danish International Development Assistance Organization of the IslarmicConference (OIC) (Danida) WAICENT Outreach Prograrn Ministry of Foreign Affairs Finland Jorgen Jakobsen Research Director Pentti Aspila Research Centre Flakkebjerg Research Director Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Agricultural Research Centre Egypt Eero Horstia Agricultural Adviser Fawzi Naiem Mahrous Ministry for Foreign Affairs Deputy Director Agricultural Research Center Ford Foundation European Commission (EC) Doris Capistrano Program Officer Uwe Werblow Head of Division France Rural Development and Food Security Giles Saint-Martin Philippe Vialatte Ministere de l'Education Nationale, de la Principal Administrator Recherche et de la Technologie - DRIC Alain Darthenucq Daniel Rocchi Principal Scientific Officer Charge de Mission Ministere de l'Agriculture et de la P&he Hans-Jorg Lutzeyer Executive Secretary Germany European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD) H.-Jochen de Haas Head, Rural Development Section 72 Chartingthe CGIAR'sFuture -A New Visionfor2010 A NEX ES Federal Ministryof EconomicCooperation Tim Dottridge and Development(BMZ) SeniorPolicy Analyst ElartmutE. A. Herbsleb MariaJesus (Chusa)Gines Ministerialrat SeniorProgram Specialist Federal Ministryof Food, Agricultureand Forestry Donald G. Peden Senior ProgramOfficer Hans Pfeifer Director Ronnie Vemooy German Foundationfor Intemational Senior Program Specialist Development(DSE/ZEL) DominicSchofield Comelisvan Tuyll Partnershipand BusinessDevelopment Office Head of Division,Rural Development Deutsche Gesellschaftfur Technische International Fundfor Agricultural Zusammenarbeit(GTZ) Development (IFAD) Elke Wolff Klemensvan de Sand Rural DevelopmentSection, BMZ AssistantPresident Program ManagementDepartment StephanKrall Senior Advisor RodneyD. Cooke IntemationalAgricultural Research, GTZ Director, TechnicalAdvisory Division MarleneDiekmann Shantanu Mathur Advisor,International Agricukural Research TechnicalAdviser/Economist BeratungsgruppeEntwicklungsorientierte Agrarforschung(BEAF) Iran Petra Mutlu AbbasKeshavarz Head of Division,Rural Development,GTZ Head, AgriculturalResearch Education and Extension Organization(AREEO) India MohammadH. Roozitalab R S. Paroda Deputy Director General,AREEO Secretary - DARE, Director General - ICAR Department of Agriculture,Research and Ireland Education Ministryof Agriculture MichaelJim Flanagan Chief Inspector Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank (1DB), Departrnentof Agriculture,Food and Rural Fontagro Development Edgardo R. Moscardi SwithunGoodbody ExecutiveSecretary Consultant,Ireland AID Department of ForeignAffairs InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC) Italy John Hardie GioacchinoCarabba Director,Policy and Planning SeniorAgricultural Expert Chartingthe CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor2010 73 ANNEXES Directorate General for Development Rodrigo Aveldano Cooperation Director General de la Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs INIFAP Marina Pucciomn Jesus Moncada Direttore Agrario Executive Secretary Ministero Affari Esteri Istituto Abronomico Coordinadora Nacional Fundaciones Produce per L'Oltremare A. C. (COFUPRO) Japan Armando Paredes President, COFUPRO Tetsushi Kondo Multilateral Cooperation Division Netherlands, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Leen Boer Nobuyoshi Maeno Head Director General DGIS Research and Communication Division Japan Intemational Research Center for Ministry of Foreign Affairs Agricultural Sciences 0IRCAS) KlaasJ. Tammninga Kensuke Okada Senior Expert Senior Researcher, JIRCAS Research and Development, DGIS Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hideyuki Takima International Research Coordinator Rob van Raalte International Research Division, Agriculture, Sr. Policy Adviser Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Ministery of Agriculture, Nature Management Secretariat (MAFF) and Fisheries Korea Margreet H. van den Berg Senior Policy Advisor Seong-Hee Lee Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management Director and Fisheries Intermational Technical Cooperation Centre (ITCC) Ronald Goldberg Rural Development Administration (RDA) Environment and Development Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs Luxembourg Frans Neuman Georges Heinen CGLAR Liaison Government Adviser IAC Wageningen Ministry of Finance New Zealand Mexico Keneti Faulalo Jorge Kondo-Lopez Program Manager Director en Jefe Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) Michael W. Dunbier Chief Executive Institute for Crop and Food Research 74 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Nigeria South Africa Umaru Abubakar Alkaleri Siphiwe Mkhize Permanent Secretary Director Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural National Department of Agriculture Development Michael C. Walters Olatunde Adeyemi Oloko Director, Agricultural Research Council (ARC) Director Plant Protection Research Institute Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Leseho Sello Assistant Director Norway National Department of Agriculture Ruth Haug Spain Director of Research Noragric/Agricultural University of Norway Jose L. Milas Head, Intemational Affairs Philippines National Institute for Agricultural Research and Food Technology (INIA) Eliseo R. Ponce Director, Bureau of Agricultural Research Pilar M. Castro Department of Agriculture Intemational Scientific Cooperation, INIA Portugal Sweden Joao Borges Jerker Thunberg Senior Officer Assistant Director General Institute for Intemational Scientific and Director, Department for Natural Resources Technological Cooperation aCCT1) and the Environment Swedish Intemational Development Augusto M. Correia Cooperation Agency (SIDA) Professor Instituto Superior de Agronomia Carl-Gustaf Thornstrom Senior Research Advisor Rockefeller Foundation SIDA/SAREC Robert W. Herdt Eva L. Ohlsson Vice President, Program Administration Research Officer, SIDA/SAREC Russia Switzerland Gennadi A. Romanenko Paul Egger President Head, Asia Division Russian Academy of AgnrculturalSciences SwissAgency for Development and (RAAS) Cooperation (SDC) Olga Glukhovtseva Christine Grieder Head, Foreign Relations Department Head of Agriculture Division RAAS EDA-DEZA, Agriculture Division SDC Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 75 ANNElES BarbaraBecker United Nations DevelopmentProgramme ExecutiveManager (UNDP) SwissCentre for IntemationalAgriculture (ZIL) Roberto Lenton Director, SustainableEnergy and Enviromnent Alfred Bronnimann Division (SEED) Director SwissFederal Research Station for Peter J. Matlon Agroecologyand Agriculture Chief,Food SecurityProgram Syria UnitedStates Issam el-Zaim Ernmy B. Simmons Ministerof State for PlanningAffairs DeputyAssistant Admrinistrator Ministryof State for PlanningAffairs U. S. Agencyfor InternationalDevelopment WalidTawil (LJSAID)/G/EGAD Director of AgricukuralResearch Robert B. Bertram Ministryof Agriculture MultilateralResearch Coordinator, USAID Thailand Dana G. Dalrymple ResearchAdviser VijaiNoparnombodi USAID/GlobalVEGAD/AFS Deputy Director General Departnent of Agriculture World Bank Uganda Robert L. Thompson Director,Rural Development Joseph Mukiibi Director General ShawkiBarghouti NationalAgricultural Research Organization SeniorResearch Advisor (NARO) GabriellePersley United Kingdom SeniorAgricultural Biotechnologist RuralDevelopment Department AndrewJ. Bennett ChiefNatural ResourcesAdviser Ashok Seth Department for InternationalDevelopment PrincipalAgricultural Officer PfID) Paul Harding REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES SeniorAdvisor, Research, DFID RepresentingAfrica Laura Thornton AssistantProgram Officer MichelSedogo InternationalAgricultural Research, DFID Director General CentreNational de RechercheScientifique MichaelJ. Wilson et Technologique(CNRSI) Head, Research BurkinaFaso Rural DevelopmentDepartment, DFID 76 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Representing Asia and the Pacifc (Sri Lanka Alain de Janvry and Fiji) Luciade Vaccaro MariaA. FernandezMartinez S. S. B. D. G. Jayawardena Hans M. Gregersen Director General Richard R Harwood Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka Oumar Niangado Hiro Uchimiya Representing Europe (Hungary and Slovenia) Joachim von Braun Vo-Tong Xuan Ervin Balazs Director General TAC Secretariat Agricultural Biotechnology Center Hungary Shellemiah Keya Executive Secretary Representing Latin America and the Caribbean (Trinidad/Tobago and Paraguay) Guido Gryseels Deputy Executive Secretary Compton L. Paul Executive Secretary, PROCICARIBE Sirkka Immonen Caibbean Agricultural Research and Senior Agricultural Research Officer Development Institute (CARDl Timothy G. Keley TrinidadTiohG.Kle Senior Agricultural Research Officer Ricardo Pedretti Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries NGO Committee (NGOC) Paraguay fMiguelA. Altieri Representing Middle East and North Africa Co-Chair (Sudan and Syria) Ann Waters-Bayer Osman AA. Ageeb Co-Chair Professor, Agronomy Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC) MCnst ea Sudan ChristianCastellanet Julian F. Gonsalves Ali Shehadeh Asseou Kanoute Agricultural Science Research Directorate Dlwi R. Muhtaman Ministry of Agricultural and Agrarian Reform Peter Rosset Syria Juan Sanchez Jean Marc von der Weid ADVISORY BODIES AND PARTNERSHIP Private Sector Committee (PSC) COMMITTEES Sam Dryden TechnicalAdvisory Committee (TAC) Chair Emil Q. Javier Menb,1 Chair Claudio Barnga Badrinarayan Barwale Me,nlers Wallace Beversdorf Michael,mea Seizo Sumida Barny Thoias Charting the CGIAR's Future - A Alew Vzisionfor 2010 77 A N N EX ES Florence M. Wambugu - IWMI EPMR Science Partnership Committee (SPC) MichelJ. Petit, Panel Chair Professor Wemer Arber Institut National Agronomique Chair - WARDA EPMR Menbers R. James Cook Mandi Rukuni Mouin Hamze Dean, Facllty of Agriculture Lydia P. Makhubu University of Zimbabwe Sudha Nair - CGL4R Finance Committee Working Group OBSERVERS AlexanderMcCalla Chair Botswana - Retrospective Review of the System Review Louis Mazham Martin Piiieiro Department of Agncultural Research Charl- Jordan F.lliot Stern Abdel Nabi Fardous Member National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL Gerard Barry RESEARCH CENTERS SUPPORTED BY Monsanto THE CGLAR Saudi Arabia Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Abraham A. Al-Mulhirn Director Lauritz Holn-Nielsen Al-Ahsa Regional Research Centre Chair, Board of Trustees United Arab Emirates Elisio Contini Board Member Mohammad Al-Attar Alvaro Francisco Uribe Director General Biosaline AgnrcultureCenter Joachim Voss CGIARPANELS AND WORKINGGROUPS Director General - ICARDA EPMR Peter Campbell Kerridge Coordinator, CIAT-Asia Donald L. Plucknett, Panel Chair Jacquelne Ashby Agricultural Research and Development Director, Natural Resources Mnagement International Juan Antonio Garafulic 78 Charting the CGIAR 's Future -A New Vision for 2010 ANNEXES FinanceManager WandaW. Collins Deputy Director General,Research DouglasPachico Director,Strategic Planning Roger T. Cortbaoui Director, InternationalCooperation Centerfor International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Peter Erich Schmiediche Coordinator,ECA JagmohanMaini Chair,Board of Trustees International Centerfor Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) JeffreyArthur Sayer Director General Robert D. Havener Chair,Board of Trustees Mafa EvaristusChipeta Deputy Director General Peter S. M. Franck-Oberaspach Member,Board of Trustees CentroInternacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) Adel El-Beltagy Director General WalterP. Falcon Chair,Board of Trustees WilliarnErskine Acting AssistantDirector General TimothyG. Reeves Director General MohanC. Saxena AssistantDirector General LarryWallace Harrington Director,Natural ResourcesProgram MahmoudB. Solh ActingDirector General for International David A. Hoisington Cooperation Director,Applied Biotechnology Center John Dodds PatriciaLopez AssistantDirector General,Research Board Secretary International Centerfor Living Aquatic KellyA. Cassaday Resources Management (ICLARM) Head, InformationServices Kurt Peters SurinderKumar Vasal Chair,Board of Trustees Team Leader CIMMYTAsian Maize Program MerylJ. Williarns Director General Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) PhilipA. Bontuyan KoenraadVerhoeff Project DevelopmentCoordination Officer Acting Chair,Board of Trustees Sandra E. Child Hubert G. Zandstra Head, Information Director General EdwardN. Sayegh AssociateDirector General Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 79 A N NE XEIS International Centrefor Researchin Per Pinstrup-Andersen Agroforestry (ICRAF) Director General LucieEdwards StacyC. Roberts Chair,Board of Trustees SpecialAssistant to the DG Pedro A. Sanchez Martin Van Weerdenburg Director General Director, Finance and Administration FionaJ.C. Chandler Klaus von Grebmer ExecutiveOfficer Director, CommunicationsDepartment Glenn L. Denning International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Director,Development (IITA) Tiffin D. Hamis Enrico Porceddu Director,Management Services Chair,Board of Trustees Anne-MarieIzac LukasBrader Director,Research Director General International Crops Research Institutefor the InternationalLivestock Research Institute Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) (ILRI) RagnUhildSohlberg John E. Vercoe Chair,Board of Trustees Chair,Board of Trustees H. J. von Maydell Hank A. Fitzhugh Member,Board of Trustees Director General WrlliamD. Dar Ralphvon Kaufmann Director General Director, Extemal Relations JuguJ. Abraham International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Head, Donor RelationsUnit (IPGRI) KwameAkuffo-Akoto Marciode MirandaSantos Director, Finance Chair,Board of Trustees Ji]lM. Lenne GeoffreyHawtin Deputy Director General Director General RodomiroOrtiz Cary Fowler Director SeniorAdvisor to DG GeneticResources and EnhancementProgram Emile Frison International Food Policy Research Institute Director (IFPRI) IntemationalNetwork in Bananaand Plantain Research(INIBAP) Geoff Miller Chair,Board of Trustees Ruth Raymond PublicAwareness 80 Chartingthe CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Lyndsey Withers Governance Prograrn Assistant Director General International Water Management Institute InternationalRice Research Institute (IRRI) (IWMI) Roelof Rabbinge Klaas Jan Beek Chair, Board of Trustees Chair, Board of Trustees Ronald P. Cantrell Joan H. Joshi Director General Board Member Kenneth S. Fischer Frank Rijsberman Special Adviser Director General Designate Duncan I. Macintosh Michael Devlin Spokesperson Head, Communications and Donor Relations '%dliam G. Padolina Douglas J. Merrey Deputy Director General for Partnerships Deputy Director General MerceditaA. Sombilla West Africa Rice Development Association Policy Economist and Head, Liaison (WARDA) InternationalService for National Agricultural Just Faaland Research (ISNAR) Chair, Board of Trustees Moise Mensah Lindsay N. Innes Chair, Board of Trustees Chair Designate, Board of Trustees Stein W. Bie Alois Basler Director General Board Member Joel Cohen Kanayo F. Nwanze Program Director Director General Howard Elliott Michael F. L. Goon Deputy Director General Deputy Director General Dympna Byme Amir Kassam Program Planning Coordinator Deputy Director General Victoria Henson-Apollonio P. Justin Kouka Senior Research Officer Executive Assistant to the DG Francis Idachaba Deputy Director General CGLAR CENTER ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS HeikeMichelsen ProgramDirector Committee of Center Directors M. M. Rahman Jean-Pierre Jacqmotte Director, Institutional Development and Executive Secretary Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 81 AN N E X E S Future Harvest Director, Research Barbara Rose Instituto Agronomico per l'Oltremare (IAO), Director of Operations Italy Gender and Diversity Program Alice Perlini Director General Vicki Wilde Program Leader - International Centre for Underutilized CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program Crops, UK Organizational Change Program Nazrnul Haq Director LindaJ. Spink - NaturalResources Institute (NRI), University of Greenwich, UK CGIAR PARTNERS Tim C.B. Chancellor Entomologist, GRE Advanced Research Institutes (ARIs) MalcoJmJ. les Secretary, IPM Forun - AGROPOLIS, France IPM Europe Michel de Nuce de Lamothe George Rothschild President Principal Policy Adviser, GRE - Centre de cooperation internationale en - European Consortium for Agricultural recherche agronomique pour le Research for the Tropics (ECARTJ, UK developpement (CIRAD), France Jeremy C. Stickings Henri Rouille d'Orfeuil Executive Secretary Director - Wageningen University and Research Michel Giffon Centre, The Netherlands Scientific Director Willem Van Vuure - Institute of Arable Crops Research (IACR), General Advisor, International Relations UK Farmers' Organizations Stephen Jarnes Head of Information, Communications EjiguJonfa and External Relations Farmer's Research Project of Farm Africa Judy Mann Ethiopia International and Public Liaison Eliud Kihoro Ngunjiri Developing and Emerging Economies Executive Director - Institut National de la Recherche Pelum-Rodi-Kenya Agronomique (INRA), France Gueye Samba Secretary General Jean Mamy National Council for Rural Cooperation 82 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES (CNCR),Senegal - International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM) Nanjunda Swarny President Eric T. Craswell Karnataka State Farmers Association (KRRS) Director General India - International Centre for Insect Physiology Foundations and Ecology (ICIPE) Klaus M. Leisinger Niklaus Weiss Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Member of Governing Council Development, Switzerland Hans Herren Other International Agricultural Research Director General Centers (L4RCS) or International Bodies Chlis Hill - Asian Vegetable Research and Development Director of Administration and Finance Center (AVRDC) International Fertilizer Development Center jiirgen Friedrichsen (IFDC) Deputy Director General Amit Roy - Burotrop President and CEO RogerW. Smith International Network for Bamboo and Board Chair Rattan (INBAR) - C A.B. International Ian R. Hunter Director General DecntsG. Blight - Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme (TSBF) Jeff Waage Michael J. Swift CA.B.I. Bioscience Director Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme - Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion National Agricultural Research Systems para la Agricultura (IICA), Costa Rica (NARS) Enrique Alarcon Director, Science and Technology - Centro para el Desarrollo Agropecuario y Forestal (CEDAF), Dominican Republic Jorge Ardila Research Specialist Altagracia Rivera de Castillo Executive Director Roberto M. Bocchetto Programa Cooperativo para el Desarroilo - Georgian University of Agricultural Science Tecnol6gico Agropecuario del Cono Sur (PROCISUR) Guram Aleksidze Chief Academician Waldo G. Espinoza Executive Secretary Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 83 A N N EX ES - Institut National de la Recherche Agricole - Pelum-Rodi-Kenya du Benin (INRAB), Benin Eliud KihoroNgunjiri J. Detongnon ExecutiveDirector Director General - SOS-Sahel-IWIT, UK - Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Eyasu Elias Mexico ResearchPrograrns Coordinator MonetaPorto Miguel - World Resources Institute, USA Director, ScientificExchange Arthur A. Getz Enrique Cortes Almaday Buelna ResearchAssociate Advisor Regional Organizations/Fora Arturo Puente Gonzalez Advisor - Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Africa - Ministere de D6veloppement Rural et de (AARINENA) 1'Environement, Mauritania MustaphaYaghi Ba MarnoudouYero Besse President Deputy Director Recherche,Formation, Vulgarisation YousifAl-Shayji VicePresident, AARINENA - NationalUniversity of Benin KuwaitInstitute for ScientificResearch (KISR) ClaudeAdandedjan ChristoHilan Dean, ESA-UNB ExecutiveSecretary Institut du RecherchesAgronomiques du NGOs/Private Sector LIBAN - Aventis Cropscience, Germany - Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) Manfred Kern TechnicalStrategy and Resources ReinierA. van Hoffen AssociateProfessional Officer - 7he Conservation Company, USA Officeof the FAO Representativein India and Bhutan John E. Riggan ChiefExecutive Officer - Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and CentralAfrica ShellyKessler (ASARECA) SeniorAssociate GeoffreyC. Mrema - Forum Umwelt und Entuicklung, Germany ExecutiveSecretary SusanneGura - Centre on Integrated Developmentfor Asia Internationalco-ordination of NGO activities and the Pacific (CIRDAP) A. V. S. Reddy 84 Chartingthe CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Director General Universities - Conference des Responsables de Rechercbe NevilleP. Clarke Agricole en Afnique de l'Ouest et du Centre ProgramCoordinator (CORAF)/WECARD, Mali The TexasA&M UniversitySystem Traore Adarna Ronnie Coffrnan Chairnan AssociateDean and Director CornellUniversity - Cooperation Councilfor the Arab States of the Gulf (Gulf Cooperation Council - GCC) LindsayFalvey AbdullatifI. Al-Mugrin Universityof Melbourne Director,Trade and AgricultureDepartment SergioSalles-Ficno GCC SecretanratGeneral CampinosState University - Conference des Responsables de Recherche RussellFreed Agronomique Africains (CORAF)/WECARD ActingDirector Institute of InternationalAgriculture Ndiaga Mbaye MichiganState University ExecutiveSecretary Bryan D. Harvey - Forum for Agricultural Research in Afn'ca UniversityCoordinator of Agricultural (FARA) Research Joseph Mukiibi UUniversityof Saskatchewan Chair AnatoleKrattiger ExecutiveDirector MWiseHoussou IntemationalService for the Acquisitionof Agri-BiotechApplications AmeniCenter - Global Forum on Agricultural Researcb (1SAAA) (GFAR) - NARS Secretariat ComellUniversity Femando Chaparro ExecutiveSecretary OTHER PARTICIPANTS ChristianHoste MarioAhumada SeniorAdviser MovimientoAgroecologico de America NARSSecretariat of GFAR Latinay el Caribe (MAELA) - GFAR Steering Committee Holger Baum Ala'mG. Derevier MediaCompany ExecutiveSecretariat ChristianBonte-Friedheim - SEAMEO Regional Center for Graduate EcoregionalFund, ISAC Study and Research in Agricuture (SEARCA) Herbert Borgwardt SeniorConsultant/Civil Servant Jesie S. Binamira StateMirnistry for the Environmentand InterimDirector, SoutheastAsian Ministers of Agriculstreof Saxony Education Organization(SEAMEO) Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 85 ANNEXES YolondaFowler ScienceAdviser CGNET ServicesIntemational Gerard O'Donoghue MarianFuchs-Carsch SeniorFinancial Officer Consultant SelcukOzgediz Peter Gregory ManagementAdviser SeniorConsultant Jellinger,Schwartz and Connolly,Inc. RaviTadvalkar PrincipalFinancial Officer Reed Hertford President,EAM Co. WaltraudR. Wightman Program Officer AnnemarieMatthess ProjectManager, GTZ GERMANORGANIZING COMMITTEE Mary Ann Pniester TechnicalSupport Specialist - Beratungsgruppe Entwicklungsorientierte CGNET ServicesIntemational Agrarforschung (BEAF) Gill M. Shepherd ReinhildErnst ResearchFellow Coordinator,GFAR2000/MTM2000 OverseasDevelopment Institute Nadja Bomscheuer ConferenceAssistant CGIARSECRETARIAT NicoleNeukirch Alexandervon der Osten ConferenceAssistant ExecutiveSecretary MariaWeitz SalahBrahirni PA/Peer Reviews Adviser,International Relations - German Foundation for Development Ernest Corea (DSE/ZEL) Consultant Jiirgen Richter BarbaraEckberg Program Director Program Assistant Hendrik Fischer ShirleyGeer ConferenceSupport SeniorInformation Officer Anja Fritzsche 'liam Grundy ConferenceSupport ConferenceOfficer Eva Gaertner Frona Hall ConferenceSupport ConferenceOfficer ClaudiaGrohme SarwatHussain ConferenceSupport InformationOfficer Gitta Heier ManuelLantin ConferenceSupport 86 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Petra A. Kade Dorothea Marek ProgramAssistant ConferenceSupport NicolaKrappweis Petra Stolp ConferenceSupport ConferenceSupport Judith Landes ChristianeStroeh ConferenceSupport ConferenceSupport Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 87 AIIEXEX Highlightsof CosponsorsMeeting The Cosponsorsheld their meetingin conjunctionwith MTM2000at the BellevueHotel, Dresden, Germany.Presided by CGIARChairman Ismail Serageldin, the meetingwas attendedby Robert Thompson (WorldBank), Louise Fresco (on behalf of JacquesEckebil, FAO), and Peter Matlon (on behalfof Roberto Lenton, UNDP). Others present were EmnilJavier (TACChair), Hans Gregersen (TAC/SPIAChair), Alexander von der Osten (CGIARExecutive Secretary), Shellemiah Keya ([AC ExecutiveSecretary), Guido Gryseels(TAC Deputy ExecutiveSecretary) and ManuelLantin (Science Adviser,CGIAR Secretariat). Follow-upto the ConsultativeCouncil Meeting The Cosponsorsreviewed the results of the ConsultativeCouncil's (CC) meeting held on May 20, 2000.That meetingconsidered the companionpaper to the vision documentprepared by TAC. The main points discussedand recommendationsmade by the CC were presentedin a Chairman'sletter to the CGIARmembers. The Council'srecommendations were as follows: * Adoptionof the elementsof strategypresented by TAC. * Discussionof any proposalson structurethat the Centers are readyto discussat MTM2000. * Adoptionof an action plan as well as scheduleof next steps to deal with issuesof strategyand structurefollowing the Dresden meeting. TACMembership At present, TAC has 14 members (excludingthe Chair). However,four memberswill complete their term at the end of 2000. The Cosponsorsendorsed the recommendationfrom the TAC chair for a one-terrn(two-year) extension of Joachimvon Braun (his secondterm) and Richard Harwood (histhird term) beginningJanuary 1,2001. The Cosponsorsalso endorsed the TAC chair'srecommendation to searchfor candidatesto fill the other two membershipslots. United Nations EnvironmentProgram's Status in the CGIAR The Cosponsorsnoted with regretthe messagefrom UNEP's Deputy ExecutiveDirector Shafqat Kakakhelthat "it is no longerpossible for UNEP to maintainits status as a cosponsorof the CGIAR." Theywere, however, pleased to know that UNEP expressedits intentionto remain as a member of the Group. FinancialSupport to TAC At MTM99,the CGIAR approvedthe integrationof TAC and the IAEG. The IAEG was replacedby a StandingPanel on Impact Assessment(SPIA) to serveas TAC's principalinstrument for all Systemlevel extemal evaluationsand impact assessmentactivities. The TAC and IAEG Secretariatswere integratedinto one serviceunit basedat FAO headquartersin Rome. The work program and budget of the integratedTAC/IAEG (SPIA)for the period 2000-2002are embodiedin an inter-agencyagreement prepared at FAO and presentedto the Cosponsorsmeeting at ICW99.The agreementhas been signedby FAO and the World Bank.FAO expressedhope that the agreementwould be signedby UNDP in the near future. 88 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Global Forumon AgriculturalResearch The Cosponsorswere pleasedto note the progressin the work of the Global Forum on AgriculturalResearch (GFAR) and reiteratedtheir support to it. A discussionof the detailsof the CGIAR's future support was deferredpending the outcome of the ongoingexternal review of GFAR. Search for and Recruitmentof CGIARDirector Robert Thompson, World Bankrepresentative and chair of the SearchCommnittee for CGIAR Director, informedthe meetingthat the searchis well under way.The SearchCommittee is inviting additionalnominations of outstandingpotential candidates particularly from developingcountries. The committeewill come up with a short list of candidatesin due course, and these candidateswill be invited for interviewincluding a public seminarat the WorldBank It is hoped that the selectionand recruitment process can be completedduring the summer of 2000 so that the Director-designatecan participatein ICW2000. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 89 A N N E X E S Report of the NineteenthMeeting of the OversightComm ittee The CGIAR OversightCommittee (CC) held its 19thMeeting at the WestinHotel in Dresden between 20-25May 2000, in conjunctionwith the CGIAR's2000 Mid-Term Meeting. Participatingin the meetingwere Andrew Bennett (chair),Emnmy Simmons, Ruth Haug, GillesSt Martin,Juan Restrepo, Zhao Longyueand SelvukOzgediz (Secretary).The CC interactedwith the Chairman,the Finance Committee,the Chairmanof TAC, the Center Board Chairs, and the Center Directors' Committee. The OC agendaconsisted of the followingitems: 1. Intnxction 2. CGIAR vsion,strate andstnica 3. RetmspetiwYew of theSysten Review 4. Due diga - ceter anc 5. Dueddige -systengwmaxe 6. Memheshipandrotation 7. Interactionsu t othera1niees 8. Any oter business. The Chairmanwelcomed the members of the Committeeand noted that the membershipof the OC is now: - AndewBenet -Chair - BongizwN)ole-Mbdi Ruth Haug EnmmySinnns * GilesSt. Martin * JuanRestrepo o ZhaoLongyue Mervat Badawistood down at MlTM2000.The CC placed on recordtheir thanks to her for her help and outstandingcontributions over the past three years. 1. Introduction The agendawas adopted.The Chairmanand those membersof the CC that had attendedthe ConsultativeCouncil and the adhoc,informal meeting of the OC and FinanceCommittee in Rome outlinedtheir impressionsof the outcome of the meeting. 2. CGIARVision, Strategyand Structure The OC memberstook part in the discussionsand working groups based on the conclusionsand principlesset out in two excellentand clear reports produced by TAC. 90 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 AN HEX ES It willbe importantto takethe nextsteps forward in an openand transparent way, setting realistic timetablesand deadlines.The OC supportsthe needto moveforward as quicklyas possibleand in ways that ensurecontinuity and buy-in as keypersonalities in the Systemchange. The OC waspleased that a timetablewith clear milestones was agreed upon. It willinglyaccepts the mandateof the CGIARto takethe responsibilityfor conveningthe SynthesisGroup in earlyOctober. ThisPanel will prepare a paperthat pullstogether the workof TAC andthe CBC/CDCon the new CGIARvision, TAC's seven Pillars, IPR issues and on Systemand Center governance. The paperwill aim to providean overviewof the optionssuggested and identify the issuesthat mightbe discussedat ICW2000. 3. RetrospectiveReview of the SystemReview The OC met withthe membersof the Reviewteam and discussed and agreed on the termsof reference.It wasimpressed with the speedwith which the teamhad started its work. The OC issuedthe revisedterms of referenceto the Membersof the CGIARand agreed to write to ReviewPanel Chairman Maurice Strong, to the ExecutiveSecretary Mahendra Shah, and other membersof the third SystemReview Panel asking for their helpand cooperation in can-yingout the RetrospectiveReview. TheOC looksforward to receivingthe draftreview report in Septemberfor discussionat its meetingat ICW2000. 4. Due Diligence - Centers * BoardMembership and Orientation The OC welcomesthe successfulBoard orientationprogram held at the time of ICW99.It was obviouslywelcomed by the participantsand enhancedthe role that the participantscan play on their Boards.It encouragesthe Secretariatto incorporatethe conimentsreceived in the feedback into the format of the program.The OC suggeststhat the programbe offered annuallyand run everyyear, subjectto there being an adequatedemand. * IWMI and CIAT Successions The OC welcomesthe transparent and inclusiveprocesses followed in the identificationand selectionof the new Directors Generalat IWMI and CIAT. It congratulatesFrank Rijsberman and JoachimVoss on their appointmentsand looks forwardto workingwith them over the comingyears. * CIFOR, ICRAF,and IITA Successions The OC notes the need to identify new DGs for CIFOR, ICRAF, and IITA over the coming 18 months. It encourages the Boards of these Centers to follow the good practices used by IWMI and CIAT in their recent searches and selections. * EPMRs The OC welcomedthe opportunityto discussthe EPMRsof ICARDA,IWMI, and WARDA and notes that the systemof EPMRsis workingwell. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 91 A N1NE X E S 5. Due Diligence - System * CGIAR Chair Succession The OC noted with regretthe decisionof the currentChair -Ismail Serageldin- to step down at the end of July. It will expressits thanks,appreciation and farewellsat ICW2000.It welcomesthe commitmentof the World Bankby offeringthat Ian Johnson -Vice President -Environmentally and SociallySustainable Development - wouldtake over as Chairmanof the CGIAR and would chair ICW2000.The OC looks forwardto workingwith the new Chairman. The OC willwrite to the President of the WorldBank on behalfof the Membersof the CGIAR, expressingthe appreciationof the CGIAR for the leadershipand achievementsof Ismail Serageldinand welcomingthe continuedcomnmitment of the Bank through its nominationof Ian Johnson as the next Chair of the CGIAR It willalso write to the incomingChairman offering to brief him on CGIARissues and the concerns. * Cosponsor Succession The OC notes with regretthe decisionof the UNEP to step down as a Cosponsorof the CGIAR. It is concernedthat restructuringand refocusingof prioritieswithin the UNDP may mnakeit difficultfor the UNDP to continuein its role of Cosponsor.The Cosponsorsplay an invaluable role in providingthe internationalstatus and legitimacyto the System.They willbe particularly important in maintainingconfidence in the Systemat times of change. * CGIAR Executive Secretary/Director Succession The OC welcomedthe report of the Chairmanand the Director of the World Bank's Rural DevelopmentDepartment on progressin the identificationand selectionof candidatesfor this key post. * Funding Issues The OC welcomedthe report on the Longer-TermFinancing Strategy. It notes that the World Bankis planningto seek contributionsfrom the Membersto meet up to 50 percent of the costs of the CGIAR Secretariat.The OC encouragesthe World Bankto present proposalsat ICW,but recognizesthat the reviewplanned by the Bankmight resultin changesin the role, functionsand size of the Secretariat.It is possiblethat this reviewof the Secretariatmight be extendedto look at the costs and future fundingof the TAC Secretariat. * MTM and ICWAgendas The OC notes the continuingdifficulties in predictinghow CGIARmeetings will develop and incorporateall businessinto the time available.It welcomesthe constructiveflexibility shown by the Membersin respondingto these challenges,but underlinesthe importanceof tryingto set and adhere to a well prepared agenda. * Global Forum for Agricultural Research The OC congratulatesDr Paroda and the organizersand Secretariatsof the GFAR on the successfulconduct and conclusionof the Global Forum. Ihe positive outcome and the rich diversityof views and opinions expressedmake it important to revisitthe future relationshipsand 92 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEX ES divisionof labor betweenthe GFAR and the CGIAR At regionallevels, this could be carriedout by the Centers,regional organizations, and the GFAR Secretariat,as they take their work forward on the regional/ecoregionalfocus of their programs. The OC looks forward to the opportunityto discussand considerthe future evolutionof the relationshipbetween the GFAR and the CGIARat ICW2000. 6. Membershipand Rotation The OC noted that it is now up to strength but that its current chair wasdue to stand down at ICW2000,so it would be important to agreewho would be the next chair in Washington. 7. Interactionswith other Committees The OC interactedwith the Finance Committee.The chair of OC had severalmeetings with the chairs of the Center Directors,Center Boards,TAC and FinanceComnmiittees, and the CGIARChairman over the conduct of MTM2000and the next steps on the 2010 VisionReview. 8. Any Other Business The OC willdiscuss the issue of CGIARnominees to the Boardsof the CGIAR Centers at its next meeting. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 93 AINEXES Report of the SeventeenthMeeting of the Finance Committee The report of the FinanceConmnittee was presented by its Chair, lain MacGillivray.The agenda for the meetingcovered the followingitems: * 1999 Outcome * 2000 FinancingPlan * 2001 FinancialRequirements * CGIARLonger Tern FinancingStrategy * FinancialPolicies The CGIARFinance Committee held its 1 7thmeeting in Dresden,Germany on May 20, 2000 and May 25, 2000.It held a joint session,chaired by the CGL4RChairman, with the OversightCommittee on May 20 Membersparticipating were: Australia (Bevege),Brazil (Reifschneider),Canada (MacGillivray), Germatzy(De Haas),IFAD (Mathur),Japan (Kondo),Sweden (Thornstr6m),Switzerland (Egger), World Bank (Thompson/Barghouti).Regrets were receivedfromEgypt. FAO (Lunes),European Commission (Vialatte),USA (Dalrymple)and UnitedKingdom (Harding) observed the meeting. Agenda item No 1:1999 Decision: The FinanceCornmittee recommends approval of the CDC proposalto confirn the 1999World Bankcontribution at the levelsdisbursed during 1999. Overall outcome * $330million funding,representing a decreaseof $10million or 3 percent from the approved financingplan of $340million. It is also $10 millionless than actual 1998funding of $340 million. e The primaryreason for the shortfallwas the default,due to proceduralmishaps, by the European Commnissionon its 1999 comnrnitmentof $16 million. * Centersposted an operatingdeficit of $5 millionfinanced from reserves. Compositionof funding: * Unrestrictedfunding. Stable pattern in terms of absolutelevels of unrestricted,outcome $179 millionin line with 1998total of $179million. Represents 54 percent (1998:53 percent)of total funding * Restrictedfunding decreased by $10million to $151 millionin 1999.This represented46 percent (1998:47 percent) of total funding. * Membergroups: The top twelvedonors contributed73 percent of funding, down marginally from 75 percent in 1998.Australia replaced the EC in the list of top twelvedonors. Developing countnes increasedtheir contributionsin absoluteand percentageterms. Total contributions increasedfrom $13.2million (3.9percent) to $14.7million (4.5percent) in 1999.Contributions from non CG donors also increasedby $3.1million to $15 million,primarily from private foundationsand collaborationwith private sectorin LatinAmerica. 94 Chartingthe CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Program investments Agendainvestments came to $347million. The distributionof resourcesby undertakingwas consistentwith the 1999finance plan. Investmentin increasingproductivity, at 34 percent of total investment(1998: 37 percent), continuedto be the major thrust of CG activities.Protecting the environmentaccounted for 20 percent (1998:19percent); Policy increased from 12 percentto 13 percent; Biodiversitydecreased from 11 percentto 10 percent and StrengtheningNARS increased by 2 percent to 23 percent. Sectorally,crops accountedfor 71 percent of investment,livestock, 14 percent; forestry, 11 percent;and fish 4 percent. Centerhighlights * The majorityof Centers (eleven)received funding within a 10 percent range of their approved funding.Only fiveCenters were outsidethis range - ICARDA$3.4 million (-15percent); CIFOR $1.9 million(-14 percent); CIAT $4.5million (-13 percent), CIP $2.9million (-12percent); and ILRI $3.1 million(-10 percent). If the EC had not defaultedon its contributionall fiveCenters wouldhave been withinten per cent, and thus broadlyin line with their financingplan targets.Shortfalls would have been; ILRI $2.7million (-9 percent);ICARDA $1.9 million (-8 percent);CIAT $2.7million (-8 percent);CIFOR $ 1.1million (-8 percent);and CIP $1.0 million(-4 percent). These shortfallswere primarilydue to slowerthan planned projectimplementation. Membership * Initialcontribution by Syria. Disbursements * 89 percent of 1999contributions were receivedby end of year, comparedto 88 percent in 1998. Delaysin EC fundingin 1997and 1998were resolvedby the end of 1999for most Centers. WorldBank funding * The Finance Committeeestablished a policyin 1997that World Bankmatching funds wouldbe recomputedin light of actualexperience at the end of the year and the necessaryadjustments would be reflectedin the mid-term fundingtranche. 1. Due to the exceptionalsituation with EC fundingin 1999,the CDC has proposed that the recomputationof matchingfunds be suspendedfor 1999. 2. If the matchingcontribution were to be recomputedfor 1999,additional matching funds would be due to three Centers;IITA ($0.5million);ICARDA ($0.2million); and CIMMYT ($0.1million). Refunds would be due from six Centers;CIAT ($0.3million); CIP ($0.2 million);WARDA ($0.2million); IPGRI ($0.2million); CIFOR ($0.1million); and ICLARM ($0.1million). There will be a net repaymentof $0.3million. CGIAR reserve * Reserveat the end of 1999$4.2 million. There was no changeduring the year. Financialposition * The CGIAR as a whole remainsin a strongposition. Cash on hand was $209 millionand represented220 daysof expenditures. * Totalnet assets at the end of 1999were $297million, comprising: >- Investmentsin fixedassets cameto $203 millionin 1999 down from $227 millionin 1998. This followeda changein accountingpolicy on depreciationof land & buildings,which revert Chartingthe CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor2010 95 A N NE X ES back to host governmentsat the cessationof a Center (seedetailed explanation in the Section IV, 1999Finance Report). >- Funds decreasedby $2 millionto $95million. Operatingfunds decreasedby $5 millionto $47million, representing 49 revenuedays, or about two months of fundingrequirements. The capitalfund increasedby $3 millionto $48 millionand represents23 percent of the net assetsvalue of CGIAR capitalstock. * Memberfunding of $330million, combined with Center generatedincome of $12million, came to total fundingof $342million. Agenda investment of $347 millionresulted in an operating deficitof $5 million.However, included in the $330 millionof member fundingis $5 millionof incomewhich willbe expensedin 2000.True operatingdeficit in 1999is, therefore, $10million. Spendingtrends * Personnelspending was lower in percentageterms, continuingrecent trend). * Investment allocationsby undertakingsconsistent with previoustrends. By region,investment in SSArose from 40 percentin 1998 to 42 percent;declined in WANA from 10 percent to 9 percent and in LAC from 18 percent to 17 percent.Investments in Asiaremained at 32 percent. Agenda item No 2: 2000 Decisions FinanceCommittee recommendations: * Confirmationof the 2000 CGIAR financingplan at the approved levelof $340 million. - WorldBank funds: >- Approvalof disbursementof second tranche($3.8 million) of Bankfunds at levelsindicated at ICW99. >- EC adjustmentpackage proposed by the Centers- conversionof $8 millionout of the $12 millionloan package put in place in Februaryin responseto the EC crisis. >- Fundingof specialrequests for $2 million. TheFinance Committee will henceforthconsider specialrequests only at ICW when approvingfinancingplans. >- Allocationofpartnershipfunds. Overall * 2000 fundingpoint forecastby Centers is $352million, consistent with their lCW99projections but higherthan the approvedfinancing plan of $340 million. As noted at ICW99this forecast includesa 50 percent reductionin Germanunrestricted funding in 2000.It alsoincludes more modest declinesin unrestrictedsupport from Swedenand Denmark Hence, there does not appear to be a need to revisethe financingplan. * Followingthe proceduraldefault by EC on its 1999contributions, the Finance Committee authorizeda loan to Centers of $12 million,representing about 75 percent of the 1999 shortfallof $16 millionin January2000. The loan has been financedfrom CGIAR reserves($2 m), 2000 funds set aside at ICW99($3 million)and a call on 2001 fundingof $7 million.$5 millionof the loan has been disbursedto Centers. * The EC has taken steps to implementa fundingpackage for 2000.The sizeof the package,Euro 25 million,will allowsome coverage,possibly about $5 million,of the $16 millionshortfall in 1999. The internalEC approvalprocess is on schedulewith formal announcementpossible in June/July 2000. The nature of the contributionhas changedfrom unrestrictedto targeted and this may pose some challengesin full utilizationof the fundingin 2000. 96 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 AN11 E X ES * Center financing updates point to four Centers being significantly (>5 percent) below their financing plan target. The four Centers predicting significant deviations are ISNAR (-20 percent); IWMI (-10 percent); and ICLARM (-5 percent); - all affected by the loss of EC funding in 2000 - and WARDA (-13 percent). The other twelve Centers expect to be funded either marginally above (range 1 percent to 7 percent) or marginally below (range -1 percent to -4 percent) the financing plan level. * No improvements in disbursements. Use of Bank funds. At ICW99, out of a total of $45 milion. * $37.25 million allocated to Centers on a matching basis (12 percent of non-Bank funding); Ouwanespmktl by dxtCnee do not appearto requireany sWicn*iaadjustmns ofmatdngfinds. * Special allocation of $1.75 milion allocated as folows: $0.6 milion to ICRAF; $0.6 milion to IPGRI; $0.3 m. to IITA for system-wide programs and $0.25 m. to CIMMYT to rebuild tropical maize station. * $1 milion allocated to partnership activities: * $5 million to be allocated at M 2000. At MTM2000 the following requests were submitted for additional funding. EC-related: * ICLARM: $1.8 milion to cover the loss of EC funding in 1999 and 2000. Genetic Resource Program: 0.6 million to compensate for reallocation of EC funding from SGRP to other IPGRI projects. EEC compensatory action: CDC has proposed the folowing action requiring an allocation of about $8 milion to cope with the EC problem: >-Conversion of about 60 percent of the loan into a grant for all Centers ($7 milion) >-An additional 40 percent for Centers not receiving EC funding in 2000. ($1 milion). Identified at ICW99: * CIP $1.7 milion to support a downsizing and to rebuild its reserves. * CGIAR Central Asia Program: $1 million. * IFPRI/ISNAR indicators project: $0.3 milion (four year commnitment). * SPIA/TAC/IFPRI Poverty project: $0.25 million. New requests: * CIMMYT: $0.25 miDlionrice/wheat facilitation unit. Partnership activities * Costs of support through June 2000 for NGOC/PSC/SPC/GRPC - $0.3 miDlion. * Global Forum - To be determined at ICW2000 after the completion of the planned review. * Search process for TAC Chair and CGLAR Director and Oversight Committee comrmissioned Review of reviews - $0.1 million. * Working Group on longer-tenn financing Strategy (through ICW2000): $0.4 milion. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 97 A N N[ X ES Proposed actions: * Endorsementof the CDC Proposalfor conversionof the loan into a grant as proposed. To be financedby using $2.9million from the $5 millionset asidefrom 2000 funds,drawing down $2.1 millionfrom reservesand committing$3 million from 2001. * Specialrequests: Endorsement of specialrequests for the CentralAsia Program, IFPRI/ISNAR AgriculturalIndicators Program, TAC/SPIA Povertyproject and the Rice-WheatInitiative. For the Rice-WheatInitiative, the FinanceCommittee will not considerany future requests. * Partnershipinitiatives as proposed. * $0.5million for CIP to support its downsizingefforts. Agendaitem No 3: 2001 Pleaserefer to MTM documentMTM/00/04 dated April 16, 2000titled "FinancialRequirements of the 2001 CGIAR ResearchAgenda". Decisions: FinanceCommittee Recommendations: * Financialplanning targetfor 2001 in contextof likely 2000 outcomeof $340 million. a In view of the specialEC actiontaken in 2000 the matching WorldBankfunding be limitedtol] percent. Process steps: * FollowingCGIAR endorsementat this meeting,Centers willprepare financingplans by mid- September. - TAC willreview program implicationsand highlightissues in September. - The Finance Committeewill review financingplans prior to CGIAR considerationat ICW2000. * Centersprepared plansfor 2001-2003in the contextof 2000-2002Medium and Term Plans (MIPs) reviewedlast year and 2000 likelyoutcomes. * TAC reviewedthe proposal at TAC78,Paris, 27 - 31 March,2000 and confirmedthat withthe exceptionsnoted in the TAC's observations("2001 CGIAR Reseah Agendaand Initial Ptvposalsfor 2003",SDRJTAC: IAR/00/16), the plans are broadlyin line with those approvedlast year. * TAC recommendsextension of the 2000-2002MTP to 2003, subjectto the Group's action on a new vision and strategyfor the CGIAR. Process observations: * This is the fourth year under the MTP process adopted at MTM97. As expected,TACGs review has increasinglybecome light" in March,noting directionalchanges over a three year time frame. * AllCenters have fullyincorporated the project approachin their planningand the transitionto the log-frameapproach is on target:all Centershave translatedthe standardfinancial tables into the log frame outputs and most have followedthe log-frameterminology in describingtheir project portfolio. * The Septemberreview of financingplans willbe more focusedon the budget year. Financialdimensions: * 2000-2002MTPs calledfor fundingof $385 millionin 2001 to support an investmentprogram of $400 million.Overall, Center proposals are broadlyin line i.e.,funding of $367 million, 98 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 A NNEX ES supplementedby $12 miDionin Centerincome to support an investmentprogram of $379 million in 2001. * In the contextof the 2000 financingplan of $340million, the fundingproposals represent an increaseof $27million or 8 percent. This is ambitious. Agenda item No 4: CGIARLonger TermFinancing Strategy Pleaserefer to MTM2000document MTM/00/05 dated April26, 2000 titled "A longerterm financingstrategy for the CGIAR" Decisions FinanceCommnittee recommendations: * Endorsementof the proposalto set up a CGIAR/FutureHarvest organizationto implementthe longerterm financing strategyand public awarenessinitiatives * Authorizationto implement,under continuedFinance Committee oversight, proposed interimsteps includingdevelopment of a businessplan, explorefinancing possibilities and developa governancemechanism for the CGlAR/FutureHarvest organization. In January 1999the ConsultativeCouncil requested CGIAR FinanceCommittee Chair Alex McCallato leadthe implementationof the CGIAR SystemReview recommendations on resource mobilizationand publicawareness. At MTM99,the Group endorsedMr. McCallasproposal that a consultingcompany, The ConservationCompany, be engagedfor the task and that a workinggroup representingthe Centers,Members, CGIAR public awarenessand resourcemobilization professionals and the PublicAwareness and ResourcesCommittee of the CDC guidetheir work. At ICW99,the Group discussedan interim report from the consultantsand endorsedthe propositionsfrom the Finance Committeethat: * the CGIAR LongerTerm FinancingStrategy should be based on the continuationof ODA fundingwith some proportion beingsupported by non-ODA fundingfrom DAC countries, expansionof Southern financialparticipation and private sector;and - a singleCGIAR mechanismshould be used for implementinga harmonized,but not centralized, approachfor resourcemobilization and public awareness. At MThM2000,the Group willconsider a draft report of the working group.The report highlights the potentialfor financingas much as 15-40percent of CGIAR requirementsfrom non-publicsources. To realizethe potential,it recommendsthat the CGIARlaunch an enhancedpublic awareness/resource mobilization(PA/RM) effort that builds on currentefforts. Specifically,the proposed CGIAR/Future Harvestmechanism would have expandedmarketing and fundraisingcapacity in each regionof the world; support and work with nationalefforts; and support Center efforts and work to build Center capacity. Annual costs to adequatelystaff and provide an operatingbudget and consultingsupport are estimatedat about $1.5to $2 million. The creationof regionalnodes or hubs and partial support of CenterPA/RM staffwould increasecosts by approximately$1 million,bringing the total initial investmentto $2.5to $3 million. Clearly,the initiativecannot be fullylaunched until there is a new vision for the CGLARfor the 21st Century. However,in the interim,the followingkey steps are recommended: * Prepare a businessplan for the operation of the proposed entityidentifying resources required and potentialnon-CGIAR fundingsources. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 99 A1N1NE X E S * Increaseresources for publicawareness activities at Centers and Future Harvest. * Engage fundraisingexpertise to help develop and implementplans. * Pilot promising,high priorityalternative financing initiatives to gain experienceand test their feasibilityfor CGIAR application. Agenda item No 5: FinancialPolicies, The FinanceCommittee provides oversight on CGIAR financialpolicy issues as the apex financial body of the systemand becauseimplementation of some of the issuesrequires action by the membership. Under its guidance,the CGIAR Secretariatis collaboratingwith Center financeprofessionals, and outside experts as necessary,in pursuinga programon financialissues underpinning prudent and cost effective use of resourcesby Centers.The FinanceCommittee has endorsedthis collaborativeapproach to addressingfinancial policy issues of concernto all componentsof the system and has authorizedits continuation. At this meetingthe FinanceCommnittee received the followingprogress reports. SinceMTM99, the Finance Committeehas reviewedaccounting policy, financial management guidelines,exchange rate management,indirect costs, intemal audit,and financialsystems. At this meeting,updates are providedon ongoingprojects (indirectcosts, internalaudit and accountingpolicies, financialsystems). A new project on liquiditymanagement is beingintroduced. More detailednotes are providedon indirectcosts and liquiditymanagement. Indirect Costs: Lastyear, the Secretariatin collaborationwith the Centers initiateda studyby Ernst & Young, India to reviewCGIAR Centerpractices for indirectcost accountingand computation. The objectiveof the studywas to develop common standardsthat will bring about transparencyin computation of indirectcosts leadingto their recoveryfrom all funders of restrictedactivities. Following a reviewof existingCenter practiceslast year, an approachbased on a "valuechain" frameworkproposed by Ernst and Youngwas piloted at fiveCenters earlierthis year. ICRISAT,the leadCenter, has distributed the proposedmethodology to all Centers.In brief,Center costs would be collectedunder fivebroad headingsfor computingindirect costs. The note on indirect cost prepared by ICRISATprovides fuller treatment of the proposed methodology.The next step in the process is testing the approachby the remainingeleven Centers. Simultaneouslyit wouldbe helpfulto start consultationswith the investor community,under the FinanceCommittee leadership, on the proposed approach.A finalreport is expectedby ICW2000. LiquidityManagement: An interCenterworking group has been examiningthe possibilityof poolingexcess cash availableat individualCenters from time to time in order to maximizefinancial returns. The paper (providedseparately) prepared by IRRI,the lead Center, summarizesa proposal from Citibankthat offers about 2 percenthigher returns (7 percent comparedto. 5 percent at the present)if Centercash is pooled. This willbe accomplishedby institutinglonger-term maturities and includinga small equitycomponent in the investmentpool. Finance Committeeviews are solicitedon the acceptabilityof this approach. Accounting Manual:The CGIARfollows the principleto periodicallyreview CGIAR accountingpolicies to ensure their compliancewith the ongoingrevisions of generallyaccepted principles, both Internationaland US. In mid 1998,the Secretariatengaged Price Waterhouse, Philippines to examine the CGIAR accountingmanual and propose relevantrevisions. Ms. Rose Javier,Partner, Price Waterhouseled the project with oversightprovided by a smallworking group of Center staff from ICLARMand IRRI and the Secretariat.The revisedaccounting policy manual is in effect as of July 1, ' Notes on Indirect costs and liquiditymanagement are providedseparately. 100 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 A I11 E X ES 1999with all Centersexpected to be in complianceby the end of 2000. Three Centershave implemented the approachand have not flaggedany implementationdifficulties. From a generalperspective, readers will find the followingchanges in the format of the financial statements. * Differentcategories of reservesused in the past (e.g. Operatingand Capital)will be combinedinto a singlecategory termed as "NetAssets. " * The Fixedasset lines infinancial statements will excludeBuilding and Structures,and past investmentsin buildingswill not be subjectto depreciationaccounting. Internal Audit: At ICW99,the FinanceCommittee reviewed and endorsed a proposal by ICLARM,1RRI, IPGRI and the Secretariatto jointlysponsor an intemal audit teamn,initially based in Asia. The FinanceCommittee noted the proposal to be an innovativeapproach to deal with fiduciaryissues where an individualCenter is hard pressedto makethe necessarybudget availableto support the required expertiseand hence collectiveaction is required. The audit team, led by Mr. Hock-ChyeOng has been in placesince earlyFebruary. The four partnersserve as a board for the audit team. In additionto undertakingcompliance programs at the three memberCenters, the team has also been helpful in problem solvingat two other Centers. FinancialSystems: At ICW99,the CGIARSecretariat announced the launch,in collaboration with Center staff, of a surveyof Center financialsystems to position the CGIAR to fullybenefit from advancesin informationtechnology and process improvementsin financialprocesses and proceduresin the past few years. Four surveyshave been completedand have alreadyled to an initialround of discussionson common systemplatforms. A pilot project based on an informationwarehouse concept, bywhich financialinformation required by all componentsof the systemwould be easilyavailable through the Intemet, has been initiatedfor the semi-annualexchange of financialinformation between the Centers and the Secretariatin the context of the resourceallocation process. Experiencewith the pilotwill facilitateexploration of whether the conceptcan be extendedto normalCenter financialoperations. This is of particularrelevance to those Centerswho are consideringupgrading their financialinfrastructure in the near future. The Finance Committeewill be briefedat ICW2000. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 101 ANNEXES Report of the GeneticResources Policy Committee Participants: M. S. Sn n Clhaimnan RobertBertram, USA StemzBie, CDC Marciode MirandaSantos, CBC QCm FelipeMorales, NGOC Gni6&e GCimer,Switzerla Ga+ey Hawti, Senetary PatrickHefer, PSC Sirkka ho, TAC Gaekin Mkamanga,NARS GCiGarf7h str~ Sz1en Gny Fouder,Resowre Person Observers: FemandoCapm, ExecutzteSoetary, GFAR Vitmra Henson-Apolonio,CAS, ISNAR Agenda Item 1: Renegotiationof the InternationalUndertaking 1. Progress is being in made in the development of a new Intemational Undertaking (U). The work of the negotiators has been aided by several informal meetings in which perspectives have been shared and common ground staked out. The CGIAR has played an active role in the deliberations, for example by providing technical analyses,through active participation as resource persons in the negotiating sessions, and by contributing to a series of informal meetings among key countries. An example of the progress in the negotiations is that countries are now focusing clearly on the development of a Multilateral System of Facilitated Access and Benefit-Sharing, rather than on bilateral approaches. Major areas under discussion include the range of crops to be covered under this Multilateral System (its scope), the terms of access thereto, and the means to generate and share benefits, within this multilateral framework. The overall effort is seen as addressing the special needs of agriculture and food security in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2. The Committee sees both the possibility of progress as well as some potential pitfalls in the path ahead. Consensus language has been reached on Farmers' Rights, which is seen as being focussed at the national level. On the matter of scope, it has been agreed that the revised IU will cover all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Within this framework, countries are developing a Multilateral System, and discussions continue on several possibilities for its coverage, ranging from just a few to many crops. At present, a compromise is emerging in which major food crops important to global food security, and where substantial international interdependence exists, would be covered by the Multilateral System. Access would be facilitated at low transaction costs to the germplasm of crops included within the Multilateral System, in order to maintain germplasm flows important to plant breeding and food security. Examination of benefit sharing presents a major challenge, but opportunities exist to underscore access- related benefits associated with a Multilateral System, as well as specific activities in the areas of conservation, use and capacity building. A number of positive incentives for countries and institutions associated with the Multilateral System are being explored. 102 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 A I N E X E S 3. Minimally, the CGIAR would look to the new IU to establish a Multilateral System covering the major mandate crops of the CGIAR Centers. The CGIAR also needs a policy atmosphere that will permit continued free movement of germplasm and assurance that the CGIAR can continue to generate and distribute germplasm-based international public goods in the form of varieties, stocks, segregating populations etc., and relevant information. By clarifying benefits associated with the Multilateral System, countries may increasingly contribute new genetic material to the international genebanks and germplasm screening and improvement networks. 4. Concerning the ultimate legal and institutional status of the IU, a number of options are possible for linking to both the CBD and FAO. There is general agreement among the members of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture that the IU should be legally binding. In connection with the global food security and conservation objectives of the Commission's work, it is in the interest of the CGIAR and the larger objectives of intemational public goods research that the IU be concluded at an early date. A completed IU should ideally clarify and secure the status of the germplasm held in trust by the CGIAR Centers, under the Center-FAO agreements; this "designated germplasm" is the foundation of many CGIAR and NARS efforts to provide international public goods and increase food security, globally and at the local level. Clear information on the past and present impacts associated with use of a wide range of plant genetic resources around the world will be very useful in quantifying benefits and communicating them to important audiences around the world. The studies commissioned by the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group will help commnunicatethe impact of the CGIAR and the benefits associated with multilateral co-operation and unrestricted access. 5. A number of actions could be taken by the CGIAR to help Governments reach a positive outcome to these negotiations, and establish an effective, transparent and non-bureaucratic Multilateral System that addresses the special needs of agriculture. Exarnples include: * surveys and analyses of germplasm flows * transactional costs * genetic erosion * genetic interdependence * the feasibility of using the Convention on Biological Diversity's definition of "country of origin" as a basis for bilateral negotiations, and * funding needs and opportunities. 6. In addition, analyses could be undertaken to construct alternative scenarios as a means of informing decision-makers and increasing awareness of the negotiations. It may be necessary to describe the situation in terms of risks, as well as benefits. Topics might include: * bilateral vs. multilateral frameworks * the scope of the Multilateral System (numbers of species and crops covered) * impacts of including or excluding forages, horticultural species, or minor or underutilized crops * the expected extent of germplasm flows under different regimes, and * the issue of "country of origin" for PGRFA under the CBD. 7. The Committee's view is that the CGIAR and IPGRI in particular should remain important sources of technical and policy input to the ongoing negotiations. The negotiations may highlight the role of the Global Plan of Action, which was developed under the guidance of the Commnissionon Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and adopted by 150 countries at the 1996 Leipzig Conference on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Many of the 20 activity areas discussed in the plan are central to genetic resources activities of the CGIAR Centers. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 103 ANIF I XE S 8. The Committeealso discussedthe eventuallegal status of the IntemationalUndertaking. Severaloptions are possible, from a protocol under the CBD to a freestandingFAO agreement.Matters relatingto the governingbody and implementationapproaches will be significantconsiderations in developingan acceptableand effectivestatus for an eventualagreement. 9. Conclusion:The GRPC encouragesall CGIAR membersto work activelyto further advance the renegotiationof the FAO InternationalUndertaking. Specialattention should be givento ensuring an appreciationamong all relevantgovernmental bodies at the nationallevel of the importanceof an early conclusionto the renegotiationto the abilityof the CGIAR to achieveits researchand globalfood securityobjectives. Agenda Item 2: National Legislation 10. Over 50 countriesare currentlyconsidering legislation governing access to biodiversityinthe context of the CBD. Few countriesappear to be makingprovisions for the specialneeds of agriculture with respectto exchangeand recombinationof gernplasm. For example,the OAU has endorsedmodel legislationthat providesno specialstatus for agriculturalgermplasm. Legislation is also beingprepared in relationto Article 27.3(b) of the WTO/TRIPS Agreement.An unintended effectof many of these new laws could be to greatlyreduce accessto agriculturalbiodiversity, hindering agricultural germplasm exchangeand increasingtransaction costs. Such legislationcould, if adopted, make it more difficultfor countriesto subscribeto a MultilateralSystem, since the passageof such legislationwould have establisheda bilateral,transactions-based approach. Furthermore,the prospect of revisingrecent legislationmight involvefurther delay.For these reasons,a pro-activeapproach that seeksto accommodatethe specialneeds of agricultureunder a new MultilateralSystem would be helpful. Even if a MultilateralSystem is adopted fairlysoon, some CGIAR Centersand NARS may in the meantimeface problemsin their distributionof, and accessto, gernplasm. Manyof the countriesthat the Centers work in, however,are also membersof the CGIAR, are activein the renegotiationof the IU,and have a strong interestin protectingthe efficiencyand effectivenessof the Centers. 11. The Committeewelcomed the recommnendationfrom a CBD-convenedpanel of experts last October that calledon countriesdrafting national legislation regarding access to biodiversityto leave open options for adopting a multilateralapproach to PGRFA.The Committeenoted the constructive participationof severalCGIAR-affiliated experts on this panel.The CGIAR endorsementof the spirit of the Panel's recommendationat ICW99was a positivemove. The Comrnitteealso noted that the 1999 FAO Conferencehad stressedthe importancefor countriesthat are developingrelevant legislation to do so in such a waythat would enablethem to take into account and allowfor the elementsof this new internationalagreement. 12. Recommendation:That CGIAR delegationsseek to ensure that nationallegislation in their respectivecountries take into accountthe needs for contingenciesthat allow for the eventualrequirements of a MultilateralSystem for Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculturein selectedcrops. 13. Centers' agreementswith the Host Countriesfollow a varietyof models, but all are clearly designedto respectnational law.In a few instances,special mention was made of the need for free movementof gernmplasm(respecting quarantine, etc.), but it is not clearhow strongthese provisionswill remain in a changingpolicy and legislativeenvironment. In the event that new legislationlimiting the movementof agriculturalgermplasm is adopted,restrictions on the abilityof Centers to distributeeven designatedgermplasm could result. Such a situationwould soon compromisethe effectiveoperating of the Centers at the intemational,as well as host country,levels. It would pose a significanthandicap to the effectivefunctioning of Centers,hindering their abilityto servenational programs and other partners in developingcountries, and possiblyproviding impediments to their abilityto attract fundingfrom traditionalor new sources. 104 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 A NN E X ES 14. Recommendation: That CGIAR members hosting individual Centers seek to ensure that legislation takes into account the importance of open germplasm flow, to make it possible for the Centers to serve their many partners, within and beyond the host country. Agenda Item 3: Implementing the Center-FAO Agreements 15. Centers are in the process of assembling updated lists of designated material to provide to FAO. Through the Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (SGRP), Centers are undertaking a review of the degree to which they have implemented the agreed procedures for using Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). While all Centers are now using the standardized MTA, not all have completed the agreed procedures for publicizing the new terms and conditions. The Committee encourages speedy completion of this process, and welcomes the adoption of the standardized fornat. The Committee was also informed of the work of the SGRP to develop a streamlined labeling system that would cover mixed shipments of designated and non-designated germplasm. 16. Recommendation: The Committee endorsed the actions of the Centers to standardize practice with respect to MTAs for designated germplasm. The Committee recommends that all Centers move with deliberate speed to implement and publicize the procedures used with the standardized MTA format. 17. The Committee received a report from the SGRP about a new MTA that has been developed for non-plant genetic resources (microorganisms, aquatic animals, livestock). Explanatory guidelines for the acquisition and transfer of such germplasm have also been drafted. Both were endorsed by the ICWG-GR at its February meeting. The Committee also reviewed a funding plan for upgrading Center genebanks following the System-wide Genebank Review. The plan will be presented to TAC for consideration at its upcoming meeting. 18. Recommendations: The Committee commended the SGRP for its efforts to develop documentation necessary for the conservation and distribution of agriculturally significant micro- organisms. The Committee also acknowledged the significant progress made in reviewing genebank standards, and commended the SGRP for developing a comprehensive plan and related budgets for meeting appropriate operational and infrastructural requirements. The Committee looked forward to TAC's review of the upgrading plan, and believes that undertaking a system-wide effort to upgrade genebank standards would be an important step in seeking substantial, non-traditional sources of support for the conservation of the genetic diversity held in trust in CGIAR genebanks, which constitute a critical bulwark for agricultural sustainability and global food security. Agenda Item 4: Designated Germplasm under FAO Agreements 19. The Center-FAO agreements governing access to designated germplasm have now been in effect for nearly six years. A key means for implementing those agreements has been the through the use of Material Transfer Agreements. Centers' experience using MTAs has been satisfactory, but over time some areas have emerged where greater clarity is needed. 20. IPGRI has produced a thorough and informative analysis of various possible interpretations of the term "gennplasm and related information" in the context of Center-FAO agreements, and how derivatives might be determined for the purpose of permitting applications for intellectual property rights (IPRs). In this context, it appears that the word "germplasm" is usually understood to mean 'accessions." This is in line with current CGIAR practice, in which trusteeship responsibilities are viewed as requiring Centers to ensure that individual designated accessions remain in the public domain and fully availablefor use. The paper considers that if "germplasm" were to be considered to mean genes or alleles,this could Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 105 A N N E X E S lead to greatlydiminished interest in, and use of, the collectionsby a wide range of breedersin both the public and the private sector. 21. A second area for interpretationis how derivativesare treated - i.e.,how much genetic changemust occur in order for a recipientto be able to apply for intellectualproperty protectionover materialderived from such accessions,and stillbe in conformitywith the terms of the MTA.The Committeereviewed the variousalternative mechanisms examined in the paper for quantifyingchanges that could occur in the breedingprocess (allelicdifferences, allelic frequencies, phenotypic differences, specificbreeding steps, and combinationsthereof). Another way to considerthese matters,also presented in the paper, waswhether or not the material(at accessionand/or geneticlevel) would remain available for directuse and for developingfurther derivatives.This last approachtakes as its startingpoint the objectiveof the agreementswith FAO governingdesignated material - that the materialremain in the public domain,available for use. The paper suggeststhat, in line with such an approach,it wasnecessary to "employa definitionwhich, whileallowing for IPRs, aimsto ensurethat the designatedaccession or the designatedaccession and its componentsremain available for use by other recipientsin definedways." The paper points out that the goal of this approachwould be to keep the materialin the publicdomain whileencouraging research on, and use of, designatedaccessions. 22. Reflectingnew developmentsin scientificresearch, an MTA might thus need to incorporate an unambiguousreference to the permissibilityof recipientsapplying for intellectualproperty rights on inmovationsproduced using the designatedmaterial, provided that they are not permittedto claimrights that would restrict further use of the accessionor relatedinformation by others. 23. The Commnitteerecognized that Governmentswere currentlynegotiating a number of relatedquestions in the context of the InternationalUndertaking. Interpretation of such matters would thus need to be provisional,pending completion of the negotiationof the new IU, includingany eventual provisionson benefit sharing.It was noted that clarityon accessand use provisionsas a result of the completionof the revision of the IU would help the Centers' collectionsto grow and to be used. 24. Recommendation:The Committeeexpressed its thanks to IPGRI for moving forwardthe analysisof the implicationsof new researchtechniques and changingpolicy environmenton CGIAR trusteeshipresponsibilities. The issuesthat remain are complex,and should be a pnrncipalfocus of the GRPC's work in the comingmonths. The Committeeplans a fullerreport on these matters for CGIAR members,following its September,2000 meeting.In the interim it commendsthe IPGRI paper to the CDC for its consideration. AgendaItem 5: CentralAdvisory Service 25. The Committeereceived an update of progressin the developmentof the new Central AdvisoryService (CAS) on IntellectualProperty located at ISNAR. Most of the IPR audits commissioned lastyear have now been completed. Althoughthe focus of those auditswas on the appropriateuse by the Centersof proprietarytechnology owned by others, the Commnitteenoted that the Centers are also monitoringtheir own innovations,to ensure adequateprotection for both continueddevelopment and deliveryto partners. There is a need to review,and possiblyrevise, the IPR Guidelines,and there is much to be gainedfrom Centers workingtogether to exchangeexperiences and strategies.An initialstep would be for the CASto work with the Centers to developa report on their experienceswith IPR. The Committeehoped that it would be able to reviewsuch a report at its next meeting. 26. Concernswere raisedabout the actualand potentialeffects of IPR on the functioningof intemationalor regionaltrials coordinatedby Centers.These trials often includelines from a varietyof sources such as NARS, but they could be affectedas IPRs are increasinglybeing used to protect materials under development. 106 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES 27. Recommendation: The Committee recommended that CAS work with Centers to exchange experiences with respect to IPRs, including in the context of national legislation. The Committee plans to review this issue further at its next meeting. Agenda Item 6. Global Forum Report on Genetic Resources Policy-related activities 28. Dr. Femando Chaparro presented a report on GFAR and its activities concerning plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). GFAR is planning an in-depth program on agro- biodiversity and the importance for NARS of the emerging Multilateral System, at its upcoming meeting m Dresden (May 20-23). The meeting will highlight the special nature of (PGRFA), and the actual and potential benefits of a multilateral approach to their conservation and use. GFAR is working with FAO, IPGRI and others to develop a series of briefs on strategic issues including legislation, IPR, germplasm flows, generation and sharing of benefits, and plans to follow up with stakeholders on these matters. 29. Recommendation: The Committee welcomed this initiative, and expressed its hope that the effort would underscore the unique nature of PGRFA and the important role of in situ/on-fann conservation in general and women in particular. Some concem was expressed that the initiative take into account the special needs and oppormuities in countries with smaller NARS, particularly in connection with the TRIPS agreement and the CBD. Agenda Item 7: Updates on Developments in International Fora 30. Biosafety Protocol: The "Cartagena Protocol," which was completed in Montreal in late January, 2000, addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LAOs) that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity with a specific focus on transboundary movements. It was pointed out that the protocol should help provide greater clarity for Centers working with transgenic technologies. The protocol will likely lead to more countries enacting biosafety regulations which would, in turn, be helpful to the Centers, since they do not work on certain biotechnologies, such as gene transformation, in countries lacking an adequate regulatory framework. 31. WTO/TRIPS: IPGRI presented a surmary of recent events surrounding the WTO agreements including TREPS, and the Agreement on Agriculture. A new round of global trade negotiations was held in December 1999 in Seattle, Washington, USA, but the talks were suspended as a result of protests by non-governmental organizations and complaints by developing countries of marginalization in the process. At subsequent meetings, member countries have discussed refonrs in the areas of institutional transparency and capacity building in developing countries. The TRIPS Agreement is due to be reviewed in the year 2000. 32. WIPO: IPGRI provided a briefing on WIPO activities in two areas: biotechnology and indigenous knowledge. IPGRI is represented on the Working Group on Biotechnology and is thus able to monitor progress closely and make others aware of CGIAR activities. 33. UPOV: UPOV now has 44 members, 11 of which have ratified UPOV 91. In addition, some 90-100 countries have or are currently considering legislation to implement PVP. Agenda Item 8: Underutilized and Neglected Crops 34. The Committee reviewed progress of on-going efforts by IPGRI and the MSSRF in the area of underutilized crop species. The activity is building on the GRPC-sponsored workshop held in early 1999. Discussions with IFAD and other potential donors are underway. IFAD has indicated interest in these crops, particularly with respect to food security and the income needs of the poor, and proposed Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 20W0 107 A NN E X E S that a consortiumof donors support this initiative.Some important objectivesinclude: enhanced food securitythrough a broadlybased production system;links to income generationand poverty alleviation; nutrition enhancement;and adaptationof some speciesto drier and other less favored production environments.Marketing was highlightedas a matter of specialsignificance, and one in which expanded researchefforts by CGIAR Centersmight be appropriate. 35. A policyarea relatedto underutilizedcrops that is of some concemis what crops Governmentswould finallyagree to includein the list of crops to be includedin the MultilateralSystem under the revisedIntemational Undertaking on Plant GeneticResources. At present, the list is being discussedon the basis of two criteria:food securityand interdependence.Most, if not all, of the CGIAR mandatecrops are likelyto be includedon the agreedlists. Nevertheless, based on current negotiationsit does not appearlikely that most speciesthat are categorizedas underutilized,neglected or minor crops willbe included.Many such speciesmay, however, be criticallyimportant for food securityat the local or nationallevel and may to some degreebe conservedby CGIAR genebanks. 36. Further considerationneeds to be givento the specialconservation and utilizationneeds associatedwith such crops. Moreover,concems were raisedas to whethertheir exclusionfrom an eventualMultilateral System might leadto a declinein the alreadyscarce resources allocated to research on, and conservationof, such crops. From a policystandpoint, the Committee believesthat a further analysisis warrantedof the implicationsof a MultilateralSystem that does not encompassall the Centers' in-trust germplasmholdings (e.g.,thousands of genebankaccessions of underutilizedand non-mandate crops) and that this shouldbe taken up in a future meeting. 37. Recommendations:The Committeeagreed that this is an opportune time to considerthe role of the CGIAR with respect to underutilizedcrop species,particularly as part of a reviewof Center mandatesand a considerationof how these may evolvein the future.The Committee noted that the upcomingGlobal Forum at Dresden includesdiscussion of a GFAR brief that reviewsthe importanceof linksbetween production of a crop and its ultimateconsumption. From a policy standpoint,the Committeeplans to explorethe implicationsof a MultilateralSystem that might not encompassthe full holdingsof CGIAR in-trust germplasm. AgendaItem 9: Date and Place of Next Meeting 38. It was agreedthat the next meetingof the Committeewould take place from 6 to 8 Septemberin The Hague, The Netherlands,at the invitationof ISNAR. 108 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Reportof the NGO CommitteeMeeting Report of activities of the CGIAR NGOC during period ICW99 - MTM2000 Committee Composition The Committee has set as a goal to reach a size of 8 members by the end of ICW2000. This goal will be achieved by the stepping down of various current members who will be replaced by new members already on board (Peter Rosset, Food First, USA and Juan Sanchez, CIED, Peru) and new to be appointed female members from Asia and Africa. During the MTM-ICW2000 period, current NGOC chair Miguel Altieri will serve as co-chair of the NGOC with Ann Bayers Waters, who should assume as Chair after ICW2000. Activities Workshops During this period the NGOC engaged in a number of activities including the organization of various workshops: * Intemo Work&slpon ScalingUp SuoxssfidSustnaable Agiag we Inwrs. WashinonDC, Ocmbe 22-23,1999. 38 participants from some 25 institutions who attended the Workshop which was organized by the NGO Committee of the Consultative Group on Intemational Agricultural Research (CGIAR) with support from the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) with the general assumption that there are successful local level sustainable agriculture initiatives which, although spreading on their own through the informal social structures, may be further expanded or scaled up with direct intervention. There are however institutional, political, technological and methodological factors that keep the scaling up activities from realizing its fullest potential of diversifying the benefits and spreading these benefits to more people more quickly. Overcoming these constraining factors is the overall challenge to the scaling up process. The Workshop participants shared and discussed the current and emerging views on the process of scaling up based on their work and related experiences. These took off from looking into the factors and principles explaining success of local level initiatives and how these experiences may be extrapolated and then examining what irnpedes scaling up the experiences and how these may be overcome. As the meeting progressed, the discussions converged along two major sets of agenda. These are on (i) clarifying further the scaling up concepts, approaches, principles and issues; and (ii)the role of CGIAR in the whole process of going to scale. There was a general acceptance in the meeting that scaling up is not just about technologies but is more a development process of scaling up a vision starting from that of the farmers. It is a process for expanding learning and organizational/community capacities to identify and solve new and different problems and adapt to changing situations. It is expansion resulting from not just having more numbers of fanners and larger areas, but also from evolving roles and responsibilities that go with improved capacities and diversification of benefits. In being able to canry on with the discussion on what else constitutes the scaling up process, participants had to go into clarifying concepts and definitions which the Workshop initially intended to bypass. Scaling up, scaling out and scaling down processes had to be differentiated but to later recognize that the up, out and down concepts in fact comprise particular sets of pattems in going to scale. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 109 AN1N E X E S For many of the participants scaling up connotes a vertical movement of experience, knowledge, impact and effects higher up the levels of local organization of rural community or society. This implies involving more stakeholder groups up the ladder from farmers to extensionists and NGO workers to local officials, to researchers to policy makers/ministers to donors. Scaling out is horizontal spread within a sector, particularly farmers. Both scaling up and scaling out implies adaptation, modification and improvement (not just replication) of particular technologies and techniques but more importantly of social and agroecological principles and processes. Scaling down is more particular to the replication of whole programs, not just technologies or principles or processes, by breaking them down into smaller programs or projects to facilitate planning, implementation and accountability at lower levels. Some see this as decentralization or devolution and therefore equate these processes with scaling out as well. In this document going to scale is used as the generic term comprising of scaling up, scaling out and scaling down. However, inasmuch as scaling up appears to be the more common terminology in use, it is used interchangeably with going to scale in this document. In discussing the concepts associated with scaling up, at least five dimensions of scaling up emerged during the meeting. These included the institutional (vertical integration), the geographical/spatial (horizontal spread), the technological, the temporal, and the economic or cost dimensions. In all these dimensions sustainability, participation and capacity building were common themes. Furthermore, the Workshop implied three general strategies adopted by an implementing organization in dealing with the issue of scaling up relative to how it conceptualized its project/program intervention. These were (i) spontaneous scaling up, (ii) scaling up after achieving initial local success, and (iii) inclusion of the scaling up plan right from the start of project. 'F Brazilan Multi StakebolderWorkshop on AgrecaI R e9wach,Seropedica-RiodeJaneiro, Nozeer 12- 13, 1999. Professionals from EMBRAPA, UFRRJ, other universities and NGOs as well as from other state research and extension organizations met to discuss the state of the art of agroecological research targeted at smallholder agriculture in Brazil. The group assessed progress and weaknesses of current research efforts, and also identified the opportunities for establishing a working group to expand research and outreach in key areas in order to further advance the scaling up of sustainable agriculture. * InteamtonalNaural ResoManagqnen Workshop,Ramnbiole4 Franc, Dewnr 14-17, 1999. This workshop was convened by the CGLAR NGO Committee and the Global Forum for Agricultural Research, as a preparatoty workshop for the GFAR meeting in Dresden, scheduled for May 2000. The aim of the workshop was to gather an international audience of participants from research institutes and civil society organizations from Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia in order to discuss and review the status of three global initiatives being proposed as a main focus of the Natural Resources Management NRM) component of GFAR. For each initiative, namely Interdev (a mutualistic and de-centralized information system on development experiences), Prolinnova (an initiative aimed at building global partnerships in order to promote local innovations) and PolicyNet (a research network on demand driven global policy issues pertaining to NRM), a comprehensive strategy was set up, encompassing the issues of partnerships, conceptual progresses and operationalization. For Interdev, a timetable and action plan for the experimental phase were devised and a policy to enlarge partnership was drawn. For Prolinnova, four areas of partnership were defined and a procedure to establish partnerships was defined. For PolicyNet a collaborative process was initiated on the issue of innovation in Genetic Resources Management, for which a concept paper will be written for circulation prior to the GFAR meeting. In addition, links and synergies between the three initiatives were identified and means to complement them explored. A global vision of the NRM component of GFAR progressively emerged. 110 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 A1N1NE X E S A Steering Group was formed to formulate that vision in a concept paper to be collectively written for presentation in Dresden in May. Each initiative will also be presented separately at Dresden and leading participants were identified in order to organize the preparation of these presentations. Besides Dresden, which is undoubtedly a crucial time for each initiative to make itself known and to gather support, a strategy for their long-terrn sustainability (including funding) was outlined. Both the NARS Secretariat and the GFAR Steering Comnmitteepledged support for all three initiatives. Going To Scale * Can We BringMore Beneits to MorePeople More Qwckly? An irternational workshop held April 10- 14, 2000 at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), Silang, Cavite, Philippines was a follow through to the discussions initiated during the CGIAR NGO Committee Workshop on Scaling Up Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives held October 22-23, 1999 at the World Bank, Washington, D.C. One of the main objectives of the workshop was to generate 'guideposts' and a list of available/emerging tools for development stakeholders, particularly sustainable agriculture practitioners, for use in their scaling up efforts. More specifically,workshop participants analyzed selected experiences/initiatives toward a better approximation of: - how to plan for scaling up - including when and what to scale up and with whom and with what resources; * how to implement and monitor the impact of the scaling up process - be it to scale out, down, up or a combination of the strategies therein. The workshop was launched with two keynote presentations, "Thinking through the Issues" and "Scale SEED Process of Integrated Social Development," which provided the overview of scaling up to include the different dimensions. This gave the participants the opportunity not only to understand the basic concepts and principles but also be able to reach an agreement on what scaling up means. The lessons and suggestions on how the concepts and principles of scaling up are to operate and to be managed vis-a-vis the many considerations and issues highlighted in the Washington workshop were extracted/generated from nine selected case studies. The selected cases were initiatives, projects or programs which are considered to have gone to scale to some extent. The workshop participants, other than the case presenters, did not present their scaling up experiences during the workshop plenary. They, however, wrote their initiatives as additional inputs to the thematic (small) group discussions. These additional papers also form part of the workshop document on highlights of proceedings. A documentation and publication, both in print and electronic forms, on Gang to Scal - BriWng More Benqitsto MorePeople More Q"ickly was produced. The publication contains the generated issues, concepts, principles, guidelines and a list of available/emerging tools for development stakeholders' particularly sustainable agriculture practitioners for use in their scaling efforts; and, the highlights and synthesis of the follow through workshop. The publication will be made widely available at Dresden. 'FInteomatizalWorksip on EcokWaI Irpacts of Transgic C?rps,Berkeley, Cal#m March2-4, 2000 attended by 21 scientists from ten Universities, two Centers, five NGOs, and one private company. After two and half days of discussions the group arrived at the following conclusions and recommendations: Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 111 ANNEX ES Althoughno catastrophicimpacts have yet been recorded from the massiveuse of transgenic crops,the known and potential risks are substantialfrom an ecologicalpoint of view.It was generally agreedthat becauseof the widespreaduse of transgeniccrops, and the impossibilityof effectively removingthem once they are released,even more effectsmight persist and accumulateand eventually cause senous ecologicalimpacts. For examplenobody can reallypredict the impactsthat willresult from the Bt toxin that is releasedinto the soil from roots during the growth of thousands of hectaresof Bt com, or the effectsto the soil and generalecosystem from pollen during corn tasselingand as a result of the incorporationof tons of plant residuesafter crop harvesting. Not enough researchhas been done to evaluatethe environmentaland health risks of transgenic crops, an unfortunatetrend as most scientistsfeel that such knowledgewas crucialto have before biotechnologicalinnovations were up scaledto actuallevels. There is a clearneed to further assessthe severity,magnitude and scope of risks associatedwith the massivefield deployment of transgeniccrops. Much of the evaluationof risks must move beyondcomparing Genetically Modified Crops (GMC)fields and conventionallymanaged systems to includealtemative cropping systemsfeaturing crop diversityand low-externalinput approaches.This willallow real risk/benefit analysisof transgeniccrops in relationto known and effectivealtematives. The potentialfor ecologicalrisks is to a largeextent "event and context-specific."The particular riskswhich may be identifiedfor the first wavegenetically engineered (GE) offeringsdo no exhaustthe list of potentialrisks from eventsyet in the pipeline.By the sametoken, ecologicalrisks identifiedin the US or Canadamay not be relevantto risksin Malaysiaor Mexico- whetherdue to gene flowissues or to disruptionof naturalpest controls in more biodiverseenvironments. Risksin a "normal"weatheryear may not be predictiveof those in a dry year (e.g.RR soybeanstem splittingin Georgia),or to those experiencedby farmersburdened by sporadicpest outbreaks.In short, identificationand quantificationof risks seemslikely to remainan obligationand ongoingcomplement to the developmentand releaseof each new GE crop. The repeateduse of transgeniccrops in an area may result in cumulativeeffects such as those resultingfrom the buildup of toxins in soils. For this reason, risk assessmentstudies not only have to be of an ecologicalnature in order to captureeffects on ecosystemprocesses, but also of sufficientduration so that probableaccumulative effects can be detected.The applicationof multiple methodswill provide the most sensitiveand comprehensiveassessment of the potentialecological impact of transgeniccrops. Further empiricalstudies of the ecologicalimpact of commercial-scalecultivation of transgenic plants are clearlyneeded, particularly with regardto the followingquestions: * Whichcultivated plants have sexuallycompatible wild relativesthat could becometroublesome weedsafter inheritingfitness-related transgenes, and to what extent willthis conversionto weedinessoccur? * Willthe propagationof certain transgenicplants result in the evolutionof newlyresistant plant pests (microbialpathogens, insects, and weeds),and if so, how can the evolutionof these resistant biotypesbe delayedor avoided? * What effectswill plant-produced pesticides have on the populationdynamics of non-target organisms,especially beneficial predators, parasitoids, pollinators, components of soil food webs, and fundamentalecological processes? Ecologistscan provide valuableinput in the planningand evaluationof high-riskgenetically engineeredplants, but does documentingthe risks of such crops entails the best use of scarceecological talent? Or should ecologistsdevote their time and skillsto developingthe best environmentallysound 112 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES approachesto dealwith real agricultural limitations, which in manycases are managementoptions not relatedto biotechnologybut ratherto agroecology? Overallthe groupfelt that althoughbiotechnology is an importanttool, at this pointalternative solutionsexist to addressthe problemsthat currentGMCs are designedto solve.The dramaticpositive effectsof rotations,multiple cropping, and biological control on crophealth, environmental quality and agriculturalproductivity have been confirmed repeatedly by scientificresearch. Biotechnology should be consideredas onemore tool that canbe used,provided the ecologicalrisks are investigated and deemed acceptable,in conjunctionwith a hostof otherapproaches to moveagriculture towards sustainability. Publications * Towards more effective implementation of IPM in Africa, proceedings of a workshop held at IITA, Cotonou, Benin, March 29-April 3, 1999 Integrated pest management (1PM)is increasingly recognized as a vital element in sustainable agricultural development. In rPM, farmers use their knowledge of ecological processes in the agricultural system to combine a variety of compatible tactics to increase the productivity of crops and reduce the impact of pests, diseases and weeds. Pesticides are used as little as possible, if at all, with corresponding benefit to farmers"'income, human health and the environment. Although a number of promising IPM options are becoming available, adoption of IPM at farm level, especially in Africa, is disappointingly slow. Poor communication between farmers and researchers is believed by many stakeholders in the agricultural development process to be a constraint limiting IPM adoption. Experience elsewhere has shown that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can play a key role in brokering exchange of relevant information, empowering farmers and thus promoting the understanding and adoption of IPM. However, in Africa, NGOs so far lack the access to information and other key resources to play these roles effectively. As a contribution towards addressing this problem the NGO committee of the CGIAR, in collaboration with the Intemational Institute of Tropical Agriculture (OITA),convened a week-long workshop in March 1999 at Cotonou in the Republic of Benin. Thirty-six participants from 14 African countries took part in the workshop. Twenty delegates represented NGOs while the remainder came from national extension organizations or research organizations (national and international) with a special interest in the use of IPM in sustainable agricultural development. A variety of participatory activities helped participants to analyze constraints to IPM implementation in Africa and identify opportunities. Discussion sessions enabled participants to exchange first-hand experience of IPM implementation and to become familiar with principles, key issues and emerging options and supporting resources for IPM in Africa. On-farm, facilitator-led and farmer-led sessions were given special emphasis to help participants become familiar with participatory approaches that are now widely recognized as crucial to the success of IPM implementation. A tour of the IITA-Benin station offered participants an insight into novel IPM options that are currently being generated by research. Action planning led to formulation of resolutions and the formation of a Task Force to follow up on the recommendations. The intemet website: http://www.cgiar.org/spipm/news/ngomtg/ngowkmenu.html was initially established to publish the outputs of the workshop and subsequently to serve as a focal point for exchanging informnationon follow- up activities. a Managing knowledge for local innovation, Article for BMZ/BEAF "spotlight" on Knowledge Management by Ann Waters-Bayer, NGOC member. Scientific databases on agriculture are expanding by the minute, but it is difficult to apply the information directly to development practice. Non-governmental development organizations (NGOs) have conceived an information system that combines scientific and local knowledge about agroecology and natural resource management (AE/NRM) and is intended mainly for development practitioners. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 113 A N N E X ES Promising technologies and experiences in NRM will become accessible via an interactive development database "InterDev." Much documented knowledge comes from science, but how can local innovations - products of knowledge generation by resource users - be fed into InterDev? How can other farmers be helped to access and apply information about these innovations in their own settings, so that they can generate new site-specific knowledge? "Prolinnova" (Promoting Local Innovation) addresses such activities "before" and "after" InterDev. Studies of the processes and conditions of generating and spreading improvements in AE/NRM should inforrn decision-makers at various policy levels - therefore the need for a research network "PolicyNet." At the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) in Dresden, InterDev, Prolinnova and PolicyNet will be presented as an integrated set of mechanisms to strengthen partnerships in research and development in AE/NRM. New paths in development-oriented research. Why this initiative? Mainstream agricultural research has developed technologies applicable on well-endowed land. Meanwhile, many NGOs work directly with smallholders in marginal areas to develop site-appropriate technologies and strengthen local capacities to meet new challenges. These NGOs have learned to appreciate dynamnicindigenous knowledge. Many "success stonres" of development in smallholder fanning derive from local knowledge and experimentation. At the farn level, the innovations are often biophysical measures following ecological principles; at landscape level, they are often institutional new ways of jointly managing common resources. The innovations may be site-specific, but the ideas can inspire farmers in other areas and provide starting points for experimentation. Spreading these innovations can accelerate leaming by others trying to improve their land-use systems. In AE/NRM, especially where climatic variabilityis high, key factors for success are not external inputs, but labor, knowledge, and local management capacity. Scientific research in AE/NRM must aim not to develop perfected technologies, but to develop local capacity to manage resources flexibly, access useful information, test new ideas, assess the results, and adapt to change. This demands new partnerships in generating and managing knowledge. First steps Initial ideas were developed by European-based NGOs offering information services in agricultural development. A meeting of these NGOs in Brussels and at the European Forum on Agricultural Research in Wageningen in early 1999, and at a North-South meeting near Paris in late 1999, provided oppormuities to develop the ideas further. A Steering Group with members from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe prepared a concept paper (see http://www.egfar.org) which is circulating widely by email for reactions and suggestions, and hopes for lively discussion and action planning at the GFAR. Meanwhile, first steps are already being tested. InterDev. In the test phase for this shared database, initially seven organizations focus on three themes: agroecological farrning, agroprocessing, and urban agriculture. Each has interlinked database subsets on methods and technologies, practical experiences, resource organizations and individuals, multimedia, and bibliographic references. Mechanisms for description, validation, classification and exchange are being developed so that the information can be downloaded and adapted for local use, at the same time as local experience enriches the global database. 114 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 ANNEXES Prolinnova. To scale up the promotion of local innovation in AE/NRM through farmer-NGO- researcher partnerships, four types of activities are planned: 1. Identifying and documenting local biotechnical and institutional innovations 2. Joint stakeholder analysis of research approaches and methods to stimulate imnovation, including analysis of a) investigating local innovation, b) joint action in further developing innovations, and c) jointly evaluating innovations and impacts 3. Training researchers i the new approaches and methods through various activities, including participation in muiti-stakeholder learning groups 4. Regional and global research networks on AE/NRM based on local irmovation. PolicyNet. This research network will study options to improve NRM-related policy at local, national and international level, and make results available to policymakers. The collaboration is meant to strengthen the capacities of southern partners to conduct policy research. The initial focus will be on institutional and political conditions that favor development and spread of local innovations in NRM. Linkages InterDev is the pivot, where practice-proven information on AE/NRM flows together and is made accessible. Prolinnova includes mechanisms to identify and document innovations for InterDev, and to promote use of the information in participatory research. InterDev provides PolicyNet with data for comparative analyses and cases for studying conditions that influence innovation and scaling-up processes. The results of Prolinnova-inspired innovation and policy research flow back into InterDev. The initiative is designed to facilitate mutual learning by stakeholders in research for development of sustainable land- use systems, and seeks linkages with relevant existing initiatives. * Prospectsfor agroecologically based natural resource managementfor low-incomefarmers in the 21s century, issues paper prepared for the GFAR. Miguel A. Altieri and Jean Marc von der Weid, NGOC members. Alternative agricultural development approaches and agroecological technologies spearheaded by farmers groups and NGOs around the developing world are already making a significant contribution to food security at the household, national and regional levels in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Increasing smallholders agricultural productivity not only increases food supplies, but also increases smallholders incomes, reducing poverty, increasing food access, reducing malnutrition, and improving the livelihoods of the poor. Yield increases are being achieved by using technological approaches, based on agroecological principles that emphasize diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that emphasize community participation and empowerment. When such features are optimized, not only yield enhancement and stability of production are achieved, but also a series of ecological services such as conservation of biodiversity, soil restoration, water harvesting, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, etc. Agroecological approaches are increasing production under environmental conditions that are far from ideal, such as on eroded hillsides of Central America, high barren plateaus of the Andes, semi-arid areas in the West African Sahel, exhausted lands in eastern and southern Africa, sloping areas in the Philippines and remote forest margins in many parts of Asia. That yields can be doubled or more in these areas is due in part to the low base of production from which these farmers start. However, absolute yield levels can also become high. These are areas where the need to increase production is greatest and where the soil, climatic and other conditions are most unfavorable. So relative to the poor resource endowments and the urgent human needs, the levels of production being newly achieved are quite significant, and they provide food directly to households that are most vulnerable to food insecurity. These experiences which emphasize farner-to-farmer research and grassroots extension approaches, represent countless demonstrations of talent, creativity, and scientific capability in rural communities. They point to the fact that human resource development is the cornerstone of any strategy aimed at increasing options for rural people and especially resource-poor fanners. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 115 ANNEX ES Promising research areas for evaluation and promotion of alternative technologies and policies include: green manures, cover crops, polycultures, improved fallows, agroforestry, aquaculture, crop- livestock mixed systems, IPM, biological control, organic soil management and nutrient cycling, processes of technology adaptation and adoption, supportive policies, institutional partnerships and market development. Results from agroecological initiatives are a breakthrough for achieving food security and environmental preservation among the rural poor in the developing world, but their potential and further spread depends on investments, policies, institutional support and attitude changes on the part of policy makers and the scientific community, especially the CGIAR and GFAR which should devote much of their efforts to assisting the 370 million rural poor living in marginal environments. But the task must be shared with NGOs and farmers' organizations. The ideal way to achieve a qualitative leap in agroecological research is to promote partnerships amongst the various stakeholders in agricultural development processes. One can imagine a variety of combinations amongst the following players: researchers, farmers, officially and NGO-employed extension agents, produce processing and marketing companies, companies supplying inputs (including small seed companies) and equipment, representatives of official programs, credit agents, environmental organizations, etc. Their roles will be quite differentiated, as will be the intensity of their inter-relations, but all will have a say about what products will reach the market, and how. Such partnerships must not be reduced to local alliances amongst partners in a development process, but must encompass broader national and international networks dealing with similar sets of problems, even in differing ecological realities. NGOs have already created such networks of alliances quite effectively, and their experience can be broadened to incorporate many more partners. Clearly the new kind of pro-poor research will demand paradigmatic and methodological changes, as well as a capacity to intensify interdisciplinarity, in order for development workers to be able to balance ecological, agronomic, economic, cultural and social concerns. In addition to obvious changes in the profile of researchers and extension agents themselves, there must be changes in institutional procedures, to make them more flexible and decentralized, and to modify today's prevailing systems of professional evaluation, which are a major limitation for interested researchers to be able to move towards agroecological approaches. Failure to promote a people-centered agricultural research and development due to diversion of funds and expertise to biotechnology will forego a historical opportunity to raise agricultural productivity in economically viable, environmentally benign and sociallyuplifting ways. * Can genetically engineered crops feed a hungry world? San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 2000, Miguel A. Altieri Most proponents of agricultural biotechnology assert that genetically modified crops are essential to feed the 840 million undernourished people in the world, and to reduce the poverty of the 1.3 billion people who live on less than $1 per day. They believe that the biorevolution can be harnessed to serve the food and nutritional needs of the world's poor. But will such potential benefits of genetically engineered food crops ever become practical enough to rid the world of hunger? Pro-biotechnology scientists say that with new research methods, biotechnology can be used to develop new crop varieties that are drought tolerant, resistant to insects and weeds, able to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and even increase the nutrient content in the edible portion of plants. Proponents say modem biotechnology offers enormous opportunities to poor farners and low-income consumers in developing countnes. 116 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 A N1NE X E S The first problem with that argumentis that there is no relationshipbetween the prevalenceof hunger and a country'spopulation. For everydensely populated and hungrynation like Bangladesh,there is a sparselypopulated (but also hungry)country like Brazil. Even in the midst of superabundancein the United States,there are between20 million and 30 millionmalnourished people. Thus, even though crop yieldsper acre improveddramatically between the late 1960sand the early 1990s,these advancesin agriculturehave only trimmedthe ranks of the world's undernourishedby 8 percent -to 840 millionfrom 920 million. Povertyis the key reason why 840million people do not have enoughto eat. In the past 30 years, enough food was produced to feed everyone- had it been more evenlydistributed. Hunger is not a matter of agriculturallimits, but a problem of massesof people not having accessto food or the meansto produceit. Biotechnologyproponents, however,argue that food productionwill not keep pacewith the growthof the globalpopulation, which is expectedto add 73 millionpeople everyyear from now until 2020.The biotechnologyproponents say hunger willpersist unlessthe potential of biotechnologyis realized.I say,if the root causesare not addressed,hunger willpersist no matter what agricultural technologiesare used. At most, biotechnologyhas the yet-unrealizedpotential to dealwith the issuesof qualityand quantityof food, but does not address distributionand access.Insisting on technologicalsolutions to hungerignores the tremendouscomplexity of the problem.It is too easyto fall into the "paradoxof plenty"- more food accompaniedby greaterhunger. Any method of boosting food productionthat deepensinequality is bound to fail to reducehunger. This is particularlytrue for biotechnology,which is being promoted by privatecorporations to whom poor farmers (who producemost of the basic food crops in the developingworld) do not represent an attractivemarket. For example,the new strain of rice that is capableof producingprovitamin A, which is beingheralded as the best that agrobiotechcan offer the developingworld, constitutesa solutionthat ignoresthe root causes of why there are 2 millionchildren at risk of vitaminA deficiency.In rural areas of the developingworld, food preferencesare culturallydetermined. Asians will not likely consume"orange rice" in the midst of abundantwhite rice. In fact,Asian small farmersgrow diverserice varietieswith varyingnutritional content and adaptedto a wide varietyof environmentalconditions. The resulting geneticdiversity heightens resistance to plant diseasesand enablesfarmers to derivemultiple nutritional uses. If, as expected,transgenic seeds continueto be developedand commercializedexclusively by private firms, poor farmers willcontinue to find them too expensiveto purchase.The few that willhave accessto bioengineeredseeds willbe hurt by becomingdangerously "dependent" on the annualpurchase of such seeds. Choicesare surelyalso being deniedto poor farmerswhen private industriesinsist upon protectingbiotech patents that deny seed saving,an aspect that is of fundamentalcultural importance to traditionalfarmers, who for centurieshave savedand shared seeds. Food productionwill have to come from agriculturalsystems in countrieswith the largest populationgrowth. This poses a major challengefor biotechnologyin these tropical countrieswhere farmers are not only resourcepoor- with no accessto credit,technical assistance or markets- but where about 370 millionrural poor livein arid or semni-aridzones or in steeplysloped areas. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 117 ANNEXES In the past,such farmers were bypassed by advancesin agricultureknown as the Green Revolutionbecause their soil,water, and labor methods were unsuited to the demandingand costly managementpractices of improvedseeds and accompanying need for pesticidesand fertilizers. BiotechnologywiEl exacerbate the problemeven more. Some scientists and policymakers posit that a solutionwould be to increasegovernment investments in biotechnologyresearch. However, larger investmentsmay not yield the desiredresults. Corporate legal rights to biotechnologyis affectingthe developmentof transgeniccrops by publicinstitutions. Moreover, the seeddistribution channels and networksto reachfarmers are beingprivatized, focusing on commercialfarms rather than on poor farmers. Muchof the neededfood canbe producedthroughout the worldby smallfarmers using agroecologicaltechnologies. In fact,new rural development approaches and simpletechnologies spearheadedby farmersgroups and nongovernmental organizations around the developingworld are alreadymaking a difference.These results are a breakthroughfor achievingfood security and environmentalpreservation in the developingworld, but realizingtheir potentialdepends on investments, policies,institutional support and attitude changes on the part of policymakersand the international scientific community. Failureto promotesuch people-centered agricultural research and developmentwill miss a historicopportumity to raiseagricultural productivity in economicallyviable, environmentally benign and sociallyuplifting ways. Other activities On April 10-11, Miguel Altieri participated in the CGIAR Consultative Council meeting held at FAO in Rome. Although no major decisions were made at this meeting, the NGOC Chair stressed the importance of CGIAR research sharpening its focus on the poor farmers living in marginal environments throughout the developing world (estimated at 370 million). NRM (including genetic resources) research should be the backbone of the CGIAR, and biotechnological innovations used as tools only when appropriate as a complementary approach. Partnerships with NGOs and farmers organizations will be crucial for the scaling up of already successful NRM experiences and the mobilization of a critical mass to rapidly achieve sustainable agriculture in areas so far bypassed by modem science. Task forces inclusive of grassroots organizations can be a flexible and fast organizational instrument to act at the local level. A regional approach to NRM is the only sensible way to create viable partnerships between research and development agencies in order to mobilize human and material resources to crystallizeNRM approaches in specific ecosystems of each region. The protection of the public and free access nature of CGIAR's work can be best achieved by concentrating on NRM and downplaying types of biotechnological work increasingly becoming subjected to proprietary measures. The example of the golden rice for which there are 30 patents is a good reminder for the system as it advances its pro-poor agenda in a complex world of privatized science and patented innovations. 118 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNIXES Report of the TwelfthMeeting of the Private Sector Committee The 12th meeting of the CGIAR's Private Sector Committee (PSC) was held at the Westin Bellevue Hotel, the conference hotel for MTM2000, in Dresden, Germany on May 19-20, 2000, under the chairmanship of Sam Dryden. Members Claudio Barriga, Badrinarayan Barwale, Wallace Beversdorf, Barry Thomas, Seizo Sumida and Florence Wambugu attended. Robert Horsch could not participate. Selcuk Ozgediz and Waltraud Wightman, CGIAR Secretariat, served as Secretary. Gerard Barry Monsanto) attended as an observer. The Committee also interacted with Ismail Serageldin,CGIAR Chairman, and Emil Javier, TAC Chair. Agenda 1. Inbriiin 2. Otrvwofrent dh&pnmts affectingCGIAR 'sparneysips wintthe Prht Sector 3. Vision and strategyforthe CGIAR 4. Interactons ith X CGIAR Chairand the TA C Chair 5. OdxrBusiess 5.1 Possibiliesof PrawteSectr iwnwith theCGIAR 5.2 C Gn,cm ocutwathto nd users 5.3 Fuuremwvtigs 1. Introduction In the absence of Sam Dryden (unavoidably delayed), Selcuk Ozgediz opened the meeting by welcoming members and observers to the Private Sector Committee (PSC). Wally Beversdorf agreed to chair the meeting until Dryden's arrival. Members agreed to discuss the possibilities of Private Sector (PS) involvement with CGIAR Center activities and approved the agenda as amended. The report of the 11thmeeting was adopted without amendment. Ozgediz provided a brief overview of the developments in the CGIAR since ICW99. At ICW, the Group agreed that the CGIAR needed to develop a vision and strategy to define where it should be, what it should be doing and producing, how it should be doing it, and with whom. TAC was asked to lead the exercise. Based on extensive consultation with stakeholders, and following meetings of the Consultative Council, CGIAR committees and major investors, TAC drafted two documents, "A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR" and a companion paper, "Priority Research and Related Activity Themes." The Group was expected to discuss the new vision and strategy during MTM and to come to closure on this topic. Ozgediz also briefed PSC members on developments in the areas of finance and govemance. Research agenda funding in 1999 was $330 million, 3 percent lower than the 1998 level, mostly due to the EC's inability to meet its 1999 commitments for administrative reasons. Funding prospects for 2000 are within the Group approved level of $340 million. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 119 ANNEXES CGIAR governance is expected to be influenced by the departure of Ismail Serageldin, for whom MTM2000would be the last CGIAR meeting as chair. Alexander von der Osten plans to retire after ICW2000. Ozgediz encouraged Committee members to nominate candidates for the position of "CGIAR Director" (the CGJAR Director will replace the Executive Secretary). A third partnership committee, the Science Partnership Committee (SPC), was established earlier this year to provide a closer link between the CGIAR and the scientific academia. The SPC is headed by Nobel laureate Wemer Arber. 2. Overview of recent developments affecting CGIAR's partnerships with the PS Dryden reported that he had attended several meetings- including an international forum convened by CvIMMYTin Tlaxcala, Mexico- that sought to determine how the private and public sector could join forces to make proprietary technology products availableto subsistencefamers2 in developing countries. There is great willingness on the part of the PS to share such technologies, as long as such action would not distort world markets. However, the industry unanimously agrees that proprietary technology products can only be made available in countries with a regulatory framework to protect the consumer and environment. 3. Vision and Strategyfor the CGIAR Ozgediz provided a brief overview of the main components of TAC's vision and strategy paper for the CGIAR (including the companion paper on priority research and related activity themes). The PSC subsequently devoted a major part of its 12th meeting toward a discussion of the two documents. The principal conclusions were: * The PSC supports the vision and planks of the strategy, and encourages its implementation with emphasis on sharp focus, execution, and leadership. The PSC supports the CGIAR's efforts in establishing a framework for project portfolio management. These should include clearly defined objectives that are consistent with the CGIAR nission and clear to all those who are involved, so as to ensure the beneficial impact of projects. The PSC believes weak or absent links in the delivery of CG outputs have significantly weakened the impact of CGIAR investments. * The PSC encourages efforts by the CGIAR to establish and execute technology partnerships with providers of advanced research, technology, and other intellectual property (both public and private) to ensure rapid and efficient exploitation of discoveries to help alleviate poverty and hunger. * The PSC strongly recommends the concept of regional approach to research planning involving all CGIAR partners. The PSC strongly encourages the CGIAR to consider geographic alignment and leadership when addressing the issue of structural adjustments to the system to ensure accountability and speedy beneficial impacts. * As noted in prior comments regarding structural adjustments, the PSC encourages the CGIAR to form an independent body for handling IPR matters. 2 According to one industrydefinition, subsismtfannm and their families consume more than 50 percent of a farm's produce. 120 Chartingthe CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES 4. Interactionswith the CGIARChair and the TAC Chair In their separatediscussions with the CGIARChair and the TAC Chair,Committee members emphasizedthat the CGIAR neededto clearlydefine how its productswould reach the end user. Otherwisethere would be a considerablerisk that it wouldnot achieveits overallmission of poverty reduction.In the same context,members commented that germplasmconservation was a great serviceto mankind,but did not contributeto poverty reductionper se. This couldonly be achievedwith appropriate linkages,e.g., germplasm conservation 3 genomics -3 germplasm improvement - improved varieties. The Chairmannoted that germplasmis still availableto everybod,ybut the resultsof scientific researchare not. Growingresentment in the developingworld could leadto more and more barriers around the freemovement of germplasm.It would be good if the agro-businesssector could come up with creativemechanisms, such as licensesor researchtool kits that could be updated on an annualbasis. The World Bank president,the RockefellerFoundation president, as well as the Ford Foundationhave indicatedtheir readinessto mediate.Public sentimentscould be turned around if there were, say,five examplesof 'GoldenRice' caliber:real products,with a demonstratedbenign benefit,given away for nothing. Discussionswith Emil Javiercentered around the Committee'sconcems and conclusions regardingthe new CGIAR vision and strategy.Comrmittee members acknowledgedthat the CGIAR Chair has been foremostin promoting the use of new researchtools. However,it appearsthat this viewis not shared by all. A united approachwould help in convincingthe pub]icand the CGIAR'sinvestors about the potentialbenefits of biotechnologyfor the poor in developingcountries. The TAC Chair noted investorswanted impact but the CGIAR generallydelivers intermediate products, such as seeds.It was up to others, such as the PS, to providethe linkageand to bring end products to the farmers'fields. 5. Other Business 1. Possibilities of PS involvement with the CGIAR BarryThomas introducedthe subject.He explainedthat the Global Crop ProtectionFederation's (GCPF) mandatewas broadenedfrom integratedpest- to integratedcrop managementand, more recently,to sustainableagriculture. Thomas couldenvisage the industrycooperating as a "Global Crop ScienceFederation", whose mandate would range from IPM to seeds,to biotechnology tools and products. In this case, CGIARCenters could send all their project/funding proposalsto the Federation,which would screenthem and ultimatelydecide on their merits for funding (one- stop shop concept).Committee members agreed that this was an interestingconcept that is worth pursuing. At the sametime, consolidationin the biotechindustry continues and is expectedto lead to havingonly 4-5 major players.It may thus be easier for the CGIAR and the PS to reach common platformsand approachesregarding matters revolvingaround proprietarytechnology products. Regardingpartnerships, there are two main avenues:purely philanthropic or project-based. Committeemembers agreedthat tapping philanthropicsources for fundingof public goods researchis less likelyto succeedin future,because most of the patentsheld on pesticidesetc. have expired,resulting in the erosionof profit marginsfrom industrysales and thus less 'surpluscash' that couldbe allocatedto agro-industryfoundations. Committeemembers emphasized, however, that the PS would be interestedin helpingto finance projects with clearlydefined objectivesand project outcomesthat aim at poverty reduction. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 201/) 121 A N1NF X ES Increasingthe income of poor subsistencefarmers would eventuallymake them businesspartners for the PS- a relevantoutcome for the CGIAR, the poor and the industry.The likelysuccess of such an approachwould, however, depend on many factors,including the interpretationby the CGIAR of its 'intemationalpublic goods'criterion. 2. Communication outreach to end users Throughout the meeting,Comrnittee members emphasized that the applicationof modem scienceis essentialfor achievingfood securityin developingcountries. Currently, the public discussionon the use of biotechnologyis dominatedby NGOs, especiallyin developing countries.There is a need to diversifysources of informationand broaden the discussion. However,if the PS launchedsuch an outreachinitiative, it would be seen as self-serving.The CGIAR could servein a 'honest broker' role and help in providinga balancedview regarding the benefits of new technologiesto policymakers, producers and consumersin developingcountnres. This could be done through an informationand communicationprogram that informsthe public about the potential benefitsof sciencein increasingfood production and availabilityin developing countries. To explorethe possibilitiesof such an outreachplan, and to work toward the design and implementationof such a program,the PSC therefore proposedthat a multi-stakeholder working group- consistingof CGIAR representatives(e.g., CDC chair, SecretariatInformation Officer, Future Harvest) and industrybodies such as FIS, ISAAA,Biotechnology Council, and/or GCPF- be constituted.NGOs, such as the RF, could also be included. Action: Dryden to propose this to the CGAIARduring the forthcomingMTM; and all PSC members to discussconcept within their respectivecompanies. 3. Future meetings The next meetingwill be held beforeICW2000 on Friday and/or Saturday,October 20-21,2000 at the World Bank'sheadquarters in WashingtonDC. The major theme and draft agendawill be communicatedat a later stage. Thanks The PSC believesthe dialoguewith the CGIAR has been very fruitfuland wishesto record its appreciationof ChairmanSerageldin's efforts and acknowledgeshis vision and leadershipthat enabledthis interactionto come about. 122 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 AN1N E X ES Reportof the SciencePartnership Commitee The SciencePartnership Committee (SPC)held its inauguralmeeting on May 20, 2000 at the WestinBellevue Hotel, Dresden, Germany.Participants in the meetingwere Werner Arber (Chair),R. James Cook, MouinHamze, LydiaMakhubu, and Sudha Nair.CGIAR ChairmanIsmail Serageldin joined part of the committee'smeeting to sharehis vision and expectationsfor this third partnershipcommittee formed under his leadership.TAC ChairEmil Javierwas also invitedto exchangeideas with the SPC. ManuelLantin of the CGLARSecretariat served as resourceperson on the workingsof the CGIAR and provided backgroundinformation on science-relatedissues under discussionin the CGIAR. Interaction with the CGIARChairman and the TAC Chair The creationof the SciencePartnership Committee is part of the continuingefforts of the CGIARto develop a more open systemand is in linewith the Third SystemReview's observation that "broadeningand deepeningpartnerships and collaborationwith other actorsin the research-development continuumis of utmost importanceto the future of the CGIAR" In his interactionwith the Committee, ChairmanIsmail Serageldin underscored the need to increaseand strengthen the CGIAR scientists' linkageswith the rest of the scientificcommunity. He observedthat scienceis rapidlyadvancing and runningacross disciplinaryboundaries. The CGIAR should benefit from the discussionsin other scientific fora of issuesthat are relevantto its work. The committee'smeeting with TAC ChairEmil Javierpresented an opportunityto discusssome elementsof TAC's vision paper. The meetingwas also very useful in identifyingways by which the SPC could contributeto some aspects of the work of TAC. The TAC Chair indicatedthat he would welcome an opportunityfor the fullTAC to interactwith the SPC. Role of SPC The SPC understandsits role in the CGIAR systemto includethe following: * To help the CGIAR establishlinkages and increaseits partnershipswith the broader international scientific community. * To serveas a mechanismfor monitoringthe horizons of new and emergingareas of scienceand to help the CGIAR anticipatehow the advancesin sciencecould be used to pursue its mission and goals. * To contributeto the strategicthinking and planningsought by TAC. TAC's Vision Paper The SPC discussedthe key elementsof TAC's paper "A Food SecureWorld for All:Toward a New Vision and Strategyfor the CGIAR," focusingon the role of modem sciencein the pursuit of CGIAR goals.The committeesupports TAC'srecommendation "to bring modem scienceto bear on difficultproductivity and institutionalproblems." It is-convincedthat the applicationof knowledgeand tools from functionalgenomics, GIS, remote sensing,information and communicationtechnologies, and computingtechnologies could accelerateCGIAR's work and achieveits researchobjectives. It views modem biotechnologystrategies, in its many new and emergingforms, as importanttools and sourcesof knowledgefor future improvementsin agriculturalproductivity, food quality,and natural resource management.However, the SPCrecommends that the selectionof projects involvingnovel technologies Charting the CGIAR's Future- A New Visionfor 2010 123 ANNIXES be responsibleand reflective,particularly in the fieldof biotechnology.The SPC is willingto provide contactswith scientificexperts readyto collaboratewith CGIARin order to insure sustainability, biosafety,long-term utility and public acceptanceof projectsto be taken up. The committeealso endorsesthe adoption of an integratedapproach to natural resource managementresearch in the CGIAR. It considersNRM research as criticalcomponent of CGIAR researchagenda for enhancingproductivity and ensuringsustainability of production of crops, livestock, forest, and fish that are important to the poor. It recognizesthe importanceof both modem and local traditionalknowledge in this field,and seesmodem biotechnologyand NRM as complementaryand interdependentareas of science. Contributionto Development of Partnerships At the Center level,the SPC willhelp identifypotential collaborative arrangements with advanced scientificinstitutions that utilizenew knowledgeand tools of modem sciencein addressingissues relevant to the goalsof the Center. It is important for the committeeto know where individualCenters' comparativeadvantages lie and the extent of "partneringwork" that they have undertaken.To facilitateits work in this area,it will seek an opportunityto interactwith the Center Directors duringthe next Centers Week. The SPC is overwhelmedby its broad chargesconsidering the speed of developmentsin science, the size and diversityof the intemationalscientific community, and the need for balance acrossthe biological,physical, and socialsciences. Some ideas have been generatedto help facilitatethis process. It hopes to developthem further into concreteproposals for presentationand discussionin its next meeting at ICW2000. 124 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 Acronyms and Abbreviations ARI Advanced Research Institute NARI National Agricultural Research Institute CAS Central Advisory Service NARS National Agricultural Research System (s) CBC Committee of Board Chairs, CGIAR NGO Non-Govemmental Organization CBD Convention on Biological Diversity NGOC NGO Committee, CGIAR CDC Center Directors Committee, CGIAR NRM Natural Resources Management CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural OAU Organization for African Unity Research OC Oversight Committee, CGIAR DAC Development Assistance Committee ODA Official Development Assistance EC European Comrmission PARC Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization ECA Europe and Central Asia Committee, CGIAR EPMR External Program and Management Review PA/RIM Public Awareness/Resource Mobilization FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the PGRFA Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture United Nations PSC Private Sector Commnittee, CGIAR FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa PVP Plant Variety Protection FC Finance Committee, CGIAR RF Rockefeller Foundation FIS Financial Information System SGRP Systemwide Genetic Resources Program GCPF Global Crop Protection Federation SPAAR Special Program for African Agricultural Research GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research SPIA Standing Panel on Impact Assessment GIS Geographical Information System SPC Science Partnership Committee, CGIAR GMC Genetically Modified Crops SSA Sub-Saharan Africa GRPC Genetic Resources Policy Committee, CGIAR TAC Technical Advisory Committee, CGIAR IARC International Agricultural Research Centers TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights IAEG Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, UFRRJ Universidade Federal rural do Rio de Janeiro CGIAR UNDP United Nations Development Programme ICT Information and Communication Technologies UNEP United Nations Environment Programme ICW International Centers Week, CGIAR UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and ICWG-GR Inter-Center W'orking Group on Genetic Resources Cultural Organization IDB Inter-American Development Bank UPOV International Union for the Protection of New IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Varieties of Plants Development USAID United States Agency for International IGM Integrated Gene Management Development IIRR International Institute of Rural Reconstruction WANA West Asia and North Africa IPR Intellectual Property Rights WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization LMO Living Modified Organisms WTO World Trade Organization MSSRF M. S. swaminathan Research Foundation $ All financial data are given in US dollars MTA Material Transfer Agreement MTM Mid-Termn Meeting, CGIAR MTP Medium-Term Plan * Printed on recycled paper '4r CGIAR Secretariat The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433 * USA Telephone: 1-202-473-8951 - Fax: 1-202-473-8110 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] www.cgiar.org